Will Gears 2 be over-scored because of visuals like the first? (POLL)

Well I bought Gears about 3 months ago when I bought my 360. I was one of the people who bought it right off the bat without researching it a bit, just based on the outstanding visuals. I shouldn't of. The campaign was very short and not all that in-depth, except maybe the ending boss fight with the general, which was fun. I personally do not have xbox live, but have played it at friends houses and it felt very boring. Nothing like COD4, Halo 3, Warhawk, or Resistance's online multiplayer. It was very bland, and the weapons were not balanced.

However, the visuals were top-notch. Now I could of seen the first Gears score a 8.0-8.5 but certainly not a 9.5. Gears of War just scored so high because it looked good. A mediocre single player and a dull online multiplayer does not make a 9.5 game. Can you honestly say, that "even if Gears of War didn't look as good as it did, it would have still sold/scored as much/high as it did".

I predict a great game for the 360 fans to have for the holidays.

Well I bought Gears about 3 months ago when I bought my 360. I was one of the people who bought it right off the bat without researching it a bit, just based on the outstanding visuals. I shouldn't of. The campaign was very short and not all that in-depth, except maybe the ending boss fight with the general, which was fun. I personally do not have xbox live, but have played it at friends houses and it felt very boring. Nothing like COD4, Halo 3, Warhawk, or Resistance's online multiplayer. It was very bland, and the weapons were not balanced.

However, the visuals were top-notch. Now I could of seen the first Gears score a 8.0-8.5 but certainly not a 9.5. Gears of War just scored so high because it looked good. A mediocre single player and a dull online multiplayer does not make a 9.5 game. Can you honestly say, that "even if Gears of War didn't look as good as it did, it would have still sold/scored as much/high as it did".

Logan832

How were the weapons unbalanced? Gears of War is IMO the best game of this generation so far. The campaign has the absolute most intense shooter campaign I have ever played and the multiplayer required teamwork and communication to win. A game does not sell 5 million copied because of graphics.

No.

Gears of War deserves all the praise it gets.
Aljosa23

If all that praise was, "Best looking console game released so far." Then yes. If that praise had anything to do with the acctual game, then no.

[QUOTE="Logan832"]

Well I bought Gears about 3 months ago when I bought my 360. I was one of the people who bought it right off the bat without researching it a bit, just based on the outstanding visuals. I shouldn't of. The campaign was very short and not all that in-depth, except maybe the ending boss fight with the general, which was fun. I personally do not have xbox live, but have played it at friends houses and it felt very boring. Nothing like COD4, Halo 3, Warhawk, or Resistance's online multiplayer. It was very bland, and the weapons were not balanced.

However, the visuals were top-notch. Now I could of seen the first Gears score a 8.0-8.5 but certainly not a 9.5. Gears of War just scored so high because it looked good. A mediocre single player and a dull online multiplayer does not make a 9.5 game. Can you honestly say, that "even if Gears of War didn't look as good as it did, it would have still sold/scored as much/high as it did".

Sparky04

How were the weapons unbalanced? Gears of War is IMO the best game of this generation so far. The campaign has the absolute most intense shooter campaign I have ever played and the multiplayer required teamwork and communication to win. A game does not sell 5 million copied because of graphics.

Well when I played it, everyone was using the shotgun.

that's still the excuse, it only scored good because it looks good? lol, AAA, just keep telling yourself that.shoeman12

Thats exactly my excuse. The reviewers were to baffled by the visuals to say what a medicore game it was in terms of story and online multiplayer.

With any great multiplayer game what is the ratio of Single Player/Multiplayer?

5/95?

The Multiplayer was stellar, the single player was present and that is all that mattered.

doubtful. Its probably just gonna look only slightly better since its using UT3 engine.RazMaTaz-1

Sequels that are created in the same gen nromally only improve on each other by very little. Anyways, I dont think anyone should really be looking forward to breathtaking graphics becauase its just going to be a improvment of the first gears.

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]that's still the excuse, it only scored good because it looks good? lol, AAA, just keep telling yourself that.Logan832

Thats exactly my excuse. The reviewers were to baffled by the visuals to say what a medicore game it was in terms of story and online multiplayer.

I dont like the game but clearly you think that your opinions deserves a vioce so tell me this how can you say its online is mediocre when you have got live yet?...:|

Not only that but my younger brother loves the multiplayer and I enjoyed the CO-OP... what makes your opinion better than mine or my brothers?

At the end of the day the reviewers like/loved it the beef you have with the game is irrelevent since your opinion on a game that was hyped by reviewers for its CO-OP and MP... do your self a favour and play games to their full potential before forming an opinion.

You shouldn't ignore the fact that Gears also had some great gameplay mechanics (the excellent cover system in particular) but I agree that gears was overrated due to it's graphics.

The thing is, when it came out it was the best looking game and also had a cool new cover system so it set new standards for next gen games.

The second game is not likely to be as impressive graphically as the first game was (for its time) so it won't score quite as well imo.

Also, I think the gameplay in gears 2 is likely to be more of a rifinement of the mechanics already in place. Basically it won't bring anything new to the table like the first game did.

If GEoW was a 9.6 because of its visuals, than WTF happened to Uncharted?Nagidar

Excellent point!!, although youll never get fanboys to explain that one lol

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]that's still the excuse, it only scored good because it looks good? lol, AAA, just keep telling yourself that.Logan832

Thats exactly my excuse. The reviewers were to baffled by the visuals to say what a medicore game it was in terms of story and online multiplayer.

Um the reviewers arent blind console fanboys. Most of them are also PC gamers and they know what good grpahics look like. Gears looked great but it wasnt as if Cyrsis suddenly was released in 2002.

I'm looking forward to Gears2, Gears is still one of my fav games this gen

plus one of if not the highest rated console game this gen 9.6,

Well I bought Gears about 3 months ago when I bought my 360. I was one of the people who bought it right off the bat without researching it a bit, just based on the outstanding visuals. I shouldn't of. The campaign was very short and not all that in-depth, except maybe the ending boss fight with the general, which was fun. I personally do not have xbox live, but have played it at friends houses and it felt very boring. Nothing like COD4, Halo 3, Warhawk, or Resistance's online multiplayer. It was very bland, and the weapons were not balanced.

However, the visuals were top-notch. Now I could of seen the first Gears score a 8.0-8.5 but certainly not a 9.5. Gears of War just scored so high because it looked good. A mediocre single player and a dull online multiplayer does not make a 9.5 game. Can you honestly say, that "even if Gears of War didn't look as good as it did, it would have still sold/scored as much/high as it did".

Logan832

Gears got a great score because of the great gameplay, controls, innovation, and graphics. It was one of the most intense games i've ever played. The graphics were just the icing on what was already a AAA cake.

If GEoW was a 9.6 because of its visuals, than WTF happened to Uncharted?Nagidar

lol! thats exactly what i was gonna say

Gears is a GREAT game, despite what fanboys have to say

[QUOTE="Logan832"]

Well I bought Gears about 3 months ago when I bought my 360. I was one of the people who bought it right off the bat without researching it a bit, just based on the outstanding visuals. I shouldn't of. The campaign was very short and not all that in-depth, except maybe the ending boss fight with the general, which was fun. I personally do not have xbox live, but have played it at friends houses and it felt very boring. Nothing like COD4, Halo 3, Warhawk, or Resistance's online multiplayer. It was very bland, and the weapons were not balanced.

However, the visuals were top-notch. Now I could of seen the first Gears score a 8.0-8.5 but certainly not a 9.5. Gears of War just scored so high because it looked good. A mediocre single player and a dull online multiplayer does not make a 9.5 game. Can you honestly say, that "even if Gears of War didn't look as good as it did, it would have still sold/scored as much/high as it did".

Sparky04

How were the weapons unbalanced? Gears of War is IMO the best game of this generation so far. The campaign has the absolute most intense shooter campaign I have ever played and the multiplayer required teamwork and communication to win. A game does not sell 5 million copied because of graphics.

I agree... especially after playing Uncharted... that turd was at most a 6.0...
colmusterd28

Opinions, everyone's got one :P

If GEoW was a 9.6 because of its visuals, than WTF happened to Uncharted?Nagidar

what happened? gamespot happened. Uncharted and R&C are probably the worst reviews they did in their entire existance.

At the moment, I find Gears of War more gratifying than Halo 3. It's a game of high quality. Fondness

Agreed. I've seen threads saying how unoriginal GeOW was and generic. Like Halo 2 and 3 were so original...

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]If GEoW was a 9.6 because of its visuals, than WTF happened to Uncharted?SambaLele

what happened? gamespot happened. Uncharted and R&C are probably the worst reviews they did in their entire existance.

then how do you explain virtually every other reviewer giving Gears higher scores than uncharted and r&c?

Well I bought Gears about 3 months ago when I bought my 360. I was one of the people who bought it right off the bat without researching it a bit, just based on the outstanding visuals. I shouldn't of. The campaign was very short and not all that in-depth, except maybe the ending boss fight with the general, which was fun. I personally do not have xbox live, but have played it at friends houses and it felt very boring. Nothing like COD4, Halo 3, Warhawk, or Resistance's online multiplayer. It was very bland, and the weapons were not balanced.

However, the visuals were top-notch. Now I could of seen the first Gears score a 8.0-8.5 but certainly not a 9.5. Gears of War just scored so high because it looked good. A mediocre single player and a dull online multiplayer does not make a 9.5 game. Can you honestly say, that "even if Gears of War didn't look as good as it did, it would have still sold/scored as much/high as it did".

Logan832

You just got the game, it came out in 2006 and you comparing it to the new games. Sorry you missed out but this game was EPIC when it realeased. Your just late to the party. Geows deserved its score. Im sure geows 2 will deserve what it gets aswell.

[QUOTE="Sparky04"][QUOTE="Logan832"]

Well I bought Gears about 3 months ago when I bought my 360. I was one of the people who bought it right off the bat without researching it a bit, just based on the outstanding visuals. I shouldn't of. The campaign was very short and not all that in-depth, except maybe the ending boss fight with the general, which was fun. I personally do not have xbox live, but have played it at friends houses and it felt very boring. Nothing like COD4, Halo 3, Warhawk, or Resistance's online multiplayer. It was very bland, and the weapons were not balanced.

However, the visuals were top-notch. Now I could of seen the first Gears score a 8.0-8.5 but certainly not a 9.5. Gears of War just scored so high because it looked good. A mediocre single player and a dull online multiplayer does not make a 9.5 game. Can you honestly say, that "even if Gears of War didn't look as good as it did, it would have still sold/scored as much/high as it did".

Logan832

How were the weapons unbalanced? Gears of War is IMO the best game of this generation so far. The campaign has the absolute most intense shooter campaign I have ever played and the multiplayer required teamwork and communication to win. A game does not sell 5 million copied because of graphics.

Well when I played it, everyone was using the shotgun.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]If GEoW was a 9.6 because of its visuals, than WTF happened to Uncharted?ogvampire

what happened? gamespot happened. Uncharted and R&C are probably the worst reviews they did in their entire existance.

then how do you explain virtually every other reviewer giving Gears higher scores than uncharted and r&c?

Its called multiplayer. Thats why it scored higher. Also it did the whole cover system(even though kill switch did it before gears) with nice graphics. I mean thats the only reason that would make sense. I mean both gears and uncharted are short games and they both look good(uncharted looks better imo and other review sites opinion)

Where do I begin?

Gears of War is the best game ever made.

The single player was a fantastic ride from start to finish, however the game truly shines in the multiplayer. The multiplayer maps in Gears of War are among the most well designed maps of all time. The weapons are balanced extremely well in relation to the weapon placement (disregarding Map Pack 2).

The gameplay is much different to any other multiplayer game out there, requiring a great deal more skill than the standard first person shooters available.

Fantastic visuals are a bonus to the sheer brilliance of the way Gears of War plays.

[QUOTE="ogvampire"][QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]If GEoW was a 9.6 because of its visuals, than WTF happened to Uncharted?finalfantasy94

what happened? gamespot happened. Uncharted and R&C are probably the worst reviews they did in their entire existance.

then how do you explain virtually every other reviewer giving Gears higher scores than uncharted and r&c?

Its called multiplayer. Thats why it scored higher. Also it did the whole cover system(even though kill switch did it before gears) with nice graphics. I mean thats the only reason that would make sense. I mean both gears and uncharted are short games and they both look good(uncharted looks better imo and other review sites opinion)

Sorry bud, you just contradicted yourself. First you say Gears only scored high because it looked good. Now you're saying it's because it had good multiplayer too; after you said you didn't like the multiplayer. Try again... :(

No

1. Gerstmann's gone so there's no easily impressed fanboys left

2. many games this year will look better

When Gears was released, it had the PS2 and beginning of the PS3. Today games like Uncharted beat it in graphics, and lets face it. Graphics was Gears only strong point and now its beaten. Now MGS4 is coming and people claim it looks better then Uncharted. But I doubt it, Uncharted is WOWW. The last chapter is just sick looking with all the rain. Gears 2 better not get higher then 9.0. If the graphics are slightly better with better single player and better mp. AT BEST it will deserve a 9.0. Gears nor Halo 3 deserve the 9.5 statues. Halo 3 is 8.5 to 9.0 to me. Gears 8.5.

Heck Uncharted got a 8.0 when that game is FREAKING AWESOME. Its fanboy stupid if you ask me. How IN THE WORLD DID ASSASSIN'S CREED GET A 9.0 when Ucharted got a 8.0? I shun to believe the reviews here any more.

have you guys seen the new GeoW 2 vid that shows everything that they have been improving on? The graphics are (imo) a big leap higher than in the first one's.

I would post a link for the vid but Firefox doesn't allow "cope n' paste" so...-_-

I bet u anything it will still look the same but maybe more intense battles, lets just hope the single player isnt so damn short and maybe add a better storyline because I agree with the TC, this game was truelly overrated and nothing that blew my mind besides being a graphical monster at the time being.

I can bet u anything the graphics will be maybe a little bit better then the first but lemmings will make it out to be the best looking game ever. And the thing that makes me laugh is lemmings bring up how short uncharted was but dont remember the fact that single player for gears of war was even shorter lol. I think gears 2 should be awesome but they really need to make the single player longer.

Epic and Cliff B are going to own the cows, when they show the GeoW2 footage.
BovinesOnPaska

we already saw a tech demo and it will most likely be downgraded from that.

How were the weapons unbalanced? Gears of War is IMO the best game of this generation so far. The campaign has the absolute most intense shooter campaign I have ever played and the multiplayer required teamwork and communication to win. A game does not sell 5 million copied because of graphics.

Sparky04

Donkey Kong Country disagrees with you.

Single player in gears is just a bonus, Gears is all about multiplayer and still is one of the most played game on 360 2 years later. If it sucked I don't think thousands of people a day would bother with the game.

Gears had a good single player campaign and deserved the score it got on all the game sites and gears 2 is only to be better.