Siege had a sudden burst of players, and I played on the free weekend(feb 2-5, 2017) and back in early 2016. Everyone says how great the game is, but I find it to be slow, boring, lacking of content, and filled to the brim with microtransactions.

Yes you are the only person on this planet with this opinion.

More seriously, i played the beta and thought that it was pretty neat. Especially the soundwork was impressive. Not a fan of having to purchase your crew at the start ,but i can see how that's a non issue if you actually play the game for a few days straight. Didn't feel like it was something i wanted to buy for 60$, since i only have so much time for online games and this wasn't going to dethrone Dota for me.

Overall , a neat foundation for a potentially successful game but if you're not going to play it online with friends, you probably won't feel like it's worth 60$.

It's supposed to be slower paced, which was like a gift from god because Im not a fan twitchy fast paced shooters which the market is flooded with. It is lacking a bit in the map department and the micro transactions are a joke. The DLC operatives are priced so high they basically force you to use real money to get them ($5 each). Even with boosters it takes dozens of matches to get 25,000 renown points.

@themist997: It's not a bad game. I can understand your issue with the microtransactions and number of maps but as a game it is well designed (for the most part) and is a blast to play with a full crew of your friends.

I don't think it's bad. It's not for everyone, that's for sure.

I just purchased the game on the back of its current free weekend and discount. I've found it to be a pretty satisfying take on the old Rainbow Six formula: slow, deliberate and hard as nails. It's absolutely not perfect though. The micro-transactions are a bit of a pain and I wish there were some more options for players like me who just want to play the game in Co-op rather than just being confined to randomly generated Terrorist Hunt sessions.

I like it, for as much as I'm not about cod or battlefield, and CS is a bit much when I don't play it regularily. Siege ends up being a pretty fun middleground. It's far from perfect though, collision bugs are a bummer, I get disconnection issues, and peek advantage is still real. But yeah, it's a casually strategic shooter which falls neatly in line for me. I can definitely see why you wouldn't want that compromise though. But we already have several games at the extremes, so some more middleground fodder isn't a bad thing.

The game used to be bad, now it's good from what I understand. But I know the game just isn't for me. I've always disliked forced team objective gameplay and rapid round based matches. But that doesn't make the game a bad one.

I don't understand the content complaint. It has more maps and characters than something more popular like Overwatch and only got about a 5 month headstart. they've also been pumping out a lot more content more consistently. Plus the maps aren't static and drastically change every round depending on a lot of factors.

It might be the best fps this gen

I'd like it quite a bit if it wasn't for the huge gun models that get in the way of actual aiming.

I think it is pretty horrible and I play it with randoms without voice chat.. so I have myself to blame.

this is the type of game i could only play with friends/acquaintances who would be able to put up with my crappiness. and since i don't really have those at all...

I really like it even though I'm terrible at it. That a game with such a razor sharp focus on what it wants to be came out of Ubisoft is really surprising.

Microtransations in full price games are probably going to be commonplace soon enough that eventually people won't complain or think twice about their presence.

People love the fun gameplay in Overwatch enough to overlook soft locking all the customisation content behind a blind-box system that was made for microtransactions.

Well I had the same feelings as OP but after putting a few hours in it I felt Siege was the SWAT game we never got. Since then I've played every day because the challenges reset every 12-24h.

Also one of the few games that can ge my heart racing.

I've seen more people dislike it, but one of my Destiny buddies went to play it when it came out and to this day still plays it all the time. I don't think it is my thing and it might not be yours, but I've heard that the community who was looking for a tactical SWAT-like game claims this is pretty much the pinnacle of that.

I kinda don't mind soooo much in multiplayer games if it is just completely inconsequential stuff like skins because let's be real a good multiplayer game (on pc anyway) will have a lifespan of many years, and it's pricey to keep up the servers and such. And if it means they don't content lock people out of actual content, which kills playerbases, then it's cool.

Never ask if you're the only one. It's the dumbest way to phrase a question and makes it seem like you don't understand how opinions work.

It's alright but I still think it sucks that it doesn't have a campaign.

I never got the sense that the microtransactions were intrusive in Siege. (Edit: probably because I have the season pass so the DLC operators were already unlocked.) However, it's somewhat disappointing that having them included results in only 4 free maps per year. I'm more upset by how all the colorful cosmetics and clown masks make the game look silly and less realistic.

Gameplay-wise Siege is one of the best tactical shooters I've ever played. The amount of adaptability required to succeed makes it far from boring to me.

I really really like everything in the game, as someone who played CS for over a decade i enjoy team oriented hardcore shooters, i also enjoy the Tom Clancy games, however i've tried and uninstalled it 4 times now.
The reason i stop i think has to do with the level design, every map is a labyrinthian maze which takes forever to learn with no minimap to give a sense of direction, there doesn't seem to have been any thought given to sightlines and routes which are traditionally key components in the best maps ever made, a lot of deaths come from 4cm holes in walls or because someone noticed your pixels moving beyond 2 doorways, an office plant and a table with a monitor on it... everything is so obstructed.
A lot of my frustration comes from playing alone, i don't have any friends who want to play it even among my CS crowd, so instead of learning strategies by talking to others it just gets to the point where you don't feel like you're achieving anything.
I really want to like playing the game, but i enjoy it much more just watching youtube vids of others playing it instead.

I think Siege is one of the most fun multiplayer shooters of the last few years, It's right up there with Overwatch in my opinion. What it does really well is tension. Bunkering down in a room and waiting for the sound of the first breaching charge gets my heart going like almost no other game I can think of.

As far as content goes I think they have done pretty well, We have had 4 maps and I think 4 new operators since launch. That's not bad for free, and there is a second season of content coming as well also for free. As for the microtransactions yeah I do think some of them look dumb and slightly spoil the games aesthetic, But I hardly ever see anyone use the more outlandish ones and there is zero gameplay benefit to it so I can't be that angry.

Or perhaps you don't understand that a manner of speaking is not to be taken literally? It's quite obvious the question of OP is not if he is literally the only one. In the same way, when he says 'everyone says' it's pretty clear he is not saying literally everyone says it. I don't think he thinks that some 4 year old child in Africa for example is saying Siege is fantastic; which is what you are suggesting.

Is Siege anything like a SWAT 4? Is it more of an action-multiplayer shooter? I want that tactical terrorist hunt experience.

It's Counter-Strike 2.0, essentially. Just a little slower and has some tactical elements of shooting through walls and fortifying positions. Nothing like the old SWAT and Rainbox Six games.

Didn't seem like the game was all that popular? So i would say no you probably aren't the only one...

That's the worst part of the game. Those gun models are HUGE and not even close to the proportions of actual rifles and pistols in real life. If there is any game on the planet that need an FOV slider more than anything, it's Rainbow Six Siege. Everything looks and feels so big and clunky in that game. I have no idea what they were going for with that art design. I guess it isn't too bad if you're playing on a 50" TV sitting 6 feet away from the couch on a console, but on PC its damn near unplayable because the FOV is so low. I guess its around 75-80, when it should be about 115-120.

I enjoyed it for about a week and then just really hated playing it. Not much variation in the game and I just don't enjoy class based shooters for games like this. Plus anytime I played with random people I mostly got team killed. So yea, not really my thing. That being said anytime I got a group of 5 friends to play it was enjoyable but just not enough for us to keep coming back to it.

Thank you guys for your replies. I worded my previous comment wrong. I don't have a problem with the gameplay being slow, but I felt that in a match that would take some time, you weren't getting a whole lot of gameplay in. I only found enjoyment of the gameplay when I was playing with my friend and I was zapping people with my rc car at the beginning of the round. I apologize for my lack of good wording.

I definitely don't think it's bad, but I don't enjoy the type of gameplay that it offers. I feel that it rewards slower gameplay, and that usually devolves into sitting still waiting for a target to appear in your crosshairs. I hate the attack and defend nature of the game. With that said, I think it's a great game if you're into that kind of thing. The one thing that I think is absolutely bad no matter what is the microtransactions nature of this thing.

The unlock cost of the new characters is stupid expensive. There are more games in the world than Rainbow Six Siege thinks as it asks you to play it constantly to unlock its content. No thanks RB6S, no thanks.

Game's good with a group of friends but has a relatively simple endgame strategic development, too small levels, and is a miserable experience solo.

I like the concept a lot, but I didn't care for the way the game feels.

There is an FOV slider.

At this point after 146 hours played, I personally consider the game to be in the highest echelon of multiplayer shooters of all time alongside Counter-Strike(s), Unreal Tournament(s) and Team Fortress 2 in terms of pure enjoyment.

Out of all the criticisms that are pointed out about the game, I would mostly agree that the (in-game currency) unlock cost for the DLC characters is probably too high - 25,000 renown each - considering that a single game rewards with anything between 100-300 renown (depending on loss/win and in-game performance). This would mean that on average over 100 matches need to be played to unlock a single DLC character. On the other hand, I can understand the business model if it is the only way to get (impatient) people to pay for additional content in the form of season passes and for said additional content to be created by the developers in the first place lengthening the game's potential lifespan further. The new maps are available instantly to all, fortunately. Speaking of the maps, 15 maps (soon 16) is more than enough for me, considering that I still haven't learned all of the potential uses for each map's (destructible) layout both as offense and defense.

I play the game 99% of the time solo in casual 5v5 mode, sometimes dabbling with the terrorist hunt mode against AI for the daily challenges. I've uninstalled the game a couple of times because the game has had similar one-more-game hooks on me to that of Dota 2.

The game has an FOV slider (on PC, at least) but it only goes from 60 to 90. I've been just fine with 90 FOV so far.

Certainly not a game for everyone, especially for those wishing to constantly sprint around guns blazin', but for those looking for a deliberately paced, tactical team FPS where patience and advantage in vision and sound are keys to doing well, I'd recommend checking it out. The current free weekend (and base game -50% discount) is, unfortunately, coming to a close soon.

So, first and foremost i absolutely love siege. It is easily my favourite shooter in a long time. With that said i get the complaints from folks and have my own issues with it to boot. The micro transactions, particularly the 25,000 dlc operator unlock are a bit skewed. Particularly with the amount of renown earned per match. I also feel like additional server support and refinements of the net code would help connection issues.

As an aside, and totally anecdotal as i havent really kept tabs on numbers: but it seems to me that siege' playerbase is continually getting larger. Which is good, because in my own opinion Ubisoft has a really great game here, with a relatively solid plan for moving forward with it.

Yes, you are the only one