23 of 30 people found the following review helpful
Offers nothing new,
This review is from: Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2 - Playstation 3 (Video Game)
The problem that "Rainbow Six: Vegas 2" faces is that it is faced again with reinventing the wheel. First person shooters are the staple of the current generation of consoles in much the same way as driving games were for the last generation. Moreover, last year's hugely successful "Call Of Duty" iteration raised the bar for what gamers should expect from the conventional FPS. "RS:V2" delivers polished shooting action, throwing in the requisite online modes, but without really blowing the hinges off what we would expect from a FPS in 2008.
The new "Rainbow Six" generally sticks to the formula established by Ubisoft Montreal in the first outing. The squad-based Special Ops action will feel very familiar to anyone that has played that game or its stablemate "Ghost Recon" games. Graphically and sonically the sequel matches the first game, although additions such as a cover system and experience levelling set-up (where you gain points for different aspects of fighting) are welcome additions.
Although based in Sin City, the game often accents on the mundane warehouses and leisure complexes of Las Vegas, rather than vulgar casinos and the like. This is my first complaint about the game: it seems rather samey, and at least in the PlayStation 3 version, the backgrounds can seem a little sparse: grey abandoned warehouse segues to nondescript hotel complex, and so on, without there being anything really to capture the eye or the imagination. The game does not feel as cinematic, as much of an "event" as "CoD4". Similarly, the mundanity often stretches to your direction of the AI squad members: move to the closed door, open it, clear the room and then repeat. There is no real incentive to lead the charge from the front, especially as you often earn experience points from the squad's action.
The squad AI can often be irritating, too. For instance, it is not uncommon for one of your "buddies" to block your line of fire, or stand in the middle of the war zone just waiting to be shot: often the squad will not respond to orders very quickly, either. I have also noticed that there is quite marked slowdown in some sections of the PS3 version of the game, which is pretty unforgivable in a current generation game and from a top developer such as Ubisoft, to boot.
On the plus side, "RS:V2" does provide plentiful reasons for immersion in the later stages of the game thanks to the experience levelling system: there seems to be some form of progression from playing through the game at point when you would otherwise feel ready to hang up your MP5 for the night. The online "Terrorist Hunt" mode, where you co-operate with other players online is a good idea, although I have often encountered connection problems trying to access this.
An overall assessment of the new "Rainbow Six" would be that it is a good enough game, which offers plenty of challenge. However, judged by the impressive yardstick of "CoD4" and the deluge of up-and-coming releases for the PlayStation 3 and XBOX 360, the game is not really individual or exceptional enough to warrant more than an extended rental play.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 11, 2008 11:50:07 AM PDT
S. D. G. Cottman says:
I think this game was good, CoD4 is so great that that raised the bar to an unattainable level for the rest of the FPS's. This game has to be played with a mored slowed down realistic approach, in CoD4, you can put the pedal to the metal. I like this game because to me, it has almost what CoD has but it adds in a cover system and a little bit smarter AI; CoD is more "arcadey" to me. I agree that CoD is the greatest FPS on the planent and that's just based off the online play, but with the standard that CoD has set, games like Vegas 1 (haven't played 1 but I read good and bad reviews) and 2 have earned some credit in my eyes. Games like Medal of Honor just need to be made into coaster for the coffee table to me or to balance out a crooked chair or something. I liked it but not as much as CoD4 Great review though.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2008 12:44:42 PM PDT
Thank you for the complement. I appreciate literate responses rather than the usual gamer trash talk. "Haze" looks like an interesting FPS, too. :)
Posted on Apr 9, 2009 1:54:01 PM PDT
Avid Fisherman says:
I'm suprised Bioshock is seldom mentioned as a top FPS. Its the best out there. I like the COD games ever since they came out, but Bioshock provides a new gameplay.
Posted on Aug 8, 2009 9:54:49 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 8, 2009 9:55:43 AM PDT
reading your review, i thought you have the game 1 star. i'm not sure why you gave it 3.
many of your points i disagree with entirely, we're each entitled to our opinions:
1. Success of COD: first off, let's call COD what it is, a "run and gun" game where you can play through the game with little or no strategy (particularly since none can be communicated with the other computer characters), and can take about 10 more shots than one could take in real life (even in hard mode). it may be more popular, but that doesnt change the fact that its less realisitc, less strategic, and hence many dont have the patience to strategize nor the realism to accept death on 1-2 body shots
2. i completely disagree with you that RB6V2 graphically matched RB6V1: the graphics are a noticeable jump, the details are much more noticeable, everything from the detail on walls, to the padding on equipment, everything is about 20% more detailed. also you never mentioned a key addition to the game: being able to customize your character with weapons, clothing and armour, a key feature.
3. your comments about the "sameiness" of the environment i somewhat agree with, but COD just released a SECOND WW2 game, so i guess RB6V is just taking their lead? as long as the gameplay and graphics are better, i couldn't care less if the warehouse is gray or brown, who cares? RB6V was awesome, if they don't mess with it, i'm happy. if it ain't broke, don't fit it.
4. as far as the AI: my "buddies" don't block my line of fire, because I don't put them in my line of fire. i'm not sure why you would do that? on a VERY rare occassion (1 out of every 100 times i command them) they won't respond, and do stay in the line of fire. but is that worth complaining over? also, sometimes one of them gets hit with a flasbang, so can't hear me, so in fact them staying in the line of fire could actually be the game WORKING PROPERLY.
5. i don't think the game is just going from room to room, if that was the case, why are we left alone in that level to walk half a mile to a warehouse and snipe? then once inside, to hide and shoot in open area? or in several levels, to even use a sniper rifle? if what you're saying is correct, a sniper rifle would be a hazard, not a weapon.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 8, 2009 10:12:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 8, 2009 10:18:32 AM PDT
Bloody hell, Mr. O'Brien, you take this response thing seriously, don't you? Ho hum. If you feel so strongly, write your own review.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 31, 2009 11:51:02 AM PDT
Bloody hell, Mr. Orr, you take this review thinig personally, don't you? My response is HALF the length of your review. If you don't want people to write a response to your review, don't write a review.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 23, 2010 9:48:24 AM PDT
A. Bush says:
I gave this game 4 stars, but I largely agree with the original review posted by H.C. Orr.
1. I agree with you that CoD doesn't involve much strategy, so that's fine.
2. Graphics ARE more detailed in R6V2, but they have a toy-like feel that I can't quite pinpoint; in my review I compared them to Adobe Illustrator images. They just didn't feel life-like to me.
3. R6V WAS awesome, and they DID mess with it in Vegas 2. They changed from glamorous casinos to incredibly boring, drab warehouses that were about as fun to play through as a cardboard box. The game was just lacking in clout and "epicness." The first one, as I mentioned in my review, made the player feel like a real hero. This second one makes you feel like an unnecessary extra at best and a failure at worst. The whole time, I felt like I was being instructed to wander around and kill some terrorists to keep me out of the way of the real action in Vegas where Logan was actually doing something useful. This is related more to the storyline and not the setting, but R6V2 was weak in its plot.
4. The AI DO block your line of fire if you have them "following you." When I suddenly encounter a group of enemies and take cover behind a post or box to try to survive and take them out, I don't generally think about telling my men to "hold position" clear back at the last safe place that I came from. Thus, they follow me and then proceed to walk in front of me when I'm trying to shoot. It would be fine if they killed the people I was trying for, but they often don't. Sometimes, Mike and Jung are phenomenal, but other times, they stand literally next to a terrorist and do nothing. This isn't sarcasm, as I watched it happen twice. I also couldn't shoot him myself because they were standing between me and him. Yes, I know I can order them to any spot I want, but sometimes I'm preoccupied by getting shot at.
5. It's true that there are various places to fight such as wide open sniping areas and outdoor settings, but indoors it really is room to room. I used the standard formula of "snake cam, tag enemies, team to door, open and clear, walk through, repeat" many many times. Why risk my own life (and restarting from the checkpoint) when my teammates can usually clear a room with success and if not, I can at least revive them?
I realize that you really like this game. I loved Vegas 1, so it's not like I don't appreciate this game type. I just felt like they improved gameplay details and failed to include a good storyline, enough content (the game felt really short and incomplete), and enough VEGAS content. I wanted to play Rainbow Six Vegas in Vegas, because the setting made the game (the first time). This time, I found myself everywhere but Vegas for a large part of the time (or in the lousy part of Vegas), doing things that hardly needed doing (like killing the Alvarez brother) and failing (Mike could have popped that jammed gym door with a breaching charge and killed maybe 10 people instead of the entire gym). I expected more from the game (in plot, role, and locale, not in technical aspects like graphics and gameplay).
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 23, 2010 10:53:46 AM PDT
Flippin' heck! No offense, but I didn't realise people would be banging on about this game (and my review) even now. I play a game, perhaps write a review, and I forget about it.
Games should be well made, hence my review, but they're not a vocation or a work of art.
UNLESS they are "Ninja Gaiden". *Eyes water reverentially*
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 23, 2010 2:27:58 PM PDT
A. Bush says:
Hey, calm down. I just had a chance to play this for the first time so like a good Amazon.com user, I wrote my review. Then, perusing others' reviews, I saw yours and the subsequent discussion and thought to add in my own 2 cents (which was largely in agreement with you).
Not to say that these things are true about you, but my life doesn't revolve around gaming nor am I made of money. I only RARELY buy games when they first come out (Forza 3, because I knew it would be good...and it was; CoD MW2...) and for the rest, I wait...even years...then buy them for $5 on eBay in perfect condition. Since I loved Vegas 1, I thought I'd try 2 (I had forgotten it even existed). So please, calm yourself.
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 20, 2010 1:17:38 PM PST
Flippin' heck! No offense, but I didn't realise Mr. Orr would still be banging on about people replying to his review (even now). He doesn't seem to "forget about it" since he keeps posting, does he? :) Seriously, this is comical. LOL