Gaming Gears of War 2 Hands-on Preview

[Tim S]

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2008/...s-on-preview/1

We've been playing Gears of War 2 lately, getting to grips with some of the new multiplayer modes as well as the singleplayer campaign. Is the new co-op system any good? Does the multiplayer work? Is it all still brown? Find out in our hands-on Gears of War 2 preview.

[biebiep]

It's exclusive :'(

Army of Two, Gears of War 2...

Why are all decent co-op shoot'em'ups console-exclusives? >_>

[The boy 4rm oz]

Even though I don't have an Xbox I loved playing the original co-op on my mates. I know he has this on order so as soon as he gets it guess where I am going lol.

[tominated]

sooo getting this. I know my good friend is getting it too (he bought his 360 for the original), so we'll prolly be playing a lot of co-op

[cjoyce1980]

i had some of the best nights in play co-op over xbox live with my mates on the first game, so this should be an amazing experience again

[liratheal]

Goody, GoW fever strikes again!

Time to book some time off work..

[Bare Lakus]

Guys, this is an absolute rubbish article. Thanks for posting it Rick, but the author of the article sounds like he's barely played a game before in his life. Here's some of the stuff he wrote that is a pure joke.


Quote:
""It’s got the same gruff space-marine cutouts for characters, the same all-brown colour palette that looks like something a monkey might smear on a wall (if it could manage hi-res smearing) and the same basic gameplay. It’s just another corridor shooter – it just happens to be a very well polished one with some decent multiplayer and great graphics.""


LOL. While I agree that the characters are sterotypical, the other comments are a joke. Reading further on is just helping cement this. "Run and Gun". ROFL.

Okay reading on, this article is a total joke. Not only does it sound like the author has played one shooter in his entire life before this, he says the Gears gameplay has "all been done before". Uhh I'm sorry, but there are no games even remotely like Gears, unless he's counting the whole of the third person genre *rolls eyes*.

And what's more is that throughout the preview he puts it down for being a "corridor shooter". Jesus H Christ, look at the market today and 99% of all games are. Does he put them down as well like this? He even goes so far as to call the game "Gears 1.1" and claims nothing has changed. Strange how that conflicts with every single major gaming news site's previews on the net, huh?

This article needs to be purged from the internet. Thanks for posting it anyway buddy, but this guy doesn't know anything about games in my opinion. People who don't know their stuff shouldn't be posting previews like this.

[ComputerKing]

OH COME ON!!!!!!! FOR GOD LOVE!!!! 360 Exclusive !!! WTF.... I got sick of that. This was the game I was waiting for.... and now I can't get it. grrrrrrrr

anyways. not buying 360 for this game only. I will wait for PC one, or 360 Exclusive means it will not out on PC for ever?

[CardJoe]

Originally Posted by Bare Lakus

Guys, this is an absolute rubbish article. Thanks for posting it Rick, but the author of the article sounds like he's barely played a game before in his life. Here's some of the stuff he wrote that is a pure joke.


Quote:
""It’s got the same gruff space-marine cutouts for characters, the same all-brown colour palette that looks like something a monkey might smear on a wall (if it could manage hi-res smearing) and the same basic gameplay. It’s just another corridor shooter – it just happens to be a very well polished one with some decent multiplayer and great graphics.""


LOL. While I agree that the characters are sterotypical, the other comments are a joke. Reading further on is just helping cement this. "Run and Gun". ROFL.

Okay reading on, this article is a total joke. Not only does it sound like the author has played one shooter in his entire life before this, he says the Gears gameplay has "all been done before". Uhh I'm sorry, but there are no games even remotely like Gears, unless he's counting the whole of the third person genre *rolls eyes*.

And what's more is that throughout the preview he puts it down for being a "corridor shooter". Jesus H Christ, look at the market today and 99% of all games are. Does he put them down as well like this? He even goes so far as to call the game "Gears 1.1" and claims nothing has changed. Strange how that conflicts with every single major gaming news site's previews on the net, huh?

This article needs to be purged from the internet. Thanks for posting it anyway buddy, but this guy doesn't know anything about games in my opinion. People who don't know their stuff shouldn't be posting previews like this.

That's certainly an opinion. Thanks for sharing. I think you're missing the point of the article though, that GOW is essentially a corridor shooter but that this isn't a hugely bad thing. GOW is a good game and it does what it does very well. Unfortunately, from what I played, GOW2 does exactly the same. It isn't worse, but it isn't better either - and that's a little disappointing.

And I've played plenty of games. It's kind of a qualification.

[Bare Lakus]

Actually, I didn't write that, I found it on Epic's forum and posted it here.
Got to agree with him though. When was the last time more of a best selling game was disappointing or bad?

[steveo_mcg]

Originally Posted by Bare Lakus

Okay reading on, this article is a total joke. Not only does it sound like the author has played one shooter in his entire life before this, he says the Gears gameplay has "all been done before". Uhh I'm sorry, but there are no games even remotely like Gears, unless he's counting the whole of the third person genre *rolls eyes*.

I've not played gears but i'm curious as to how it differs from other fps? Genuinely i'm not trolling

[Tim S]

Originally Posted by ComputerKing

anyways. not buying 360 for this game only. I will wait for PC one, or 360 Exclusive means it will not out on PC for ever?

Not for the foreseeable future... and I'm not sure what might happen later down the line. After all, the original Gears was 360 exclusive at first with no sign of a PC version at the time. It was, however, then later announced on PC. I'd be surprised if it didn't move across to PC, since Microsoft's tools make it very easy to do... but I'm not going to place bets on it coming to PC based on CliffyB's fairly recent comments about GOW2.

[CardJoe]

Originally Posted by steveo_mcg

I've not played gears but i'm curious as to how it differs from other fps? Genuinely i'm not trolling

Well, it isn't an FPS for starters. It's a third person shooter - I don't know why everyone thinks its an FPS.

As for differences, I don;t think there are any really. It's you versus the aliens, fighting through ruins and using small squad tactics. The cover system was clever at the time, but rudimentary now. What sets it apart though is how amazingly polished it is as it plays very quickly and easily.

[liratheal]

Originally Posted by Bare Lakus

Guys, this is an absolute rubbish article. Thanks for posting it Rick, but the author of the article sounds like he's barely played a game before in his life. Here's some of the stuff he wrote that is a pure joke.


Quote:
""It’s got the same gruff space-marine cutouts for characters, the same all-brown colour palette that looks like something a monkey might smear on a wall (if it could manage hi-res smearing) and the same basic gameplay. It’s just another corridor shooter – it just happens to be a very well polished one with some decent multiplayer and great graphics.""


LOL. While I agree that the characters are sterotypical, the other comments are a joke. Reading further on is just helping cement this. "Run and Gun". ROFL.

Okay reading on, this article is a total joke. Not only does it sound like the author has played one shooter in his entire life before this, he says the Gears gameplay has "all been done before". Uhh I'm sorry, but there are no games even remotely like Gears, unless he's counting the whole of the third person genre *rolls eyes*.

And what's more is that throughout the preview he puts it down for being a "corridor shooter". Jesus H Christ, look at the market today and 99% of all games are. Does he put them down as well like this? He even goes so far as to call the game "Gears 1.1" and claims nothing has changed. Strange how that conflicts with every single major gaming news site's previews on the net, huh?

This article needs to be purged from the internet. Thanks for posting it anyway buddy, but this guy doesn't know anything about games in my opinion. People who don't know their stuff shouldn't be posting previews like this.

Who is Rick?

No games remotely like GoW? Ho hum. Futuristic setting, humanity on the brink of destruction from some <delete as applicable> alien/monster/mutant menace, your character and his team save the day. Third person game with blind fire and cover system (Let's see here, shall we.. Oh yeah, 90% of the third person action games have those exact systems). When looking at a game from a certain genre - Third person shooter in this case - Is it not normal to compare it with other games of the same genre? Or did I miss that preview/review lesson?

Okay, so. Let me get this straight. Saying it's the same as everything else, according to you, and that this could well be construed as a very tired and boring system is not allowed simply because there are a large majority of games in the same genre that are structured the same way? Innovation - It makes new games fun! Unless you're you, apparently.

I am a big GoW fan - I loved the first one, and I am looking forward to 2. However, I can see exactly why it is suggested that nothing massive has changed, based on the fact that the first game has been refered to as a 'tester', an introduction to the story so to speak. Nothing huge is going to have changed. All that I'm aware of, changes wise, is a slightly destructible environment, some engine tweaks, and some new weapons/obligatory new enemies.

Saying the reviewer knows jack **** because they don't agree with everyone else on the net is simply retarded. Everyone has different opinions of the game - Personally, I love the game. I think that this preview was a shade harsh, but that's the job of a reviewer, they are after all, critics. If they didn't criticise everything, they simply would not be doing their job or doing a shitty job.

Originally Posted by ComputerKing

OH COME ON!!!!!!! FOR GOD LOVE!!!! 360 Exclusive !!! WTF.... I got sick of that. This was the game I was waiting for.... and now I can't get it. grrrrrrrr

anyways. not buying 360 for this game only. I will wait for PC one, or 360 Exclusive means it will not out on PC for ever?

Given the Microsoft idea of 'exclusive' there will probably be a PC launch of it eventually (See Halo, GoW1). Might have to wait a year though

[steveo_mcg]

Originally Posted by CardJoe

Well, it isn't an FPS for starters. It's a third person shooter - I don't know why everyone thinks its an FPS.

As for differences, I don;t think there are any really. It's you versus the aliens, fighting through ruins and using small squad tactics. The cover system was clever at the time, but rudimentary now. What sets it apart though is how amazingly polished it is as it plays very quickly and easily.

well that's a doozy

[ComputerKing]

Thanks Tim for the good news I hope it come true soon

thanks for the preview guys.

[CardJoe]

I imagine it'll hit Games For Windows eventually, just as GOW 1 did.

[The boy 4rm oz]

Originally Posted by CardJoe

Well, it isn't an FPS for starters. It's a third person shooter - I don't know why everyone thinks its an FPS.

FPS has become common terminology for any shooting game. People see a gun and immediately think FPS. It's more of a label not a title any more.

[Solidus]

Im inclined to agree with Bare Lakus (on some points only), this article could be applied to any sequel to a game ever released. I love bit-tech to bits but you guys have really dropped the ball on reviewing allot of games : Why the hell didnt you say Bioshock is pretty much system shock 2 revamped then? Game of the year it was voted by you guys but really...common, there was a thread slating bioshock here on bit-tech saying it was hella overrated:

Originally Posted by Timmy_the_tortoise

Bioshock is over-rated. I don't like it.. Too much Art Deco.. The twenties should definitely be forgotten.

Originally Posted by yakyb

very pretty game but very repetitive (but not as repetitive as assasins creed)

Originally Posted by Veles

Bioshock could have been a legendary epic game, but instead it turned out to be a better than average FPSRPG, although I did enjoy the game, I think it could have been so much more.

Originally Posted by Gunsmith

bioshock: a poor mans SS2 for the console generation.

Originally Posted by Cobalt

They didn't make a good new game they made SS2 with a different setting and consolised it. Still wasn't as compelling as SS2 though. Bioshock never really scared me, despite the graphical enhancements and surround sound.

Originally Posted by alexandros1313

This man has said it all.

In responce to :

Originally Posted by Gunsmith

bioshock: a poor mans SS2 for the console generation.

Originally Posted by knyghtryda

Bioshock is a great game for those gamers who missed out on System Shock 2, just like Deus Ex 2 was a decent game for those who never played Deus Ex (please, if you haven't played Deus Ex, go play it. It may be flawed in parts, but it takes one hell of a flawed game to get GOTY awards all over the place...) My main dig against Bioshock however is that they took the EXACT SAME story arc of SS2 and stuck it with an art deco setting. Who needs spoilers when you already know the big twist because its exactly the same as the previous game? I thought the big reveal was done well in Bioshock, but it was nowhere near as disturbing, scary, or moving as the big reveal in SS2.

Originally Posted by Lepermessiah

Bioshock like most games today that are hyped, are overrated. it seems everytime a good game comes out IGN and gamespot give them top scores, or even 10`s now.

Originally Posted by liratheal

It should have flopped because it was bloody awful, in my opinion.

It tried ever so hard to be Fallout and System Shock 2 in a really horribly art deco themed universe. I enjoyed bother Fallout and System Shock 2, but if I wanted to play those games, I'd play those games, not some crappy attempt to recreate them :/

Chris Kline - Lead programmer for Bioshock said :

Apparently for the first few years of development, the team had little more of an aim than to remake System Shock 2

and one by myself:

The game never deserved the 10/10 mark it was given. Too many websites gave into the media hype.

You see? You have the lead programmer of bioshock saying he started off by simply recreating system shock 2 - Yet it recieves 10/10 from bit-tech? I question this as the core reason that seems to put you against Gow2 is that "its been done before" - This could have applied to bioshock but didnt? Why?

Allot of the things said in your preview I cant help but disagree - There IS a fairly good storyline in Gears Of War one , you just have to listen to the dialogue. It isnt simply spoon fed to you like most games but you catch it in the passing conversations throughout the game - Marcus's trial, imprisonment, his fathers role, Dominic hinting about Maria, Carmine talking about Marcus being a War hero "The Marcus Fenix?" It doesnt take a genuis to figure out it was a setup for the sequel where you find out more.

Its not Final Fantasy but hell, its action, strapped with a background you have to unravel.

Gears of War 2 may be the same as the first one but hell, I am in the opinion that the first one was something quite new and was one hellava game anyways!

Yes you could label it "just another corridor shooter" but hell - What seperates half-life, the "great bio-shock", Resistance fall of man etc from each other? not allot really. Gears added the whole "duck n cover" system which I certainly never experienced before to such an extent, the graphics were bloody awesome and it was one hell of a adreneline rush playing it.

Personally, with me reading the article I get the impression the writer thought he would go against the tides with what everyone was saying before even playing it and had already made his mind up that he would put up reasons against it - Just to stand out - I don't know, maybe.

[liratheal]

Originally Posted by Solidus

Allot of the things said in your preview I cant help but disagree - There IS a fairly good storyline in Gears Of War one , you just have to listen to the dialogue. It isnt simply spoon fed to you like most games but you catch it in the passing conversations throughout the game - Marcus's trial, imprisonment, his fathers role, Dominic hinting about Maria, Carmine talking about Marcus being a War hero "The Marcus Fenix?"

Its not Final Fantasy but hell, its action strapped with a background you have to unravel.

I agree with this section - A lot of the story had to be 'found' rather than just being given (the special edition did kinda just.. give you most of it, though).

However - I'm damned glad it's not FF, I could do without another spreadsheet game, thanks!