Support NeoGAF

[Crab Milk Mickey]

Gears 2 completely destroys Gears 1. The gameplay is so much more varied. Gears 1 had the same type of encounters over and over again. The vehicle section is also 10x better than the one in the original. The music is better. The graphics are better. The gore is more detailed.

I guess I must be one of the few who disagrees with that. The music (just like the laughable "emotional" story) never really stuck with me even though it provided great background music in my book, while I really liked the soundtrack in Gears of War 1.

 

[mysticstylez]

Just picked it up 2 days ago and they weren't kidding when the said "Bigger, Better, more Badass". No pun intended but this game have some EPIC shit going on. Really fucking intense battles. I played Gears 1 for single player, and after playing Gears 2 it makes Gears 1 look like a training mission. Visually I see a huge difference, my jaw dropped, and my wang got hard when I go to each next set piece. I'm floored, I didn't expect it to be this much better....but it is.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Gah my Insane campaign is bugged. I'm at the section where Bloodmounts first show up(ugh) and Dom sits on his ass while Carmine rushes in and gets killed.

I'd rather be playing Horde =/

 

[Raiden]

Wow, i must be slow, i just came to think that "Jack" was probally named after Jack the ripper.

I noticed when Marcus said for the 1.000.0000th time "Jack rip that door!!"


Btw, just got my Hoard the horde achievement, with just one other guy, though it was on Casual, it was pretty hard.

 

[dark10x]

And I still don't quite understand your setting complaint. Gears 1 had a greenish cave level as well, but Gears 2's is even better... both visually and gameplay-wise. Also, Act 5 on the train in Gears 1 wasn't anything special at all, imo.

I think it's pretty clear that the preference is simply due to their focus.

While it's true that Gears 1 featured a caves segment, it only accounted by 50% of a single act. Gears 2 has you fighting subterranean locations for at least 60% of the game. The rest of the game took place around a landscape that fit the "destroyed beauty theme" quite well. All sorts of different architecture filled the various acts. While Gears 2 features some of the best caves around, I still don't much care for that type of environment. I'm not insulting Gears 2, though.

I completely disagree with you on Act 5, however. I absolutely loved the train in the original.

The one thing about the original that I find annoying after playing Gears 2 is the way death is handled. While it can be annoying when your AI partners refuse to revive you, overall, I think that was a great addition.

I thought the lead up to the boss in Gears 2 was awesome. The lead up in Gears 1 was good as well, but there was more variety in Gears 2. I can give you more detail to why I believe this if ya want, Dark.

Yeah, that would be great. I'm very interested in what others have to say about the pacing (rather than just "OMFG YOU'RE SO WRONG. GEAR 2 BETTAR BY A MILLION!!1 STOP SAYING THE SAME NEGATIVE THINGS EVEN THOUGH WE ARE ALSO SAYING THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN ONLY POSITIVE").

 

[AndresON777]

Ryan was right.

It's impossible for me to return to Gears1

Dude blockbuster gives you 25 bucks for Gears 1 it's fucking unbelievable I traded it in yesterday and I got a new game

Spoiler

wii fit LMAO

 

[Future PhaZe]

I'm not a fan of wingman. Mostly its just whoever spawns next to the powerweapons that decides things. And in order to kill boom users (at least competent power weapon users at least) it takes a bit of time and careful planning, which really does nothing for you considering its simply a matter of kills not survival.

 

[The Librarian]

The

Spoiler

brumak

part is better than anything in the Gears 1 final act. Hands down.

 

[kbear]

I think it's pretty clear that the preference is simply due to their focus.

While it's true that Gears 1 featured a caves segment, it only accounted by 50% of a single act. Gears 2 has you fighting subterranean locations for at least 60% of the game. The rest of the game took place around a landscape that fit the "destroyed beauty theme" quite well. All sorts of different architecture filled the various acts. While Gears 2 features some of the best caves around, I still don't much care for that type of environment. I'm not insulting Gears 2, though.

I completely disagree with you on Act 5, however. I absolutely loved the train in the original.

The one thing about the original that I find annoying after playing Gears 2 is the way death is handled. While it can be annoying when your AI partners refuse to revive you, overall, I think that was a great addition.


Yeah, that would be great. I'm very interested in what others have to say about the pacing (rather than just "OMFG YOU'RE SO WRONG. GEAR 2 BETTAR BY A MILLION!!1 STOP SAYING THE SAME NEGATIVE THINGS EVEN THOUGH WE ARE ALSO SAYING THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN ONLY POSITIVE").

Well, you are wrong. Gears 2 is also a much bigger game than Gears 1. The campaign lasts quite a bit longer, so there's not only more varied environments but there's more of them as well.

Let's just go over the first few acts...

Gears 1 Act 1 -- forgetful city area (worst act in the game)
Gears 2 Act 2 -- forgetful city area (worst act in the game)

Ok it's hard to tell which act is when in Gears 2 so I'm just gonna do it by areas now...

Gears 1 has a dark, raining level in an abandoned facility
Gears 2 has the same dark, raining level except in some sort of experimental facility

Gears 1 has a green cave level
Gears 2 has a green cave level

Gears 1 has a very linear tunnel level (act 5 train)
Gears 2 has a very linear tunnel level (inside the worm, and it's far better than the train level, and unlike Gears 1 it's not 10 mins long and the entire act but just a part of the act)

You're misremembering Gears 1 probably in an attempt to downplay Gears 2.

 

[Amir0x]

The end section of Gears of War 2 was certainly much, much worse than the end section of Gears of War 1. Gears of War 1's section used the games mechanics in a compelling fashion which required you to use what you learned to your best ability. The setting was also rad.

The end

Spoiler

Brumak

section in Gears of War 2 basically

Spoiler

abandoned the cover system, forced a atrocious do-nothing end boss, was slow as motherfucking hell and was lame to look at...unlike the train section in the first game

.

I agree Gears of War 2 is much better overall than Gears of War 1, but in terms of the endgame Gears of War 1 >>>>>>>>>>> Gears of War 2.

 

[The Librarian]

I agree Gears of War 2 is much better overall than Gears of War 1, but in terms of the endgame Gears of War 1 >>>>>>>>>>> Gears of War 2.

The

Spoiler

brumak

part is better than anything in the Gears 1 final act. Hands down.

...

 

[dark10x]

You're misremembering Gears 1 probably in an attempt to downplay Gears 2.

...and you're full of shit as I just replayed the damn game (most of it, anyways).

Whatever, it's all opinion anyways.

The

Spoiler

brumak

part is better than anything in the Gears 1 final act. Hands down.

It abandoned the core game mechanics and had you slowly stomping around. I don't see how that's better than an act which requires you to use everything you've learned throughout the game to its fullest in a wide variety of scenarios.

 

[kbear]

yeah i really gotta get crackin on the campaign

 

[kbear]

...and you're full of shit as I just replayed the damn game (most of it, anyways).

Whatever, it's all opinion anyways.

If you'd just played it then you'd know what I said was right on in regards to comparing the levels and also how much longer a game Gears 2 is than Gears 1.

 

[X26]

Does anyone find themselves getting matchmaked with lousy teams? I'm not blaming the actual matchmaking for this, but I just seem to have terrible luck. I'm always matched with a crappy team or against another team who are obivously together as a party.

for me it's always me + randoms vs. parties. Usually one or two on my team will drop right away, and parties for the most part are much more obnoxious than random gorups because they are trying to "showoff" infront of each other.

Would be nice if the game had a palylist that excluded parties

 

[AndresON777]

for me it's always me + randoms vs. parties. Usually one or two on my team will drop right away, and parties for the most part are much more obnoxious than random gorups because they are trying to "showoff" infront of each other.

Would be nice if the game had a palylist that excluded parties

yeah a mercenary mode (no parties) would be nice cos you're going against people that are used to playing together.

but damn when me and 4 of my buds play it's awesome. 5 vs 5 if it's only friends is fucking incredible

 

[dark10x]

If you'd just played it then you'd know what I said was right on in regards to comparing the levels and also how much longer a game Gears 2 is than Gears 1.

Gears 2 is longer, but you failed to include the best environments of Gears 1.

Act 1 in Gears 1 is much more eye pleasing than Act 1 in Gears 2. It starts in the prison (similar to the hospital) and then sends you on a journey throughout plenty of unique areas. You first get your hands on the hammer of dawn to take out those massive creatures, find yourself facing all sorts of different foes in different situations, meet up with Cole, etc etc. There are so many great battles throughout that area that take place in some beautiful structures. It is, however, the least impressive area of the game.

The second act has you initially moving through a very different looking urban area with some of the most beautiful lighting and architecture I had ever seen. It still looks insane today and there's really nothing like it in Gears 2 (even the ending areas). Eventually you end up facing the Krill and have to rely on light in a variety of unique scenarios. This is similar to the rockworm areas, only more deadly. I can see how it might annoy some, but it was a neat change of pace and similar to the razor hail in Gears 2 (but MUCH MUCH more impressive looking). Gears 2 also has an awesome second act, but the scenery in Gears 1 was so much more compelling (for me) than the caves.

The third act of Gears 1 consists of the rainy area at night, the factory, and the caves. Gears 2 repeats the idea of a rainstorm, but you spend much less time IN the rain (plus you get the feeling that it had already been done in the first). I did like the lab setting in Gears 2 better, but I feel they didn't flesh out the creepy sentient AI enough.

Both games have different vehicle sections and neither one was great. I thought the vehicle bit in Gears 1 looked better while the segment in Gears 2 played better. Gears 1 came near the end of Act 2 while Gears 2 used it at the end of Act 3.

Then Gears 2 goes BACK to the caves while Gears 1 goes back to the surface. Both Acts have lots of fantastic battles that take full advantage of the gameplay systems. Eventually Gears 1 has you raiding the mansion along the shore side while Gears 2 has you entering the palace. Both cool, and Gears 2 played better here, but the water side was so compelling for me in Gears 1. The Brumak fight in Gears 1 is kind of lame, however, and feels out of place, but it isn't even present in the 360 version. This was one moment (end of the mansion) in Gears 1 where the game felt unfinished. Gears 2 ended with a more spectacular scene that was a bit awkward to play but really exciting nonetheless.

Then, you have the final act. Both are good, but I think the original is just more exciting overall. The pumping music, the high speed train, variety of encounters, and closer quarters were more fun than the sinking city of Gears 2. The final stretch in Gears 2 totally abandoned the gameplay mechanics, however. After the bit where the E3 segment ends (which I can't believe they showed), the game is basically over (there's no more Gears gameplay left). Both have shitty boss fights, but Gears 2 isnt' even really a fight so much as just pointing at the center.

That's kind of a quick sum. You're making it sound as if I didn't enjoy Gears 2, though. I adore both games but I DO find it insulting that people can't accept the fact that someone might prefer the original. Both are masterpieces and I prefer the first. I can totally understand why someone would prefer the second, however.

 

[RSTEIN]

Just beat the game. While the

Spoiler

brumak

chapter is awesome, it was a letdown as the game's final chapter. In fact, after I killed the

Spoiler

lambent brumak

I couldn't believe it was the end of the game. I was a tad disappointed. It kind of reminded me of Lost Planet, where the fundamental game mechanics are abandoned at the last boss.


All in all, Gears 2 >>>>> Gears 1 by a mile (except for the damn matchmaking issues).

 

[kbear]

Gears 2 is longer, but you failed to include the best environments of Gears 1.

Act 1 in Gears 1 is much more eye pleasing than Act 1 in Gears 2. It starts in the prison (similar to the hospital) and then sends you on a journey throughout plenty of unique areas. You first get your hands on the hammer of dawn to take out those massive creatures, find yourself facing all sorts of different foes in different situations, meet up with Cole, etc etc. There are so many great battles throughout that area that take place in some beautiful structures. It is, however, the least impressive area of the game.

The second act has you initially moving through a very different looking urban area with some of the most beautiful lighting and architecture I had ever seen. It still looks insane today and there's really nothing like it in Gears 2 (even the ending areas). Eventually you end up facing the Krill and have to rely on light in a variety of unique scenarios. This is similar to the rockworm areas, only more deadly. I can see how it might annoy some, but it was a neat change of pace and similar to the razor hail in Gears 2 (but MUCH MUCH more impressive looking). Gears 2 also has an awesome second act, but the scenery in Gears 1 was so much more compelling (for me) than the caves.

The third act of Gears 1 consists of the rainy area at night, the factory, and the caves. Gears 2 repeats the idea of a rainstorm, but you spend much less time IN the rain (plus you get the feeling that it had already been done in the first). I did like the lab setting in Gears 2 better, but I feel they didn't flesh out the creepy sentient AI enough.

Both games have different vehicle sections and neither one was great. I thought the vehicle bit in Gears 1 looked better while the segment in Gears 2 played better. Gears 1 came near the end of Act 2 while Gears 2 used it at the end of Act 3.

Then Gears 2 goes BACK to the caves while Gears 1 goes back to the surface. Both Acts have lots of fantastic battles that take full advantage of the gameplay systems. Eventually Gears 1 has you raiding the mansion along the shore side while Gears 2 has you entering the palace. Both cool, and Gears 2 played better here, but the water side was so compelling for me in Gears 1. The Brumak fight in Gears 1 is kind of lame, however, and feels out of place, but it isn't even present in the 360 version. This was one moment (end of the mansion) in Gears 1 where the game felt unfinished. Gears 2 ended with a more spectacular scene that was a bit awkward to play but really exciting nonetheless.

Then, you have the final act. Both are good, but I think the original is just more exciting overall. The pumping music, the high speed train, variety of encounters, and closer quarters were more fun than the sinking city of Gears 2. The final stretch in Gears 2 totally abandoned the gameplay mechanics, however. After the bit where the E3 segment ends (which I can't believe they showed), the game is basically over (there's no more Gears gameplay left). Both have shitty boss fights, but Gears 2 isnt' even really a fight so much as just pointing at the center.

That's kind of a quick sum. You're making it sound as if I didn't enjoy Gears 2, though. I adore both games but I DO find it insulting that people can't accept the fact that someone might prefer the original. Both are masterpieces and I prefer the first. I can totally understand why someone would prefer the second, however.

Fair enough

 

[The Librarian]

It abandoned the core game mechanics and had you slowly stomping around. I don't see how that's better than an act which requires you to use everything you've learned throughout the game to its fullest in a wide variety of scenarios.

So? It was more fun. Who cares if it abandoned the game's "core game mechanics" as long as it is more fun?

 

[Amir0x]

So? It was more fun. Who cares if it abandoned the game's "core game mechanics?"

Is this a fucking joke?

The worst fucking slight against any game is when they spend the entire time building up a set of specific mechanics, only to have you use none of them at the supposed culmination of the game.

So WHO CARES? I fucking care. dark10x obviously cares. It's lame as shit. It's terrible game design.

It was slow, nonstrategic, abandoned the cover system and ended with an atrocious boss fight, a billion times worse than RAMM. If you can't understand why that is negative, then you're being intellectually dishonest. And I love Gears of War 1 and 2.

 

[The Librarian]

Is this a fucking joke?

The worst fucking slight against any game is when they spend the entire time building up a set of specific mechanics, only to have you use none of them at the supposed culmination of the game.

So WHO CARES? I fucking care. dark10x obviously cares. It's lame as shit. It's terrible game design.

It was slow, nonstrategic, abandoned the cover system and ended with an atrocious boss fight, a billion times worse than RAMM. If you can't understand why that is negative, then you're being intellectually dishonest. And I love Gears of War 1 and 2.

1. It's RAAM.
2. It was only for a short period of time, and it was A LOT of fun.
3. Relax.

 

[Snowden]

If you can't understand why that is negative, then you're being intellectually dishonest.

:lol

 

[Amir0x]

1. It's RAAM.
2. It was only for a short period of time, and it was A LOT of fun.
3. Relax.

I am always relaxed.

2. It doesn't matter if it was for a 'short' period of time, that's the last impression they decided to give the player. And your argument that it is FUN is fine - taste and all that - but that wasn't your comment. You said 'who cares', and I told you who cares and why they care. It is shit, shit game design of the worst order to abandon core gameplay mechanics at the end, when you spend the entire game learning them.

 

[Creamium]

Is it allowed to like both end segments? I sure do. They're complete opposites, but equally fun.

 

[AndresON777]

To me it's like the end of Back to the Future 2, it just builds you up for the next installment. But there's nothing better in gaming than 5 vs 5 gears mp with friends it's like crack. Played for like 4 hours last night.

 

[The Librarian]

2. It doesn't matter if it was for a 'short' period of time, that's the last impression they decided to give the player. And your argument that it is FUN is fine - taste and all that - but that wasn't your comment. You said 'who cares', and I told you who cares and why they care. It is shit, shit game design of the worst order to abandon core gameplay mechanics at the end, when you spend the entire game learning them.

Okay, but I personally don't care. It was fun, and that's all I care about in a videogame: having fun.

 

[Amir0x]

Right, noted, but hiding behind the fun defense does not allow you to object to legitimate criticism as if they are bizarre. If you cannot construct a defense, don't respond to such arguments with a feigned shock.

 

[ToyMachine228]

I've been playing the hell out of multiplayer. I've got to play the campaign again, and make serious attempts to finish Horde. I've only played it two or three times and haven't made it past 19. But I've been doing it with pick up players so...I've got to get more.

 

[kaizoku]

I think Gears 2 is better, but it could also be that its simply newer. Is Gears 2 MP better? I don't know tbh, the maps and balance on Gears 1 was almost perfect, I miss a lot of those maps and of course the matchmaking sucks now, the balance also has a question mark over it.

Campaign-wise, Gears 1 was fuck awesome as well. So glad the lambent wretches have gone, worst thing about Gears 1. for those looking back on gears 1 and thinking it wasn't that great, you could do the same to gears 2. For me, the worm section, the bit with the sires waking up and swarming you, the boss fight with scourge, not that awesome.

I'm glad the bits where you split up aren't as frustrating anymore, the first one required that you pretty much have a perfect run through some really difficult segments, the one in the cave, the mine carts - both super fucking difficult. This time round, it was a lot easier, either you weren't seperate for long, there was less combat involved or you had an AI team mate with you to revive you.

But that also removes a lot of the tension and intensity. for long stretches in part one, one of us would be a sniper covering someone on the ground - that kind of splitting up but still working together barely happens now. But its kind of a good thing I reckon, don't have the patience to re-do certain bits 50 times like I did on the first one.

 

[Randy Lanzarote]

Personally;

Gears 2 >>>>>> Gears 1

Ending of Gears 1 >>>>>> Ending of Gears 2

The train level was great, there was a real sense of anxiety and 'race against time' through the whole train level. It helped that the music was just kickass through that segment. And even though Raam was a absolute bitch to kill I prefer bosses where it comes down to "just blow the mother away with everything you have" as opposed to...well... Gears 2.

The ending of Gears 2 left a similar taste in my mouth as the ending of Halo 3 did. All the gameplay mechanics that you have learnt and perfected over the previous 12 hours are thrown out the window.

(Although if I wanted to be an arse I'd say the real ending to Halo 3 was the double Scarab battle. Soon as the flood turn up its a corridor FPS at its most meh....)

 

[The Librarian]

Right, noted, but hiding behind the fun defense does not allow you to object to legitimate criticism as if they are bizarre. If you cannot construct a defense, don't respond to such arguments with a feigned shock.

I'll argue however I want to.

Spoiler

*sticks tongue out at Amir0x.

Edit:

The ending of Gears 2 left a similar taste in my mouth as the ending of Halo 3 did. All the gameplay mechanics that you have learnt and perfected over the previous 12 hours are thrown out the window.

Um, what? Driving vehicles was a major part of Halo 3's gameplay.

 

[WrikaWrek]

Never realized dark10x liked Gears of War 1 so much.

Weird.

 

[Gig]

It was slow, nonstrategic, abandoned the cover system and ended with an atrocious boss fight, a billion times worse than RAMM. If you can't understand why that is negative, then you're being intellectually dishonest. And I love Gears of War 1 and 2.

While the last section is worse than RAMM, Pale Horse is pretty shitty also.

Also the part preceding it with the Reavers and Lambent wretches wasn't that great either.

 

[Crabcakes]

I felt as if the Brumak section wasn't really part of the overall experience. It seemed to me almost like an added bonus at the end of the game where they were just like "Ok, you played through this whole awesome campaign just have a little fun now." Almost like COD4 and the Mile High Club. I really didn't care that I wasn't taking cover and firing my lancer, it was just a fun little section at the end of the game.

 

[kbear]

Anyone else think the hammerburst sucks? i liked the old hammerburst from gears 1 better with the burst fire

as it is now, it doesn't seem as powerful and you gotta press it fast and all the while aim at the guy

why even have it as an alternative to the Lancer when chainsawing is such a broken and overpowered mechanic? lancer is a million times more effective just for that reason... hell even the main shooting of the lancer is better than the hammerburst imo. Well at least it's easier for me to get kills with it

 

[AndresON777]

Anyone else think the hammerburst sucks? i liked the old hammerburst from gears 1 better with the burst fire

as it is now, it doesn't seem as powerful and you gotta press it fast and all the while aim at the guy

why even have it as an alternative to the Lancer when chainsawing is such a broken and overpowered mechanic? lancer is a million times more effective just for that reason... hell even the main shooting of the lancer is better than the hammerburst imo. Well at least it's easier for me to get kills with it

Agree with you 100%. Only reason I ever pick the HB is cos it's the only golden weapon I have lol

 

[kbear]

Agree with you 100%. Only reason I ever pick the HB is cos it's the only golden weapon I have lol

oddly enough, the Gorgon pistol feels like the real hammerburst with the burst fire (although a little slower and more powerful than the hammerburst in gears 1). Gorgon pistol + shield is a sweet combo

but yeah the hb blows and it's laughable that it's an option in the lobby screen instead of the far superior lancer/chainsaw... i hope epic balances the weaps a bit, i'm sure they will. i really loved the gears 1 hammerburst... it was kinda like a exclusive crew of people who used it a lot and knew about how good it was, know what i mean...prob not

 

[Future PhaZe]

Anyone else think the hammerburst sucks? i liked the old hammerburst from gears 1 better with the burst fire

as it is now, it doesn't seem as powerful and you gotta press it fast and all the while aim at the guy

why even have it as an alternative to the Lancer when chainsawing is such a broken and overpowered mechanic? lancer is a million times more effective just for that reason... hell even the main shooting of the lancer is better than the hammerburst imo. Well at least it's easier for me to get kills with it

Multiplayer or campaign? In campaign I prefer lancer. In multiplayer? Hammerburst all the way if your a good shot. I've had games where I've gotten very few kills but racked up a ton of points just from landing a ton of damaging shots with my Burst and racking up assists. If you've got good accuracy the thing is just lethal. I take guys down in a few trigger pulls if I get actives with it. Aiming down slightly when going full auto helps to control recoil.

 

[SickBoy]

Is this a fucking joke?

The worst fucking slight against any game is when they spend the entire time building up a set of specific mechanics, only to have you use none of them at the supposed culmination of the game.

So WHO CARES? I fucking care. dark10x obviously cares. It's lame as shit. It's terrible game design.

It was slow, nonstrategic, abandoned the cover system and ended with an atrocious boss fight, a billion times worse than RAMM. If you can't understand why that is negative, then you're being intellectually dishonest. And I love Gears of War 1 and 2.

I've gotta say, I thought it was refreshing that the last segment was more or less a cakewalk.

Didn't realize it was absolutely crucial that the end of a game must be a grand tour through the general mechanics of a game (and presumably the hardest section of said game, to boot).

I think part of the plan was to create an epic ending experience. Don't know if they succeeded on that front, but I didn't think it was some deeply insulting atrocity against gamers.

 

[spermatic cord]

but yeah the hb blows and it's laughable that it's an option in the lobby screen instead of the far superior lancer/chainsaw

Are you kidding me the hammerburst is much better. It's pretty much the BR of Gears.

 

[UpperCaseN]

I didn't know you could do unique downed executions with B as well as Y. The one I was missing for the achievement was Torque Bow + B, because I thought I had it already with Torque Bow + Y

 

[kbear]

really? maybe i just suck with it...i'll have to give the hb another shot (multi-player)

 

[Aladuf]

but yeah the hb blows and it's laughable that it's an option in the lobby screen instead of the far superior lancer/chainsaw... i hope epic balances the weaps a bit, i'm sure they will. i really loved the gears 1 hammerburst... it was kinda like a exclusive crew of people who used it a lot and knew about how good it was, know what i mean...prob not

Are you serious? The HB is crazy effective, anytime you've got a 1 HB vs. 1 Lancer, the HB will tear the guy with the Lancer apart. I use both on and off all the time just because of my preference at the time and I'd say both are pretty even in terms of perks (HB has power and a dangerous melee... Lancer has the speed of the shots but they're weaker and the chainsaw).

edit: although if you did use the HB a lot in Gears 1, I can understand why you'd be less attracted to it now

 

[Amir0x]

I've gotta say, I thought it was refreshing that the last segment was more or less a cakewalk.

Didn't realize it was absolutely crucial that the end of a game must be a grand tour through the general mechanics of a game (and presumably the hardest section of said game, to boot).

I think part of the plan was to create an epic ending experience. Don't know if they succeeded on that front, but I didn't think it was some deeply insulting atrocity against gamers.

It's like I've gone to game development elementary, where everyone is developing games on Coleco Vision and it's a bold new frontier of crazy!

You don't understand a gentle flow curve of difficulty? That games crescendo at their most challenging, not at their weakest? That after you learn mechanics, the game should not abandon them right at the pitch for something unrelated?

I am not beyond mixing it up. Nobody is saying that they should not have special segments which require lateral thinking, or unfamiliar gameplay elements. That's part of the game. But when you spend an entire game building up a set of specific gameplay skills, and the difficultly gently increases (as it ALWAYS should - easiest comes first, hardest comes last), you don't fucking toss that shit out the window at the last possible moment for some hollow do-nothing end segment. That's like getting sucked off by Monica Bellucci, only to have her switched off for Lili Taylor near your climax. I'd go flaccid quicker than you could say "SWEET UGLY CHRIST"

I can respect an argument that says it's fun, even if I don't think it is. But at least this thread has taught me once again why the majority of GAFers talk about games, and don't make them.

 

[kbear]

Are you serious? The HB is crazy effective, anytime you've got a 1 HB vs. 1 Lancer, the HB will tear the guy with the Lancer apart. I use both on and off all the time just because of my preference at the time and I'd say both are pretty even in terms of perks (HB has power and a dangerous melee... Lancer has the speed of the shots but they're weaker and the chainsaw).

edit: although if you did use the HB a lot in Gears 1, I can understand why you'd be less attracted to it now

it's not the hb vs. lancer duels i'm talking about (of course hb would win), it's mainly the loss of the chainsaw that's the killer for me. i mean chainsawing is pretty much overpowered and so easy to do and rack up kills with so losing that feature is a big downgrade, imo. i dunno...

 

[urk]

Gears 2 stopped the player from stoppin' and poppin' several times throughout the campaign experience and consistently popped in several substitutes. The close was a pretty radical departure from the "core" mechanic, but I think Epic made it pretty clear that they intended to mix it up all the way through the last act. That's not a bad thing.

Dead Space is a recent example of a finish that adheres pretty strictly to the main mechanics of the game and there were a lot of grumblings about the lack of difficulty in its final throes. There's something to be said for doggedly sticking to what works, but there also has to be a sense of challenge and accomplishment for the player too. That might be why the final bit of Gears 2 leaves a few feeling unsatisfied. The sense of tension and urgency the cover system can provide when it's hitting its highs - that dug in deep, war of attrition style stuff - evaporates when you're given weaponry that instantly turns the tide in your favor.

Gears 1 probably could have used a bit more variety, but as a result, it never let go of the sense of trench warfare its gameplay simulates. RAAM didn't succumb to a constant hail of turret fire or the heavenly strike of the Hammer of Dawn. He didn't fall prey to button-mashing or switch-activation. He forced the player to duck down, slam into the nearest bit of cover, and exchange blows.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I can respect an argument that says it's fun, even if I don't think it is. But at least this thread has taught me that many GAFers are best left on the playing games end of the spectrum, and not the developing them end.

Probably about 95% of the human population are unfit to develop quality titles.

I didn't have much of a problem with the ending. Would have been nice to face more scenarios at the end that really challenged your use of the base mechanics, but it didn't really annoy me much.

 

[Darkman M]

Ok horde mode is the fuckin shit! I know it hasn't been said before just thought you guys should know.

 

[Amir0x]

Ok horde mode is the fuckin shit! I know it hasn't been said before just thought you guys should know.

seriously most entertaining multiplayer mode in years