Gears 2 Suck?

[S1l3nt V1p3r]

Many game developers make great first games, but suck at making a sequel to the first game. But EPIC Games is an exception, they took what was good in Gears 1 and made it even more awesome. They made the bad look good, and the good look AWESOME!

Don't come here and bitch about Gears 2 being a bad game, because GoW2 is x9000 more epic than most games out there.

 

[freakazoid]

I think the simple adage "More IS better" fits here nicely. yes the game play is relatively the same, but I like it anyway.

 

[Overlord Ian]

Gears 2 is amazing, the story is great, and I personally think it was better than GOW1

 

[xalener]

Um.. Fail. what difference was halo 3 to halo 2 multiplayer. Not much. (don't get technical, you know its true)

Exactly.

My original point is this: Halo 2's multiplayer was a great concept with a rushed execution. There were many glitches that could be taken advantage of in order to win. And they were easy gliches to pull off.

Halo 3's multiplayer was more or less exactly the same, only with some minor AND major glitches fixed. And better, more balanced wepons that take precautions of things that made Halo 2 too easy. Sword-on-sword battles, for example. Halo 3 was similar to Halo 2 in terms of multiplayer, but all the minor changes were for the best.

Same with Gears 1 to gears 2. Stopping power really changed it into the tacticle shooter it was meant to be instead of the cartwheeling shotgun fest that was Gears 1. And I can't imagine Gears 3 being much different. In fact, I don't want it too. There aren't many gameplay changes you can do to shooters to switch it up. Anyone who's put any thought into it knows that. Unless Marcus Fenix suddenly gets Psy-powers, the gameplay won't change. It shouldn't change.

 

[DreadMullet]

Same with Gears 1 to gears 2. Stopping power really changed it into the tacticle shooter it was meant to be instead of the cartwheeling shotgun fest that was Gears 1. And I can't imagine Gears 3 being much different. In fact, I don't want it too. There aren't many gameplay changes you can do to shooters to switch it up. Anyone who's put any thought into it knows that. Unless Marcus Fenix suddenly gets Psy-powers, the gameplay won't change. It shouldn't change.

tactical shooter? are we still talking about gears of war?

i was under the impression the only tactical aspect of gears is bum rush the sniper.

and what stopping power? there is no way to drop a dude at mid-range with just your lancer (unless he is a noob and keeps running straight). you cant be an invincible tank and call it a tactical shooter. and have you played the multiplayer yet? its still a "cartwheeling shotgun fest" its all gears will ever be...

but the story is still very sick, and i look forward to a 3rd.


and also to your question on why this hasnt been closed yet, i believe its because we are all being rather civil and having a legit conversation here.

 

[BlindRascal]

tactical shooter? are we still talking about gears of war?

i was under the impression the only tactical aspect of gears is bum rush the sniper.

---Although you're point is valid, a lot of the game is based on taking cover and compiling a strategy. Unlike halo, you only get one life in gears. (For most scenarios). Even gears 1, although rushing power weapons was definitly a preferred thing to do, strategy seems a lot more apparent in that then halo. (Yes I know this can be debated, and I use to think that, but now I'm siding with they both equal the same tacticalness as you put into the game. (and your team)


and what stopping power? there is no way to drop a dude at mid-range with just your lancer (unless he is a noob and keeps running straight). you cant be an invincible tank and call it a tactical shooter. and have you played the multiplayer yet? its still a "cartwheeling shotgun fest" its all gears will ever be...

--Actually, I use to love the lancer in gears 1, and i HATED it when they made it stronger. I think they made the gears 2 lancer a bit weaker (than the super lancer in the latest update on gears 1) *which is better* But if you aim at the legs, they drop a lot quicker.


but the story is still very sick, and i look forward to a 3rd.
and also to your question on why this hasnt been closed yet, i believe its because we are all being rather civil and having a legit conversation here.

 

[baileyboys]

I love GoW2. It does has its problems, but it's still great.
DOn't like the nerfed shotgun but hey still fun to use.

 

[xalener]

(and your team)
and what stopping power?

Yeah, stopping power.

If you run at someone with a shotgun or a reved chainsaw, and someone is shooting you constantly with enough bullets, you slow down almost to a stop. That's what takes the "Cartwheeling shotgun fest" (or most of it) aspect out of G2. Just make sure your aim doesn't suck.

 

[CPU64]

Interesting, people have watched 8 different Friday13th movies, and now 5 SAW movies. Aren't they all basically the same thing just with a different cast??

Gears2 is the second part of a story, it wasn't even necessary for the graphics to be improved, but they did it anyway, they also didn't need to add any new weapons but they did it anyway.

I think the game is great, my only problem with it is that its a bit short. But I understand that part..
I mean, did anyone stop and think about how many hours it takes to model, animate and texture everything in that game??

There's a reason why RPGs are so long, they look like crap

 

[Reventorghini]

I don't understand. If you loved Gears1... and it's the same as Gears2... how does it suck? The logic is fail.

I haven't played it yet but I'm getting a copy as soon as my friend gets another 360 (we buy games in unison).

 

[DreadMullet]

i really should just stop comparing other games to call of duty... its just to sick. even with your random run and gunners there is more strategy than gears or halo. im a hardcore team deathmatch fan, so im use to popping 2 shots max and they drop.

sure both halo and gears can be strategic, it all does matter on the player. so let me refrain my statement.

most of the players on gears have no strategy but bum rush the sniper, and do cartwheels with there shotgun. where as some halo players have strategy. they may jump in a warthog and do work, they may hold the high ground on construct.

this is all based on my experience. and halo has Br starts in witch you can play the whole game with your starting weapon.

i guess in the end of it all, it simply comes down to personal preference. so i see why there are you who defend it, and there is those who bash it.

but in the end we are all just sharing our love for video games.


(pst.. that was my final thoughts. i think im going to start wrapping up my arguments with final thoughts. jerry springer did it, Dr. JD does it, why cant i?)

that is all.

 

[BlindRascal]

i really should just stop comparing other games to call of duty... its just to sick. even with your random run and gunners there is more strategy than gears or halo. im a hardcore team deathmatch fan, so im use to popping 2 shots max and they drop.

sure both halo and gears can be strategic, it all does matter on the player. so let me refrain my statement.

most of the players on gears have no strategy but bum rush the sniper, and do cartwheels with there shotgun. where as some halo players have strategy. they may jump in a warthog and do work, they may hold the high ground on construct.

this is all based on my experience. and halo has Br starts in witch you can play the whole game with your starting weapon.

i guess in the end of it all, it simply comes down to personal preference. so i see why there are you who defend it, and there is those who bash it.

but in the end we are all just sharing our love for video games.
(pst.. that was my final thoughts. i think im going to start wrapping up my arguments with final thoughts. jerry springer did it, Dr. JD does it, why cant i?)

that is all.

If you call getting in a warthog and shooting everyone with a machine gun strategy, then I can just as well call bumrushing a sniper strategy. And technically it is.


edit: the thing is-- in most FPS' you only need to use one guy to kill everyone. FPS' don't use much strategy lol. It's all about who can kill who better.

 

[Reventorghini]

I agree on the personal preference thing, but that's about all.

I've been in some heated battles in Halo and some of them I would have lost if not for the adrenaline kicking in. Can't really say much about Gears though, I got somewhat good at it but never got into strategy.

COD4 for me was never much fun though. I loved some of the campaign missions but MP just didn't cut it for me.

 

[odst26]

well on gear1 i hated story mode and there were alot of parts of things jumping out at you!! but in gear2 i love story mode and you can play bots in multiplayer

 

[box o crayons]

my opinion ( im comparing it to gears 1) is you run slower, you can't wall hop, you can't roll away from someone as easier, and all in all your slower. now the good. the lancers better, chainsaw battles, meat shields, more weapons. so in my opinion its just like the old one only the multiplayer takes forever to find a match which is what really turned me off and made me sell it. but its still a good game but call of duty 5 is defianatly better

 

[BlindRascal]

I have to agree about matchmaking sucking. Its seriously taking me 5 minutes to find a game tonight.

 

[Crucible]

Alright...

So, I come into this topic to find exactly What I expected.

"WHAAA GEARS 2 IS JUST LIKE GEARS 1!"

Get over it! Gears 1 had a successful gameplay formula - is Epic really going to drop that formula for something that might not work? Would YOU if you were the game developer?

No, you'd stick with what works, throw in some new features, and expand on what's there to make it better. In terms of video game series, change is very often a BAD thing - take a look at Tomb Raider, Crash Bandicoot, or Sonic the Hedgehog. Three game series that tried to innovate and broke a perfectly decent gameplay formula instead.

Don't get me wrong, I'm tiring of Gears 2 for some of the repetitive gameplay there is in it - run, cover, up, shoot, saw, run. But hell, that's what makes it GOOD, and if you want to change something that's THAT successful, you really want to hope your new idea is goiong to pistolwhip the old one.

And every online game is going to have matchmaking issues. Halo has it, TF2 has it, Gears is no different. Suck it up, quit whining, or go find another game.

 

[xalener]

my opinion ( im comparing it to gears 1) is you run slower, you can't wall hop, you can't roll away from someone as easier, and all in all your slower. now the good. the lancers better, chainsaw battles, meat shields, more weapons. so in my opinion its just like the old one only the multiplayer takes forever to find a match which is what really turned me off and made me sell it. but its still a good game but call of duty 5 is defianatly better

That first opinion isn't really an opinion. I've compared the two running cycles of G1 and 2, and you are almost twice as fast in gears 2 as you are in gears 1.