Is Gears 2 The New Benchmark For Video Games?

[SHMUPGurus]

Griffin said:

SHMUPGurus said:

Xen said:
You're trying to be funny, right? seriously, how can it be a benchmark game?

Easy:

- Is the framerate constant with over 50+ Locusts on screen? Checked!

- Is the multiplayer bringing new things to the table and still fluid? Bots? Checked!

- Is the gameplay different from what we've seen before Gears? Checked! (I mean, look at all those FPS utilizing the cover system now, Quantum of Solace and Killzone 2 comes in mind)

- Is the environment destructible? Checked!

- etc.

A game's engine makes all the difference IMO. Staples like these need to stay there for a genre like this one (FPS, TPS), but I agree that it probably doesn't work (or doesn't need to be there) for all game genres.

-The framerate is not constant, go look at the IGN review.
-Bots are not a new thing.
-Gears was not the first game to use a cover system.
-Not everything is destructable, and other games already have more destructable enviroments then Gears.

 

Please, PLEASE read a few posts above this one. >_>

But if you want me to take a shoot at it:

- About the framerate, this is what the review says: "The framerate does a good job at staying solid, though it does dip in one particular section [that you see in the video review] when the environmental destruction is simply too much for the engine to handle."

- Exactly. They should always be there in these types of game. I still hate Bungie for not including them in Halo 3 and any company that thinks it's too complicated to incorporate them in a game, especially those that have a strong multiplayer component! There is no excuse.

- There was one game that had it, kill.switch, and they've improved the system from there, which is excellent because it's quite intuitive if you ask me. There should be more of it in FPS/TPS.

- Sure, too bad there are no gameplay elements with them in Gears of War 2, but it's still an excellent step in realism, since HD consoles are all about it.