Are Game Critics Overly Harsh?

I don't think I can call myself a critic, although I have certainly criticised games for not doing things right, or having something incredibly frustrating in them or for being completely unfair (I've used that last one a lot), but as I'd rather heap praise upon games than criticise them (unless I feel they deserve them), I'd much prefer to be called a gaming enthusiast. But I was just wondering if sometimes critics can be far too harsh on games.

Say you were made to create a game, but had a lot of things going against you, like, for instance time constraints or this being your very first game and what have you, and your finished product doesn't come out quite the way you wanted it to and thusly receives a bunch of negative reviews. You'd feel pretty hard done by, wouldn't you? Imagine having all the work you've just spent the last 2 or 3 years on being paraded in public and roundly criticised. That wouldn't feel too nice, would it?

Obviously, reviewers can't (and, in fact, shouldn't) take into account the many obstacles the developer had to overcome when they were trying to create a good quality game and get it out onto the shelves. All reviewers can do is work with what they play with and in no way should this influence their overall feeling of a game, because it'd be the average gamer who suffers, having to spend their hard-earned on a game they don't like, as critics can hold a lot of sway with gamers, and can sometimes decide if a game does well or not. Obviously, some game reviews don't really influence how well a game does. Even though GTA IV got relatively universal praise, I doubt very much that if it hadn't it wouldn't affect how much that particular game will sell. However, GTA IV is an incredibly well established franchise, what happens when a fledging developer puts out a new IP only for it to get completely derided in the gaming press? It'd hit the games' sales and would affect the developer's future a hell of a lot.

To be honest, I'm not too sure what I'm getting at. Maybe it's that I feel new developers should be helped along the way when they first start. They should be nurtured and cared for until they finally have the confidence to take off their metaphorical training wheels and go it alone in the big bad world. Maybe even smaller, or indie, developing houses could get the same treatment? Surely it would only benefit the industry if this were case? So, maybe critics and reviewers and the like should tread a little more carefully around a game from a new developer. Like I said, their final opinion of the game should be the same as if it'd come from a major developer, but could they at least go a little easier on them?

Opinion - Rainbow Six: Vegas 2

• Game: Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2
• Version: Xbox 360
• Other Consoles: PS3, PC
  
• Developer: Ubisoft Montreal
• Publisher: Ubisoft

Tom Clancy's got a lot to answer for. How come the majority of his games turn out rather good? When he sticks his name in-front of these games, does it automatically assure quality? Probably not. I'm not actually sure why his name is stuck in-front of all of these games, or exactly what he brings to the table when these games are made, but whatever it is, keep doing it, Tom. Keep doing it.

Sequels in the gaming industry today are big business. If you want to have a chance, you've got to create a franchise. To create a franchise, you've got to get the first game right and the people will want the sequel. People want sequels because they give them the chance to play more of the game they loved, but with improvements. Or, at least, that's the idea. You see, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 keeps much of the original game intact without tinkering with it much at all. If there ever was a game that defined the old adage 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', then surely this is that game. Not only that, but its also a franchise within a franchise. If you then add the fact that its from the Tom Clancy branded series of games, you could say its a franchise within a franchise within a franchise.

Why RSV2 differs only slightly from the original is obvious, as the original Vegas game worked and worked well. But rather than improve upon the game by making more gameplay changes, they've simply added to the game to get a richer experience and to give the fans of the original more of what they loved. Ubisoft Montreal have added their Persistent Elite Creation (P.E.C.) system to the single-player storyline, as well as keeping it in the online multi-player. This gives those gamers who preferred the single-player to the multi-player an added incentive to play with and against thousands of other gamers online with RSV2. P.E.C. is basically an RPG-like levelling system, where, the higher the level you are, more weapons, armour, clothing and accessories are available to you. That doesn't mean someone who is ten levels higher than you has more powerful weaponry per-se, as its more of a status thing. If you come across someone who has a weapon or armour you haven't yet unlocked, chances are he's better at the game than you, or more likely, that he has less of a life than you and plays this game constantly. P.E.C. gives you an added incentive for repeated plays of both the single- and multi-player aspects of the game and as we all know, replay value in a game FTW. It's also well balanced, as if you play it on a higher difficulty setting in single-player mode and you'll level up quicker. Play it on 'easy' and you'll probably level up thrice, at the most, by completing it.

The story doesn't follow-up the story of the first Vegas game until the last couple of levels. For most of the game, you'll be playing parallel to the events of the first game. Without going into too much detail, terrorists have invaded Las Vegas and are causing mayhem and destruction, taking hostages, killing innocents and blowing up buildings, blah, blah, blah, you know the drill. The story isn't too important. It's there for you if you want to get involved, but with only a few cut-scenes through-out the game, it's not something that will drag you in and keep you involved. What will, however, is the way the game plays. It really is quite satisfying to play. It does what most FPSs do well, throw hundreds upon thousands of easy to kill enemies at you. Instead of going all Rambo on them, you have to clear rooms of them one by one. To do this, you place your team at the door which opens up one of five options.

• Open and clear: simply open the door and clear the room of enemies.
• Flash and clear: throw a flash grenade to stun enemies, making it easier to kill them.
• Breach and clear: blow up the door to kill any enemies directly behind the door.
• Smoke and clear: pop a smoke grenade which literally clouds your entry.
• Frag and clear: throw a frag. grenade into a group of enemies.

Different rooms call upon different situations. If the room contains hostages, don't frag and clear, otherwise you'll kill the hostages. Don't breach and clear otherwise you'll startle the enemies, who may kill the hostages. Open and clear might be effective, but flash and clear is your best bet, as the enemies literally won't see you coming. It never gets boring. You can even rappel down walls and breach in through windows.

There are, however, some issues with the game. At points, the frame-rate can become very choppy. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it's very bad. The cover system works very well, allowing you to line up your shots before peeping around the corner and firing your gun, but there were a couple of times when the game wouldn't let you lean up against a wall, or lean around a corner. Both of these issues, however, are few and far between and never really detract from the enjoyment of the game. There can also be instances where textures take sometime to appear when you start the game, but this only ever happens when you load a checkpoint from scratch; it never happens for the rest of the time you play the game.

All in all, Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 is a very solid and very fun game. The controls are nearly faultless, the set-pieces are well executed and the story is wrapped up satisfactorily. If you've got the first game, you'll love this. If you haven't, you might like the multiplayer, but it might be a wise option to play through the first game before setting out on this one, especially if you want to follow the story.