odst vs gears of war 2

horde is more fun. in odst you get share the 8 lives and then its over. in gears you can get revived twice per round. in firefight you only get a small amout of ammo but in gears you can just get the ammo box and you are ready to go. so much better with a ammo box!!! why can't odst have a ammo box in the middle of the map?

1. Not even the same genre of game 2. Does anyone still play these games these days? 3. Horde is better. :)sixgears2

Yes a lot of people still play them. Well at least Gears 2 for what I know. Yes horde is much better.

Firefight never ended.

Firefight was harder.

Horde took me two weeks to complete through and I couldn't stand it.

I have never gotten CLOSE to 5mil points on Legendary in Firefight and I have never had two goes play the same.

Firefight is a Superior version of Horde mode. If GoW3 doesn't make a Horde mode somewhat similar to Firefight, I will be majorly dissapointed. There is no reason Epic games shouldn't borrow the whole 'Never ends' bit to make some ridiculous scores more pluasible.

Also, GoW2 had far to many little exploits and one hit kills. When I did die, it felt a bit cheap and honestly the A.I behind the little purple worms in Viva Pinata would out-shoot most of the Locust in GoW2's Horde. Getting to wave 50 felt decent for a whole five seconds when it occured to me that it is hardly an achievement when so many people breeze through it just as fast.

At least Firefight actually eventually reaches the point to were it doesn't bother increasing enemy health or such and instead just literally and unforgivingly throws a HUGE cluster of enemies. I had about twice the "OH DEAR GOD THERE WAS LIKE TWELVE MORE THEN WHEN I LAST LOOKED" moments and god that kind of thing is fun with your buddies.

People who want to argue might say I am a Halo fanboy the way I cling so tightly to ODST's firefight, but honestly, I prefer a survival gametype to:

- Never end (Seriously, BEATING a SURVIVAL mode is retarded. I want to eventually lose and be scored for how long it takes the game to kill me.)

- Have very clearly defined scores (Horde needs little score popups. It makes a difference for high score freaks.)

- Increase difficulty in weird ways. I found it interesting the way Bungie used skulls and desire something similar in GoW3 if they do a Horde mode. (Not just Health Up/Damage up, that is lazy and lame)

- Have A.I that literally increases in intelligence AS you progress without the game taking the lazy route and having every enemy programmed to spawn and run directly at you. Enemies seem more sensible when they spawn and start a patrol about the map and it allows play a little more strategy then the whole 'They can sense you at all times! Get a Shotgun!'.

It isn't too much to ask.

[QUOTE="sixgears2"]1. Not even the same genre of game 2. Does anyone still play these games these days? vashkey

[QUOTE="vashkey"][QUOTE="sixgears2"]1. Not even the same genre of game 2. Does anyone still play these games these days? sixgears2

Yes. Because 'Roll-Shotgun-rinse-Repeat' qualifies as Semi-Tactical and not Run and Gun.

Halo is Run and Gun.

Gears is Roll and Shotgun.

The only difference is in the third and first person perspective.Also,trying to question this other guys logicbecause you said something seriously weird likethat isa pretty weak argument, despite the fact that neither of you are wrong orright. I'll point this out to level your argument, as the back and forth over this is silly.

Op isn't so much comparing the games as the way they excecuted their Survival modes. That said, there is enough to compare within those two game modes that this thread is easily a 100% valid comparison, despite HUGE differences the two games may or may not have in each persons respective opinion.

i think firefight is way better more fun and is harder aswell still havent beat it yet .

[QUOTE="sixgears2"][QUOTE="vashkey"] 1. They're both shooters 2. http://majornelson.com/archive/2010/04/07/live-activity-for-week-of-march-29.aspx Their among the top fifteen most played games on Livephynixblack

Yes. Because 'Roll-Shotgun-rinse-Repeat' qualifies as Semi-Tactical and not Run and Gun.

Halo is Run and Gun.

Gears is Roll and Shotgun.

The only difference is in the third and first person perspective.Also,trying to question this other guys logicbecause you said something seriously weird likethat isa pretty weak argument, despite the fact that neither of you are wrong orright. I'll point this out to level your argument, as the back and forth over this is silly.

Op isn't so much comparing the games as the way they excecuted their Survival modes. That said, there is enough to compare within those two game modes that this thread is easily a 100% valid comparison, despite HUGE differences the two games may or may not have in each persons respective opinion.

i think firefight is way better more fun and is harder aswell still havent beat it yet .

SpArKs424

Firefight doesnt end......

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]

i think firefight is way better more fun and is harder aswell still havent beat it yet .

TheMightyHoov

Firefight doesnt end......

shooter is a pretty broad generalization, my friend. Big, big difference between semi-tac TPS and run-n-gun FPS. So yes, they are both shooters. But by your logic, Mass Effect 2 and Ghost Recon are also in the same genre as one another. Or Oblivion and Call of Duty. Technically all shooters by definition, but very, very different genres. And nobody I know still plays either, though your list makes it clear that there are people out there who do. Question answered.sixgears2

Yes. Because 'Roll-Shotgun-rinse-Repeat' qualifies as Semi-Tactical and not Run and Gun.

Halo is Run and Gun.

Gears is Roll and Shotgun.

The only difference is in the third and first person perspective.Also,trying to question this other guys logicbecause you said something seriously weird likethat isa pretty weak argument, despite the fact that neither of you are wrong orright. I'll point this out to level your argument, as the back and forth over this is silly.

Op isn't so much comparing the games as the way they excecuted their Survival modes. That said, there is enough to compare within those two game modes that this thread is easily a 100% valid comparison, despite HUGE differences the two games may or may not have in each persons respective opinion.

[QUOTE="TheMightyHoov"]

[QUOTE="SpArKs424"]

i think firefight is way better more fun and is harder aswell still havent beat it yet .

Firefight doesnt end......

I would say that I liked firefight more. It was harder, and it had more strategy to it than horde. I liked both, but Id give it to halo. you can to compare gears to halo.. lol. Your pretty much saying it has to be pretty damn close to being identical like Dante's inferno and God of War. I hate people like you who always yell at someone when they wanna compare 2 games to each other. Shooter is a genre. When you get more in depth than that, its a sub genre. You can easily compare Gears and Halo, but if your going to compare games that have a huge difference it gameplay and design, for example, left 4 dead, then its easily justifiable to say those 2 cannot be compared. SLUSHiNaToR

Am I the only one who thinks horde is soooo dull? I mean the first time you beat it it's really fun but did they have to make half of the achievements horde based? It really gets old, but w/e. I only played firefight alittle bit but it was pretty good but I'm sure would get old just like horde. Now nazi zombies, that's a game mode.

Am I the only one who thinks horde is soooo dull? I mean the first time you beat it it's really fun but did they have to make half of the achievements horde based? It really gets old, but w/e. I only played firefight alittle bit but it was pretty good but I'm sure would get old just like horde. Now nazi zombies, that's a game mode.

commander-cool

Am I the only one who thinks horde is soooo dull? I mean the first time you beat it it's really fun but did they have to make half of the achievements horde based? It really gets old, but w/e. I only played firefight alittle bit but it was pretty good but I'm sure would get old just like horde. Now nazi zombies, that's a game mode.

[QUOTE="SLUSHiNaToR"]I would say that I liked firefight more. It was harder, and it had more strategy to it than horde. I liked both, but Id give it to halo. you can to compare gears to halo.. lol. Your pretty much saying it has to be pretty damn close to being identical like Dante's inferno and God of War. I hate people like you who always yell at someone when they wanna compare 2 games to each other. Shooter is a genre. When you get more in depth than that, its a sub genre. You can easily compare Gears and Halo, but if your going to compare games that have a huge difference it gameplay and design, for example, left 4 dead, then its easily justifiable to say those 2 cannot be compared. phynixblack

Horde is great, but so is firefight. I like both of those modes equally. As far as campaigns go though? I have to say that I prefer Gears, its more intense ALL the way through, unlike ODST where you spend quite a bit of time just walking around levels looking for radar becons. That said I would have to say Gears 2 is my choice.

For in-depth walkthoughs, cheats, and tips for all your games, check out http://www.gameguidedog.com/affiliate/redir.php?id=1188

its a tie they both loss...okay i choose horde :P