Team Teabag: Gears of War 2 review

Tigervamp writes:

"I realize that half the world's population have already bought this game but for those who are interested and have yet to make a purchase I urge you to be wary of the hype as this game is by no means a world beater. Those "chainsaw tossers" I mentioned earlier will love this game no matter what but for those who are after a more finished article perhaps Gears of War 3 will be the answer."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
outlawlife3658d ago (Edited 3658d ago )

rather harsh score, i think this guy just may be the guy who gives the good games low scores to gather attention

he gave far cry an 8, fallout 3 a 10

by that logic i say gears 2 is about a 9
far cry was good but honestly, it was the same thing over and over again

the traversing of the distances killed far cry, the story wasn't amazing, the missions were repetitive but yet it scores higher?

gears 2 is a solid title, not perfect but very solid

fallout 3 is massive, but honestly its rather ugly and the amount of glitches and problems in that game is astonishing definitely not a 10

i read this review and he really doesn't justify the 7.5, the only thing he really complained about was the multiplayer being luck...and it is if you play like an idiot

he also says about it not being original, i'm not sure if he realizes it but the gears universe is meant to thrive on the science fiction cliches(new recruits called redshirts for example)

it is just as much shtick as it is serious, i just don't think he gets it

and another thing about the predator guy, hes supposed to look like predator...his very creation was an homage to predator

again, an unjustified low score from a guy who takes the game more seriously than it takes it self

Tigervamp3658d ago

The multiplayer in Gears of War 2 is horrible and yes it's about luck as evident by the amount of times a player and an opponent will strafe together while firing shotguns in the hope that they'll be LUCKY and kill the other first.

I think you'll find that I didn't just complain about the multiplayer. I mention that level which is one of the worst I have EVER played. I also mention how the game is built on frustrating the player, agree or not, that's my opinion on the matter. I could have gone into greater detail on the issues I had with the team-mate AI but considering most readers on the net can't handle reading more than a few hundred words I thought it best to avoid an even longer review.

I fully explained my position on Fallout 3. I don't find the game ugly at all as I love the sci-fi setting which I also made quite clear.

The Far Cry 2 map editor is one of the best features in any console game ever. What feature does Gears of War 2 have which makes it deserving of a higher score?

You mention sci-fi cliches and that is fine but I didn't feel any warmth from the game at all, in fact, I found the game to be constantly screaming "look what we did!" which I find strange since they wouldn't know an original idea if it slapped them across the face.

Then again, I obviously don't "get it".

outlawlife3658d ago (Edited 3658d ago )

oddly enough the part which you claim to be the worst ever played is flagged as many peoples favorite parts, and a highlight of the game

although i respect the time that was put in to this review i have to disagree with it

especially on the parts outlined previously, and several hundred thousand people would also disagree with you on the multiplayer, granted it needs some tweaking but it doesn't rely any more on the luck pipeline than any other online shooter

from my experiences in gears 2 and most other shooters, he who shoots first wins

the first game was much much more dodgy and was solidly reliant on internet connection, but from my experiences you must have put very little time into multiplayer because tactical gameplay is very much alive

all you need to do is play a few matches of guardian, wingman, or submission and a few of us "idiots" who play on xbox live will surprise you

another thing should go without saying but apparently not, you shouldn't insult the intelligence of your readers, saying that "considering most readers on the net can't handle reading more than a few hundred words I thought it best to avoid an even longer review" show that perhaps your opinion isn't a valuable one.

The amount of times you actively insult online players, xbox live users, and refer to people as idiots makes it very difficult to take you seriously

aside from disagreeing with the score, i was quite turned off by the holier than thou attitude that came flowing out of that review

perhaps take another tact next time and somebody will take you more seriously and not see you as anything but someone fishing for hits

in the style this was written i find it very hard to value your opinion and i'm sure a few others would agree

Tigervamp3658d ago

I will continue to describe idiots as idiots.

If you think you can write a better review then go for it.

What I won't do is jump on your for writing a review and stating your opinions.

It would have been far easier for me to pander to those idiots I mention and give the game an unworthy 9/10.

This is what I get for having some balls? That's fine, but I'll carry on doing what I do and you can carry on doing what you do, whatever that may be.