rb6v and rb6v2 are practically the same game

now when i say this i mean there is hardly any difference

-the graffics are nearly the same

-the gameplay is exactly the same

-every good thing about rb6v is the only real good things in rb6v2

etc., etc.

i really do not care if you agree with me

i am just trying to warn fellow gamers who have not purchased rb6v2 yet to might as well keep playing the first one cause there really is no difference

i am gonna try to take it back tomorrow and maybe i will just get the first one again for half the price

I have both of them. Vegas 2 looks alot better, but my tv sucks so yea.

Campaign= Vegas 2.

Multiplayer= Vegas.

They ruined Vegas 2's Team Deathmatch and Attack and Defend, among a few others with having limited Respawns. I only play Team Conquest on Vegas 2, since its unlimited Respawns. Dont get me wrong, Its night that theyre making it more team oriented and tactical, but Im honestly not very good at Vegas or Vegas 2 so having no respawns, I pretty much have to stay right in the spawn area so I dont loose them.

so you are telling me that you pretty much payed $60 for Team Conquest and a short campaign? i guess i dont understand thatjosh_oh_josh

[QUOTE="josh_oh_josh"]so you are telling me that you pretty much payed $60 for Team Conquest and a short campaign? i guess i dont understand thatsteveslugga

true true

Thanks for the tip. I was tempted to buy, but I think I'll stick with COD4 for another few months or years.

yeah definitely thanks for the warning....i was thinkin bout gettin it cuz i thought it would take over the multiplayer hype from CoD 4...but seeing as its only the same stuff yet again i guess theres no worries.....but which multiplayer would you prefer to play??

and quick note....they barely promoted this game at all....i only saw previews of it about a week before it came out and it just felt like no one really cared

also read this:

the only cool new things they did add are all in call of duty 4 (sprint, bullet penetration)

so pretty much they took the first r6v and took the sprint and penetrating bullets from call of duty 4 and put those together and there was their sequel

also read this:

the only cool new things they did add are all in call of duty 4 (sprint, bullet penetration)

so pretty much they took the first r6v and took the sprint and penetrating bullets from call of duty 4 and put those together and there was their sequel

josh_oh_josh

Well glad I didnt buy that game but pre-ordered GTA 4 instead. That one weill be nothing lke 3.JohnnyDrama8

see im glad they made limited respawns cause it fixed alot of problems ppl had with the first one. Me and my buddies loved camping the hell out of ppl just to get them riled up and mad. now those ppl dont have to worry about being camped. it also makes it alot easier to get through with matches and have more and earn more experiance. if your really that worried about dying and not being able to respawn just stick with COD 4 or Halo, then you will be worry free. And leave the smart shooters to the rest of us who want the complicated and thorough experiance.

just as a side note.

1. the graphics look drastically better (especially on a 54" HDTV ^_^)

2. gameplay is still as smooth as the firsts

3. and the experiance and level up system is just as everyone loved it to begin with. So maybe GS has a problem with sticking to the right formula but these days the way they go about "their" formula I would care if they gave it a 1 for being "recycled". Cause lets me honest. Whens the last time a shooter was TRUELY revolutionary. There hasn't been one of those since the first Halo, Golden Eye and Unreal Torny came out. It's all grandchildren in spiffy new looks nowadays and thats it