[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nature of Coop

[edit]

This might not be the right venue, but for any of you you have the game are you able to do coop with in the campaign on a single xbox system. Just add the answer in the space alloted thanks : )

Answer : Yes, through split screen. You'll still get the coop achievements. Like online coop though, you'll miss all of the story segments and basically play through the map without actually participating in the story.

save-vegas.com

[edit]

this site is not a promotional site, as it does not include screenshots or any info about the game. it is a fake teaser site that is not relevant to the article. I had the link removed. Pacman 20:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it WAS a sort of ARG since the website was registered to Ubisoft, but it now redirects to the main site. Unicyclopedia 08:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

[edit]

I was just in an EB Games to preorder this, and they say the launch date for PS3 is now January 07 68.81.172.129 05:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's called spelling. You should try it sometime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonicNiGHT (talk • contribs) 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay error

[edit]

The gameplay section stated that the health system in vegas is similar to the ones used in "Call of Duty 2, Halo, and Gears of War." The Halo reference is incorrect. The original Halo had a standard. limited health bar. Halo 2 was the first in the series to have regenerative health. The original Halo DID have a regenerative shield, but the health was limited to seven bars, if memory serves. -- Mellesime 21:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new reference is correct but confusing. Why is Call of Duty 2 the first game listed when Halo 2 used this system before it? The list is almost alphabetical, but Gears of War is clearly misplaced. Fix maybe? -Some guy

I thought Call of Duty 2 also had a standard health bar and the regenerative came in Call of Duty 3.

Call of Duty 2 does have regenetive health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.231.150 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit but no sudden appearance

[edit]

Wow, I've just tried editing this whole page, I save and go back to the article. No changes, what is going on? I've made the article "third person", people keep on having grammatical and spelling mistakes in which I have fixed. Someone please edit that, my browser/computer/net does not seem to work...

edit* sorry, after 3-4 minutes, the updates became effective

please signTowers84 05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons

[edit]

I will be adding the weapon list as it appears on the game's offical website. Please check http://rainbowsixgame.us.ubi.com/vegas/info/weapons.php for reference. Gundam94 19:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the MK46. 68.219.117.67 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did? Well thank you for adding that. Also why was the turret mounted M249 removed? Gundam94 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up?

[edit]

This article seems pretty bad. Anyone with experience, would it be wise to put the "multiplayer unlockables" in a table of some kind? It takes up a large amount of space right now.

Also, the plot section seems to be an in-depth walkthrough of the entire game. Perhaps it should be summarized to remove all the unnecessary parts? 68.219.117.67 04:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the multiplyer unlockables for now. If someone ss willing to put them into a (small) table, just do, but I dont think this is of any great inmportance.--ChrisJG 13:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did the original plot summary, and I realize that it wasn't so much a summary as a novel. So I shortened it quite a bitright now, so hopefully that will cut down on a lot of the stuff that I put in. arrowdynamicsx 7:54, 30 January 2007 (UMT)

There's a lot of grammatical errors throughout the article. Some parts are written so badly that I have no idea what the original meaning is. 19/11/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.157.59 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Live Guest

[edit]

I have been looking for a way to sign a guest onto xbox live with me. Everyone I ask in the game says I can not. But in the book on page 15 it says under Singing in to Xbox Live "Selecting Xbox Live will bring you to the Xbox Live Sign-In screen. If you're playing split screen, you and up to one guest can play on a single Xbox 360 system. After you sign in, each player can edit and modify his or her identity."Deathfromace 06:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't – the manual refers to you playing splitsceen offline.

yeah that sucks dont it.

how to get playing on xbox live?

ok so i have x-live and are signed in, but when i go to the xbox live on the game it says i need to be singed and some thing els, help!!!

Mayor of Las Vegas condemns this game

[edit]

The mayor of Las Vegas Oscar Goodman has objected to the game's being set in his town. See these articles from GamePolitics.com: [1] [2] Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons?

[edit]

Why were the list of weapons deleted?69.129.67.253 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be some kind of weapons list and as I see it there are two ways to do it (1) Make a Prose Section on weapons as suggested by Y2kcrazyjoker4 (2) Make a seperate article on Rainbow Six Vegas weapons and post a link to it on the Rainbow six Vegas article. I am open to suggestions. --DanMP5 Talk * Contribs 23:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one appearantly has any objections so I am going with making a seperate article and linking it to the Rainbow six vegas article. if anybody has any objections please say so i am going to make the article on Jan. 16th--DanMP5 Talk * Contribs 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally had already posted the list of weapons and it was deleted at least twice. I dont know why people keep deleting them.Gundam94 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They say its a Indiscriminate Game Guide, I made a Rainbow six vegas weapons article it was deleted in two days so I am going to add a short Prose section on weapons unless anyone has any objections.--DanMP5 Talk | Contribs 04:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make a separate section for weapons. If you are intending on including a mention on the variety of weapons in the game, include a short paragraph or two in the gameplay section as necessary. --Scottie theNerd 04:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are six different selections of gun types. There are Submachineguns, Light Machineguns, Assualt Rifles, Sniper Rifles, Shields, and Shotguns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.139.11 (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R6:Vegas is to guns what Gran Turismo is to cars, and you wouldn't make a GT page without listing the cars. I vote include the list. seconded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.129.73 (talk)

A Gran Turismo page shouldn't have a full car list. This isn't a vote. This is application of Wikipedia policy. If you have problems with the policy, discuss on the relevant page. Otherwise, heed the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and discuss them on its relevant talk page. --Scottie_theNerd 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to blindly follow the recommendations of Policy Nazis such as yourself, Wikipedia would be a mere shell of its current form and have very little content. The vast majority of pages technically break Wiki "policy." Also, may I remind you the Wiki "policies" are GUIDELINES. They are not laws. They are not the 10 Commandments. They are suggestions for keeping Wiki content up to a respectable standard. Let me also add with my opinion your reasoning on this is flawd, again – my opinion, and asinine in its nature. We do not need the Wiki Policy Gestapo, it's an answer to a problem that doesn't exist. --66.153.225.106 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Micropulse bomb'?

[edit]

Anyone know what this weapon is actually supposed to be? Google brings up some other fiction that used it, but little else. The only clue in the game was a cutscene where someone was apparently exposed to it and had his face melt off or something. --Ted 07:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the game, Walters, the demo-expert, says that it is comparable to "putting your pet in a microwave." -- 11:25, 29 January 2007

The Gillette Mach 3 razor is supposed to run on micropulses. I think its a fancy word for "vibration."

I think someone said it also had a 5 mile radius in the game.Peacemaker456 09:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"micropulse bomb" refers to a type of bomb that uses, well, micropulses to effectively expose its targets (in the game, a 5 mile radius of Vegas) to the effects of putting oneself in a microwave. It uses the same type of microwaves to effectively melt the victim, for lack of a better word.

List of Weapons

[edit]

I have re-merged the list to this article. The list was up for AfD, and while I do not think it should have it's own article, I do think a list of weapons in a video game is encyclopedic (as part of the game's article) and inherently verifiable. --Falcorian (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like somebody decided to get rid of it again. I think that this page would indeed benefit from a weapons list, as it's a major part of the game. -- arrowdynamicsx 6:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at the discussion already on this talk page. The Weapons section has been removed and the relevant article has also been through the deletion process. A weapon list violates WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a game guide nor is it an indiscriminate list of trivial. A full weapon list is naturally important to the game and its players, but of minimal value for readers who do not play the game. Just because such information is useful does not mean it meets Wikipedia guidelines. --Scottie theNerd 12:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is that it's some kind of Microwave weapon. I know the US and Soveits experemented with these weapons during the cold war. I know for a fact the Soveits had one and pointed it at the US Embassy in Moscow. It made a few people sick and I think gave stomach cancer to another. As far as making a microwave "bomb", I dont think that's possible.......yet.

Online Problem

[edit]

There is a glitch online which makes the player take a few steps and then taken back to where they started over and over again.i think it should be added somewhere in the articlePeacemaker456 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not encyclopedic information. Unless it's a notable problem that is documented by a reliable source, it's not worth mentioning in the article. Sounds like it's just a lag problem anyway. --Scottie theNerd 22:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I have been looking for a weapons list and am extremely frustrated that it keeps being deleted by this person above. I wish wiki would get rid of people that with hold information like this. White9739 (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons, Revisited

[edit]

If a weapons list is so wrong, why is there a weapons list in the GRAW article? It would be cool for people that do not know much about firearms to be able to see the real-life versions of the guns in the game, don't you think? Also, for those readers that do not play the game, they're probably here because they're interested in playing. A weapons list would only help them learn more about the game's realism, right? --Scottymoze 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who are interested in reading about in-game items can find them on Wikipedia, and including a list is not an indication of realism. Wikipedia game articles do not contain lists of items or other equipment as per WP:NOT and more specifically the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games guidelines. Be aware that inclusion is not an indication of notability, and the GRAW weapon list has now been removed. Do not assume what readers use Wikipedia for, and understand what Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game site providing reviews for potential players. --Scottie theNerd 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A weapons list is very encyclopedic, since perhaps the most important thing in a FPS is the weapons. And how can it be a game guide, a game guide tells how to do something, and a weapons list doesn't tell how to do anything, it just states facts about what kind of guns & stuff are in a game.--DanMP5 (Talk | Contribs) 16:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the existence of a list that indicates realism, it's that the in-game weapons represent actual weapons...I don't understand how you could have misunderstood that, honestly...But anyway to get back to my main point, all of the articles below ALSO have weapons lists – and that is just the Tom Clancy games, let alone the hundreds of others out there that most likely have the same. So your statement "Wikipedia game articles do not contain lists..." is wrong. Are you going to go delete the weapons lists from all of those as well? Why are you enforcing your rule selectively? --Scottymoze 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a silly little article called DOOM...it happens to have an entire paragraph mentioning all weapons in the game...and by the way...it's a Wikipedia FEATURED ARTICLE. So now may I ask you to stop deleting weapons lists and leave it alone? I have a feeling you won't though. --Scottymoze 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In line 4 of WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE it states that wikipedia is not a "video game guide", The definition of "video game guide" is Here, and it mentions nothing about weapons lists. So I think your(Scottie theNerd's) reason for deleting weapons lists is wrong, saying that it is in violation of WP:NOT a game guide.--DanMP5 (Talk | Contribs) 05:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a commonly quoted response to enforcement of WP:NOT, and hence why I pointed out Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. In particular, from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Article guidelines:
Scope of information
Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. Such topics should be moved to one of the gaming wikis: Encyclopedia Gamia for general info/trivia, StrategyWiki for walkthrough/strategy/gameplay content or GamerWiki for categoric listings of releases, due to the pending deletion of the Wikibooks computer and video games bookshelf.
A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. To propose that an article or section should be moved to a gaming wiki, use the {{Move to gaming wiki}} tag.
A few things to note: Just because articles contain or have contained weapon lists does not mean that all articles should, nor does it mean that it has set a precedent (see WP:INN). The CVG WikiProject aims to trim down information into concise prose rather than lists, and while lists (and note I said "indiscriminate lists") aren't guides in themselves, they consist of needless detail for an encyclopedic article and would more likely be found.
The main point here is that details such as weapons and items should be presented in brief as a paragraph, not as a full list. The CVG guidelines state that articles should avoid not only instructions on how to play a game, but also "excessive amounts of non-encyclopedic trivia", which covers lists. I don't fully agree that weapons in R6 equate to cars in GT, and personally I consider car lists to be needless trivia as well. There is no need for an encyclopedia to list out every single item or object in a game; a brief description is more than enough, and you are free to include brief mentions of some notable items in the game if you so wish. However, as pointed out in the guideline quoted above, extensive and/or comprehensive lists should go to specialised gaming sites than Wikipedia. I don't enforce the rules selectively; I simply don't frequent or edit every single game article.
Regarding some other comments: I don't see a weapon list in the DOOM article, only an encyclopedic paragraph outlining the scope of weapons in the game, which the R6:V article also contains. For another drawn-out debate on weapons, see Talk:Gears of War#Weapons. --Scottie theNerd 01:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Encyclopedia Gamia, that's a neat site, it even has a complete R6V weapons list. So I was wondering, why not have a reference to it's R6V article in the WP article, for people coming here to see what kind of guns are in the game, (before i buy a game, i like to know if it has my favorite guns in it), yes it is important to some people.--DanMP5 (Talk | Contribs) 04:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of specific Wikis (for example, a theoretical Rainbow Six Wiki), Wikipedia does not link to entries in other Wikis. Basically, Wikipedia isn't an advertising ground for other sites or wikis. As far as I know, it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to link every video game article to their respective entries on StrategyWiki or E-Gamia; nor would I imagine Wikipedia would like to entries in other Wikis. As Wikipedia is not a one-stop resource shop, it is up to the reader themselves to go to StrategyWiki, E-Gamia or GameFAQs. While a weapon list can be useful to some readers, you have to bear in mind what Wikipedia is and is not; Wikipedia isn't the place to promote a game or its content. --Scottie theNerd 12:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it isn't at all possible that someone, by chance reading the RSV article would read "Rainbow Six: Vegas features real world weapons (over 40 in all) including numerous assault rifles, submachine guns, pistols and grenades as well as other tactical explosives and devices." and wonder to themselves "Which weapons happen to be in this game?" They could theoretically dig through the official website, however, that would mean constant back and forth searching of weapons on the Official Site, and looking them up in Wikipedia. It would be significantly more convenient to just be able to click the link that says "MP5" or "G36C." Hailing to Wiki guidlines in PROTEST of its readers seems somewhat odd...Old adages seem to state the user has right of way, to an extent. (such as The Customer is always right.) If the readers want something "trivial" as a weapons list that references actual real world weapons, what's the problem? With the amount of editors on Wiki, bloating isn't a problem. It wouldn't be hard for people properly edit what is proper and what isn't. Konraden88 19:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, caters to the general reader, not the gamer. A full list of weapons bloats the article no matter. If players want to find out about all the weapons in the game, they can go to GameFAQs, GamerWiki or any other gaming resource out there. Wikipedia is not one of those sources. I don't see where you're going with your argument. You ask what happens when a reader might wonder to themselves "Which weapons happen to be in the game?". Well, that user might happen to check up a gaming site that has everything to do with the game. If they want to read up on the weapons themselves, that goes beyond the game and they can look up any number of sources online or in books. I say again: Wikipedia does not cater for the gamer – and I assure you that you find that sites on weaponry don't cater for gamers either. Wikipedia isn't the one-stop directory for all your gamer needs, and laziness isn't an excuse to include trivial information. --Scottie_theNerd 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

headset ineffective

[edit]

In solo mode, if you use the xbox live headset you can tell the squad what to do.But its hard to use as i told them to move and they take forever to understand or they do the wrong thing.Peacemaker456 18:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its always like that in games (in fact, its next to useless if you have a british accent too), its just the limitations of the technology. Ghost Recon and SWAT games have the same issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.153.191 (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional header

[edit]

In response to the above section, I added the additional header at the top. This isn't a message board, it should only be used to discuss ways to improve the article. Levid37 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS3 Info

[edit]

What happened to all the PS3 info on this page? This is a multi-platform title and all I see is Xbox 360 info. --Cmsjustin 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: It still mentions that it's for PS3. Although the top of the article does say that there's a rumor it may get cancelled due to the number of delays.

Genre

[edit]

Shouldn't this just be listed as a FPS rather than a tactical shooter? I realize the series is traditionally considered tactical, but the changes in this game prevent it from being realistic enough to be a simulation game. Regenerative health means that you don't necessarily need to use realistic tactics except when extremely outnumbered, which is also the case in any other non-tactical shooter. Not to mention the recoil is less realistic than even counter-strike, which has always been considered too run and gun to be tactical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubersuntzu (talk • contribs)

Read Tactical shooter, it almost describes R6V. And the regenerative health is fairly weak compared to other games, that is you can sometimes get shot only two times and die, and it regenerates very slowly so you are forced to take cover until it completely regenerates. Also the lack of recoil is only visual, meaning that the gun appears not to recoil very much, but if you watch the tracers they disperse heavily.--DanMP5 (Talk | Contribs) 15:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~).

Realism doesn't affect whether a game is a tactical shooter. A game can be set in a sci-fi environment and given the tactical gameplay approach. Vegas forces players to use cover, use tactical items, command a small unit in team assaults and the game's artificial intelligence is designed to respond to these tactics. Regenerating health doesn't make it any less tactical; arguably it's only used to bridge the gap between firefights rather than having a traditional R6 mission-style campaign or looking for health packs. --Scottie_theNerd 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

media

[edit]

i was online and i found posters for 300 and the royal navy on certain levels.Peacemaker456 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic ingame advertising. As was done with Battlefield 2142 EntityHavoc 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting your face in the game

[edit]

How do I make my player with my face. I have the camera but Do not see any options for using it. 04-05-07

Warning

Nobody please delate the weapons list that I added or I will file a complant about the person who does —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt7878 (talk • contribs)

Your complaint is stupid. Its in official wikipedia policy that the site is not to be used as a game guide and expresssly prohibits walkthroughs and lists of achivements, maps, items etc... . Encyclopedic content only.86.16.153.191 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAN I LIST THE NEW MAPS, GAME MODES, ETC.?

[edit]

So, since there is an update being released, would it be a violation of wikipedia if I listed the new maps, game modes, and fix ups? Or would it be like the whole weapons list situation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.216.102.124 (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe a brief sentence on the new game modes and major changes. But not a detailed list.--DanMP5 | contribs 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just now seen the new section you added, I made a minor format change, but overall that is about how it should be (no detailed lists or anything like that).--DanMP5 | contribs 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon Exchange

[edit]

In the description, it states that RBV is the only Rainbow game that does not incorporate exchanging weapons for the ones from dead bodies, yet when I played (on x360) I could switch for with Y button. Should I change this? 125.237.235.241 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the article doesn't say that. It states the opposite.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 13:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I misread it...sorry. 125.237.235.241 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Tag, Expansion Pack

[edit]

I cleaned up the Expansion Pack part. I kept as much of it in-tact as possible, just worked on grammar, internal links and properly renamed a few maps etc. I did my best to keep the original author's content and flow – my apologies if I changed it too much. FEEL FREE TO MOVE THIS SECTION wherever it belongs. I put a title on it but you can scrap that too, if you want. Thanks all!!! --Scottymoze 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving the section below collector's edition, Also if you don't mind, could you take out some of the detail in it (no need to go into detail about all the maps and stuff).--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 13:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I don't really mind where the section goes or if it gets butchered. I just did some cleanup, grammar and details were a tad off. The originial author can feel free to cleanup more. Do we want to return the internal links (a lot of them vanished in that section when it got moved)? Just a thought, no biggie either way. Thanks for the help!! --Scottymoze 20:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the links went away when I moved the section, I didn't notice that they were gone. But anyway I will add them back and cut away at some of the overly detailed things (such as the new game modes) someday soon.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 04:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nicholas Cage movie poke should be removed or chaged. It says "Upcoming Nicholas Cage Movie." Well, in three years, it won't be upcoming anymore.Konraden88 20:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music?

[edit]

Perhaps music should be touched on. I know it was done by paul haslinger, but there were quite a few tracks in the game I could not find on his website.

Ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.48.181.4 (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The year of Rainbow Six: Vegas

[edit]

I was wondering, about what year the game takes place in – anyone knows that? DHfraGR 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heard it was supposedly on 2010. Ominae 05:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen a written source for that, but it is an assumption. In one of the levels in story mode, there is a calendar labeled 2010. ResurgamII 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add that on the PSP manual, it's set in 2010. But then again, the game is a companion story to the PS3/Xbox 360/PC versions. Ominae 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5th game

[edit]

how is this the 5th game when there are 5 other games in the series? Shouldn't it be the 6th?Sam ov the blue sand 22:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts over UE3 engine

[edit]

What with the current hoolah between Epic and Silicon Knights, I've come across some evidence that R6V is not actually using UE3 only for its game engine. http://www.mecom.com.au/temp/scan.jpg This is from the PC version which states it is clearly using UE2.5. I don't doubt that R6V is using some of the UE3 code, the lack of a true AA mode would suggest it is using some UE3 technology, but it would seem that despite the fact UE3 was licensed for R6V, it is actually using UE2.5 as the core.

The PS3 version is the only version of R6V that used UE3 proper, the Xbox 360 and PC versions both used a heavily modified 2.5 build.

That is highly unlikely as at the moment UE3 isn't even running on the PS3 hardware properly, that is why Sony have been lednding development and financial assistance to Epic to get UE3 optimized for Cell. Phil Harrison confirmed as much here http://kotaku.com/gaming/dyack-justified%3F/phil-harrison-talks-unreal-engine-fixes-for-the-ps3-280944.php Not to mention that KOEI have delayed Fatal Interia multiple times for the PS3 due to UE3 not being complete for the PS3 http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3160735

Hi,

Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a place for original research or rumors. Unless it has been specifically pointed out by Ubisoft or some reputable source then that shouldn't be included. IGN states the RB6 PC version uses UE3 as well as numerous other sites, so we'll have to stick with that. ResurgamII 19:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What engine does the PSP version use? 68.147.223.143 02:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superbad

[edit]

As I was playing this on Xbox Live the other night, I saw an ad for Superbad in the repel room of the Calypso Casino. Shouldn't this be mentioned?

No, it is in game advertising,otherwise known as Dynamic ingame advertising. there are adverts for products in MANY live games. Lord Cuthberton —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Isn't this image from the back of the game case???? StaticGull (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was to merge into both articles mentioned below (clear consensus). MuZemike (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Michael Walters be merged into Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2. This is from a suggestion from a recently closed merger proposal at Talk:Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (video game)#Merger proposal. Please discuss below and indicate if you support or oppose the merger. If no discussion is initiated within five days of the sign date, then the merger proposal will automatically pass due to lack of opposition. MuZemike (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

PSP Version

[edit]

A PSP version with a companion narritive was released. I think this this game deserves it's own section or perhaps even a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.211.169 (talk) 05:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten through most of the game, I will try to post the story ASAP-Dudeaga (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to article

[edit]

Under Gameplay it says,

..it should be noted that the player may sometimes be a chance to regenerate health; this usually happens from grenades, as well as taking close range fire from very powerful weapons, particularly to the head).

What is should say is,

it should be noted that the player may sometimes be killed instantly, without a chance to regenerate health; this usually happens from grenades, as well as taking close range fire from very powerful weapons, particularly to the head).

I can't edit the article because it's protected. --SST1337 (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Fixed problem. --SST1337 (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Rainbow Six® Vegas" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rainbow Six® Vegas and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Rainbow Six® Vegas until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of actual gameplay description

[edit]

The gameplay section mentions a lot of how this game differs from its predecessors, but it says precious little about what the gameplay actually is to someone who may be familiar with videogames and even shooters, but not intimately familiar with the Rainbow games in particular. I am aware that such descriptions should be brief, but I believe it should at the very least be present. MasterHigure (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six:_Vegas&oldid=1205723513"