Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2 Review

By Kristan Reed Published 18 March, 2008

Royale with cheese.

Version tested: Xbox 360

I'll bring this up again since everyone seems to have forgotten: Ubisoft used to call these games "standalone expansion packs". Everyone knew where they stood. What you were getting was more of the same; new levels built on the same tech with the exact same gameplay, and, as a result, a price tag of less than twenty quid. Take Rainbow Six 3: Black Arrow, and Ghost Recon 2: Summit Strike - great examples of fan service, and we gave both 8/10. Had they been full-price, we might have been grumpier about what were blatant retreads, albeit quality ones. It's all about context.

But since the so-called next generation rolled into town, that approach has been replaced with near-annual updates dressed up as full sequels. GRAW 2 just about got away with it last year, mainly because it was a far more polished offering than the unfinished original and everything it should have been in the first place. Rainbow Six Vegas, though, got most things right first time. More of the same is just...well, going over old ground.

Lasting just seven 'acts' (over 25 scenes each lasting about 10-15 minutes), the single-player campaign is woefully short-lived. Putting the game on at 10am on a leisurely Sunday morning, I'd finished the whole thing before my belly started rumbling for an evening meal - and that's factoring in numerous breaks for snacks, IM chats and idle net-browsing. Your mileage will vary related to difficulty level and your ability to nail terrorists, but the ongoing trend for shorter single-player experiences in blockbuster releases is blatantly in evidence here, with six hours likely to be the average first run-through for most.

'Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2' Screenshot 1

Now's not the time for freaky dancing little lady.

Kicking off in Paris five years before the game's near-future setting, the game quickly moves on to the neon trash of Sin City once again, where those dastardly terrorists are up to no good with chemical weapons. "No good", of course, gives us the excuse to shoot some more funny foreigners. Wacka-wacka. The story's not exactly the game's strong point, with a typically anodyne cast and dialogue that washes over you, but, for once, the scale of the task at hand seems credible. It's a slightly more personal affair, where your best efforts don't always yield the desired results. The entire universe isn't going to perish at the hands of someone with short man syndrome or anything; trying to stop trains from blowing up, people being gassed to death and hotels exploding seems a bit more like the sort of thing Rainbow Six would be tasked with.

For the fourth game in a row (if we include both GRAWs), each mission is book-ended by Ubisoft's trademark chopper ride to your destination, complete with stunning, popup-free views. Admittedly the impressiveness of the effect is somewhat dimmed by its predictability and recent over-use, but it's still one of the best ways to get a mission underway, with your briefings and background details formed from the chatter during the journey. On the ground, it conforms to the Rainbow Six template - train stations, office complexes, underground car parks hotels, rooftops, blah - with alternative routes through levels on offer and, thankfully, very little to do on the casino floor (handy, since we left all our money at the games shop).

'Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2' Screenshot 2

Frankie Goes To Hollywood plans its latest comeback.

As Bishop, the leader of a three-man squad, you have the option of leading the charge and letting your two team-mates fall in behind you, or playing the cautious tactician and allowing them to take all the risks. Using your men as a battering ram serves as an effective tactic, with their ability to soak up damage curiously far greater than yours - especially if you crank the difficulty level up to Realistic. Employing a recharging health mechanic, this is undoubtedly a far more forgiving affair (even on hard difficulty) than the rather evil old-school Rainbow Sixes, with a fair few checkpoints helping to accelerate progress and minimise the incessant replaying of certain sections. So that's one reason it's a shorter game than it used to be, but let's not forget that seven campaign levels is fewer than usual as well.

While we ponder over the fine detail, it's easy to forget how refined the control system is, and how well it serves a once-complex game. The slick system employed allows you to move freely while dictating the position of your men - whether stacking them up against the next door or requesting them to fall in behind you. Using a combination of context-sensitive commands and intuitive d-pad commands, the game second-guesses your intentions correctly. You can make use of cover by holding the left trigger near to where you want to go, moving the left stick to peek out in the required direction, with options to blindfire too. The overall range of commands has been reduced since, say, 2004's disappointing Lockdown, but all the essentials remain, like being able to frag or flash and then clear, and tagging enemies you want your team-mates to take out first with the left bumper. Ill-advised additions like heartbeat sensors and overly convoluted go-codes are firmly in the dustbin of history, it seems.

The major addition since last time out is the character-creation ranking system, whereby every kill (in every game mode, whether in single or multiplayer - previously, this was a multiplayer only feature) awards players with a certain amount of XP, whether carried out by you or your team-mates. A simple, no-frills kill might bag you a single point of XP, but pull off an impressive feat and you'll not only gain more XP but a skill-point bonus which counts towards ranking up one of three categories: Marksman (for headshots, long-range, opponents killed while using a rope, etc), CQS (close-quarters kills, such as using blindfire or short-range attacks) and Assault (for killing turret-gunners, killing through cover, downing shielded opponents, etc). If you've played the previous Vegas, you'll get a bonus portion of 1250 XP and some equipment to get you underway (thanks!), and from there on, how you work your way up the 20 ranks to Elite status is in your hands. The lower the difficulty you play on, the fewer XP and skill-points. The new XP system is an unexpectedly fantastic addition for numerous reasons. Progressing through the ranks unlocks lots of better weapons, armour and visual upgrades (like comedy camouflage), all of which you can take with you into multiplayer sorties, not to mention other supplementary modes like Terrorist Hunt and co-op.

While you might initially feel a sense of "is that it?" when the credits roll on the somewhat brief story mode, Vegas 2 certainly isn't lightweight. There are 12 Terrorist Hunt missions, for a start, which is almost as good as having an entire extra campaign, mainly because it's wonderfully replayable off or online and perfect for a quick session. Crank up the enemy density and skill level and it becomes a fantastic war of attrition - especially if you're attempting to scoop the Achievement points for finishing all 12 on Realistic.

'Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2' Screenshot 3

Rainbow Six: Unlikely to further their careers as window cleaners any time soon.

Online, Vegas 2 has the usual impressive array of options and modes to keep series fans and newcomers happy. Story mode and Terrorist Hunt modes can also be played via Xbox Live (publicly or privately), System Link, or split-screen if you prefer, although we're now limited to two players rather than four in story mode (boo!). In terms of the five Versus modes, across the same 12 maps used in Terrorist Hunt, up to 16 players can engage in team-based and free-for-all. Attack & Defend mode is a self-explanatory team-based affair, Team Leader involves defending your leader while also trying to assassinate your opponent's, while Total Conquest involves capturing satellite transmitters and holding them for the duration of a countdown. Elsewhere, Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch tick old-school boxes. As usual, you can tinker with settings for each and specify weapon-restrictions, respawn count, round duration (up to 20 minutes), and whether players can join a match in progress. Even your chosen spoken language shows up in the match search, which helps. There's nothing especially revolutionary about any of it, but the maps are intricate and varied and it's a game anyone can jump into and not feel overwhelmed. Just expect a few frame-rate dips here and there if you fancy playing the story mode in co-op.

Regardless of failure, every kill counts towards improving your rank, so there's a lessened sense of despair when you fail. The fact that your investment of time is counting towards something is an excellent payback that other games could learn from. The other positive element of the XP system is that it encourages you to stop relying on your squad-mates so much, with your feats of skill rewarded more than if your team-mates bag the kill. So not only is there an added incentive to play the offline modes on a tougher skill level, the game also rewards positive and skillful play on every game mode.

'Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas 2' Screenshot 4

Check out my camouflage. No-one would ever know I'm here...

In short, the inclusion of the XP system has unexpectedly saved Vegas 2 from feeling like a lazy cash-in release. Although it barely offers anything new elsewhere, this single innovation does enough to make you play more than you otherwise might - and in new ways, too.

On the downside, the overall technology hasn't really moved on in two years. GRAW felt like one of the first games to make the generational leap, but Vegas 2 stands still. There's no doubt the game has the capacity, on occasion, to hold its own against the best Unreal Engine 3-powered shooters, but that's all it does. Worse, screen-tearing issues are still rampant, and texturing is often alarmingly bland. For a full-priced product pitched as a full sequel, you'd expect a bit more - especially when you consider you can pick up the original for probably less than half the price if you shop around. Overall, Vegas 2 feels like an incremental expansion, despite the success of the character-creation feature. The annoying thing is that with a bit more investment these quickfire sequels would feel like true follow-ups, which would go a long way with those of us who've been following the series for the past ten years. As it is, we'll still go to Vegas, but we'll be grumpy on the way home.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (80) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • syphaa #1 4 years ago

    Hmmm...was going to get it...loved the first one!
    Shall have a blast and see what I personally think. Expected score tbh.

  • George-Roper #2 4 years ago

    Yawwwnnn

    Couldn't be bothered one jot by this obvious rehash of the first. Christ, it doesn't even have any spaceships or anything!!

  • jonsaan #3 4 years ago

    Has COD4 raised the bar for online shooters?

    oh yes.

  • bad09 #4 4 years ago

    The review does sum up my impressions on it. I was excited at first but the more I've seen the less excited I've become.

    Probably will still get it just later and cheaper.

  • Baronen #5 4 years ago

    Oh yawn. Fuck everyone who pays full price or this.

  • El_MUERkO #6 4 years ago

    i'm thinking i might pick up the pc version

  • Wash #7 4 years ago

    @jonsaan

    How exactly?

  • t8yman #8 4 years ago

    I'm buying it, I enjoyed the first, and even if this is short - the terrorist hunt mode can keep me busy for ages. granted COD4 will still take up 90% of my online time, but I am looking forward to thursday.

  • matrim83 #9 4 years ago

    Loved the first one. So this is a must buy for me.

    How short is it though? Shorter than the first one?

  • syphaa #10 4 years ago

    Yeah the CO-OP/TH are fun, and I will still pick this up I reckon.
    Gave me lots of time Online when the original came out.

    COD4 has started getting a bit dry for me now, waiting on new maps.

  • Darren #11 4 years ago

    Yet another great review from EG in its thoroughness and it tells me everything I needed to know to *not* buy the game. Don't get me wrong, I thought the first Vegas was very good (offline, never played it online), especially the excellent cover system, but I got bored of playing long before the end so there's nothing in this "sequel" that makes me want to play it all again. As with many FPSs, it seems focused on the online multiplayer rather than the single player so it definitely isn't for me anyway.

  • asphaltcowboy #12 4 years ago

    Loved the first one and the multiplayer was superb (Darren, you did yourself a disservice not trying it out!), so this should satisfy I think. I will pick this up at some point, but it would have been nice if it could have been a bit cheaper than normal!

  • SlackMaster #13 4 years ago

    I'll wait until this is cheap rather than paying full wack for it. I'll just play through the original and the derth of other games I have to keep me occupied until then.

  • rashes #14 4 years ago

    so, is there no support for 4 player co-op in the story mode?? Thats a huge huge dissapointment as that was one of the best features of the last one.

    Still going to buy it for Terrorist Hunt + Attack and Defend and that canister one.
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/08 @ 16:36

  • ElNino9 #15 4 years ago

    I loved the first one, so more of the same is fine by me.

  • BillyBrush #16 4 years ago

    jonsaan
    18-Mar-08 15:58:21 Has COD4 raised the bar for online shooters?

    oh yes.

    Vegas 1 is better than COD4 online, as much adversarial, 4 player co op, 4 player terrorist hunts...and COD had a 4 hour campaign, people need to stop wetting their knickers over it already as Orange box is a better bunch of games anyway....

    this however just sounds like Vegas1 all over again, it just looks exactly the same, they've just churned it out..

  • Darren #17 4 years ago

    @asphaltcowboy - Sorry I don't like tactical online shooters, I find they get incredibly dull very quickly outside of a plot. I have tried R6V online but I didn't enjoy it I'm afraid. Not that there's anything wrong with it, it's just I'm not really a fan of online gaming, full-stop. I much prefer story-driven stuff with a beginning, a middle and an end.

  • Max_Powers #18 4 years ago

    Dissapointing, as expected.

    Multiplayer will probably work like a dog to, seeing as this is a Ubisoft game. Let me guess, no decent ranked matchmaking system (Halo3, CoD) but a 'pick your lobby' one that we all moved away from about 5 years ago?

  • DUFFKING #19 4 years ago

    "How exactly?"

    By containing men running around with guns shooting each other... oh. Never mind, it just plays a little differently and is a matter of preference instead.

  • Kiigan #20 4 years ago

    As good as Lost then!

  • Gruff #21 4 years ago

    the single player had always been meh

    Co-op T Hunt makes this game.

    Already despatched from ShopTo :-)

  • Apologie #22 4 years ago

    As i said, far too many good shooter around for me to bother with these one...UT3 and COD4 will keep me entertained until Killzone2, Haze, RFOM:2, Far Cry 2 and Battelfield: Bad Company arrives.

  • mattigan #23 4 years ago

    Lost was good

  • HarryB #24 4 years ago

    I have this but not finished the first one yet. RAR!!

  • penhalion #25 4 years ago

    I said a few weeks back that it looked so similar to the first one. I think I jokingly asked if the screenshots had been mixed up.....guess my initial reaction to this was right....ho-hum

  • beastmaster #26 4 years ago

    Still not sure about this. I'm more in it for the multi-player. Had the first one and loved it. Got COD 4 but would like something else to have a go at online on the 360. Have Halo 3 but don't really play it that much. Is Ghost Recon 2 worth getting for the on-line?

  • DUFFMAN5 #27 4 years ago

    So I should get the first one (never played, but always meant to) and save some money ?

  • Xerx3s #28 4 years ago

    "Has COD4 raised the bar for online shooters?

    oh yes. "

    People keep saying that and while it has entertained me for 3 months, I really wonder what it innovated. The game was fun in MP yes but not earth shattering.

  • mooseman721 #29 4 years ago

    This will be worth buying just for terrorist hunt. I had the original and never once thought about getting rid until 360 died. If I still had the 360 I would still be playing R6V. I thought it was better than Gears, I will be picking up a copy of this, more of the same is fine.

  • penhalion #30 4 years ago

    @Xerx3s

    Call of duty 4 raised the bar in terms of presentation and playability for multiplayer. I'd totally agree with you about it being nothing amazing or really special in the single player arena. I think Vegas 1 is still the most playable single player campaign for this type of game, even though technically it's third and not first person.

    Having a game where a head shot on an enemy actually kills them as opposed to 20 head shots (gears stop hiding you know I'm talking about you!) was so refreshing and added immensely to the immersion factor. Especially as a head shot from an enemy was just as fatal.

  • MikeP #31 4 years ago

    A buy for me.

    I really enjoyed the first installment, and thought the online component was great. Much as I love COD4, once you've played a game with a really strong fire-from-cover mechanic it feels odd to play a "realistic" shooter that doesn't have it.

    Oh and Baronen, maybe if you ask your mum & dad nicely if you can do some chores round the house they might give you a bit more pocket money. Bless.

  • TheNinkyNonk #32 4 years ago

    Well I did like the first one, but it does seem as though £10 off the RRP would've been a wise nod to the fans/consumer on the part of Ubi. I used to have a great deal of respect for them but that's changed over recent years.
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/08 @ 18:13

  • Scimarad #33 4 years ago

    I really hate to come across as 'Clancy Nerd' (especially as I'm not particularly a fan anymore) but isn't the organisation called Rainbow rather than Rainbow Six? I'm sure Rainbow Six was a certain Mr Clark's code name.

    Wow, that was pedantic:-)

  • BobsUncle #34 4 years ago

    @Penhalion
    "Having a game where a head shot on an enemy actually kills them..."

    I guess you never played GRAW then? A headshot from ANY weapon (even a silenced pistol) will kill in GRAW.

    "though technically it's third and not first person"

    Not really, if you just let go of the controls it goes into 1st person mode, you actually have to interact and pull the trigger to make it go 3rd person. So really it is 1st person.


    And I don't quite get what the reviewer is talking about with this new XP and character customisation system, it had all that in the first one anyway.
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/08 @ 18:20

  • XdarXideX #35 4 years ago

    Good old Eurogamer... reviewing games with price and previous installments in mind. Sorry but regardless of the price this game is great fun (playing it right now) even if it has mostly the same kind of gameplay as the first Vegas. Price shouldn't be taken into account at all when it comes to judging the quality of the game. If it was £20 the game isn't BETTER for it... just awesome value for money.

    I'm especially enjoying the fact I can now gain EXP by playing the campaign mode.
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/08 @ 18:22

  • Apostle #36 4 years ago

    Sort of expected, but I've pre-ordered already and it's in the post. I know I'll enjoy it, but the real question is whether the multiplayer holds me enough to stop me going back to CoD4.

  • GitSomE_UK #37 4 years ago

    Bargain bin buy for me this one and only if I haven't got anything else to do.

  • Chufty #38 4 years ago

    Meh. Couldn't even be bothered to try this at Play.com Live because it looked uninspired and shovelled.

    It would be nice if EG could review the PC version of games like this though, when they talk about 'intuitive use of the d-pad' it worries me that the control system and responsivness might be consolenerfed.

  • gringohairpiece #39 4 years ago

    Well i'm getting it for £6 so not too bothered about the score. I really enjoyed the single player campaign in the last one and the online team terrorist hunt was awesome. So more of the same will be welcome
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/08 @ 20:10

  • patchbox360 #40 4 years ago

    [link url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfN_cZqGArg&feature=rel ated
    ]http://ww w.youtube.com/watch?v=NfN_cZqGA...[/link]

    OH SHIT!!!!!!!!!!

    p.s. only on ps3
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/08 @ 20:00

  • krudster #41 4 years ago

    To clarify, the ranking feature, while present in the previous Vegas, was only included in the multiplayer mode. The addition to all modes makes a big difference to how you play in single player I found.

  • Ajay #42 4 years ago

    Any word on whether the PC version's been implemented properly this time around, or is it the same half-arsed "That'll do" monstrosity the first one was?

  • WiseNail #43 4 years ago

    Loved the first one so I'm getting this (£35 from Amazon), so what if it's more of the same, it just means more of the same great gameplay as before. These forums make me laugh, loads of comments from supposed gamers always looking for reasons NOT to buy a game / console.

    In the last few months I've played and enjoyed Bioshock, Orange Box, COD4, Halo 3, Metroid Prime 3, Unchartered, Stranglehold, Timeshift, Fear Files, Army of Two, The Club and Medal of Honor Airborne but I'll still find room for this before GTA4, MGS4 and Haze.

  • mainaman #44 4 years ago


    People buy semi-realistic shooters for MP.And the campaign is longer than COD4's.Beter mechanics and more customisation online than COD's MP as well.A must-buy for FPS fans.Still flawed,but not overpriced if you play online.

  • mainaman #45 4 years ago


    People buy semi-realistic shooters for MP.And the campaign is longer than COD4's.Beter mechanics and more customisation online than COD's MP as well.A must-buy for FPS fans.Still flawed,but not overpriced if you play online.

  • Res #46 4 years ago

    I wouldn't consider being able to switch to 3rd person to see around corners without the enemy being able to see you a better mechanic myself.

  • mainaman #47 4 years ago

    TPV is unrealistic,but i meant better movement and aiming.
    Edited by 1 at 18/03/08 @ 21:20

  • Retroid #48 4 years ago

    Six hours for the single player?

    FUCK YOU UBISOFT

  • tapper #49 4 years ago

    I remember when Rainbow 6 was known as quality tactical shooters.

  • TexMurphy01 #50 4 years ago

    Any word on the max amount of terrorists in terrorist hunt? War Town provided an excellent 70, but I hunger for more. MORE I SAY. This mode barely got a breath in this review.

  • Miths #51 4 years ago

    I'm definately looking forward to picking this up tomorrow. I've only recently really begun to enjoy 1st and 3rd person shooters (first one I made it all the way through was Bioshock), and I went online for the first time ever (with a shooter) last week (COD4) and I'm loving it, even if I'm getting my ass kicked constantly :).
    So now I'm really set on trying out one or two other shooters in addition to COD4, and the fast paced sci-fi in UT3 isn't really quite to my liking, though I've given it a shot offline with bots.

  • spiny #52 4 years ago

    Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

    /lovingly pats £5 copy of Rainbow Six 3

  • TagemandBagem #53 4 years ago

    @ XdarXideX

    Of course price matters when you're being fed practically the exact same product. It's obvious giving the turnaround all they did was a few tweaks and a handful of new missions. Given Kirsten finished it in such a short time, not only is it a just a rehash of R6V1 but it doesn't even last long enough to be a proper full title. I remember one of Ghost Recon's expansion packs had tons of new missions/maps and weapons but they still charged less than £20. This is an Exp. Pack masquerading as a full game to fluff UBI's profit margins.

  • YourMessageHere #54 4 years ago

    One of the things I liked about the first one was the fact that there was no tedious and artificial unlocking weapons bullshit, just big boxes of guns from which you take your pick, like for example you would reasonably expect a counterterrorist organisation to have, and no real restrictions on what you used or how you played the game. You could sneak about with silencers or open up with an MG as you wished. I changed round fairly often and still never managed to use everything before the campaign finished.

    Now I may be reading this wrong, but it sounds as if, should I fancy a spot of shotgunning, rather than simply getting one from the nearest box o' guns, I have to dick about blindfiring and other idiotic things to earn XP in order to unlock them. Stupid. The arbitrary third person thing in the first one but at least it was reasonably easy to ignore, but it seems like I have to do things like this, that is, do things the way someone else says rather than how I want, to unlock what was never locked in the first one. Realistic shooter behavour that is not. Maybe they ought to have a flashing HUD icon saying "YOU ARE PLAYING A GAME" that pops up every five seconds too.

    EDIT: and +1 for the guy asking EG to once in a while review multiformat games on PC rather than 360. Not all the time, just sometimes. I can't count how many times I find myself getting halfway through the review only to learn that the controls and feel of the game the reviewer mentioned before in fact applies to a pad, and thus is meaningless to me.
    Edited by 1 at 19/03/08 @ 00:32

  • muscleblade #55 4 years ago

    Personally i think 6 hours is the sweet spot for this type of games. Its just warming up for the online modes. COD4 was also about 6 hours on normal. Much longer on Veteran though. An action game should never last more than 6-8 hours.

  • The_Inquisitor #56 4 years ago

    I just hope online some of the freezing issues have been sorted because it's a very unique experience online.

  • barnard666 #57 4 years ago

    The lack of four player story co-op is criminal, I'd personally like to punch who ever thought that was a good idea. Other than that, this is certainly one of my favourite franchises of all time, I pre odered it a long time ago...I am just so glad they recovered after the awesomely turd lockdown.

  • japstersam #58 4 years ago

    loved the first one, but loads of better games coming out soon, i think i'll save my money...

  • systems #59 4 years ago

    @Scimarad - you are correct. The organisation is called Rainbow due to its multinational nature. Code number "6" is used for the director of Rainbow (John Clarke) and "5" for the deputy director (Alistair Stanley). Most people won't have read the book so it's academic, but I noticed too. ;)
    [link url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six
    ]    http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%...[/link]

    Anyway, I've played all of the Rainbow 6 games and have quite enjoyed them all other than Lockjaw (turned the demo off in disgust). The series certainly peaked with Rogue Spear and to a lesser extent with Raven Shield. Vegas was perfectly good though and this is a tweak of that with more content in some areas and less in others (co-op). At least people who've completed the original get bonus starting XP as a reward (I'm stuck at the last checkpoint of the last level). There's no way it should have been full price though - it's only really 3/4 of a game so it should be £29.99.

    At least it still supports the Live Vision camera. Perhaps I won't look like Mr Potato Head this time around.

  • Apostle #60 4 years ago

    I must be a rubbish gamer (probably) or just slow to complete games, as I never complete any of these so-called short games in the time everyone moans about. Call of Duty 4 probably took me over ten hours, but then again, I don't rush, I like to look around and take my time. I also hate games with a countdown timer, so maybe it's just me. Also I very rarely finish a game in one sitting, even Frontlines took me a few sessions, and R6V1 for that matter.

    My copy shall be here soon, and I must say, I am quite excited! XD

  • Ponsonby #61 4 years ago

    Can some one confirm the exact state of the co-op side of this. Myself and some friends played the first one's story mode co-op (three of us via xbox live) but it looks like this one does not cater for such a mode, only allowing 2 player?

    Why do developers neglect this area so, I am old and have no time to play death match vs 12 year olds any more (this may or may not have something to do with my slowing reaction times, or that I am just useless at pvp type games, I didn’t used to be , back in the halcyon Quake 2 days when I once toped the killboard alas those days have long since passed in the autumn of my game playing...)?
    Anyway myself and my fellow oldies have played HALO 3 co-op through which was good fun but now there seems to be nothing to cater for 3 people wanting to play co-op (no tittering at the back!) anyone know of anything?


    Edited by 1 at 19/03/08 @ 09:57

  • BillyBrush #62 4 years ago

    well tenchu z is 4player co op (50 missions), and for a tenchu game it's friggin outstanding, but the EG 2/10 review won't inspire confidence (bad review imo)....the online is not however buttery smooth like these shooters..

  • spookyzombie #63 4 years ago

    I really prefered Vegas 2 over the original Vegas. Played it last night and really enjoyed it. I also thought that it looked a lot nicer graphically than the first one. As for the length of the game, well that obviously depends on how good you are/what difficutly setting the game is on. I'm pretty sure I could breeze through it in 5 hours on 'easy', but it would take longer depending on the setting. Halo 3 and COD4 weren't exactly marathon titles either were they? 8/10 from me. In a nutshell - better than the first one.

  • andywilkie35 #64 4 years ago

    i'll definintely get it, i had the first one and never completed it because - if i'm honest - i'm not good at first person shooters even tho i love them! but this one has a proper co-op mode so i'm looking forward to that!

  • Tiger_Walts #65 4 years ago

    Sadly this review doesn't address whether some of the problems with enemy AI in the first title have been dealt with.

    - Do they still spawn right in front of you
    - Are they suddenly omniscient when alerted to your presence
    - Can they still turn 180 and pop a dozen rounds into your head in a millisecond
    - Does the buddy AI still allow the actors to stand in the open and allow themselves to be ventilated

    R6V had some excellent AI routines handling cover and flanking only to be ruined by the above issues. It'd be nice to know if they've done better this time round.

  • ParanoidZombie #66 4 years ago

    @tiger: unfortunately, it seems that the answer to all your questions is NO. And I agree with you, a so called-tactical shooter should have a top-notch AI, not some dumbass mexbots whose only abilities are to spawn and perform headshots on a regular basis. I'm afraid they're also still totally deaf, so you can clean a room with your M60 and frag grenades and the tangos in the next room won't hear a thing. Bullcrap.

  • bdc #67 4 years ago

    +1 for Pulp Fiction reference

  • ronuds #68 4 years ago

    This is one game (of a growing #) that was ruined because of consoles. PC players never would stand for this crap and frankly I'm a bit tired of it. I put up with it and bought GRAW 2, but not this time.

    Thank you, EG, for convincing me to stay away from yet another Ubi rehashed piece of shit. They're becoming more and more like EA every day.

  • DrDamn #69 4 years ago

    @patchbox360
    That is a CoD4 PC hack - not PS3.

    Would like to know if Terrorist hunt is improved in this one. It was enjoyable in RSV but I didn't like the "spawning" mechanism. I wanted a load of enemies already there and milling about for me to kill. Not groups which spawn when I turn up. You never saw terrorists in the distance did you?

  • Apostle #70 4 years ago

    Enjoy it for what it is, a slight improvement on the first one. I am enjoying it, straight away set it to realistic dificulty and it is surprising ly challenging, you must use all tactics and equiptment available to you. Having said that, in a difficult situation, it still pays to send in your team mates first and then you clean up the last one or two tangos, then revive any of your injured mates.

  • costa_k #71 4 years ago

    This game sucks,full stop.I can't believe anyone who's played COD4 or Team Fortress 2 could give it a score higher than 4 out of 10.It's a shame to see Ubisoft,a company that since the early Xbox days came to grips with Xbox Live, to lower its standards to this level.

  • Mark D #72 4 years ago

    I recent bought and completed the original on classic label and loved it so had V2 on pre-order. So far I am loving it, sure its more of the same but the changes to the game really have made it a better game than the original. I don't see it as being any better or worse than COD4 to be honest both are atmospheric and involving. I went from COD 4 to the original Vegas before getting V2. Terrorist hunt is going to give me way more online play than Halo3 or COD4 ever will. Easily a 9/10 so far for me and the single player mode will give me way more than 6 hours play, maybe 2 or 3 times that based on how long it took me to complete the original.

  • DUFFKING #73 4 years ago

    Costa, it's a shame that CoD 4 has possibly the worst spawning system for any FPS game ever.

    'What's that? You want to have a fair game where your own skill decides how well you do? Righto, I'll just spawn you next to 5 enemies and a live grenade!'

  • p00ntang #74 4 years ago

    I wouldn't compare this to CoD4, this is a tactical game. Online, CoD4 is simply mayhem. Just finished the campaign, and I loved every minute (on realistic naturally). I clocked more than 6 hours, but I played it the way it was intended, by moving cautiously and tactically.

  • Shalashaska #75 4 years ago

    I think the review was a little harsh, its worth getting it for the online terrorist hunt alone and it now has a ranking system like COD4 and it finnaly has a run button. I dont think those who liked COD4 would get a kick out of it 8/10 at least!!

  • syphaa #76 4 years ago

    After having a day with this and looking forward to another session with it later, I am really enjoying it!
    Its refreshing to get back to a proper tactical shooter. I think a lot more time and effort has been put into the maps in this installment, lots of points of entry to rooms full of terrorists/hostage situations really give a great sense of timing and tactical awareness. Im really enjoying it! 8/10 at least.

  • Widge #77 4 years ago

    Some people may be keen on reading this:

    [link url=http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=732940
    ]http://ww w.avforums.com/forums/showthrea...[/link]

    It seems that after saying that both versions of RSV2 were built from the ground up, the PS3 version turns out to be a port of the 360 version.

  • Les #78 4 years ago

    "It seems that after saying that both versions of RSV2 were built from the ground up, the PS3 version turns out to be a port of the 360 version."

    They share the same network code. Doesn't necessarily mean they share all the rest. Though Ubi does harm its credibility with stuff like this. Ah well, never get their games or any other multiplat titles anyway (safe CoD4 and the dismal Oblivion).

  • miiiguel #79 4 years ago

    I thought devs would use PS3 as the lead platform from end-of-last year on. I read it here on EG (comments section though...).

  • japstersam #80 4 years ago

    SIX hours? thats madness!
    i enjoyed the first one, offline as well as online, but don't have the internet anymore so not wasting my money for six hours worth of stuff :) probably be worth it if i still had the internet though, because the first one was awesome online (even if i was crap)