Gears of War 2 Sells 3 Million
- Thread starter Nathan Meunier
- Start date
You couldn't be more wrong about matchmaking. Check your network connection maybe because matchmaking is quick and easy for me.nathan-dts said:
I can see why it sold this well apart from all the 13 year-old fanboys hamging onto every screenshot that just has a pixel of chainsaw in it. Gears 1 was a solid end of the year title a while back and its multiplayer kept me occupied for a very long time. However the campaign soon became very repetitive seeing as you always needed to kill the same enemies and do the same stuff in order to progress. In contrast Gears 2 had me in for a bit of a rollercoaster ride. Now before you hit that quote button and ask me if this time we got ti fight candy corn bears on top of rainbow clouds instead of the Locust Horde hear me out: (spoilers ahead, naturally).
You start off fairly simple, on foot and shooting enemies like in old school Gears 1 (if you can classify it as old school, probably not). But soon it all changes. You need to get on a tank and make sure it and the rest of the convoy you're with get safely to a town from where you'll be going underground to kick Locust ass in their turf for a change. The mere shift from fighting on ground to fighting from a moving vehicle had me feeling like it was taking a different road. After that you soon get in a situation wherein you need to fight through a worm's innards and locate its heart(s) so you can kill it before it sinks humanity's last stronghold. A couple other things differing from the usual formula:
- Razorhail
- Beast Barges
- Riding Reavers
- Riding a Brumak
- Gunboats
- Some weird Kraken-thingy trying to eat your gunboat
I know it's not original and innovative and definitely not all are as great as it might be coming off by me writing such a long post about it but these are a couple of the things that kept it fresh at times when Gears 1 got stale. Gears 2 does a lot of crazy stuff and puts you in quite a few unorthodox situations, but all the time it also keeps the basic elements of the game at heart (like there are a lot more elements to choose from).
Who else got the shivers from the Dom-Maria cutscene?
You start off fairly simple, on foot and shooting enemies like in old school Gears 1 (if you can classify it as old school, probably not). But soon it all changes. You need to get on a tank and make sure it and the rest of the convoy you're with get safely to a town from where you'll be going underground to kick Locust ass in their turf for a change. The mere shift from fighting on ground to fighting from a moving vehicle had me feeling like it was taking a different road. After that you soon get in a situation wherein you need to fight through a worm's innards and locate its heart(s) so you can kill it before it sinks humanity's last stronghold. A couple other things differing from the usual formula:
- Razorhail
- Beast Barges
- Riding Reavers
- Riding a Brumak
- Gunboats
- Some weird Kraken-thingy trying to eat your gunboat
I know it's not original and innovative and definitely not all are as great as it might be coming off by me writing such a long post about it but these are a couple of the things that kept it fresh at times when Gears 1 got stale. Gears 2 does a lot of crazy stuff and puts you in quite a few unorthodox situations, but all the time it also keeps the basic elements of the game at heart (like there are a lot more elements to choose from).
Who else got the shivers from the Dom-Maria cutscene?
Halo clone? I really can't see that. Third person shooter, much more visceral, grittier, darker, totally different style and atmosphere.Revelo said:
Much as I agree, using that argument to dismiss a shooter says to me changing your demands to make sure it fails. Kinda, if the multiplayer had been good and the single player crap, you probably would have ripped that apart instead. Not, I must add, that I disagree with you - I don't really like either GoW, but offhandedly dismissing its good parts seems a little unfair.Indigo_Dingo said:
I never said it was the emphasis, I said it has the best campaign of any shooter I have played...nathan-dts said:
The online needs a lot of work yes, but I still enjoy the multi-player better than Resistance 2 or Halo 3, you can get a game quickly if you have 4 friends.
Now, THAT is something I've not heard about Gears before. I now the majority of The Escapist dislike Gears for a variety of reasons, but calling it a Halo-clone, now THATS original. Besides the matchmaking system, I have no idea how you can compare the two. Is it because they both have machine gun turrets?Revelo said:
As for Gears being popular, its because people find it fun. Its entirely your opinion (far to many people on these board think their opinion is the only one that matters) if you like the game or not.
I like it, you may not. But calling it a Halo Cone is laughable.
It's not my connection and it's not just me; there is problems with the game and epic admit that.Grand_Poohbah said:
I completely disagree about your best campaign comment; from what I gather, the Gears 2 campaign is a poorly told love story and 3 or 4 pathetic bosses.D_987 said:
Stopped reading after that; "from what I gather" indicates you have not played the game, as a result your opinion is not your own. How can you have an opinion of a game you've never played, in terms of its quality.nathan-dts said:
(yes, I understand you could hear the basic premise of the campaign, but until you've actually played the game you should not post about disagreeing with my opinion.)
I really don't understand why everyone is so anti-Gears. I play a ton of different types of games, ranging from Portal to C&C to Fallout to Kingdom Hearts to Gears. If you can't get some enjoyment out of Gears, well then, I just don't know what to say. The single player campaign is fairly compelling and difficult on the harder modes, but the co-op campaign is where it's at for me. Playing it with a friend (real friend, not someone you know just from Xbox Live) is some of the most fun I've had in gaming.
I'm not going to be one of those posters that says, "if you don't like game x, you're an idiot," but for those of you that refuse to even try Gears because of the pubescent 13 year-old Xbox live multiplayer aspect, I have to say that in my opinion you are missing out on one of the more enjoyable experiences in gaming today, i.e., the co-op campaign.
I'm not going to be one of those posters that says, "if you don't like game x, you're an idiot," but for those of you that refuse to even try Gears because of the pubescent 13 year-old Xbox live multiplayer aspect, I have to say that in my opinion you are missing out on one of the more enjoyable experiences in gaming today, i.e., the co-op campaign.
Thats your reasoning for Gears being a Halo clone?Revelo said:
I guess Resistance 2 is also a Halo clone then?
As is Mass Effect?
I could argue the same for many games; but Gears isn't even a first person game; your basic premise for argument is th story - which are also completely different.
The majority of Escapists dislike Gears 2 without playing it for the same reason they dislike Halo 3 - its "cool" to dislike popular games.
D_987 said:
Agreed with the above. Things are popular for a reason - because they appeal to a lot of people. Popular isn't necessarily bad. Half Life 2 is popular too, you know, as are WOW and Mass Effect. Popular = bad is a poor rationale.
Play what you want. But don't act like you're better than someone else because they play Gears and you play WOW. Because you're not.
You can get a pretty good view of a game from gameplay and the cutscenes. And from what I've seen of it, i'm pretty glad I haven't spent money on it.D_987 said: