Graphics
The graphical quality in R6V left a lot to be desired when compared to other games that utilize the coveted Unreal Engine 3, such as Gears of War and BlackSite Area 51. Both of these titles were released after R6 Vegas, yet they still manage to outshine what we see in R6 Vegas 2. Two main concerns that come to mind are the game's textures and aliasing, both of which are fairly lackluster.
 |
The textures that are applied to objects in the game are fairly flat. The closer you get to an object, the more its appearance is reminiscent of those found in games released in the late 1990's. Even though the character models look great, seeing your character in an over-the-shoulder view is not nearly as pleasing to the eye. Jagged edges, or jaggies, are also very evident in the game and affect the majority of your surroundings. While this may be annoying early on, it is easy to ignore once you get sucked into the game. Although some anti-aliasing is present, additional smoothing of these jaggies would have made for a much richer visual experience. However, increased anti-aliasing comes with the cost of increased strain on the 360's GPU, which may have been a factor in the developers' choosing to use a low setting.
One area where the graphics show some real improvements is in the destructible environments. You also get the ability to shoot through most cover objects (with the appropriate weapon), which is a nice addition - no more hiding behind that wooden crate. In particular the levels with glass have some cool effects, and you can entertain yourself while waiting for opponents by shooting windows and watching the glass shatter and fall. As you can imagine, one of our favorite levels is the one with a large glass-walled building.
Despite the graphical capabilities of Unreal Engine 3, it seems overall that very little was done to enhance R6V2's visual experience beyond that of its predecessor. Apparently there is no accounting for time spent utilizing the engine. Still, the overall presentation of the game is by no means average. The developers have succeeded in creating lush environments with realistic lighting effects. Just don't expect any awards for graphic detail.
 |
For the most part, the game carries a steady and desirable frame rate throughout the campaign. However, at least one of the firefights that you'll engage in proves to be more than the Xbox 360 can handle. During this segment, the frame rate slowed to a crawl. Slow frame rates are usually attributed to a large amount of on-screen activity. In many games, large explosions lend themselves to this performance degradation due to their size and transparency effects. However, the one slow down period that was detected had no such explosions. Instead, it occurred inside a rock climbing center with an extremely high ceiling - four stories high to be exact. So there was a lot of info being processed during that portion of the game. Needless to say, more is expected from a 2007 blockbuster title; especially one from the highly regarded Tom Clancy series. Even so, the subpar graphics and the occasional drop in frame rates do not kill the game. Also, these issues appear to be nonexistent while playing online. This is a good thing since the multiplayer modes appear to be the main attraction for many players.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
29 Comments
View All Comments
Omega215D - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
I'm still waiting for the PC version to come out with its mouse and keyboard goodness. I would hope it's a little more refined than the console versions. I'm still enjoying the first game but the graphics seem to have gone downhill after the first 3 levels.Calin - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
"You can also order your team to repel down the side of a building "Rapelling is descending a rope under control. Is used to climb down a building, or to descend from an helicopter when the helicopter can't land (like in C&C Generals).
Repelling is to drive or force back (an assailant, invader, etc.):
"All hands repel boarders", this would be the order on a sail ship in the great age of sail.
nerdye - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Much grief has been given to ign and all of the game ratings coming from different online/print publications for as long as games have existed. I love anandtech for the analysis on hardware and technology that I can't find anywhere else to such a degree of quality. But rating a game on the fact that its "sweet", or "good", or "crap" for that matter is not revolutionary, actually its a step backwards from the ratings systems we have grown accustomed to.Sure you can argue that I can read 5 pages of info and it will fill me in on your "personal opinion", but I have no time for such with so many other resources available on the topic.
Forgive me anand as I have the utmost respect for you and your site and enjoy your articles more than anyone else's, but I must say my part my friend, game ratings systems are fine as they are.
tuteja1986 - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Good start :!A little pointer :
* Review is too long
* Review system will face problem when reader start to question why every game you review is "Great game" & "Recommended" & "Must play". Best review scoring system is A - F as its most accepted standard everyone gets.
* You start to review with PC games 1st as your majority of reader don't like console
* You should review game based on how fun it is and the experiences you had while playing the game. You should see GFW's Shawn E reviews as i would consider him one of the best PC game review editor. less technical more emotions.
AcydRaine - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Just because you don't like consoles doesn't mean that most other readers do not. I have a PS3/360 and mid-upper tier gaming PC and love them all. I see nothing wrong with a console review at AT.Great review Eddie. Keep it up. :)
pomaikai - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
I prefer anands rating system. I am not gonna pick up a game because it got a 8.7 instead of another that got an 8.2. I dont see how you can give a score if the scoring system is not laid out in plain terms. What equates to a 10 in graphics? What gets a 10 today might get a 8 two years from now. All I really care about is if the game is good and worth playing. If a game gets sweet that means that is was really fun to play and thats all I really care about.JarredWalton - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
The conclusion should give you ample information to determine if the game is something you'd like to play or not. If it sounds interesting, then you can read the rest of the article to find out more details on the various aspects of gameplay, graphics, etc.We will basically categorize games as "Excellent", "Good", "Okay", "Subpar", and "Lousy". That's all a game score really tells you anyway. A game that one reviewer gives a 7.7 might receive an 8.7 by another person; there's a lot of room for opinion, and rather than getting tied down in the details we're going to take a step back.
Personally, I used to love Computer Gaming World (R.I.P.) and the fact that they didn't give scores. Maybe that's how I ended up as a writer: I enjoyed reading the page or so of text to find out what a game was like, and then I'd try to decide if it sounded like something I wanted to try. I still take that approach in most of my articles, even if I have nothing to do with CGW.
Omega215D - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Any chance of you guys reviewing the PC version when it comes out, hopefully in the middle of April?Lonyo - Friday, April 4, 2008 - link
Hopefully it'll support multi-core this time round.