Gears 2 Act 1 Review - Close to A CARBON COPY of Gears 1 Campaign

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="Brainhunter"]

[QUOTE="ONLYDOD"]Why would they want to drastically change what so many people enjoyed?0rin

Nothing wrong with that : the problem lies in the fact that "some" GeOW fanboys have conceded that the sequel will not only surpass the original, but trump all other GOTY candidates in 2008.

Sorry folks, a sequel rarely gets a GOTY achievement if all it does is recycle the assets it has already worked on the last iteration. GOTY, to me, remains as an award for revolutionary games, and while GeOW2 may seem like a great high quality game in its own right, it definitely is not "revolutionary". Leave the GOTY medal to games that actually move gaming "forward" this gen.

MGS4 is often touted as the "GOTY '08", but it really didn't revolutionize or move gaming forward, either. I can only think of Left 4 Dead, Spore, LBP, and MAYBE Banjo-Kazooie: N&B doing that.

MGS4 did move the sneak genre forward. It upped the ante on the genre. Snakes sneak suit changing to match the ground. The enemy A.I. was amazingly intelligent. The variety of ways you can manipulate the war going on around you or you could ignore it completely. The endless variety in ways you can dispatch the enemy was crazy. The epic boss battles. I could go on and on. MGS4 brought alot to the table and its going to be a long time before anyone even matches what Kojima pulled off in that game.

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]didnt stop warhead from getting an AAA......hypocrism at its bestnaval

comparing geow 2 with a expansion pack, so i guess you also think geow 2 looks like a expansion .

and yeah warhead did feature a full multiplayer component "crysis war" and it did changed the pacing and design of the game from open-ended to the a more linear one

so they made a game worse (open to linear) and added a halfassed mp component and gets a 9? Gears has a 10 easy in comparison to that, just look at the mp options available to gears 2.

[QUOTE="0rin"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="Brainhunter"]

[QUOTE="ONLYDOD"]Why would they want to drastically change what so many people enjoyed?Bread_or_Decide

Nothing wrong with that : the problem lies in the fact that "some" GeOW fanboys have conceded that the sequel will not only surpass the original, but trump all other GOTY candidates in 2008.

Sorry folks, a sequel rarely gets a GOTY achievement if all it does is recycle the assets it has already worked on the last iteration. GOTY, to me, remains as an award for revolutionary games, and while GeOW2 may seem like a great high quality game in its own right, it definitely is not "revolutionary". Leave the GOTY medal to games that actually move gaming "forward" this gen.

MGS4 is often touted as the "GOTY '08", but it really didn't revolutionize or move gaming forward, either. I can only think of Left 4 Dead, Spore, LBP, and MAYBE Banjo-Kazooie: N&B doing that.

MGS4 did move the sneak genre forward. It upped the ante on the genre. Snakes sneak suit changing to match the ground. The enemy A.I. was amazingly intelligent. The variety of ways you can manipulate the war going on around you or you could ignore it completely. The endless variety in ways you can dispatch the enemy was crazy. The epic boss battles. I could go on and on. MGS4 brought alot to the table and its going to be a long time before anyone even matches what Kojima pulled off in that game.

sounds the exact same as mgs3 to me, but more streamlined and noobed down.

[QUOTE="naval"]

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]didnt stop warhead from getting an AAA......hypocrism at its bestmtradr43

comparing geow 2 with a expansion pack, so i guess you also think geow 2 looks like a expansion .

and yeah warhead did feature a full multiplayer component "crysis war" and it did changed the pacing and design of the game from open-ended to the a more linear one

so they made a game worse (open to linear) and added a halfassed mp component and gets a 9? Gears has a 10 easy in comparison to that, just look at the mp options available to gears 2.

well if linear games are bad then what is gears :roll: multiplayer half assed or not still is much better than lame modes geow have

[QUOTE="mtradr43"][QUOTE="naval"]

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]didnt stop warhead from getting an AAA......hypocrism at its bestnaval

comparing geow 2 with a expansion pack, so i guess you also think geow 2 looks like a expansion .

and yeah warhead did feature a full multiplayer component "crysis war" and it did changed the pacing and design of the game from open-ended to the a more linear one

so they made a game worse (open to linear) and added a halfassed mp component and gets a 9? Gears has a 10 easy in comparison to that, just look at the mp options available to gears 2.

well if linear games are bad then what is gears :roll: multiplayer half assed or not still is much better than lame modes geow have

lol, notice i never said gears sp wasnt linear, reading too much into that hermit. and, considering that gears mp has like 8 modes, and warhead has, what, 2? ill bet you that by the time gears 2 comes out, almost no one will be playing warhead online anymore.

lol, notice i never said gears sp wasnt linear, reading too much into that hermit. and, considering that gears mp has like 8 modes, and warhead has, what, 2? ill bet you that by the time gears 2 comes out, almost no one will be playing warhead online anymore.

mtradr43

well you said linear is bad and gears is linear like hell , so what does that mean ?

and yeah, don't get me started on gears mp

sounds the exact same as mgs3 to me, but more streamlined and noobed down.

mtradr43

SOUNDS? Well play it and find out for yourself. Noobed down? Streamlined? Um. No. Again, play it yourself cause nothing I said sounds like it was "noobed" down. And you can't seriously play MGS3 and say its the same as MGS4. Hell its hard to go back to 3 after playing 4. Its perfection of the genre. Its not going to SOUND different. Its going to play better.

Also, water is a liquid.fatzebra

But Courage is Solid :lol:

Indeed, it's not about to win over new fans. A few weapons and enemies aside – not to mention slight gameplay additions like the ability to use fallen foes as locust shields, and drag yourself across the ground once wounded – the core gameplay is close to a carbon copy of the original, right down to the split level design paths for co-op. If you hated GoW1, you'll hate this.

And there could still be reason to hate: we found ourselves sticking to pretty much the one gun throughout – so it looks like no new tactical depth has snuck into the arcade action - and there were a few moments that erred a little too much on the side of frustration and tedium - in particular a 'quest' to shoot incoming mortars out of the air before they crushed our ride into metal dandruff. Plus, it took approximately an hour on normal difficulty to complete the act, which would suggest a five to six hour experienceIF (and we have no confirmation)the game continues with the five act narrative seen in the original. Simply not long enough to excite fans who didn't get into the niche multiplayer component like they did Halo or Call of Duty... or who simply aren't online.

http://www.gameplayer.com.au/gp_documents/GoW-Act1.aspx?Page=4

If Epic truly hasn't changed up the core mechanics of its single-player and co-op, there's no way Gears 2 will deserve the AAAA or 9.5 status that lemmings are hyping it up to.

dgsag

worst logic I have ever seen..the first act is 1 hour so that means the rest of the acts much be be 1 hour as well ??...it seems that this previewer is pretty stupid..this game will be longer than the first according the Cliffy B

Its great for a sports title.. not other genres. If MGS was like this.. i would be mighty POd.

Adrian_Cloud

I dont think you realize they are talking about the unreal engine, not the games story, length, gameplay etc...

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"][QUOTE="0rin"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="Brainhunter"]

[QUOTE="ONLYDOD"]Why would they want to drastically change what so many people enjoyed?mtradr43

Nothing wrong with that : the problem lies in the fact that "some" GeOW fanboys have conceded that the sequel will not only surpass the original, but trump all other GOTY candidates in 2008.

Sorry folks, a sequel rarely gets a GOTY achievement if all it does is recycle the assets it has already worked on the last iteration. GOTY, to me, remains as an award for revolutionary games, and while GeOW2 may seem like a great high quality game in its own right, it definitely is not "revolutionary". Leave the GOTY medal to games that actually move gaming "forward" this gen.

MGS4 is often touted as the "GOTY '08", but it really didn't revolutionize or move gaming forward, either. I can only think of Left 4 Dead, Spore, LBP, and MAYBE Banjo-Kazooie: N&B doing that.

MGS4 did move the sneak genre forward. It upped the ante on the genre. Snakes sneak suit changing to match the ground. The enemy A.I. was amazingly intelligent. The variety of ways you can manipulate the war going on around you or you could ignore it completely. The endless variety in ways you can dispatch the enemy was crazy. The epic boss battles. I could go on and on. MGS4 brought alot to the table and its going to be a long time before anyone even matches what Kojima pulled off in that game.

sounds the exact same as mgs3 to me, but more streamlined and noobed down.

yet it's so much better than mgs3, which was already a masterpiece, like every other mgs. not many series improve so much upon it's prequels like the games from the mgs saga.

I want be missing much so no worries from me :)

i really think what'll happen to Gears 2 is the same that happened to Ninja Gaiden 2: it'll be so similar to the previous game that it will be pratically impossible to match it's previous score.

Yet, i don't see that happening to Resistance 2, as i had the opportunity to say so before, i'll explain again: when Insomniac chose to not only up the multiplayer (with 8 players co-op and 60 players online) and scale, they also added a whole new campaign and modified the gameplay (to become more flexible, versatile). That's changing the game from it's core, which is a great thing, when done like they are doing (you know it's becoming a better game from the gameplay videos).

All we see being said about Gears 2 is how it's becoming mathematically greater than the first one: better visuals, more enemies, greater scale. Yet, the core of the game, gameplay is the same, and the increase in scale and visuals aren't so significantly to mean the game will be so much better than the first one. Things are really looking like it'll do like Ninja Gaiden 2 and score a little bit worse than the first game.

what? who cares about the single player anyway...diped

Me...i love the first Gears and i have only played Singleplayer and splitscreen coop mode!

[QUOTE="mtradr43"]

sounds the exact same as mgs3 to me, but more streamlined and noobed down.

Bread_or_Decide

SOUNDS? Well play it and find out for yourself. Noobed down? Streamlined? Um. No. Again, play it yourself cause nothing I said sounds like it was "noobed" down. And you can't seriously play MGS3 and say its the same as MGS4. Hell its hard to go back to 3 after playing 4. Its perfection of the genre. Its not going to SOUND different. Its going to play better.

i really think what'll happen to Gears 2 is the same that happened to Ninja Gaiden 2: it'll be so similar to the previous game that it will be pratically impossible to match it's previous score.

Yet, i don't see that happening to Resistance 2, as i had the opportunity to say so before, i'll explain again: when Insomniac chose to not only up the multiplayer (with 8 players co-op and 60 players online) and scale, they also added a whole new campaign and modified the gameplay (to become more flexible, versatile). That's changing the game from it's core, which is a great thing, when done like they are doing (you know it's becoming a better game from the gameplay videos).

All we see being said about Gears 2 is how it's becoming mathematically greater than the first one: better visuals, more enemies, greater scale. Yet, the core of the game, gameplay is the same, and the increase in scale and visuals aren't so significantly to mean the game will be so much better than the first one. Things are really looking like it'll do like Ninja Gaiden 2 and score a little bit worse than the first game.

SambaLele

that wasn't the problem with NG2..the problem was the uneven level design and difficulty, bugginess, glitches,etc..there was absolutely no problem with the core gameplay as it is the best in its class

Um, it's the same game, great what we want. And we aren't hyping it AAAA cows, get that outta your head. It's official AAA hype.Toriko42

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

i really think what'll happen to Gears 2 is the same that happened to Ninja Gaiden 2: it'll be so similar to the previous game that it will be pratically impossible to match it's previous score.

Yet, i don't see that happening to Resistance 2, as i had the opportunity to say so before, i'll explain again: when Insomniac chose to not only up the multiplayer (with 8 players co-op and 60 players online) and scale, they also added a whole new campaign and modified the gameplay (to become more flexible, versatile). That's changing the game from it's core, which is a great thing, when done like they are doing (you know it's becoming a better game from the gameplay videos).

All we see being said about Gears 2 is how it's becoming mathematically greater than the first one: better visuals, more enemies, greater scale. Yet, the core of the game, gameplay is the same, and the increase in scale and visuals aren't so significantly to mean the game will be so much better than the first one. Things are really looking like it'll do like Ninja Gaiden 2 and score a little bit worse than the first game.

primetime2121

that wasn't the problem with NG2..the problem was the uneven level design and difficulty, bugginess, glitches,etc..there was absolutely no problem with the core gameplay as it is the best in its class

best in it's class? are you saying any review said that or is that your opinion? because i'm going by the reviews.

[QUOTE="primetime2121"][QUOTE="SambaLele"]

i really think what'll happen to Gears 2 is the same that happened to Ninja Gaiden 2: it'll be so similar to the previous game that it will be pratically impossible to match it's previous score.

Yet, i don't see that happening to Resistance 2, as i had the opportunity to say so before, i'll explain again: when Insomniac chose to not only up the multiplayer (with 8 players co-op and 60 players online) and scale, they also added a whole new campaign and modified the gameplay (to become more flexible, versatile). That's changing the game from it's core, which is a great thing, when done like they are doing (you know it's becoming a better game from the gameplay videos).

All we see being said about Gears 2 is how it's becoming mathematically greater than the first one: better visuals, more enemies, greater scale. Yet, the core of the game, gameplay is the same, and the increase in scale and visuals aren't so significantly to mean the game will be so much better than the first one. Things are really looking like it'll do like Ninja Gaiden 2 and score a little bit worse than the first game.

SambaLele

that wasn't the problem with NG2..the problem was the uneven level design and difficulty, bugginess, glitches,etc..there was absolutely no problem with the core gameplay as it is the best in its class

best in it's class? are you saying any review said that or is that your opinion? because i'm going by the reviews.

Ninja Gaiden 1 was almost perfect to begin with, the combat system is by far the deepest in any action game, yet NG2 didnt have the same level of polish

Indeed, it's not about to win over new fans. A few weapons and enemies aside – not to mention slight gameplay additions like the ability to use fallen foes as locust shields, and drag yourself across the ground once wounded – the core gameplay is close to a carbon copy of the original, right down to the split level design paths for co-op. If you hated GoW1, you'll hate this.

And there could still be reason to hate: we found ourselves sticking to pretty much the one gun throughout – so it looks like no new tactical depth has snuck into the arcade action - and there were a few moments that erred a little too much on the side of frustration and tedium - in particular a 'quest' to shoot incoming mortars out of the air before they crushed our ride into metal dandruff. Plus, it took approximately an hour on normal difficulty to complete the act, which would suggest a five to six hour experienceIF (and we have no confirmation)the game continues with the five act narrative seen in the original. Simply not long enough to excite fans who didn't get into the niche multiplayer component like they did Halo or Call of Duty... or who simply aren't online.

http://www.gameplayer.com.au/gp_documents/GoW-Act1.aspx?Page=4

If Epic truly hasn't changed up the core mechanics of its single-player and co-op, there's no way Gears 2 will deserve the AAAA or 9.5 status that lemmings are hyping it up to.

dgsag