Top
290°

Gameguru-Resistance 2 VS Gears 2: Resistance 2 plays better, Gears 2 Looks better

Gameguru-"Gears of war 2 can be described in a nutshell by witnessing the Horde Mode where waves after waves of enemies descend on the player's locations minus the Reaver and godawful Brumak segment, the pace of the game also seems to have been tinkered around with too much placing the intense action from far and between. The Vehicular segments although a quaint upgrade to the previous one still feel underwhelming and need to be worked upon. The original flavor of the game seems to have somehow been lost in creating a "bigger better and more Badass" sequel.

Final Score-7/10

Resistance 2 on the other hand might not be as visually appealing as Gears 2 but the time and space that it places the player in feels both tight, vast and exhilarating the same time, there are still a number of technical issues that need to be sorted out with the game which hamper it from becoming a top shooter this season.

Final Score-8.5/10"

The story is too old to be commented.
3704d ago Replies(6)
gw4k3704d ago (Edited 3704d ago )

Coming from a player that has both games, R2 is killer. The game is awesome and the multiplayer is a lot of fun. But, it doesn't look that great! The textures are very weak at times and almost looks like a user made mod. It is funny, I haven't played a game in recent memory that made we say 'WOW' and 'Yuck' so many times while playing through.

Gears 2 is breathtaking. The graphics are simply incredible and honestly, there is nothing out there right now that matches it. Both the singleplayer aspects to both games is top notch. The multiplayer is the difference though.

R2 shipped with some of the best, most polished multiplayer to day. From day one, it has run like a dream. Never any slow down and tons of crazy stuff going on. Of course, it doesn't look good at all when you are playing.

Gears is still a great multiplayer game, but it is a bit of the same thing. They really do need to introduce some new weapons. Of course with Gears, the graphics in multiplayer are amazing. Just as good as singleplayer. One thing worth mentioning is that when Gears was released what a mess! Glitches and lots of them. The code has since been ironed out and it runs great...so that is good.

So which is better? Heck, they are both great...but, since I am a graphics hound I will stick with Gears for a bit longer then move on to more R2. The graphics simply can't be beat!

DJ3704d ago

While there were many times were I was blown away at the action and set pieces, there seemed to be quite a few places that looked horrendous, such as the underground lab and Idaho.

The single-player just lacked the amount of polish needed for such a grand experience. While Gears of War isn't good at storytelling and isn't a large technical powerhouse like Resistance, the amount of care put into the in-game content actually makes up for that. In the end, polish takes the front seat.

While Insomniac has gotten into the habit of releasing titles every year, they may want to rethink that strategy after the release of R2. Maybe releasing titles every 18 months is a better option.

Myth3704d ago

Uncharted beats it there. Uncharted has more textures, the rain dripping off objects looks a lot better on uncharted. If you disagree do your own comparison and you will see im right.

DJ3704d ago

Everything in that game looked amazing.

The Lazy One3704d ago

uncharted's textures weren't that good. It had phenomenal visual effects and lighting that made the actual texture quality insignificant, but the textures themselves weren't that exceptional.

RudeSole Devil3704d ago

You must be playing on a horrible T.V. Drake had some of the best textures to date. And how off topic is this thread??

lowcarb3704d ago

The Lazy one is right and uncharted also had many areas that didn't look so hot so get off it's nutts. Gears2 look years ahead so please stop bringing that game up like it's the best thing this gen visually on consoles. The crown belongs to Gears so get over it.

Myth3703d ago (Edited 3703d ago )

You just proved how biased and blind you are. Save your money and get a new TV and some glasses. Gears graphics are not the best, if you say that then your a huge fanboy. Oh and by the way i love Gears of War it's a great game.

Marceles3703d ago (Edited 3703d ago )

"Most ps3 owners probably are still pretty wet around the ears when it comes to shooters."

The same thing could be said about any console owner when it comes to shooters. I say if you haven't played a PC shooter before (and you have obviously with Doom and Wolfstein) then you're totally lost. It's the same people that try to flop Crysis, and that's the only other shooter that has REALLY impressed me in the FPS category since Half-Life 2.

Ju3703d ago

I'm no fan of a fixed schedule. Get the game out when its done. I can wait. If it needs some polish, so be it. I still suspect it has something to do with KZ2 - and inhouse competition. R2 can look amazing - at times, so its not the engine, I believe. Some places just needed more time, I can agree to that.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3703d ago
Mr PS33704d ago

Resistance 2 is the Best FPS to Date
And
Gears 2 is the Best 3rdPS to Date
Ok
Its just Resistance 2 is 100 times Better than Gears 2

Craig David3704d ago (Edited 3704d ago )

Resistance 2 is a garbarge 6/10 game with Extremely poor graphics and a shoddy spawnfest multiplayer.

ultimolu3704d ago

And your face looks like garbage, hence the avatar.
Stop dissing a game you've never played before.

Serjikal_Strike3704d ago

why do you keep showin you have R2?

If you hate it and your ps3 that much...sell it

your xbox will come in handy since winter is coming up...stay warm!

she00win993704d ago

it doesn't matter if you have change your name or your avatar pp, we still know it you because we ps3 owners can detect a mentally retaded person such as your self...

281219863704d ago

as far as sequels are concerned, Gears 2 mainly improves the original in an cosmetic sort of way.

gw4k3704d ago

Gears 2 is more than cosmetic, it has a rich story and you have to remember, it is a continuation of a story. You can't go mixing things up too much with this type of setting. Something to keep in mind next you decide to post on games that you haven't played (or game...you clearly haven't played Gears).

Nineball21123704d ago

"Gears 2 is more than cosmetic, it has a rich story and you have to remember, it is a continuation of a story."

Right, because Resistance 2 ISN'T a continuation of a story, correct?

"You can't go mixing things up too much with this type of setting."

Yet, they were able to mix things up in R2. Hmmm...

Man_of_the_year3704d ago

And look where it got them....86% on metacritic...

Foxgod3704d ago

it wasnt so hard to improve resistance, the original was mediocre at best.

Nineball21123704d ago

@ Man of the Year - Right, because it's score on Metacritic determines whether or not it is more diverse than Gears 2? Talk about changing the subject...

@ Fox God... yeah, like anyone believes that you've played either game. o_O

Foxgod3704d ago

actually, i played so many shooters, i can easily tell what shooter is mediocre and what not.

Most ps3 owners probably are still pretty wet around the ears when it comes to shooters.
I played all the way from doom and wolfenstein to todays Gears of war 2.

Man_of_the_year3704d ago

Actually yes it does since Metacritic uses the "AVERAGE" of creditable reviewers in the industry.

I will take an average review score over yours any day. You are biased and thus have no average review.

DiabloRising3704d ago

Everyone is biased, especially "professional journalists."

The only review that should matter is your own. Scores are arbitrary BS, thus averages of those scores are even more arbitrary BS.

Nineball21123703d ago

@ Fox God - so you admit you haven't touched either R1 or R2, but you feel inclined to comment on it's game play. You define fanboy.

@ Man of the Year - Actually, no it doesn't. And you can say it until you are blue in the face but that doesn't change reality. Whether or not it is more diverse or not is subjective, therefore it's entirely up to each person's opinion.

I never asked you to take my review score over the average. What are you smoking? Apparently you're having conversations between you and I where I'm not involved.

Foxgod3703d ago

what i said is that if you played a butt load of shooters, you wont even have to play it, just seeing it is enough.

Its called experience.

Nineball21123703d ago

Haha... where I'm from we call that line of thinking "Delusional".

But whatever gets you through it.

Foxgod3703d ago (Edited 3703d ago )

you must be from belgium or canada then.
You cant help it, its the french genes.

Anyway, if you dont want to accept that having seen and played a lot from a certain category gives you a keen eye for it, then dont, suits me fine.
Il stay away from R2 anyway...

@edit at below
Rofl about trying to get real life into this, your a sore person.

Nineball21123703d ago

Now that won't be too hard for you Fox God, seeing as you don't actually, you know, own a PS3.

I really hope no one in your life relies on your opinion of things, based off of the fact that you can look at things and just intuitively know how other things will be based on your "observations". Brilliant way to get through life...

Ju3703d ago

@Foxgod. Quote: "Its called experience.", No, its called arrogance.

Man_of_the_year3703d ago

"Man of the Year - Actually, no it doesn't. And you can say it until you are blue in the face but that doesn't change reality. Whether or not it is more diverse or not is subjective, therefore it's entirely up to each person's opinion"

I think you need to brush up on your law of averages. A collective opinion from those in the industry will result in an overall opinion that meets in the middle. it is that overall opinion that you take into account before you run out and pay money for something that you have no idea about.

Review scores are apart of the industry and people rely on them to get an idea using a number scale how good or bad the product or service is.

I am not going to listen to a guy who says this game is a 10/10, and i am not going to listen to a guy who says this game is a 5/10 - but i will hear them both as the game being around a 7.5/10. This way i can have an idea just how good a game is because i can average out the good things and the bad things and come to a conclusion if i should buy a game or not.

my deciding factor is a game must atleast a 7 in order for me to purchase.

I hope that i have educated you enough about the law of averages.

So to sum it all up - depending on the average of review scores and the reviews themselves - than yes it would determine if the game is "diverse" enough for a higher review score or a purchase from me.

Final_Rpg3703d ago

@Man of the year

But all it takes is one incorrect review to spoil the rest of them. What happens when someone gives a score that obviously is way off what the game deserves. What happens if every reviewer gives it in the 9-10 area and then a reviewer that is biased because of their own personal agenda tries to sabotage the score by giving it 3. What does that mean? Does that mean that you should still base your entire gaming opinion on scores that have been skewed by those that have hate for a game because it's on a console they probably don't own.

If you base every purchase you make on review scores you'd probably have a very limited range of knowledge seeing as you aren't intelligent enough to form your own opinion. How would you know that those games that are averaged poorly are bad if you haven't even experienced them yourself. You're just being naive and gullible. You're not a gamer, you're a sheep, not even a sheep, at least sheep have brains. You're a mindless robot (that's better) falling under the command of inaccurate and unreliable review aggregates.

Enjoy living a life where you are just a puppet of marketing. Are you daft enough to really think that every reviewer out there is truthful? Giving there honest opinion on games? Or are you just too stubborn to admit your wrong? Probably both.

Man_of_the_year3703d ago

I have already answered your question - again its called the law of averages - yes there are some sites that are biased - for and against certain consoles - but again this is where the law of averages comes from. If a game is truly worth a 9 and was given a 9 by 10 reviewers and then some biased site (which would have to be creditable or else they are not taken seriously and the review won't be added like with metacritic how only big name creditable sites scores are allowed) gives a game a 7...well then the average score of the game will still be a solid 88%. So a biased review really didn't do much damage.

I hope you have now been educated and less ignorant. It would appear that it is you who is the puppet as it seems you have no intelligence of your own and go by what fanboys force feed you. I mean how else can one be so oblivious as to how the law of averages work.

Nineball21123703d ago

@ Man of the Year

Oh! Oh! Oh! I think I get it now. Let's see....

You've been a condescending [email protected] most of this thread, but I've seen one or two comments from you in other threads that have been level-headed.

If I understand what you're saying (and I think I do!) then the law of averages tells me that you are a condescending [email protected] most of the time!

Hey!! U shure doo splain' thangs reel guud! I feel les dum now! Hur, hur, hur...

[email protected]

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 3703d ago