|
|
Gears of War 2 Hands-on Preview
Author: Joe MartinPublished: 29th September 2008
Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!
Compare over 100 broadband & mobile broadband deals online!
- Site Links:
- About
- Email Editor
- Newsletter
- Privacy
- RSS
- Score Guide
- Our Other Websites:
- Auto Express
- Channel Pro
- Computer Buyer
- Computer Shopper
- Den of Geek
All content © bit-tech.net 2000-2009
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
Comments 26 to 48 of 48
That will ding dang do for me :D
If I remember back, I think BioShock's similarity to System Shock 2 was mentioned a few times. I'm certainly a big fan of SS2. The thing you have to bear in mind is that SS2 and BioShock were a good ten years apart from each other - with few games like them between. Games in that kind of linear epic FPS/RPG vein come along very rarely. Having played BioShock through again recently, yes I can see maybe it was a case of being a little carried away - but I would never score it lower than a 9 even now. It is a very well made game, except for the Vita Chambers. There are arguements against it in terms of the consolification and "it's SS2 but worse", but in my experience those arguments are often based on a sense of elitism and prejudice against certain types of games and consoles. That too is something I've done myself in the past; I don't claim to be perfect.
People look back on SS2 as the holy grail of gaming and with good reason, but remember that it too wasn't perfect and had many of the same issues that Bioshock does. The fact that those issues now appear on a console too doesn't mean that the game has been consolified per se; it just means the same game is on a console. That said, some obvious console concessions were made for BioShock.
Don't forget that hype cuts both ways too. My personal view is that a lot of people don't like Bioshock now because they too got sucked into the hype. Their hopes were risen to believe that BioShock wasn't just the holy grail of gaming - it was the holy grail of everything! Then, when they see it is still just a game, they feel cheated and start hating. I think that if a lot of those people had found BioShock on their own without the hype then they would have had an entirely different experience.
When it comes to Gears of War 2, again it isn't that I'm slating the game here. I actually quite enjoyed my time with it. It's simply a case that so much is promised about it and so much hype is building that people are starting to expect great things. Could this be the next holy grail?
Simply, no. It's just a game. It's a very good game and it's very polished, accessible and fun - but it's still just Gears of War 1 with different levels and the ability to carry shields. That's enough for some people and for those people I am glad - for me, I had hoped that Epic would raise the bar a little more and unveil some new features that would really effect the gameplay. If you're just looking for some more of what Gears of War 1 offered, then congratulations because this is that. If you're looking for Gears of War taken to the next level and with some and super interesting features and plots and gameplay then this may disappoint you just like BioShock did when compared to System Shock. I can only give my view, and I have. Gears of War 1 was a good game and a big step forward both for the Xbox 360, Epic and for third person shooters in general. Gears of War 2 is a good game too, but it isn't a big step forward and that's a shame. Just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved.
I learned a lot from my review of BioShock, which was also one of the first big reviews like that I'd ever done for bit-tech, and I now no longer consider myself as suceptible to hype as I once was. I avoid reading other previews and I go ahead to make my own mind. I'm not sure that everyone on the Epic forums and so on however can say the same when they have a clear and vested interest in the series already.
On a side topic, my girlfriend was playing BioShock the other day. She really enjoyed it.
I think I'll cancel my preorder. Resistance 2 on PS3 looks much more promising according to the previews : /
I expected epic to raise the bar another level and from that pov id agree with the review. I never was blown away by gears of war on the pc. It was a console fps that if it was pc exclusive would not of scored well.
Although personally I've always been of the opinion that sequals should not necessarilly add new features. It's fun when they do, but it shouldn't be a requirement. Doom 2 had only one more gun than Doom one and some new enemies. The engine was even still called Doom engine (v1.666). Still made the game brilliant. Many sequals just change the content and not the gameplay, but still makes the game good.
I'm sure GOW2 will be an 8+ game, it'll just be an 8+ game that's similar to GOW1, and that in my opinion isn't a bad thing.
Goes to show then. I was at the same event as Christian - I think we actually played Horde together at one point. It's a difference of opinion it seems. When the vehicle you're on keeps stopping so that the driver can dislodge it and get it moving and you have to fend off the locusts, he finds it exciting. I found it predictable He finds the Ticker enemies exciting, fresh and innovative. I don't hate them, but I found them old hat back when Serious Sam 1 was using essentially the same baddie. This was my main issue with GOW2; I liked it, but I felt like I'd played it already.
I've offered up my two cents anyway and if I'm in a minority then that's fine. I'll just be waiting for the full game now and judge it when I've had more than just five hours with it and can discuss it further with the rest of the bit-tech staff.
I'm also very much of the opinion that Joe Martin can't write at all. All I read in his articles are opinions connected with arbitrary, contrived, unfunny and uninspired metaphors:
Haha! I get it! Monkey poo! Haha! That's funny! And from the end of the Crysis: Warhead review:
Take a second and re-read that. Yeah, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Now this could be sloppy editing but I take more black pleasure in thinking that the effort of writing made him so weary his brain struggled to come up with anything for the final sentence, so he got his dog to moonlight for him. Good boy, Fido.
Anyway, this 'preview' is just another sorry excuse for 'journalism' from this person as far as I can see it. bit-tech, if you're going to pay someone to do something we'd all like to do, make sure they can actually do it in the first place. I've seen more intelligent writing at the primary school I help out in and that, unfortunately for Joe Martin, is a sad fact.
(Whilst I'm at it I'd also like to tell the rabid fanboys for PCs and 360s etc. to SHUT UP. Nothing is better than anything else and, as self-professed gamers, you should be glad you're so spoiled for choice with all of these machines and shiny, complex games for you to ENJOY. I think people forget that word these days.)
what I was going to say was that all previews need to be treated as a matter of opinion, NOT fact, and people should read around not just use one site as a bible (see, I managed to get Christian bashing in!)
That's all we're doing: offering an opinion based on our limited experience with a title that's still work in progress. That opinion may round one way or another once final code has been released... There's no point in denying the fact that anyone researching purchases would be best to gather the facts and any opinions based on those facts from multiple sources - obviously, we would love to be a single source for information but the fact of the matter is that's never going to happen without multiple opinions from different people in one (or several) articles/reviews. While that's something we'd love to do, it just isn't a financial reality (in terms of my editorial budget).
I'm all for furthering this conversation (in a friendly way) if you want to email me via the about page. Constructive feedback is always helpful and if I am writing in a style that isn't appropriate for the audience then that's something I obviously want to correct.
I love this site to bits and the people behind it, I have nothing but respect for everyone at bit-tech. Sorry joe if you think I was trying to make you sound negative.
I was just confused as to exactly what you were expecting when you started playing the game - It is more of the same but with more content, just like countless sequels have always done; The halo series is nothing amazing, just more polished, more weapons, items and modes.
The super mario games are just the same adventures over and over with a new twist, the Zelda franchise plays similar to its predecessors etc, Metal Gear Solid has added new elements here and there with each new installment while remaining fundementally the same, Grand Theft Auto 4 is practically the same as 3 with the missions being almost identicle in some cases, chase this, kill that, get this, etc etc - You get the idea.
What I was baffled by was what you expected when you went in to play it - Its just more of the same with bonus extra's. The duck n cover system is old news now, while in the original it was relatively new and innovotive, the graphics were marvelled at yet they dont seem to get the same reaction now and even though the player count has been upped to 10 and new modes thrown in, new finishing moves, new charectors, weapons etc - It was always going to remain the core game from the original - but just as many others have done, It simply has more of everything I presume? The question is - do these features improve upon the game? or make it worse?
But the question that needs to be asked is: Is it better than the first? If not why not - If so why is it better?
We can gauge it better from there instead of possibly saying that it offers nothing new which gives misconceptions. Saying "its more of the same" I feel just puts a negative spin on it because it sounds like its actually worse. Is it? Is it better? etc - expand this way, as if we said upon all sequels: Halo, Zelda, Metal Gear, that its just " more of the same with extras, it can really sound...well...boring?"
thats just my two cents.
People enjoyed the first one for what it was, I loved the first one and thought it was strong in many areas and if you read the responces about it in some of the threads here on bit-tech, others seem to think it was pretty good too but were simply curious if gow2 is better or worse?
I hope you dont take offence joe, if so I apologise!
Joe, thats exacly what I want. I finished Gears of War wanting more, I want to continue where I left off. I do not want a completly new game where they have messed with the looks, controls, music etc. It was great the first time round and worked, why mess with it?? Just continue the story.
I hate sequals where they have tried to reinvent the game. Continue where you left off dam it.
/me flees
I agree with both these concepts, this is Gears of War 2 not a completely seperate game, nor genre, it's a progression from the first and from what it sounds like, it sounds perfect, every game has a life cycle, for me COD4 has now used up its cycle quite well (I don't play it anymore), but I have Burnout to tide me over till November, when this will be out for me to enjoy!
And LBP before that too
Actually if you read the comments after that preview a large number of people talk about "Gears 1.5" as well. I guess Joe shares their thoughts. I think this demonstrates a large devide between people's expectations regarding sequals (more of the same, or something new?), and both view points are valid, even if you don't agree with them.