Today GoW2 was announced at GDC. Now, I know this is a game, and I know it may come as exaggerated the use of the word relevance but bear with me. It made tons and tons of money, afterwards.

I know many people "wub"(love) the thing, but really; a good while after the first game, isn't it too out of line to say too early? What significant amount of gameplay can be crammed in this particular piece of software besides "dueling" with your lancer--brought to you by the guy(Cliffy B.) who literally asked during an interview "How strategic can you get with a chainsaw? when people started whining about one-hit kills and whatnot during online play. What kind of stuff can be implemented on old GoW to make it compete with the games that are out now or coming in shortly after we are done with campaign? I mean, look at friggin halo 3 and its 4 player online co-op, screenshot and theater options. The massive appeal of CoD4(after an even MASSIVE-er...yeah...publicity campaign), Resistance Fall of Man and its flabbergasting amount players on a single map(and its sequel 8 player online co-op), Bioshock and its, well, bioshockness(it just did everything riiiight). Killzone 2 and its, well, prettyness, etc. What can Epic give our cold jaded gamer hearts that we haven't seen before, or even that we will bother ourselves with long enough for them to make a buck? Besides making the game speedier.

What are your thoughts? Yes, I know, some people will come and say GoW was an over bloated, over rated piece of crap, but besides that; what can relevantly be added to the thing that'll make it stand out.

I know, I know GoW2 will be a third person shooter and I compared it with First person shooters, but really, what else can be compared with, and why should we care? All follow the ye adage "thou shalt set yourself to shoot-kill-multiplay-finish-campaign-multiplay some more and then whine about lag"

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I don't think a lot is going to change. They are probably going to stick to the same formula that made the original so popular so I wouldn't expect a lot of new stuff on this installment.

I don't think much will change either, but then again does it need to? Does it have to? They managed to sell, assuming vgchartz is accurate over 5 million copies. Do we really need every sequel to be a new evolution of the wheel? For all that people rave about Ratchet and Clank Future, its just the same game, better graphics and sound with less functionality included (online multiplayer) and Gow gets targeted?

Look if there were a 4 year development cycle for the sequel, then I think we could have this discussion be a bit more relevant. A sequel pretty much 2 years from the first one just needs to have more of what the first offered. Just give me more story, new weapons and a few extras and I am happy. Not sure where everybody got spoiled into expecting a quantum leap every time a sequel to a big game is released. Madden has certainly been given a pass.

I was discussing this with a friend last night

personally i don't think that GoW was too bad or good a game it was interesting enough to play but i never bought it, when i heard it was gonna be a trilogy i laughed. i didn't really get into what i felt was probably the big draw for most people: the world rating system, but i have some friends who did. however i also see very little they can add at this point if they are going to add in chainsaw duels it would make the game more newbie friendly but thats truly a direct copy of halo 3's sword cancel.

So in closing i don't know what they are gonna do that is new and exciting and based on the trailer i don't think they do either

Chainsaws.

The interview on the site suggests that there may be destructible environments and a soft-tissue damage system.

GoW2 will probably sell from sequel value, i dident like the first one and i doubt i will like the second one. So no, they dont need to add anything new except more chainsaw.

"Rocket propelled chainsaws."

Yes. My idea is that, coming so soon, off the heels of the first one, my question was "what would make it relevant?" or "stand out", because let's face it. If GoW came out just like it is, right now, with a barebones campaign feel and the barebones multiplayer that it has, it would tank. People's expectations are fickle and change way too fast; ergo, what would it offer besides just stepping up for sequel value, which would be wrong. In the shape the games industry is right now, companies protect their Intellectual Properties so bad that if they don't pull a game right, they lose money just on production costs, it's just not feasible, and EA seems to be the only one who does it these days(with its sports series). So, with GoW2 coming out they must have something up their sleeve, but is it worth it? what can you build from? The first one seemed pretty complete, but at the same time way too complete, and any small changes would tamper with the gameplay or the balance. Somehow it just doesn't seem like something you cant build on and get something better that feels the same.

Any thoughts?

I have to say it will sell just as well as the first, give or take a thousand or so.
The game was good, the gameplay fealt fresh, and though annoying, the multiplayer was captivating. However, I don't forsee some great bound into a new game. The Chainsaw was just too crippling and you could hit someone from four body lengths away. The only way to truly balance the game is to gimp it. Really GoW2 won't be able to so much improve on the first, so much as it will be able to set itself aside from it.

It's an interesting question.

I'm not sure that it will really bring anything new to the series. Maybe a couple of weapons, or new enemy types. I'm more interesting in where the story goes to be honest, hopefully, now that they've got some of the cliches out of they way, we can get something fresh.

(I did like GoW, even though it doesn't sound like it from that last sentence)

They just need to do two things...Fix the fucking controls, just copy what the UT3 team did with their control options and it will be fine. Secondly put an option for a reticle just like UT3 has. As for relevance I do not believe it will be relevant at all; think about when the game came out, and think about what exists now. UT3 on PS3 has made just about every other shooter on consoles look old, with full controller mapping, keyboard/mouse support, and most importantly mod support. Far Cry 2 is going to make alot of other shooters look like a joke off of the environments alone. Then there are games like Haze, Killzone 2, Resistance 2, and even COD4 to an extent. I don't really think anyone save the die hard fans will care about this game by the time it comes out in November.

unabomberman:
What kind of stuff can be implemented on old GoW to make it compete with the games that are out now or coming in shortly after we are done with campaign? I mean, look at friggin halo 3 and its 4 player online co-op, screenshot and theater options. The massive appeal of CoD4(after an even MASSIVE-er...yeah...publicity campaign),

I think we just have to look at the Xbox Live numbers--even after Halo 3, even after CoD4 has been knocking Halo 3 out of the top spot the last couple of weeks, Gears is still hanging in there in the top five. That's...pretty impressive, a game having those kind of legs on the HaloBox. That seriously surprised me--when it came out I figured it was just an appetizer for Halo 3, but, it seems to have carved out its own place. So even if it doesn't really *do* anything, it seems like there are enough people still into the game that even just a straight-up sequel with some minor tweaks will be relevant.

I just hope it doesn't steal the thunder from Resistance again--I got to play the two demo levels and I just loved that game, and I hope the sequel becomes a major player in the FPS scene.

I don't know about you, but I've got a fever... and the only cure is more chainsaw.

(Ya gotta have more chainsaw!)

Why should GoW have to bring anything new? Like, I agree it would be nice if they revolutionized(another over used word) things, but I wouldnt be pissed off if they didnt. What I expect out of my sequels is bigger maps, new guns, smarter AI and sharper graphics. I want the challenge of the original put into high gear, because chances are that if I'm buying a sequel, its because I liked the first one.

I'm looking forward to seeing more enemies onscreen, some reworked graphics, and a bigger online multiplayer. As long as I dont feel like I'm playing an expansion pack to the first Gears, Epic will have done its job. Not changed gaming, but just filling up a peice of my holiday season.

It'll be the Halo 2 of GoW. Nothing amazing new, but everyone will love it and it will have a boring cliffhanger for the trilogy conclusion.

I doubt much will be really new or groundbreaking with this. They've got pretty much the same sequel value as halo and pretty much the same fanbase, toss the avid shooter fans a few new gimmicks and slap on some more photorealism and you've got a game able to sell a million copies.

Widell:
"Rocket propelled chainsaws."

No, chainsaw propelled rockets.

Thunderhorse:
Why should GoW have to bring anything new? Like, I agree it would be nice if they revolutionized(another over used word) things, but I wouldnt be pissed off if they didnt. What I expect out of my sequels is bigger maps, new guns, smarter AI and sharper graphics. I want the challenge of the original put into high gear, because chances are that if I'm buying a sequel, its because I liked the first one.

I'm looking forward to seeing more enemies onscreen, some reworked graphics, and a bigger online multiplayer. As long as I dont feel like I'm playing an expansion pack to the first Gears, Epic will have done its job. Not changed gaming, but just filling up a peice of my holiday season.

Well, yeah. Gears "shouldn't do" anything new; and yes, considering history, when halo2 came out, we had much, much more of the same and - gasp!- dual wielding!, and Arby, but other than that it was a bigger, fatter halo1, an I dug it. It's relevance came in multiplayer; it pretty much invented the wheel for how to carry online multiplayer on consoles. But back then, console shooters were pretty much Halo and anything else(puts flame suit on with worried look on face), no matter how capable they were, they were no halo and thus the term halo-killer was born. Now, we havo Halo-killers abound running rampant and Halo is forced to compete for space in the not-so lonely top, now. Now(two nows in a row!), with the maddening production designs out there and the exhorbitant prices($60 USD), I'd say Epic does reserve the right to not "having to do anything" after having such solid foundation with the first one, but they better 'cuz let's face it, there's some mad competition out there, and for 60 clams I rather buy something that'll keep me glued to my controller and not something I can breeze through and forget about later.

John Galt:

Widell:
"Rocket propelled chainsaws."

No, chainsaw propelled rockets.

RPGs that shoot chainsaws...that EXPLODE! because they're EXTREME!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGSSGakTb0

Although it's better if you want the 'making of Johnny's Extreme Adventure' first before the joke review.

Between GOW2 and Resistance 2. I just hope that both sequels improve on the originals, ya'know, come with something new for the series. Or is that asking to much?

I hope they improve the weapons in Resistance 2, I felt that the guns were kind of blah in the first one. The human rifle just looked wierd to me and I found the Chimeran rifle to simply be more effective than that weapon most of the time.

Widell:
"Rocket propelled chainsaws."

wow that idea made me nearly laugh out loud in the middle of class :-D thanks for nearly getting my teacher really Pissed at me. you=win!

GOW2 sounds good to me right now. Reworked graphics, destructible environments, more characters onscreen at one time, maybe leading to a larger multiplayer, and some new awesome water physics. Sounds great to me. Gears just offered a new way to play. I know kill.switch did it before them, but with Halo out there and everybody jumping up and down; cover based gameplay was very nice. Another game like it sounds great to me. New maps and weapons, fill in the plot some more and I'll be happy.

Who the Hell said that chainsaw duels were a copy of the sword clashes in Halo? Chainsaw duels were originally planned for the first one, but eventually were scrapped. It's an obvious thing to put in the game. What's more badass than two people fighting with chainsaws?

FUCK YOU...GEARS OF WAR 2 LOOKS ACE (SORRY FOR CAPS LOCK)
the game allows ton more way's to kill popele along with chainsaw dueling i think

although you would have though that the whole chainsaw idea would have been worn off

Give the chainsaw a gravity gun secondary, or perhaps the ability to stop time. Problem solved.

/bored with games lately

Im bored of gears of war.
It was cool the first time... Yeah a cool gun with chainsaw...
But then it just got silly, and eventually boring.

Perhaps some new ideas in GoW2 ?

Thunderhorse:
Why should GoW have to bring anything new? Like, I agree it would be nice if they revolutionized(another over used word) things, but I wouldnt be pissed off if they didnt. What I expect out of my sequels is bigger maps, new guns, smarter AI and sharper graphics. I want the challenge of the original put into high gear, because chances are that if I'm buying a sequel, its because I liked the first one.

I'm looking forward to seeing more enemies onscreen, some reworked graphics, and a bigger online multiplayer. As long as I dont feel like I'm playing an expansion pack to the first Gears, Epic will have done its job. Not changed gaming, but just filling up a peice of my holiday season.

I agree with everything you say, but what about vehicles??? They should add vehicles to the game IF... IF they add larger maps and larger multiplayer....

Not a lot of people on this forum like GoW, but I'm personally looking forward to GoW2.
In comparison with the more hoppy hoppy shooty shooty games, I think GoW2 is going to be a nice addition to the library with its somewhat slower combat. After all, GoW still maintains its top 10 status. Thats telling you something.

Resistance, I absolutely loved. The amazing number of weapons made for some pretty interesting co-op on campaign mode. I remember when I jumped on of those spider things (Stalkers?) and used the most useless gun(imo), the gun that fires blobs of acids, on the spider, killing it. I had no ammo for my other weapons at the time. PRETTY EXCITED FOR R:FOM2 I'm sort of pissed at GoW for taking away Resistance's thunder but w/e.

The makers were very interested in my chainsaw-and-gun shooting gun with underslung shotgun and flamethrower. I sent them some schematics.

Gears of War was like an 80's comic book. Filled with over the top violence, Alien/not alien monsters, Badass heroes with bandanas and a plot that dosnt really make much sense. BUT it was fun. REALLY FUN! I had a ball with GoW, every game had heads blowing off, people being chainsawed in two, torque bows making things blow up...It was Awesome!

And GoW2 is going to revamp that enjoyment and make my gaming experience even better.So like I was going to say GoW is a comic book and GoW2 is simply the second edition.

I think that whithout a doubt chainsaw dualing will be in this game. It was planned for GoW1 but had to be taken out for some reason.Maybe the ability to sweep your chainsaw and take out some people lurking behind you with a shotgun without having to get out of the animation. I can see flamethrowers bieng added but they may make you slower so you can't run around setting things on fire, leaving you open to lancer fire.

But most of all I would like things to be BALANCED and GLITCH FREE for a change.

If they fix the singleplayer so it is enjoyable without a Co-Op Partner (YES, the game is meant to be played cooperatively, but does that really mean it has to be annoyingly frustrating alone?) and slightly improve the Multiplayer, than i am certain it will be a fun game.

GOW1 was very good, it was just not everyones cup of tea, and happened to be overrated by many (and underrated by some)

Why does it have to be relevant? Can't it just be fun?

If you're looking for innovation, then Gears of War with destructable envs will be pretty interesting; adds a dimension to the cover mechanic that other cover shooters (R6, GRAW, Mass Effect, etc) didn't use. They already showed with the PC gears that larger maps are possible with the revised U3 engine, so we'll probably move to more epic, less claustrophobic firefights.

And as for constant comparisons with Haze, Killzone 2 and Resistance 2... there's a reek of fanboyism encroaching onto this thread. The Resistance series has a pedigree on the PS3 for sure, and that's good enough reason to be excited about that. But don't forget that Killzone 1 was generic and largely pants, and that Haze has been cancelled and delayed almost as often as Prey: not a benchmark of quality. It's all good and well specualting what may change for the gears sequel, but to comapre that with yet more specualtion fo other unreleased games? Tenuous at best...

The whole point of relevance is this..If you have four or five other games that people are going to probably be playing they are not going to all go run out and buy/rent Gears2 when there are so many other games to play. Relevance was the issue with just about any and every other game that was coming out anywhere near Halo 3's September launch last year. Relevance was also the point when the first Gears of War game launched, can anyone remember what the fuck was out around the time Gears of War came out? There was basically nothing save some lame pc ports, Perfect Dark Zero and I think the first GRAW game. Epic's other franchise Unreal Tournament III has already made everything else out look old on so many more important levels than just visuals. Incidentally if Microsoft does not allow mod support for UT3 on the level of the PS3 version the 360 version will not be very relevant either if and when it comes out.

Keep in mind that there are alot of people who never played the first Killzone so the "failure" of the first game is not really a factor. Far Cry 2 is probably not going to suck enough to let Gears really shine and attract new people who are already flush with very good titles and stand to be hit with some more big ones this year; Resistance 2 is probably not going to suck either even if they only pull off half of what they are talking about for the game. Then you have the spectres of all the other big shooters that are already out.....

The first Gears of War sold a reported 5 million copies, I would say that counts as relevance. The game was released to very popular reviews and it has had a strong online following. It may not quite be at Halo levels of hype, but its a close second on the 360. I think the relevance of the title speaks for itself and I assure you folks will be buying it, even if they have 4 other games they are playing. That didn't hurt sales this fall/winter with the glut of games that still managed to sell millions of Assassins Creed, COD4, Mario Galaxy, Halo 3, Mass Effect, etc.