Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas Comments by Kieron Gillen

How many of these bastardish Tom Clancy games are there?

No multiplayer review?

Not as good as Rainbow Six: Vegas, then?

Agreed.

It's a shame the game is good as a shooter even though it has completely abandoned it's roots. Kind of misleading in a way.

They should just call it Ghost Recon: Vegas.

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.

Sounds like this is a lousy port.

Sounds like this is a lousy port.

Sounds like you didn't read the review.

Spawning enemies too :(

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

"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"

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.

:)

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

From the 360 version comments:

Krudster wrote:
The PC version of Vegas will be totally different, yes

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

thehat: You should find the quotes of the Rainbow 6 producer saying that they realized how the franchise was going wrong with Lockdown and changed it (for Vegas) to suit the fans. Their forums got flooded with angry Rainbow 6 fans because they saw that no the game was still a Lockdown-style shooter although now it is a better shooter.

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.

"It's important to note that every positive quality that Vegas has on the Xbox 360 is carried faithfully across to the PC."

In one of those moods huh herod? ;)

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.

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.

The PC has THE best FPS game ever!

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.

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.

"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.

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?

Since this game probably sold more than all other Rainbow 6 games I think we can be sure that Ubisoft will keep this style for the series and not go back to have the planning and slower style of play.

It's a shame that they didn't try to go for the tactical approach but then why should you blame them? They want to make money and make a good game, if they make more money making this kind of game fair enough.

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

"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.

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.

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

Yeah. You might have Halo 2 out by then.

:-D

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.

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.

" 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.

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.

"...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.

Rainbow 6 is supposed to be for the Operation Flashpoint, SWAT and old Rainbow 6 gamers though.

Not GOW, GRAW or BF2.

Why?

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.

Because Ghost Recon was always the shooter, now they've frankly merged the two franchises so that it's impossible to tell them apart. In fact the first mexican level in Rainbow 6 Vegas could just as well have been Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for me. It featured the same seemingly free yet very linear setup of the missions together with spawning enemies as soon as you hit a certain trigger, if you were standing at the wrong position and told your squadmates to move to a point before you you could end up aiming right in the face of an enemy that wasn't there a second ago.


What I have a problem with is that games are basically getting streamlined for the mass market appeal, they are all aiming for the same market and while it's true that it sells games and that the games may be good it also 'dilutes' the market. For Ubisoft this is probably not a great deal as they can release Ghost Recon one year and then release Rainbow Six the next year, targeting the same audience.

But us gamers who played the old Rainbow 6 and, heck, still playing Swat 4. What are we supposed to do? We're left behind as Ubisoft thinks we're not worth the effort.

Of course because of that other developers get the chance to step in and take over and we'll see these tactical games from others.

It's just a shame that they don't dare to do it for the consoles, I believe there is a market for it and Rainbow 6 could have been the franchise to use for it.

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.