Gears of War 2's Campaign sucks

  • 85 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Artie (690 posts) -
Gears of War was amazing

Gears of War 2 came out last Friday, and ever since the Triple A title dropped from store shelves into our disc trays its been getting considerable praise. The original Gears of War is a hard act to follow. The first game combined an excellent single player campaign with a fantastic multiplayer component (which later was dragged down to a "ok multiplayer component" but that's a different story). So how do you improve something that's nearly perfect? As Cliff Bleszinski said at GDC earlier this year, you make it "bigger, better, and more badass." I won't say that Epic failed to deliver on the promise entirely, but I honestly do not understand anyone who found the campaign to be anything more than "satisfactory."

Let's set up a comparison first. The easiest game to relate Gears of War 2 to is... well, Gears of War 1. The original game opened with a quick intro as Dom breaks Marcus out of prison. These two partners are forced to escape the prison before it gets shelled by allied bombing runs, and along the way they have to kill a few Locust, and get dangerously close to a corpser. After the blockbuster break out, the game's first Act introduces the player to many gameplay designs. You fight behind cover a lot, have a run in with wretches, get introduced to franchise favorite Augustus Cole, evaporate some seeders, save Baird's squad thanks to a rail gun sequence, and finish it off with a bang by taking down a berserker.

Even when Gears 2 does something new, it doesn't stick around for long

After Act 1's astonishing first impression, we're treated with the best Act in the entire game, if not one of the best levels of all time. Act 2 combines gorgeous lightning visuals, simple but tactic-required gameplay elements (the Kryll) and ends on climatic battle where the player helps the stranded fight off the Locust. Unfortunately the preceding act was extremely disappointing. Act 3 attempted to incorporate horror themes, and strayed too far from the core gameplay. Players had to rely on dodging exploding wretches, and master frustrating mine cart sequences if they wanted to access to the remainder of the game. The third act’s boss was also laughable. Luckily Act 4 kept the player top side as opposed to sticking underground, and put the player back to urban fighting in the city’s streets. Finally Act 5 was the climax of the game, having players deal with a Berserker on a train, rush to the front before all the carts were disconnected, and finally kill General RAAM.

It’s hard not to spend at least two paragraphs on Gears of Wars’ original campaign, because it was so perfect. Alright scratch that, Act 3 was the most disappointing abortion of a level in video game history, but everyone has faults. Gears knew when to change up the pace, when to have a climatic boss battle, and when to stick to small skirmishes. Overall the experience was delightful, and everyone adored its phenomenal level design. The few problems Gears’ single player had were forgivable. The occasional unskippable radio sequence where players had to walk slow for 30 seconds or even a minute, and of course, whenever a checkpoint was placed before an annoying dialogue sequence or cut scene. We figured everything would be improved in the sequel.

Every new character in Gears 2 is forgettable

Well it wasn’t.

A lot of people have not finished Gears of War 2’s campaign, but the game just falls flat in its execution of providing an entertaining experience. The first Act of the game is a borefest. Even if you choose to skip over the elongated optional tutorial, that won’t help speed things up to the good parts. The first twenty minutes of the game is running around listening to radio chatter, watching cut scenes, being introduced to character before you even get a chance to reload your weapon. Apparently Epic figured that you were tired of watching cut scenes, so split the action up by going straight to an on rails vehicle sequence.

If there’s anything more annoying in a video game, is when you get a game over, and it wasn’t your fault. The Derrick combat is flat out BORING. You’re tasked with shooting Nemacyst when you should be shooting Locust in the face. The game changes the pace before you have time to get sick of the core gameplay. There are a few sequences that require you to use a mortar or shoot at tickers in the dark for fifteen minutes, but that’s not what I wanted to do in a sequel of Gears of War.

Worst. Enemy. Ever.

After Act 1 ends the game doesn’t get any better. Without spoiling anything, you spend the majority of the game underground, the one place that everyone hated being in for the first Gears game. When you’re not underground you’re either in the belly of a beast that’s clearly just a tech demo to show off what Unreal’s engine can do, or you’re in some old laboratory that eerily reminds me of Act 3’s abysmal design.

Just when the game starts to get fun, it ends. Act 5 is literally the best part of the entire game. It’s the definition of what Gears of War 2 should’ve been. If you want a clearer hint of that, the demo shown off at E3 2008, it’s from Act 5, actually it’s from the last 10 minutes of the game. You know how at the end of thedemo they teased riding a Brumak? Well five minutes after that, the game ends.

What annoys me the most about Gears 2 is the return of so many elements that everyone despised from the original. There are more radio transmissions then ever, checkpoints are fewer and farer between, with more cut scenes spliced in between, and exploding wretches return with the new name “tickers.” I don’t see the point of bringing back gameplay concepts that everyone hates. Are they trying to lose fans? Maybe they’re pressuring us that we shouldn’t care about single player because it’s clearly a multiplayer game? There are so many tiny adjustments they could’ve made to this game to make it bearable.

Perhaps it's best the game stays multiplayer focused

That being said, Gears of War 2 is a fantastic multiplayer game, and any praise regarding that aspect of the game is fully deserved. However the single player experience, even in co-op is mediocre at best. I’d also like to mention that the game is a lot easier than it was before. You can spend the entire game out of cover on the Hardcore difficulty and have no problem. This may have been an attempt to make it more accessible, but my mind is boggled by how easy “Casual” must be at this point when “Hardcore” is a walk in the park.

Does anyone agree with me?

#1 Posted by Artie (690 posts) -
Gears of War was amazing

Gears of War 2 came out last Friday, and ever since the Triple A title dropped from store shelves into our disc trays its been getting considerable praise. The original Gears of War is a hard act to follow. The first game combined an excellent single player campaign with a fantastic multiplayer component (which later was dragged down to a "ok multiplayer component" but that's a different story). So how do you improve something that's nearly perfect? As Cliff Bleszinski said at GDC earlier this year, you make it "bigger, better, and more badass." I won't say that Epic failed to deliver on the promise entirely, but I honestly do not understand anyone who found the campaign to be anything more than "satisfactory."

Let's set up a comparison first. The easiest game to relate Gears of War 2 to is... well, Gears of War 1. The original game opened with a quick intro as Dom breaks Marcus out of prison. These two partners are forced to escape the prison before it gets shelled by allied bombing runs, and along the way they have to kill a few Locust, and get dangerously close to a corpser. After the blockbuster break out, the game's first Act introduces the player to many gameplay designs. You fight behind cover a lot, have a run in with wretches, get introduced to franchise favorite Augustus Cole, evaporate some seeders, save Baird's squad thanks to a rail gun sequence, and finish it off with a bang by taking down a berserker.

Even when Gears 2 does something new, it doesn't stick around for long

After Act 1's astonishing first impression, we're treated with the best Act in the entire game, if not one of the best levels of all time. Act 2 combines gorgeous lightning visuals, simple but tactic-required gameplay elements (the Kryll) and ends on climatic battle where the player helps the stranded fight off the Locust. Unfortunately the preceding act was extremely disappointing. Act 3 attempted to incorporate horror themes, and strayed too far from the core gameplay. Players had to rely on dodging exploding wretches, and master frustrating mine cart sequences if they wanted to access to the remainder of the game. The third act’s boss was also laughable. Luckily Act 4 kept the player top side as opposed to sticking underground, and put the player back to urban fighting in the city’s streets. Finally Act 5 was the climax of the game, having players deal with a Berserker on a train, rush to the front before all the carts were disconnected, and finally kill General RAAM.

It’s hard not to spend at least two paragraphs on Gears of Wars’ original campaign, because it was so perfect. Alright scratch that, Act 3 was the most disappointing abortion of a level in video game history, but everyone has faults. Gears knew when to change up the pace, when to have a climatic boss battle, and when to stick to small skirmishes. Overall the experience was delightful, and everyone adored its phenomenal level design. The few problems Gears’ single player had were forgivable. The occasional unskippable radio sequence where players had to walk slow for 30 seconds or even a minute, and of course, whenever a checkpoint was placed before an annoying dialogue sequence or cut scene. We figured everything would be improved in the sequel.

Every new character in Gears 2 is forgettable

Well it wasn’t.

A lot of people have not finished Gears of War 2’s campaign, but the game just falls flat in its execution of providing an entertaining experience. The first Act of the game is a borefest. Even if you choose to skip over the elongated optional tutorial, that won’t help speed things up to the good parts. The first twenty minutes of the game is running around listening to radio chatter, watching cut scenes, being introduced to character before you even get a chance to reload your weapon. Apparently Epic figured that you were tired of watching cut scenes, so split the action up by going straight to an on rails vehicle sequence.

If there’s anything more annoying in a video game, is when you get a game over, and it wasn’t your fault. The Derrick combat is flat out BORING. You’re tasked with shooting Nemacyst when you should be shooting Locust in the face. The game changes the pace before you have time to get sick of the core gameplay. There are a few sequences that require you to use a mortar or shoot at tickers in the dark for fifteen minutes, but that’s not what I wanted to do in a sequel of Gears of War.

Worst. Enemy. Ever.

After Act 1 ends the game doesn’t get any better. Without spoiling anything, you spend the majority of the game underground, the one place that everyone hated being in for the first Gears game. When you’re not underground you’re either in the belly of a beast that’s clearly just a tech demo to show off what Unreal’s engine can do, or you’re in some old laboratory that eerily reminds me of Act 3’s abysmal design.

Just when the game starts to get fun, it ends. Act 5 is literally the best part of the entire game. It’s the definition of what Gears of War 2 should’ve been. If you want a clearer hint of that, the demo shown off at E3 2008, it’s from Act 5, actually it’s from the last 10 minutes of the game. You know how at the end of thedemo they teased riding a Brumak? Well five minutes after that, the game ends.

What annoys me the most about Gears 2 is the return of so many elements that everyone despised from the original. There are more radio transmissions then ever, checkpoints are fewer and farer between, with more cut scenes spliced in between, and exploding wretches return with the new name “tickers.” I don’t see the point of bringing back gameplay concepts that everyone hates. Are they trying to lose fans? Maybe they’re pressuring us that we shouldn’t care about single player because it’s clearly a multiplayer game? There are so many tiny adjustments they could’ve made to this game to make it bearable.

Perhaps it's best the game stays multiplayer focused

That being said, Gears of War 2 is a fantastic multiplayer game, and any praise regarding that aspect of the game is fully deserved. However the single player experience, even in co-op is mediocre at best. I’d also like to mention that the game is a lot easier than it was before. You can spend the entire game out of cover on the Hardcore difficulty and have no problem. This may have been an attempt to make it more accessible, but my mind is boggled by how easy “Casual” must be at this point when “Hardcore” is a walk in the park.

Does anyone agree with me?

#2 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -

Nope.

#3 Edited by Discorsi (1390 posts) -

Dude Act 3 was the best part of Gears 1.  The rest was just meh except for act 5. Gears 2 campaign was awesome although some of the vehicle sequences, I'm looking at you stupid tank level, were lame and so was the final "boss."

#4 Posted by Pibo47 (3166 posts) -

Yeah.....whatever.

#5 Posted by Jayge_ (10221 posts) -

Fine, fine writing from one of TalkXbox's finest, folks.

/sarcasm

#6 Posted by Prime20 (168 posts) -

Your by your self on this one bub.

#7 Posted by Systech (4078 posts) -

I have the right to say this: you are completely and utterly wrong.

#8 Posted by Absurd (2934 posts) -

Thumbs up for taking the time to write that out, Good luck!

#9 Posted by GamerGeek360 (1959 posts) -

I haven't played it but my friends say they're pretty disappointed with the campaign as well.

#10 Posted by Tru3_Blu3 (3201 posts) -

Gears of War2's campaign was epic. I am quite disappointed by the fact that there were no Berserkers and the Hammer of Dawn was only seen near the ending, but that's fine.

#11 Posted by Coltonio7 (3156 posts) -

Replay it with a friend on local multiplayer, much more fun.

#12 Posted by HellBound (1066 posts) -

Wow look at people's comments. You my friend don't care about other people and don't care about what people think, so major points for writing this in the first place.  You shouldn't have to in the first place. I agree on some stuff. My biggest complaint is that it is too much like Gears 1. I liked Gears 1 and stuff worked...but 2 years later I am still tired of it, I need something new not just " improvements" AKA Rockband 2.

#13 Posted by wefwefasdf (6729 posts) -
systech said:
"I have the right to say this: you are completely and utterly wrong."
Yes!
Tru3_Blu3 said:
"Gears of War2's campaign was epic. I am quite disappointed by the fact that there were no Berserkers and the Hammer of Dawn was only seen near the ending, but that's fine."
Yes!
Prime20 said:
"Your by your self on this one bub."
And Yes!
#14 Posted by tmontana1004 (376 posts) -

Not even going to read. I laugh at people who take gaming this seriously.

#15 Posted by Gameboi (653 posts) -

So far, I'm enjoying it more than Halo 3... and I loved that.

#16 Posted by pill92 (559 posts) -

Artie ,i have to hand it to you,your a great writer and make good points but i disagree.  While the Gears formula did not stray to far from the original it was still fun and the new <spoilers> make it a very enjoyable.

#17 Posted by Artie (690 posts) -

I think most of the "tl;dr" comments are because all blogs have to be posted in a forum now, and all recent topics go to the main "forum" section so a bunch of random people who don't read my blog get in here.

#18 Posted by Lies (3866 posts) -
Artie said:
"I think most of the "tl;dr" comments are because all blogs have to be posted in a forum now, and all recent topics go to the main "forum" section so a bunch of random people who don't read my blog get in here."
Blogs don't have to be posted in a forum. Just navigate away when it asks you to choose a forum to cross-post in. The blog will still post to your profile, just not to the forums.
#19 Posted by BraindeadRacr (523 posts) -

I don't know man... You complain too much... Did I just say that?

#20 Posted by GioVANNI (1285 posts) -
HandsomeDead said:
"Nope."
#21 Posted by Psynapse (1064 posts) -

Artie, great post, its good to see what other people think of the game. Unfortunately, I don't agree with your post what-so-ever, and i know alot of other people wont.

I played this through with a mate over co-op and now i'm playing it again with my partner, she absolutely loves the game... Hell, the part with doms wife made her cry.

I love the whole franchise, Gears 2 is better than Gears 1 in so many ways. From riding Ravens to riding on Brumacks, it endless carnage... Not once did i get bored with the campaign. Hell, even the Vehical sequence in this game was great, and compared to Gears 1 was a complete masterpeice (not saying it was perfect).

It seems to me as though you missed the point of the storyline and what it was actually trying to accomplish. It looks like you just rated Gears of War 2 on its gameplay alone (which is strong enough to stand on its own in my opinion). You didn't touch on the fact that the story was extremely well put together and really pulled you in and makes you care about the characters and the decisions that they make.

- Tai with his beliefs and struggle with the Locust Torturing, the fact that even he can be effected by it.
- Dom and his wife Maria.
- The obvious loving/caring relationship that Marcus seems to have for Anya.
- The way that Carmine tries to impress everyone, and gives it his all to honor his family.
- The Locusts fight for survival
- Marcus and more ties to his Father, is he still alive? What part does he actually play in all of this?

Those were just a few of the things which really stood out to me in the storyline.

The gameplay was just outstanding, from new guns, to the improved cover system, and even the riding of the brumak. You can't falter the game.

I agree that this is just your opinion, and this was mine, i'm not saying that everyone will agree with me... but i wanted to give my 2 cents.

Cheers.

#22 Posted by Unreal_dro (277 posts) -

Gears2's campaign is amazing

#23 Posted by Joker (675 posts) -

I think the campaign in Gears 2 is much more better in Gears 1.

#24 Posted by Roger_Klotz (776 posts) -
#25 Posted by daniel_beck_90 (3159 posts) -

I did not even attempt yo read your poor Blog , you are totally wrong

#26 Edited by HistoryInRust (6289 posts) -

I'm not going to argue with your opinion, but you say some things about both Gears titles that I think ought to be challenged.

Artie said:

"After Act 1's astonishing first impression, we're treated with the best Act in the entire game, if not one of the best levels of all time."
Really?  You hold Act 2 in that high a regard?  Even in the narrow focus of the shooter genre, that statement elevates Act 2 to the peak of Halo's "Silent Cartographer", and the Strider battles of Half-Life 2, not to mention some of the more memorable scenes from games like Goldeneye. 

Artie said:
Act 3 was the most disappointing abortion of a level in video game history, but everyone has faults.
Again, keeping the discussion confined to the realm of shooters, this statement places Act 3--which is, in my opinion, one of the more interesting acts in the original Gears of War--alongside the likes of Halo's "The Library" and Halo 3's "Cortana"; both of those missions are widely regarded as some of the most repetitive and tedious examples of negligent level design in modern first-person shooters.  Act 3 at least does what it can to vary the environments, and I'd go as far as to argue the lackluster driving sequence of your lauded Act 2 is more frustrating than the lambent wretches of Act 3. 

Artie said:
If there’s anything more annoying in a video game, is when you get a game over, and it wasn’t your fault. The Derrick combat is flat out BORING. You’re tasked with shooting Nemacyst when you should be shooting Locust in the face. The game changes the pace before you have time to get sick of the core gameplay. There are a few sequences that require you to use a mortar or shoot at tickers in the dark for fifteen minutes, but that’s not what I wanted to do in a sequel of Gears of War.
This isn't even a cohesive paragraph.  You make one point in the first sentence, and then diverge onto some tirade about boredom.

Artie said:
There are more radio transmissions then ever, checkpoints are fewer and farer between, with more cut scenes spliced in between, and exploding wretches return with the new name “tickers.” 
Firstly, the cutscenes and radio interactions are all integral to the story this time 'round, and secondly, you can skip them by pressing the "back" button.  Yes, even the radio transmissions--they aren't masking load times, now. 

You're complaining about the checkpoints?  I guess I don't see the basis of your argument here.  I figured frequent checkpoint-ing to be a good thing.  Look at Call of Duty 4, whose checkpoint system, based mostly on arbitrary positioning and timing and not some objective factor, is about as close to broken as you can get without calling your game Dead Rising.  Gears, in this sense, is emulating Halo, or even Half-Life, and the frequent checkpoints nullify the tedium in dying--which, on the harder difficulties, will happen often--and keep the player in the midst of the action. 

Also, Tickers = Lambent Wretches?  Not quite.  The melee feature, that is, the fact the player can send them rocketing away before they detonate, adds a welcome dynamic to the gameplay.  You couldn't do that with the Wretches, which is probably the foundation for your gripe with them. 

I'm sorry, man, but this post takes a few too many logical liberties to be a compelling argument.  I respect your opinion, but it just doesn't appear to be well-founded. 
Online
#27 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -
Artie said:
"I think most of the "tl;dr" comments are because all blogs have to be posted in a forum now, and all recent topics go to the main "forum" section so a bunch of random people who don't read my blog get in here."
I doubt it. I read it and i'm sure many others did. Just no one agrees.
#28 Posted by TEAMHOLT (437 posts) -
Artie said:
"I think most of the "tl;dr" comments are because all blogs have to be posted in a forum now, and all recent topics go to the main "forum" section so a bunch of random people who don't read my blog get in here."
Having your blogs show up in the forums is totally optional. Just ignore the prompt to do so after you submit your blog.
#29 Posted by Vecta (167 posts) -

Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one...

#30 Posted by Snail (8593 posts) -

Get ready for the FLAMING!

Unless everyone disagrees with the guy... Then there won't be any flaming because we are all on the same side...











































Where is Levio when you need him?!
#31 Posted by PureRok (4235 posts) -

Well, I could have told you this game wouldn't be any better than the original. Amazing, I know, after how bad the first one was.

#32 Posted by Snail (8593 posts) -
PureRok said:
" Amazing, I know, after how bad the first one was."
PREPARE FOR FLAMING!
Seriously dude... Who the fuck didn't like the first one? It was repetitive sure, but it's an alien slaying shooter what the hell did you expect? Care to elaborate on that?...
#33 Posted by mordecaix7 (657 posts) -

Don't agree.  I love it except for that stupid tank level.

#34 Posted by EpicBenjamin (624 posts) -

I agree totally with Psynapse, the story now has actually...... well, story in it. And it's actually emotional.

#35 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

Somebody doesn't appreciate good game and level design when they see it.

#36 Posted by Blinck (185 posts) -

damn

#37 Posted by pill92 (559 posts) -
#38 Posted by shadows_kill (3165 posts) -

just cause he has a opinion everyone attacks...not everyone likes gears...

#39 Posted by Gearhead (2251 posts) -

I completely disagree, but ok.

#40 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) -
shadows_kill said:
"just cause he has a opinion everyone attacks...not everyone likes gears..."
Of course it's his opinion and on the internet, he has a right to speak it, but when a lot of his points are just nitpicking and the whole thing is written as some me against the world tirade, don't blame people for hating on it.
#41 Posted by Vinchenzo (6192 posts) -

I think you're confusing the gameplay, level design, and artistic wealth with the storyline. The storyline sucked, because it did not progress or do anything remotely interesting -- all it did was leave an opening for another game. The level design was amazing, how about you try and make a level with cover that isn't glaringly cliche and out-of-place. All of the levels felt epic, and while I did somewhat hate the underground levels, it's just because I appreciated the levels above ground that much more. Obviously nobody agrees with you, and nice effort on your part specifically concerning how much text you threw out to compliment your terrible taste.

#42 Posted by callme1800 (1 posts) -

Gears of War 2's campaign was complete shit. I was in fact so disappointed in this sequel that I made a sloppy sign-up to this site just  to contrast these mind-numbingly stupid comments (then again, what else can you expect from a site that lets you choose your own "system allegiance" but I digress)

(seriously though, what the hell)

I suppose these people have such a strong bias for this game because they're in love with the multiplayer. Either that or they dug the more shallow aspects of the last game-- and how great for them, because that's pretty much what was expanded on the most. 

And if the game design was poor, the writing/dialogue is worse. If I have to hear another line with the word "grubs" in it I think I'll puke. I don't know how the player is supposed to take Dom seriously when he's saying such stupid shit all the time. Most will eat it up though, because of the whole decaying-loved-one plot point (which was also pretty contrived.) I really think the characters this time around turned into puppets for stupid writing, and the voice actors didn't sound so good having to act out said dialogue.

Overall I think I was more angry with the writing than anything else. In the first installment I could tolerate the most annoying parts of the games easily-- other aspects of the game like the dialogue, atmosphere and etc. pretty much stabilized my patience. Even the music was astounding. But most of the time there was the full package, you had the interesting and intense battles too. 

I'm not saying the gameplay was deprived of everything from the last, but a lot of it could have been done better, or at least more intelligently; you know what I mean? For example You get to ride the Brumak, but riding it is so similar to what you had already done in the past Acts, like when you drive the vehicle or...whatever else had rockets or turrets. There was like a billion of them so who cared at that point? Then there's the obstacles which takes...half a brain cell to simply knock over. It makes up this poor excuse of an objective, and it also happens frequently.

I mean, I might as well recall the gaming experience here as simply "beating arbitrary obstacles". The Rockworms? They're basically hit-or-miss after the first five minutes. That scene with the Corpsers in the dark? That was pretty cool, if only getting out of that situation wasn't the exact same as most of the game. In fact, that scene was probably the only obstacle-oriented part I found acceptable.

There's just nothing intense about it, nothing interesting about it, and nothing worthwhile about it, either. As merciless as it sounds to diehard fans that's just how the experience ended up feeling like. 

Sorry about such a lengthy reply :X I'm not a nerd, I swear, but this sequel disappointed me so badly.

#43 Posted by methic (1 posts) -

first off gears of war was and still is my favourite game of all time.
however epics gears of war 2 was a epic fail.
i agree one hundred percent with your opinion of the campiagn. it felt like they were trying to put all the shooters they could possible think of together. theres a winter level , a horror science laboritory stage, a boat level from resident evil. and the cheassy dialogeu i mean really dom ponding the side of a car " maria not again maria"

the only thing i dont agree with is you saying "gears of war 2 is a fantastic multiplayer". i mean OMG have you played the multiplayer lets see.
number 1 problem: the connection is total crap  
horrible matchmaking system: takes forever to find a match with out a complete party.
everything is horrible slown down: wich is strangly different from all the fast past pace games epic has put out in the past
cartoony graphics: one of the first things i noticed while playing gears 2 was how overly coloured everything was and how fake the blood looked go back to gears 1 and see what i mean. i know that they said that they wanted to improve on the lighting but the dark style of gears of war is what made the first one.
chainsaw: yes everyone bitches about the chainsaw but come on stuning that shit is redicuolus and you all know it. all you can do is roll backwards and fire back.
two piecing: lame it is the most effective way to fight and that is lame
blindfiring: all i'm saying is it helps to by host
sniper lag: i dont know why they had to go and try to mask the lag but come on in gears 1 you could shoot the ground astablish how much lag there was and compensate for it in ou'r shoots.
stun nades: ya the key idea here would have been to make them just that stun nades not concuosion gernades i mean wtf
weapon bullshit: boomshot has 3 rounds that makes sence, frage nades increased radius, proximity nades noobish
glitches: i love fighting invisible people, and host lag, or a shield and shotgun
glitchy bullshit; yes if you've played ranked matchmaking im sure a number of impossible lagy crap has happened to you.
ranking system: i love a ranking system were the main goal is to dashboard when ever you'll about to expearence a loss.
cover system: worst cover ever most of the time peoples heads stick out so far i dont even want to fire.
stoping power: ok thats is not needed the lancer was still an effective weapon in the first gears if you were smart enouf to know how to use it
weapon switching: slown down along with movement
climbing over objects: ya anyone whos played on tyron station knows exactly what im talking about. you better hold up until you see the icon apear or you'll just end up rolling to the side.
im sure there is much more that i have missed but what ever
if epic has to say more people like it then hate it there is clearly a problem with there game.
if you made a good game you should not need to deffend it. 

#44 Posted by dsplayer1010 (2227 posts) -

FAIL

#45 Posted by atejas (3057 posts) -

Well, here's one person who agrees with you.
Except for the glitches that Gears 1 is riddled with(lol UE3) I found it to be a much better experience.

#46 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -

hey guys who disagree, make sure you make a valid argument, don't just say no your wrong. 

#47 Posted by SmugDarkLoser (4619 posts) -

Did you just say Gears is a fantastic multiplayer game?
lol wut?

Gear's multiplayer sucks and is so broken, unbalanced, and boring.  Not to mention you cannot get into a match within a reasonable amount of time.

#48 Posted by sixty4bitdiablo (1 posts) -

Well I guess I am not alone in my dissatisfaction for this game. Although my roommate spends 5 hours a day in horde mode, I TRIED to get addicted to this game a few times with no luck. I will start with my gripes with the single player...

1) Voice acting is lame. One liners are like 80's Arnold and Van Dam movie flashbacks...simply awful
2) Story is going to crap. GOW2 introduces so many new, disposable characters it's not even worth caring about. Dom/Maria story was predictable from the get go. Marcus/Anya story is even worse.
3) Characters are pretty lame. They're all on roids and have no real personality other than the typical "boom, headshot". Dom is laughable, Baird is a pansy, Marcus is always pissed off...Cole is actually ok i guess. like i said before, 80's action flick, like you'd buy in walmart for a couple of bucks.
4) Story is going to crap part 2: campaign was overall really boring. the vehicle sequences were stupid. the whole game was too easy, and at the end right when the brumak was getting the game going they end it with the WORST "boss" battle known to man.
5) Lighting was too bright. i liked the darker, creepy setting of gow1. and what happened to the kryll?...(even though epic copied the aliens from "pitch black" 100%, it would at least be nice to know why they disappeared...unless i just missed it in one of the too many radio transmissions or the many boring cgi sequenes...)

On to the multiplayer gripes...

1) If one more person calls ANYONE a fag or noob for using flamethrower, mortar, hammer, nades or chainsaw again, I might slit real throats. THESE WEAPONS WERE PUT INTO THE GAME FOR A REASON! If you don't like it, don't play it.
2) It is now April, and a couple of patches later there are still awful bugs. Just today it repeatedly took me 5-10 minutes to matchmake, had at least 2 games that were unplayably laggy, experienced a few rounds where shot at people but no bullets were actually fired (IE, never drained my clip), had rounds where my attacks did ZERO damage, was unable to pick up weapons, plant grenades or revive comrades.
3) Two map packs released, both cost 800 microsoft points each, what a rip off.
4) New XP system is awful. If you get a laggy connection, dont quit! You'll lose 3000 xp and prolly get demoted because of it.
5) Did i mention matchmaking SUCKS? I ended up on an execution team as a lvl 12 with a lvl 2, 5, 8 and 20 vs 5 guys all lvl 20-35. talk about not fair matchup...we got destroyed BTW.
6) no free for all mode.
7) no ability to choose which mode you want to play. its always voted on. same as maps...so if you have a hankering to play guardian on hail, good luck. you'll prolly get submission on day one. you can't filter the matchmaking at all.


I think i will follow my own advice from above and, "if you don't like it, don't play it." what a waste of time, money and expectations. epic dropped the ball on this one.

FAIL.

Call of duty here i come.



#49 Posted by Ma7moud (805 posts) -

I've never saw anyone saying that its campaign sucks, and what makes it more surprising to me is that you are saying that Gears 1 Campaign is better.

Online
#50 Posted by rhrgrt (15 posts) -

Considering the subjectivity of video game enjoyment, i can't say that you're wrong. But i can say that i enjoyed the hell out of almost every part of the Gears of War 2 campaign. I've played through on every difficulty except the final one, both alone and with a partner, and each time has been better than the last. The main grievance i had with the game setup was the radio transmissions. I find it silly that a COG sergeant needs to talk to his boss every 2 minutes for 30 second stretches.  There were other minor problems, such as whenever cut scenes or radio transmissions occurred, the character was brought out of cover or off troikas and the like, but there was far more good than bad.

The main mechanic of the game that made me mad enough to punch a baby was the Centaur driving part. Driving that stupid ass tank across a frozen lake was such a steaming pile of manure the first time. The controls were sloppy and not comparable to any other games' vehicles i've ever encountered. But having played through multiple times, i find it easy and somewhat more sensible now.  Of course, it still sucks to have no real meter of how the Centaur's health is; you go from fine to on fire to dead rather rapidly.

My final complaint is that as you go up in difficulty, the shotgun becomes more and more obsolete. On easy, you can rush up and wtfacepwn the locust with it, but if you try that on hardcore you get hosed with bullets and chainsawn and beaten to a pulp before you can say "osnap."

Another thing that i disagree with the OP on is that the tickers were great. On the easiest difficulty, you could shoot away with your shotgun like a real nub, let them blow up on you, and if you had any brains you'd eventually figure out that it's best to melee them and dive away. Then as you progress toward greater difficulties, they throw a nice monkey wrench in your plans. You're behind cover, tickers come up, you can't shoot them outright because you'll die. You have to melee, then dive away to other cover, or shoot them before they get to you. They're similar to the wretches; frustrating to deal with at first, but mastery comes with time.  That aside, the parts that are exclusively ticker laden are actually *more* difficult with a partner, as you'll end up shooting ones near your partner, or getting in each others way as you dive away from the tickers. 

Basically the game play was done in quite epic fasion. There were plenty of vehicle scenes to cut up the monotony of killing locust, there's a wide variety of enemies from little walking bombs that trip you and blow up to giant shield and flail wielding "boomers", and for the most part the weapon design is fun; what other game lets you use mortars, a chainsaw gun, a chain gun, and a pistol that lets you blow heads off?

Gameplay aside though, the story line was frustrating and stupid. Even if you hadn't played the game throughout, i could spell the entire plot out here without revealing any spoilers. You go to a secret base and fine NOTHING; wow cool, i'm so glad this was classified and kept from us so long. The only thing that comes out of that part of the plot is that you go to Mount Kadar. That's not a spoiler either really, because the mountain itself has little context defining value. The only truly good thing about the story line is that no matter what it's open for a sequel. At the end of Gears 1 i was looking forward to Gears 2, but not the end of the Gears. Thankfully, there will be at least one more game in the line.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.