[QUOTE="DrinkDuff"][QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"][QUOTE="mephisto_11"]

[QUOTE="Ragnarok1051"]So can we call this a semi-flop?Silverbond

its 94.6% at gamerankings with 28 reviews, R2 is 88.4% with 22 reviews. call it a semi flop if you want. i'll be playing the best shooter this fall

I'm not talking about GR because we're on Gamespot. Lemmings hyped this as a 10 for a while and surely higher than a 9.

A few of them were most definitely hyping it AAAA.

A few hyping it AAAA, just like there were a few hyping LBP AAAA. What are you trying to prove? There are extremists everywhere.

Metal Gear Solid may be ONE of the best games this gen, but not THE BEST. It is hardly good enough to clearly distinguish itself from the cream of the crop. Cows and reviewers have been so intoxicated by the hype surrounding the series and the anticipation it brought that they worship it and give it a perfect 10. The fact that people admit it had a rubbish multiplayer, yet is still the 'best game ever' and a 'perfect 10'? Really exposes the level the gaming media has stooped to, doesn't it?

Neither Gears, GTA 4 nor MGS4 are the best. Don't go too deep into comparing their features, because they are EXACTLY like apples and oranges. Not the same, both leaders in their own genre. We should not overrate games, and also start giving credit where credit is due...but if that were true, we wouldn't have system wars would we?

I think Xbox Live as a online service on a console is unparalleled. It's $50 for ONE YEAR of gaming, that's the price of one game, surely you could forego purchasing one crappy PS3 or 360 game to spend one year of multiplayer madness with a good game. This point in debating paying for online is often blown out of proportion.

...Just like RROD. The chances of you purchasing a 2008 model with RROD is slim as paper. I own three Xbox 360s, none of which ever had RROD, but that's just me. Yet this argument is held so sacred by 360-haters, so much so that even 'neutrals' believe that Xboxes are plagued by RROD. No...it's not. Wake up to the present.

Subrosian, I salute you, sir!

Wonderful 10,000th post! Shows you have good humour, wit and can take a joke.

Wow, going by this we'll never consider Gears of War 2 (9.0). I think GS's review system is inconsistent at best, I always trust IGN anyway lol.

Isn't AAA anything 9.0 and above.

This is typical PR crap. Come on you guys can't seriously believe him, he's getting paid to do this!

And years from now, the best multi-plats will still be developed on the 360 as the lead platform...

I think that 9.0 is a good score, considering the new system but then I feel Gamespot is rather inconsistent. I think the IGN review gives us a much clearer picture, showing the improvements and all and they have been consistent too.

I have never held Gamespot's scoring in the same league as IGN. Let's see what the rest of the media say.

Well as far as newer stuff and more innovation it has to go to R2. Yes gears of war 2 does have better graphics but what have they added in that makes it a better sequel besides graphics? Yes there is the online but resistance 2 changed so much in its online. They added in a co-op campaign, full stats and tourny support with myresistance.net, 60 players with squad based games and new game modes. Gears of war 2 adds in a few more players to its online, co-op, about 2-4 new modes and?

I don't get how gears 2 is the better package.... when resistance 2 offers so much more and if resistance 2 offers it in great quality gears 2 is done for.

fistoflight

You're saying that because the leap from R1 to R2 is huuuuge. Whereas Gears 1 was way better than R1, Gears 2 does not need to add much to form a better game. When you get to the top level, fine things make the difference. Plus, you're comparing the FEATURES added and not the story, level design, atmosphere or gameplay. Do features make a game? NO!

And as many people said, more people in multiplayer is not always better. Gears style of play simply wouldn't work with more than 16 people, I think. It's more close combat, fast paced stuff.

geas of war is the most stupidest game reason#1. they dont tell u what or where the locusts came from 2. the locust should have more advanced weaponry/guns since they can ride flying octopuses, but they dont 3. resistence has a better selection of weapons to choose from... 4.gears isnt even a first person shooter CiocioE1E

Your ignorance is astounding.

Everything about the locust is revealed in Gears 2, and more questions crop up. Resistance with better weapons? Maybe untrue, maybe just a matter of preference. But in my opinion Hammer of Dawn > all Resistance's weapons. I'm not even going to bother arguing your 2nd and 4th points.

You locust-haters have not even played Gears 2 yet. Epic promised to reveal a whole lot more, plus plot twists, so reserve judgement on the game's plot until the thing is out, okay?