Talk:Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2

PC Patch is a no-DVD crack

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1991064316/m/1381029176/p/1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.218.110 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Trojan condom advertisements

I've played the game, and have seen these advertisements, so I'm re-adding it. 70.228.78.109 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Platform Exclusivity?

On Ubisoft's official website the game is only listed under Xbox 360 and the PC. Should we add that so far only those two Microsoft platforms are confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.198.101 (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No. The announcement says "next-generation consoles", in plural. --MrStalker ^talk 11:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's now 360,PS3 and PC —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattParker 119 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources that we have now do not say that it's coming to PS3, although it is highly likely. If you can provide a reliable source that specifically states the game coming to PS3, then add it. For all we know, next generation means the Wii... ;) Green451 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

dude http://www.ubi.com/UK/Games/Info.aspx?pId=6180 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattParker 119 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the sources. In future, you can avoid issues like this by simply moving or adding references yourself. Green451 (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IGN.com says the 18th for North America, as does Gamespot.com, ebgames.com as well. (Gouki)

Dev Diary #1

Stuff about ACES and rewards JAF1970 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Lumping everything into one nebulous topic ("Details"?) looks bad. C'mon - divvy it up (Gameplay, etc.) and make it look good. JAF1970 (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have moved the following sentence down a paragraph in order to tidy the "Reception" section up:

"The PS3 version had an average score of 83% based on 11 reviews on Game Rankings,[19] and an average score of 83 out of 100 based on 13 reviews on Metacritic.[20]"

Otherwise it makes it harder to read, Wikipedia listed the section as requiring a cleanup.

Most of this article requires a cleanup and/or expansion, its not going to get GA anytime soon. --Slickwiki (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Confirmed Maps" list

Does anyone else think this list should be removed? The list of new weapons was removed, with the reasoning that WP isn't a game guide, so it stands to reason that this list should also be removed.

The list has a lot of errors, too, if you check it against pictures from the player's guide, but that's beside the point. --Icy Guy (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

X-Play review

I can't edit it but you can. x-play gave it a 4/5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Release Dates

Ubisoft recently stated that the PC version for Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 has been delayed. I tried putting this into the article (with cited source) and it got deleted by Nimitize. What gives? See Rainbow Six: Vegas (the prequel to Vegas 2) to see that this is LEGITIMATELY OK. Neil the Cellist (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The game is set in 2010

Notwithstanding the dozens of in game "fake" advertising that reference 2010, see http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3166991 for a out-of-universe reference. I won't edit the plot section myself, as I haven't yet finished the game and don't want to see spoilers. xenocidic (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. Neil the Cellist (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It must be 2010 because it runs at / very shortly before the same time as Vegas 1 and in that game all the wall calanders in offices aer for 2010.86.16.153.191 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Weapon List

We need a weapon list! I might try and do it tonight, we'll see. 24.16.47.209 (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow this Wiki needs a weapon list, even without information (probably best) but just a run down of the weapons organized by category (according to the game) with links to Wiki pages on each weapon. I might have to do this soon? --24.16.47.209 (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not include an exhaustive weapon list as it will not add to the article. Wikipedia is not a game guide. A few notable weapons should be mentioned in the prose of the article. xenocidic (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it make sense to at least list the new weapons that were not in Vegas 1?--24.16.47.209 (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I could see that being notable, yes. As long as the list wasn't too long. See also WP:VG/GL#Scope of information. xenocidic (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a long list (thank goodness). I vote for its addition. Neil the Cellist (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally loved the weapon list. As an avid fan of first person shooters, I know that the weapons are always important. I also liked how the all linked up to their respective pages. It may not be a game guide, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The list stays. Also, I think that this sort of list could be added to all FPS pages, if the weapons are real, they could hyperlink to their respective articles. If the weapons are fictional, the should link to their own paraghraph in a "Weapons of ---" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiahSargus (talk • contribs) 03:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate to resurrect the dead (discussion), but if anyone is interested in creating a list of weapons used in this game, I suggest making a separate article detailing "weapons used in the rainbow six series". You could organize it by game or just simply by when a specific weapon was added to the series that didn't exist before. E.g., list the MP5 and UMP .45 as standard R6 weapons, but show that light machine guns didn't appear until a little later in the series, etc.

I think it's a fair compromise if people really want this. It doesn't need to be in the main article; that article is long enough as is with the massive walkthrough/plot summary. The weapons subject matter would be well-suited as a separate article, however, since most of the weapons span across most of the series. It would be an interesting project to research, even. --Isfppoet (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to do so, but odds are that the list would get AfDed. [SCΛRECROW]^{CrossCom 2.0} 12:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's probably better left alone. There's lots of Rainbow Six info out there anyway. What about an external links section? That definitely would be relevant and not add a bunch of potentially removable content. Let's do that!--Isfppoet (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, how about Vegas 2 Weapons on RainbowSix.Wikia.Com? That's the most organized and attractive list of weapons I've found just digging around in a few minutes of looking. Plus it's a nice looking little Wikia and it's more in depth than Wikipedia needs to be. Screw it, I'll set up a links section right now, if I can figure out how. :P I'm a noob. A general link to that site would also be cool.--Isfppoet (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added an external links section and tweaked the article a little. [SCΛRECROW]^{CrossCom 2.0} 13:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This article does need a weapons list. Look all of the people that want one and the two or three that dont. If you look on the page "What Wikipedia is NOT", you will see that it does in fact say that it is not a game guide. However, it does not define what a gamw guide is. Even if you go to the wiki article about game guides, it lists certain things that are in a game guide. A weapons list is NOT included in that. So, using logic, one would assume that a weapons list in NOT a part of a game guide. It is a matter of opinion on whether or not it is part of a game guide. A weapons list was on this article for quite a long time. Everybody was happy with it, nobody was hurt with it being there. The only reason it was taken down was because of some power hungry wiki troll. The weapons list needs to be put back on.Puro spana (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Points taken, but according to Gamecruft guidelines, weapons lists are not appropriate. I'm not against weapons lists, but guidelines should be followed. There is an external link to the weapons link at Rainbow Six wiki in the article. [SCΛRECROW]^{CrossCom 2.0} 08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there an appropriate way we can mention the weapons list (e.g., "see external links for a list") in the article so people know it's there? I don't think that's really necessary, but that at least might not be against guidelines. Either way, I think the links are a good compromise though. --Isfppoet (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I also have to point out that while more users interested in directly editing this article appear to want a weapons list, that doesn't mean that those users have the right to go against a much greater body of users who have established certain guidelines/criteria for Wikipedia as a whole. This is a publicly editable site (or however you'd say that), but it's still not each individual's personal property to do whatever they want with. The guidelines are there because otherwise everyone would just jam in whatever information they think is relevant, even if that quadruples the article's length to the point nobody wants to read it anymore. I personally would enjoy seeing a weapons list in this article, but I don't think it belongs and there's a quality one already in existence on a nice Rainbow wiki site in the links now.--Isfppoet (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"NATO Hostage"

I removed this because, if memory serves, no hostages are reported as "important" excluding the NSA Agent in Chapter 2. If I am incorrect, please fix it. Rockhound (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In-Game Advertising

Should a list of the real-world products/organizations advertised in Vegas 2 be included in this article? Kap2319 (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's recommended, however, you should also link with brackets to what in-game advertising is. There is an absence of a lot of good linking on the Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 article because I've had to remove a lot of them. Example: Someone linked "operative", but that redirects to "political campaign staff", which is NOT Bishop's role. (Bishop debates with guns, not with a political manual). ;-) Neil the Cellist (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Should this be added as trivia?Kap2319 (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Trivia is discouraged, I've already renamed the section =). xenocidic (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's advertising for the Swedish military in Swedish on placards in the game. Someone add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.63.86 (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Online problems not mentioned

Shouldn't the problems with joining servers which had plagued almost all of the players in the PS3 edition be mentioned?--LF2 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• As long as they're mentioned as PS3 defects, rather than defects with the game in general. --207.255.242.48 (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some XBOX360 users are also having problems with online playability. Just look at the official UBI forums for Vegas 2. XBOX360 users and PS3 users alike are having the same problems. Also, single-player problems are also prevalent in the XBOX360 version. Some XBOX360 users, (myself included) were unable to get the Realistic achievement (beat the whole game on Realistic without co-op). Ubisoft merely stated that they acknowledge the issue and are "currently looking for a fix." (again, see the official UBI forums, it's a sticky, right here: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1991064316/m/1761002546 . Hope I've helped. Neil the Cellist (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually difficult to join a game in the 360 version. In the PS3 version, however... --207.255.242.48 (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you read what I said? I said that 360 users alike are having problems. This is the first time that both XBOX360 users as well as PS3 users are having problems.

The reason reviewers didn't give the XBOX360 a bad score is because most of them used LAN or short-distance online games to base their reviews off of. People like me, however, with NetGear modems are stuck in total online nightmares. All the XBOX360 games I've been on, I get people who yell over the mic, "I swear I will never get another f***ing Ubish*t game." In other words, there's a growing number of XBOX360 users who are starting to have the same online fiasco problems as PS3 users. It's on the forums, just look at all the negative threads and see how many XBOX360 complainers are. I'm one of them. Neil the Cellist (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problems with the PS3 version of the game have been fixed with a serverside update.--64.252.109.253 (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. Neil the Cellist (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I myself own the Ps3 version of the game, and since the fix i havent had problems joining games. check the playstation.com forums, alot of people there have had the same experiences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.136.108 (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The PS3 game as of last month does not appear to have any significant technical issues. I alternate play between a Wireless-G connection and the Ethernet connection and don't experience any game-breaking lag, and the matchmaking system is actually fairly good for co-op games and not terrible for versus mode. I'm not arguing with anyone here, just letting potential players know that it's fine right now. Lots of players playing, as well. I rarely have trouble finding the exact game type that I want. --Isfppoet (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Misciting information

Ok, there are random IP addresses out there who keep changing the review scores on the article. For example, some user of an IP address went in to change the EuroGamer review score of 7/10 to 10/10, which is not only immoral, but a complete violation of Wiki-ethics. You do not, under any circumstances, change a review score just because you like the game. What someone else's opinion remains THEIR opinion. Do NOT put words or numbers in someone else's mouth that they did not put in. Whoever keeps doing this, you better cease and desist, or I'm reporting you. Neil the Cellist (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

QQ 86.163.245.106 (talk) 07:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, now there's even more. Some random IP address tried to make a subtle edit, changing PC to XBOX360 in one sentence. Good thing I caught it in the edit history. Neil the Cellist (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum

This is a Wikipedia talk page. This is not a forum for discussion of R6:V2. It's for collaboration on how to improve the article, not for idle speculation and commentary on the game itself or various plot factors about whether a character is alive or not. Per WP:FORUM/WP:TALK I've removed the idle chatter. Please do not reinsert it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot inconsistencies should be mentioned, especially if the story is inconsistent with R6 Vegas 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.131.213.155 (talk) 06:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot inconsistency

If I understand correctly, the game begins "five years ago", right? So that's 2005. That means Ding Chavez isn't Six yet, John Clark is. The events of Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield (5 games ago) took place in 2006. That means that it's a plot inconsistency, since Chavez should be Major Ding Chavez, not the rank of Six. Someone should point this out and cite it somehow. Neil the Cellist (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a variety of inconsistancy in this. If Gabriel was pretending to be the NSA agent how was he in the Casino as a fake hostage in R61? -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.145.114 (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what your trying to say, but in the flashback Ding Chavez only leads Alpha squad and not Rainbow Six. One of Bishop's references to 'Six' is when he compliments Logan on being a good operative favored by Six. Bishop never reveals who Six was at the time of the flashback, and greets Chavez in the flashback by saying "It's been a while Ding". In the 2010 acts, Bishop calls him Six, so there is no plot inconsistency. You can see this by playing the first act (notice that Bishop does not refer to Ding Chavez as Six, and when Six is mentioned there is no evidence that Ding holds the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.242.244 (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As for Gabriel being in the Casino, Bishop was knocked out in the hanger explosion, so it might be possible for Gabriel to be at the Casino while Bishop was out cold and unable to tell anyone about Gabriel. (unlikely but possible) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.242.244 (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Weapons List: Dangerous Discussion (sorry)

From a netural point of view I wanted to mention there was a big dispute on the RSV:1 page about including a weapons list. It got added and deleted a bunch of times. It seems to be surviving here on the RSV:2 page. I'm not saying keep it or delete it (seriously I can understand both points of view), just stating a possible inconsistency in Wiki policy. Sorry to bring it up if it's an ugly subject.  :) --Scottymoze (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it is evidence of wiki-inconsistency. However, many articles on Wikipedia suffer the same problem. I'm not saying that that's ok. Regardless of inconsistency or not, I'd say for now we should just let it be. Anyway, good observation, Scottymoze. Neil the Cellist (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean Wiki Policy Nazis are at it again? I don't see why the hell there's such a big deal about it. It's a first person SHOOTER. Some people like to know what you can shoot people WITH. If you don't like that, fine. Getting into internet drama about it is fucking retarded, however. In short, the Policy Nazis are trying to kiss ass and look like sheriffs so they can become admins. One of the many aspects I hate about wikipedia. 67.212.39.178 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It was stupid to remove the weapons. The rules need to be updated for video games such as this. This game aims for realism and the weapons in the game attempt to perform true to the real thing, therefore the information should be deemed relavant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.210.253 (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Coop Section

The Coop Section should note that while Coop Story Mode only has 2 human players (Bishop and Knight), Coop Terrorist Hunt still has 4 players like in RB6: Vegas 1.

Please sign your posts, whoever you are. Neil the Cellist (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Voice commands

Should the article include a section for voice commands using the xbox live headset? I recall End War's article mentioning that and I think it is an interesting feature to mention.--BobCzar (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

EndWar should not include that, as that is a specific gameplay element. Wikipedia is not a place to post about intricate gameplay abilities. See Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Neil the Cellist (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Elite glitch"

Shouldn't that section not be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.208.125 (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that section shouldn't be included because it's classed as cheating --Elliott Rhodes (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gabe as NSA spy?

I played the game through twice, and it was never clear to me that he was posing as an NSA spy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwal (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it any less true. Spartan198 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Umm the big fat "NSA Agent" label under the bars of the graphic equalizer whenever you received communications from him? Nar Matteru (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Six million copies sold worldwide

link here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.189.225 (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

I have been attempting to condense the overly long and detailed plot summary, but it is still fairly massive even after perhaps a 40% reduction. I've finished my first run through, but I may go back through another time and trim it down further. I may also poke around with the other sections and see if I can reduce the word count without removing actual content. --Isfppoet (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, massive condensing (condensation?) finished. I think it's about 40% of what it was, and still fairly concise if you just want the gist of it, which is all that should really be in there anyhow. Props to the original author for detail(!), but I think this level of detail is fine. I'm gonna go ahead and remove the flag, but if somebody thinks it's still too long, I leave it up to you. Cheers.--Isfppoet (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the last couple of editors for clearing up/correcting a few details I left overly vague in the plot summary. The changes probably weren't strictly necessary, but it definitely looks better for it. ^_^ I confess, some of my vagueness was intentional, but just a WEE bit of it was stuff I honestly couldn't recall 100%. XD Looks good guys. Isfppoet (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reception of Vegas 2 on PC Platform?

I just noticed that there is no mention of the general reception on the PC, only for the consoles. I have not checked, but sometimes the score can differ because pc gamers sometimes judge games with a long history on the pc more harshly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.209.232 (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Rainbow Six® Vegas 2" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Rainbow Six® Vegas 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 2#Rainbow Six® Vegas 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 20:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)