Gears of War 2 is 5 v.s. 5 on xb live

Great.Now fix the bullet lag and host advantage.ma7moud93

[QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

[QUOTE="xxThyLordxx"]while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.ChevelleFan

It must be fun to stare at a respawn screen for over half the game.

That's not helping Gears of War's case. Because I felt that is what I did most of the time, or at least that's how I felt about it's multiplayer.

So you are saying you died first all the time?

Yes :(

Sometimes I would do awesome, especially on Gridlock. IF I can reach the sniper. But he said 'stare at respawn screen for over half the game'

That's something more Gears froced you to do than Resistance.

[QUOTE="ma7moud93"]Great.Now fix the bullet lag and host advantage.Dreams-Visions

Guys, what do you mean by "host advantage"? :|

Cows are on damage control already, wow

anyways, the game was perfect with 4v4, 5v5 could turn it a little messy....but we will see, cant wait for it.

[QUOTE="Cedmln"][QUOTE="Ilived"][QUOTE="Cedmln"]

[QUOTE="THE_Rob_Himself"][QUOTE="Cedmln"].Ilived

Oh yeah Gears of War on pc was 60 players right? I don't know why I'm even trying with you.

Do you even know what we were talking about? Read it again carefully.

Basically saying that 60 players online is better than 8.

I don't know who were talking to, but I most certainly said no such thing. All i said was that 5vs5 from 4vs4 is not an acomplishment. That doesn't mean better or worse.

[QUOTE="ChevelleFan"][QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="xsubtownerx"]

[QUOTE="xxThyLordxx"]while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.thrones

It must be fun to stare at a respawn screen for over half the game.

That's not helping Gears of War's case. Because I felt that is what I did most of the time, or at least that's how I felt about it's multiplayer.

So you are saying you died first all the time?

Yes :(

Sometimes I would do awesome, especially on Gridlock. IF I can reach the sniper. But he said 'stare at respawn screen for over half the game'

That's something more Gears froced you to do than Resistance.

That one is quite bothersome, if you ask me.

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]

now watch as the cows come... despite the fact that more players would just make it ocmpetely random and unchallenging. hope they get rid of shotguns though...

carljohnson3456

Nah man! I love going shotty in Gears. It makes me so mad though when a host shotguns you from 500 feet away, ugh, lol. Nothing worse than watching your head get popped off by host shotgun from far away.

What made it even worse were the people who denied that the host advantage existed. Most of the time however, they were the people who always played as host.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="ma7moud93"]Great.Now fix the bullet lag and host advantage.Fondness

Guys, what do you mean by "host advantage"? :|

usually a host's bullets register 0.25 seconds faster because of ping, so it gives him a slight advantage. in a game like gears, where it takes a lot of shots to take someone down, that little advantage helps the host ALOT.

i really hope epic takes care of that

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="ma7moud93"]Great.Now fix the bullet lag and host advantage.Fondness

Guys, what do you mean by "host advantage"? :|

Host + Shotgun + 500ft away = you dead.

[QUOTE="Cedmln"]And? Two extra people. Not an acomplishment. And its old news too.THE_Rob_Himself

And less players =/= better.

Both low quantities and high quantities of players have their pros and cons. There is not one "best configuration". It's all about personal preference.

I personally like both. I love Battlefield 2 playing 32v32, but in COD4, I enjoy playing Team Tactical servers which is 3v3. Just preference, it doesn't mean that the 18 player Ground War servers in COD4 suck...

oh well lifes a biitchpro-nathan-07

[QUOTE="Cedmln"]And? Two extra people. Not an acomplishment. And its old news too.pro-nathan-07

Lol. Nobody in system wars should rate that high, dude. Cedmin is alright, he just speaks his mind...I may not agree with too many things he says, but he's no troll. ...

So you are saying you died first all the time?

BTW the MP for Resistance SUCKED! What makes anyone think it will be any different? So adding even more people into the jumbled mess makes the game better? Cows are quick to point a lack of innovation in Gears 2 when they boast about Resistance 2. Two totally different games that play completely different. Talk about hypocracy.

ChevelleFan

I prefered Resistance multiplat over Gears multiplayer to be honest, held me over till Halo 3.

[QUOTE="Fondness"]

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="ma7moud93"]Great.Now fix the bullet lag and host advantage.thrones

Guys, what do you mean by "host advantage"? :|

Host + Shotgun + 500ft away = you dead.

:o

[QUOTE="ma7moud93"]Great.Now fix the bullet lag and host advantage.Dreams-Visions

Agreed. I'll take 3 v 3 and no host advantage and no bullet lag, rather than 5 v. 5 as is. But hopefully it is fixed.

while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.xxThyLordxx

wow it's exactly as i predicted... how much do you think your skill actually matters in a 30vs30? or didn't you stop to think about that?

[QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"]oh well lifes a biitchaka_aj03

[QUOTE="THE_Rob_Himself"][QUOTE="Cedmln"]And? Two extra people. Not an acomplishment. And its old news too.RotaryRX7

And less players =/= better.

Both low quantities and high quantities of players have their pros and cons. There is not one "best configuration". It's all about personal preference.

I personally like both. I love Battlefield 2 playing 32v32, but in COD4, I enjoy playing Team Tactical servers which is 3v3. Just preference, it doesn't mean that the 18 player Ground War servers in COD4 suck...

[QUOTE="ChevelleFan"]

So you are saying you died first all the time?

BTW the MP for Resistance SUCKED! What makes anyone think it will be any different? So adding even more people into the jumbled mess makes the game better? Cows are quick to point a lack of innovation in Gears 2 when they boast about Resistance 2. Two totally different games that play completely different. Talk about hypocracy.

thrones

I prefered Resistance multiplat over Gears multiplayer to be honest, held me over till Halo 3.

What do you think about Halo 3's multiplayer? I find it, somewhat, tedious.

I think they should just go all the way and make it 6 vs 6 so you can have three groups of splitscreen guests on both sides. Sure 5 vs 5 will probably work but it would be a lot less messy if they just stepped it up two playersChevelleFan

What about bigger maps?

5 vs 5 is better than 4 vs 4 but is it better than 30 vs 30? We shall find out in November- Gears vs Resistance: The Rematch

I'd like to point out that you don't have to play 30 vs 30 in Resistance 2, you can play smaller games.

And? Two extra people. Not an acomplishment. And its old news too.Cedmln

have u played gears? apparantly not, because the number of people was perfect for the game. It was just unbalanced.

[QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="ChevelleFan"]

So you are saying you died first all the time?

BTW the MP for Resistance SUCKED! What makes anyone think it will be any different? So adding even more people into the jumbled mess makes the game better? Cows are quick to point a lack of innovation in Gears 2 when they boast about Resistance 2. Two totally different games that play completely different. Talk about hypocracy.

Fondness

I prefered Resistance multiplat over Gears multiplayer to be honest, held me over till Halo 3.

What do you think about Halo 3's multiplayer? I find it, somewhat, tedious.

Halo 3's multiplayer is awesome. Especially custom games, because you can create a crazy map in Forge and then go play on it with your friends. The only thing that would've made it more awesome is the use of a server list with Custom games, so instead of playing just with friends you can also go onto different's people's custom maps and game modes to test it out.

The standard game modes were also quite good. Except Crazy King of the Hill. Nobody likes Crazy King of the Hill.

[QUOTE="Cedmln"]And? Two extra people. Not an acomplishment. And its old news too.dkhw

have u played gears? apparantly not, because the number of people was perfect for the game. It was just unbalanced.

Uh yes I have. A long time ago and many times. Want proof. Look at my gamertag. Live Player 1.

And you totally misunderstood my comment. I said its not an acomplishment. I didn't say it was good or bad.

5 vs 5 is better than 4 vs 4 but is it better than 30 vs 30? We shall find out in November- Gears vs Resistance: The Rematch

I'd like to point out that you don't have to play 30 vs 30 in Resistance 2, you can play smaller games.

Floppy_Jim

Time will tell. I hold quality superior.

[QUOTE="ChevelleFan"]

So you are saying you died first all the time?

BTW the MP for Resistance SUCKED! What makes anyone think it will be any different? So adding even more people into the jumbled mess makes the game better? Cows are quick to point a lack of innovation in Gears 2 when they boast about Resistance 2. Two totally different games that play completely different. Talk about hypocracy.

thrones

I prefered Resistance multiplat over Gears multiplayer to be honest, held me over till Halo 3.

Really? I came off as a little harsh, but for me when I don't really like something I tend to just say I hate it. I really couldn't keep myself entertained on Resistance for longer than 10 minutes. The first time I picked the game up I got top score out of both teams using just the starting assault rifle. The weapons were interesting but most were not very effective or practical in strafe a fest. I like close team and tactical games myself which is one the reasons I didn't care too much for Halo 3 or Resistance multiplayer. Although I did play Halo 3 for a few months but not nearly as long as Gears.

[QUOTE="Fondness"][QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="ChevelleFan"]

So you are saying you died first all the time?

BTW the MP for Resistance SUCKED! What makes anyone think it will be any different? So adding even more people into the jumbled mess makes the game better? Cows are quick to point a lack of innovation in Gears 2 when they boast about Resistance 2. Two totally different games that play completely different. Talk about hypocracy.

thrones

I prefered Resistance multiplat over Gears multiplayer to be honest, held me over till Halo 3.

What do you think about Halo 3's multiplayer? I find it, somewhat, tedious.

Halo 3's multiplayer is awesome. Especially custom games, because you can create a crazy map in Forge and then go play on it with your friends. The only thing that would've made it more awesome is the use of a server list with Custom games, so instead of playing just with friends you can also go onto different's people's custom maps and game modes to test it out.

The standard game modes were also quite good. Except Crazy King of the Hill. Nobody likes Crazy King of the Hill.

Why not?

[QUOTE="crunchUK"]

now watch as the cows come... despite the fact that more players would just make it ocmpetely random and unchallenging. hope they get rid of shotguns though...

leejohnson7

No way... the laggiest, chanciest, hostiest, instagib weapon is the one that takes the most SKILLZ.

Resistance 2 will have much better online than Gears 2. Confirmed.AC-360

You're joking right?

Resistance 2 will have much better online than Gears 2. Confirmed.AC-360

No. Nothing is shown to be true.

while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.xxThyLordxx

lol that would be ****ing horrible in Gears.

Resistance 2 will have much better online than Gears 2. Confirmed.AC-360

Link? Confirmed how?

[QUOTE="aka_aj03"][QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"]oh well lifes a biitchpro-nathan-07

[QUOTE="leejohnson7"][QUOTE="crunchUK"]

now watch as the cows come... despite the fact that more players would just make it ocmpetely random and unchallenging. hope they get rid of shotguns though...

Saturos3091

No way... the laggiest, chanciest, hostiest, instagib weapon is the one that takes the most SKILLZ.

I agree!

[QUOTE="Cedmln"]And? Two extra people. Not an acomplishment. And its old news too.pro-nathan-07

Guys, everyone knows that more players online = better game. Cedmin is totally right.

Thats why Resistance was GOTY and Gears was considered a huge flop.

Wait a sec...

[QUOTE="xxThyLordxx"]while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.crunchUK

wow it's exactly as i predicted... how much do you think your skill actually matters in a 30vs30? or didn't you stop to think about that?

Yes your skill does get noticed in large battles. In Battlefield 2 I was a special-ops and I blew up 6 tanks with sticky bombs (dont know the exact name its been so long) and it felt good when my team acknowledge it same with Warhawk you get to see those stats and scores its like darn Greatness you PWND! In fact its way better because more people actually see the stats.

Not only that but Resistance 2 will have squad rivalry's were you will be assigned to kill off that squad for more points/xp which will be very competitive.

[QUOTE="xxThyLordxx"]while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.Ninja-Hippo

Because everyone knows that more players = better game!

Sometime it does, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the style and layout of the game.

[QUOTE="pro-nathan-07"]oh well lifes a biitchaka_aj03

It's insanely wrong, dude. :?

Guys, everyone knows that more players online = better game. Cedmin is totally right.

Thats why Resistance was GOTY and Gears was considered a huge flop.

Wait a sec...

Mercenary343

No.

Guys, everyone knows that more players online = better game. Cedmin is totally right.

Thats why Resistance was GOTY and Gears was considered a huge flop.

Wait a sec...

Mercenary343

I don't believe Resistance would've been considered a huge flops by gaming industry standards, it was a launch game and got what was expected of it.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="xxThyLordxx"]while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.Storm_Marine

Because everyone knows that more players = better game!

Sometime it does, sometimes it doesn't. It depends on the type and layout of the game.

Yes i'm aware of that, however i was responding to somebody claiming that Gears was out-done by another game simply because it had more players.

I was expecting max 6v6. 4v4 was fine. 8v8 would be too much. 5v5 doesn't excite me much cause I was very content with 4v4.waynehead895

Agreed.

[QUOTE="Saturos3091"][QUOTE="leejohnson7"][QUOTE="crunchUK"]

now watch as the cows come... despite the fact that more players would just make it ocmpetely random and unchallenging. hope they get rid of shotguns though...

Fondness

No way... the laggiest, chanciest, hostiest, instagib weapon is the one that takes the most SKILLZ.

I agree!

Actually I think it is one of those games that shouldn't have a sequel; the core gameplay was all flash over substance way back when the first came out. By now I should imagine that people have had their fix of that laggy online play and strange chainsaw animations.

I mean look at that crap... two people chainsawing each others guns.... It just wouldn't happen, and why does the locust just decide to stop fighting and stand there and take a chainsaw to the head after a dual? Never understood the concept of chainsaws in combat... It just wouldn't work at all.

[QUOTE="xxThyLordxx"]while Resistance 2 has 8 player co-op online and 60 players online.justforlotr2004

lol that would be ****ing horrible in Gears.