Gaming Gears of War 2 Hands-on Preview

dont see why so many people are upset about this exclusive crap. it looks as shallow and repeatitive as the original.

pc gamers, we've played better.

 

It's all the stigma that pc gamers are getting the big, fat shaft. Don't forget, chaps, that console exclusivity is killing the pc apparently!

 

I love Gears of War because of the storyline, because of the music, because of the looks, and because of the gameplay, but what I love the most about it is the multiplayer, a preview cannot give you the same MP experience as the final game will because that is the section that will receive the most tweaks between now and launch, and it's the section where you have to play against hundreds of opponents to understand how to play it properly, where you need to work as a team and a single games reviewer cannot do that I'm afraid.

 

I often think that a lot of sites base game scores on some kind of floating scale relative to the game that is being reviewed. For example: Half Life 2 was a pretty awesome game. Better than Bio Shock in many ways. They both got 10/10 scores though. (and both have 96/100 on metacritic) I think it's simply because when a game is reviewed it's scoring scale is based on what it could have been. Of course, it's compared to all sorts of other games, but there is an element of for what this games is, there is not much that could have been done better.

If ya know what I mean...

 

I think it's someone who posted the link to the article on whatever forum (Epic?) Bare Lakus copied his initial post from.


Personally, this is another game I cannot wait to play as the first game was a great experience (especially the multiplayer and co-op).

 

I don't often pipe up on this forum, generally just absorb everything. I also tend to base majority of my game / hardware purchases on the reviews on this site..

I am however very dissapointed with this preview.. Gears of war was the reason i purchased a 360, i still play it now. I don't think anyone expected anything different from GoW, except new additions / tweaks... Yet the reviewer seems to have seen that as a negative. As a result the preview reads like someone who doesn't like the game, for that reason.

My experience with sequels (especially of the same console generation) tend to be the same... A continuation, with nothing much changed. Just have to look at franchises like Halo, GRAW, Splinter Cell etc... Some tweaks / additions are better than others, but when you get right down to it.. Still the same game under the hood. Which isn't a bad thing.. If it's not broke..

 

That will ding dang do for me

 

If I remember back, I think BioShock's similarity to System Shock 2 was mentioned a few times. I'm certainly a big fan of SS2. The thing you have to bear in mind is that SS2 and BioShock were a good ten years apart from each other - with few games like them between. Games in that kind of linear epic FPS/RPG vein come along very rarely. Having played BioShock through again recently, yes I can see maybe it was a case of being a little carried away - but I would never score it lower than a 9 even now. It is a very well made game, except for the Vita Chambers. There are arguements against it in terms of the consolification and "it's SS2 but worse", but in my experience those arguments are often based on a sense of elitism and prejudice against certain types of games and consoles. That too is something I've done myself in the past; I don't claim to be perfect.

People look back on SS2 as the holy grail of gaming and with good reason, but remember that it too wasn't perfect and had many of the same issues that Bioshock does. The fact that those issues now appear on a console too doesn't mean that the game has been consolified per se; it just means the same game is on a console. That said, some obvious console concessions were made for BioShock.

Don't forget that hype cuts both ways too. My personal view is that a lot of people don't like Bioshock now because they too got sucked into the hype. Their hopes were risen to believe that BioShock wasn't just the holy grail of gaming - it was the holy grail of everything! Then, when they see it is still just a game, they feel cheated and start hating. I think that if a lot of those people had found BioShock on their own without the hype then they would have had an entirely different experience.

When it comes to Gears of War 2, again it isn't that I'm slating the game here. I actually quite enjoyed my time with it. It's simply a case that so much is promised about it and so much hype is building that people are starting to expect great things. Could this be the next holy grail?

Simply, no. It's just a game. It's a very good game and it's very polished, accessible and fun - but it's still just Gears of War 1 with different levels and the ability to carry shields. That's enough for some people and for those people I am glad - for me, I had hoped that Epic would raise the bar a little more and unveil some new features that would really effect the gameplay. If you're just looking for some more of what Gears of War 1 offered, then congratulations because this is that. If you're looking for Gears of War taken to the next level and with some and super interesting features and plots and gameplay then this may disappoint you just like BioShock did when compared to System Shock. I can only give my view, and I have. Gears of War 1 was a good game and a big step forward both for the Xbox 360, Epic and for third person shooters in general. Gears of War 2 is a good game too, but it isn't a big step forward and that's a shame. Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved.

I learned a lot from my review of BioShock, which was also one of the first big reviews like that I'd ever done for bit-tech, and I now no longer consider myself as suceptible to hype as I once was. I avoid reading other previews and I go ahead to make my own mind. I'm not sure that everyone on the Epic forums and so on however can say the same when they have a clear and vested interest in the series already.

On a side topic, my girlfriend was playing BioShock the other day. She really enjoyed it.

 

Ouch ! Gears of Wars 1.1... Nothing new... Corridor Shooter...

I think I'll cancel my preorder. Resistance 2 on PS3 looks much more promising according to the previews : /

 

Thanks for the honest review anyway... Looks like 360 fans will have to wait Fable 2 to get a AAA exclusive this year...

 

orginal gears of war was 360 exclusive that lasted all of 8months. So dont bank on this staying 360 online

I expected epic to raise the bar another level and from that pov id agree with the review. I never was blown away by gears of war on the pc. It was a console fps that if it was pc exclusive would not of scored well.

 

I think people are getting pissy for no good reason, the preview says it's more of the same, if you like the sound of this (i.e. if it aint broke), then GOOD, you'll enjoy the game, so stop getting pissy. If you think that's a shame and would have preferred new features, then you agree with the article, so again stop getting pissy.

Although personally I've always been of the opinion that sequals should not necessarilly add new features. It's fun when they do, but it shouldn't be a requirement. Doom 2 had only one more gun than Doom one and some new enemies. The engine was even still called Doom engine (v1.666). Still made the game brilliant. Many sequals just change the content and not the gameplay, but still makes the game good.

I'm sure GOW2 will be an 8+ game, it'll just be an 8+ game that's similar to GOW1, and that in my opinion isn't a bad thing.

 

I have to say that this: http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=248741 contradicts almost everything in the preview.

 

Goes to show then. I was at the same event as Christian - I think we actually played Horde together at one point. It's a difference of opinion it seems. When the vehicle you're on keeps stopping so that the driver can dislodge it and get it moving and you have to fend off the locusts, he finds it exciting. I found it predictable He finds the Ticker enemies exciting, fresh and innovative. I don't hate them, but I found them old hat back when Serious Sam 1 was using essentially the same baddie. This was my main issue with GOW2; I liked it, but I felt like I'd played it already.

I've offered up my two cents anyway and if I'm in a minority then that's fine. I'll just be waiting for the full game now and judge it when I've had more than just five hours with it and can discuss it further with the rest of the bit-tech staff.

 

I must agree with the people slating this 'preview' (even though it sounds like they've made up their mind about the game already), but unfortunately I wasn't surprised with the outcome when I read the name of who wrote the review - sorry, preview: Joe Martin. I'll try and not be as overly harsh as that article I just read was, but I really can't stand this persons' writing. Every single thing I've read of his reeks of amateurism and, how can I put this... irritating gamer syndrome? I've been reading bit-tech for years because of its mature stance towards games and this 'scene' in general but Joe Martin has taken bit-tech's reputation and thrown it to the 14-year old 'leet speaking' stereotypes we all enjoy berating. I don't want to read in any article anywhere, EVER, the word 'pwn' or 'noob'. It's sh*t. Absolute sh*t. So it pains me when I see most bit-tech articles refer to these words, even in jest. There's no need.

I'm also very much of the opinion that Joe Martin can't write at all. All I read in his articles are opinions connected with arbitrary, contrived, unfunny and uninspired metaphors:

Haha! I get it! Monkey poo! Haha! That's funny! And from the end of the Crysis: Warhead review:

Take a second and re-read that. Yeah, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Now this could be sloppy editing but I take more black pleasure in thinking that the effort of writing made him so weary his brain struggled to come up with anything for the final sentence, so he got his dog to moonlight for him. Good boy, Fido.

Anyway, this 'preview' is just another sorry excuse for 'journalism' from this person as far as I can see it. bit-tech, if you're going to pay someone to do something we'd all like to do, make sure they can actually do it in the first place. I've seen more intelligent writing at the primary school I help out in and that, unfortunately for Joe Martin, is a sad fact.

(Whilst I'm at it I'd also like to tell the rabid fanboys for PCs and 360s etc. to SHUT UP. Nothing is better than anything else and, as self-professed gamers, you should be glad you're so spoiled for choice with all of these machines and shiny, complex games for you to ENJOY. I think people forget that word these days.)

 

Thanks for pointing out a typo missed in the editing process in the eloquent way that you did. Now, now Rover, your tea will be ready soon.

 

Again, it's an opinion. Take it as you will. If you like the game then buy/support it and explain to everyone why they shouldn't expect a change or a totally new experience in GoW2. If that's Ok with MS then that's fine. They've done it with the Halo series, right? so why not with GoW. If it continues to sell millions and the majority love it, why take the gamble in changing it?

 

Sorry Joe, didn't mean for it to sound as bad as it did, I was finishing off at work

what I was going to say was that all previews need to be treated as a matter of opinion, NOT fact, and people should read around not just use one site as a bible (see, I managed to get Christian bashing in!)

 

That's all we're doing: offering an opinion based on our limited experience with a title that's still work in progress. That opinion may round one way or another once final code has been released... There's no point in denying the fact that anyone researching purchases would be best to gather the facts and any opinions based on those facts from multiple sources - obviously, we would love to be a single source for information but the fact of the matter is that's never going to happen without multiple opinions from different people in one (or several) articles/reviews. While that's something we'd love to do, it just isn't a financial reality (in terms of my editorial budget).

 

Just multitask bindi and J