-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Gears of War 2 |OT| ...Maria...MARIA!!!
- Thread starter Aladuf
- Start date
The Librarian
Banned
That was to be expected. Good news nonetheless.ultim8p00 said:
dhelfric said:
It's a component cable that will allow you to have an HD image. It's a good quality cable as well. Depending on your TV, you might not be able to get a 1080p image via component though, an HDMI connection will allow this. If you need a cheap HDMI wire (<$5) check out monoprice.com or search for a company called Blue Jeans Cables.
watership said:
This. The ammo boxes are already huge and obvious. They have neon blue outlines most of the time and are almost bigger than a COG soldier's armored foot. As far as too many buttons to remember...what? Im not trying to be mean but, its one of the most simple third person shooter configs around. Even Halo has a more "complicated control scheme" with having a specific button for grenades.
You dont need to know anything but A to run or cover, RT to shoot, LT to aim, and D-pad to change weapons. Maybe remember B for melee stuff. Thats it. The rest is obvious.
StriKeVillain
Banned
My biggest gripe has nothing to do with the game but switching weapons fast sucks because the D-Pad is terrible. I always end up switching to grenades when I want my shotgun.
Kill Your Masters
Member
Ok now here is probably the first feature that pisses me really off: invite all. It wouldn't be so bad if the game wouldnt send an invite to ALL friends on the list, including the offline ones. Every time I boot the 360 up and go online I have 2-3 new messages...gears 2 invites. It's getting a little annoying.
Why couldn't they just set it up so it invites only the online friends...?
Why couldn't they just set it up so it invites only the online friends...?
I am surprised they put so much effort into graying out the names not on gears 2 and offline but not going the extra mile by excluding those people with the invite all function. If I wanted to invite people not in gears 2 I could do that myself manually.Hellraizer said:
I hope they fix matchmaking so it is more like CoD4 matchmaking, less picky in balancing and gets games started faster.
Hmm, I'm well into Act 4 now and it's been almost all caves for a long time. It has occured to me that the level shown at E3 has not yet appeared. Part of the second act resembled it, but I haven't seen anything from it yet. Did they literally show a playable segment from the final act of the game or something? I assume that segment is still in there (why wouldn't it be) which would place it near the end of the game. It just seems odd to me that they would demonstrate something by showing us the ending portion of the game.
I've noticed that all of the pre-release media showed areas that did not take place in caverns when, in reality, at least 50% of the game (or more) takes place in caves of some sort. They do look fairly nice most of the time, but they pale in comparison to the scenery presented in the original Gears. I mean, the original game had a caves section, but it was full of variety and only really accounted for half of a single act. The rest of the game was spent moving through absolutely beautiful locales. The destroyed beauty theme is not really present this time around and I'm really disappointed by that.
When you couple that with the nasty tint used for dark areas (unless you drop the brightness of the game by quite a bit), you end up with an overall less pleasant viewing experience. This most certainly does not look better than the original Gears despite the minor technical improvements that you occasionally see.
I've noticed that all of the pre-release media showed areas that did not take place in caverns when, in reality, at least 50% of the game (or more) takes place in caves of some sort. They do look fairly nice most of the time, but they pale in comparison to the scenery presented in the original Gears. I mean, the original game had a caves section, but it was full of variety and only really accounted for half of a single act. The rest of the game was spent moving through absolutely beautiful locales. The destroyed beauty theme is not really present this time around and I'm really disappointed by that.
When you couple that with the nasty tint used for dark areas (unless you drop the brightness of the game by quite a bit), you end up with an overall less pleasant viewing experience. This most certainly does not look better than the original Gears despite the minor technical improvements that you occasionally see.
gregor7777
Banned
Hardcore feels like the old Normal to me.
Otherwise, graphically this game shits on the first, mostly due to scale. I said wow several times.
Back to playing soon...
Otherwise, graphically this game shits on the first, mostly due to scale. I said wow several times.
Back to playing soon...
Kabuki Waq
Member
I think the game looks way better than gears 1. Having just played gears 1 a while ago it would be pretty hard to go back to it.
gregor7777
Banned
dark10x said:
Well, I'll say I haven't progressed very far. So my opinion may change.
Everything fits so much better together in Gears 2. Gears seemed to have sections that were clearly better looking than others, and so far with Gears 2 I can't see the 'seams', so to speak.
On top of that, with all of the action happening in the background, it amazing I don't feel this game chugging.
I kept waitingRaxus said:
to see him pop up again in Act 5, but he never materialized. I assume he'll show up in the next game if fans like him. Really, they didn't seem to put a lot into any of the new characters; Prescott is a ghost. Tai starts off interesting but is quickly killed off before he can do anything memorable, and Dizzy disappears.
Also, did Skorge's fate come off as ambiguous to anyone else? When he didn't show up again after falling off his mount, I figured he was dead, but the shot of him on the ground didn't feel very definitive.
Also, did Skorge's fate come off as ambiguous to anyone else? When he didn't show up again after falling off his mount, I figured he was dead, but the shot of him on the ground didn't feel very definitive.
Animal
Banned
So I have been playing non stop since friday night. I have been taking my time exploring areas, looking around at the levels and trying different tactics on several fights to see how the AI would react to that and I must say that I am very impressed.
How far am I from the finish line in terms of average game play time?
I was kind of annoyed that after the fight with Skorge, that it wasn't the end of the game. I guess I just wanted to get to the end of the game and say I did it. Looking back now, I am happy there is more.
I am walking through this mansion looking for "the" emergence hole where we are going to drop the light mass bomb.
I am walking through this mansion looking for "the" emergence hole where we are going to drop the light mass bomb.
I shouldn't have to wait until the last act to experience beautiful scenery.
Yes, there is variety in the caves, but none of it is really all that appealing to me. It's good looking, but doesn't interesting or wow me in the same way as the environments presented in the first game.Texture pop-in was fairly rare in the original game just as it is here. However, I also own the PC version of the original which allows me to enjoy it without ANY pop-in as well as using 1080p at 60 fps. Of course, my opinion applies to both versions.
Well, the first area on the rigs was clearly a step up and looked awesome. However, after that, you find yourself in the caves...where you will remain for a long time. I just don't find that type of scenery all that impressive and the lighting is so much more bland. Act 2 of the original took place around a series of absolutely beautiful structures during the evening hours and continued until dark.gregor7777 said:
The area used in Act 3 looks really nice initially, but you end up going inside fairly limited corridors and ending up with some odd looking "hail". It certainly doesn't impress like the rainy area of Act 3 in the original (though the rain itself is an improvement).
Then, after a brief stint in "the caves" in the original game, you emerge to a wide open campus area full once again of great looking structures and a battle along the water side. Gears 2 throws you back into...the caves (only with a bit more temple thrown in).
The final act of the original was such an incredible looking segment and I can only hope Gears 2 turns around and brings us back outside for something equally satisfying.
There's not enough architecture and scenery like this...
UE3 best handles environments like this yet they just keep throwing more caverns at you. Half the game feels like a blur to me while I felt that the original kept changing things up nicely. There hasn't been anything so far that impresses me like those swarming "bat" creatures from the original, for instance.
Everyone keeps claiming that Gears 2 looks so good that they can't play the original, but that makes me feel like I'm playing a different game entirely.
The ranting probably sounds worse than it is, though. I just enjoy going on about these things sometimes.
I think Gears 2 is a great shooter and I'm having a blast. I simply don't believe it to be superior to the original.
ToyMachine228
Member
Getting on Live for a chunk of the day. If anyone wants to get a GAF Horde game going, invite me. RyoGCH is the GamerTag.
Who cares about what Dark has to say his mantra old and worn out. Doesn't know jack. It's more than superior to the original you're just going on about nothing as usual. Not only are people saying it here, but the critics have measured the same response. So who's wrong again, Dark. Again and again. This is nothing new however.
The Librarian
Banned
How are there stranded under Mt. Kanar (is it Kanar or Kundar)? How did they get past all of those brumaks, reavers, etc?
Jtyettis said:
What I like the most about this post is the scientific assumption that Gears 2 is better than Gears 1, when this is largely subjective. I think Gears 2 is better than 1, don't get me wrong, but at least dark is backing his shit up, the man's entitled to his opinion. Jackasses like you are why I don't post in these threads.
dark10x said:
Oh and you have such concise arguments right. Just like GTA IV when I claimed the framerate was better and guess what after valid testing who was right, exactly. Rantings are old.
SailorDaravon said:
I know absolutely hilarious everyone between the media and otherwise have got it so wrong. Dark is right. Give me break. :lol
*shrug*Darklord said:
There's something wrong with your PC then. There shouldn't be any pop-in with that version.
When compared to the 360 version, Gears 2 has the same thing (textures fade in rather than pop, however). Texture pop-in is minimal in both versions (during single player). I'm still playing on a launch 360, by the way. No problems.
Eh? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. GTA IV was full of confusion prior to release. After proper testing myself I can say with 100% certainty that the XBOX360 version of GTA IV runs at a generally smoother framerate. If you suggest otherwise, well, I don't know what to say. I never made any real claim on the matter until I experienced it for myself. There was speculation that the PS3 version ran smoother at one point, but I have proven that to be quite false.
my impressions.
+ love the new weapons and enemies.
+ I personally like the less serious story. Makes it more fun.
- slow down
- no real holy shit moments like the first game.
- locals are not as good as the first game.
- easier than the first game on normal.
8.6
+ love the new weapons and enemies.
+ I personally like the less serious story. Makes it more fun.
- slow down
( specially the snow tank part )
- no real holy shit moments like the first game.
- locals are not as good as the first game.
- easier than the first game on normal.
8.6