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

[QUOTE="justforlotr2004"]

They have fixed it, atleast you can chainsaw someone from behind while they are in a chainsaw fight. In the trailer you see the locus in a chainsaw fight with someone and the player runs up and chainsaws him in the back.

Ninja-Hippo

for me and many other gamers..more players=more fun...you do the maths...will you hav more fun wid one friend or many playing painball ofr example
planbfreak4eva

I'll do "maths" while you do grammar, how about that? More =/= better. It depends on the game. It wouldn't work for GeOW.

[QUOTE="thrones"][QUOTE="Mark36111"]

The better question is why do Dom and Carmine II just stand around with their thumbs up their asses instead of helping Marcus.

On that note, hopefully they've taken chainsaw invulnerability out of the game so that you can kill opposing players while they are dueling.

justforlotr2004

Pre-alpha, I'm sure they'll fix it. The same way they'll hopefully fix the entire 'arm falling off' thing when you get stabbed in the back by a chainsaw.

They have fixed it, atleast you can chainsaw someone from behind while they are in a chainsaw fight. In the trailer you see the locus in a chainsaw fight with someone and the player runs up and chainsaws him in the back.

Yes, that's, somewhat, nice!

Posting an opinion is always better than using the forum for flamebait.white_sox

Except that what he posted wasn't an opinnion, but an obvious fact, so obvious most people didn't even think that's what he was trying to say.

Someone said he would prefer it if it stayed a 4v4 (an opinion), you don't see anyone up his ***.

[QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"]for me and many other gamers..more players=more fun...you do the maths...will you hav more fun wid one friend or many playing painball ofr example
Ninja-Hippo

Exactly. That's paintball. It's a game which requires many players to participate to make it enjoyable. Tell me Chess would be better if it was six players on a board.

Or football having 50 people on the same pitch, or basketball having 25 people on the each side. I doubt he will get the point, but w/e.

i played it at my friends house..and guess what no fun...i would give gears a 7.5...

planbfreak4eva

I'm talking to a fanboy. I'll leave this debate there.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"]for me and many other gamers..more players=more fun...you do the maths...will you hav more fun wid one friend or many playing painball ofr example
astiop

Exactly. That's paintball. It's a game which requires many players to participate to make it enjoyable. Tell me Chess would be better if it was six players on a board.

Or football having 50 people on the same pitch, or basketball having 25 people on the each side. I doubt he will get the point, but w/e.

Nice one. :)

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Two extra people online, chainsaw duels and reverse chainsaw animations? GOTY 2008 10/10! Teh innovations!thrones

Don't forget Meatshields. Frankly, this game is more innovative than Spore, The Sims and Deus Ex combined.

Do I have to quote you. Tell me what is so innovative about teh Gears of war. Its feaking killswitch a game that was on PS2 and xbox years ago. Its nothing new or innovative.

[QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"]for me and many other gamers..more players=more fun...you do the maths...will you hav more fun wid one friend or many playing painball ofr example
dhjohns

I'll do "maths" while you do grammar, how about that? More =/= better. It depends on the game. It wouldn't work for GeOW.

Maths is simply the english equivalent of the american math. You abbreviate mathematics to "math", we abbreviate it to "maths".

No need for the "".

[QUOTE="dhjohns"]

[QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"]for me and many other gamers..more players=more fun...you do the maths...will you hav more fun wid one friend or many playing painball ofr example
Ninja-Hippo

I'll do "maths" while you do grammar, how about that? More =/= better. It depends on the game. It wouldn't work for GeOW.

Maths is simply the english equivalent of the american math. You abbreviate mathematics to "math", we abbreviate it to "maths".

No need for the "".

Thats a new one. My mistake. Everything else about his post was off so I thought that was too. Note to self added. :P

[QUOTE="thrones"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Two extra people online, chainsaw duels and reverse chainsaw animations? GOTY 2008 10/10! Teh innovations!Killfox

Don't forget Meatshields. Frankly, this game is more innovative than Spore, The Sims and Deus Ex combined.

Do I have to quote you. Tell me what is so innovative about teh Gears of war. Its feaking killswitch a game that was on PS2 and xbox years ago. Its nothing new or innovative.

It's entertaining! Very entertaining!

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[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!

and everybody knows that more options = better..

in resistence 2 you can have 5 v 5 on scaled down maps for more strategic play or you can 30 vs 30 on bigger maps for all out action.. playing 4 vs 4 on a scaled down map configuration is common place on Warhawk when playing with a few close friends and then you can easily hop in to a 32 player game aswell which will give a totally different play experience...

only having 5 vs 5 maximium is a limitation.. plain and simple..

Gears of War is a close-combat, intense, visceral game. Resistance was rubbish unless you had a decent number of players. So is battlefield. Please dont act like the option to have a small number of players made playing with that number enjoyable. How often do you see people on Resistance who want to have a five player game? Never.

Many players just wouldn't work with gears. And the only people who claim it should are usually fanboys who've never played it, looking for a reason to hate on it.

It's not a limitation at all. And you saying that simply yells "I haven't played this game but i'm commenting on it anyway"

i've played Gears.. who hasnt.. still doesnt change the fact that smaller 5 vs 5 play sessions and huge 32 player battles are common place on games like Warhawk.. all of which are fun and varied.. Resistence 2 looks to have 5 vs 5 play aswell as 60 player squad play.. Same thing can be said for the upcoming Socom Confrontation.. these, my friend, are called options...

dont hate on games like Warhawk, Socom, and Resistence 2 because they offer the online versatility that can support both small and large scale gameplay.. they offer the type of versatility that somehow would be lost in a "close combat"-only game like Gears of War where the gameplay will apparent self-destruct when introduced to even a relativley small 16 player game....

Wtf people still don't know that a mp game with 4vs4 - 6vs6 can be more fun then a game with 12vs12 - 20vs20 or even more if it's done right.skyform

No luck up to now though. Keep looking for a game like that.

for every 2 players Gears of War increases, Resistance increases by 20.EVOLV3

GeOW: 96 + GOTY
RFOM: Distant memory, overshadowed by Rainbow Six Vegas and Gears of War

for every 2 players Gears of War increases, Resistance increases by 20.EVOLV3

Your point? This issue has been discussed in here.

i've played Gears.. who hasnt.. still doesnt change the fact that smaller 5 vs 5 play sessions and huge 32 player battles are common place on games like Warhawk.. all of which are fun and varied.. Resistence 2 looks to have 5 vs 5 play aswell as 60 player squad play.. Same thing can be said for the upcoming Socom Confrontation.. these, my friend, are called options...

dont hate on games like Warhawk, Socom, and Resistence 2 because they offer the online versatility that can support both small and large scale gameplay.. they offer the type of versatility that somehow would be lost in a "close combat"-only game like Gears of War where the gameplay will apparent self-destruct with introduced to even a relativley small 16 player game....

Antwan3K

I'm repeating myself here, but that's because Warhawk's gameplay is open, fast and hectic. It suits 32 players. 5 vs 5 is rare, please dont say that it's common place because i very really see small games on Warhawk or Resistance unless a group of friends are playing together and dont want strangers.

"these, my friend are called options" is just you spinning this to make it look like "more = better". That's not true. It'd be pointless having an option for 32 player Gears of War because they'd have to resize all of the maps and weapon placements to accomodate that and it would be awful.

And i'm calling you out here; you haven't played Gears. If you had, you'd know that saying it should have the option of 32 players - or even any more than 12 - is rediculous. It simply wouldn't work.

Also - who the heck hated on Warhawk, Socom or Resistance? Whos post are you reading because it sure as hell wasn't mine.

[QUOTE="thrones"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Two extra people online, chainsaw duels and reverse chainsaw animations? GOTY 2008 10/10! Teh innovations!Killfox

Don't forget Meatshields. Frankly, this game is more innovative than Spore, The Sims and Deus Ex combined.

Do I have to quote you. Tell me what is so innovative about teh Gears of war. Its feaking killswitch a game that was on PS2 and xbox years ago. Its nothing new or innovative.

OMG, do they have a special name for people who can't recognize sarcasm? No seriously, honest question.

Wtf people still don't know that a mp game with 4vs4 - 6vs6 can be more fun then a game with 12vs12 - 20vs20 or even more if it's done right.skyform

No, because it has to be versatile and have OPTIONS for more players, even when it's incredibly obvious that more players would be god-awful. :roll:

[QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="thrones"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Two extra people online, chainsaw duels and reverse chainsaw animations? GOTY 2008 10/10! Teh innovations!Fondness

Don't forget Meatshields. Frankly, this game is more innovative than Spore, The Sims and Deus Ex combined.

Do I have to quote you. Tell me what is so innovative about teh Gears of war. Its feaking killswitch a game that was on PS2 and xbox years ago. Its nothing new or innovative.

It's entertaining! Very entertaining!

Irony flys over some people.

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

They don't get to experience the all out war you can experience on PC online.

[QUOTE="Fondness"][QUOTE="Killfox"][QUOTE="thrones"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Two extra people online, chainsaw duels and reverse chainsaw animations? GOTY 2008 10/10! Teh innovations!thrones

Don't forget Meatshields. Frankly, this game is more innovative than Spore, The Sims and Deus Ex combined.

Do I have to quote you. Tell me what is so innovative about teh Gears of war. Its feaking killswitch a game that was on PS2 and xbox years ago. Its nothing new or innovative.

It's entertaining! Very entertaining!

Irony flys over some people.

Even though I missed that I still stand by what I said.

sounds pretty meh.. why make 5vs5 i guess they are trying to break tradition..but this just sounds lame. Please tell me that isn't the max! I'm more interested in the core gameplay, than the weak online play. MGO/Socom/COD5/Starcraft2/RESISTANCE 2 wil have be covered years end.Adrian_Cloud

Did you play the original gears of war? Again, the gameplay was team-based. You have a small, close-knit squad just like in the game. The maps are very small and intense, resulting in gameplay which is all about controlling areas of the map by taking cover and shooting the enemy as they maneouver, or by taking control of the long-range weapons like the longshot and the torque bow and restricting the enemy's ability to move. Fighting over these areas results in small, intense shotgun battles most of the time, which is the multiplayer's biggest criticism if you ask me. The reliance on the shotgun to succeed is bad, as host advantage gives you quite a kick with that particular weapon.

i've played Gears.. who hasnt.. still doesnt change the fact that smaller 5 vs 5 play sessions and huge 32 player battles are common place on games like Warhawk.. all of which are fun and varied.. Resistence 2 looks to have 5 vs 5 play aswell as 60 player squad play.. Same thing can be said for the upcoming Socom Confrontation.. these, my friend, are called options...

dont hate on games like Warhawk, Socom, and Resistence 2 because they offer the online versatility that can support both small and large scale gameplay.. they offer the type of versatility that somehow would be lost in a "close combat"-only game like Gears of War where the gameplay will apparent self-destruct with introduced to even a relativley small 16 player game....

Antwan3K

Dude, thats the way gears is meant to be played. Whats the big deal? Yes you have the option to go 4v4 on warhawk or resistance, but whats the ***** point? Those games just arent fun with few players, but gears IS. One thing you wont see a gears fan wanting is more players, it's always cows/people who don't own it.

And don't say "yea but their just lemmings", because thats not the reason at all. You see certain lemmings say they didn't like gears or admited to the host advantage, but from the fans, the amound of players is not a problem at all.

Forgot that these are consoles.

They don't get to experience the all out war you can experience on PC online.

lettuceman44

Black Hawk Down had 60 player multiplayer on the XBox about four years ago. :?

for every 2 players Gears of War increases, Resistance increases by 20.EVOLV3

Every AAA exclusive the 360 recieves, the PS3 gets a flop.

Dude, thats the way gears is meant to be played. Whats the big deal? Yes you have the option to go 4v4 on warhawk or resistance, but whats the ***** point? Those games just arent fun with few players, but gears IS. One thing you wont see a gears fan wanting is more players, it's always cows/people who don't own it.

And don't say "yea but their just lemmings", because thats not the reason at all. You see certain lemmings say they didn't like gears or admited to the host advantage, but from the fans, the amound of players is not a problem at all.

astiop

It does seem like pretty much everybody who's saying the game needs more players is either a fanboy, or somebody who simply hasn't played the game but feels they can assume what it's like.

I mean drawing any form of comparison with Warhawk and Resistance just screams "I've never played this game"

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i've played Gears.. who hasnt.. still doesnt change the fact that smaller 5 vs 5 play sessions and huge 32 player battles are common place on games like Warhawk.. all of which are fun and varied.. Resistence 2 looks to have 5 vs 5 play aswell as 60 player squad play.. Same thing can be said for the upcoming Socom Confrontation.. these, my friend, are called options...

dont hate on games like Warhawk, Socom, and Resistence 2 because they offer the online versatility that can support both small and large scale gameplay.. they offer the type of versatility that somehow would be lost in a "close combat"-only game like Gears of War where the gameplay will apparent self-destruct with introduced to even a relativley small 16 player game....

Ninja-Hippo

I'm repeating myself here, but that's because Warhawk's gameplay is open, fast and hectic. It suits 32 players. 5 vs 5 is rare, please dont say that it's common place because i very really see small games on Warhawk or Resistance unless a group of friends are playing together and dont want strangers.

"these, my friend are called options" is just you spinning this to make it look like "more = better". That's not true. It'd be pointless having an option for 32 player Gears of War because they'd have to resize all of the maps and weapon placements to accomodate that and it would be awful.

And i'm calling you out here; you haven't played Gears. If you had, you'd know that saying it should have the option of 32 players - or even any more than 12 - is rediculous. It simply wouldn't work.

Also - who the heck hated on Warhawk, Socom or Resistance? Whos post are you reading because it sure as hell wasn't mine.

according to who?.. you?.. i'm pretty sure if Epic set their minds to this task, it could be pulled off with AAA quality.. but for reasons beyond our knowledge, they've opted not to.. which in turn, limits your options as a player..

i know full well that Gears "works" with just 4 v 4.. it actually works wonderfully.. and i agree that in order for 16 player Gears matches to "work", you'd need larger maps and adjustments.. do you actually think this is IMPOSSIBLE?.. especially with Epic at the helm?.. seriously.. stop kidding yourself...

oh and yes, 8 player max matchs on Warhawk are everywhere.. it's the fastest way to "rank up" while playing CTF.. so obviously, you're the fakeboy commenting on games you dont play...

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i've played Gears.. who hasnt.. still doesnt change the fact that smaller 5 vs 5 play sessions and huge 32 player battles are common place on games like Warhawk.. all of which are fun and varied.. Resistence 2 looks to have 5 vs 5 play aswell as 60 player squad play.. Same thing can be said for the upcoming Socom Confrontation.. these, my friend, are called options...

dont hate on games like Warhawk, Socom, and Resistence 2 because they offer the online versatility that can support both small and large scale gameplay.. they offer the type of versatility that somehow would be lost in a "close combat"-only game like Gears of War where the gameplay will apparent self-destruct with introduced to even a relativley small 16 player game....

Antwan3K

I'm repeating myself here, but that's because Warhawk's gameplay is open, fast and hectic. It suits 32 players. 5 vs 5 is rare, please dont say that it's common place because i very really see small games on Warhawk or Resistance unless a group of friends are playing together and dont want strangers.

"these, my friend are called options" is just you spinning this to make it look like "more = better". That's not true. It'd be pointless having an option for 32 player Gears of War because they'd have to resize all of the maps and weapon placements to accomodate that and it would be awful.

And i'm calling you out here; you haven't played Gears. If you had, you'd know that saying it should have the option of 32 players - or even any more than 12 - is rediculous. It simply wouldn't work.

Also - who the heck hated on Warhawk, Socom or Resistance? Whos post are you reading because it sure as hell wasn't mine.

according to who?.. you?.. i'm pretty sure if Epic set their minds to this task, it could be pulled off with AAA quality.. but for reasons beyond our knowledge, they've opted not to.. which in turn, limits your options as a player..

i know full well that Gears "works" with just 4 v 4.. it actually works wonderfully.. and i agree that in order for 16 player Gears matches to "work", you'd need larger maps and adjustments.. do you actually think this is IMPOSSIBLE?.. especially with Epic at the helm?.. seriously.. stop kidding yourself...

oh and yes, 8 player max Warhawk matchs on Warhawk are everywhere'.. its the fastest way to "rank up" while playing CTF.. so obviously, you're the fakeboy commenting on games you dont play...

Speak for yourself, the fans know pretty well why they don't do what you just said. POINTLESS.

We are talking about what makes a game more FUN, not the means to "rank up faster"...

[QUOTE="astiop"]

Dude, thats the way gears is meant to be played. Whats the big deal? Yes you have the option to go 4v4 on warhawk or resistance, but whats the ***** point? Those games just arent fun with few players, but gears IS. One thing you wont see a gears fan wanting is more players, it's always cows/people who don't own it.

And don't say "yea but their just lemmings", because thats not the reason at all. You see certain lemmings say they didn't like gears or admited to the host advantage, but from the fans, the amound of players is not a problem at all.

Ninja-Hippo

It does seem like pretty much everybody who's saying the game needs more players is either a fanboy, or somebody who simply hasn't played the game but feels they can assume what it's like.

I mean drawing any form of comparison with Warhawk and Resistance just screams "I've never played this game"

Agreed. Me and this guy at work talked about how well the 4-on-4 worked. We used to play it all the time.

according to who?.. you?.. i'm pretty sure if Epic set their minds to this task, it could be pulled off with AAA quality.. but for reasons beyond our knowledge, they've opted not to.. which in turn, limits your options as a player..

i know full well that Gears "works" with just 4 v 4.. it actually works wonderfully.. and i agree that in order for 16 player Gears matches to "work", you'd need larger maps and adjustments.. do you actually think this is IMPOSSIBLE?.. especially with Epic at the helm?.. seriously.. stop kidding yourself...

oh and yes, 8 player max Warhawk matchs on Warhawk are everywhere.. it's the fastest way to "rank up" while playing CTF.. so obviously, you're the fakeboy commenting on games you dont play...

Antwan3K

No, not me. Everyone who has ever played and enjoyed Gears of War. Just like the other guy pointed out; the only people saying "Hey more players!" haven't played it. Why do you think fans of the game aren't calling out for more players? :|

Because it wouldn't work. PLAY THE GAME.

Sure 32 players could be done; but the mechanics of the game would have to change completely. Right now it works brilliantly at 5 vs 5, and if you took the game as it is now and made it 32 player; it'd be awful. FACT.

Also; i organised the freakin' Union Warhawk Tournament. :roll:

Jeez...

Oh boy 1 more person on the other team using a sniper rifle and blowing my head off while rolling.

2 vs 2 would be much better.

Oh boy 1 more person on the other team using a sniper rifle and blowing my head off while rolling.

Truth_Hurts_U

:lol: That is so true!!!

Oh boy 1 more person on the other team using a sniper rifle and blowing my head off while rolling.

2 vs 2 would be much better.

Truth_Hurts_U

Tell that to the guy saying 5 on 5 is a limitation, and it should have more players, all the while claiming to have played the game and understood it fully. :roll:

[QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

Oh boy 1 more person on the other team using a sniper rifle and blowing my head off while rolling.

carljohnson3456

:lol: That is so true!!!

I really hope they get rid of the one-hit insta down. I freakin' hated that. Or at least make it so that you have to get a shot around the neck or something. Getting hit in the foot by an active reload sniper and going down was so infuriating.

[QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

Oh boy 1 more person on the other team using a sniper rifle and blowing my head off while rolling.

carljohnson3456

:lol: That is so true!!!

So it is either too little or too much? Basically people are just looking to hate.

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

i've played Gears.. who hasnt.. still doesnt change the fact that smaller 5 vs 5 play sessions and huge 32 player battles are common place on games like Warhawk.. all of which are fun and varied.. Resistence 2 looks to have 5 vs 5 play aswell as 60 player squad play.. Same thing can be said for the upcoming Socom Confrontation.. these, my friend, are called options...

dont hate on games like Warhawk, Socom, and Resistence 2 because they offer the online versatility that can support both small and large scale gameplay.. they offer the type of versatility that somehow would be lost in a "close combat"-only game like Gears of War where the gameplay will apparent self-destruct with introduced to even a relativley small 16 player game....

astiop

I'm repeating myself here, but that's because Warhawk's gameplay is open, fast and hectic. It suits 32 players. 5 vs 5 is rare, please dont say that it's common place because i very really see small games on Warhawk or Resistance unless a group of friends are playing together and dont want strangers.

"these, my friend are called options" is just you spinning this to make it look like "more = better". That's not true. It'd be pointless having an option for 32 player Gears of War because they'd have to resize all of the maps and weapon placements to accomodate that and it would be awful.

And i'm calling you out here; you haven't played Gears. If you had, you'd know that saying it should have the option of 32 players - or even any more than 12 - is rediculous. It simply wouldn't work.

Also - who the heck hated on Warhawk, Socom or Resistance? Whos post are you reading because it sure as hell wasn't mine.

according to who?.. you?.. i'm pretty sure if Epic set their minds to this task, it could be pulled off with AAA quality.. but for reasons beyond our knowledge, they've opted not to.. which in turn, limits your options as a player..

i know full well that Gears "works" with just 4 v 4.. it actually works wonderfully.. and i agree that in order for 16 player Gears matches to "work", you'd need larger maps and adjustments.. do you actually think this is IMPOSSIBLE?.. especially with Epic at the helm?.. seriously.. stop kidding yourself...

oh and yes, 8 player max Warhawk matchs on Warhawk are everywhere'.. its the fastest way to "rank up" while playing CTF.. so obviously, you're the fakeboy commenting on games you dont play...

Speak for yourself, the fans know pretty well why they don't do what you just said. POINTLESS.

We are talking about what makes a game more FUN, not the means to "rank up faster"...

i figured u'd say that.. i almost edited my statment just for that purpose.. but anyway, yes 8 player matches are extremely fun.. definitely more intimate and intense when fighting over the much smaller patch of land.. and the strategies can be made easier with the smaller number of people to communicate with..

ask anybody who plays Warhawk regularly if small scale stages are "fun".. the answer is a resounding "yes".. the devs did a masterful job with the map configs.. and since the maps are so huge to begin with, you can have almost 10 different small scale configs for each overall map.. adds alot of variety.. and other than that, it's a welcome option to the full-scale war efforts of the 32 player matches....

and how about you speak for yourself.. many Gears fans would probably love the option of 16 player matches (if Epic did them to AAA quality) while other fans will just stick with 4 v4 games.. wow.. look at those options.. ;)

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

Oh boy 1 more person on the other team using a sniper rifle and blowing my head off while rolling.

dhjohns

:lol: That is so true!!!

So it is either too little or too much? Basically people are just looking to hate.

yeah

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

Oh boy 1 more person on the other team using a sniper rifle and blowing my head off while rolling.

Ninja-Hippo

:lol: That is so true!!!

I really hope they get rid of the one-hit insta down. I freakin' hated that. Or at least make it so that you have to get a shot around the neck or something. Getting hit in the foot by an active reload sniper and going down was so infuriating.

Yea, that was pretty lame. Especialy if there was no-one around to get you back up. What i'm looking forward to though... blowing some dudes head off while he is holding someone hostage (if that makes it to the mp).

[QUOTE="planbfreak4eva"]for me and many other gamers..more players=more fun...you do the maths...will you hav more fun wid one friend or many playing painball ofr example
dhjohns

I'll do "maths" while you do grammar, how about that? More =/= better. It depends on the game. It wouldn't work for GeOW.

[QUOTE="Antwan3K"]

according to who?.. you?.. i'm pretty sure if Epic set their minds to this task, it could be pulled off with AAA quality.. but for reasons beyond our knowledge, they've opted not to.. which in turn, limits your options as a player..

i know full well that Gears "works" with just 4 v 4.. it actually works wonderfully.. and i agree that in order for 16 player Gears matches to "work", you'd need larger maps and adjustments.. do you actually think this is IMPOSSIBLE?.. especially with Epic at the helm?.. seriously.. stop kidding yourself...

oh and yes, 8 player max Warhawk matchs on Warhawk are everywhere.. it's the fastest way to "rank up" while playing CTF.. so obviously, you're the fakeboy commenting on games you dont play...

Ninja-Hippo

No, not me. Everyone who has ever played and enjoyed Gears of War. Just like the other guy pointed out; the only people saying "Hey more players!" haven't played it. Why do you think fans of the game aren't calling out for more players? :|

Because it wouldn't work. PLAY THE GAME.

Sure 32 players could be done; but the mechanics of the game would have to change completely. Right now it works brilliantly at 5 vs 5, and if you took the game as it is now and made it 32 player; it'd be awful. FACT.

Also; i organised the freakin' Union Warhawk Tournament. :roll:

Jeez...

i agree.. that's why Epic would have to make the right adjustments for the 16 player levels.. and keep things exactly the same for 4 v 4.. as you may realize, AAA is AAA and fun is fun.. options are made and everyone is happy.. this is not a foreign concept..

and congrats on organizing a tournament.. its too bad you obviously dont play the actual game if you made the comment that 8 player matches are "rare".. :roll:

i figured u'd say that.. i almost edited my statment just for that purpose.. but anyway, yes 8 player matches are extremely fun.. definitely more intimate and intense when fighting over the much smaller patch of land.. and the strategies can be made easier with the smaller number of people to communicate with..

ask anybody who plays Warhawk regularly if small scale stages are "fun".. the answer is a resounding "yes".. the devs did a masterful job with the map configs.. and since the maps are so huge to begin with, you can have almost 10 different small scale configs for each overall map.. adds alot of variety.. and other than that, it's a welcome option to the full-scale war efforts of the 32 player matches....

and how about you speak for yourself.. many Gears fans would probably love the option of 16 player matches (if Epic did them to AAA quality) while other fans will just stick with 4 v4 games.. wow.. look at those options.. ;)

Antwan3K

How could they possibly have 16 players withou profoundly changing everything about the multiplayer? Explain how that would work. Unless they split it up into small teams in different areas, but that's again pointless.

You're demonstrating with every post that you haven't played this game. 16 player Gears of War just wouldnt work.

yeah Pro_wrestler

That's a dog not a troll. :?

Why would you give a dog pop corn?

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

Oh boy 1 more person on the other team using a sniper rifle and blowing my head off while rolling.

Ninja-Hippo

:lol: That is so true!!!

I really hope they get rid of the one-hit insta down. I freakin' hated that. Or at least make it so that you have to get a shot around the neck or something. Getting hit in the foot by an active reload sniper and going down was so infuriating.

lol I agree. And the 2-hit sniper melee combo gets very old too man.

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

ya.....that makes it more fun :roll: