Bland...

Creating your own main character could have its appeal, but in my opinion the game looks horrible, especially compared to it' s predecessor, which looks fantastic.





I' m aware it' s far from done, but there' s just something about it I don' t like. The character models have been revamped, but in my opinion they' re a step backwards. That combined with the shadows (or distinct lack thereof), and bog standard environments make me worry a little about the game. The uninspired square buildings and sparsely filled interiors are in sharp contrast to the first picture of R6V:1, with the dozens of rafters crossing the ceiling, and debris lying everywhere. Ubi Montreal are an amazing studio, and I' d say it was due to it being not completed, but the things I' m having problems with don' t seem to be something that is cleaned up with a bit of polish, as was the case with other Tom Clancy games (namely the GRAW series). It' s stylistic.

What are your guy' s thoughts?

Looks like more of the same to me... like seriously, nothing new.

the things I' m having problems with don' t seem to be something that is cleaned up with a bit of polish, as was the case with other Tom Clancy games (namely the GRAW series). It' s stylistic.

Yeah, all the textures look painted rather than photographed. And not very well.

Looks terrible. Far worse then the first Vegas...

I wonder why the game features enemies from Ghost Recon 2

I suspect that these were thrown together in a hurry. Either that or development has been passed to a different team - which is entirely possible given that someone has to work on Far Cry 2/Prince of Persia 4/Splinter Cell: Conviction (delete as applicable]

I suspect that these were thrown together in a hurry. Either that or development has been passed to a different team - which is entirely possible given that someone has to work on Far Cry 2/Prince of Persia 4/Splinter Cell: Conviction (delete as applicable]

True, but as a series R6 has more pull and a higher standard that should be maintained. Out of those games only Splinter Cell is as important of a series. Vegas has great ratings, sold well, and had/has a great online community. I really hope they wouldnt throw all that away for a cheap sequel. I know its sorta lame and being a sellout, but I love the Clancy games(well, R6 and Splinter Cell mostly) for theyre attention to detail, graphics, and realism.

And I know some of the " Oldcore" crowd will start shouting that its not realistic without the gimp after being shot, but get over that point.

Sailing off topic, I hope SC goes back to its old style of gameplay. I dont want an action oriented stealth-lite game, we now have Assassins Creed for that.

And I know some of the " Oldcore" crowd will start shouting that its not realistic without the gimp after being shot, but get over that point.

The problem is that its no fun without the gimp!

Well I think it will look the same when actually playing it and when its done.

The problem is that its no fun without the gimp!

You and maybe 100 other people think that. The other 900,000+ people who bought it love it how it is.

Looks terrible. Far worse then the first Vegas...

You too? Meh, I was hoping it was just me, but I caught all your responses and the general consensus from the internet is that the screens look like ass.

I' ve pored through them once more, and I' ve found the word I was trying to describe them with yesterday. It looks generic.

quote:

The problem is that its no fun without the gimp!

You and maybe 100 other people think that. The other 900,000+ people who bought it love it how it is.

Because the other 900,00+ haven' t played it *with* the gimp.

That' s one of a handful of game dynamics developers could include to make a game like this more realistic, without it getting bogged down in making it too realistic.

Sailing off topic, I hope SC goes back to its old style of gameplay. I dont want an action oriented stealth-lite game, we now have Assassins Creed for that.

Agreed. Double Agent was good, and second best in the series in my opinion, but the most fun I had in that game was in the Kinshasa missions when I was sneaking around old-school style, not mucking-about in some stupid double-agent mission in New York.

I' ve still yet to beat it without using my firearms. You could beat the first game without firing a single round, but the more recent ones have those darn plot points.

Why does this game remind me of Clive Barker' s Jericho? Why is Jung' s primary a scoped rifle in an enclosed building? Why do they assume that chair-stuffing will deflect bullets? Why is it that traveling up the center of a large cavernous room is tactically sound? What is this, and what the hell did they do with my Rainbow Six?!

What is this, and what the hell did they do with my Rainbow Six?!

Add a little sugar, add a lot of water, and you have a title that will cost less to produce and sell boots more. seems like hardcore games died when i left PC gaming! Damn me!

it sickens me when people consider themselves real gamers because they play Nintendo games

Fixed :)

Casual gaming has been popular for years, but before it was only on the PC. Old ladies buy a lot of games.

Casual gaming was/is so popular because of the huge install base of home PC' s. Thats why making a " casual console" is such a waste, when I can get casual games for free to cheap on a PC I already own.