Gears of War 2 or 1.5?

[GloatingSwine]

It's just the way I think, I suppose. I prefer my sequels to either bring a whole new story to the table, or to take the core gameplay and make it better through change.

Which is exactly what Gears of War 2 does, because the changes made to the gameplay are quite wide reaching and significant, making the play experience quite different from the first game whilst still being recognisable as the same series, and much improved, and it continues the story of the first game, which is largely the job of a sequel, and it manages to get through the entire game without committing any of the great videogame storytelling faux pas.

 

[Flying-Emu]

Congratulations, you just described every video game sequel released since someone came up with the idea of tacking numbers onto the title of a game.

Amazing. That's really what you think? Well then, enjoy that.
In reality, sequels are supposed to (IN MY OPINION, let the opinion flaming begin) improve the flaws of the original game, not just throw in new toys to play with. If I wanted to play the same game with a shiny new coat, then I'd have bought GoW2, now wouldn't I?

But you already said earlier that you've only heard things about Gears 2, meaning you don't know jack about what you're talking about. How would you know if it improves on the original or fits your absurd definition of a sequel (which no other sequel in history has).

Just so you know, I refuse to go buy a sequel to a game that I didn't enjoy unless it changes the core aspects of the game.
Moving on.
I've yet to see a solid reason to explain my opinion to you, since you've done nothing but be a sarcastic, insulting, condescending man with a holier-than-thou attitude.
Moving on yet again.
I'll reiterate. I don't want to buy the same game over and over again, which is why I don't buy Final Fantasy games. Or Gears of War 2. A sequel, in my mind, makes the original gameplay better. Not just adding new toys. Let's take a look at a few examples, and I'll show you why I think GoW2 is little more than an expansion
EXPANSION:
Starcraft: Brood War
Reason: Gave us shiny new maps, units, and story, while keeping the same gameplay and doing little to improve it.
SEQUEL:
Final Fantasy IV (yes, I realize I'm going against my previous statement that I despise FF games; this is just the first example that leaped to mind)
Reason: It was the first Final Fantasy to have an actually interesting story beyond what was told in the manual, introduced the ATB system that was used for EVER, while adding new classes that severely changed the way the game was played, while still keeping the core of the game in place.
Hrm, oh wait. I forgot. Since I have an opinion differing from everyone elses, my opinion must be wrong [/sarcasm]

 

[Flying-Emu]

It's just the way I think, I suppose. I prefer my sequels to either bring a whole new story to the table, or to take the core gameplay and make it better through change.

Which is exactly what Gears of War 2 does, because the changes made to the gameplay are quite wide reaching and significant, making the play experience quite different from the first game whilst still being recognisable as the same series, and much improved, and it continues the story of the first game, which is largely the job of a sequel, and it manages to get through the entire game without committing any of the great videogame storytelling faux pas.

But it's the SAME thing. The steroid-charged machoism of the first game didn't interest me, the squad-based functions had been done better, and the setting was cliched and disinteresting.
If it really DOES change those three things, I may consider buying it. Otherwise, I'll move on from this thread.

 

[mr mcshiznit]

It's just the way I think, I suppose. I prefer my sequels to either bring a whole new story to the table, or to take the core gameplay and make it better through change.

Which is exactly what Gears of War 2 does, because the changes made to the gameplay are quite wide reaching and significant, making the play experience quite different from the first game whilst still being recognisable as the same series, and much improved, and it continues the story of the first game, which is largely the job of a sequel, and it manages to get through the entire game without committing any of the great videogame storytelling faux pas.

But it's the SAME thing. The steroid-charged machoism of the first game didn't interest me, the squad-based functions had been done better, and the setting was cliched and disinteresting.
If it really DOES change those three things, I may consider buying it. Otherwise, I'll move on from this thread.

Funny how the thread went from does it do enough to be considered a sequel to why you dont like the game....

 

[Flying-Emu]

It's just the way I think, I suppose. I prefer my sequels to either bring a whole new story to the table, or to take the core gameplay and make it better through change.

Which is exactly what Gears of War 2 does, because the changes made to the gameplay are quite wide reaching and significant, making the play experience quite different from the first game whilst still being recognisable as the same series, and much improved, and it continues the story of the first game, which is largely the job of a sequel, and it manages to get through the entire game without committing any of the great videogame storytelling faux pas.

But it's the SAME thing. The steroid-charged machoism of the first game didn't interest me, the squad-based functions had been done better, and the setting was cliched and disinteresting.
If it really DOES change those three things, I may consider buying it. Otherwise, I'll move on from this thread.

Funny how the thread went from does it do enough to be considered a sequel to why you dont like the game....

I'm simply waiting for someone to explain how the game changed beyond the new toys and levels. Just because I used the examples that make me dislike the game doesn't mean anything.
Would you rather have me ask about the things that I know didn't change, since they were actually innovative and interesting? I thought not.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

A sequel is an expansion. This is a stupid argument. What's a sequel supposed to do if not expand upon the original story? It didn't need new weapons or enemies to do that - calling it Gears 1.5 because it's not a completely different game is ridiculous.

Is The Empire Strikes Back just Star Wars 1.5? It must be! Same characters, same enemies, same weapons! Hell, it's more like Star Wars 1.1. Man, I sure was sick of Darth Vader after that first one, how lame of Lucas to just recycle villains like that.

Whether you like Gears of War or hate it, whether you consider it a good game or a shitty game, Gears of War 2 is Gears of War 2.

I guess people just expect a movie sequel to be a continuation of story, while people expect games to evolve through more than just that.

 

[mr mcshiznit]

It's just the way I think, I suppose. I prefer my sequels to either bring a whole new story to the table, or to take the core gameplay and make it better through change.

Which is exactly what Gears of War 2 does, because the changes made to the gameplay are quite wide reaching and significant, making the play experience quite different from the first game whilst still being recognisable as the same series, and much improved, and it continues the story of the first game, which is largely the job of a sequel, and it manages to get through the entire game without committing any of the great videogame storytelling faux pas.

But it's the SAME thing. The steroid-charged machoism of the first game didn't interest me, the squad-based functions had been done better, and the setting was cliched and disinteresting.
If it really DOES change those three things, I may consider buying it. Otherwise, I'll move on from this thread.

Funny how the thread went from does it do enough to be considered a sequel to why you dont like the game....

I'm simply waiting for someone to explain how the game changed beyond the new toys and levels. Just because I used the examples that make me dislike the game doesn't mean anything.
Would you rather have me ask about the things that I know didn't change, since they were actually innovative and interesting? I thought not.

Ok fine so you think its only a few new weapons,ill do my best to change your mind. There is a passable story that delves in SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER a civil war and tries to make the player have an emotional attachment to doms character. END SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER Multiplayer plays way different. Guns have dramatically different power levels than in the 1st game and thus this makes you play it in totally diff. manner. Adding in horde mode. Matchmaking - not in gears 1 at all has been put in with a party system. New Multiplayer modes Guardian,Wingman,King of the Hill,Submission. New Unreal engine that allows for WAY more locusts on screen at once. The only thing the same about these two games Are the way the dudes look and the use of the cover system.
/rant

 

[neoxdonut]

Matchmaking in GOW2 is currently the worst part of the game,that and the unbalanced weapons.

"The shotgun seems drastically underpowered at close range and is unreliable.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I'm simply waiting for someone to explain how the game changed beyond the new toys and levels. Just because I used the examples that make me dislike the game doesn't mean anything.
Would you rather have me ask about the things that I know didn't change, since they were actually innovative and interesting? I thought not.

So, you're waiting for an explanation as to why the game changed apart from everything that makes it a game. Seriously, making significant changes to the weapons and enemies in a shooting game completely changes the way the game plays and feels, because it requires players to use different tactics to succeed. They are the things that actually make the game interactive.

Apart from possibly the Roadie Run, every way you can interact with the gameworld has changed between Gears of War and Gears of War 2. Even apparently similar things like the cover system have changed, as much of the cover now shows damage when shot, which can expose parts of a target.

The shotgun seems drastically underpowered at close range and is unreliable.

Waaah! they took away my no skill win button. The shotgun was broken in the first game, it badly needed nerfing, and it got it, it's no longer the best gun in all situations, as it was before. Live with it.

 

[Flying-Emu]

It's just the way I think, I suppose. I prefer my sequels to either bring a whole new story to the table, or to take the core gameplay and make it better through change.

Which is exactly what Gears of War 2 does, because the changes made to the gameplay are quite wide reaching and significant, making the play experience quite different from the first game whilst still being recognisable as the same series, and much improved, and it continues the story of the first game, which is largely the job of a sequel, and it manages to get through the entire game without committing any of the great videogame storytelling faux pas.

But it's the SAME thing. The steroid-charged machoism of the first game didn't interest me, the squad-based functions had been done better, and the setting was cliched and disinteresting.
If it really DOES change those three things, I may consider buying it. Otherwise, I'll move on from this thread.

Funny how the thread went from does it do enough to be considered a sequel to why you dont like the game....

I'm simply waiting for someone to explain how the game changed beyond the new toys and levels. Just because I used the examples that make me dislike the game doesn't mean anything.
Would you rather have me ask about the things that I know didn't change, since they were actually innovative and interesting? I thought not.

Ok fine so you think its only a few new weapons,ill do my best to change your mind. There is a passable story that delves in SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER a civil war and tries to make the player have an emotional attachment to doms character. END SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER Multiplayer plays way different. Guns have dramatically different power levels than in the 1st game and thus this makes you play it in totally diff. manner. Adding in horde mode. Matchmaking - not in gears 1 at all has been put in with a party system. New Multiplayer modes Guardian,Wingman,King of the Hill,Submission. New Unreal engine that allows for WAY more locusts on screen at once. The only thing the same about these two games Are the way the dudes look and the use of the cover system.
/rant

Thank you. Was that so hard?

 

[Flying-Emu]

Just so you know, I refuse to go buy a sequel to a game that I didn't enjoy unless it changes the core aspects of the game.
Moving on.
I've yet to see a solid reason to explain my opinion to you, since you've done nothing but be a sarcastic, insulting, condescending man with a holier-than-thou attitude.
Moving on yet again.
I'll reiterate. I don't want to buy the same game over and over again, which is why I don't buy Final Fantasy games. Or Gears of War 2. A sequel, in my mind, makes the original gameplay better. Not just adding new toys. Let's take a look at a few examples, and I'll show you why I think GoW2 is little more than an expansion
EXPANSION:
Starcraft: Brood War
Reason: Gave us shiny new maps, units, and story, while keeping the same gameplay and doing little to improve it.
SEQUEL:
Final Fantasy IV (yes, I realize I'm going against my previous statement that I despise FF games; this is just the first example that leaped to mind)
Reason: It was the first Final Fantasy to have an actually interesting story beyond what was told in the manual, introduced the ATB system that was used for EVER, while adding new classes that severely changed the way the game was played, while still keeping the core of the game in place.
Hrm, oh wait. I forgot. Since I have an opinion differing from everyone elses, my opinion must be wrong [/sarcasm]

You seem to be making a lot of incorrect assumptions about what kind of man I am.

If a sequel changed the core aspects of gameplay, then it wouldn't really be a sequel would it? It would be....what do you call that?....a whole new game. Final Fantasy is a bad example to give when you talk about sequels as every installment in that series is pretty far removed from its predecessor in nearly everything but story.

Opinion! I love that word. It's like the internet catch-all for "there's no way I can be wrong so I can say whatever crap I want." In my opinion the sky is brown with purple and yellow clouds. This is fun. Look up the definition of a sequel, learn how wrong you truly are. Starcraft: Broodwar? Expansion pack, yes - but also a sequel.

You're really fighting tooth in nail in a thread about a game you've never even played and have no interest in. If you didn't like the first Gears of War, why are you so interested in a thread about the sequel?

Wow, good guess in how old I am, by the way.
And yes, I realize that I'm fighting, as you say, "tooth and nail". Yes, I disliked the first. No, I haven't played the second. But I DO have interest in the sequel, since I'm willing to give most things a second chance, some things a third. I'm trying to see what the ACTUAL difference between the games is.
I'm not saying that games need to be completely new. But I don't see the point in shelling out $60 US for nothing but new toys and scenarios. A few tweaks are good, but it just seems to me like the game would be too similar. I don't want to pay twice for one experience, if you catch my drift.
Perhaps I didn't explain well enough - my bad.
I'm not using "opinion" as a catch-all word. I'm using it as it was meant - A point of view. It mildly irritates me when people attack my opinion while not supporting their argument. It also irritates me when people say my opinion is "absurd"
I apologize for insulting you, but you appeared that way.
And now someone has actually told me what the differences in the game are, thanks to one Mr Mcshiznit.
But it was rather pleasant chatting with you.

 

[Flying-Emu]

So, you're waiting for an explanation as to why the game changed apart from everything that makes it a game. Seriously, making significant changes to the weapons and enemies in a shooting game completely changes the way the game plays and feels, because it requires players to use different tactics to succeed. They are the things that actually make the game interactive.

Apart from possibly the Roadie Run, every way you can interact with the gameworld has changed between Gears of War and Gears of War 2. Even apparently similar things like the cover system have changed, as much of the cover now shows damage when shot, which can expose parts of a target.

See, now this is what I was looking for. Since someone actually took the time to tell me that there was more than just new weapons and such, you proved to me that there IS something to this sequel.
Also, changing the weapons does not change things that drastically. In Halo, you still shoot like a mad supersoldier. In GoW, you still take cover and fight like a mildly intelligent human being. Yes, it changes your strategy (heavy machine gun=rapid sweeping motions to cut down lotsa people, pistol=focus on one person at a time), but not the CORE of the game.

 

[riffraff626]

Ya I have to agree. It seems that lately everybody can?t make a sequel only replacements. It's happening in games and movies. It a trend that?s really starting to piss me off. A for instance... the hulk (movie) some other director comes along and totally ignores the first one and makes his own vision. Yes the first one wasn?t all that but it wasn?t in now way a bomb. Also the second one didn?t do any better. Now the Punisher, the same damn thing. Why are thies fuckers ignoring the fact that there was a first step taken? They?re depriving us the second step only to show us their version of the first one.
Now in games as well. Gears seem to be just another Gears. Not a two. Don?t get me wrong (and start flaming) the first Gears were great. It won the awards to show it and the second one is just as great. But deep down it doesn?t feel like a 2. Only a remake. The improvements are too subtle. And Fable 2 has the same taint to it. It's a Fable remake not a two. It feels like fable with a shine on it.

 

[indyfan]

The only reason I wanna play gears 2 is to see where the story goes

and yes, I don't think its really worthy of being called a sequel.

it just doesn't have that many new features

 

[Gestapo Hunter]

I felt it was a sequel considering i got into the game more then its predecessor

 

[Proto Cloud]

So far I've been hearing problems with the chainsaw being overpowered in MP. Does anyone else feel the same? The last thing I need is to have a sequel to a game I barely liked being even worse. I was hoping to give the series a second chance.

 

[Mr Goostoff]

I seem to be a real minority here

To put it in non-padded terms, I hated Gears of War 1 with a passion. The campaign was decent the first run through, but too many conveniences (like how you always happened to find a Hammer of Dawn just before you fought a Berserker, and the satellite just so happened to be above you at this very moment) and not to mention the last boss was total bullshit. Oh, and Multiplayer sucked a giant cock, but we all know that.

Gears of War 2 improved greatly. It had a MUCH larger variety in enemies (from 1 to 4 different types of Boomers, can't complain there) as well as taking aspects from other genres not typically used (shields, explosive flails, etc) and the campaign was diverse. You're not just running around in a grey city and then a brown underground place, you're in a destroyed city, an abandoned facility, a train station, underground, inside a giant worm for Christ's sake!

The multiplayer still blows chunks, but this rant is completely diminished by Horde mode. It's intense, it's fun, it's TACTICAL.

In a nutshell,

GoW2>CoD4>Halo3>Poop>MorePoop>HannahMontanna>Gears1

 

[Devil's Due]

See, now this is what I was looking for. Since someone actually took the time to tell me that there was more than just new weapons and such, you proved to me that there IS something to this sequel.
Also, changing the weapons does not change things that drastically. In Halo, you still shoot like a mad supersoldier. In GoW, you still take cover and fight like a mildly intelligent human being. Yes, it changes your strategy (heavy machine gun=rapid sweeping motions to cut down lotsa people, pistol=focus on one person at a time), but not the CORE of the game.

Changes from Gears of War 1 to Gears of War 2:

- Over five new weapons
- Multiple new game modes such as Capture the flag, Submission, King of the Hill, and Horde.
- Around four hundred tweaks to the covering system and such reported.
- Weapon balancing (Shotgun no longer "I win!", Chainsaw has a chance to defend your self with a duel, etc)
- Over 9 hours of new story if played on the easiest difficulty. Don't get me started on Insane.
- Ten new multiplayer maps.
- Unreal engine buffed to the max. Instead of 6-7 Locust fighting against you in Gears of War 1, you can have hundreds charge you in the campaign and dozens in Horde.
- Increasing the story to make much more sense by adding new characters, a history on Gears of War for the past 100 years in their time line, Doms' search for his wife, over 41 "Collectable" items around the game for you to pick up that give a backstory, even COG tags have a note attached to each one for you to read.
- New matchmaking system.
- Much improved graphics.
- More unique boss fights.
- The surroundings can kill you now easily. (Razor Hail, Lasers, Trains, Fire, and drowning to death in blood. (Yeah, not joking)
- Improved "Down but not Out" system so you can crawl to safety as fast as you can hit A to avoid dying.
- 11 Unique execution movies depending on your current weapon, not including the adding of a new curbstop, meatsheald, and quick exeuction move.
- Roadie Run now can last as long as you hold down A, but you're risking a lot the longer you're out of cover.
- Over seven new enemy types.
- Much better driving controls.
- Previous "Untouchable" enemies are now constantly attacking you in the game. (Reavers attack on the ground, corpsers attack you multiple times in the game, you can fend off against Brumaks)

There's more, but I'm too tired.

PS: One thing that should sell you alone to the game, though, is "Monkey-Dog" things. Play the game, you'll understand.

 

[CyberAkuma]

I think that the Engine the games run on is well enough alone a valid reason why it's a sequel.
Looking it from a technical point of view it' an enormous difference compared to the predecessor.
They ramped up the Engine a lot and it clearly shows.