All that aside, and focusing on what matters most (the action) it's the best 360 game I've played this year.

I'd even go a step further and say it's the best platform exclusive to date.

But, that's probably because I enjoyed the original. Not much was changed, so the formula still works for me.

Well If you havent played it I wouldnt comment at all. Because as many others will tell you Gears 1 and Gears 2 feel very different. You would expect the engine to feel familiar, but it doesnt. It has had a serious overhall. Least of all because of the massive difference in scale. Ive said before Gears 2 opening level is the closest thing to Gears 1, when the Gears 2 logo comes up at the end of the first level and big cutscene you need to forget everything you thought you knew about Gears.

It goes from similar, to holy shit in the space of 2 minutes. From then on it's the best rollercoaster ride of a game Ive been on. Not to mention that the Horde mode is the best addition to a MP Ive played in a very very long time. It's so much better than the usual DM, TM, or CTF stuff we keep having to play. Horde will be around for a very long time.

Newsflash: horde has been around since UT2004. Probably even before that, but that was the first game I played with the EXACT SAME play mode.

it handily beats any of its competitors, so i think you are over reacting.

 For some reason in FPS it doesnt really feel the same. And Gears 2 seems more fun with it. But thanks cause I forgot about UT2004.

Because the visuals make it feel more "epic." I realize there are a whole lot of people who still stand by their belief that "visuals don't make a game better," to which I must say: B.S.

If the game is already solid, better visuals only enhance the experience by making it feel more immersive.

Also, with a third person perspective, the camera angle is effectively a wider focal length, meaning the player has a more panoramic POV of the surrounding area. With first person perspective, the view point is more constrained unless viewing scenes from a greater distance away. (Plus UT2004 officially looks like ass by UE3 standards)

Games can be "art" without any real VA at all *points to Ico and Shadow of the Colossus* because games are interactive. People keep trying to clump movies and games together because they are both audio-visual mediums however I think they need to stay seperate because of interactivity. In some cases I'm not "watching" the character in the game I "am" the character in the game which is why sometimes VA has the OPPOSITE effect for me. Is voice acting important to videogames? Yes, some games absolutely need top notch VA because they focus on the story and thematic elements, but that doesn't apply to everything and you shouldn't force it to either.

What was so bad about the voice acting? It was average, but I wouldn't call it bad. It certainly didn't subtract anything from the experience.

i been playing on my friends house.

well its not what the hype made it, but still a good game, story isn't great but graphics are great and gameplay is fun.

they are....big guys they sound like big guys you can't ask for those kind of characters.

i found the story kind interesting but i can't feel the story affected in any way maybe because i am not married.

Ok, I can agree with that. GoW2 however hs been marketed and positioned as a game more driven by story and "cinematic" punch than GoW1 and inadvertently placed expectations sky high with far off comparisons to "Michelangelo" and "The Dark Knight" as well as other proposterous statements. The team behing GoW2 brought these expectations of cinematic storytelling and high art on to themselves but in reality GoW2 falls far short of that. It doesn't have the dialogue, the backdrop or the VO's to pull anything beyond a straight to dvd quality performance.