Are you joking me?This is next gen?WtF?

[strawberryq2008]

I'm playing terroist hunt on trainyard. I'm behind the first traincar you get behind after your spawn. I go to throw a grenade out and my guy (A rainbow six highly-trained solider). Leans all the way out.
I mean all the way out to throw the grenade. He didn't just put his hand half way out and back toss it.
No he leaned all the way out allowing a great headshot to the cpu.
Wtf type of garbage is this?You couldn't ask a real solider what'd he do with that problem. Instead of making bishop look like some sort of untrained ******.

[strawberryq2008]

I'm playing terroist hunt on trainyard. I'm behind the first traincar you get behind after your spawn. I go to throw a grenade out and my guy (A rainbow six highly-trained solider). Leans all the way out.
I mean all the way out to throw the grenade. He didn't just put his hand half way out and back toss it.
No he leaned all the way out allowing a great headshot to the cpu.
Wtf type of garbage is this?You couldn't ask a real solider what'd he do with that problem. Instead of making bishop look like some sort of untrained ******.

[xoops]

The current consoles might be hyped as ''next gen'', but Ubisoft is capitalising on the fact that the Darwinian evolution of the brain of its typical customer occurs at a much slower pace than console hardware... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Just kidding...

Here is a free advice for you: If you see the Ubisoft logo on a game box and you nevertheless buy it, then you are truly asking for trouble...

[DrZ0001]

Do you really even care? It's a grenade throw! So what if it isn't 100% realistic, at least he knows where to throw it. This is a reminder, a distinction between games and the real world. Don't get them more confused than you already have. Don't take every little detail of a game so seriously, it's not the end of the world if his grenade throw isn't EXACTLY how you wanted it. I don't even care to look for dumb stuff like this.

Lets say your teammate does this throw perfectly as you invisioned it. Where is the challenge in that? The CPU is not supposed to be a perfect robot, it's supposed to be truly realistic. Real people screw up. Real people aren't perfect. If your allies' AI was perfect, they would never get hurt/die which would make the game pointless! You could hide behind a wall and keep ordering them around. The team is meant to support the main char and not be the entire game. They aren't supposed to be perfectly flawless, it would eliminate a good challenge. What would that be? Reviving your AI teammate in the middle of open fire, very difficult on higher difficulties.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrZ0001:
Do you really even care? It's a grenade throw! So what if it isn't 100% realistic, at least he knows where to throw it. This is a reminder, a distinction between games and the real world. Don't get them more confused than you already have. Don't take every little detail of a game so seriously, it's not the end of the world if his grenade throw isn't EXACTLY how you wanted it. I don't even care to look for dumb stuff like this.

Lets say your teammate does this throw perfectly as you invisioned it. Where is the challenge in that? The CPU is not supposed to be a perfect robot, it's supposed to be truly realistic. Real people screw up. Real people aren't perfect. If your allies' AI was perfect, they would never get hurt/die which would make the game pointless! You could hide behind a wall and keep ordering them around. The team is meant to support the main char and not be the entire game. They aren't supposed to be perfectly flawless, it would eliminate a good challenge. What would that be? Reviving your AI teammate in the middle of open fire, very difficult on higher difficulties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^^ This is one of UBI's new target customers xoops was talking about. Notice how he doesn't have a single clue.

Did you even bother to read the OP? Do you know what Rainbow Six is? No, you obviously don't.

Rainbow Six is an elite counter terrorist unit. You'd expect a character that's supposedly an elite soldier NOT to do stupid things like stand out in the open when shooting or throwing a grenade. We aren't talking about AI here. We're talking about a player's character, who's supposed to be an extremely well trained soldier, leaving their cover to throw a grenade. Hell an elite CT soldier controlled by AI shouldn't do it either. The characters in this game are constantly putting themselves in ridiculously dangerous positions and using ******ed techniques like the back to the wall cover system which make the notion of them being highly trained elite CT operatives completely unbelievable even for a second.

From the very first time you see your character press his back up against a wall and swinging out into a doorway you know that he can't possibly be an elite soldier, and the game's concept breaks. No soldier in their right mind would do something like that. Especially not an elite one!

I find it funny that even when they're joking around soldiers don't put their backs against the wall Vegas syle. Military room cleaning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R89vhiua35A

It's a joke, and not one of them does any of the stupid things that happen in the game. I can't imagine them doing it when they're serious.

Vegas, a game about elite counter terrorist soldiers? I think not!

Vegas is a joke, seriously.

[AntiPersonnel]

omg that room sweeper video is 100% pure win

[pinetreeforrest]

<span class="ev_code_red">[FLAME REMOVED]</span>

[GSG_9_Rage]

"Next-Gen" is actually this generation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[GSG_9_Rage]

I posted this in another thread:


http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4033/stackcl2.jpg

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3465/150906swatjq3.jpg

See how they don't have their backs to the wall? See how they are facing the door?

Unlike this:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2596/vegasta9.png

Look! Logan's gun is pointed to the ceiling! Not in any form of ready position! That can be very deadly in a situation like that.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2831/vegas2nx5.png

Now look at the photo above. That would be fine if Logan was going to be firing ahead of him or towards his left (his weapon should be shouldered). But he is in no position to fire down that alleyway there.

Look at this man, below. Does he have his back to that pillar to take "cover?" No. He is facing the direction in which he is ready to fire in.

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/882/04fu8.jpg

It is just like throwing a football. you need to be facing the direction in which you are going to fire. And when you are in a hostile area, you have to be ready for anything to happen. You don't have the time to turn around, especially against a wall like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP-s_b9r0tg&NR=1

A very good video about room clearing.

This one too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82U9ybCnZdM&feature=related

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GSG_9_Rage:
I posted this in another thread:


http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4033/stackcl2.jpg

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3465/150906swatjq3.jpg

See how they don't have their backs to the wall? See how they are facing the door?

Unlike this:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2596/vegasta9.png

Look! Logan's gun is pointed to the ceiling! Not in any form of ready position! That can be very deadly in a situation like that.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2831/vegas2nx5.png

Now look at the photo above. That would be fine if Logan was going to be firing ahead of him or towards his left (his weapon should be shouldered). But he is in no position to fire down that alleyway there.

Look at this man, below. Does he have his back to that pillar to take "cover?" No. He is facing the direction in which he is ready to fire in.

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/882/04fu8.jpg

It is just like throwing a football. you need to be facing the direction in which you are going to fire. And when you are in a hostile area, you have to be ready for anything to happen. You don't have the time to turn around, especially against a wall like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP-s_b9r0tg&NR=1

A very good video about room clearing.

This one too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82U9ybCnZdM&feature=related </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My Room cleaning vid trumps yours :P

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw this in Halo Six: Vegas 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ8jFbIjtTU

[GSG_9_Rage]

Hahaha! I LOVE that video.

[athenian]

Funny video. That's that "special" training the R6 guys get from UBI.

[showtimederek]

Its a video game. Nuff said.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by showtimederek:
Its a video game. Nuff said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And? I don't see why people keep bringing that up. It makes absolutely no difference. It's a video game, yes. It's a video game ABOUT something, but does a poor job of it.

Harry Potter is a novel/movie does that mean it's ok that in the next one they have him battle space aliens or robots from the future? No, of course not! Why? Because it wouldn't make sense. Harry Potter isn't about that.

Same here. It might be a video game, but it's a video game ABOUT a team of elite counter terrorist soldiers. Last time I checked Elite soldiers of any kind didn't pull Hollywood style moves like the cover system depicts or leave their cover and stand out in the open when shooting or throwing a grenade.

[GSG_9_Rage]

Rainbow Six was a different game, one that simulated realistic tactical combat.

[DreadedDragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:

Rainbow Six is an elite counter terrorist unit. You'd expect a character that's supposedly an elite soldier NOT to do stupid things like stand out in the open when shooting or throwing a grenade. We aren't talking about AI here. We're talking about a player's character, who's supposed to be an extremely well trained soldier, leaving their cover to throw a grenade. Hell an elite CT soldier controlled by AI shouldn't do it either. The characters in this game are constantly putting themselves in ridiculously dangerous positions and using ******ed techniques like the back to the wall cover system which make the notion of them being highly trained elite CT operatives completely unbelievable even for a second.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't get it what could you possibly mean?

"Wait here guys while I walk through this enemy compound crawling with terrorists all by myself to fight an attack chopper."

Oh okay, now I get it.

[neilthecellist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrZ0001:
Do you really even care? It's a grenade throw! So what if it isn't 100% realistic, at least he knows where to throw it. This is a reminder, a distinction between games and the real world. Don't get them more confused than you already have. Don't take every little detail of a game so seriously, it's not the end of the world if his grenade throw isn't EXACTLY how you wanted it. I don't even care to look for dumb stuff like this.

Lets say your teammate does this throw perfectly as you invisioned it. Where is the challenge in that? The CPU is not supposed to be a perfect robot, it's supposed to be truly realistic. Real people screw up. Real people aren't perfect. If your allies' AI was perfect, they would never get hurt/die which would make the game pointless! You could hide behind a wall and keep ordering them around. The team is meant to support the main char and not be the entire game. They aren't supposed to be perfectly flawless, it would eliminate a good challenge. What would that be? Reviving your AI teammate in the middle of open fire, very difficult on higher difficulties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry that you're not old enough to understand the deeper facets behind the organization that is called Rainbow.

Really, I am. It means that Tom Clancy's efforts have gone down the drain. And because people like you are over-extrapolating on what a video game is.

And by the way, Raven Shield had perfect grenade throws. You could even tip a door just a little bit, toss your grenade, then shut the door (a la Call of Duty 4, except YOU THE PLAYER can do it too). Not to mention, Raven Shield was released in 2005. How does a 3 year old game do better at these sort of things?

Simple: Ubisoft didn't develop Raven Shield. Red Storm Entertainment did.



-----

In other news, I was appalled today when someone asked what Raven Shield was. He didn't know that Raven Shield was part of the Rainbow Six series. Poor console fanboy..

[neilthecellist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by showtimederek:
Its a video game. Nuff said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And? I don't see why people keep bringing that up. It makes absolutely no difference. It's a video game, yes. It's a video game ABOUT something, but does a poor job of it.

Harry Potter is a novel/movie does that mean it's ok that in the next one they have him battle space aliens or robots from the future? No, of course not! Why? Because it wouldn't make sense. Harry Potter isn't about that.

Same here. It might be a video game, but it's a video game ABOUT a team of elite counter terrorist soldiers. Last time I checked Elite soldiers of any kind didn't pull Hollywood style moves like the cover system depicts or leave their cover and stand out in the open when shooting or throwing a grenade. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
(sorry for double post)

You're right. If a Rainbow operative is that bad at throwing grenades, what must be local SWAT and national FBI be like in the Ubisoft universe?

*shudders at the thought*

[Nomaderwho]

Vegas 2 did nothing to improve over Vegas 1. I actually think it's worse. There are so many things wrong with this game.

1. No party system
2. All guns sound the same.
3. Shotgun = sniper
4. Imense lag
5. No matchmaking system
6. Custom game search not saved when I back out of a room. If it can not be saved then don't do an auto search for me!
7. Achievements not being awarded when action is accomplished.
8. Sniper is useless with all the cluttered maps.
9. Graphics didn't improve.
10. Still no jumping.
11. Grenades bounce off of leaves on small palm plants!?
12. Story for campaign was hard to follow....or maybe there really wasn't a story to follow.
13. Walking thru tires and barrels.
14. Difference between full armor and no armor is minimal.
15. Penalty for quitting laggy games.

Basically this was an expansion pack that is actually worse than the original. GARBAGE!

[neilthecellist]

There was virtually NO normal/displacement mapping whatsoever on the graphics in this game. What's the point of using Unreal Engine 3 if you're not going to use the boasting features of the engine renderer?

[jmcorp]

yeah its a shame rainbow six vegas couldn't simply mo-cap some ex-elite counterterrorism units, and use their precise tactics and methods in the game, wait i know why, the gameplay of this game doesn't suit such realistic tacticts...

[xFrenzy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GSG_9_Rage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP-s_b9r0tg&NR=1

A very good video about room clearing.

This one too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82U9ybCnZdM&feature=related </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

this is rainbow six's way to clear rooms (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ8jFbIjtTU&feature=related)

woops nvm
someone beat me to it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

[BIGhit_NY]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GSG_9_Rage:
Rainbow Six was a different game, one that simulated realistic tactical combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I started playing Rainbow Six b/c it was a realistic tactical/ team based shooter game. The more I listen, the more I agree with what has been said about the series. The cover system is a great addition to the series b/c it reflects real life tactics, while eliminating the hollwood esque invincible/ bulletproof hero. However, realistically, the RS series has been hurt by the third person view b/c it's openned the series up to a more COD 4/ GOW plainshooter based game.

I could go on & on about the series move toward arcade style gameplay, & my wish that hardcore fans aren't abandoned in this new move. Noone is asking for extremely violent, bloody, explicit games that alienate a certain age group, just a game that reflects what it's meant to represent (an Elite-Counterterrorist Team). Otherwise, it's just another f'ing shooter when it could be much more.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BIGhit_NY:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GSG_9_Rage:
Rainbow Six was a different game, one that simulated realistic tactical combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I started playing Rainbow Six b/c it was a realistic tactical/ team based shooter game. The more I listen, the more I agree with what has been said about the series. The cover system is a great addition to the series as it reflects real life tactics, while eliminating the hollwood esque invicible hero. However, realistically, RS series has been hurt by the third person view b/c it openning it up to a more COD 4/ GOW plain shooter based game.

I could go on & on about the series move to arcade style gameplay, & my wish that hardcore fans aren't abandoned in this new move. Noone is asking for extremely violent, bloody, explicit games that alienate a certain age group, just a game that reflects what it's meant to represent (an Elite-Counterterrorist Team). Otherwise, it's just another f'ing shooter when it could be much more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't remember there being that much blood in the PC game and there was barely any in the first Console version. They just required you to think a little more. People coming from Halo and similar games don't like doing that too much so they complained that the game was too hard.

[BIGhit_NY]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BIGhit_NY:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GSG_9_Rage:
Rainbow Six was a different game, one that simulated realistic tactical combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I started playing Rainbow Six b/c it was a realistic tactical/ team based shooter game. The more I listen, the more I agree with what has been said about the series. The cover system is a great addition to the series as it reflects real life tactics, while eliminating the hollwood esque invicible hero. However, realistically, RS series has been hurt by the third person view b/c it openning it up to a more COD 4/ GOW plain shooter based game.

I could go on & on about the series move to arcade style gameplay, & my wish that hardcore fans aren't abandoned in this new move. Noone is asking for extremely violent, bloody, explicit games that alienate a certain age group, just a game that reflects what it's meant to represent (an Elite-Counterterrorist Team). Otherwise, it's just another f'ing shooter when it could be much more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't remember there being that much blood in the PC game and there was barely any in the first Console version. They just required you to think a little more. People coming from Halo and similar games don't like doing that too much so they complained that the game was too hard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>probably. I hate to admit, but I do miss one-hit, one-kill. B/c now, I unload a freaking clip in a tango, & he still gets off I shot to kill me & I'm wearing 4-5 bars worth of armor. I also aim for the head 9/10 times. It's moving more toward the hardcore mode in COD series where tactics gets thrown out the door & replaying until you learn AI placements to beat the level & unlocking new customizations through ACES points is more important.

However, in defense of RS, these games is as realistic as it gets in console team based gaming. I remember BLACK with the double-weild MAC 11 elites which reminded me of the video posted by GSG_9. At least, the Rainbow series hasn't gotten that bad.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BIGhit_NY:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BIGhit_NY:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GSG_9_Rage:
Rainbow Six was a different game, one that simulated realistic tactical combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I started playing Rainbow Six b/c it was a realistic tactical/ team based shooter game. The more I listen, the more I agree with what has been said about the series. The cover system is a great addition to the series as it reflects real life tactics, while eliminating the hollwood esque invicible hero. However, realistically, RS series has been hurt by the third person view b/c it openning it up to a more COD 4/ GOW plain shooter based game.

I could go on & on about the series move to arcade style gameplay, & my wish that hardcore fans aren't abandoned in this new move. Noone is asking for extremely violent, bloody, explicit games that alienate a certain age group, just a game that reflects what it's meant to represent (an Elite-Counterterrorist Team). Otherwise, it's just another f'ing shooter when it could be much more. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't remember there being that much blood in the PC game and there was barely any in the first Console version. They just required you to think a little more. People coming from Halo and similar games don't like doing that too much so they complained that the game was too hard. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>probably. I hate to admit, but I do miss one-hit, one-kill. B/c now, I unload a freaking clip in a tango, & he still gets off I shot to kill me & I'm wearing 4-5 bars worth of armor. I also aim for the head 9/10 times. It's moving more toward the hardcore mode in COD series where tactics gets thrown out the door & replaying until you learn AI placements to beat the level & unlocking new customizations through ACES points is more important.

However, in defense of RS, these games is as realistic as it gets in console team based gaming. I remember BLACK with the double-weild MAC 11 elites which reminded me of the video posted by GSG_9. At least, the Rainbow series hasn't gotten that bad <span class="ev_code_red">YET</span>. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fixed.

[WhiteKnight77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neilthecellist:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrZ0001:
Do you really even care? It's a grenade throw! So what if it isn't 100% realistic, at least he knows where to throw it. This is a reminder, a distinction between games and the real world. Don't get them more confused than you already have. Don't take every little detail of a game so seriously, it's not the end of the world if his grenade throw isn't EXACTLY how you wanted it. I don't even care to look for dumb stuff like this.

Lets say your teammate does this throw perfectly as you invisioned it. Where is the challenge in that? The CPU is not supposed to be a perfect robot, it's supposed to be truly realistic. Real people screw up. Real people aren't perfect. If your allies' AI was perfect, they would never get hurt/die which would make the game pointless! You could hide behind a wall and keep ordering them around. The team is meant to support the main char and not be the entire game. They aren't supposed to be perfectly flawless, it would eliminate a good challenge. What would that be? Reviving your AI teammate in the middle of open fire, very difficult on higher difficulties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry that you're not old enough to understand the deeper facets behind the organization that is called Rainbow.

Really, I am. It means that Tom Clancy's efforts have gone down the drain. And because people like you are over-extrapolating on what a video game is.

And by the way, Raven Shield had perfect grenade throws. You could even tip a door just a little bit, toss your grenade, then shut the door (a la Call of Duty 4, except YOU THE PLAYER can do it too). Not to mention, Raven Shield was released in 2005. How does a 3 year old game do better at these sort of things?

Simple: Ubisoft didn't develop Raven Shield. Red Storm Entertainment did.



-----

In other news, I was appalled today when someone asked what Raven Shield was. He didn't know that Raven Shield was part of the Rainbow Six series. Poor console fanboy.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Raven Shield was developed and created by Ubi Montreal and used the Unreal engine. It was not created by RSE nor does it use the RSE engine. It was also released in 2003 and not 2005.

[warlordy1984]

never heard of raven shield myself damn i thought i was a console fanboy hehe, well i hear so much about the back to the wall and personally i dont like it but i deal with it, i play/practice rk gunning and the best thing you could do is have your shoulders square with your opponent, funny enough i was thinking of how ubi/game devs could better the cover system and although i have no idea on how to design and implement such a thing I'm sure it would work. I remember when i first played lockdown i was so happy with that peeking/leaning system i thought rainbow would work on that but http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif i will try to put my idea onto a diagram and post it, a better option then just dissing game developers i think.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by warlordy1984:
never heard of raven shield myself damn i thought i was a console fanboy hehe, well i hear so much about the back to the wall and personally i dont like it but i deal with it, i play/practice rk gunning and the best thing you could do is have your shoulders square with your opponent, funny enough i was thinking of how ubi/game devs could better the cover system and although i have no idea on how to design and implement such a thing I'm sure it would work. I remember when i first played lockdown i was so happy with that peeking/leaning system i thought rainbow would work on that but http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif i will try to put my idea onto a diagram and post it, a better option then just dissing game developers i think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Until Vegas all the R6 and Gr games used peeking instead of a cover system.

[WhiteKnight77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by warlordy1984:
never heard of raven shield myself damn i thought i was a console fanboy hehe, well i hear so much about the back to the wall and personally i dont like it but i deal with it, i play/practice rk gunning and the best thing you could do is have your shoulders square with your opponent, funny enough i was thinking of how ubi/game devs could better the cover system and although i have no idea on how to design and implement such a thing I'm sure it would work. I remember when i first played lockdown i was so happy with that peeking/leaning system i thought rainbow would work on that but http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif i will try to put my idea onto a diagram and post it, a better option then just dissing game developers i think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's because Raven Shield is a PC game. A similar game to RvS for the consoles is Rainbow Six 3.

[Mr--Jay]

Ok so your having a problem of being shot when you lean out to throw a grenade? Try taking a step back from cover and throwing the grenade..... use your head, dont expect the game to think for you, thats next next next next gen.

[neilthecellist]

No, because the past gen did it right.

@WhiteKnight77: Sorry bro, but you're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six_3:_Raven_Shield

Red Storm Entertainment developed it (you can check on their company website too if you don't believe me)

Ubisoft PUBLISHED the game. Publishing is not the same as developing a game.

[xoops]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neilthecellist:
No, because the past gen did it right.

@WhiteKnight77: Sorry bro, but you're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six_3:_Raven_Shield

Red Storm Entertainment developed it (you can check on their company website too if you don't believe me)

Ubisoft PUBLISHED the game. Publishing is not the same as developing a game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you look at the credits written on the last page of the game manual, the entries appear in this order:

1 - CREATIVE TEAM (about 100 people from UBI Montreal, with French names...)
2 - UBISOFT MONTREAL (still about 25 people from UBI Montreal, with French names...)
3 - UBISOFT INTERNATIONAL (about 25 people from marketing, brand management, coordination, public relations, etc)
4 - RED STORM ENTERTAINMENT (about <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">20 people</span> listed for their work on the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">CUT SCENES and INTRO/OUTRO FMVs</span>)
5 - UBI.COM (about 15 people)
6 - TECHNICAL SUPPORT (about 10 people)

At the end of section 4, here what is written: ''Special thanks to RSE - All the staff who participated in creating this wonderful series, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">for those who helped us</span> in achieving this new title and to the RSE Testing department for play-testing the game''.

[BuddyBear]

So do we boycott French-fries or not? I'm confused...

[xoops]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuddyBear:
So do we boycott French-fries or not? I'm confused... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We should boycott a French-Canadian meal called poutine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine) (French fries, cheese curds, and brown gravy)...

[neilthecellist]

Ew.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xoops:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BuddyBear:
So do we boycott French-fries or not? I'm confused... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We should boycott a French-Canadian meal called poutine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poutine) (French fries, cheese curds, and brown gravy)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It should be pretty easy to boycott since it's not really eaten anywhere else. It's the food of the Gods though.

[xoops]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
It's the food of the Gods though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! I don't know for God himself, but if you look at a picture of Goliath.Ubi.Dev, it's quite clear that this guy has eaten too much of that stuff... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

[showtimederek]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by showtimederek:
Its a video game. Nuff said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And? I don't see why people keep bringing that up. It makes absolutely no difference. It's a video game, yes. It's a video game ABOUT something, but does a poor job of it.

Harry Potter is a novel/movie does that mean it's ok that in the next one they have him battle space aliens or robots from the future? No, of course not! Why? Because it wouldn't make sense. Harry Potter isn't about that.

Same here. It might be a video game, but it's a video game ABOUT a team of elite counter terrorist soldiers. Last time I checked Elite soldiers of any kind didn't pull Hollywood style moves like the cover system depicts or leave their cover and stand out in the open when shooting or throwing a grenade. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you want a realistic view of tactical combat, join the damn military and quit barking about how a GAME should be realistic. Games are called games because games are meant to be fun. This isn't the 90's anymore and those types of tactical shooters (like old rainbows) are not what the video game society wants. To the few of you that still want that, I apoligize, but it aint coming back.

[neilthecellist]

WRONG.

Titles that are realistic:
-Operation Flashpoint
-ARMA Armed Assault
-GRAW2 (for PC, not the XBOX360 or PS3 versions)
-BlackFoot Studio Productions

[xoops]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If you want a realistic view of tactical combat, join the damn military and quit barking about how a GAME should be realistic. Games are called games because games are meant to be fun. This isn't the 90's anymore and those types of tactical shooters (like old rainbows) are not what the video game society wants. To the few of you that still want that, I apoligize, but it aint coming back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW! This post is so lame, so wrong and so useless that it's not even worth the time to bother with it.

[showtimederek]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xoops:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If you want a realistic view of tactical combat, join the damn military and quit barking about how a GAME should be realistic. Games are called games because games are meant to be fun. This isn't the 90's anymore and those types of tactical shooters (like old rainbows) are not what the video game society wants. To the few of you that still want that, I apoligize, but it aint coming back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW! This post is so lame, so wrong and so useless that it's not even worth the time to bother with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yet you still did take the time to bother. Im on the fanboy boat and enjoyin it while you whiners piss and moan about it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neilthecellist:
WRONG.

Titles that are realistic:
-Operation Flashpoint
-ARMA Armed Assault
-GRAW2 (for PC, not the XBOX360 or PS3 versions)
-BlackFoot Studio Productions </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If those titles are so realistic, then go play with the other only 400 people or so online playing them. Theres a reason why they arent at the top of the list for Xbox LIVE activity.

[GSG_9_Rage]

Because they are so old and they aren't the flavor of the month type games. Those games were made to last. I assure you that those games will prevail all of the mainstream games that are coming out.

[neilthecellist]

Damn, GSG 9 beat me to that post.

I was about to say, realistic games are NOT meant to be super-uber popular. You're right, there IS a reason why those games aren't on the top of the list for XBOX Live. It's because they're not even PC games! (The PC version of GRAW2 is completely different from the console versions by the way, it's COMPLETELY tactical, leaning, only first person, if your teammate dies, he stays dead, can't have him next level, NO MEDICS, etc etc)

For example, when Raven Shield was released, everyone went to buy Raven Shield. Did Ubisoft earn their share of money? Yes. Did the players all go online at the same time? No.

You obviously can't play Raven Shield for as long as you would play, say, Halo3/CoD4/Vegas. The latter games are designed as fast-action shooters, whereas a game like Raven Shield requires some mental foresight as to how you are going to execute a tactical plan, what weapons you'll need on a mission, should you have a sniper in place, a demo team, etc.

Besides, regardless of those "400 other people" playing the game, I still have my right to discuss problems that need immediate attention by Ubisoft, to talk about the game, to talk about technical difficulties, etc etc.

Finally, I'd like to close off this section of the post by saying: It's bad enough that Vegas 2 has so many problems, but it's worse when people come along and say, "Look, it's just a game, get over it!"

====

This thread is about next-generation stuff. Games in this day and age are expected to run on high-resolution/high-end engine renderers. In this case, Unreal Engine 3. But let's pretend that didn't exist for now. Have you ever seen Resistance: Fall of Man? That's a next-gen game, it doesn't use Unreal Engine 3.

Have you seen Call of Duty 4? Arcadey and whatnot, but that's not the point. There's displacement/bump mapping in that game, which is congruent to our current time period.

When we go back to our discussion of Vegas 2 being a game of the "next" generation, one needs to realize that Ubisoft has NEVER upgraded their graphics of any sort.

If you've taken a game design class (like other people on this forum, myself included) you would realize that the only thing Ubisoft changed from Raven Shield...---&gt;Lockdown...--&gt; to Vegas is HDR, and a few camera tricks, such as motion blur and eye adaptation effects. These are not specific to Unreal Engine 3 (coming back to this discussion). Unreal Engine 2 (Raven Shield) and Unreal Engine 2.5 (Lockdown/Critical Hour) supported these features. (Granted, Red Storm didn't use HDR in Raven Shield despite the availiabity of the feature at the time, probably because most video cards wouldn't be able to run it decently)

No displacement (aka parallex-mapping) or any normal mapping at all. What does that mean? It means that when you look at the surface of a wall, it looks flat. If you look at the headlights of a car, it looks like the light was painted onto the car, it doesn't actually LOOK like a light, with the grills pointing out of the car.

In fact, the only evidence of parallex/displacement/normal mapping in Vegas 1/Vegas 2 is on character models, and even then, such Unreal Engine 3-specific features are only applied to people's arms and legs. Body shows no evidence of parallex/displacement/normal mapping.

Lastly, before you decide to hark in reply, "Well, displacement mapping probably wouldn't run very well on my XBOX/PS3!", please look at the following:

Bioshock had displacement mapping. 60 FPS. (XBOX)
Mass Effect had it too. 60 FPS. (XBOX)
Unreal Tournament 3 had it. 80 FPS (on my computer)
Resistance Fall of Man (not UE3 powered, but still 60 FPS)
FEAR (old old game, but it had parallex mapping)
Halo 3 (believe it or not, Halo 3 had at least normal mapping applied to all textures)

And... When the time comes to look at Vegas 2...

No displacement mapping. Ugly textures. Yet texture resolutions are for some reason around 4096. Rationale? Bad game design.
Shotty performance. (Like 15-27 FPS sometimes).

Ok I'm done.


*NOTE: I'm not sure about Resistance not running on Unreal Engine 3, but I'm too lazy to check at the moment, have to take care of my mother right now (she's currently ill)

[showtimederek]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neilthecellist:
Damn, GSG 9 beat me to that post.

I was about to say, realistic games are NOT meant to be super-uber popular.

For example, when Raven Shield was released, everyone went to buy Raven Shield. Did Ubisoft earn their share of money? Yes. Did the players all go online at the same time? No.

You obviously can't play Raven Shield for as long as you would play, say, Halo3/CoD4/Vegas. The latter games are designed as fast-action shooters, whereas a game like Raven Shield requires some mental foresight as to how you are going to execute a tactical plan, what weapons you'll need on a mission, should you have a sniper in place, a demo team, etc.

Besides, regardless of those "400 other people" playing the game, I still have my right to discuss problems that need immediate attention by Ubisoft, to talk about the game, to talk about technical difficulties, etc etc.

Finally, I'd like to close off this section of the post by saying: It's bad enough that Vegas 2 has so many problems, but it's worse when people come along and say, "Look, it's just a game, get over it!"

====

This thread is about next-generation stuff. Games in this day and age are expected to run on high-resolution/high-end engine renderers. In this case, Unreal Engine 3. But let's pretend that didn't exist for now. Have you ever seen Resistance: Fall of Man? That's a next-gen game, it doesn't use Unreal Engine 3.

Have you seen Call of Duty 4? Arcadey and whatnot, but that's not the point. There's displacement/bump mapping in that game, which is congruent to our current time period.

When we go back to our discussion of Vegas 2 being a game of the "next" generation, one needs to realize that Ubisoft has NEVER upgraded their graphics of any sort.

If you've taken a game design class (like other people on this forum, myself included) you would realize that the only thing Ubisoft changed from Raven Shield...---&gt;Lockdown...--&gt; to Vegas is HDR, and a few camera tricks, such as motion blur and eye adaptation effects. These are not specific to Unreal Engine 3 (coming back to this discussion). Unreal Engine 2 (Raven Shield) and Unreal Engine 2.5 (Lockdown/Critical Hour) supported these features. (Granted, Red Storm didn't use HDR in Raven Shield despite the availiabity of the feature at the time, probably because most video cards wouldn't be able to run it decently)

No displacement (aka parallex-mapping) or any normal mapping at all. What does that mean? It means that when you look at the surface of a wall, it looks flat. If you look at the headlights of a car, it looks like the light was painted onto the car, it doesn't actually LOOK like a light, with the grills pointing out of the car.

In fact, the only evidence of parallex/displacement/normal mapping in Vegas 1/Vegas 2 is on character models, and even then, such Unreal Engine 3-specific features are only applied to people's arms and legs. Body shows no evidence of parallex/displacement/normal mapping.

Lastly, before you decide to hark in reply, "Well, displacement mapping probably wouldn't run very well on my XBOX/PS3!", please look at the following:

Bioshock had displacement mapping. 60 FPS. (XBOX)
Mass Effect had it too. 60 FPS. (XBOX)
Unreal Tournament 3 had it. 80 FPS (on my computer)
Resistance Fall of Man (not UE3 powered, but still 60 FPS)
FEAR (old old game, but it had parallex mapping)
Halo 3 (believe it or not, Halo 3 had at least normal mapping applied to all textures)

Ok I'm done.


*NOTE: I'm not sure about Resistance not running on Unreal Engine 3, but I'm too lazy to check at the moment, have to take care of my mother right now (she's currently ill) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nice.

[WhiteKnight77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neilthecellist:
No, because the past gen did it right.

@WhiteKnight77: Sorry bro, but you're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six_3:_Raven_Shield

Red Storm Entertainment developed it (you can check on their company website too if you don't believe me)

Ubisoft PUBLISHED the game. Publishing is not the same as developing a game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I am not wrong. While RSE did do a few things, primary development of Raven Shield was at Ubi Montreal. This has been known since word first went around and was talked about at Aggression (from alt.games.rainbow-six newsgroup). The one studio I follow is RSE (now Blackfoot Studios that one former RSE dev owns and another worked at for a time) and know the games that they developed.

I even had my doubts about Ubi using the Unreal engine for RvS and was right. Problems and such from the get go and gamers complaining about the bugs that ubi took forever and 6 patches to fix (even if not completely fixed).

I don't play many games, I have a core of about 4 that I do and only one isn't an RSE game that I play regularly. Heck, I only own about 50 games if that and that is over the past 8 years.

[CyberCam]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrZ0001:
Do you really even care? It's a grenade throw! So what if it isn't 100% realistic, at least he knows where to throw it. This is a reminder, a distinction between games and the real world. Don't get them more confused than you already have. Don't take every little detail of a game so seriously, it's not the end of the world if his grenade throw isn't EXACTLY how you wanted it. I don't even care to look for dumb stuff like this.

Lets say your teammate does this throw perfectly as you invisioned it. Where is the challenge in that? The CPU is not supposed to be a perfect robot, it's supposed to be truly realistic. Real people screw up. Real people aren't perfect. If your allies' AI was perfect, they would never get hurt/die which would make the game pointless! You could hide behind a wall and keep ordering them around. The team is meant to support the main char and not be the entire game. They aren't supposed to be perfectly flawless, it would eliminate a good challenge. What would that be? Reviving your AI teammate in the middle of open fire, very difficult on higher difficulties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^^ This is one of UBI's new target customers xoops was talking about. Notice how he doesn't have a single clue.

Did you even bother to read the OP? Do you know what Rainbow Six is? No, you obviously don't.

Rainbow Six is an elite counter terrorist unit. You'd expect a character that's supposedly an elite soldier NOT to do stupid things like stand out in the open when shooting or throwing a grenade. We aren't talking about AI here. We're talking about a player's character, who's supposed to be an extremely well trained soldier, leaving their cover to throw a grenade. Hell an elite CT soldier controlled by AI shouldn't do it either. The characters in this game are constantly putting themselves in ridiculously dangerous positions and using ******ed techniques like the back to the wall cover system which make the notion of them being highly trained elite CT operatives completely unbelievable even for a second.

From the very first time you see your character press his back up against a wall and swinging out into a doorway you know that he can't possibly be an elite soldier, and the game's concept breaks. No soldier in their right mind would do something like that. Especially not an elite one!

I find it funny that even when they're joking around soldiers don't put their backs against the wall Vegas syle. Military room cleaning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R89vhiua35A

It's a joke, and not one of them does any of the stupid things that happen in the game. I can't imagine them doing it when they're serious.

Vegas, a game about elite counter terrorist soldiers? I think not!

Vegas is a joke, seriously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Priceless video btw... I too am a huge fan of the original R6 and R6:Rogue Spear which could definitely call itself a tactical sim combat shooter. You're right R6V2 is a joke! They should remove the words "Tactical Shooter" for the box!!!

[neilthecellist]

Someone needs to edit the Wiki article for Raven Shield then. Looks like I've been under the wrong impression for 4 years now. Sorry.

[LethalDose09]

It's a "tactical" first person shooter. Each game is different. There's always is going to be something you don't like. But blaming a generation of video games on a grenade toss. Maybe you should find another hobby because if you are getting mad about a grenade toss. Video games are going to be a huge disappointment for you.There's a reason why they call it tactical. You have to strategically play so you don't get eliminated. Maybe you didn't understand that part. Maybe this is the next gen for our human rase. Never happy with anything... Not even a grenade toss.

[ecstatic_veggie]

How many more times are we going to beat the dead horse on these meaningless debates?

But good looking out on the graphics issue neilthechellist, quite informative.

[VeryFluffy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by neilthecellist:
Mass Effect had it too. 60 FPS. (XBOX) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just have to write a quick reply to that... there's no chance in heck Mass Effect ran at 60fps. At the very best the framerate was 30... most of the time it seemed to struggled around 15-20. I know that pretty well as I'm fanatical about framerates and I got constantly annoyed by the low framerate in that game.

Also, I'm fairly sure Vegas 2 has some amount of bump mapping. The characters's clothing definitely looks like it has normal mapping. And I've seen a good deal of textures which had some kind of shaders or bumpmapping.

Personally though, I don't really care. I think the game looks good enough, and when sitting down to play I don't really notice if the graphics are good or bad. I'd personally accept worse graphics if it would mean a constant 60fps.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LethalDose09:
It's a "tactical" first person shooter. Each game is different. There's always is going to be something you don't like. But blaming a generation of video games on a grenade toss. Maybe you should find another hobby because if you are getting mad about a grenade toss. Video games are going to be a huge disappointment for you.There's a reason why they call it tactical. You have to strategically play so you don't get eliminated. Maybe you didn't understand that part. Maybe this is the next gen for our human rase. Never happy with anything... Not even a grenade toss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No you don't. You can run around like you do in Halo and spam grenades. The mere fact that you CAN and that people DO run and gun make takes the game out of the tactical genre.

Maybe that's what YOU don't understand.

A tactical shooter FORCES people to play tactically. I can simulate tactics in Halo. Does that make Halo a tactical shooter? No. Because I can still run and gun, and in fact most people do.

Anyways that doesn't change the fact that Rainbow Six is supposed to be a game based on elite soldiers. Meaning stuff that happens in the game are things that a REAL elite soldier would do. No REAL elite soldier would throw a grenade like they do in Vegas or use cover like they do in Vegas, so it shouldn't be in the game. So no we aren't happy that it IS in the game.

[LethalDose09]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

No you don't. You can run around like you do in Halo and spam grenades. The mere fact that you CAN and that people DO run and gun make takes the game out of the tactical genre.

Maybe that's what YOU don't understand.

A tactical shooter FORCES people to play tactically. I can simulate tactics in Halo. Does that make Halo a tactical shooter? No. Because I can still run and gun, and in fact most people do.

Anyways that doesn't change the fact that Rainbow Six is supposed to be a game based on elite soldiers. Meaning stuff that happens in the game are things that a REAL elite soldier would do. No REAL elite soldier would throw a grenade like they do in Vegas or use cover like they do in Vegas, so it shouldn't be in the game. So no we aren't happy that it IS in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never happy with anything? Your just about as stubborn as I am. Terror Hunt is like chess. You don't want to move to fast, unless you know what your opponent is going to do (the easy kills once you start the game). Once you have killed them you have to think where are they going to come from? I could go on. But I really don't have the patience to explain everything to you. I hope you get the just though. But the campaign and versus are a totally deferent game play. Online is run and gun and the campaign is campaign.

Have you ever played Socom? There similarities are relentless. You have A.I that follow all through the game to do certain objectives in campaign. The online game play is almost the same (both basically run and gun). Socom doesn't have a terror hunt. Socom is one of the best team tactical games I have ever played.

I'm sorry I just probably wasted your time. It's not that I am wrong or Dex is wrong. We just have separate opinions and that's perfectly fine. In the first reply I shouldn't have been so hostile.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LethalDose09:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

No you don't. You can run around like you do in Halo and spam grenades. The mere fact that you CAN and that people DO run and gun make takes the game out of the tactical genre.

Maybe that's what YOU don't understand.

A tactical shooter FORCES people to play tactically. I can simulate tactics in Halo. Does that make Halo a tactical shooter? No. Because I can still run and gun, and in fact most people do.

Anyways that doesn't change the fact that Rainbow Six is supposed to be a game based on elite soldiers. Meaning stuff that happens in the game are things that a REAL elite soldier would do. No REAL elite soldier would throw a grenade like they do in Vegas or use cover like they do in Vegas, so it shouldn't be in the game. So no we aren't happy that it IS in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never happy with anything? Your just about as stubborn as I am. Terror Hunt is like chess. You don't want to move to fast, unless you know what your opponent is going to do (the easy kills once you start the game). Once you have killed them you have to think where are they going to come from? I could go on. But I really don't have the patience to explain everything to you. I hope you get the just though. But the campaign and versus are a totally deferent game play. Online is run and gun and the campaign is campaign.

Have you ever played Socom? There similarities are relentless. You have A.I that follow all through the game to do certain objectives in campaign. The online game play is almost the same (both basically run and gun). Socom doesn't have a terror hunt. Socom is one of the best team tactical games I have ever played.

I'm sorry I just probably wasted your time. It's not that I am wrong or Dex is wrong. We just have separate opinions and that's perfectly fine. In the first reply I shouldn't have been so hostile. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't base whether a game is tactical or not solely on Terrorist hunt. T-hunt is only tactical because of the messed up spawning. If you're not slow they'll spawn beside you/behind you and shoot you in the face. Even when you are slow they do it anyways, but that's a different story.

Versus and the Story Mode aren't tactical.

[neilthecellist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LethalDose09:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

No you don't. You can run around like you do in Halo and spam grenades. The mere fact that you CAN and that people DO run and gun make takes the game out of the tactical genre.

Maybe that's what YOU don't understand.

A tactical shooter FORCES people to play tactically. I can simulate tactics in Halo. Does that make Halo a tactical shooter? No. Because I can still run and gun, and in fact most people do.

Anyways that doesn't change the fact that Rainbow Six is supposed to be a game based on elite soldiers. Meaning stuff that happens in the game are things that a REAL elite soldier would do. No REAL elite soldier would throw a grenade like they do in Vegas or use cover like they do in Vegas, so it shouldn't be in the game. So no we aren't happy that it IS in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never happy with anything? Your just about as stubborn as I am. Terror Hunt is like chess. You don't want to move to fast, unless you know what your opponent is going to do (the easy kills once you start the game). Once you have killed them you have to think where are they going to come from? I could go on. But I really don't have the patience to explain everything to you. I hope you get the just though. But the campaign and versus are a totally deferent game play. Online is run and gun and the campaign is campaign.

Have you ever played Socom? There similarities are relentless. You have A.I that follow all through the game to do certain objectives in campaign. The online game play is almost the same (both basically run and gun). Socom doesn't have a terror hunt. Socom is one of the best team tactical games I have ever played.

I'm sorry I just probably wasted your time. It's not that I am wrong or Dex is wrong. We just have separate opinions and that's perfectly fine. In the first reply I shouldn't have been so hostile. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't base a game off of ONE of its playability modes.

EDIT: Oops, someone beat me to that post already.

Ok, look, the game isn't tactical. Until you've played Raven Shield, or any other tactical titles (such as GRAW2 for PC, not the XBOX/PS3 versions... also try SWAT 3 and 4, Operation Flashpoint, and Armed Assault. Very nice titles. And very tactical. And very fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif), you really shouldn't declare Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 as a tactical shooter. Plus, all tactical shooters NEVER place the player in a "lone wolf" position, as Vegas 1 did in its Terrorist Hunt mode, as well as Vegas 2 did (in the Nevada Desert as well as the last level). Operation Flashpoint did it one level and got bad remarks from beta testers, and so in the final game the lone wolf level only lasted 2 minutes (you bumped into friendly rebels after that). (Also, during those 2 minutes there are only 2 enemies you have to take out, and technically you could just ignore them by using camouflage in the forest).

EDIT 2: Also, your argument fails about multiplayer being multiplayer, campaign being campaign. Raven Shield's multiplayer aspect and its campaign aspect were highly similar. Terrorist Hunt in either modes allowed AI teammates to act as well (sometimes better/sometimes worse) as human teammates. The human player could throw grenades just like an AI player, could shoot just like an AI player, could lean like the AI player, etc etc.

Also, the multiplayer aspect in itself didn't allow for "player to kill other player." Tactical games usually don't allow that. SWAT 3 and 4 didn't. Armed Assault had it, but since all the maps were large-scale, dying/respawning and trying to find someone to kill made Deathmatch mode... well, let's see unfavorable. People still preferred/prefer the RavenShield style "multiplayer" mode.

Ok, maybe you want to argue that GRAW 2 for PC was one exception. In GRAW2 for PC, there was also deathmatch mode. But remember, tactical games FORCE people to play tactically. So you can't just run around in the open like it's done in Vegas 2, and taking cover behind a smart place actually works (e.g. a place where no one can "flush you out" with a grenade, like so). There wasn't a "third person" cover system (as done in the console versions of GRAW2), and overall: commanding, shooting, backing up, grenading, etc etc in multiplayer was much smoother and much more satisfying than it is in Vegas 2.

It seems that this discussion has clearly moved away from simple grenade throw discrepancies among players. You're right, a grenade throw is a grenade throw. But a grenade throw, like a well-placed shot to the head, is done improperly and merits the notion of players coming here to these forums to discuss it.

Phew, I'm done, at least this post wasn't as long as the other one I made on this thread.

I'm still disappointed at whoever was the texture artist for this game, though. Clearly they have no idea how to use Diffuse/Emissive/Displacement/Specular properties in the Unreal Editor.

[TheNinjaboy]

Raven Shield (for quiet a long period of time) was one of the most popular FPS games period. While it never surpassed Counter-Strike in players online at once it was in the top 5 for months and months and months after its initial release.

RvS is still widely popular even after the Lockdown and Vegas 1 debacles.

RvS without question is in the top 10 PC FPS shooters of all time in terms of purchased copies, online players, market exposure, and probably the most popular/mainstream PC TACTICAL shooter of all time. Ghost Recon did have a pretty good run when it was released as well but the multiplayer support was lacking.

It really wouldn't take a whole lot to make the Rainbow Six "right" again. Most people would surprised how popular the "tactical" shooter genre would be in the mainstream market.

Investors and people are just scared to invest a lot of time and money in development of R6 original type titles because it doesn't fit the counter-strike 14 year old gamer model that is typical of selling millions of copies.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheNinjaboy:
Investors and people are just scared to invest a lot of time and money in development of R6 original type titles because it doesn't fit the counter-strike 14 year old gamer model that is typical of selling millions of copies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't blame this on investors. As I'm sure any investor in video games knows that angry fans hurts your investment in the long run. I chalk this up to bad management. The Management are probably not gamers, and probably don't play or visit these forums at all. If they were gamers and played these games, it would take them all of 5 minutes before they encountered their first bug and saw how annoying they were. You could bet that it would change a hell of a lot more quickly than it is now, and the same bug probably wouldn't find it's way into the next game.

[neilthecellist]

Yes, bad management indeed.

Take the mod, HaloUT for instance, a popular mod back-in-the-days of Unreal Tournament 2004.

The day the mod was released, about 75 people pointed out a bug in one of the vehicles that prevented players, once entered the tank, to be unable to leave it.

The bug was fixed and a patch was released THE DAY IMMEDIATELY AFTER.

HaloUT at the time consisted of 9 devs. ONLY NINE DEVS.

[LethalDose09]

It's still a team tactical to me. If it's classified as one on websites and magazines. It doesn't matter how much you don't think it is. It will still be a team tactical. You guys aren't going to change my mind and I'm tired of repeating myself.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LethalDose09:
It's still a team tactical to me. If it's classified as one on websites and magazines. It doesn't matter how much you don't think it is. It will still be a team tactical. You guys aren't going to change my mind and I'm tired of repeating myself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow. Great logic there. "If it says so on a website or magazine, then it's true and you can't deny it." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'm guessing you haven't played anything past T-hunt.

Play the game, forget what the magazines say (they're paid to say it anyways), and form your own opinion.

Play some versus, get shot by some dude with no armor running down the hall with an auto-shotty, and then tell me it's a tactical game.

It's as tactical as Halo is.

[Failed_x]

i blame the mexicans for all of this

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[neilthecellist]

LethalDose09, have you learned what logical fallacies are?

What you just demonstrated is ad hominem fail-logic (you learn this in logic courses, usually in the first year of college). That means, "If X is true, Y, Z, and everything else has to be true!".

No. If a magazine says that Vegas 2 is a great game, and I disagree, I CAN disagree.

If a magazine says that Vegas 2 is a tactical shooter, I can disagree with that.

Play through the campaign, and when you get to the Nevada Desert chapter, you'll understand why the game isn't tactical.

Oh, and at the end of the game.

Logan: Bishop! I'll cover you!"
Bishop: NO! I NEED TO DO THIS ALONE!

*big giant helicopter attacks Bishop*

Bishop: DIE!!!!!!

You call THAT tactical?

[LethalDose09]

Did you read what I just said? <span class="ev_code_red">[FLAME REMOVED]</span> Yet again, get some people skills...

What a big spoiler... Some how I already knew that...

The story behind the game has nothing to do if it's tactical or not. It's the game play during. I don't even need a college degree to figure that out. What are they teaching you?

I understand that you have an opinion. You are right! It does count. Maybe I should have rephrased what I said so your college brain could handle it..

It's my opinion! Hate it or not. Your not going to change my mind. I still think Rainbow is a tactical shooter. The campaign supports my opinion. All the other modes just make the game more re-playable. Like I said I'm tired of repeating my self so stop arguing with my opinion.

I could've went to University. But me and my family couldn't afford it.

[DrZ0001]

Cam, Dex, WhiteKnight, 1 word. STFU. I do know wtf Rainbow 6 is, ******. Should I point out all the HUGE screw ups game characters have had? Gabe open firing when told not to, Bishop makes a somewhat bad call not going for the van with the chemical weapons in it, you are the one who does not obviously get that this is such a minor flaw, that it should not be cared about. Yes, the fictional Rainbow group is supposed to be very highly trained. Obviously, every group has it's flaws, they are not perfect! People in groups like this screw up once in a while, they are never flawless. And wtf is up with ppl accusing me of being too young? I mean sheesh, people think age means everything. I'm not some brainless 5 year old, moron. Ageism, I hate it. People think that young people are ******s, that old people can't drive, I mean dude, come on. Don't discriminate. Besides, if you're older than me, which would be college and up, and you're still playing video games this much and talking this in depth on forums, then you should relook at your life, man. Video games aren't life (I dunno about that for you). Bottom line, don't care about a grenade throw, and it isn't always perfect!

Gabe is a supposed "elite" member of Rainbow, and he messes up. Bishop is the new executive director, and he screws up. I mean jesus, they are supposed to be more realistic, more human. Not a perfect robot.

BTW, why did you say a player's character for a grenade throw? You don't control how you throw the grenade, you control where, when, and what kind. So we ARE talking about AI here.

Back to the wall is not a stupid tactic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_and_clear

Talks about all types of clearing methods used in US military practice. Now, what do you get up against in doing this? WALLS! Putting your back up against the wall offers a useful type of cover, so you aren't standing out in the line of fire giving an open shot to your enemies.

[WhiteKnight77]

I don't know who you are or what age you are nor do I care. If you bothered to read, I don't own Vegas or Vegas 2 and I won't. As far as I am concerned, it is not a Rainbow Six game, but a clone of all the other games on the market. After trying out the XBox version of Lockdown, I knew then that R6 was no longer R6. What you have now is an interactive movie and not a game that will win awards.

The only thing I care about is stopping Ubi from making mediocre games with the name of a game that was unlike any other and remains so to this day. Ubi's storylines are what stinks and having an elite team make mistakes was not what Rainbow ever did (even though in the book, Homer said he did when he shot a weapon out of a terrorists hands). Notice that this game is no longer about hostage rescue or even planting bugs, it is just killing anything that moves with a boss fight at the end. Yeah, Rainbow, elite counterterrorists have a boss fight. Get a grip.

If you think video games are just for kids, then you better think again. I know that most devs are not kids and enjoy playing the games they make (along with others) themselves. For them video games are their life and if it weren't for them, you wouldn't have any to play. Unfortunately, kids like you can't use their heads long enough to think past the next enemy they have to kill and fat cat publishers just love kids like you as they can't think long enough either and are just waiting to spend your parents hard earned money on the next "great" game that they put out for unknowing souls like you.

I also wouldn't trust Wikipedia for things such as breeching and entering unlike a Green Beret instructor I know repeatedly talked about and did.

[GSG_9_Rage]

You NEVER put your back against the wall. You always FACE the area in which you are going to go. Look at my post a few pages back:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GSG_9_Rage:
I posted this in another thread:


http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4033/stackcl2.jpg

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3465/150906swatjq3.jpg

See how they don't have their backs to the wall? See how they are facing the door?

Unlike this:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2596/vegasta9.png

Look! Logan's gun is pointed to the ceiling! Not in any form of ready position! That can be very deadly in a situation like that.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2831/vegas2nx5.png

Now look at the photo above. That would be fine if Logan was going to be firing ahead of him or towards his left (his weapon should be shouldered). But he is in no position to fire down that alleyway there.

Look at this man, below. Does he have his back to that pillar to take "cover?" No. He is facing the direction in which he is ready to fire in.

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/882/04fu8.jpg

It is just like throwing a football. you need to be facing the direction in which you are going to fire. And when you are in a hostile area, you have to be ready for anything to happen. You don't have the time to turn around, especially against a wall like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP-s_b9r0tg&NR=1

A very good video about room clearing.

This one too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82U9ybCnZdM&feature=related </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[DrZ0001]

Ah, a wikipedia debate. Wikipedia has been proven 99.9% accurate with their articles in comparison to the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Wiki's articles are twice in length, but have the same accuracy. I can guarantee you Wiki can be trusted for general information, which is what I was looking for. In comparison to a Green Beret, however, it isn't. Still, I was looking at those pictures, and the men in them still had their backs facing the walls! Just had their bodies tilted to the area they plan to cover/fire upon instead of directly against the wall.

Stopping Ubi from making mediocre games. So basically, you want to put your opinion above everyone elses and be the deciding factor in what's what. Leave that to Ubi, and you can keep complaining if you want.

You don't own Rainbow 6 or the second one, because you think that they are clones of every game on the market. So you don't own them. How can you know if you don't at least give it a shot? Ex. You can talk about a movie all you want, but you don't truly know what you thought you did until you see it.

"I don't know who you are or what age you are nor do I care." Sorry about the mix up here. I was also directing this post to Cam and Dex, as they specifically mentioned this. I should have made this part about caring about my age so it did not include your name in any way. Sorry.

"Kids like you can't use their heads long enough to think past the next enemy they have to kill..."
Yet at the same time, after claiming you don't care about my age, you assume I can't think because of it! So many people go back on prior statements and don't even realize it. At least say I disagree with my former statement or something so I don't go around assuming you did this and make some stupid mix up. Hypocritical statements amuse me.

I play SOCOM tactical strike (PSP). I do think past the first enemy, because 1 movement can throw off my entire plan. I'm usually thinking about 3 or 4 enemies (on this one level, about 10-15!) ahead of time. And just like R6 Lockdown predecesors, you must focus on placement (yours and enemies), your timing and details of your commands, etc. Lol about using my parents hard earned money. I work, k? I get payed, I'm using my hard earned money, not my Dad's. Back on topic about gaming and not my personal life...

Yes, R6 is not like its predecessors. So? Games change. If you don't like it, then fine, I don't care. But if you are not even involved with the new games and their new changes, then don't go talking about them as if you are. Deal with things that involve you. Some people prefer strategy over fast paced combat, and vice-versa. I enjoy R6 because of the fact it mixes both.
So it's not entirely like the past games. So that makes you upset, it seems. So the game is more what the general people want, not what you want. Feel free to disagree, but don't force your opinions upon others. Stopping Ubisoft from making "mediocre" games is doing this exact action to Ubisoft and its customers. The general population who wanted R6V2 did not want a Lockdown-type game, so they made it the way people wanted it. That's the way things work, people make what people want, not what they want.

[DrZ0001]

No offense, rage, but youtube? People complain about me using wikipedia (which is ridiculously accurate as mentioned before) but no complaints about youtube. In my opinion, I would trust a legitimate online encyclopedia over a video site with videos of girls beating the heck out of their friends or some Hillary Clinton parodies or some porn. Youtube videos are worse because 1. it requires no citations of info 2. completely open to the public for posting (well, if you're a member, which is easy to become) and many other reasons. Youtube vids have all these nasty lies and a lot of racism in them, but there is not a mod telling the poster to edit it or correct it or delete it. Wiki has mods on 24/7, all who are very well educated (far more than a youtube mod) who go around checking information for accuracy, making sure it is unbiased, etc. They specifically label questionable articles and such, so the reader knows when and when not to completely trust the information they read on wiki.

Youtube is distrusted because of these facts. Yes, some videos are legitimate and accurate, but many are false, opinionated, biased, etc. Wiki has a somewhat similar problem on a lot smaller scale, which is why both are somewhat distrusted. Of course, this forum is not my life, I'm not going to go look all this up in an encyclopedia just to prove a point. So I use Wiki for general information, trusted information.

Sorry for the off topic ramble about internet information and what not. Back to R6

[silentstriderm]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrZ0001:
Still, I was looking at those pictures, and the men in them still had their backs facing the walls! Just had their bodies tilted to the area they plan to cover/fire upon instead of directly against the wall.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not the fact that their backs are pressed up against a wall, it is the fact that they don't have their backs to a wall in an open area. They have all of their fields of fire covered and wouldn't lean out, opening themselves up to enemy fire, to take a shot at someone that they can't see because they don't have a 3rd person camera.

Also, I don't know why you are comparing youtube to wikipedia or any other online encyclopedia. Rage didn't link to a video with... How did you put it? "videos of girls beating the heck out of their friends or some Hillary Clinton parodies or some porn"... he linked to a video of a training exercise. Neither site is peer reviewed and thus not "legitimate."

[GSG_9_Rage]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrZ0001:
No offense, rage, but youtube? People complain about me using wikipedia (which is ridiculously accurate as mentioned before) but no complaints about youtube. In my opinion, I would trust a legitimate online encyclopedia over a video site with videos of girls beating the heck out of their friends or some Hillary Clinton parodies or some porn. Youtube videos are worse because 1. it requires no citations of info 2. completely open to the public for posting (well, if you're a member, which is easy to become) and many other reasons. Youtube vids have all these nasty lies and a lot of racism in them, but there is not a mod telling the poster to edit it or correct it or delete it. Wiki has mods on 24/7, all who are very well educated (far more than a youtube mod) who go around checking information for accuracy, making sure it is unbiased, etc. They specifically label questionable articles and such, so the reader knows when and when not to completely trust the information they read on wiki.

Youtube is distrusted because of these facts. Yes, some videos are legitimate and accurate, but many are false, opinionated, biased, etc. Wiki has a somewhat similar problem on a lot smaller scale, which is why both are somewhat distrusted. Of course, this forum is not my life, I'm not going to go look all this up in an encyclopedia just to prove a point. So I use Wiki for general information, trusted information.

Sorry for the off topic ramble about internet information and what not. Back to R6 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone can edit any information in Wikipedia, FYI. Not everything is accurate.

So what there are sketchy videos on YouTube. The first video that was taken were of the actual US Army. This video was taken from television. Besides. Those videos were provided as a visual aid to the information I presented. You are trying to use other videos on YouTube to refute my argument. That means that you have no valid argument against the information that I presented in my post.

[WhiteKnight77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrZ0001:
You don't own Rainbow 6 or the second one, because you think that they are clones of every game on the market. So you don't own them. How can you know if you don't at least give it a shot? Ex. You can talk about a movie all you want, but you don't truly know what you thought you did until you see it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I actually do own Rainbow Six and the second R6 game, Rogue Spear and the expansion packs for both games as well as the stand alone games that followed on that could be used with Rogue Spear/Urban Ops as mods (Covert Operations and Black Thorn). Everything comes together in one box (except BT) when you buy the Rainbow Six Collectors Edition. I also own Raven Shield (the third game in the R6 series). What I do not own are Lockdown, Vegas or Vegas 2. Notice I didn't use Rainbow Six in the names. I don't think of them as R6 games as they are missing many of the elements that make a true R6 game (I am not the only one who thinks this way).

I know that they are like other games cookie cutter games due to others I trust who have tried them. I even tried LD on a XBox and saw it for myself. When I read about people having to kill a helicopter at the end of the game, it sounds just like the boss fights I had in Duke Nukem (yeah, an older game yet).

As for strategy, show me your planned takedown of the terrorists to rescue the hostage and what waypoints you set. I am curious about that.

[DexLuther]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DrZ0001:
You don't own Rainbow 6 or the second one, because you think that they are clones of every game on the market. So you don't own them. How can you know if you don't at least give it a shot? Ex. You can talk about a movie all you want, but you don't truly know what you thought you did until you see it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I actually do own Rainbow Six and the second R6 game, Rogue Spear and the expansion packs for both games as well as the stand alone games that followed on that could be used with Rogue Spear/Urban Ops as mods (Covert Operations and Black Thorn). Everything comes together in one box (except BT) when you buy the Rainbow Six Collectors Edition. I also own Raven Shield (the third game in the R6 series). What I do not own are Lockdown, Vegas or Vegas 2. Notice I didn't use Rainbow Six in the names. I don't think of them as R6 games as they are missing many of the elements that make a true R6 game (I am not the only one who thinks this way).

I know that they are like other games cookie cutter games due to others I trust who have tried them. I even tried LD on a XBox and saw it for myself. When I read about people having to kill a helicopter at the end of the game, it sounds just like the boss fights I had in Duke Nukem (yeah, an older game yet).

As for strategy, show me your planned takedown of the terrorists to rescue the hostage and what waypoints you set. I am curious about that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Way points aren't always necessary to have strategy or tactics. SWAT 4 doesn't have waypoints as I recall, but it still played a lot closer to the way R6 played back in the day than how today's games play out.

[D4rk50ul808]

Well Duke Nukem was a fun game, and had features way ahead of its time. I own every R6 game INCLUDING Lockdown/Critical Hour, and BOTH Vegas titles. You can almost follow the demise of the franchise from the 1st to last title released. Sure people will say the game changed deal with it. The point everyone who was a fan is trying to make is, we already have 50 other titles to play if we want R'N'G frag fests. We don't buy Clancy games or R6 in particular for that. R6 and Ghost Recon were the last options for a tactical type game, and an escape from the Halo players invading.

I remember when Lockdown came out, I loved R63 so I was all excited. I played the game for about 10 minutes before I realized what had happened. I switched to Ghost Recon 2 and Summit Strike. Now after spending $300 on Halo3, COD4, GOW, and 2 Vegas titles, I'm back to playing GRAW2 because it has SOME tactical play involved and people are still online. The only difference between the above games is minor control changes, different graphics, and different locales. They ALL encourage the same type of play. CO-OP is also one of my favorite things to do, and games a quickly phasing that out as well.

Some people don't want to listen to a room full of people complain about glitchers, trash talk constantly, and ask to "achievement" boost. I miss jumping into a game and finding normal people just having fun. I feel like MS has turned the entire Xbox 360 into a game of Pokemon. Gotta get all those achievements no matter how you do it, nothing else matters. Hell I bet if they made a game that was Atari 2600 quality, but had 10,000 achievement points people would buy it.

Vegas 2 is $60 for Vegas 1 with 1000 new achievement points. Same type of players that ruined Halo 3 boosting, are here trying for their next 1000 points to earn some kind of "Online Cred". I get booted out of games because people are so worried about winning they can't even have fun anymore. Out of 10 games online, 6 will be boosting, 3 will be insta-boot if you do better than the hosts team, and 1 will be normal.

Oh yeah and the tactics debate. There isn't even an environment IN Vegas that could be USED tactically, so just stop the debate there. Villa would be the closest, but then again who has a rope going out their bathroom window? Who cares if which way your back is to the wall when grabbing one is just about suicide in MP. Single player is so linear, tactics wouldn't matter anyways. The only time there are multiple entrances to a room are when there is a hostage, and the rooms before the entrances are always clear. You never have to be "quiet" so that the people in the next room don't hear you and execute them. Doors have explosives wired to YOUR side of the door? Pretty sure that isn't the right way to kill an intruder.

Here is what every R6 game since Lock down turned into, and every other game out right now including Vegas 2.

Vegas 2 Tactics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxYmEYBLgBE)

[WhiteKnight77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DexLuther:
Way points aren't always necessary to have strategy or tactics. SWAT 4 doesn't have waypoints as I recall, but it still played a lot closer to the way R6 played back in the day than how today's games play out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The strategy is planning out your takedown and hostage rescue. Setting the waypoints and go-codes is all part of it.

[malte0004]

Just in reply to the GRAW games on console not being tactical. There is the option, should you choose to play first person. This was for both sp and mp. In first person sp you were not able to cover, but had to lean. In mp the cover system was disabled in both first and third person, only lean. Also in graw2 on console the medic was player preference. The GRAW games are closer to a tactical shooter on a console than RSV ever was. To say only the pc version of graw2 was tactical is wrong. The console version gave the option as to how much of it you wanted, thus broadening the games appeal. GRAW2 on console was too easy tho, but then again on pc it was easier that GRAW1 too.