Poll: Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 Over Modern warfare 2?

[JourneyThroughHell]

But, the thing is, he's not peeking around the corner.

The enemies can't see him. It's a legitimized wallhack basically.

Old FPSes used leaning for that. I think it's far more sensible.

Problem is, on consoles at least, the buttons that would be good for leaning around corners in the "I'm looking directly ahead, screw anything not in front of me" view mode are taken up with other functions.

Sure... but, eh... this is why Rainbow Six is not a console game.

Sorry, I'm more of a console gamer than a PC one, but, really, that's the exact same reason why we don't see Arma or Swat on our consoles - the required controls are too complex.

Again, I like Vegas. A lot, actually. But, really, if they called it Advanced Warfighter: Vegas, it would be a much truer title.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Sure... but, eh... this is why Rainbow Six is not a console game.

Sorry, I'm more of a console gamer than a PC one, but, really, that's the exact same reason why we don't see Arma or Swat on our consoles - the required controls are too complex.

Again, I like Vegas. A lot, actually. But, really, if they called it Advanced Warfighter: Vegas, it would be a much truer title.

I can't disagree with you there, it did feel very... A.W.

 

[Casimir_Effect]

Prefer the Vegas games by far. My only problem with them is the blatant spawning that enemies do and several situations that don't suit the game at all.

An example of the first point is in one of the early levels of the first game where a guy w/ shotgun appears round a corner as you move down a corridor. The problem is, if you move to quickly you can actually make it to the corner before he appears, leading to him popping into existence and gunning your ass down (unless your reflexes and memory are excellent).

The rest of the game is littered with trigger-points which cause people to spawn when you cross an invisible line, often in a massively dickish way.

Which brings me to the situations which don't fit this realistic shooter (I say realistic because it is very easy to die, even with regen-health). Often you need to advance up a staircase which you know will be guarded, but can't try and kill/suppress the enemy first as they don't exist until you start climbing the stairs out in the open. The first game has a part in the Calypso Casino level which exemplifies this and is an utter pain in the ass to do. In co-op it involves throwing one persons character up there in the hopes of getting into cover but usually involving death and respawning with the other character who needs to remain safe (unless you feel like replaying the level to that point every time); and in SP you just have to tell your team to get up there and hope they aren't taken out (at least SP has a checkpoint though). Off the top of my head, Vegas 2 has a similar situation involving a bomb defusal in a train station.

Still good games, but not great. Still better than Modern Warfare games though.

 

[Virus49]

The vegas games are just better. Without a doubt, I am really hoping another one turns up one day.

 

[Jesus Phish]

The one thing I didnt like about vegas 6 multiplayer was the map sizes. They're for the most part too small.

When you played that game as a team though, it's unbeatable in terms of enjoyment.

 

[The Lunatic]

Prefer Vegas, the maps weren't great however.

Depends what you're looking for really.

Vegas has a slower pace and a more tactical feel to it. It's about killing people in a discreet way, catching people off guard and that kind of thing.

MW is a more of an arcade shooter, you're just there to kill people, with missiles, explosives, helicopters, whatever.

 

[Davey Woo]

Whether one is 'better' than the other depends entirely on your taste in first person shooters. If you prefer tactical gameplay then vegas would be better, if you prefer varied game modes and play styles then MW2 is better.

 

[SyphonX]

I played the original Rainbow Six, back in the day. Rogue Spear, Blackthorn, Covert Ops, Sum of All Fears. As well as Ghost Recon. There were handfuls of the same type of Clancy game. You could literally download a small mod to add thousands of different weapons to either game, as well as hundreds of custom scenarios. The multiplayer was some of the fastest, most unrelenting online shooting I've ever played in my life.

I watched the R6 series turn sour, in a blazing not-so-glorious violent death when they extended to console priority. Basically when it turned to "Vegas", but before that as well. Could see it coming a mile away. Tom Clancy games suck, utterly, at this point.

As for COD, that series was never anything special to me. It was always mediocre, and it was just always something I might play in between better games. This went all the way back to the first one. I thought the original Medal of Honor games were better at the time. Call of Duty always took itself so seriously...

"Rennt um euer leben, er hat 'ne Panzerfaust!!: Run for your lives, he has a bazooka!!"
"Verzeihung, aber sie haben ihre grenade vergessen!: Excuse me, but you forgot your grenade!"

 

[moretimethansense]

Then again, the point your arguing is what modern warfare has. 3rd person cover Helps. Health regeneration (modern warfare included). BLIND FIRE IS REALISTIC. YOUR UNDER FIRE FROM PEOPLE SO YOU BLIND FIRE AT THEM AND HOPE TO HIT THEM OR SUPRES THEM.
So, read up on your facts BEFORe you make a point like that

One - there is no cover system in MW2, but, even if there were, that doesn't change the fact that Modern Warfare does not aim for the realism that Vegas aims for. It's a glorified action flick.

The blind fire in Vegas is not realistic. You have a reticle that shows where you are likely to shoot and, oh, you can see enemies while not facing them.

Blind fire is supposed to be blind.

My point still stands. Vegas 2 is Rainbow Six merged with something completely different, and that makes it lose a lot of the charm of the previous installments.

It's not Rainbow Six 3. Hell, it's not even Swat 4 (which is a far more realistic game from a fairly similar genre).

QFT

Of the two I prefer R6V2 but they did tear a lot of the realism that the older games had going for them and I kinda want another realistic shooter rather than this slew of "realistic" shooters that we have right now.

Also Swat 4 is awesome despite it's flaws.

 

[The Ambrosian]

-snip-

-snip-

JourneyThroughHell,
People seem to be against you in this thread for some reason
I think you're pretty much bang on.

And kidwithxboxlive?
Don't pull the 'blind fire is realistic' thing, because if you wanna use that as an argument the counter argument is the thousands of unrealistic things the game does.
For example: In the military basically no-one fires on full auto, except for trench-clearing and covering a friend while they move.
It's not the best thing to argue realism when your health regenerates.

Sorry to be like this but when you started e-shouting at him with your caps it annoyed me because JourneyThroughHell was just trying to have a debate and you got worked up, when you made this thread you really can't have thought people wouldn't be debating your opinion?
/rant
(p.s. sorry for the poor grammar)

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I like Vegas 2 a lot.

The persistent character leveling, throughout all modes, was a very cool idea, and worked really well.

And very well balanced, too, aside from a few cheap single player glitch exploits...

You gain much more EXP for a single MP kill than any campaign kill.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

...health regeneration....

Which means absolutely nothing on Realistic difficulty, since you die in one shot without full heavy armor.

You have a reticle that shows where you are likely to shoot....

Not on Realistic difficulty (last I checked, which was about 8 hours ago. I'm tired, so I could be wrong).

Unless you're talking about multiplayer, not really. You can survive getting hit once or, even, twice on realistic on Terrorist Hunt.

Also, I'm pretty sure there is a crosshair all the time.

And, yes, I play on Realistic.

 

[The Boy in the Hat]

Vegas 2 <3
I like to think of it as the Thinking Man's Shooter.
Plus, the douche to decent people ratio is remarkably good online.

 

[Mcface]

Vegas 2 is hands down the best multiplayer shooter for a console.

The weapons are balanced, theres a ton of customization, there is still a active community, and theres hundreds of hours worth of gameplay, for like 9.99 if you get it used.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

-snip-

-snip-

JourneyThroughHell,
People seem to be against you in this thread for some reason
I think you're pretty much bang on.

And kidwithxboxlive?
Don't pull the 'blind fire is realistic' thing, because if you wanna use that as an argument the counter argument is the thousands of unrealistic things the game does.
For example: In the military basically no-one fires on full auto, except for trench-clearing and covering a friend while they move.
It's not the best thing to argue realism when your health regenerates.

Sorry to be like this but when you started e-shouting at him with your caps it annoyed me because JourneyThroughHell was just trying to have a debate and you got worked up, when you made this thread you really can't have thought people wouldn't be debating your opinion?
/rant
(p.s. sorry for the poor grammar)

Nah, it's okay, I think he just misunderstood me and thought I was trying to say that MW2 was more realistic then Vegas 2... which I never intended to.

Indeed, my one and only complaint with Vegas 2 is that it's not Rainbow Six... which it pretty much isn't.

It's not a bad game, a great one, in fact, hell, I return to it from time to time.

Really, though, something is up with me getting quoted these days.

 

[Mcface]

Then again, the point your arguing is what modern warfare has. 3rd person cover Helps. Health regeneration (modern warfare included). BLIND FIRE IS REALISTIC. YOUR UNDER FIRE FROM PEOPLE SO YOU BLIND FIRE AT THEM AND HOPE TO HIT THEM OR SUPRES THEM.
So, read up on your facts BEFORe you make a point like that

One - there is no cover system in MW2, but, even if there were, that doesn't change the fact that Modern Warfare does not aim for the realism that Vegas aims for. It's a glorified action flick.

The blind fire in Vegas is not realistic. You have a reticle that shows where you are likely to shoot and, oh, you can see enemies while not facing them.

Blind fire is supposed to be blind.

My point still stands. Vegas 2 is Rainbow Six merged with something completely different, and that makes it lose a lot of the charm of the previous installments.

It's not Rainbow Six 3. Hell, it's not even Swat 4 (which is a far more realistic game from a fairly similar genre).

The game doesn't try to be realistic. It's a tactical 3rd person, squad based shooter. And thats exactly how it plays. Yes, there are some realism elements to the game, but you cant give it a negative review because its "not realistic enough"

And MW2 is, by far, the most unbalanced buggy, hotmess of a shooter in the last.. well, ever.
And MW2 will run you, what, 60 dollars? 55 used? 55 for a shitty unbalanced game where you have to buy 2 12 dollar map packs or else you get into lobbies you cant play and constantly have to back out. Vegas has like 5 free maps all added onto the game, free of charge, ready to download. Plus the game is years old, and still gets an update once a month, it's mostly just changing the ads in game, but they do make modifications still. MW2 never even saw a past after launch week.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Rainbow 6 all the way, its just a deeper experience. And nothing beats the perfect execution of a breach where you clear the room in less than two seconds.