# Gears Of War 2



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 6, 2009)

What's it like, worth getting? It's quite cheap here...


----------



## bmd (Mar 6, 2009)

It's another shooter, that's fo' sho'. 

It actually makes for a good console shooter. I've played GoW on PC and 360 and it's definitely better on a console, probably because it was designed for the 360 first and foremost. GoW 2 is just as good but not different enough to warrant buying over GoW if you've never played that, imo.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 7, 2009)

I see...you played it [the first one] online?


----------



## The Groke (Mar 7, 2009)

I liked it better than the first one, though - like the first one - I played it for a few days, got near the end and suddenly decided I was bored of it and returned the thing to the drawer unfinished.

Dialogue is AWFUL.

Characters are AWFUL - I can't _stand_ these massive, comically muscle-bound, grunting blobs of men and thus don't really feel much urge to keep them alive, not any sympathy when they get cut down.

Gameplay is...not as innovative and involved as people think:

Your guy controls like a fucking juggernaut, making simple, close manoeuvres quite tricky, the "roadie run" camera is fucking stupid as you can't see anything 45 degrees to your front/left as you move.

For all the "cover system" and instructions to "suppress" and "outflank" the enemy, you can mostly just still behind a rock and shoot them in the face. They also don't really care whether they are being shot in the face or not - their lack of interest at the damage they take really annoys me.

The driving/tank section has really stupid controls: you can't move the turret independently of the vehicle and thus can only shoot in the direction you are moving.



Despite ALL of the above, it manages to be entertaining in parts and it is certainly pretty.

Second one is much better than the 1st as the environments are more varied.

Yeah. Um.

So.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 7, 2009)

gow2 was released in beta state and as such is functionally unplayable online. it's a huge mess.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 9, 2009)

GoW2 is playable online, I play it most evenings..... Things got a lot better since the released an update for it, and a 3rd glitch update is due soon......

It suffers from strict NAT issues which really slow down the matchmaking console, but if you have your router NAT set up properly its normally quite fast.

Gameplay experience is good fun, especially online, there are certain 'techniques' to kill people consistently and you will probably need to practise these to be any sort of competition online..... The controls do take practise to move around efficiently whilst covering....

If you buy it and want to play online give me a shout...... Gamertag:- Simbolini


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 9, 2009)

the game is riddled with lag and people who cheat. The matchmaking system is totally inept and the matchmaking options that worked from gears1 were totally removed and replaced with a system that stinks even when it does work. The use of a code, supplied with brand new copies of the game, that can only be used once to actually access half the maps the game has was a terrible terrible idea and a cynical marketing ploy. The smoke grenades now have a very stupid and far reaching stun effect. The chainsaw is grotesquely overpowered and most of the new weapons are stupid. Don't give these awful people any of your money, they might carry on butchering a promising franchise.


----------



## tommers (Mar 9, 2009)

mate, seriously, is there ANY game you like?

(I should add I've never played this)


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 10, 2009)

the vast majority of games for the 360 are utter rubbish. You would think that better technology, over the generations of console gaming, would foster the exact opposite. Unfortunately, with the availability and functionality of the internet as part of the hardware it seems devs have just gotten lazy. Gears 2 is a perfect example of that - the game still hasn't been properly fixed and even when it does get fixed (if) the design is a step backwards compared to the first game. It's commonplace now for companies to hype their products to levels rivaled only by hollywood and yet seemingly rely on DLC to fix things. In fact many companies are locking portions of their games to sell on later as DLC also. That's poor form. 

The real problem is that things were never like this back in the day - in part because all the bells and whistles we've come to expect nowadays didn't exist. I bought Soul Calibur 4 last year, awaiting the game for months, because the previous SC gqames (SC2 especially which was a god of a game) were fantastic. How then could SC on the next gen be anything opther than even better. It stank. Absolutely stank. Compared to SC2 it was a joke. Unfortunately, for a lot of games, that's become the norm. 

Also, back in the days of the ps2/xbox, online gaming wasn't such a big deal. I remember playing games (SC2 is another fine example) and enjoying the game without feeling the need to compete online. Now the prevalence of online competitiveness has hamstrung the developement of games because most games have to incorporate not only multiplayer (which is good, where it works) but 'ranked' gaming which is ultimately a sewer. Gears2 suffers from this because without a large list of friends you can only play ranked matches - full of people who cheat and behave like the worst spoilt brats. Back int he day SC2 had a solid single player mode which was more than enough to satisfy me, all the unlockables could be accessed without any need to pay extra and the gameplay was solid (because you couldn't download a patch for one thing!). That just isn't the case anymore; even GTA4 (which isn't by any means a bad game) felt the need to incorporate a fairly insubstantial multiuplayer component. As a result it lacked anywhere near the depth of the previous games' single player components.

So, yes, I do complain about a lot of games, because a lot of games are just not made properly because game design has become lazy.


----------



## tommers (Mar 10, 2009)

You do have a point.  I think game developers have run out of ideas a little bit.  This is why i went so crazy about the DS - it's got original games, not just more shooters, drivers and sports games.  And yes, SC4 compared to SoulBlade or SC2 is a joke.  Which is a shame.

I'm not sure about the online thing though.  Yes, you're right that it means that people can release games and rely on a later patch to sort out all the problems (but then they've been doing that on PC for years) but with the online competitive stuff - well I'm not sure what else you're going to do.  Competition minus consequences for being a dick = people being dicks.  That's always going to be the same.  Sort out some matches with people off here, maybe that's the way forward?  COD5 is the first game like this I've played and the multiplayer makes it.  The solo game is shiny and loud and "oh wow, that looks pretty" but it turns into a bit of a chore.  It's all about altered expectations isn't it?  I had my 360 without it even being online for about 6 months without being bothered, but now I can't wait for my internet connection to be restored.

And you're right that the majority of games are rubbish, but that's always been the way.  Same with most films that are hyped etc etc.  There is still the odd gem, Fallout3 was good, I've enjoyed COD5, Oblivion was tremendous, Left4Dead has potential I reckon, Bioshock was a good game - that's not bad for the year I've had the console.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 10, 2009)

I like online gaming, in principle. What I don't like is not only dealing with the usual brigade of immature bottom feeders, but the notion that if you want to enjoy the game to its fullest you have to compete. I don't want to compete - per se - that is, I don't play games as a profession so I'm not ever going to be hey number one. Consequently playing against the 'pros' just isn't fun. CoD is a great game, but not when you have half the people cheating and the other half so good that you get sniped as soon as you spawn. That's just no fun for me. Unfortunately online gaming doesn't cater for this 'middle ground' - ranked gaming is perhaps too inclusive. It's a bit like having a bunch of sunday league amateur sports people forced to play against the Brazillian national side because the only way to play football in the world is to play all together.

I know PC gaming has suffered from release now, fix later syndrome, but PC games are more open. You can't mod xbox games or support them in anywhere near the same way. You have to hope that the companies release reliable, free (imo), DLC to match that. So far what seems to happen is that a game comes out, devs promise to support it, game plays like shit, devs take months to patch it, devs release a couple of bits of token DLC (some alternate skins) for a relatively steep price (I hate MS points) and then move on to their next project. All the while we fall for the hype.

There are good games out there, it's just so many of the ones that should be good - like gears - aren't. F3 is a good game (Oblivion...notsomuch), but L4D is a great example of a game that's not complete. What it gives you is great, but it's just not enough to sustain my interest. I think that game probably works a lot better on the PC where it can be modded. Besides i didn't nejoy the VS mode anywhere near as much as I thought. Bioshock is great. COD5 is good, but it's _another _shooter (and had, when i played, a ton of hugely exploited glitches). Currently I like SF4 but it has a horrific learning curve and a dreadful trial (ie training) mode - and controversial DLC (content locked on disc accesible in exchange for $$$). This is the sort of thing I abhor.

I should also add that a lot of games, when it comes to single player, are very short. Even F3 doesn't come close the sheer amount of stuff you could do in Oblivion. Bioshock which as I said is great (fantastic setting, story and design) is not that long. Now for me, ona  budget, that's a huge factor in weighing whether it's worth a purchase. A lot of games are probably much better rented, but I don't live near Blockbuster so that's not an option. This certainly was the case with that dire Force Unleashed game that spent years in development being hyped to death: very short, very shoddy.


----------



## tommers (Mar 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I like online gaming, in principle. What I don't like is not only dealing with the usual brigade of immature bottom feeders, but the notion that if you want to enjoy the game to its fullest you have to compete. I don't want to compete - per se - that is, I don't play games as a profession so I'm not ever going to be hey number one. Consequently playing against the 'pros' just isn't fun. CoD is a great game, but not when you have half the people cheating and the other half so good that you get sniped as soon as you spawn. That's just no fun for me. Unfortunately online gaming doesn't cater for this 'middle ground' - ranked gaming is perhaps too inclusive. It's a bit like having a bunch of sunday league amateur sports people forced to play against the Brazillian national side because the only way to play football in the world is to play all together.



Maybe then we need ranked servers?  Like in Mario Kart on the DS where you are matched against others with a similar win-loss ratio?

Personally I found it a challenge on COD5.  I've never played shooters online before and the first few games were um... frustrating.  Sometimes it can get a bit annoying that you spawn, somebody shoots you a second later but I've had to think about it, create character classes that help the way I play and I've managed to get it now so that I usually kill more people than I get killed myself (compared to the start when I got killed 2 or 3 times more often than I killed anybody.)  I like it that I've had to work at it... I'm never going to be the best in the world but at least I can hold my own now.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 10, 2009)

that's what's supposed to happen. What I think is needed is different skill levels of server/rooms/lobbies or what have you. It's not perfect, but it's a start. That way new players can play with new players and ultra hardcore child prodigies can call each other faggots in their own (sad) little world. At the moment, while games ostensibly use trueskill or some fashion thereof, you invariably end up with not enough players and so the search parameters inexorably widen and the whole thing becomes pointless. 

Also the 360's gamerzone function is intended, afaik, to differentiate between player attitudes, so that people who want the hardcore attitude can find players in the same zone. Doesn't ever seem to work though.


----------



## tommers (Mar 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Also the 360's gamerzone function is intended, afaik, to differentiate between player attitudes, so that people who want the hardcore attitude can find players in the same zone. Doesn't ever seem to work though.




Is it? I've never understood it.  I thought it was just cosmetic.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Mar 10, 2009)

ive just finished GOW2 , really enjoyed it

I would reccomend anyone who likes a shooter to go get a 2nd hand copy for 25 quids


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 10, 2009)

tommers said:


> Is it? I've never understood it.  I thought it was just cosmetic.


That's what I've been told. Either way it seems little more than cosmetic.

Gears 2 has some great ideas and some great moments, but afa online goes it needs work. If they ever fix it then it could be brilliant. 

Big if.


----------



## ruffneck23 (Mar 10, 2009)

ahh ive not played it online , i just loved the single player lick


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> the vast majority of games for the 360 are utter rubbish. You would think that better technology, over the generations of console gaming, would foster the exact opposite.



Why? There's no reason that more or less graphical power will create better games (and what's the criteria for a 'good' game?). I doubt there's any console ever made where more than 30 % of total releases have been excellent games. It just doesn't happen. Great games are always a minority...


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 10, 2009)

better technology isn't just better graphics.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> better technology isn't just better graphics.



Better tech doesn't necessarily mean better game play. One of the best games of all time is Tetris, hardly needs a powerhouse rig or console to run...


----------



## sim667 (Mar 10, 2009)

I think its safe to say online GOW2 you either love or loathe it......

I love it..... but then ive always loved shooters but never found them brutal enough.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Mar 10, 2009)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Better tech doesn't necessarily mean better game play. One of the best games of all time is Tetris, hardly needs a powerhouse rig or console to run...


No it doesn't, but it does mean there ar emore possibilities about what games can do.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Mar 13, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> No it doesn't, but it does mean there ar emore possibilities about what games can do.



Gameplay doesn't need power to exist only imagination and the skill to implement it.


----------

