_the_ new thing in GoW2 is the scale of things. There are massive amounts of enemies on screen, huge battles going on around you, and the same huuuuge bosses appear as in R2. I dont see a difference in this regard. THe only difference i can see between the 2 games are all subjective matters - different people like different experiences.

EDIT: oh man, i wanted to reply to Diomedes, sorry!

I have to agree with the review on the co-operative mulitplayer. The stuff thats most innovative with that is how they changed it so much from the campaign. For example you don't heal automatically like in the campaign, and there are no ammos lying around in the co-operative play zilch. The only way you can heal or get more ammo is to play with a team that includes a medic and a spec ops. I think this is fantastic coz it makes the gamers specialize in different roles and it creates a massive need for teamwork while playing. I am happy I got two of my best friends to get this game and now we are on our way to creating a clan whoohoo!

Considering R2 is an unfinished game missing many features the first one had, i don't see how it could score higher then Gears2. Unless Gears2 is shit...

Its funny how the industry is. A game on the 360 can have a shitty ass campaign (im not calling any games out) yet have an enthralling multiplayer and it'll score high marks and be considered GOTY and Shooter of the year contenders. Yet, a PS3 game can have a good (not great, although IMO it was) campaign, have a never before done on consoles multiplayer (60 players) and have an addictive Co-Op, and it will get some high marks but is generally not perceived as GOTY or shooter of the year contender. I find that funny.

i found R2 more fun.

but gears 2 have an amazing polish to graphics.

both storyline sucks.

The Resistance storyline is brilliant, certainly one of the best to come out of a game in the last few years.

Yeah, Resistance 2 is certainly a contender for game of the year and wins shooter or the year hands down.

An FPS and a TPS feel SO different to me, I don't know how you can directly compare them. To me, these are two totally different games.

If it were me, I'd choose Resistance because I love FPS, I don't care much for campaigns anyway, and the online is more fun. But I get why people love Gears too. It's all opinion.

completely agree.

All I can say is that article was BS. We counted about 68 enemies on screen in Gears . 4 Brumacks about 7 generals, 4 (what we call squiddys) and the rest foot soldiers. And Horde is the best thing Ive ever played in MP.

I wasnt goona post, but the article failed to mention the onscreen stuff for Gears 2. 68 boys.

I've beaten gears 2 and you are obviously talking about one of sections of the game when your in a tank or brumak. And your either once again just being a stupid fanboy or are just plain ignorant. It's much more impressive when you have said 68 guys using enhanced ai while planes are flying over and explosions are going off close up and not when said 68 guys are walking in a straight path until you shoot at them and then they turn and shoot in place until you mow them down. That being said, I preffered the Gears 2 campaign more than I did R2's, but your post like always is just fanboy garbage.