Jack's Blog

My name is Jack, you dummies

  Home :: Contact :: Syndication  :: Login
  506 Posts :: 8 Stories :: 1078 Comments :: 90 Trackbacks

Archives

Post Categories

Links

As I said in my review of Rainbow Six: Lockdown, I buy every one of these games, despite not being a fan.  The most recent installment is a big improvement, though still rife with flaws and frustrations.

The major improvement this game brings to the series is the ability to use cover.  By holding the right mouse button you can lean against a wall, crate, etc and stick to it, using it as cover, going into a third person view, and leaning out or going over the top to fire.  It's a very intuitive system, and it gives a feel of tactical movement as you sweep through buildings.  The enemies use the same system, and it adds to the realism of the game overall.  A very nice system.

The squad AI is also better than in the past, though nothing special.  The bugs of Lockdown are gone, no more AI accidentally fragging itself, wandering off, etc.  Generally they will use cover pretty well, follow your orders, and effectively clear rooms.  The door stacking commands are intuitive and easy, though at times there can be issues with overloading of keys.  For example, the Q key exits the “snake cam” mode for looking under doors, and it also throws grenades.  That leads to exiting snake cam, and promptly tossing a grenade into a closed door.  The Spacebar issues a stack up command for a door, but it also opens it if you're closer, so at times you'll go to trigger a two pronged attack from two seperate doors, and as you attempt to open your door, you issue a stack up order and the team comes over to your door.  All in all, though, they do what you tell them, and if they get killed, it's because you told them to do something bad.

You and your teammates also are much hardier than previous versions of the game.  Now, if you're hit, your vision goes blurry for a few seconds, and if you get into cover, you will eventually “heal” up.  Similarly, if your teammates are badly injured, they will lay there waiting for you, or the other teammate, to give them a magical injection which brings them back to life.  It's nice that they're so easy to bring back, it makes you more willing to use them, but it also leads to some rather ridiculous goings on.  Since they (and you) get shot so much in combat, gunfights end up sounding like strange violent porno films for all the grunting and moaning.

All that aside, there are still plenty of situations where the tactical engine really shines.  You'll snake cam under a door, designate a terrorist for your mates to kill, launch a simultaneous entry from two different doors, and in a few seconds, the room will be clear without a return shot fired.

Speaking of engines, the graphics engine is a bit of a mystery.  It's as if they deliberately ran some sort of “fuck the colors up” filter on it.  While capable of looking very at points, the game spends most of its time being all muddy, washed out, dark, or otherwise hard to look at.  Enemies can be very hard to see, and while this may be realistic, it seems exaggerated at times.  I'd be tempted to think it was my monitor or video cards it's so bad, but since so many other games run and look fine, it has to be inentional.

While the colors are pretty poor, the animation and modelling are pretty top notch.  There's a huge variety of moves that the main character and his teammates can do, leaning in and out of cover, breaching a door, rapelling, etc. etc.  The reload animations for the guns are custumized to the weapon type, so you'll see your mate flip open the top of his M249 to load in a new belt...  The main character can be seen speaking his commands when you issue them while in a third person view, and in that view you can see him looking around to mirror your mouse movements.  Lots of nice touches that make jumping in and out of cover seem more realistic and dynamic.

Towards the end of the game, things get significantly more difficult, and much more dependant on poorly playtested set pieces.  One, in particular, involves hacking a computer to prevent the villain's escape, and is keyed off killing all the terrorists in a given area.  The problem is that you may kill a bunch, and one may just cower somewhere out of sight, and not show himself.  Your teammate can sit there forever trying to hack the computer, but it's not about how fast he hacks, it's about killing all the terrorists to cue the next scripted event.  You can't go looking for him, because you'll fail the mission.  And the mission failure message isn't at all helpful.  You have to keep redoing the mission until, somehow, it just works.  Frustrating and highly disruptive to immersion.

A score of 6 means I was glad I played the game, but not by much.  While this game is significantly better than Lockdown in terms of gameplay, it's really a step back graphically (or perhaps sideways thanks to the great animations), it suffers from some issues with the level design late in the game, the plot is pretty much worthless, and it's almost a year later, and thus a year harder to impress.

posted on Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:29 AM

Feedback

# re: Rainbow Six: Vegas (6/10) 12/28/2006 8:00 PM ghc from 216.17.154.85
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2895

hmm, unreal3 engine and this...
"Hopefully we will see some improvements in performance for Vegas on NVIDIA's hardware soon, because as it stands, the game clearly favors ATI parts, with the obvious exception of the 8800. That is a trend we've seen more of over time, however: G70 series hardware does very well at DX8 graphics, but when more DX9 effects are enabled the pixel shaders on many NVIDIA chips don't seem to do as well as ATI's hardware"

lame. ATi's supposed to be the ones with the bad 3d rendering buggies.

# No more politics? 1/5/2007 9:58 AM Gosh from 24.19.46.198
Still support the Iraq war, ie, it's in the national interest of the United States, it's paving the way for democracy and peace in the mid-east, etc? Keeping the dupes (citizenry) in the dark is necessary for the own best interest, yadda yadda yadda?

Wonder why you're sticking with video games now...

# re: Rainbow Six: Vegas (6/10) 1/5/2007 1:41 PM Jack from 216.17.203.226
OMG, Gosh! If not for Hussain, I would not have even noticed your insightful post amongst the ongoing deluge of spam that Chinamen have been putting in my blog comments.

Do you still find basic math confusing, and have trouble reading? Still simplifying things down into partisan buzz phrases rather than actually understanding anything? Based on your paraphrasing of views you've imagined for me, looks like it!

Do I still support the Iraq war? Yes? No?

I think we need to leave the situation in a condition that the world, and more importantly the US, thinks is generally successful. I think we need to demonstrate commitment and follow-through to the people of the region. So in that respect I support keeping troops there, and continuing to work the situation.

Do I think the Bush administration did a perfect job, and all the criticisms are flawed? No, of course not. I think a lot of stuff went horribly wrong, a lot of decisions were poor. But feel free to ignore me here, I know that in your imagination I'm a totally dogmatic Bush parrot.

Do I still think keeping the dupes in the dark is necessary?

Since I never did, then I guess I don't "still." I think that the nation is in the dark due to their own complacency, ignorance, and (as you so wonderfully embody) desire to reduce complex situations to partisan phrases-of-the-day. I don't think the administration is responsible for educating the populace, and I don't think they could if they tried.

In any case, I'm sorry my recent posts haven't done enough to provide you with a conservative viewpoint for you to totally fail to grasp, but still get all poncey and dismissive at. Maybe you should go back and look at my post about Silvestre Reyes, and tell me where I went wrong with that one?

# re: Rainbow Six: Vegas (6/10) 1/9/2007 11:51 AM Goh from 24.19.46.198
"I think we need to demonstrate commitment and follow-through to the people of the region. So in that respect I support keeping troops there, and continuing to work the situation."

Stay the course, in other words? Or troop surge?

Check out what someone smarter than I has to say on the matter. I'm curious as to what your response to this would be.

---

While we're all talking about the president's 'surge' plan, I want to make sure everyone sees Fred Kaplan's piece in Slate yesterday. It's a good example of why the most appropriate name for what the president is planning is neither 'surge' nor even 'escalation' but rather 'punt' -- a strategically meaningless increase in troops meant to allow the president to avoid dealing with the failure of his policy and lay the ground work for getting the next president to take the blame for his epochal screw-up.

One of the ironies of the current situation is that in the early months of the occupation, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who's slated to take over in Iraq, was the general on the ground who all the sharpest people on military affairs thought was the one guy in charge over there who really understood what kind of a battle he was engaged in. In short, counter-insurgency, or rather, heading off an insurgency by prioritizing real reconstruction and hearts-and-minds work rather than kicking people's doors down.

He spent last year co-authoring the Army's new counterinsurgency field manual. But look at what the manual says. Counter-insurgency operations require at least 20 combat troops per 1000 people in a given area. And look closely. That's not just military personnel, but combat troops.

Kaplan runs through the numbers. But the key points are that you'd need 120,000 combat troops to mount real counter-insurgency operations just in Baghdad. We currently have 70,000 combat troops in the whole country. So concentrate all US combat personnel in Iraq into Baghdad. Then add 20,000 more 'surge' combat troops. That leaves you 30,000 short of the number the Army thinks you'd need just in Baghdad.

Needless to say, Iraq isn't just Baghdad. And if you know anything about how insurgencies work you know that if we actually had enough troops in Baghdad (remember, to even get in shooting distance of that you need to evacuate the rest of the country) the insurgents would just fan out and start literal or figurative fires where we're not.

What this all amounts to is that 20,000 or even 50,000 new combat troops don't even get you close to what the Army says you need to do what President Bush says he's now going to try to do. To get that many troops into the country you'd need to put this country on a serious war-footing and begin drawing troops down from deployments around the globe. All of which, just isn't going to happen, setting aside for the moment of what should happen. And that tells you this whole thing is just a joke at the expense of the American public and our troops on the ground in Iraq.

What's sad about this (and it's hard to know where to start on that count) is that a few years ago, much, much more would have been possible with more troops on the ground. Alternatively, if the president and his key advisors hadn't lied to the country about the number of troops required to stabilize and police Iraq (then-Army Chief of Staff Shinseki said 400k+, I think) we might not have pulled the trigger in the first place.

We're living in the wreckage of the president's lies. And this is just one more of them.
-- Josh Marshall

# re: Rainbow Six: Vegas (6/10) 1/10/2007 8:44 PM Jack from 67.166.2.58
I posted a reply to this, but somehow it got lost.

One more time...

"Stay the course, in other words? Or troop surge?"

I don't speak in slogans, Gosh. If it works for you, go with it.

"Check out what someone smarter than I has to say on the matter."

He's not smarter than you, Gosh. And that's not a compliment.

About 75% of his post is emotional invective, 20% is actual (poor) argument, and about 5% is worth something.

First off, I can't take people who call Bush a "liar" seriously. You can criticize his policy. You can say that Iraq is in a bad situation and he bears chief blame. You can say that he's an unconvincing public speaker. All of that can be argued. But calling him a liar is inaccurate. When people insist on doing it, they tip their hand, and expose themselves as emtionally blinded partisan haters. George W. Bush is many things, and not all of them are positive. But he's not a liar.

The only real argument put forward: "So concentrate all US combat personnel in Iraq into Baghdad. Then add 20,000 more 'surge' combat troops. That leaves you 30,000 short of the number the Army thinks you'd need just in Baghdad."

A decent argument if you don't think for yourself, or know anything about the situation (i.e. you're Gosh). Has Marshall forgotten about the Iraqi military?

Currently it's about 130,000 bodies strong, and while many aren't combat troops, and many aren't capable of doing much (or even being trusted) there's still a lot of boots there to do various jobs that need doing. In fact, people who speak Arabic, who are from the region, who know what's going on, are going to be more useful in a lot of roles despite being relatively poorly trained in combat skills. A smart commander can find himself all the troops he needs.

That, of course, isn't enough. We have made mistakes and we have failed to gain skillsets we need. We need to be better at speaking the Iraqis' language. That means we need to be winning their support, communicating with leaders, understanding their power structures, doing Hezbollah style building projects to win support. It also means we need to kill people who need killing, people like al-Sadr, people who might come along and try to blow up our building projects to deny us the PR benefits. If we had the sense to kill al-Sadr before he became as prominent as he is, we'd have a lot fewer problems.

The one decent point Marshall makes: "To get that many troops into the country you'd need to put this country on a serious war-footing and begin drawing troops down from deployments around the globe."

Honestly, I don't even know if he's making the point, but I'll pretend, so his whole article isn't a total waste.

We should be pulling our troops out of Europe. We should leave Europe to its own devices. If they don't like us, don't like how we secure the western world, don't appreciate the fact that we've bankrolled their military budgets for 60 years, so they could pursue their failing socialist dogma, they can go it on their own.

I'd love to see us sell weapons to Turkey, Egypt, whomever else, and encourage them to attack Europe, but I'm sure that's a bit too vindictive.

Post Feedback

Title:
Name:
Url:
Comments: 
Protected by Clearscreen.SharpHIPEnter the code you see: