OMG!!! gears of war 2!

[Crispy Dave]

look! (http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/splash/g/gearsofwar2/default.htm)

omg im so happy now i cant wait

[Emperor Ing]

Erhm, I recall Epic Games did announce a GOW trilogy a long time ago

But I still can't wait.

[Crispy Dave]

Erhm, I recall Epic Games did announce a GOW trilogy a long time ago

But I still can't wait.

there were always rumors but the official announcement just happened today

[warty goblin]

Just so long as they port it to PC eventually, I'm stoked. Chainsaw bayonet wrestling looks just too cool.

[Ranis]

I hope they take a page out of Frontlines' book and have dedicated servers for Gears this time instead of making it host-based, because the host got an extremely unfair boost in power over XBL; plus, this would allow for many more people to be playing at any given time, making for a much more enjoyable experience. Maybe even like 3-4 teams of 4 competing for a flag or something, instead of only 2 teams.

Regardless, I'm stoked.

[LordVader]

o_O

1337.

[Ghal Marak]

Wha? But, last I knew the creators of Gears of War were denying that they were making another. In fact, I remember that they were pretty angry about all the questions about it. Bizarre.

[Raider]

I would've been happy with a chainsaw rocket launcher DLC.........

[SurlySeraph]

@^: Like this?

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/zvoncic/rocket_powered_chainsaw.jpg

[Ranis]

In other news, the rocket-propelled chainsaw launcher is not only the single greatest zombie-fighting weapon of all time, it's also a b*tch to reload.

[Crispy Dave]

i hear they jam alot too and then you got some trouble

[Jibar]

OMG... so what?
So you've got another online shooter and no promise of a Halo 4.
Big whoop.
Gears of War fell into that distinct area between not caring and hating, where all the regular forms of reason fail and men and women alike become frothing beasts of hate and spite for the unbeliever.
Somebody mind telling me why exactly another generic gun game is to be celebrated for something other than the multiplayer?

[Tom_Violence]

OMG... so what?
So you've got another online shooter and no promise of a Halo 4.
Big whoop.
Gears of War fell into that distinct area between not caring and hating, where all the regular forms of reason fail and men and women alike become frothing beasts of hate and spite for the unbeliever.

My thoughts exactly. I must admit, when I saw the thread title I thought it was a joke. Alas, I am disappointed.



Somebody mind telling me why exactly another generic gun game is to be celebrated for something other than the multiplayer?

That would be multiplayer with all the variation of a quiet game of pong, yes? :smalltongue:

[Crispy Dave]

OMG... so what?
So you've got another online shooter and no promise of a Halo 4.
Big whoop.
Gears of War fell into that distinct area between not caring and hating, where all the regular forms of reason fail and men and women alike become frothing beasts of hate and spite for the unbeliever.
Somebody mind telling me why exactly another generic gun game is to be celebrated for something other than the multiplayer?

because gears of war was simply awsome it is one of my favorite games of all time(yet i still dont own it:smallfrown: )

[Ranis]

OMG... so what?
So you've got another online shooter and no promise of a Halo 4.
Big whoop.
Gears of War fell into that distinct area between not caring and hating, where all the regular forms of reason fail and men and women alike become frothing beasts of hate and spite for the unbeliever.
Somebody mind telling me why exactly anothergeneric gun game is to be celebrated for something other than the multiplayer?

Gears is too mainstream to be considered "a generic gun game." A "generic gun game" would be something like the multitude of militaristic shooters like the Call of Duty and Battlefield series respectively. Gears is just something totally different altogether, and giving it the title of something generic is ignorant and biased to the extreme.

Anyway, what's wrong with a lot of people liking something that they find enjoyable? What might be just another "generic gun game" to you doesn't mean that it isn't more to other people. So it won't be as groundbreaking as Bioshock, Mass Effect, or Assassin's Creed was last year, but seriously, it really doesn't have to be to be a great work of art that tells a story with deeper meaning than what you see on the surface.

I can tell that you haven't actually played the story all the way through. If you had, it wouldn't have been a "generic shooter."

[Jibar]

Gears is too mainstream to be considered "a generic gun game." A "generic gun game" would be something like the multitude of militaristic shooters like the Call of Duty and Battlefield series respectively. Gears is just something totally different altogether, and giving it the title of something generic is ignorant and biased to the extreme.

Call me bias then. The market is flooded with too many games where your whole aim is "Have gun. Kill guys." and frankly I'd like it if somebody would take a step in and start pushing them away. It's not going to happen, I know, but I can hope.


Anyway, what's wrong with a lot of people liking something that they find enjoyable? What might be just another "generic gun game" to you doesn't mean that it isn't more to other people. So it won't be as groundbreaking as Bioshock, Mass Effect, or Assassin's Creed was last year, but seriously, it really doesn't have to be to be a great work of art that tells a story with deeper meaning than what you see on the surface.

I can appreciate that other people can enjoy it. I don't understand why, but I still can.
I saw it, played a demo, found something not worth my time and let it be.
There was nothing to interest me. Nothing particularly new, nothing special... just another run and mercilessly butcher some mysterious alien menace. Chainsaw on front of your gun, okay, nifty, but nothing else really.
Online shooter multiplayer has apparantly been the main aim of the 360 though, so I can forgive it for being popular in that respect. Especially when there was no Halo on the 360. They all had to run somewhere.


I can tell that you haven't actually played the story all the way through. If you had, it wouldn't have been a "generic shooter."

Sorry, but Dude gets made part of elite squad to hunt down bugs who live in tunnels underneath the planet and must wipe them out with a giant bomb sounds truly, truly, unique. Oh hey, there's a Queen too! Where have I seen that before. :smallannoyed:
I'll admit I've only played a demo, but if you're telling me this game actually has something clever in the story I find it a little hard to believe.
Besides, for once, I didn't even drag up the story.

Now, I'll also give you a concession. Gears of War was, like so much else, ruined by the community. Another bunch of idiots who felt the need to hammer into me that it was one of the greatest games ever, had like the best graphics and was really good. Like Yahtzee, as soon as someone starts telling me how good a game is, I grow instantly suspicious and begin forming a dislike.

[Ranis]

Now, I'll also give you a concession. Gears of War was, like so much else, ruined by the community. Another bunch of idiots who felt the need to hammer into me that it was one of the greatest games ever, had like the best graphics and was really good. Like Yahtzee, as soon as someone starts telling me how good a game is, I grow instantly suspicious and begin forming a dislike.

From what I've seen, you let that formation of dislike spiral into extreme loathing and dismay to the inconvenience of others. I'd recommend at least trying something out to get your own opinion about something rather than going into it with this expectation of how bad something is going to be and having it end up that way.

When you go against the grain very abrasively, especially something that has a lot of fandom, then of course the community is going to be abrasive back. I can understand how that can ruin it for you, especially with how ravenous some of the 360's fans can be. But the same can be said for the Wii and PS3's fanbases as well. Just go find the comments section of GoNintendo when Yatzee's review of Phantom Hourglass was put up and see what I mean for yourself.

That being said, Yahtzee is an interesting enigma in the gaming community. He causes the stir that developers need to keep an edge on, and as his fanbase grows, game developers will have more and more of a need to basically use his abuse to upgrade their PR and get more people to buy their games. The continuous diction that Yahtzee does is that while hammering on the negatives of a game and basically trashing them, it doesn't change the fact that the games he reviews for the most part aren't bad, just not up to par. Where is Yahtzee's par? I don't think he has one.

But yes, anyway. Apparently GoW2 is going to have red faction-like destructible environments, leading to actually blowing holes in the floor to shoot the people underneath. It's gonna completely change the way people approach everything they do, in single player and multiplayer. Looking forward to it already.

[LordVader]

Whatever, I'm still stoked for this. Should be awesome.

*revs chainsaw*

[Jibar]

From what I've seen, you let that formation of dislike spiral into extreme loathing and dismay to the inconvenience of others. I'd recommend at least trying something out to get your own opinion about something rather than going into it with this expectation of how bad something is going to be and having it end up that way.

True, very true in fact, and something I do need to work on.
For the record though, my hate for Halo is built upon proper experience.



That being said, Yahtzee is an interesting enigma in the gaming community. He causes the stir that developers need to keep an edge on, and as his fanbase grows, game developers will have more and more of a need to basically use his abuse to upgrade their PR and get more people to buy their games. The continuous diction that Yahtzee does is that while hammering on the negatives of a game and basically trashing them, it doesn't change the fact that the games he reviews for the most part aren't bad, just not up to par. Where is Yahtzee's par? I don't think he has one.

Well, apparantly, Portal and Psychonauts are that par.
Games do have to work hard to get his approval.
I'm hoping I'm not that bad.


But yes, anyway. Apparently GoW2 is going to have red faction-like destructible environments, leading to actually blowing holes in the floor to shoot the people underneath. It's gonna completely change the way people approach everything they do, in single player and multiplayer. Looking forward to it already.

Now this I like.
Considering the first game featured cover based combat, having holes blown in said cover will prove interesting.
Should they live up to these claims, I might, might, give Gears 2 a look.

[Darken Rahl]

I still can't beat the stupid boss from GoW.

I quit the game over it.

[LordVader]

I still can't beat the stupid boss from GoW.

I quit the game over it.

RAAM?
Get 2 people, problem solved.

But yeah, the thing I liked about Gears is that you can't just run forward like in Halo. You have to use cover intelligently. And if the environment becomes 100% destructible, that's just plain awesome.

[Tom_Violence]

100% destuctible would be impressive, even if just from a technological point of view. For that reason, I find the claim somewhat dubious. And less than 100%, as Ranis hinted at, is an idea that is at least 7 years old, so I dare say the Gears franchise can hardly boast their envelope-pushing skills too much.

I'm with Jibar in the camp that doesn't understand the brain-detaching saliva-overflowing sheer and utter balls-out pant-crapping levels of excitement that games such as this seem to engender in 'the fanbase'. Over the years I think I have developed a sort of Geiger counter for judging games based purely on the fans' reaction to them. If someone starts dribbling at the mere thought of a game, I can safely avoid said game, mainly because it appeals to people that dribble.

[Darken Rahl]

The original Red Faction was amazing fun in MP.

[Albub]

I'm happy. This game's precursor led to a few great things for me, and I thought it did alright for a 3rd person shooter. I still play it, it's still better looking than most games, and it's significantly better than halo. It's got way more staying power than crap like assassin's creed, and I'd dare say it outshines the mess that was Bioshock. My guess is, considering you weren't enjoying it Jibar, you clearly weren't being silly enough. If you start taking any game seriously it gets worse, but games like GoW that try so hard to be macho really turn into a steaming pile of suck if you take it seriously. If you know anyone with a copy, borrow it from 'em. When you boot up online, don't switch to the shotgun, whip out your smoke grenade and start sticking folk. When someone comes after you with a shotgun, run in circles around the nearest pillar, and giggle hysterically as they follow you. I find that Gears is competent as a shooter, but is most effective as a survival horror. Don't aim, ever. Avoid the powerful or popular guns. Use the revolver, or the hammerburst. Go against the grain, as you so clearly love to do. Use obtuse strategies as often as possible, ones that make your teammates yell at you while you're doing it, but put their foot in their mouth when you pull it off. Worst case scenario, you die, and your teammates ask what the hell you were doing. Best case, you win the round and get to cackle like a maniac. Appreciate the brilliant level design in multiplayer, levels like gridlock or clocktower don't come along all that often. Even though it has 3 gametypes (annex sucks so bad that it doesn't count) so long as you play differently every time you boot up the game, it stays interesting.

As for GoW2, let's hope that they take a page from Frontlines' books and use kaos hosted servers. 32 players per match would be killer. A CTF gametype would be a fine addition as well. I hope they don't add vehicles, that'd ruin the spirit of the game. Chainsaw wrestling would rock my socks. With luck they'll make the gore even more silly and excessive. Fingers are crossed for the return of gogs the locust and his mad swimming skillz.

[Raider]

Dreams of a 100% destructible environment, shooting from a sniper position in an apartment when suddenly a bomb hits 2 floors up and you have to crawl out of the debris while fires rage all around you......

[Demented]

It won't be 100% indestructible.
It won't even be 10% indestructible.

It's designed around what Gears was meant to show off: The Unreal Engine's l33t h@wt graphix.

Basically, they build the level a foot or two "deep", so you can peel away a layer or two of destructible material with explosives. It (hopefully) breaks procedurally, as the way Red Faction did it, so you'll get something different every time you throw an explosive somewhere. What's the point? It is there so you can have environmental damage on everything.

Assuming it works with collisions and really does break procedurally (HL2 made that promise with breakable objects, then broke it, ironically) you could probably make things the way Red Faction did. Otherwise... Not.

See 3:12 onwards. (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/179562.html)

Me, I'm just happy for it because I've wanted to look behind me and see a map that's totally @#$%!'d up because of all the shooting that's gone on there. (Hence, when I play HL2/mods, I like to up the decal limit to 2000. Say hi to walls covered in bullet holes!)

[Premsyl]

I'm in as long as Mighty Rasta (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0711529/) a.k.a. Terry Tate a.k.a. The Cole-train makes a come back of some kind.

Besides that. The gameplay was meh. The story was meh. The multiplayer was meh. Plus I felt like it all wrapped itself up rather quickly and quietly. I was unsatisfied. My choice of fps is in the COD4 camp right now.

[warty goblin]

I'm in as long as Mighty Rasta (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0711529/) a.k.a. Terry Tate a.k.a. The Cole-train makes a come back of some kind.

Besides that. The gameplay was meh. The story was meh. The multiplayer was meh. Plus I felt like it all wrapped itself up rather quickly and quietly. I was unsatisfied. My choice of fps is in the COD4 camp right now.

Funny, that was pretty much my reaction to COD4. "Oh look, the enemy has taken cover on top of the sixteen headshot bodies of his allies. I shall now aim for the exact same hole in the wall I've been shooting at for the last three minutes and kill him too. Next I shall rotate exactly 15 degrees to the left, shoot the second bullet hole from the right, and bada-bing! Another kill! Now back to the first bullet hole again!"

Don't get me wrong, CoD 4 was intense as hell for about 10 minutes. Then I realized all of the intensity was actually a carefully created facade overpinning what amounted to Halo but with less interesting guns and more pretension. That's not to say its bad, its a well designed and executed game, just one that I didn't feel any urge to play.

I like Gears of War just fine. For one thing it kept its tongue firmly in cheek throughout, had an interesting art style, and the cover system was honestly awesome. That, and shredding alien scum is just plain fun. Plus I felt the AI was just a bit better than COD4. Since I don't play multi-player, I judge a game entirely on its single-player and the replayability of said. Gears doesn't have the greatest replayability, but I felt it offered more in that department than COD 4 did.

Ironically, the next FPS I'm gonna get, probably at the end of this month, is Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. Has a great balistics model, brutally good AI and more interesting objectives. I like games that don't tell me what to do, but give advice. Quake Wars gives lots of advice, generally of the "it would be helpful if you blew that turret up" variety, but not much of the "kill that tank now because I say so!" variety.

[Logic]

I played Gears of War and enjoyed it. While I would not call it a "generic gun game" it did little to improve upon the genre as a whole.

The story wasn't impressive, but it wasn't bad either. Probably a notch or two above generic, and you get the picture.

The gameplay was enjoyable, but I try hard not to play shooters online anymore because of GoW, Halo 3 and a few other similar titles. The community is what killed it for me.

The graphics are probably the most praisable feature of the game, and given that most games are now delivering that quality or near it, that isn't much to be said about this game.

While I am not with Jibar and Yahtzee and Jibar on becoming suspicious of a game that everyone else likes, I do try not to be disappointed. A large portion of the gamng community loves the Final Fantasy series, which I cannot stand but 3 games in the series (2 of which are extremely unpopular with their fanbase.) At best, I make a judgement based on what the developers promise, thinking of the best and worst case probable scenarios.

The idea of a Gears of War 2 intrigues me. Where the end of the first game left it wide open for a sequel, they need to do more than just slap more levels into the existing formula to get me excited for the game. Chainsaw bayonet dueling looks impractical, so if that is an actual gameplay feature, I hope they can come up with better.

[Jibar]

While I am not with Jibar and Yahtzee and Jibar

It feels good that I'm apparantly important enough to be mentioned twice. :smallamused:

[Demented]

What could you do to make Gears of War 2 something new that adds to the genre?

Aside from 100% destructible environments, because we don't need that level of torture being leveled on a current-gen console. Besides, Red Faction did 50% of that already, so it wouldn't be all that new. You've also got Fracture, which does nothing more than deform displacements, and occasionally spawn a rock prop or two.

[Logic]

It feels good that I'm apparantly important enough to be mentioned twice. :smallamused:

You get one for the cat, one for the muffin.:smalltongue:

[konfeta]

OMG... so what?
So you've got another online shooter and no promise of a Halo 4.
Big whoop.

Anyone else L-O-L'ed? I don't care about GoW at all, but somebody wanting a Halo game dismissing something as a generic shooter is ironic to the extreme.

*Not calling Halo good or bad, but outside a few gimmicks it is the quintissential generic shooter.

[Jibar]

Anyone else L-O-L'ed? I don't care about GoW at all, but somebody wanting a Halo game dismissing something as a generic shooter is ironic to the extreme.

*Not calling Halo good or bad, but outside a few gimmicks it is the quintissential generic shooter.

I do call Halo bad. Explicitly for that reason.
I'm possibly the biggest hater of Halo on the forum.
I mentioned Halo 4, because from all I've seen the only reason Gears was so popular was because all the people with a 360 had no 360 only Halo game to celebrate and so turned to whatever other generic gun game with online that they could so that their XBox Live account felt validated.
No Halo 4 means Gears of War 2 will attain the same devotion... until Halo 4 is announced since Microsoft would rather commit genocide upon the entire corporation of Bungie than lose out on their Poster Boy.

[Murongo]

Saying you're bored of FPSs because they're all "grab a gun and kill some guys" is like saying you're bored of pizza because it always has bread. There are many types of shooters as there are many types of pizza, yes they would both get boring if you played/ate them all the time without interspersing other things.

Besides which GoW is infinitely better than HALO. I remember being forced to get good at HALO 2 because all my friends would LAN it weekly or biweekly and it got to the point where I was arguing with my friend about who could B-X-R faster and I realized... BXR... I'm not playing a shooter, I'm playing Tekken.

Furthermore the autoaim in HALOs 1, 2 and 3 is such that if you aim anywhere in your foe's general direction your bullets will magically gravitate towards the enemy. The game is more about memorizing where weapons are and what's the most overpowered than it is about aiming or dodging.

GoW on the other hand is much more about aiming, dodging, taking cover and active reloading which is an awesome addition to any game. It has just as good if not better online play, a better plot (both have terrible plots but at least the characters of GoW are awesome in a campy way. HALO takes itself too seriously "a hero will rise: believe" I could maybe swallow that if the plot were better than a crappy science fiction novel, but it's far worse.) Lastly and least importantly, GoW has kept up with the graphical times while HALO has lagged miserably behind.

[Demented]

I mentioned Halo 4, because from all I've seen the only reason Gears was so popular was because all the people with a 360 had no 360 only Halo game to celebrate and so turned to whatever other generic gun game with online that they could so that their XBox Live account felt validated.
No Halo 4 means Gears of War 2 will attain the same devotion... until Halo 4 is announced since Microsoft would rather commit genocide upon the entire corporation of Bungie than lose out on their Poster Boy.

I get the feeling you just don't like shooters. :p

Bungie already bought itself from Microsoft. Which means Microsoft will have to settle for Halo Wars, Halo: Tactics, Halo: Legend, Halo: Mystic Quest, Covenant Hearts....

[Jibar]

I get the feeling you just don't like shooters. :p


Oh no, I think shooters are great. I just need something a little more.
Timesplitters 2 for example gave me monkeys. Monkeys which totally changed how you play considering how small the little Ewoks were.
Kane and Lynch gave me exactly what I want from a shooter. A good story, characters I actually care about, and a brilliant co-op mode.
I was also a big fan of Perfect Dark, for what should be obvious reasons.

[Ranis]

Oh no, I think shooters are great. I just need something a little more.
Timesplitters 2 for example gave me monkeys. Monkeys which totally changed how you play considering how small the little Ewoks were.
Kane and Lynch gave me exactly what I want from a shooter. A good story, characters I actually care about, and a brilliant co-op mode.
I was also a big fan of Perfect Dark, for what should be obvious reasons.

Timesplitters 2: My buddies and I never allowed the monkeys because we thought they were really unfair in MP. Either no one was a monkey or we all were.

Jibar I think you're one of 2% of people who played Kayne & Lynch and actually didn't want to gouge out your eyeballs with a blunt object.

Never played Perfect Dark.

[Crispy Dave]

Oh no, I think shooters are great. I just need something a little more.
Timesplitters 2 for example gave me monkeys. Monkeys which totally changed how you play considering how small the little Ewoks were.
Kane and Lynch gave me exactly what I want from a shooter. A good story, characters I actually care about, and a brilliant co-op mode.
I was also a big fan of Perfect Dark, for what should be obvious reasons.


you care for crazy psychopathic murderers?

[Demented]

Thinking shooters are great, and then dismissing games that commit to excellence in everything that makes shooters great, doesn't fit.

On that note...
It's understandable to prefer one game over another, even the obscure cult-less ones that nobody else cared for. But to say that the only reason a game is popular, or even remotely appreciated, is because everyone who lauded it just wanted to justify their purchase of a utility and so refused to say some hypothetical truth about how boring it was?

[LordVader]

you care for crazy psychopathic murderers?

Hahahaha, pwn3d. :smallbiggrin:
The reason I like Gears is the same reason I dislike Halo. It's a good shooter, but it attracts idiots and no0bs like flies to rotten meat. Even so-called "Big Team Battle" mode is just a bunch of guys running around shooting each other. The most popular mode, Slayer, requires absolutely no teamwork or intelligent use of cover whatsoever.

Gears, on the other hand, actually requires you to *gasp* think! No crappy motion tracker to bail you out, you have to maintain situational awareness. You have to use cover. You can actually coordinate to some effect.

Honestly, I prefer games like Battlefield 2142 where teamwork and intelligent play is *required* to win. Halo just dumbs it down way too much.

[Albub]

Well, BF2 was the pinnacle of shooters, but 2142 was alright. I found it's lack of medics... disturbing.

[LordVader]

:smallconfused:
2142 does have a medic, it's called the Assualt class. :smallwink:

[Svethnika]

Saying you're bored of FPSs because they're all "grab a gun and kill some guys" is like saying you're bored of pizza because it always has bread. There are many types of shooters as there are many types of pizza, yes they would both get boring if you played/ate them all the time without interspersing other things.

Besides which GoW is infinitely better than HALO. I remember being forced to get good at HALO 2 because all my friends would LAN it weekly or biweekly and it got to the point where I was arguing with my friend about who could B-X-R faster and I realized... BXR... I'm not playing a shooter, I'm playing Tekken.

Furthermore the autoaim in HALOs 1, 2 and 3 is such that if you aim anywhere in your foe's general direction your bullets will magically gravitate towards the enemy. The game is more about memorizing where weapons are and what's the most overpowered than it is about aiming or dodging.

GoW on the other hand is much more about aiming, dodging, taking cover and active reloading which is an awesome addition to any game. It has just as good if not better online play, a better plot (both have terrible plots but at least the characters of GoW are awesome in a campy way. HALO takes itself too seriously "a hero will rise: believe" I could maybe swallow that if the plot were better than a crappy science fiction novel, but it's far worse.) Lastly and least importantly, GoW has kept up with the graphical times while HALO has lagged miserably behind.

Cheers bro.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Wow, reading this thread is making me want to power up my 360 and pop in GoW right now...

Someone mentioned having 32-player multiplayer. I hope that this doesn't happen. Something I loved about GoW is that the teams were so small, thus allowing for much more teamwork and conversation. While this may make you think, "Wouldn't a larger team add to both concepts?", I dont believe so. Based on my experiences with other fps's, the smaller the team, the more likely someone will talk and not do something stupid. Prolly cause if they are in such a small team, the other members are relying on that player to do his/ her job more, and there is also a much larger spotlight on every person. I also think that if there are 16 players on each team, then everyone will feel much less obligated to start a conversation or stick with the teams strategy, as no one will probably notice their absence. Either way, Ive noticed that most of the good people on my friends list, I met playing GoW.

But if they stuck with the 4-player teams, and just had more teams per battle, then that might be pretty damn cool.

[LordVader]

I'd like to see the option for 8-player teams, maybe, but 32? No way.

[Tom_Violence]

you care for crazy psychopathic murderers?

Note he said 'care about' not 'care for'. The difference is not small. For example, I care about the character Patrick Bateman in the book and film American Psycho, because without that character the whole thing just wouldn't be the same. But I don't care for him, because he's fictional and to have any sort of personal feelings for a fictional character would make me insane.

[Prophaniti]

I really don't understand Jibar's attitude toward GoW, though given her stated like of a game like Kane and Lynch, maybe it just wasn't dark and disturbing enough... Any how, exactly, was Perfect Dark anything more than a 'generic shooter'? I did like it, though, fun game.
Saying you're bored of FPSs because they're all "grab a gun and kill some guys" is like saying you're bored of pizza because it always has bread. Seconded. That's what a shooter is. Storyline is for RPGs (which I also enjoy).

I enjoyed GoW, I enjoyed Halo. I like the story behind Halo, though I'm speaking of the novels not the game.
I could maybe swallow that if the plot were better than a crappy science fiction novel, but it's far worse.Isn't 'aliens invade and try to wipe out humanity but we struggle back valiantly from the edge of the abyss' a staple of sci-fi in general? It's the writing and execution that determines quality, not plot. Especially since it's all been done before anyway. A good author (or game writer) can help you enjoy the most cliche and hackney'd plot while a bad one can take the most original and make it taste like dirt.

GoW2 sounds like fun, I've always wondered why all shooters haven't had destructable environments since we were first able to do it. Halo would've been cooler if I could blow chunks off the building your hiding behind. At least a small touch, like bullets going through thinner walls or wood, like CoD4 woulda been great. Love that one, btw. Whether you did or not, gather enough enemy intel to unlock the 'Ragtime Warfare' cheat... truly epic. :smallcool:

[Dalantia]

Did I hear that someone liked Kane and Lynch? The execution squad will be coming for you now.

As for me, I'm very much a Gears over Halo fan. Halo makes me feel like I'm skating around and bunnyhopping and it's just.. not quite natural, to me. I love the cover mechanics and the differing style of play.

[Logic]

you care for crazy psychopathic murderers?
Well, if you care about Master Chief or Marcus Fenix at all, you do too.

[Fay Graydon]

Wow! GoW2 is actually coming out?!!!one!
*thinks* There is only one thing they could have done to make it even more awsome than before:
In GoW you had a gun with a chainsaw on the end,
Therefore in GoW2... you, must have a chainsaw with a gun on the end!:BIG!biggrin:

:smalleek: please don't let the randomizer know about that idea...

[Ranis]

Well, if you care about Master Chief or Marcuc Fenix at all, you do too.

Whoa, whoa whoa.

Whoa.

Master Chief kills aliens for the survival of humanity. If you want to count them as applicable targets for a murder, then go ahead. But that would imply that they had some kind of value.

Marcus Fenix is also killing off the dormant infestation of Earth, fighting for the survival of humanity. He did betray the army at a large battle, but we never see that in the game so it doesn't really count.

[Demented]

For that matter, they're neither crazy or psychopathic.
They're just desensitized to violence.

[warty goblin]

Whoa, whoa whoa.

Whoa.

Master Chief kills aliens for the survival of humanity. If you want to count them as applicable targets for a murder, then go ahead. But that would imply that they had some kind of value.

Marcus Fenix is also killing off the dormant infestation of Earth, fighting for the survival of humanity. He did betray the army at a large battle, but we never see that in the game so it doesn't really count.

And actually, at least when I'm the MC, he doesn't even do that half the time. An integral part of many of my strategies involves the creative application of the better part of valor. I also tend to have a "doesn't shot, don't kill" policy. If the nice little sleeping Grunt leaves me alone, I won't smash it in the face with my rifle. I once got through the entirety of the last fight of Assault on the Control Room without waking one of the grunts up, which made me happy.

[Mr._Blinky]

Well, if you care about Master Chief or Marcuc Fenix at all, you do too.

So according to you, if all of a sudden an alien crashed through your front window and started shooting up your family, to which you responded by grabbing a knife and killing it, you would then become a psychopathic murderer?

Those are some, ah, rather skewed definitions you have there sir.

[Tom_Violence]

Whoa, whoa whoa.

Whoa.

I think we're taking 'caring' to a whole new level here...

[Dumbledore lives]

Gears of War has one of the best moods in a shooter. Halo 3 tried with Cortona but it pretty much failed. It has a great use of cover and destructible environments sounds really awesome.

[Dalantia]

Marcus Fenix is also killing off the dormant infestation of Earth, fighting for the survival of humanity. He did betray the army at a large battle, but we never see that in the game so it doesn't really count.

It's Sera, actually, that he's fighting on.

And betray the army is probably too strong a word - he went to save his father and got chucked in jail for it.

[Crispy Dave]

Well, if you care about Master Chief or Marcuc Fenix at all, you do too.


killing doesent always mean murdering if your at war and you kill someone it doesent count

[Ranis]

I think we're taking 'caring' to a whole new level here...

I'm not saying we were, at all. I'm just pointing out that you can't just go throwing around stamps on everything in a genre because you don't like it.

[Logic]

Whoa, whoa whoa.

Whoa.

Master Chief kills aliens for the survival of humanity. If you want to count them as applicable targets for a murder, then go ahead. But that would imply that they had some kind of value.

Marcus Fenix is also killing off the dormant infestation of Earth, fighting for the survival of humanity. He did betray the army at a large battle, but we never see that in the game so it doesn't really count.

Killing sleeping enemy soldiers is murder. I don't care how you spin it, but I find it hard to justify as anything else.

And as for Marcus Fenix, well, I was sure that Gears of War took place on a planet called "Serra" since that is what the opening cinematic sounds like it is saying. If Humans are not natives to the world, then the aliens are merely defending their home. And how does it not count because it is not in game? It provides a base for his personality, and is a pretty iconic moment in that character's history. Ignoring it would be like ignoring that Drizz't left the underdark.

killing doesent always mean murdering if your at war and you kill someone it doesent countI disagree. There are plenty of things that you can do in war that would "count" as murder. And I have seen nothing that eliminates Marcus nor Master Chief from being excluded from the "Murderer" definition.

Now, I see I cannot defend the "psycopathic" portion of my statements when it come to Master Chief, but Marcus definately seems to be as much a psychopath as Kane and Lynch, the "psychopathic murderers" I was originally comparing to.

[Destro_Yersul]

Yeah, the chief is a murderer. But he murders aliens who want to kill us all, so it's cool.

I preferred Halo to GoW. I like the storyline better, and graphics have never been important to me. Ok, you've got a chainsaw on your gun. That's cool. But to me the Chief will always be a cooler character than Marcus Fenix. I'll probably rent this game for the single player, but I don't expect I'll buy it. Too Human, on the other hand...

[Crispy Dave]

well actually the definition of murder is one man killing another so since their killing aliens it doesent count.

see (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder)

[Tom_Violence]

well actually the definition of murder is one man killing another so since their killing aliens it doesent count.

see (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder)

What, you mean this definition?

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought"

I don't see the word 'man' there at all. By your definition one woman killing another wouldn't count as murder either, since women aren't people. :smalleek:

Seriously, I actually wonder if you're joking coming out with something like that.

[Demented]

Well, going by that definition, killing people who are threatening openly invading your nation is lawfully sanctioned, and thus not murder. Heh.

Also, nameless heroes in video games tend to be sociopathic, not psychopathic. (Though, as the ESRB rating suggests, your experience may vary.) Generally, the person playing the character doesn't care much at all about the individuals about them, but isn't going to out of his way to violate them for his own personal gain, if only because Friendly Fire isn't enabled and shooting things is his only method of interaction with 99% of the environment.

Marcus Phoenix leaving his post to save his father makes him a derelict, not psychopathic, and not even sociopathic.

From what I've seen, since I've never played K&L, Lynch is a psychopath, but Kane is not. Of course, if the police show up with guns firing, they're all psychopathic murderers as well, so Kane is actually an angel in disguise, killing solely for self-defense. (That doesn't mean he isn't crazy, though.)

If you really want to try psychopathic murderer, go with Nomad, of Crysis fame. I only played the demo of that, but every other member of his team manages to get through the map without killing anyone. Except you, who even gets instructed to use grenades to blow through a barricade... Meanwhile, you're capable of sneaking around the map and accomplishing all your objectives peacefully, with the help of stealth mode. Not to mention, your mission is probably not officially acknowledged to exist, much less be sanctioned. At least until hell freezes over.

[MeklorIlavator]

I'd question the fact that killing sleeping soldiers is murder 100% of the time. If those soldiers are participating in genocide(or supportive of others who are committing said acts) against your entire species, and you are infiltrating a facility that they are occupying, with a high probability of combat taking place nearby, what should one do? It not like they surrender, and there are usually patrols nearby, so what should one do in that situation? Or is the murder justified?

[Studoku]

If you call killing sleeping soldiers murder, you have to call the whole SAS squad from CoD4 murderers.

[Albub]

Killing sleeping soldiers isn't murder, it's smart. It's dishonorable, but this is war. This isn't the 1800s anymore, soldier. Chivalry is deader than Walt Disney.

[Mr._Blinky]

Killing sleeping enemy soldiers is murder. I don't care how you spin it, but I find it hard to justify as anything else.

So if you were a soldier fighting a hostile enemy race attempting to commit genocide on a previously unheard of scale, and you were infiltrating a base that they had occupied, and in the process found a room full of them sleeping, what would you do? Wake them up and go "Oh, jolly good, you're awake! Guess I'll give you a sporting chance now!" Heh, yeah, sorry but no, that isn't how wars are or ever were fought (unless you were a knight, and then you wouldn't be sneaking around anyways). That's the kind of Lawful Stupid crap that D&D players get pissed off about. They're enemy soldiers who wouldn't give a moments hesitation in plugging you or your entire species while they slept, so why should you be considered a murderer for killing them silently. Besides, its going to be a lot more unpleasant for all parties involved if they do wake up.

[thorgrim29]

If you call killing sleeping soldiers murder, you have to call the whole SAS squad from CoD4 murderers.

Yea well, no matter how much I like gaz and the captain 9facial hair man, facial hair), they are murderers, tugs, and generally not very nice people, I mean,

Torturing and then executing Al Hassad is'nt exactly sanctionned by the Geneva convention (more like the "who gives a **** convention" actually)

That aside, I,m pumped for GOW2, even sigged Marcus on msn (that part:Sometimes, death is all you can see, its all around you, it consumes you. So you have to look it in the eye, and bear you teeth).

As for halo vs GOW...... I'm torn, you see, I liked both games, especially since GOW came out in the long time between having completed H2 about 5 times and halo3. both are very competent shooters, both have funny characters, dramatic moments, and frantic fights for your worthless hide. I realy liked the feel of gears, what with cog tags ad destruction all over the place, but I liked the covenant better then the locust, so its pretty 50/50.

[Icewalker]

Gears of War II?!?

But how can you top a machine gun with a chainsaw on it? (http://cad-comic.com/comic.php?d=20080225)

[Cuddly]

OMG... so what?
So you've got another online shooter and no promise of a Halo 4.
Big whoop.
Gears of War fell into that distinct area between not caring and hating, where all the regular forms of reason fail and men and women alike become frothing beasts of hate and spite for the unbeliever.
Somebody mind telling me why exactly another generic gun game is to be celebrated for something other than the multiplayer?

And Assassin's creed was trite, tiresome, and hurt my eyes to play. I am an elite assassin, running around cities and trying not to knock pots off of people's heads? Saving people from getting roughed up by the town guard? Climbing to tall places to collect power-ups and unlock badges? Oh wow, how original!

Gears was all about the online play, btw. If you didn't play online, then you didn't really play it. Upping to 36 players would probably be a bad move- finding 4 good players was hard. Now having to find more than 4x as many? Ugh.

[Tom_Violence]

I'd question the fact that killing sleeping soldiers is murder 100% of the time. If those soldiers are participating in genocide(or supportive of others who are committing said acts) against your entire species, and you are infiltrating a facility that they are occupying, with a high probability of combat taking place nearby, what should one do? It not like they surrender, and there are usually patrols nearby, so what should one do in that situation? Or is the murder justified?

Is the murder justified? No, that would be a contradiction, I think.

Look, no one's denying that killing people while they're asleep is effective. Its just immoral, partly because it is so effective (that is, there will always be other solutions, but nothing is going to get you the same bang for your back as knifing people in their sleep).

A killer that sneaks into someone's house at night and stabs them to death in their bed is different from a soldier that does exactly the same thing how? Both can claim self-defence (the killer would likely be in a lot more trouble if the person woke up and found him, so why not just get that risk out of the way?), though both would likely be wrong to - as already mentioned the soldier can likely find other solutions to the problem than murdering people in their sleep.

So anyway, yes, killing defenceless people is murder. Gasp.

As for the game itself, it sounds like a thinking-man's Halo. This obviously by no means makes it a thinking-man's game, but oh well, at least its a start.

[Demented]

Actually, nothing about murder says it has to be unjust. /pedant

[Ranis]

As for the game itself, it sounds like a thinking-man's Halo. This obviously by no means makes it a thinking-man's game, but oh well, at least its a start.

Then go play Shadow of the Colossus and don't worry about what is and isn't murder.

[Jibar]

And Assassin's creed was trite, tiresome, and hurt my eyes to play. I am an elite assassin, running around cities and trying not to knock pots off of people's heads? Saving people from getting roughed up by the town guard? Climbing to tall places to collect power-ups and unlock badges? Oh wow, how original!

Yes, but using the historical setting was original. The story was original.
Presentation means a lot. You can take a bog standard plot, generic gameplay and a regular soundtrack, but if you do something new with them. If you give it a unique presentation, your game will win points.
Gears of War took that formula, but fails on the originality front. The characters, the settings, the enemies, I've seen it all before. Nothing looks new. Nothing feels new. It feels exactly as it looks. Generic.


Gears was all about the online play, btw. If you didn't play online, then you didn't really play it.

And that's a flaw.
Not everyone has online, not everyone wants to play online. Making a game with a single player, yet putting such great emphasis on multiplayer is a flaw.
Shadowrun got that element right. It had no offline, and went straight at online. Sure, some people complained, but at least they were clear in their motivations.
Hell, look at Halo. Online is the greatest selling point for Halo 3, so that got all the attention and the single player suffered for it.

[Mr._Blinky]

And that's a flaw.
Not everyone has online, not everyone wants to play online. Making a game with a single player, yet putting such great emphasis on multiplayer is a flaw.
Shadowrun got that element right. It had no offline, and went straight at online. Sure, some people complained, but at least they were clear in their motivations.
Hell, look at Halo. Online is the greatest selling point for Halo 3, so that got all the attention and the single player suffered for it.

How is that a flaw? If you don't have online and don't like the campaign, you don't buy the game. That doesn't mean it isn't fun for those people who do have online. Some people don't like single-player, and only like playing online multi-player. Does that make Bioshock, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, etc. bad games? No. How about Republic Commando, which had an awesome single-player but crap multi-player? Or the System Shock games? They're games that are aimed at different audiences, and claiming that a game is bad because it doesn't cater to the group you belong to is like complaining that Casablanca is bad because it didn't have enough gunfights to cater to action fans.

[Tom_Violence]

Actually, nothing about murder says it has to be unjust. /pedant

Unlawful, certainly. I'm trying to think of an example of a 'justified murder' yet I keep coming up blank. Surely a justified killing is something else, a manslaughter or other homicide?


Then go play Shadow of the Colossus and don't worry about what is and isn't murder.

Ahh, you mention a thinking-man's game and the crowd throws you Shadow Of The Colossus. That's funny. You're cute.


How is that a flaw? If you don't have online and don't like the campaign, you don't buy the game. That doesn't mean it isn't fun for those people who do have online. Some people don't like single-player, and only like playing online multi-player. Does that make Bioshock, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, etc. bad games? No. How about Republic Commando, which had an awesome single-player but crap multi-player? Or the System Shock games? They're games that are aimed at different audiences, and claiming that a game is bad because it doesn't cater to the group you belong to is like complaining that Casablanca is bad because it didn't have enough gunfights to cater to action fans.

Sadly, I have to agree with the man. While I concur with Jibar in the feeling that the shooter genre has about as much interest and variety to it as a sack of bricks, the complaint that a lack of single-player-based fun makes for a bad game is ungrounded. Afterall, one cannot winge that the entire enterprise of football is rubbish simply because playing it on your own is no fun, and nowhere does it state that a video game ought to cater to one man on his lonesome.

[Demented]

Unlawful, certainly. I'm trying to think of an example of a 'justified murder' yet I keep coming up blank. Surely a justified killing is something else, a manslaughter or other homicide?

Murder is mostly a legal construct, the interpretation of which differs from law to law. Some need preparation, most specify unlawful (some probably don't), occasionally there's a requirement for malice. I.e. Assassination has no malice. Simply firing into a crowd isn't prepared for. Fighting opposing forces in war is by the law of your own nation.

I figure a vigilantist murder would be a decent example of a just homocide, and so long as it meets the other definitions and whichever law you're using at the time doesn't specify 'unjust' as essential to a murder, and I don't know of any do, it would be a murder to boot. Then again, law seems to specify that anything that isn't expressly done by the law is unjust, so it's probably an implied part of all crimes. (You used the toilet without signing in triplicate! This is an unjust use of aqueous resources!)

Now I've got to see if all my conjecture checks out.

[Dalantia]

From what I've seen, since I've never played K&L, Lynch is a psychopath, but Kane is not. Of course, if the police show up with guns firing, they're all psychopathic murderers as well, so Kane is actually an angel in disguise, killing solely for self-defense. (That doesn't mean he isn't crazy, though.)

Non-spoiler clarification (Information that you pick up reading the manual or playing the demo level, or watching commercials): Kane is not a good man, nor is he a psychopath. He abandoned his family, he was a mercenary for hire, apparently with one of the most notorious mercenary groups in the world, that also abandoned the rest of his unit and escaped with a significant amount of money. The game actually opens with him being in the process of transportation to his execution for multiple counts of murder. Lynch is a medicated psychotic prone to bouts of delusion.

I played through the entire game. The ending totally destroyed the mediocre rest of the game, and I watched both of them. I could go off on a rant about how much I hated every single character involved in the entire thing and how there was no way for anything resembling good to occur...

Re: Assassin's Creed. Didn't pick me up. Historical setting and story may have been original, but the gameplay just felt.. well, flat. Different, yes, but flat. Maybe they'll do better next time.

Re: Gears of War. I didn't play it online, but I loved it all the same. The interactions between the members of the squad, and co-op made it worth the buy. Cover mechanics are love, and they're why I put up with Kane and Lynch all the way through, and why I still enjoy Mass Effect.

[Jibar]

They're games that are aimed at different audiences, and claiming that a game is bad because it doesn't cater to the group you belong to is like complaining that Casablanca is bad because it didn't have enough gunfights to cater to action fans.



the complaint that a lack of single-player-based fun makes for a bad game is ungrounded.

I'm not saying it makes it bad. I have far too many other reasons to think its bad. I think it's a flaw in design. If a focus on multiplayer was the only flaw with the game, I wouldn't have a problem. It just doesn't show commitment in what you want the game to be if you include a seperate mode which doesn't quite match up.
Lemme think of examples...
Well, Halo 3 is the obvious one, and one I've used before where focus on multiplayer led to a slipshod single player experience.
BioShock and Half-Life 2 are good. They avoid the rather strange need for shooters to include a multiplayer aspect and instead delivered a powerful and undisputably good single player experience.
Smash Bros Melee is a perfect example of how it should work. They delivered many variations in gameplay, the target games, the home run matches, and made them feel like a natural part of the game and from the looks of things Brawl will do the same with the Coin Shooter.
Besides this isn't even my biggest problem with the game. I was just saying that citing its multiplayer as a saving grace doesn't work as it's a flaw in the game as well.

[Lord of Rapture]

BioShock and Half-Life 2 are good. They avoid the rather strange need for shooters to include a multiplayer aspect and instead delivered a powerful and undisputably good single player experience.

Besides this isn't even my biggest problem with the game. I was just saying that citing its multiplayer as a saving grace doesn't work as it's a flaw in the game as well.

...The only way to sum up my feelings for you would be: they're exactly opposite from "I hate you man. I wish I could hate you do death."

[Lord_Butters_I]

Maybe it's because I loathe all RPGs with a firey passion, but everything that most people seem to value in an FPS, story, graphics, meaningful characters, etc I really just don't care about. As long as the graphics are up to the level of say Halo2 or Ninja Gaiden, I don't care. As for story and characters, I also just do not care. If I wanted story I'd get a movie. When I pick up a game, I expect to get exactly that: A game. The story of a game is an afterthought to me, like the sprinkles on an ice cream cone: kind of nice to have and they make the whole package look more complete, but when you start eating ice cream it just doesn't matter. Example? Kane and Lynch. I don't care if the characters were developed and meaningful, I don't care if the story was a top-rate crime drama, all I care about was that the cover mechanics sucked, the AI was awful, and the controls felt like I was trying to ride a blind rhino.

Yes Halo's story sucks and it takes itself way to seriously, I simply do not care. Its AI is fantastic, the weapons are varried, fun to use, and with minor exceptions are all reletively well balanced. The extra features (saved films, forge, campaign scoring) are fantastic, and while playing by yourself online isn't all that great, get some friends for a custom game and Halo becomes one of the greatest FPS games on the 360.

I do not like GoW. It has far too many bugs, the host is a demigod, and while I realize this isn't so much a problem with the game as it is a matter of personal preference, I think that GoW isn't fast pased enough. I like my shooters lightning fast, that's why I play so much Halo and CoD4. I suppose if you liked slower, more tactical shooters then Gears would be good but I don't like it.

Well I'm four paragraphs in and I haven't even talked about Gears of War 2. What I would like to see is a more robust weapons arsenal, more objective based gametypes, elimination of host advantage and all the bugs, and a little more color to the environments. Not EVERYTHING needs to be a shade of brown or gray. Give the ability to respawn too, maybe not in all gametypes but in some of them at least, and have it be a toggle for customs. I play shooters in a very in your face style, and while this nets me absurd amounts of kills I die with almost predictable frequency. Yet another reason why I don't really like Gears.

There's a lot to hope for though, GoW was originally concepted as a tech demo of the Unreal 3 engine, but with GoW 2 they can stop showing off the graphics and make a truly unbelievable game.

[warty goblin]

I do not like GoW. It has far too many bugs, the host is a demigod, and while I realize this isn't so much a problem with the game as it is a matter of personal preference, I think that GoW isn't fast pased enough. I like my shooters lightning fast, that's why I play so much Halo and CoD4. I suppose if you liked slower, more tactical shooters then Gears would be good but I don't like it.



Halo? Fast? BWAAAHAHAHAA!

Sorry, I've played a few fast shooters, and Halo ain't one of 'em. Blistering fast is Quake or Unreal, since they have far less forgiving health systems and mobility is prized above all else (seriously, shooting your feet with a rocket launcher is a fast way to die, in Unreal its just a way to get a bit extra speed, or the only way to reach the really good sniping spot).

I agree however that Halo is certainly faster than GoW.

[Lord_Butters_I]

Halo's not fast, but it plays similar to an unreal/id game. I was saying I prefer the STYLE, not the actual speed. Gears revolves around taking cover and taking shots strictly when you need to. Halo revolves around shoving guns in peoples' faces.

[Demented]

layed a few fast shooters, and Halo ain't one of 'em. Blistering fast is Quake or Unreal, since they have far less forgiving health systems and mobility is prized above all else (seriously, shooting your feet with a rocket launcher is a fast way to die, in Unreal its just a way to get a bit extra speed, or the only way to reach the really good sniping spot).

Generally, you want to use the impact hammer or shield gun for that. You don't get protection from self-damage in Unreal (as I recall), and their rocket launcher isn't very good at pushing stuff. Quake on the other hand...

[Felizginato12]

I'm not going to say Gears was a horrible game but did anyone find the multiplayer dissapointing?

I know that this may be sliding away a bit from the actual argument here but I just wanted to throw in my two cents for what it's worth (which is probably two cents).

I just wanna observe the two common camps that people tend to stick to when it comes to shooters on the 360...

Right now I think that it's either you are a Gears fan or a Halo fan. Most Gears players that I know of hate Halo and vise versa. There can be an argument made for games like CoD 4 deserving a seperate camp from these two but almost everyone I know who plays Halo or Gears plays CoD 4 (It's just so good :smallwink: )

In my opinion I think that the Halo universe is much more deep then Gears and the multiplayer as well.

I first played Gears when my friend preordered it and obtained it on release day. We played all day through the campaign (which I still think is a great campaign). Yes the story is paper towel thin (Humans arrive on planet give the natives the ol' Native American boot and aliens come back for revenge) and the characters are horrible ("**** yeah! **** yeah! Oh, ****!" an accurate representation of common Gears dialouge) but the actual fun I had playing the campaign was great.

Then I decided to take it online.

It was there that I discovered how unbalanced the game is in many ways.

The pistol brought back memories of Halo: Combat Evolved where it was one of the best weapons in the game. The active reload made no sense (If I reload faster my gun becomes more powerful...somehow...) and was really open for abuse (Taking sniper shots so that when you get the active power up you can down a guy in one hit). I also felt that most of the guns just outright sucked.

The sniper is bolt action (and even then it seems longer to reload then a normal bolt action sniper) and basically you must get headshots with it for the gun to be usefull. With so much cover a body shot allows the target to just recover after a shot and the cover also protects one from head shots.

The chainsaw was also a pain in the ass. I tossed the controller every time I got punched and my character became dazed for some time allowing my foe to effectively kill me or the countless times where I would be using the chainsaw and a single punch would stop me dead in my tracks. I know it must be balanced but goddamn it is annoying when every punch lands me in a world of ****. At least melee makes sense in Halo and it doesn't deprive you of taking normal actions.

I know that these are all complaints made by one who hasn't invested hours of their life into getting use to Gears but that is just the problem. With Halo a new comer can jump in and they know (for the most part) what to expect. In CoD 4 bullets are dangerous and so even a horrible player can grab some kills. In Gears it just seems that there is too much to take advantage of.

Will I play Gears 2? Probably the campaign but outside that I would say no.

I mean playing Gears online felt alot like playing Halo 2 online. In Halo 2 only 2 guns really work well (BR and Sniper) and you basically need those guns to get anywhere while playing (yes Shotgun and Sword are deadly but easy to avoid for the experienced player). Also Halo 2 suffers from the "hardcore" superego and the "MLG" ******* sympton. I thought that Gears felt the same in the sense that there are just a few different strategies and weapons that you must use to win the game.

In Halo 3 all of the weapons are balanced so that anyone can get kills with any weapon. In CoD 4 you can practice with any gun and turn it into a killing machine (with the exception of the noob tube. That is just a horrible thing to put in CoD 4). I just wish that Gears was made so that every gun was deadly, every strategy had a major flaw (along with major payoffs), and that everyone new player or veteran can have fun grabbing kills and not having to worry about some "pro" player bringing out some cheap move in order to get a quick kill (ala Halo 2's BXR. Probably the dumbest and cheapest thing I have ever seen in a videogame).

But then again that is me speaking by a guy who has played a lot of Halo and some hours of Gears. I wouldn't know if curent patches has fixed things in Gears or not but if so someone correct me. But last time I played the game (for laughs) was 2 months ago and I found no difference.

[Crispy Dave]

Halo's not fast, but it plays similar to an unreal/id game. I was saying I prefer the STYLE, not the actual speed. Gears revolves around taking cover and taking shots strictly when you need to. Halo revolves around shoving guns in peoples' faces.

gears is built off the unreal engine

[warty goblin]

gears is built off the unreal engine

But Unreal Tournement it ain't.

Out of the games discussed on this thread I would put Gears over Halo way over CoD 4, only in terms of single player. I don't actually do multiplayer, so I can't speak to that. I guess the thing is that Gears actually feels different than Halo/CoD4 type games, with its emphasis on cover and less than accurate guns. The regenerating health thing bugs me, but it bugs me in almost all games of this sort. Gears keeps it squarely in the realm of game mechanic, and given the insane armor those guys wear, it actually almost makes sense. Halo is fun just because it is a decent power armor game, and I am a terrible sucker for power armor (it also actually has an explanation for the regenerating health thing). The problem I had with CoD4 is that the regenerating health thing made no sense, the campaign was paper thin scripting, and the guns felt...to simple, not like the jerking, coughing beasts in Gears, or the thunderous joy of burning an entire clip with the Halo AR (granted, with the Halo 1 AR, nothing really noticed you burning off clips at them, but it was awesome to do).

None of them would be my favorite FPSs by any means though, the ballistics model is just to simple, and the regenerating health makes things just to boring. My current FPS of choice is Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, because it has a truly nice ballistics model, and the maps tend to play very differently every time through. Crysis is somewhere below it, the regenerating health is still as annoying, but the shooting physics are great, and it is a very good power armor game.