Conclusion
As you can imagine, little new ground is being broken in R6 Vegas 2. But that's ok. The old ground is as solid as a stone. The average player will complete the single player campaign in roughly 8 to 10 hours. This may seem a bit on the short side, but it's a really fun experience from beginning to end. Plus the developers of the game made sure that gamers could continue their experience, thanks to the great multiplayer and numerous modes of gameplay. Don't expect a flawless experience though. The game has its share of graphical, AI, and performance issues that can add some frustration to your experience. However, none of these are earth shattering and most players will have a blast playing the game despite the occasional hiccup.
 |
Since a good number of first person shooters have entered the market within the last few months, it may be tough deciding which game(s) deserve your money. A few of these titles that qualify as a similar type of game include Soldier of Fortune: Payback, BlackSite Area 51, Frontlines: Fuel of War, and what many have called the "perfect shooter", Call of Duty 4. While most of these shooters provide a fairly mediocre run-and-gun experience, Frontlines: Fuel of War rises above the bulk of this pack with its use of high-tech gadgets and big team online battles. However, it lacks the punch of Call of Duty 4, which is the clear winner in this group. So how does R6 Vegas 2 stack up? Quite favorably, as the Rainbow Six and Call of Duty series' can easily be referred to as frontrunners in the first person shooter genre of games. R6 Vegas 2 will not only satisfy the shooter fan, but those who simply enjoy a good all-around action game.
If you specifically have a distaste for tactical shooters and prefer straight forward running and gunning, or if you simply did not like the previous Vegas game, your money might be better spent on something else. If you enjoyed R6 Vegas, you're bound to enjoy this game too. After all, the intense gameplay that made the previous game great is still here, and it's equally as satisfying. With this in mind, not a lot was done to enhance the experience this time around. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but gamers do tend to seek a higher level of improvement as games progress in a series. Still, R6 Vegas 2 is a great game that gives its players every reason to keep it in their collection of games for a long time to come.
Note: A quick word on our intended game ranking system. You'll notice that we don't give a specific score. After much debate, the AnandTech staff feels it best to avoid a fine-grained score. What makes an 8.2 vs. an 8.5, for instance? Many games are roughly equal in terms of overall quality, and when you get down to the details, it's all personal opinion. We recognize that fact, and our verdict is meant to convey our feelings towards the game, supported by the text in the rest of the article. Since we have different perspectives, we will strive to provide sufficient information for you to determine whether you'll like or dislike a particular game.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
29 Comments
View All Comments
JarredWalton - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
The simple answer is, we review a lot of hardware that is primarily of use to gamers. Not surprisingly, a large number of gamers read our site. This isn't the first gaming review we've done, and it almost certainly won't be the last.I know Eddie - he's an avid gamer, with PC, Xbox360, and PS3 consoles in his house - and asked him to try writing some game reviews for us. Since he was in the midst of playing R6V2, that seemed like a good place to start. If you haven't noticed, the pickings are a bit slim for new games right now - at least games worth a try.
We would have done the PC version if it were available; we will try to have Eddie do a follow-up with the PC version when it's available. Right now, at least we have a good idea of what the Xbox 360 version offers, so we will better be able to say how the PC version compares.
Maybe next we can have Gary discuss his feelings on C&C3: Kane's Wrath? :)
Hardin - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
The gameplay was pretty good, but I had to stop playing it because of the frame rate issues. They were happening much more frequently than most console games. If the 360 version has frame rates issues then I wonder how the pc version will turn out.thartist - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
It's odd how you intend to avoid personal opinions but end on a mere "SWEET!"I understand very clearly you intention, but the solution will be between the result you hit and those shitty 8.347 ratings out there.
Rating suggestion: Try the five stars rating which you could divide in halves too, try 1-10. That scale gives a good sense of higher and lower quality.
GOLDEN HINT: a significant evolution of the rating system has been the addition of a resume explanation on what's GOOD and what's BAD in the game, including technical problems. It adds that layer of un-bias and clearness to the reader. Implement it please.
(always below 50% is unbearably rotten. Simplify like that too, those games don't deserve attention.)
cmdrdredd - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Yep, for which I will use IGN. Nice try, but you're way too late here and there's reviewers on other sites with a bigger track record so that you can base their opinion off of what they liked before. So say if they gave Splinter Cell a 8.2 and then Metal Gear Solid a 9.1 and both are similar game types by the same reviewer, it's easy to pick the better one of the two.cmdrdredd - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Oh, and calling a game sweet tells me nothing. You can be paid by EA or UbiSoft or any other developer to post a positive review. Using the number system is far better to tell a game's worth.whatthehey - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
"Sweet" tells you nothing, eh? Sort of like "8.4, Impressive" tells you nothing, right? (That's what IGN says.) God forbid you read the remaining 6 pages, or even the conclusion. What I gather is that the game is good, and many FPS fans and particularly tactical FPS fans will enjoy it. Since I don't particularly care for the tactical shooter genre, I'll pass. I tried the original Rainbow Six a long time ago and didn't care for it.All that a number system would do is give all you pissers somewhere to complain about how Anandtech is wrong because they gave it an 8.2 instead of an 8.3 or 8.4. But then, you've got shit like Bully getting an 8.7 compared to this game's 8.4 at IGN; I can definitely state that I would rather try this game than Bully, aka "Let's sell lots of games through controversy!"
I wholeheartedly support the AT rating approach. Either a game is great and everyone should try it, it's good an most people will like it, it's decent and will appeal to fans of the genre... or it's not worth the DVD its printed on. Outside of the general evaluation, we're all going to have to read a bit to determine if a game is our cup of tea or not. OMG! Reading! On a website! HOW WILL WE EVER SURVIVE!? Congrats on proving you have the reading comprehension skills of a 4th grader.
Spivonious - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Like the ratings system. I don't need a number, just a "Avoid", "Play the Demo First", or "Buy It".What I'm confused about is why a console game is reviewed on a computer site. Why not review the PC version once it's released?
gaakf - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
I played the original Rainbow Six: Vegas between breaks from Gears of War for a few months. I achieved a rank of Staff Sergeant/E-6. When I read that people returning to Vegas 2 would get EXP points depending on their rank in the first game, I thought that was really cool.So when I booted up Vegas 2 for the first time, I saw I was awarded Specialist/E-4 rank. That was nice.... until I saw that there was an achievement for getting Private First Class/E-3 rank.
Because I can not go down in rank, I can never unlock this achievement. How did Ubisoft miss something as blatantly obvious as this? The achievement should have unlocked once I was awarded rank. Stupid, just plain stupid.
bill3 - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Game reviews on Anandtech? I like it.BTW, interestingly, I once came across a rumor that R6V at least on consoles DOESNT use UE3, but actually a souped up UE2. Apparantly if you looked at all the licenses on the box, UE2 and NOT UE3 was the only logo to be found. Might explain the game's alledged poor graphics.
ap90033 - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Console? Dont care, what I want to know is how will the REAL version for PC be. Wonder if the graphics will be better since the XBox360/any console is weak.