Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas Review

By Kieron Gillen Published 2 January, 2007

Six and the City.

Version tested: PC

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas on the PC is basically identical to Tom Clancy's Rainbox Six: Vegas on the Xbox 360. Since Kristan reviewed it across three pages, surely that means I can wrap up my first review of the year in record time and finally start my Christmas shopping.

About that - once again, Tom's not publishing one of my reviews for a week makes me sound like more of an arse than I am. I can't remember when I submitted this, but it was definitely my last review of 2006 and not the first of 2007. That's Tom being a filthy lying liar again.

Although, actually, I'm misleading you as well, since I obviously can't end the review here, however much I'd like to. I'm not going to waste any significant part of my word-count on discussing things like the specific weapons, either. Instead, I'm going to waste my word-count on a traditionally over-long intro, before going on to try and argue why I'm giving it a seven rather than an eight on the PC, despite it being almost the same game.

(And then segue into the usual overlong outro, among other things.)

(There may even be some nob gags.)

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

Vegas isn't normally this quiet.

It's important to note that every positive quality that Vegas has on the Xbox 360 is carried faithfully across to the PC. Generally, aesthetics are right-proper next-generation like. For example, its visualisation of the Vegas strip is unparalleled in terms of its ultra-bright vibrancy. Its animation throughout is of the highest quality, the influence of the various Tom Clancy games clearly shown in things like the rappelling down walls. The expanded skill-set is exciting, allowing a generalised form of siege warfare. While you only have two team-mates, they're (generally) the smartest yet and (generally) a pleasure to control. The system for taking cover is as comprehensive as Gears of War, but more suited to the game's slower pace. Guns are very loud. It walks the line between frustrating and challenging with (mostly) admirable skill. Vegas is a perfect setting for a game - mazy, which creates tactical uncertainty, but also naturalistic, so the player's never left thinking that all these slot machines providing convenient cover are just the developer cheating (after all, this is what Vegas is really like). And the multiplayer options - especially the co-op - are enough to secure a high mark by themselves. The terrorist-hunt with several friends is a gift that keeps on giving.

Most obviously, it really is about half a billion times better than Rainbow Six: Lockdown (Or "Rainbow Six: Gagging Faeces Down", as the wags at Eurogamer towers call it when Grown Ups are out of the room).

(I jest - there are no Grown Ups at Eurogamer towers.)

For PC fans of Rainbow Six, the actual fall into Lockdown was even more alienating than those who'd only known it in console incarnations. Rainbow Six probably takes a prize as the series of games that's wandered furthest from its original inspiration while sticking to the same genre. The original PC Rainbow Six games were unique, all about prior planning and then storming the objective. Most of your time would be spent laying down waypoints before trying an execution. It was perilous. It was exciting. It was enormously alienating to anything approaching a mass-market audience.

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

Special DIED Rice. Thank you.

So, understandably, the techno-thriller became more thriller and less techno, borrowing aspects of everything from SWAT 3, Brothers in Arms and chums (and, to be fair, they pillaged Rainbow Six exactly as much back). The tactical shooter turns more shooter...

Well, this is where it begins to grate on the PC. Here too.

(Actually, I lie again. It begins to grate when it's clear that the multi-format development has lead to some small, thoughtless pieces of design due to its Xbox 360 prioritisation. For example, when your team have grouped up behind the door, ready to storm, it displays the possible methods for clearing the room on icons on the bottom left of the screen. On the Xbox, they're presumably chosen by something sensible like the d-pad, so you know by pressing "left" you get the "left" option. However on the PC this is mapped to three buttons on your keyboard. Which one is the left one of the three? You better get it right first try, because, if you don't, you may end up just grenading a room full of hostages. The sad thing is that PC owners get the worst of both worlds. People think we'd be crazy idealists to ask for features like the split-screen ported over, but still have to deal with a control system they simply haven't thought about enough. Oh and, in passing, the specs are freaky high, demanding Pixel Shader 3.0 tech at least in your 3D card.)

Some out there would say that forgetting a key or just hitting the wrong one is a player's weakness. [Shouldn't you still be in parentheses? -Tom] Yeah, but (in both cases, boss) it's an understandable human weakness that should be planned for, which is the key problem with the save-point-only system that Rainbow Six chooses to apply. The game simply features far too many variables that could go wrong for frustration not to peak when you have to replay the whole long section - at a slow rate, due to the game's nature - when something goes randomly tits-up. As Kristan argued, elements like being able to resurrect your fallen team-mates from the vast majority of deaths help alleviate this. Elements like enemies that throw one-hit-kill frag grenades - in closed environments where you are mostly likely facing the other direction or otherwise unaware - really don't.

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

Using cover like this (i.e. not) will get you killed. Dolt.

And we get there again. When Rainbow Six was a "realistic" game, you forgave this as part of the whole thing, as an essential aspect of its atmosphere. But as the game becomes more of a plain shooter, these elements seem increasingly out of place. Despite Vegas being an incredible setting for a videogame, the atmosphere suffers from this confusion of priorities. For example, take the first mission in sin city, where your initial task is to blow a hole in the wall to avoid the main entrance, which is "too heavily defended". To get to this wall you have to make your way up the strip in a firefight against literally dozens of terrorists. Right. How more heavily defended can this other entrance be? Do they have enormo-robots? The Incredible Hulk? All the accurately rendered weapons in the world can't hide that this is no longer a realistic game in any sense of the word.

Which is the problem with the game on the PC. It feels like an undecided halfway house between two genres - both of which the PC excels at - and it's incapable of deciding which one it wants to be. Elements of the old games stand proud, like an enormous inventory of weapons with which you can equip yourself, in massive detail. Except you often get to browse this enormous array of weapons in crates slapped in the middle of levels, as though SWAT armouries are as common as slot machines in Vegas. You have better-than-ever room-clearing skills with your team... but the vast majority of confrontations are just working through relatively open environments. If you want an atmospheric tactical shooter, SWAT 4 walks over this. If you want an actual shooter then... oh, this is the PC. Take your pick.

Which leaves you suspecting that for all its fun and technology, that Rainbow Six: Vegas is actually a half-way house between the past and... something else.

It just needs to decide what.

7 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kieron.

About Kieron Gillen

Kieron is one of the founders of the lovely Rock, Paper, Shotgun and nowadays writes comics for Marvel starring characters that even his mum has heard of.

Read more articles from Kieron by visiting the Kieron Gillen archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (56) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • SirScratchalot #1 5 years ago

    How many of these bastardish Tom Clancy games are there?

  • ccfb #2 5 years ago

    No multiplayer review?

  • NthSimulachum #3 5 years ago

    Not as good as Rainbow Six: Vegas, then?

  • Shadar #4 5 years ago

    Hm. This sounds surprisingly like a laundry list of the reasons why I quit playing Tom Clancy games. Fans of the games will cite their "authenticity" and their "open-ended nature" as reasons why they are so superior, while I -- the eternal detractor, the bastard -- will moan about how stupidly linear and fantastically unrealistic they are. If I want a realistic gaming experience, I want my options and my interactive vocabulary to be realistic, dammit, not the setting and in-game jargon to carry a pretense of American-as-apple-pie quasi-authenticity where all heroic squad leaders are charmingly hispanic and the squad leader eventually becomes president. Fuck that.

    As a digression -- and as a closing note keeping entirily with the central point of my comment -- I'd like to note that it's a sad state of affairs for gaming as a whole when one of its most powerful licences is that bastion of irrelevancy, that most flabbergastingly trivial of literary pursuits, namely Tom Clancy's brand of Americana. Bluah.

  • Keyz #5 5 years ago

    Sounds like this is a lousy port.

  • UncleLou #6 5 years ago

    Sounds like this is a lousy port.

    Sounds like you didn't read the review.

  • BravoGolf #7 5 years ago

    Spawning enemies too :(

  • Xerx3s #8 5 years ago

    Errr... Hasn't the game abandoned it's roots years ago? And is it not moot? I for one think that the game did not get worse by it.

  • Furbs #9 5 years ago

    I played through, and completed most of Rogue Spear as an FPS, albeit a slow paced one. It certainly feels no different to this.

  • Shadar #10 5 years ago

    I, for one, welcome our new casual gamer overlords.

  • PhakeDC #11 5 years ago

    I agree with Shadar 100%, the last TC game I played was Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and I won't bother with Double Agent or R6 Vegas.

    Thankfully this Windows 'personal console' remains the best platform for retro gaming thus far, but that's not much to look forward to.
    Edited by 1 at 02/01/07 @ 09:26

  • smoison #12 5 years ago

    Its nice to see games rated for PC as well as its console counter part.

    I agree with the review, this game will have a lot more to live up to on PC then the 360 and PS3.

  • UncleLou #13 5 years ago

    I don't fully agree with the review, btw - while it's true that it's neither a pure action shooter, nor a pure tatctical game anymore, the combination they went for works pretty well - it's almost a new subgenre - maybe I don't mind Rainbow leaving its roots that much because I always preferred the SWAT games.

  • Genji #14 5 years ago

    "I agree with the review, this game will have a lot more to live up to on PC then the 360 and PS3."

    Uh... where does it say that in the review? I just got the impression that the interface wasn't changed enough to suit the PC. Hence the "lazy port" thing.

  • cooper #15 5 years ago

    Sounds like SWAT 4 is still much, much better than this (even if it's better than Lockdown, but what isn't?).

  • smoison #16 5 years ago

    "It feels like an undecided halfway house between two genres - both of which the PC excels at - and it's incapable of deciding which one it wants to be"



  • Genji #17 5 years ago

    Well, I didn't read that statement in the same way, I suppose. I certainly didn't read it as "well, the same game is better on a console because the 'standard' of shooters is much lower there".

    My interpretation would be more like "not enough was changed to make the game more suitable for the PC. It turns out wanting to be two things but excelling at neither".

    I love Kieron's reviews. It's almost like looking at art, and wondering wtf the guy is on about.

    :)

  • Genji #18 5 years ago

    I'm already wearing my cowboy costume. I find it... liberating.

  • thehat #19 5 years ago

    From the 360 version comments:

    Krudster wrote:
    The PC version of Vegas will be totally different, yes
    Edited by 1 at 02/01/07 @ 10:07

  • Mashum #20 5 years ago

    They did a great job of PC'ifying GRAW, pity they didn't put the extra work in for this one.

  • Kostabi #21 5 years ago

    I wish they would put the planning stage back into the Rainbow Six games as that was my favourite part of the original.

    Another oil rig level would be grand too, please Mr. Ubisoft.

  • Furbs #22 5 years ago

    In one of those moods huh herod? ;)

  • Furbs #23 5 years ago

    I dont see your point? Just because console FPS's have traditionally (ie. in the previous gen) not been as good as PC ones, that doesnt follow that "they should expect better". A good game is a good game, regardless of platform if you are prepared to overlook the control issue for a moment.

    Did PC gamers have the right to expect better FPS's than CoD2, FEAR and Quake 4? Infact, when was the last decent PC FPS? Its been a while, since those three and HL2 I'd argue.

  • MrWonderstuff #24 5 years ago

    Actually this and SC:DA got me into Tom Clancy games since I've never owned the previous iterations. Just ordered CS:CT for the 360.

    The planning phase of the originals, whilst interesting and allowed a degree of preparation, bored me to tears (I only got as far as the demos). I love the semi-strategic nature of this game - best of both worlds (and not, as the review suggests, failing to decide what it really is). I don't see anything wrong with a game taking on board both elements of a shooter and tactical shooter and melding them into one. The purists will bemoan the lack of authenticity and the die-hard-fps-freaks will say its too slow and boring...well I'm neither, and maybe thats why its so fun.

  • AgentFosterGrant #25 5 years ago

    The PC has THE best FPS game ever!

  • Genji #26 5 years ago

    I would be at the point of directly comparing console shooters with PC shooters now. Different controls aside, there isn't a whole lot separating the two now.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #27 5 years ago

    The comparison did fall flat with the release of the 360. The 360 has enormous processing power and the DVD is offering enough space for content. I really don't see any difference any more between a 360 (and also PS3 games) and a PC game. Of course one is played with a gamepad, the other with a keyboard/mouse combo.

    So I don't really know how you can expect a PC game to be better than a console game, especially if it is a port.

  • Furbs #28 5 years ago

    "what does the time period have to do with anything? The PC has the best and widest range of FPS games"

    How many of the best are still exclusive and not subject to 100% faithful ports? And that includes HL2. Until Crysis comes along and hopefully raises the bar once more, I dont think its that simple any more.

    Widest range is also debateable. Since the launch of the 360 have there been many FPS PC exclusive releases? I'm really struggling to think of any. Granted if you choose to look historically then yeah, but its hardly a fair comparison.
    Edited by 1 at 02/01/07 @ 11:14

  • El_MUERkO #29 5 years ago

    It deserves to lose a point for the badly mapped controls followed by a patch that shoves a 360 controller option onto the control options menu, subtle as a fox! Take its point away and shoot a family member to warn others!

    Controls can be remapped, mouse sensitivitys tweeked and so forth, the official forums has quiet a few tweek threads that popped up as soon as the US retale version hit the shelves. An apology from devs who were forced to copy the 360 version exactly? my inner childs tinfoil hat says yes!

    However once the controls are remapped and various performance and gfx tweeks are applied you get a game that while falling between genres does not fall on its face. I've played to the end of the mexico mission on both versions of the game and I'll continue to pick thru it till the end.

    Thinking forward, all new Vista PCs are going to have a fairly decent graphics card and the 'Games for windows' branding may well increase the number of PC gamers, I'm hoping this will encourage some of the console oriented companies to do more than crass platform ports of console titles.

    As for the future of Rainbow Six titles, get the devs to play SWAT 4 a bit so they decide to scrap the spawning enemies, give us sandbox instead of linear maps and maybe a mix of levels, some of which require planning. Then everyones happy :)

    So ... anyone up for some PC Coop this week?

  • EmiliasHorse #30 5 years ago

    I tend to find the PC version is always spec dependant. The system specs prohibit at very least 50% of all PC gamers (Probably a lot more). I upgrade on a yearly basis but refuse to be a power whore, so I play the system hogs on 360 to ensure I am not getting shafted.

  • Furbs #31 5 years ago

    And the most played game on Live is...? :p

    I take your point about this being a weaksauce port due to the menus and icons, but to be dismissive and say "they have the right to expect a better game" (at least thats how I read your initial comment) when this is one of the better games released last year (and this is coming from someone who doesnt like console shooters and loves PC FPS') seems a bit odd.

    The PC is no longer the de facto platform for the FPS. If that was the case, there would be more releases. CoD3 would have come out on it, there would have been more innovation in the last 3 years since Doom/HL2 arrived so on. Maybe it'll change with Crysis, but at the moment PC gaming is in a lull, partly because, sadly, the console market has shifted focus on the "de facto" platform.
    Edited by 1 at 02/01/07 @ 11:29

  • skx #32 5 years ago

    beside which genre it could belong to, on the 360 it is a very good game and I had more fun with this game than with some of the latest (big) FPS for the PC like Quake 4, Doom3 or Prey. And I am grown up with PC since 386 and Quake(the first one!) is
    still my all time number one in FPS.
    But I have to be critical, and give the 360 version of R6vegas a big thumb up, it is just a very good game. And maybe the PC version can not develop the right feeling like the 360 version. Who knows.

  • Furbs #33 5 years ago

    If there were alot of PC gamers (who actually bought new games rather than played Counterstrike), the market and release schedule would be more bouyant :)

  • Genji #34 5 years ago

    "If there were alot of PC gamers (who actually bought new games rather than played Counterstrike), the market and release schedule would be more bouyant :)"

    Zing! Yes, they're often a fussy bunch.

  • skillian #35 5 years ago

    There is only a small window of time when specs are similar and titles can be directly ported between PC and consoles, so games like this will be coming thick and fast.

    In a year or so, FPSs will be back home on PC as usual.

  • Genji #36 5 years ago

    "In a year or so, FPSs will be back home on PC as usual."

    Yeah. You might have Halo 2 out by then.

    :-D

  • Der_tolle_Emil #37 5 years ago

    Counter-Strike and Battlefield 2 are heavily dependend on online play. CS in fact doesn't even have bots. CS came out when there was no such thing as Live. Online play was always at home on the PCs and I we don't have to argue that keyboard/mouse is the preferred way to play FPS over a gamepad. Those two are the main advantage the PC had over a console. But online integration is a charm on the 360 (maybe even on the original xbox but I never had one) and the technical limitations that were only apparent on consoles are gone in this generation.

    I also disagree that the PC version of Rainbow 6 needed to be better to survive on the PC. Maybe I still don't get it but it sounds like the game is "bad" because it comes from a console. You make it sound like FPS on the PC are generally better and console ports will only work if they get vastly improved but I think that impression only comes from the controls. While they do control better they are not necessarily better games. Today's console FPS are as comlpex and sophisticated (or can be) as they are on the PC.

    There are two things: Controls and the game. Of course it is not always possible to apply a gamepad button layout or control to a keyboard. But nearly every PC game has extensive possibilities to remap controls but once the controls are ok there is no difference any more; You cannot tell which game is better. A couple of years ago you most definetly could. FPS on the console might have seem limited if only to fit gamepad controls. But I think games have managed to be great experiences that do not have to be built around the gamepad anymore. And even if some things are simplified or maybe even cut because it would be impossible to do with a gamepad; I don't have the feeling that Vegas is a game that needed to be cut in order to function on a console.

  • skillian #38 5 years ago

    It's more than the game and the controls - the audiences are different too.

    HL2 flopped on Xbox and Halo flopped on PC - late ports didn't help, but it's clear there's more to it than that.

  • Ryuken #39 5 years ago

    " CoD3 would have come out on it"

    No, that's just Activision throwing away a lot of money.

    And (FPS-)consoleports rarely turn out good on PC, not enough system spec scaling with GRAW and now this, and usually less depth and novelties because it all had to fit into an inferior controller-scheme and some mass market appeal too. Exceptions like the Chronicles of Riddick-port only confirm the rule but in the end everyone with a sane mind knows what the best platform for FPS's is, and that's not any of the "next-gen" consoles.

  • Furbs #40 5 years ago

    Yeah like the Xbox not being able to handle HL2 properly.

    It should do a bit better on the 360, but then again, 3 years on, even with the bonus content is asking alot.

    I think theres an increasing crossover between the PC and 360 in terms of gamers. The people I see playing GoW, Vegas and GRAW are all names I recognise from the good old days of the EG BF2 server.

    Ryuken, its funny to hear you mention about the inferiour console controls, and then this review actually mentions that the keyboard controls are counter intuitive. As I said above, as someone who loves a good PC shooter, looking around at the state of the PC shooter market at this moment in time, theres nothing out there that cant be had on the 360. If the game is designed with a pad in mind so no compromise is being made, even though I cant use one for shit, it seems to me, at the moment, theres more FPS titles for the 360. Logic would say to me its currently the best format for the FPS. Until Crysis, a genuine Battlefield sequel comes out, or HL3 is PC specific, thats going to be the case. Especially since now Epic and iD seem to be favouring consoles too.
    Edited by 2 at 02/01/07 @ 12:58

  • Genji #41 5 years ago

    "...in the end everyone with a sane mind knows what the best platform for FPS's is, and that's not any of the "next-gen" consoles."

    Well, there must be a whole lot of insane people out there.

  • Furbs #42 5 years ago

    Why?

  • skillian #43 5 years ago

    looking around at the state of the PC shooter market at this moment in time, theres nothing out there that cant be had on the 360.

    Counter-Strike, BF2, HL2 Ep:1, Red Orchestra, with Crysis and Quake Wars to come. Admittedly it's been a poor year for PC shooters, but these are some of the best FPS titles around.

  • Furbs #44 5 years ago

    disc - I'm an old R6 player myself. Like I said, Rogue Spear and every iteration since then could be played just as effectively as a slow paced FPS as with all the planning and so on. I strongly suspect that the number of people who really enjoyed the planning sections were in a massive minority, and this is bourne out by R6:3 having a strong multiplayer showing but noone really giving a shit about offline. It sucks that these 3 or 4 people who liked the planning phase get left out, but you could say the same thing about countless titles. The flightsim genre and point and click market in particular. Its supply and demand, capitalism, whatever. As I mentioned with my Counterstrike point...if the PC market was stronger, and more interest was shown in the tactical phase then I'm sure we'd still see that in the game. As it stands, I'm of the opinion that its better for the industry for devs to put out games that do sell so they can stay in business, than for them to put out high budget, low selling games (and lets be honest, any FPS game has to have a decent budget these days to compete) and go tits up, just to appease some of the old schoolers.

    If you see R6 and GR as being merged now, then you're not giving each game credit. R6 is still all about CQB and engagements inside buildings, whereas Ghost Recon is the outdoor, longer range game. They play out quite differently from what I've seen so far other than the fact that they both have Helo insertions and gunpron. Dont forget levels like Bunker and the Kosovo mission in Rogue Spear could easily have been GRAW missions, so its not like the series has suddenly become merged. Theres always been a bit of overlap.
    Edited by 1 at 02/01/07 @ 13:39

  • ave #45 5 years ago

    Aw, kosovo :(

    I always skipped past planning in Rogue Spear/Raven Shield, but perhaps when the devs implemented planning... it was part of a certain mindset that led to both games being great tactical shooters - sorry, cant phrase it any better!

    Raven Shields maps were all massively open and non linear which led to really good co-op and adversarial play, perhaps these maps were as a result of planning needing complicated maps with many choices? :p

    I think my favourite raven shield map was Island, and favourite custom was Village(if you havent played Village, download it and try it offline. You owe it to yourself).

  • Furbs #46 5 years ago

    Kosovo was simply superb. First time I've ever felt what it must be like to be pinned down by a sniper with no clue where he was shooting from. In hindsight it was obvious, but in those days, someone that high up on a different level to your own was quite rare. Then the rescuse of the pilot, having to use flashbangs and get in there quick to prevent him taking a bullet. Awesome stuff.

    That and the Flashpoint "alone in the forest" level are my two favourite FPS levels ever.

  • Ajay #47 5 years ago

    One thing I really noticed while playing this through was that I was generally able to trust my team not to royally screw up. There's the traditional 'throwing a grenade into a doorframe' feature that's been in every tactical shooter since keyboards were invented, but generally they're a capable duo. Coupled with there not being any penalty for them being wounded (sensible, since it's for all intents impossible anyhow) it really added to my enjoyment of the game. Even in SWAT 4 your team was more than capable of screwing up a simple flash and clear and getting themselves killed more often than was acceptable, so it's refreshing to feel that someone's finally got the balance right.

    I don't miss the planning, really. I'm also happy to suspend my disbelief for the huge gunfights and more 'traditional' FPS style. What I really didn't like at all was the numerous 'defend' sections which are completely at odds with the more realistic parts of the game mechanics. They're utterly unenjoyable additions, and the game would have been far better with their removal. That and the stupid, ugly glow that you can't turn off and makes everything look as if you've been swimming in a pool with too much chlorine in, but that's another issue. I'm not impressed with the quality of the actual conversion from the 360 at all, really.

    Still, I enjoyed it quite a bit. Which probably makes its faults glare even more brightly to me, but hey. If they get rid of the defend sections and tone down the spawn, I'll happily play the inevitable sequel.
    Edited by 1 at 02/01/07 @ 16:19

  • Bluetooth #48 5 years ago

    What's with the special died rice caption?

  • Ryuken #49 5 years ago

    Furbs, sure, if Ubisoft doesn't want to provide good alternative keyboard controls or is only interested in tailoring the control scheme around a controller, then that's their good right but RS doesn't seem like a PC game anymore in that way at all.

    2006 is a weak year for PC shooters if a rehash à la HL2: Episode One is getting all the honours but then again every genre has its dip once in a while.

    "Well, there must be a whole lot of insane people out there."

    Well, yeah. :) I don't mind that there are crossovers, that people don't want to upgrade constantly, and that big companies try to bring FPS's more to forefront of consoles but as it is now, the multiplatforming doesn't exactly turn out positive for the PC versions (in terms of interface-/controls and polishing). And that's something which isn't even confined to the FPS genre.

  • dudefella #50 5 years ago

    I could not disagree more with this review.

    Regardless of the differences between this and previous R6 games (up to Raven Shield), I think Vegas is just a damn fine game, and even when played on Realistic (the only way to play it imo) it never gets frustrating really, because when you die, 99% of the time it's YOUR fault for not being careful enough and playing it too much like any other random shooter. And the artifacts from this being a console game are overstated. The D-pad thing he mentioned is really the only thing, bar the save system which is more of a design decision, and it really doesn't grate if you can remember 3 sodding buttons.

    That's just my $0,02.

  • YourMessageHere #51 5 years ago

    The thing that's always gotten on my nerves with R6 was the way it expected you to be both the planner/commander AND the grunt on the ground. If the game let you plan more effectively and with greater specificity and flexibility without actually leading the assault yourself, that would have made a better game. Alternatively, if the game let you play as an assaulter and expected you to follow a plan, be that one you'd created or a premade one, without having to guard and synchronise the entire team yourself, that would also be a better game. Essentially, a few small additions would make the "classic R6" style suit both shooter fans and planners. I don't know to what degree this accommodates planners but it seems to me (although I've not played any version yet) to be a little more capable of the action of which I always wanted R6 to be able to pull off, that's a good thing. The perfect R6 game surely would be one that planners could have as much fun with as shooter fans could.

  • Smugglarn #52 5 years ago

    Although great graphics and quite nice gameplay this is still just a lousy port. The patch even added the fantastic option of using an xbox controller ffs! But the piece de resistance is the coop mp... FOUR FUCKING PLAYERS! Fuck you UBI! I was so planning on paying for that game but alas no chance in hell.

    GRAW I own and sadly despite valiant efforts of GRIN - no more than 4 coop there as well.

    modders - do your thing!

  • kangarootoo #53 5 years ago

    "The patch even added the fantastic option of using an xbox controller ffs!"

    You seem angry that an extra feature was provided, a feature that you personally don't plan on using. Reminds of people getting all irate because of the optional 3rd person view in Thief 3. I didn't really understand that either.

    The four player limit is just for co-op missions right? Its not for all netplay. I would imagine that was a design choice, addressing the issue of difficulty scaling levels for 1-16 players.

    Besides, you show me any FPS that allows 16 player story co-op.

  • Smugglarn #54 5 years ago

    GRAW actually allows 16+ player coop - I stand corrected. Thank you GRIN!

    As for the XBox 360 controller - who in his right mind would use that on a PC?

    Just goes to prove that it is lousy lazy port.

  • kangarootoo #55 5 years ago

    Fair enough on the 16 co-op front, I stand corrected. Fair play to GRAW for that one.

    "As for the XBox 360 controller - who in his right mind would use that on a PC?"

    People that own both and prefer using a controller? I know some of them. I know someone who played Halo on PC using a PS2 controller. The choice takes nothing from you if it is a choice.

  • Mochan #56 5 years ago

    This game is a big letdown for tactical shooter die hards and I totally agree that SWAT 4 walks all over this game. It's not that this game has bad squad control elements; I actually liked how the streamlined squad control mechanics here work -- it's just that the levels play more like Halo/Gears than they do Rainbow or SWAT.

    Overall I thoroughly enjoyed the game but I am wondering what difficulty the reviewer was talking about bordering on frustrating; I actually run and gunned the thing without much hassle. I know you can't do this in the 360 version thanks to control issues but it was a simple cakewalk here to head shot/body shot everything that came in sight in seconds, if you're a decent FPS player. It didn't help that you have tons of ammo to begin with -- I think you're lugging like 20 clips of 9mm parabellum with you AND two other weapons to boot? And you can pick up any weapon the enemy drops for that matter. Let's not even get to the regenerating health ala Call of Duty 2.

    Sure the enemy could catch you with your pants down every now and then but most decent (when I say decent I mean "not Godly";) FPS players don't finish shooters with no deaths ala Contra without 30 lives. Is this frustrating? Not really, Rouge Spear was far more frustrating and that had no save points or save games.

    This game is a cakewalk but I have not finished it in "realistic" difficulty yet.