Feedback on the quality of the Rainbow Six Vegas PC graphics

mbeede · Post by **mbeede** » 13 Dec 2006, 03:34

All - It looks like a lot of you already have Rainbow Six Vegas for the PC. It doesn't appear to be available here in Denver CO until tomorrow. But I am already hearing that it is a horrible port of the game (from the 360).

So those of you that are playing it how do the graphics compare to FEAR or GRAW. I have a sweet gaming rig so if the graphics are not on par with FEAR then I may pass on it. I had high expectations for this game. I saw that you there is a solution for the TH2G which is AWESOME!

So feedback, how are the graphics, especially if you have a very high-end gaming rig? Does the game do it justice like FEAR?

Thanks, Mark

My gaming rig:
AMD FX60 Dual Core CPU
ASUS A8n32-SLI MB
2GB Corsair RAM
Zalman CNPS9500 Fan
Thermaltake 750w PSU
BFG 7950GX2 1GB video card
Gigabyte 3D Aurora Case
TH2GO
3 Dell 2001FP Monitors
2TB Hard disk space
plus more...

Destroy · Post by **Destroy** » 14 Dec 2006, 02:49

Gfx are on par with GRAW, which to my eyes is rather crappy. Low res textures are the norm, low poly count is obvious everywhere, FSAA does not work, frame rate is crap and the whole screen gfx have that glossy filtered look like GRAW had.

Overall, not impressed at all in the gfx dept.

Mott · Post by **Mott** » 14 Dec 2006, 19:58

Here is your problem and a huge problem in the modern gaming world. Graphics aren't EVERYTHING!!!! It makes me so mad that a person would pass up a game simply because the GFX aren't as good as a said game. What if a company put most of their time on game play and story line rather than making the graphics look all shiny and pretty to distract people with too much money and not enough brains, are you going to pass it up? Some of the best games I have ever played have had mediocre graphics. In fact if you think about it games that seem to be all hyped up just for the graphics seem to be dull because of all the time spent on the graphics (prey anyone?).

Don't pass a game up just because the graphics aren't on par with another game. Play the game for yourself and SEE if it is fun, not just good looking!!!!!!

MisMatch · Post by **MisMatch** » 14 Dec 2006, 21:08

Don't pass a game up just because the graphics aren't on par with another game. Play the game for yourself and SEE if it is fun, not just good looking!!!!!!

QFT :!:

Destroy · Post by **Destroy** » 14 Dec 2006, 21:20

Play the game for yourself and SEE if it is fun, not !!!!!!

True, this is the best way to find out. Wait for the demo or play it yourself somehow on PC.

It's not all about the gfx however, its also about the game as a whole, which is full of consolitus and halfassed done.

This is a port, so don't expect a sweet, new Rogue Spear, cause this game isn't that by a long shot.

I'd pay $20 for this game and not a cent more.

Oneone · Post by **Oneone** » 15 Dec 2006, 10:43

Gfx are on par with GRAW, which to my eyes is rather crappy. Low res textures are the norm, low poly count is obvious everywhere, FSAA does not work, frame rate is crap and the whole screen gfx have that glossy filtered look like GRAW had.

Overall, not impressed at all in the gfx dept.

you read my mind, was really looking forward to this game on PC. guess i will just have to get used to the half arsed port hehe.

Jazza · Post by **Jazza** » 15 Dec 2006, 17:51

Looks terrible and runs terrible. Check out my awesome FPS! This is with everything on lowest, 1440x900.

AMD 64+ 3200 Venice @ 3800
1.5GB DDR400
256MB 6800GS @ 485/1100 (Stock: 425/1000)
200GB IDE
MSI K8N Neo 4F[/img]

Gabbo · Post by **Gabbo** » 16 Dec 2006, 01:52

Looks terrible and runs terrible. Check out my awesome FPS! This is with everything on lowest, 1440x900.

AMD 64+ 3200 Venice @ 3800
1.5GB DDR400
256MB 6800GS @ 485/1100 (Stock: 425/1000)
200GB IDE
MSI K8N Neo 4F[/img]

Ouch. I would suggest running at a lower res. I guess I should stop complaining about performance as I am not suffering as badly as Jazza.

Cornflake · Post by **Cornflake** » 20 Dec 2006, 04:06

I was really looking forward to this game also. I fell in love when I first played Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield for the P.C. I'm in love with tactical shooters, but I've been so dissapointed because EVERYTHING now is being developed for the console and being ported the the P.C. Lockdown was such a horrible slap in the face for us Rainbow Six fans... and when I saw some screenshots and videos (off the X360 on Gamespot) and their review I was hopeful.

Today I checked on Gamespot.com for their review on R6:V and it got an 8.7n and sounded like they were impressed. They said it is a genuinley good tactical shooter worth playing. I had my hopes high that I could get this for X-mas to hold me over until Crysis comes out.

I expected that some of the textures would be blurry, and not very eye appealing like G.R.A.W.'s because unfortunatley now, especially with Ubisoft, that is the trend :( But ultimatley the graphics are good enough for me... I want to know if the game is really a good tactical shooter that's fun to play. I'm worried about the performance, though. 1440x900 lowest settings, and only 6 FPS with a 6800? My X800XL is around the same performance level... *GULP*

I really hope this game is one of the better R6's like the reiveiws say, but i'm tired of games with shitty performance.

Destroy · Post by **Destroy** » 20 Dec 2006, 05:17

It's not much of a tactical shoot. It's more on the arcade side of things for sure. Its definitely fun in it's own right but if you're expecting depth like Rogue Spear, forget about it; it's got 1/4 the depth.

I like Vegas for its decent gfx in later levels and the pure number of 'OMG shits are happening gonna die holy crap look out chaos' moments this game has rather often.

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 20 Dec 2006, 10:05

I think the graphics aren't bad ... but they aren't good either considering how much of a system hog this game is ...
BUT ... it isn't all about graphics ... I would much rather have a game with good game-play and poor graphics than a game with poor game-play and good graphics ...

IMHO ... this game has GREAT game-play.

Just out of interest ... with 2 8800's at the point shown in the screenshot above and with everything at maximum apart from shadows which are at medium ... I get about 70 fps ... with shadows on maximum I get about 40fps.

A real system hog !!!

... the pure number of 'OMG shits are happening gonna die holy crap look out chaos' moments this game has ...

... :mrgreen: ... so true ... The cover system ... the overall game-play and those moments are the reasons why I love this game.

.................................................

Guys remember ...... whilst the screenshots shown in other posts are't too bad ... PLEASE use thumbnails as I have above ...
The code for this is ...

Code: Select all

<a href="http://Link to large image"><img src="Link to small image" alt="" /></a>

emanuel.en · Post by **emanuel.en** » 20 Dec 2006, 13:14

Paddy do you think my system could run it with nice effects? :o
I'm a bit concerned because Double Agent runs like crap with detailed shaders.

Intel Core2Duo 6400
2048MB RAM 667Mhz
2x 7900GTX

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 20 Dec 2006, 13:22

I would think it would be ok ... I get slowdowns in places but on the whole it is ok.

Shadows seem to be the biggest issue for me however medium or low shadows doesn't look that different to high shadows ... and you can gain losts of fps if you lower them.
Some levels don't seem to have shadows at all !

Everything else on or off doesn't make too much difference ... but some say lower resolutions help too.
I haven't tried any other res other that 1920x1200 or some TripleHead resolutions.

What res will you be running ?

emanuel.en · Post by **emanuel.en** » 20 Dec 2006, 13:37

1920x1200

also I don't need 16xAF for example so you really think its ok, because I would love to play the game. :o

Post by **Paddy the Wak** » 20 Dec 2006, 13:58

Yeah ... I think you will be OK ... for the most part it should play fine ... especially if you lower the shadows ... but you framerates won't be high and there will be some slowdowns.
There is no ingame setting for AF ... so you will need to set this in the nVideo control panel .... but again I'm not sure it makes much difference to the game.

If you can wait a day or so ... I'll fire it up at 1920x1200 on my 7900's system (see specs) and see what it is like ... let me know ...

I have read that the Intel CPU's are performing better with the game than the AMD.

emanuel.en · Post by **emanuel.en** » 20 Dec 2006, 14:01

Yeah ... I think you will be OK ... for the most part it should play fine ... especially if you lower the shadows ... but you framerates won't be high and there will be some slowdowns.
There is no ingame setting for AF ... so you will need to set this in the nVideo control panel .... but again I'm not sure it makes much difference to the game.

If you can wait a day or so ... I'll fire it up at 1920x1200 on my 7900's system (see specs) and see what it is like ... let me know ...

I have read that the Intel CPU's are performing better with the game than the AMD.

Yes I have that time. It would be so great if you could test it, im impressed that you would do something like that. :o

Destroy · Post by **Destroy** » 20 Dec 2006, 16:16

E6600, 2Gig and 8800GTX here.

Game all settings to max runs fine at 19x10 95% of the time. Lowest frame rate was 9 in one area, and there were about 8 or so other goofy areas where the frame rate was in the middle to low teens. Other than that its smooth sailing in the high 20s or beyond.

Take it for what its worth, 80% done with the game btw.

emanuel.en · Post by **emanuel.en** » 20 Dec 2006, 16:35

E6600, 2Gig and 8800GTX here.

Game all settings to max runs fine at 19x10 95% of the time. Lowest frame rate was 9 in one area, and there were about 8 or so other goofy areas where the frame rate was in the middle to low teens. Other than that its smooth sailing in the high 20s or beyond.

Take it for what its worth, 80% done with the game btw.

Sounds not that bad. But I'm still very excited about what Paddy will tell me. :)

Cornflake · Post by **Cornflake** » 20 Dec 2006, 16:39

E6600, 2Gig and 8800GTX here.

Game all settings to max runs fine at 19x10 95% of the time. Lowest frame rate was 9 in one area, and there were about 8 or so other goofy areas where the frame rate was in the middle to low teens. Other than that its smooth sailing in the high 20s or beyond.

Take it for what its worth, 80% done with the game btw.

Wow that's ****ing retarded. I'm sorry, in my opinion that is horrible. An 880GTX all settings at max and smooth sailing in 20's or beyond? Sure, Max settings -- but with an 8800GTX I would expect at least in the 40's and above. I saw videos of R6: Vegas on Gamespot for the 360... not only did it look amazing, but it got excellent framerates that I could see. I'm getting an 880GTX for X-mas... and that's dissapointing to hear.

I know the gameplay looks kick-ass - and I know it doesn't have as much deapth to rogue spear. How does it compare to R6:3? How fast is is the run speed? Is multiplayer chaotic enough to compete with FEAR? (I hope not). I know from some video reviews it said less planning before a game, but more planning IN the game. Deciding factor: Can I camp in a corner with a remote charge or claymore and have fun blowing someone up?

Destroy · Post by **Destroy** » 20 Dec 2006, 17:17

Just wanted to clarify. 20s and beyond means just that. I'd say 75% of the time I was in the 35 to 60fps range with great playable frame rates. 15% of the time in the 20 to 30 range, still ok playable. 10% was less than 20fps which was rather noticable but the odd thing is it wasn't during heavy action most of the time, yet 2 times I remember it was.

>How does it compare to R6:3? How fast is is the run speed?
Been a while since I played it but speed seems about the same. There are 2 speeds, slow jog and walk slow.

>Is multiplayer chaotic enough to compete with FEAR?
Dunno, haven't tried online yet.

>Can I camp in a corner with a remote charge or claymore and have fun blowing someone up?
Not really. The enemy don't patrol much, some do but very few. I've tried sneaking but the enemy sees you very quickly. Trying to sneak to an area and plant a bomb just doesn't work well at all in this game cause once you're seen all hell breaks loose in HUGE way usually. So sneaking doesn't work well at all IMO.

I have used my silencer several times and taken out enemies with it while others don't notice but once you get to a scripted area, the mahem is unstopable and the fire fights ensue.

This is really more of an action game. Stackup on door. Blast in. Run and gun then duck to cover and shoot. Point and move friendly AI forward. Run and gun then duck to cover and shoot some more.

Its fun and worth buying on its own merit but its not true to the R6 series (up till LackDown) as we PC folk remember it. :(

Widescreen Gaming Forum