-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 environments 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.

I'd say Gears 2 is a benchmark for Xbox360 games but not overall. To me, its MGS4.

Sorry about that, my point was that If GeOW2 becomes a benchmark, I will be very unhappy.
A good benchmark would be COD4 were the style is not necessarily bland but simple.
Special effects and style SHOULD be different from game to game, using an "extreme sports" style game like geow did is not my idea of a good 'starting point' for new games IMO...

Benchmarks are a very touchy subject because there's so many different ways of looking at it. Gears I would say has a attractive mass appeal, somethng a lot of games just don't have.

That said, montana didn't say "other shooters have set a higher standard," nor did he imply it. Those are your own assertions, hopes, and dreams.

In reality, Gears 2 does set benchmarks on the 360, at the very least.

There are way too many 360 haters in this thread.

Listen i don't mean to be rude but are you saying you think this is going to be bigger than COD4 because practically everyone with a HD console owns that game. I would love to know the average time a player spent on that game before moving on to the next. I think it would nail everything else by quite a way. To those who say Yes this is the bench mark, have you had any extended play time on it? because if you haven't you can only say you hope its the bench mark.

No I took him to mean the video footage of said games.

I just think it has raised the bar for games from what I have seen and read.

In all fairness I did put a question mark after my title so  it would not sound like a statement.

Benchmarks and overall quality are two different things. That said, if G2 was multiplat, its sales would possibly rival CoD4. Gears 1 sold 1 million less copies than CoD4, on the 360. Gears 2 will sell more than that. Sales are one benchmark, reviews are another, graphics are another, graphical technology is another, gamplay is another.

G1 was certainly a benchmark in graphics, reviews, graphical technology, and tps gameplay at the time, even RE5 is copying from Gears, as they have admitted.

G2 could be a benchmark in many of these areas, at least on the 360.

Gears to me when it came out was a unique game, the gameplay was so original and unique that it sets it apart from other games like your generic FPS, the environment and the feel of the game made it something that I've truly enjoyed playing and I believe that in pure fun factor gears was the most fun I had in any games out there to this date.
Gears2 if it delivers to bring this to a higher level will be just absolutely amazing, I just can't wait.
The story line is certainly not the best, like the Mario game when it came out lol, but the gameplay did put them in a class apart from other games from there respective generation.