If they are announcing Gears 3, they should have made a commercial during the superbowl.
PROUD MEMBER OF THE PLAYSTATION 3 : RPG FAN CLUB
| fastyxx said: You guys are trying to fight about how great Gears is, but we're saying the same thing. I agree that the first game made some strides and was the source inspiration for lots of games. But the 2nd game was nothing new or special. And one inspirational game and a by-the-numbers sequel does not make a legendary franchise, no matter how good it looks or how much it sells. The only iterating in Gears 2 was working some kinks out on the engines so they could open the small, closed corridors up a bit and get more characters on screen at times and tweaking the cover mechanic so you didn't get stuck so much. The biggest issue with Gears was the glitchiness/host advantage/netcode of the first and they didn't fix it. And it's not as if they didn't fix it but revamped the entire franchise or added a ton of features to excuse that fact. Thus Epic/Gears is fail until they figure it out. Look at the most criticized sequels of big franchises. Some don't like particular FF games - but they are at least trying whole new systems. Some thought Halo 3 didn't go far enough to change, but they added Forge and theater and 4-player co-op and a million other details. Gears added....mortars. And dueling chainsaws. And kept its core problems. Adding a weapon and improving the engine is the absolute least one can expect from a big sequel. To me, they did the absolute least they could. I know people like it. We CAN have different opinions on the series. That is ok. But Gears was the #1 and #2 game for it's whole run pretty much. It can't even hang in the Top 10 any more. It's stale. And unless they do something drastic, it's going to continue being stale. But if they do something drastic, it won't be "Gears" any more. I wouldn't want to be in Cliff's shoes. I really wouldn't. |
Halo: Combat Evolved was an inspirational game. Halo 2 was a by the numbers sequel that didn't innovate in any way. It added online, sure, but this was nothing new to console gaming. Still, few would argue that Halo isn't a legendary franchise. I'm not really in the mood to have a huge argument with you (it's late and I've had a long day), but you're wrong on so many points and there are so many flaws in your argument. First off, you just said you went from liking Gears to saying it's fail. Just admit you hate it and want to troll it. I don't care. Second off, while Gears 2's online is pretty shitty, Modern Warfare 2 has online that's a million times shittier and it's still massively popular, with hundreds of thousands of people playing it online, and being the most played game on Xbox Live. If you want an example of MW2's shitty online system, you have boosting, care package glitching, servers to get 10th prestige, servers where you lose 6 million exp. just for killing someone, infinite ammo, dashboarding (which immediately ends the game for everyone), and it STILL has host advantage. With Gears 2, you have host advantage and the occasional lagswitcher. It could be frustrating to play sometimes, but there are plenty of other games with these problems. Halo 3 only manages to work around these problems by introducing weird gameplay mechanics (same time melee, for example). As for being in the Top 10, that sort of thing doesn't really matter. Back when Gears 1 first came out, it was the first big online game for the 360 (with the slight exception of Call of Duty 2). There also wasn't Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, World at War, Left 4 Dead, and a variety of other big shooters that started to crowd the Top 10. And oh yeah, I'd be real worried if I were Cliffy B. Only a few developers in the entire industry can be safe in saying that their next game will sell over 5 million. Poor guy.
MontanaHatchet said:
Halo: Combat Evolved was an inspirational game. Halo 2 was a by the numbers sequel that didn't innovate in any way. It added online, sure, but this was nothing new to console gaming. Still, few would argue that Halo isn't a legendary franchise. I'm not really in the mood to have a huge argument with you (it's late and I've had a long day), but you're wrong on so many points and there are so many flaws in your argument. First off, you just said you went from liking Gears to saying it's fail. Just admit you hate it and want to troll it. I don't care. Second off, while Gears 2's online is pretty shitty, Modern Warfare 2 has online that's a million times shittier and it's still massively popular, with hundreds of thousands of people playing it online, and being the most played game on Xbox Live. If you want an example of MW2's shitty online system, you have boosting, care package glitching, servers to get 10th prestige, servers where you lose 6 million exp. just for killing someone, infinite ammo, dashboarding (which immediately ends the game for everyone), and it STILL has host advantage. With Gears 2, you have host advantage and the occasional lagswitcher. It could be frustrating to play sometimes, but there are plenty of other games with these problems. Halo 3 only manages to work around these problems by introducing weird gameplay mechanics (same time melee, for example). As for being in the Top 10, that sort of thing doesn't really matter. Back when Gears 1 first came out, it was the first big online game for the 360 (with the slight exception of Call of Duty 2). There also wasn't Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, World at War, Left 4 Dead, and a variety of other big shooters that started to crowd the Top 10. And oh yeah, I'd be real worried if I were Cliffy B. Only a few developers in the entire industry can be safe in saying that their next game will sell over 5 million. Poor guy. |
No one's trolling.
Cliff DOES have to be worried about the franchise. These games are very expensive to make, and he is in danger of taking a sales hit on the games while still pumping a lot of money into it. I'm not suggesting that it's going to sell 10,000 copies of something. But continued growth of the franchise depnds o n on innovation.
And saying "Halo 2 added online, sure, but that's nothing new for console gaming" shows that you don't realy understand the evolution of the last decade. Halo 2 is the reason online console gaming exists in the form it does today. Bungie set the bar for all console online play with Halo 2. Lots of games today STILL don't have the functionality that Halo 2 did on the original Xbox. You've got to be joking.
Can't we all just get along and play our games in peace?
The best thing I took out of this is that he thinks the next gen is 4 or 5 years away. Graphics right now are looking spectacular on the HD consoles (I'm specifically thinking about Mass Effect 2, Uncharted 2, and Heavy Rain) and I really don't need a bump up right now. I would love to not have to replace my consoles for awhile.
However, Gears 3 on the next Xbox will be a HUGE motivation for me to buy one. I love the Gears series.
man I sure hope so , that would be great, there really is not a ton of games I want this year, and this is def one I want, I would say its about time how about you
| fastyxx said: You guys are trying to fight about how great Gears is, but we're saying the same thing. I agree that the first game made some strides and was the source inspiration for lots of games. But the 2nd game was nothing new or special. And one inspirational game and a by-the-numbers sequel does not make a legendary franchise, no matter how good it looks or how much it sells. The only iterating in Gears 2 was working some kinks out on the engines so they could open the small, closed corridors up a bit and get more characters on screen at times and tweaking the cover mechanic so you didn't get stuck so much. The biggest issue with Gears was the glitchiness/host advantage/netcode of the first and they didn't fix it. And it's not as if they didn't fix it but revamped the entire franchise or added a ton of features to excuse that fact. Thus Epic/Gears is fail until they figure it out. Look at the most criticized sequels of big franchises. Some don't like particular FF games - but they are at least trying whole new systems. Some thought Halo 3 didn't go far enough to change, but they added Forge and theater and 4-player co-op and a million other details. Gears added....mortars. And dueling chainsaws. And kept its core problems. Adding a weapon and improving the engine is the absolute least one can expect from a big sequel. To me, they did the absolute least they could. I know people like it. We CAN have different opinions on the series. That is ok. But Gears was the #1 and #2 game for it's whole run pretty much. It can't even hang in the Top 10 any more. It's stale. And unless they do something drastic, it's going to continue being stale. But if they do something drastic, it won't be "Gears" any more. I wouldn't want to be in Cliff's shoes. I really wouldn't. |
It's okay fastyxx. I just wish you enjoyed the series as much as I do, though, because certain sequences in Gears 2 co-op - and the dynamic created by the buddy system - are the best stuff I've played this gen.
I admit I don't give a shit about the multiplayer outside of co-op and Horde mode, though, because its mechanics are clearly not built around deathmatches.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
