RB6V2 Thread

[blueovalboy7]

Yea, I never played the first one, so the second one is fine for me, I just wish they would have added more realism in the maps and gameplay. I'm not completely disappointed with it, but I was expecting more.

 

[Hybrid]

This game looks prety cool but the reviews are kinda unreliable...
I'm afraid to get it since so many peeps say its a worse version of COD4... sooo help.

 

[blueovalboy7]

Well...

I personally love the campaign, so much fun and with the co-op it makes it a lot of fun with friends too. You can co-op through online or split screen. I enjoy it immensely.

As for the online... I'm still up in the air about it, personally I think COD 4 is unmatched in online gameplay, but I haven't really given RSV2 a fighting chance to impress me. I've only played twice online and it was mediocre.

The campaign alone is worth it for me, and the gameplay is quite nice, being able to take cover, put silencers on and off while you're playing as well as change from full-auto, to burst, to single shot on the fly.

 

[Hybrid]

thanks ive heard good things about the online... so i think ill rent and give a chance.

 

[Carts]

From what I read in the GI magazine they seem to be revamping the game. Seems like they're gonna copy of CoD4 by leveling up and unlocking guns.

11 new guns.

Updated co-op where someone can jump into the campaign at anytime by controlling one of your squadmates.

13 new maps, smaller maps to make more instense fighting.

All the screenshots in the magazine still show you shooting from the hip instead of aiming down your sights like CoD2/3/4/Killzone2/etc

I think aiming down the sites is a must now days, it adds an extra element and realism to the game. Aiming down sights = more accurate shoots, shooting at hip = less accurate. But I guess they're not gonna do that.

How r they copying COD4? they did that in there first vegas game.

 

[T3kNi9e]

That post is over 2 months old from something I read and you are quoting it now...

 

[blueovalboy7]

I played the online some more, still not impressed.

 

[deadlydasher]

ye ai never played the first one so it was good to be i love it ive been palyin it all day online rocks..but **** the reviews! its abotu what u think about it not what they say...and **** the graphics they may not be as good as cod4 but their ok...not like pacman..and its not as good as cod4 but ill have to say its sadly better than halo 3..i would love to say halo 3 is better but i cant..

 

[blueovalboy7]

As for shooters my ranking would have COD 4 at the top, then Vegas 2, then Halo 3 as well.

 

[deadlydasher]

i agree 100 percent with blueovalboy! halo 3 is one of those games that u want to like but u cant! when i got my cod4 disc and halo 3 disc resurfaced my halo3 disc broke and ididnt even bother to cry lol or even try to get a new disc..if my cod4 or rb6v2 disc broke whole nother story

 

[blueovalboy7]

That is is terms of online play though, as for campaign, I'd rank the campaigns for each game as RSV2 then Halo 3, then COD 4. I love the co-op campaign options in both Halo and Vegas, makes it more fun in my opinion. If COD 4 had co-op campaign it would be the holy grail of shooters, but sadly it doesn't, maybe COD 6?

 

[deadlydasher]

hahahah blueovalboy knows that freaking treyarch or how eva u spell it wont be smart enough to put it in their! they prolly wont be smart of enough to realize we dont want WWII games anymore! then theyll prolly think that means we want the civil war..

 

[T3kNi9e]

I'll probably still get Call of Duty 5 as long as the reviews are atleast 80 average. Im going to want to take a break from Modern Warfare.

 

[Sovieto]

i played the hell out of the first one. (t-hunt was the only thing worth playing).

is this map pack.. i mean sequel, worth getting?

 

[deadlydasher]

lol sovieto nice one about the map pack thingy. but yea its worth getting online is fun! but again i havnt played the first one thats why...but its not as fun as cod4 but sadly more fun than halo 3