Gears of War 2 Forum

Dead Space has my vote, it's the best game that crap factory called Electronic Arts has put out in ten fucking years.

Tru3_Blu3 said:

"

Reason: The game shows nothing new to the game industry or the shooter genre itself. Gears of War1 introduced a golden rule that many games, afterwords, have followed--Take cover or die. Because of this, Gears of War1 won most of the GotY awards of 2006.

"

As you definitely know, only things that Geow 1 had introduced to Action genre were Barricade system with blind firing, camera over the shoulders and  abusive language, but unfortunately Barricade system with blind firing was known since "Kill Switch", camera angle over the shoulders belongs to Resident Evil 4, and abusive language was massive in GTA series. so why the f*ck should you say something like that? Geow never had something new, either original one or the sequel.

P.s: i became a PS3 fanboy without owning one, such a shame.

Here my opinion:

Gears of War 2 probably doesn't deserve to win the Game of the Year award, or whatever, but not because it "lacks innovation".  Sure, it does lack innovation, but that doesn't mean that games that lack innovation should not win the award.  Even if a game is extremely polished and extremely entertaining, but it doesn't bring in any groundbreaking concepts, it should still be illegible for the Game of the Year award.  Innovation can only carry a game so far.

That doesn't mean that Gears 2 should win Game of the Year, though, because it honestly is quite the pain-in-the-butt game most of the time.  The single-player campaign was phenomenal, but the multiplayer is way too glitchy/laggy/annoying to deserve any awards.  While I still love playing Gears 2 multiplayer, all I can think about is that Epic should've spent the gap in between Gears 1 and Gears 2 and actually done something to make lag and matchmaking in matches be a bit better.  Honestly, I fancy myself a decent Gears 2 player, and when I have little to no lag I do very well (usually around 3:1 kills-to-deaths ratio), but when the game is giving me 1/2 second bullet lag (or much worse), I don't really know how I'm supposed to do well.

So my basic thought is: Gears 2 shouldn't win any Game of the Year awards, but not because it lacks innovation (which it does) - because its multi-player is screwy.

This is your GOTY people.

frankthelizard said:

"So what did those other games that you mentioned (Braid, Dead Space, and Left 4 Dead) do anything extremely innovative?"

...Did Braid do anything extremely innovative? I'm going to pretend that question wasn't asked.

As for the topic, I don't know if I would give my personal game of the year to Gears of War 2 but I think it certainly deserves the GOTY awards that it will receive. A game doesn't need to be innovative to be good. This goes back to the recent story about Mirror's Edge and how if game critics were like movie critics it would be lauded by everyone as a visual masterpiece. The game industry isn't the movie industry. Innovation does not take first priority in the gaming industry. Sure, some games are great because they are innovative but other games don't need to be necessarily innovative to be great. As for Gears of War 2, the reason it deserves the awards it undoubtably will recieve is because it improves on the original in every single possible way. That seems pretty successful to me.

Just because it didn't innovate doesn't mean it isn't a serious contender. It just means EPIC was smart, and stuck to their original gameplay mechanics.

Your points seem valid, but a tad flawed. Are you saying that if Gears did something incredibly new like time reversal, then and only then it could be a contender?

If Gears 2 tried to do something so new like that it would have just led to pissed off fans.

Its a great game. Thats why its a contender. I think were over thinking the process right now.

@NerdyNinja007 said:

" GTA4 deserved every GOTY award it received. "

True. But why did you bump an 11 month old thread?

@Milkman:  Boredom, my friend, boredom.