blurredvision
Lifer
I've put in many, many hours into Rainbow Six: Vegas this week, and I can say that without a doubt, it easily trumps Gears of War for game of the year on the 360. It just so happens that both games employ the exact same game mechanics, i.e. using cover. Having played through and basically beat GoW (haven't figured out the last guy yet), and putting in plenty of hours with RS:V (on the last level I believe), I've got a lot to base my opinion on.
First up, IMO, RS:V easily equals GoW in the graphics department. GoW impressed me with the attention to detail, but it was always confined to smaller venues. With RS:V, there are moments with larger, open spaces, and there's just so much to look at without the game ever taking a hit in the frame rate. The casinos and hotels are gorgeously modeled, with Dante's casino one of the best looking levels I've ever played in a video game. On par is the mansion in the single-player portion of GoW. Both games gave me "wow" moments, where I would just stand around and look. The respective teams on these games did an amazing job.
The AI seems about equal in both games. While GoW enemies do move around a bit more, the smaller levels do not showcase this. In RS:V, enemies use cover quite well, and while they don't always try to flank you, they do move and spread out quite well. You always have to be thinking of where your best cover is at any given moment, all the while trying to direct your two friendlies into higher ground to give you cover (or vice-versa).
The place where RS:V easily ousts GoW is easily being able to direct your friendlies to do a myriad of actions, especially when entering doors. I hope with the next version that you can direct individuals instead of giving a global order, and I also hope for being able to path your friendlies into position instead of the whole line-of-sight system used right now. The control RS:V gives you over your friendlies gives such a tactical edge to the game over GoW, something I really, really like.
Like mentioned before, I think the RS:V maps/levels trump what GoW has going on. GoW is too linear compared to RS:V, although RS:V isn't that open itself. In GoW, you could always tell when you where going to be in a battle, as there was an open space and plenty of small cover littered around. In RS:V, you just don't know what's ahead.
In terms of length, RS:V has proven to be a lot longer than GoW. Both games have great replayability in terms of co-op through the single-player campaign, which is awesome. However, RS:V provides 4-player co-op compared to GoW's 2-player.
All-in-all, RS:V is an amazing game, and I give it the game of the year over GoW. They are equal in many ways, but RS:V just has way more depth and options. It's an easy pick for me.
So what do you guys think?
First up, IMO, RS:V easily equals GoW in the graphics department. GoW impressed me with the attention to detail, but it was always confined to smaller venues. With RS:V, there are moments with larger, open spaces, and there's just so much to look at without the game ever taking a hit in the frame rate. The casinos and hotels are gorgeously modeled, with Dante's casino one of the best looking levels I've ever played in a video game. On par is the mansion in the single-player portion of GoW. Both games gave me "wow" moments, where I would just stand around and look. The respective teams on these games did an amazing job.
The AI seems about equal in both games. While GoW enemies do move around a bit more, the smaller levels do not showcase this. In RS:V, enemies use cover quite well, and while they don't always try to flank you, they do move and spread out quite well. You always have to be thinking of where your best cover is at any given moment, all the while trying to direct your two friendlies into higher ground to give you cover (or vice-versa).
The place where RS:V easily ousts GoW is easily being able to direct your friendlies to do a myriad of actions, especially when entering doors. I hope with the next version that you can direct individuals instead of giving a global order, and I also hope for being able to path your friendlies into position instead of the whole line-of-sight system used right now. The control RS:V gives you over your friendlies gives such a tactical edge to the game over GoW, something I really, really like.
Like mentioned before, I think the RS:V maps/levels trump what GoW has going on. GoW is too linear compared to RS:V, although RS:V isn't that open itself. In GoW, you could always tell when you where going to be in a battle, as there was an open space and plenty of small cover littered around. In RS:V, you just don't know what's ahead.
In terms of length, RS:V has proven to be a lot longer than GoW. Both games have great replayability in terms of co-op through the single-player campaign, which is awesome. However, RS:V provides 4-player co-op compared to GoW's 2-player.
All-in-all, RS:V is an amazing game, and I give it the game of the year over GoW. They are equal in many ways, but RS:V just has way more depth and options. It's an easy pick for me.
So what do you guys think?
