PDA

View Full Version : Vegas Review Publications



vapor002
06-18-2007, 04:26 PM
I hear that several gaming magazines posted great reviews when this game first came out 7 months ago.

Could members of this forum please post contact information to any large gaming magazines they know of especially the larger ones so we know who to contact with an alternate view of this product/company.

Thank you.

Brettzies
06-18-2007, 05:38 PM
There's a problem with reviewing this game. If someone doesn't consider what R6 was built from, it can easily be seen as a fine first person level romp with modern fire arms. Because that's all it really is. Some nice features and gameplay even...if, you're only looking at it from that viewpoint.

Which is not really fair since this is a "sequel" of sorts. Personally, I think the reviewers need to look at the past to really judge this game. It almost needs two reviews.

If you gave a copy to someone with no knowledge of the R6 games or OGR and had them review it as just a video game, they'd probably give it a 4 or maybe even a 5 out of 5.

If you gave another copy to someone and asked them how it stacks up compared to R6, RS, and RVS you'd probably get a 2 out of 5, maybe even a 1. Because other then the theme of Rainbow, it has almost nohting in common with those games.

This creates a problem for reviewers. Is it fun? Sure, if you like level romping games and can detach your expectations of what an R6 game is and can enter the psuedo reality of the bullet sponge theory, can accept killing 300+ tangos to your 3 man no casualty squad, and like a hollywood style movie game. Is it a true R6 game? Not by a long shot.

The game has left the realistic tactical shooter realm and entered the Doom, Quake, Unreal realm. I would be totally fine with that and can accept that there is a huge audience for it, if...they would also continue with a line of R6 games that stay true to what the first 3 were trying to achieve. I don't see why there can't be both. R6 has become a huge lable, almost like a StarWars. I could see RTSs based on R6 a la Full Spectrum Warrior as well as detailed tac sims and light fluffy rail shooters. But instead we get one thing to cover all bases with an obvious target and platform preference.

Some where a long the way people got confused and think the only requirement to be a tactical shooter was to include a real world setting and use modern firearms.

I read this review:
Games for Windows: 7.5/10
Written by John Davison.
Not sure how to contact them.

DX-GAME
06-19-2007, 05:49 PM
Have you ever played the games you just mentioned? I know I have, for years. Vegas is nothing like them. Granted, I havent been following the R6 series since the begining, and playing the first R6 I found myself leaving the team behind because I just didnt need them and they were dumb as rocks.

Doing a recent step back in time, I bought Ravenshield and found that movement physics horrible, even more so vs other FPS shooters of the same period such as Americas Army, nor does it look anywhere near as good. I never got past playing a few minutes of it and it just confermed that I would rather play Vegas for $50 than I would RS for $5.

R6 a huge lable? Lol. Youre nuts. The series, even the most popular of them had a small following within a small genere of games.

I find the game play immersive, solid and fun. Just as any other game out there, it all in the way you play it. As with GRAW, BF2, and AA, you can run and gun if you wish, but sooner or later you are going to run into a structured team that is going to mop the floor with you.

So yeah, I havent played the rest of the series, and I do rate it high because they got rid of most of the stuff I thought was usless and improved the movement physics. It gets a few points knocked off due to bugs, lack of multiplayer options, and no new content.

I recall quite a few reviews that rated this game very high, however they must have been getting kickbacks because it doesnt deserve it. But Id still rather play Vegas than Americas Army, or the battlefield series becuase you wont find alot of the allowances that blow the immersion out of the water such as bunnyhopping and cartillary. GRAW is the only game that comes close, but it runs worse than Vegas does.

Brettzies
06-19-2007, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by DX-GAME:
R6 a huge lable? Lol. Youre nuts. The series, even the most popular of them had a small following within a small genere of games.
Once it went to the xbox with R6-3 it became big time. Vegas is consitantly in the top 5 for xbox live online games played. Small following when it was PC only, but not anymore.

It's hard to go back and play old games, especially if you never played them before. So, I can't really tell you anything about RavenShield if you don't like it now. I mean, the game came out in 2003 I think. Graphics alone are enough to prevent people from going backwards. I tried playing Quake2 that came it Quake4, man it was soo primative, I just couldn't do it, and I spent countless hours playing quake2 and mods back in the late 90s.

I don't understand what you mean in your first paragraph. You say you've played those games for years and then you say you've never played the rest of the series in your fifth paragraph. Are you refering to the Quake/Doom games in your first lines?

If you like the game, that's great. Keep playing it. All I'm saying is that when you look at what the game started as back in 1998, it has departed quite a ways from its roots. I feel like it almost deserve two reviews, like I said.

DX-GAME
06-20-2007, 09:01 AM
Sorry for the confusion. Ive played the Doom, quake and unreal series for years. They are all fantacy run and gun shooters with no realisum to speak of.

For R6, I played the original both on PS and PC, Had Lockdowns for PS2, gave it away since its been a long time since I could fathom a FPS on a consol, lol. I bought Vegas, then on the recommendation from this forrm, I picked up Ravenshield.

The problem with Ravenshiled isnt the graphics. Hell, I still play Starflight and X-COM: UFO Defence, and they are DOS based. The problem is movement physics which are every bit as bad as Operation Flashpoint without the abilities. I just mentioned the graphics because at the same time that Ravenshield was released, you had UT2003 and Americas Army whos grapics blew RS out of the water.

Yeah, Vegas is a different game with fewer options. Its almost more like a GRAW title. You no longer have six guys to control, but the action is way faster and the AI alot better. You would have a hell of a time trying to control all of those guys and your plans would fall apart quickly.

Vegas SP is almost like you have three guys on vacation and are called to duty during a crisis with no time for planning. So you have to move out with little intel.

Online, the game is just as fun as AA or GRAW, moving low and slow with your team. The maps are large enough for real time planning.

I still maintain that the only reason this game, bugs and all isnt more popular is that the system requirments had people picking up the box, laughing, and putting it back down.

Had the sales been better, the support would have come faster. But Ubi screwed the pooch. Vegas is not a bad game, it was just not supported or designed well enough to bring in alot of players.

They can still pull it off with a real good patch as the game goes down in price. the question is will they...

GHOST_Sup
06-20-2007, 10:10 AM
R6 a huge lable? Lol. Youre nuts. The series, even the most popular of them had a small following within a small genere of games.




Seriously, you don't have a clue. No, you did not play the first R6...at least online. Wasn't a huge label? Ever go to The Zone or M player when this game was at it's peak? There were THOUSANDS of people playing this title at one time.

DX-GAME
06-20-2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by GHOST_Sup:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

R6 a huge lable? Lol. Youre nuts. The series, even the most popular of them had a small following within a small genere of games.



Seriously, you don't have a clue. No, you did not play the first R6...at least online. Wasn't a huge label? Ever go to The Zone or M player when this game was at it's peak? There were THOUSANDS of people playing this title at one time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first R6 didnt have an online option for PS, and I didnt play the PC version untill recently. I was into drivers back then.

However, if you think R6 is a popular genere, you might want to take a look at what people are playing these days as opposed to almost 10 years ago when there werent very many options. I doubt that all of the online R6 games put together can boast anywhere near the population original UT has now, and that came out a year or so later and is still going strong. thats a fanbase.


Vapor, you can still go to gaming sites such as gamespy and the Planet sites and see the high scores for Vegas.

SteveLord8
06-20-2007, 10:49 AM
There was also multiple ladders to compete under too, but I won't say the game was extremely popular. The communtity was of a good size that there was games going on all the time, including ladder matches, but a lot of people knew eachother and there was a fairshare of celebrities.

As for reviews for this game, the one that made me confused was the 8.7 it got from Gamespot.



The Good: Intense tactical action that requires you to use cover realistically; lets you feel like an elite commando like no other game; beautiful visuals that let you battle in a glittering first-world setting; impressive multiplayer suite supports a wide range of cooperative and competitive games.

The Bad: Story features some standard plot devices and lacks a satisfying ending; multiplayer bug causes game to crash on default settings.

They really dropped the ball on this one.

GHOST_Sup
06-20-2007, 11:04 AM
I have to disagree with your "options" statement. There were MORE options in the original R6 than there are in R6V. Starting with the MP screen you could actually "password" a game. It had a better MP interface where you could chat in the lobby. If what you mean by options such as graphics, ect...then fine, but technology has granted us that.

SteveLord, trust me, the game was very popular. I started GHOST in 1998 just for the game R6. at one point on one ladder in particualr (clanladder.com run at the time by adrenaline) there were 500-700 clans that were playing. As a matter of fact, it got so big that we couldn't handle the amount of challenges so we switched to theRumble ladder just so we could get back in tune with the community (it was smaller with about 50 clans, an overall better community as well).

The Tom Clancy Rainbow Six Franchise has sold over 16 million copies. It's not small. Granted it will never be where the SIMS or Counterstrike is, it's still not small.

As for playing now, it would be tough (graphic-wise, plus you'd have to reinstall Win 98) At the time it was very innovative, hell it won the PC game of the year by PC Gamer Magazine.

I had huge hopes for R6V and I feel they really dropped the ball. With some minor working such as the MP interface (obviously ported), it could of had potential.

DX-GAME
06-20-2007, 11:32 AM
I said Vegas has fewer options...
It doesnt have a planning stage, less bots to command, and the online options are pretty bad.

What Im trying to say that is if they fix whats wrong with the game code, and add a few more online options, Vegas would actalluy deserve its raitings based on its self as opposed to what the previous titles had to offer..

Something you have to remember is that its not just one or two games, there are quite a few that are more popular. There are quite a few that are less popular as well. however, the biggys, CS, CS2, WoW, UT series, BF series, COD... I could list game after game that thousands more are playng.

The R6 series is a specialized game as opposed to the idiot games like BF2 or CS. So while its not any worse of a series, it just requires a different kind of player to play it. Others would get board or frustraited because there is no run and gun or hopping about like rabbits on crack. If you look at it, Vegas had a better chance of bringing in more players because it was less strict in that area. but I still dont see it being any less of a game than the others in the series.

SteveLord8
06-20-2007, 11:54 AM
Im just saying it wasnt as popular as other games. If it wasn't for it hitting the consoles...I promise you many people wouldnt even know what Rainbow6 was.

I couldnt even get people at LAN parties to play the game...cuz no one knew of it. =)

Aside from that, I reinstalled GRAW...loaded up some coop with my dad and brother and was amazed at how much quicker everything was and how much better all the interfaces were.

Some developers just dont realize...if its not broke...dont fix it.

DX-GAME
06-20-2007, 12:06 PM
Ill agree with you there.
Even at its current stage, it got little or no advertising and promtion.

Brettzies
06-20-2007, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by DX-GAME:
Yeah, Vegas is a different game with fewer options. Its almost more like a GRAW title. You no longer have six guys to control, but the action is way faster and the AI alot better. You would have a hell of a time trying to control all of those guys and your plans would fall apart quickly.
..
You're right about the AI falling apart. But that was also part of the fun, making a plan that would work and not get people killed. The AI was a big hindrance though because it made an already clunky planning interface worse. You had to account for their every footstep and hope they didn't screw up. Still, it was fun to switch to the entry team or sniper for crucial moments.

RVS was definetly clunky and had problems, but the ideas were good. I've always felt that if they made a kick *** planning interface, one that is silky smooth to use and looks good, almost like a mini-RTS/Strategy game, people would really get into it, especially if it was fun to use. Anyone that's used a 3d program before knows that the interface is everything, and the faster/easier you can interact with it, the better. That's how the planning phase needed to be.

Things like planning and commanding multiple teams is not something that went over too well with more casual gamers - but they like the guns and multiplayer, only worry about yourself kind of thinking. It does take more time and thinking to get into a game like that, when perhaps people don't want to worry about where the other team(s) is. It also takes more cpu cycles to make more intelligent AI reducing your team further, but I don't think that's the main reason for the huge departure.

One last thing about planning. People will also complain that planning isn't realistic and that it's pretty much just made up on the spot in real life. That may be true in certain cases, but for a game, we don't have the luxury of saying to a team leader, "go down this hall, stack at the door, wait for my signal to bang and clear, then regroup here, secure the hostages, and make your way down the theatre to extaction point." It took me less the 30 seconds to right that down, let alone say it. But in a game, it may take a lot more to time to outline the path for the team to take, and where to engage, etc.

Anyway, Vegas is not all bad, just as Ravenshield is far from perfect. They've just gone seperate ways. I like Vegas, heck, I'm on my third run through the campaign...though I'm not sure I'll finish this time.