Gears of War 9.6???

sure it was a great game, and still is.

but 9.6???

come on people.

how can gears be better than games like halo 2,  final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...

the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live. 

while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.)  host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts.

how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4? 

1.yes 9.6 is retarted high and undeserving

2.online is actually just a bunch of shotgun shootouts with the winner being whoever pulls the trigger first

3.host advantage blows

4.ff 7, super mario 64, god of war (1 and 2), gta (3 and the first city of san andreas), Half life 2, and many more are much better, however, I cant agree with you on halo because Im not a fan....

5.The reason it scored so high was mostly graghical

sure it was a great game, and still is.

but 9.6???

come on people.

how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...

the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live.

while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts.

 

how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4?

mistervengeance

Well because Halo 2 was a piece of S*** and Gears was prety good, by the way Halo did not define S*** the first one was fun the second one sucked and the third one is almost an exact copy of the second one so guess what that means the 3rd one sucks too.

P.S. Sorry but I'm sick of people acting like Halo was the first/best fps ever created when in reality which is something all of the Haloboys left behind a long time ago Halo was just a fun fps that was ruined by the second one. 

Stop comparing it to every other game that's ever received a 9 or above. You can't compare any game in the world to it, it doesn't work that way.

Do some research and educate yourself into how reviews work, then come back because at the moment you're basically asking why Gears has a score above a game in a completely different genre, you may as well be asking why games are even scored in the first place.

Comparing Gears of War to Super Mario 64 or Grand Theft Auto is a little nuts. Just rethink that, it makes so little sense it hurts my head.

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

sure it was a great game, and still is.

but 9.6???

come on people.

how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...

the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live.

while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts.

 

how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4?

julianwelton

Well because Halo 2 was a piece of S*** and Gears was prety good, by the way Halo did not define S*** the first one was fun the second one sucked and the third one is almost an exact copy of the second one so guess what that means the 3rd one sucks too.

P.S. Sorry but I'm sick of people acting like Halo was the first/best fps ever created when in reality which is something all of the Haloboys left behind a long time ago Halo was just a fun fps that was ruined by the second one. 

I couldn't agree about Halo more

reasons why i think Gears actually deserved the 9.6.

1) the game fuses two types of shooting styles almost perfectly, which i think a lot of people dont give credit to.  the covering mechanic in gears is usually compared to tactical shooters like GRAW and R6V, while the shooting mechanic and guns (along with the high health system) is similar to Halo and UT.  the Tom Clancy shooters and Halo/UT are usually viewed as two different types of shooting genre's that never mix, but Gears was one of those games that was able to blend these two types into a fluid game mechanic.  its awesome to be tactically taking cover and shooting from afar to take out the locust (GRAW and R6V), but then quickly switch to your shotty and just roll around killing the wretches right and left (Halo and UT)

2) its co-op is second to none.  while Halo 2 had co-op as well, it did not nearly perfect the idea of co-op gaming like Gears did.  Epic said all along that they developed the SP with co-op in mind, and it shows.  picking up your friend from being down really makes it so that you two stick together and work well together.  also, the times when you split into different routes still has you helping out your teammate from different vantage points.

3) there is a huge focus on teamwork.  if your skills are good enough in games like halo and UT, you can easily take out multiple opponents on your own (e.g. those double kill and triple kill awards that you get in Halo while playing).  unless they have the boomshot or hammer, any two decent players can take down a great Gears player with teamwork.  the slow pace of the game (compared to halo and UT) allows for two players to easily coordinate an attack on a sole enemy and be successful.

- the fact that the SP only had 4-8 players on the screen at the same time only shows how smart the AI was.  in Halo, what is the use of bragging about numerous enemies that you are going against if half of them are just grunts that fall down after a couple of shots.  each enemy in Gears (aside from wretches) could kill you... easily if you were not behind cover.

- story was bad, very much agreed.  but what about the halo 2 story... especially the ending? :roll:  and while Gears SP took 6-8 hours to complete, halo 2's SP clocked in around 8-10 hours... not that much of a difference

- host advantage is annoying if you desparately need to win in order to have fun. 

- the Gears community is only as bad as the halo 2 community.  glitchers in gears = hackers in Halo 2.  and both are filled with juvenile kids/adults.

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

sure it was a great game, and still is.

but 9.6???

come on people.

how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...

the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live.

while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts.

 

how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4?

julianwelton

Well because Halo 2 was a piece of S*** and Gears was prety good, by the way Halo did not define S*** the first one was fun the second one sucked and the third one is almost an exact copy of the second one so guess what that means the 3rd one sucks too.

P.S. Sorry but I'm sick of people acting like Halo was the first/best fps ever created when in reality which is something all of the Haloboys left behind a long time ago Halo was just a fun fps that was ruined by the second one.

are you kidding me? the fist one was good, but the second one was amazing. pushed the xbox as far as it could go. amazing online multi with a great friends and party system, better cutscenes and storyline, etc. those who say the first one was better are just jumping on the bandwagon of "halo 2 sucks, you have no right to say otherwise, because i think on a higher level than you"

graphicsdEfousEd

That's the only redeeming quality of the game for me... and a chainsaw now and then. I think that rating is a joke, myself.

Gears shows why steroids and hide-and-seek don't mix. Also, nobody I know crouches whlie they run. They're too top heavy to stand vertical, I guess ;)

also... lets consider that Gears is mostly a unique gameplay experience (the biggest thing Epic copied was kill.switch's cover system, but that game did not use the cover system the way gears did i.e. multiplayer)

halo's arcade style fast paced shooter is amazing, but not entirely unique.  its as if the most hardcore halo fans never played UT or Quake before.

[QUOTE="julianwelton"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

sure it was a great game, and still is.

but 9.6???

come on people.

how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...

the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live.

while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts.

 

how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4?

mistervengeance

Well because Halo 2 was a piece of S*** and Gears was prety good, by the way Halo did not define S*** the first one was fun the second one sucked and the third one is almost an exact copy of the second one so guess what that means the 3rd one sucks too.

P.S. Sorry but I'm sick of people acting like Halo was the first/best fps ever created when in reality which is something all of the Haloboys left behind a long time ago Halo was just a fun fps that was ruined by the second one.

are you kidding me? the fist one was good, but the second one was amazing. pushed the xbox as far as it could go. amazing online multi with a great friends and party system, better cutscenes and storyline, etc. those who say the first one was better are just jumping on the bandwagon of "halo 2 sucks, you have no right to say otherwise, because i think on a higher level than you"

and you are just jumping on the somewhat larger bandwagon of people saying Halo 2 was amazing

also... lets consider that Gears is mostly a unique gameplay experience (the biggest thing Epic copied was kill.switch's cover system, but that game did not use the cover system the way gears did i.e. multiplayer)

halo's arcade style fast paced shooter is amazing, but not entirely unique.  its as if the most hardcore halo fans never played UT or Quake before.

c0mplex

your second point is accurate, but who uses cover regularly on gears mp

reasons why i think Gears actually deserved the 9.6.

1) the game fuses two types of shooting styles almost perfectly, which i think a lot of people dont give credit to. the covering mechanic in gears is usually compared to tactical shooters like GRAW and R6V, while the shooting mechanic and guns (along with the high health system) is similar to Halo and UT. the Tom Clancy shooters and Halo/UT are usually viewed as two different types of shooting genre's that never mix, but Gears was one of those games that was able to blend these two types into a fluid game mechanic. its awesome to be tactically taking cover and shooting from afar to take out the locust (GRAW and R6V), but then quickly switch to your shotty and just roll around killing the wretches right and left (Halo and UT)

2) its co-op is second to none. while Halo 2 had co-op as well, it did not nearly perfect the idea of co-op gaming like Gears did. Epic said all along that they developed the SP with co-op in mind, and it shows. picking up your friend from being down really makes it so that you two stick together and work well together. also, the times when you split into different routes still has you helping out your teammate from different vantage points.

3) there is a huge focus on teamwork. if your skills are good enough in games like halo and UT, you can easily take out multiple opponents on your own (e.g. those double kill and triple kill awards that you get in Halo while playing). unless they have the boomshot or hammer, any two decent players can take down a great Gears player with teamwork. the slow pace of the game (compared to halo and UT) allows for two players to easily coordinate an attack on a sole enemy and be successful.

- the fact that the SP only had 4-8 players on the screen at the same time only shows how smart the AI was. in Halo, what is the use of bragging about numerous enemies that you are going against if half of them are just grunts that fall down after a couple of shots. each enemy in Gears (aside from wretches) could kill you... easily if you were not behind cover.

- story was bad, very much agreed. but what about the halo 2 story... especially the ending? :roll: and while Gears SP took 6-8 hours to complete, halo 2's SP clocked in around 8-10 hours... not that much of a difference

- host advantage is annoying if you desparately need to win in order to have fun.

- the Gears community is only as bad as the halo 2 community. glitchers in gears = hackers in Halo 2. and both are filled with juvenile kids/adults.

c0mplex

reasons why i think Gears actually deserved the 9.6.

1) the game fuses two types of shooting styles almost perfectly, which i think a lot of people dont give credit to. the covering mechanic in gears is usually compared to tactical shooters like GRAW and R6V, while the shooting mechanic and guns (along with the high health system) is similar to Halo and UT. the Tom Clancy shooters and Halo/UT are usually viewed as two different types of shooting genre's that never mix, but Gears was one of those games that was able to blend these two types into a fluid game mechanic. its awesome to be tactically taking cover and shooting from afar to take out the locust (GRAW and R6V), but then quickly switch to your shotty and just roll around killing the wretches right and left (Halo and UT)

2) its co-op is second to none. while Halo 2 had co-op as well, it did not nearly perfect the idea of co-op gaming like Gears did. Epic said all along that they developed the SP with co-op in mind, and it shows. picking up your friend from being down really makes it so that you two stick together and work well together. also, the times when you split into different routes still has you helping out your teammate from different vantage points.

3) there is a huge focus on teamwork. if your skills are good enough in games like halo and UT, you can easily take out multiple opponents on your own (e.g. those double kill and triple kill awards that you get in Halo while playing). unless they have the boomshot or hammer, any two decent players can take down a great Gears player with teamwork. the slow pace of the game (compared to halo and UT) allows for two players to easily coordinate an attack on a sole enemy and be successful.

- the fact that the SP only had 4-8 players on the screen at the same time only shows how smart the AI was. in Halo, what is the use of bragging about numerous enemies that you are going against if half of them are just grunts that fall down after a couple of shots. each enemy in Gears (aside from wretches) could kill you... easily if you were not behind cover.

- story was bad, very much agreed. but what about the halo 2 story... especially the ending? :roll: and while Gears SP took 6-8 hours to complete, halo 2's SP clocked in around 8-10 hours... not that much of a difference

- host advantage is annoying if you desparately need to win in order to have fun.

- the Gears community is only as bad as the halo 2 community. glitchers in gears = hackers in Halo 2. and both are filled with juvenile kids/adults.

c0mplex

reasons why i think Gears actually deserved the 9.6.

1) the game fuses two types of shooting styles almost perfectly, which i think a lot of people dont give credit to. the covering mechanic in gears is usually compared to tactical shooters like GRAW and R6V, while the shooting mechanic and guns (along with the high health system) is similar to Halo and UT. the Tom Clancy shooters and Halo/UT are usually viewed as two different types of shooting genre's that never mix, but Gears was one of those games that was able to blend these two types into a fluid game mechanic. its awesome to be tactically taking cover and shooting from afar to take out the locust (GRAW and R6V), but then quickly switch to your shotty and just roll around killing the wretches right and left (Halo and UT)

2) its co-op is second to none. while Halo 2 had co-op as well, it did not nearly perfect the idea of co-op gaming like Gears did. Epic said all along that they developed the SP with co-op in mind, and it shows. picking up your friend from being down really makes it so that you two stick together and work well together. also, the times when you split into different routes still has you helping out your teammate from different vantage points.

3) there is a huge focus on teamwork. if your skills are good enough in games like halo and UT, you can easily take out multiple opponents on your own (e.g. those double kill and triple kill awards that you get in Halo while playing). unless they have the boomshot or hammer, any two decent players can take down a great Gears player with teamwork. the slow pace of the game (compared to halo and UT) allows for two players to easily coordinate an attack on a sole enemy and be successful.

- the fact that the SP only had 4-8 players on the screen at the same time only shows how smart the AI was. in Halo, what is the use of bragging about numerous enemies that you are going against if half of them are just grunts that fall down after a couple of shots. each enemy in Gears (aside from wretches) could kill you... easily if you were not behind cover.

- story was bad, very much agreed. but what about the halo 2 story... especially the ending? :roll: and while Gears SP took 6-8 hours to complete, halo 2's SP clocked in around 8-10 hours... not that much of a difference

- host advantage is annoying if you desparately need to win in order to have fun.

- the Gears community is only as bad as the halo 2 community. glitchers in gears = hackers in Halo 2. and both are filled with juvenile kids/adults.

c0mplex

true, but i have to disagree with your first point. the online multi is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts, you can't tell me it isn't. and seriously, besides insane, the AI was dang stupid, especially with your allies. certainly an improvement over battlefront 2 though.

also your first bullet does not make any sense. the elites were a lot tougher on legendary than the locusts ever were on insane. if you clock insane time vs. legendary time, gears of war campaign is really short. having a lot of enemies adds variety, instead of what gears did, just making them different based on the weapon they had.

the host advantage is annoying even if you're having fun, as you just get killed without being able to do anything.

if you go online right this second, i guarantee you the gears community is way worse than the halo 2 community. 

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"][QUOTE="julianwelton"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

sure it was a great game, and still is.

but 9.6???

come on people.

how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...

the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live.

while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts.

 

how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4?

ipath4life

Well because Halo 2 was a piece of S*** and Gears was prety good, by the way Halo did not define S*** the first one was fun the second one sucked and the third one is almost an exact copy of the second one so guess what that means the 3rd one sucks too.

P.S. Sorry but I'm sick of people acting like Halo was the first/best fps ever created when in reality which is something all of the Haloboys left behind a long time ago Halo was just a fun fps that was ruined by the second one.

are you kidding me? the fist one was good, but the second one was amazing. pushed the xbox as far as it could go. amazing online multi with a great friends and party system, better cutscenes and storyline, etc. those who say the first one was better are just jumping on the bandwagon of "halo 2 sucks, you have no right to say otherwise, because i think on a higher level than you"

and you are just jumping on the somewhat larger bandwagon of people saying Halo 2 was amazing

yeah, at least i have  reasons to back up that halo2 was better.  

[QUOTE="c0mplex"]

also... lets consider that Gears is mostly a unique gameplay experience (the biggest thing Epic copied was kill.switch's cover system, but that game did not use the cover system the way gears did i.e. multiplayer)

halo's arcade style fast paced shooter is amazing, but not entirely unique.  its as if the most hardcore halo fans never played UT or Quake before.

ipath4life

your second point is accurate, but who uses cover regularly on gears mp

it's not used as much as it is in SP, but i use it consistently though... and i think a lot of other people do as well without even noticing it, especially in annex.  one of the first things i do when i am in the Annex circle is hide, and when you see on your HUD that someone has picked up the boomshot or longshot (if he is known to be a good sniper), the first thing you do is take cover.  i also use the cover system when i am hiding behind a corner that leads to the annex circle.  nothing better than to see somone doing a roadie run right to you and then you chainsawing them (although i prefer using the shotgun).  also, one of the best things to do is to take cover behind a barricade where someone else is hiding, sliding to that wall from afar, and then quickly peaking up and blasting them.

im not going to deny that the shotgun is used heavily in MP, but to say no other weapon is used a lot is as ridiculous as saying the shotty is never used.  i've seen teams that mow down an uncoordinated team with the lancer, and excessively use the chainsaw.  i actually find it kind of funny, seeing as i see this happen a lot:

it will be three on three with everyone close together.  the team of lancers will have one of them chainsaw one of the shotgunners.  while the other two shotgun users wait for the chainsaw animation to end so they can blast them (most of the time standing still), the other chainsawers will go and chainsaw them as well.

 then there are people who are wicked with the torque bow and longshot.  i actually find it kind of ironic that many people complain about how the MP in Gears is heavily focused on shotgunning... but then they also complain about how one person can dominate another team with the torque bow and longshot (making those two weapons cheap), or how chainsawing is a cheap tactic.  i dunno, but to me that shows that the majority of weapons in the game are being used.

[QUOTE="dEfousEd"]graphicsStaryoshi87

That's the only redeeming quality of the game for me... and a chainsaw now and then. I think that rating is a joke, myself.

Gears shows why steroids and hide-and-seek don't mix. Also, nobody I know crouches whlie they run. They're too top heavy to stand vertical, I guess ;)

It makes sense to crouch when u run me and my friends do it all the time when we go paintballing, you dont want to be out in the open when running for cover.

I think Gears deserved its score but thats just me.

just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity.mistervengeance

Haha, what?  Dude did you even play Halo 2?

It has great multiplayer, but the single player wasn't very good and was pretty boring at times. 

GeOW was a solid 90% not anywhere near 96%

good game but RE4 another 96% game destroys it.

men gow deserves more than 9.6

men gow deserves more than 9.6

sure it was a great game, and still is.

but 9.6???

come on people.

how can gears be better than games like halo 2,  final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...

the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live. 

while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.)  host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts.

 

how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4? 

mistervengeance

sure it was a great game, and still is.

but 9.6???

come on people.

how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...

the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live.

while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts.

 

how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4?

mistervengeance

you really dont know how Gamespot rates games. 

sure it was a great game, and still is.

but 9.6???

come on people.

how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...

the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live.

while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts.

 

how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4?

mistervengeance

[QUOTE="julianwelton"][QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

sure it was a great game, and still is.

but 9.6???

come on people.

how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...

the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live.

while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts.

 

how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4?

mistervengeance

Well because Halo 2 was a piece of S*** and Gears was prety good, by the way Halo did not define S*** the first one was fun the second one sucked and the third one is almost an exact copy of the second one so guess what that means the 3rd one sucks too.

P.S. Sorry but I'm sick of people acting like Halo was the first/best fps ever created when in reality which is something all of the Haloboys left behind a long time ago Halo was just a fun fps that was ruined by the second one.

are you kidding me? the fist one was good, but the second one was amazing. pushed the xbox as far as it could go. amazing online multi with a great friends and party system, better cutscenes and storyline, etc. those who say the first one was better are just jumping on the bandwagon of "halo 2 sucks, you have no right to say otherwise, because i think on a higher level than you"

Wow claiming that you "think on a higher level" then someone you have never met and have no idea of who they are or what they believe in except they don't like a game you like makes you sound really intelligent good job mission accomplished. 

[QUOTE="mistervengeance"]

sure it was a great game, and still is.

but 9.6???

come on people.

how can gears be better than games like halo 2, final fantasy vii, super mario 64, god of war, GTA, half-life 2, etc...

the story was short, and horribly done within the game.(backstory was pretty cool) and there were never more than about 6 enemies on the screen. the multiplayer is just a bunch of shotgun shootouts(i know it's exxageration but it's mostly true), and host advantage is extremely annoying, not to mention by FAR the worst online community on xbox live.

while, just compared to halo 2, the singleplayer was long and amazing, there were times of chaos and insanity. not to mention the game that defined fps console online multiplayer. (it's what microsoft based the new xbox 360 live off.) host adavantage is all but eliminated, and there are maps and weapons that create encounters that are NOT always shotgun shootouts.

 

how did gears get a 9.6 when halo 2 got a 9.4?

acidic_dude

Well, I agree with that halo 2 should have scored higher than gears, but I'm not going to make a big point out of that. What I found even more amazing was how rainbow six vegas was ignored pretty much while giving awards. After playing both MP's for a longer period of time I can safely say rainbow six vegas MP blows gears out of the water. Also SP wise rainbow six is a lot better, as it's got a more intense and longer SP, with a better story to boot. The two things that gears had over rainbow six were the coop and the graphics. I think it's plain stupid to have a .5 score difference between these games, and actually have the horrible MP of gears win MP GOTY. (horrible at least when you compare it to games like RB6 vegas and halo 2)11Marcel

Rainbow Six Vegas has Co-Op play. 

[QUOTE="11Marcel"]Well, I agree with that halo 2 should have scored higher than gears, but I'm not going to make a big point out of that. What I found even more amazing was how rainbow six vegas was ignored pretty much while giving awards. After playing both MP's for a longer period of time I can safely say rainbow six vegas MP blows gears out of the water. Also SP wise rainbow six is a lot better, as it's got a more intense and longer SP, with a better story to boot. The two things that gears had over rainbow six were the coop and the graphics. I think it's plain stupid to have a .5 score difference between these games, and actually have the horrible MP of gears win MP GOTY. (horrible at least when you compare it to games like RB6 vegas and halo 2)shawn7324

Rainbow Six Vegas has Co-Op play.