The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hmmm.
Buy. Rainbow. Six. 3.
("3" doesn't count as a word :D)
> Just one thing, if people complained that Ghost Recon was poor because
> the AI units picked off the enemy long before the player could engage
> them, then how is this any different ? At least on Ghost Recon you
> had a whole team to play with, but if you die in R6 then it's game
> over.
ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> The difference being Ghost Recon is crap and Rainbow Six 3 isn't.
> Quite simple.
Alastair nailed it.
> Belldandy wrote:
> Just one thing, if people complained that Ghost Recon was poor
> because
> the AI units picked off the enemy long before the player could
> engage
> them, then how is this any different ? At least on Ghost Recon you
> had a whole team to play with, but if you die in R6 then it's game
> over.
>
> ÂLŠ†ÂÎR wrote:
> The difference being Ghost Recon is crap and Rainbow Six 3 isn't.
> Quite simple.
>
> Alastair nailed it.
No pikey business for you then? eh?
It's really limited, essentially an FPS where you send the AI members of the team to do the dirty work and mop up after them, plus the level design is basic and seems done with numerous set pieces to allow the use of the Zulu code.
Any sniper tactics are limited in single player to you choosing a sniper rifle and moving forward alone.
I'm sorry, but to me this is another example of OXM becoming rather overenthusiastic with their reviewing, I've played Wallace and Gromit more than I have this.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is either smoking something very strong, or just completly insane and likes stupidly dull games.
"OOooh let's set way points and be overly realistic and doing so be stupidly boring....no I'd rather blow sh-t up with sweet looking guns and have FUN"