Rainbow Six - Vegas
- Thread starter KrazyKraut
- Start date
I'm not really following you... are you saying that you do agree that the R6 series went down the ****ter, but that people don't have the right to leave such comments when a R6: Vegas thread pops up? Why? They have just as much the right to post their opinion as anyone else.
Or are you actually saying that what Rainbow Six has turned into is a good thing (which I would find a looney idea)?
As for the text on the ArmA 2 box art, does anyone really take such marketing text seriously? I did like the campaign. It's open-ended and portrays a political situation in a much more realistic way than most games do. But before the patches came out, it had its fair share of fps-dips, true... but if you didn't buy it for the MP or the editor you really should have known better. Anyone who's slightly familiar with the ArmA series knows that it's all about the organized co-op. In fact, I've mentioned that many times in the ArmA 2 thread.
But this isn't that thread, so...
Upvote
0
No, I don't agree that the series became crap though Lockdown must've been crap from what I heard(didn't play it though) and I didn't really like Vegas 2's SP. It's something new. I only said that I'd still love to see an oldschool R6 as well. One game must not exclude the other. And of course everyone can voice their opinion. But besides the fact that it's simply annoying as hell to have the same old discussions over and over again with one side whining how everything was better in the old days, it is NOT valid to believe that opinion of Person A is worth as much as person B's opinion, if Person A did not even play the game, yet thinks he can perfectly judge a game.
It doesn't matter, it says so on the box but doesn't deliver at all(even after the patches). The thing is that ArmA2 is the perfect example to show how many people on this forums have double standards. ArmA2 doesn't deliver on half of it's promises(on the box), yet nobody of you guys complains because it's such a nice simulation. Any other game however automatically gets condemned.
Upvote
0
I like how you expect the stuff that's written on the ArmA 2 box, yet at the same time are perfectly fine with Rainbow Six: Vegas not being a true Rainbow Six game.
Hey, it says Rainbow Six on the box too right?
Hey, it says Rainbow Six on the box too right?
Upvote
0
Again, you don't get to define what R6 is. And on my Vegas 2 box(I don't own the first one anymore) it says three things: 1) Advanced Cover System -> works perfectly fine, and that's one of the main things Vegas is known for, the cover system 2) Play the coop campaign, or in competetive modes with up to 15 players -> possible and enjoyable as well as some other ppl here stated, 3)create your own individual character -> that was quite awesome actually because you had 495893 different camo/armor stuff, 4)gain new weapons etc. through achievements in both SP/Mp -> worked out fine, even though it was kinda inappropriate in SP imo.
If it said that it's the spiritual sequel to the early R6s then it would be wrong of course, but it doesn't. It's a different game now. We all know you hate it because it's not like the old R6s, but for gods sake, this man is asking for advice whether the game is worth buying or not, how does your ranting about the game if you haven't even played it help him?
Upvote
0
This isn't meant as an attack on you, but I honestly think that if you thought Vegas was a good game you would have liked Lockdown too.
It was mainly received so harshly because it's just a mediocre action game (nothing more but also nothing less!) but it followed the tactical shooter giants of Ravenshield on the PC and Rainbow Six 3 and Black Arrow on the consoles so a big part of what people disliked about it was that it was so un-R6-like. Vegas had the advantage of starting with a clean slate because it was the first game on the new console generation so it was only held against the older R6 titles by fans and even some of those buckled under the shear next-gen impressiveness it brought to the table. It was one of the first UnrealEngine 3 titles after all and for such an early title they did a good job with the presentation.
Anyway, I bought Lockdown for 3.50 used and I played a fair bit of it and while it has nothing on RavenShield or even on the inferior Black Arrow it was an ok action game (aside from the sniper interludes, because those were out-of-place and boring. If I want to play Duckhunt I play Duckhunt, thank you very much). I'd give it a 6/10, just like I would rate Vegas 1 based on its demo.
The Lockdown main menu was really cool though. Credit where credit is due. I'd like to hear some opinions on this, particularly from those who hated the rest of the game.
Upvote
0
Well from what I remember the presentation sucked(which is definitely Vegas' strongpoint), graphic looked xbox1-like, AI must've been extremely dumb and levels extremely linear. That's what I vaguely remember from reviews, but it's a long time ago already.
Upvote
0
Of course it looked xbox 1 like, it was an xbox 1 game.
The team-ai did just fine and the enemy AI wasn't noticeably dumber than in Black Arrow or R6:3.
AI in sniper interludes was completely scripted so it doesn't count.
The team-ai did just fine and the enemy AI wasn't noticeably dumber than in Black Arrow or R6:3.
AI in sniper interludes was completely scripted so it doesn't count.
Upvote
0
Lockdown, apart from looking very bland, simply took the tactical possibilities away from you while not "making up for it" with what Vegas offered. It was kind of the worst from both worlds.
Upvote
0
This is what I thought about Lockdown.
It felt so bland, the tactical aspect was gone, and the gamey mechanics were bad.
But, I only got up to the 3rd mission I think, because it was so boring IMO, and because the AI was so bad.
Upvote
0
![[-project.rattus-]](/data/avatars/s/0/161.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Well, the vegas series is just the same with more optical polish.
But remember kids: no matter how long you polish it, a turd still is a turd, only shinier.
Upvote
0