Shit?

So, Unreal Tournament 3 for the 360, comes with a little video on the disk. A strange video that for some reason in order to watch you must be signed into Xboxlive, even though you do not watch it from live.
This is the developers talking about the multiplayer for Gears of War 2. Now, the one thing that caught me as a red flag moment, is when they began talking aout how they wanted the matches to be bigger.
They decided, they were going to make the maches larger, by adding, "a great deal more players available to play in a single match." 10. They are going to be allowing 10 people per match, and it is what they are calling, "a huge expansion". Ever play Gears of War online? You can have 8.... I'm not sure where two more is a huge expansion, but whatever.

Another thing which draws what I think will become alot of controversy, is their new "Capture the flag" mode. You don't capture a flag, you take down a guy, use him as your meat shield, and return him to your base. That's pushing it in my opinion. You have to kidnap someone, and then use them as a human shield.... I know this game is gritty, but WHOA!

Any of you out there have any thoughts?

1. I agree, why would you need to be singed in to something to watch a vid whend its not even on liveand I've seen games with 16 players to a server.

2. I think that capture the flag mode sounds awesome and very original. Just imagining his blood spilling on me as we go through a filed of enemy snipers gets my adrenalin going.

Two players is a big expansion because the game is a tactical third person shooter. The idea is to use a minimal amount of teammates and stratagize to take out the enemy.
Also the idea of capture the flag is that if your the humans you rescue the man. If your the locust you capture him.

I think the new CTF sounds like a bloody fantastic idea. Though it'll never beat 6 player LAN parties of Halo/ Halo 2. Capture the Flag. Bloodgulch. Warthogs. Need I say any more?

Gears of War was never really a good game in the first place. As I see it, the main lure of even renting the game was 1) the excessive testosterone fueled gory grittiness and 2) chopping your buddies up with a chainsaw. Capturing a man by brutalizing him and then having him soak up bullets for you while you scurry back to your base fits in comfortably with that theme. Besides, it doesn't make any less sense than having to arbitrarily capture their flag.

However the two more players per match being a "huge" change is just a laugh.

Daemon Slayer12:
Two players is a big expansion because the game is a tactical third person shooter. The idea is to use a minimal amount of teammates and stratagize to take out the enemy.
Also the idea of capture the flag is that if your the humans you rescue the man. If your the locust you capture him.

Actually it's not a rescue as even as humans you still have to shoot him down first and use him as a shield. It's not two prisoners, it's one and you fight to see who gets him.

Well the two extra people may make a big difference as me and four friends often want to play and this will be perfect. The new capture the enemy mode i could do without though, but nobody is forcing me to play it so what the hell.

Not sure if I feel like getting the game, but the changes actualy seem to be to the better.

It looks fun to me.
As fair as I'm concerned thats all that matters,that no more hoste advantage.

Azriel Nightshade:
It looks fun to me.
As fair as I'm concerned thats all that matters,that no more hoste advantage.

As Fair? I think you ment as far.

I don't play multi-player, so I honestly don't care. I'm just worried that they're going to force in the the whole human shield thing, as in some firefights ditching traditional cover altogether and expecting you to just use bodies the whole time.

gears of war 2 shaping up to be...the same damn thing with prettier environments that seem out of place and characters with the same personality as mud. And I say that very generously. Eh, I could be wrong but I doubt it.

JOE COOL:

Azriel Nightshade:
It looks fun to me.
As fair as I'm concerned thats all that matters,that no more hoste advantage.

As Fair? I think you ment as far.

quite obviously and you don't have to devote an entire post to something I'm sure everyone either didn't notice until you pointed it out or they got what he was saying regardless. By the way I think you meant to say "meant", not "ment".

Gears of War 2, Shaping Up To Be Awesome!

the monopoly guy:
gears of war 2 shaping up to be...the same damn thing with prettier environments that seem out of place and characters with the same personality as mud. And I say that very generously. Eh, I could be wrong but I doubt it.

JOE COOL:

Azriel Nightshade:
It looks fun to me.
As fair as I'm concerned thats all that matters,that no more hoste advantage.

As Fair? I think you ment as far.

quite obviously and you don't have to devote an entire post to somethign I'm sure everyone either didn't notice until you pointed it out or they got what he was saying regardless. By the way I think you meant to say "meant", not "ment".

Fine I'll take the next move, Monopoly guy, it's "something", not "somethign".

All the improvements I'm seeing in GeOW just seems to be more ways to kill someone once they have been downed. That's nice and all but put something more interesting in the hype and let US discover the "shock value" - I'd appreciate if they would show what major changes there are in the levels, the last vid. was some on Rails thing. That's like...a step backwards.

Some of it looks pointless though, I mean, what's the point of getting on the ground and pounding someone in the face? That's for fighting games, this is a fucking cover based shooter with some gore, not Fight Night. Curb Stomp is much more humiliating anyway, and that ground pound thing just seems like another thing "thrown in for the sake of being cool" kind of thing. I like violence and all but that ground pound thing is just bloody stupid, it's like instead of being badass, it's just trying to. Some weapon specific fatalities are cool and some are a bit "eh - needs more "zaz" " like the sniper rifle one, he just smacks the guy in the head with it, BUT HIS HEAD A-SPLODES!!! BLARG!

Maybe I'm being too picky since other games (Dead Rising) could let you kill people with a fucking showerhead and it's the goriest most crazy thing you can think of, but now the game where we could get up close and personal and chainsaw our enemies in half, and squish their heads like a watermelon, now give us the option to "punch them in the face!"

Cliffy B. saying "bigger and more badass indeed" is getting on my fucking nerves too and I want to chainsaw his tongue out, but that's a different story.

EDIT: -oh and I forgot to mention that the capture the flag mode seems more like a "Good in Theory but not in practice" kind of thing - not to mention another "trying too hard to be 'most kick ass violent game of the year' award. I mean, do we REALLY want to slowly walk back to base while someone easily flanks the..flag carriers ass? How about we just shoot the guy in the knee's and then pick him up?

The last interview I saw with the infamous "Cliffster" rekindled my hope for gears 2.
He mentioned that they made over 400 tweaks to the cover system, added stopping power for guns (That means enemy gunfire slows you down, no more roll > shotgun blast in the face), and a lot more, so multiplayer will be almost perfect in my opinion. (yay for matchmaking system!)

And rumor has it that they are revealing a few new additional weapons this E3.
I loved the first one to death, can't wait for the second.

TheNecroswanson:

the monopoly guy:
gears of war 2 shaping up to be...the same damn thing with prettier environments that seem out of place and characters with the same personality as mud. And I say that very generously. Eh, I could be wrong but I doubt it.

JOE COOL:

Azriel Nightshade:
It looks fun to me.
As fair as I'm concerned thats all that matters,that no more hoste advantage.

As Fair? I think you ment as far.

quite obviously and you don't have to devote an entire post to somethign I'm sure everyone either didn't notice until you pointed it out or they got what he was saying regardless. By the way I think you meant to say "meant", not "ment".

Fine I'll take the next move, Monopoly guy, it's "something", not "somethign".

LOL.

Trogd0r:
The last interview I saw with the infamous "Cliffster" rekindled my hope for gears 2.
He mentioned that they made over 400 tweaks to the cover system, added stopping power for guns (That means enemy gunfire slows you down, no more roll > shotgun blast in the face), and a lot more, so multiplayer will be almost perfect in my opinion. (yay for matchmaking system!)

And rumor has it that they are revealing a few new additional weapons this E3.
I loved the first one to death, can't wait for the second.

That's the best news I've heard for the game yet. Because I freaking hated how most matcvhes ended in shotgun fests. I could care less of it trying to be grittier to appeal to the "tough" 360 audience.

Sadly, I don't care for the franchise anymore because it already let me down the first time, and I'm sure new problems will arise with multiplayer.

shatnershaman:
Gears of War 2, Shaping Up To Be Absolutely useless for everybody with the pc version!

Fixed.

Wow. 10 players. Thats big yeah...

Know how many Resistance 2 can fit? 60! The original could fit 40 at a a time. And this is on the "inferior" free network.

Indigo_Dingo:
Wow. 10 players. Thats big yeah...

Know how many Resistance 2 can fit? 60! The original could fit 40 at a a time. And this is on the "inferior" free network.

dear sweet lord jesus christ.

All my brain is saying at this point is the word "clusterfuck" over and over and over and over and over with an image of a grenade in my brain.

Ultrajoe:

Indigo_Dingo:
Wow. 10 players. Thats big yeah...

Know how many Resistance 2 can fit? 60! The original could fit 40 at a a time. And this is on the "inferior" free network.

dear sweet lord jesus christ.

All my brain is saying at this point is the word "clusterfuck" over and over and over and over and over with an image of a grenade in my brain.

You'd think so, but huge area maps for 40 players bouts actually manages to counter that.

Indigo_Dingo:

Ultrajoe:

Indigo_Dingo:
Wow. 10 players. Thats big yeah...

Know how many Resistance 2 can fit? 60! The original could fit 40 at a a time. And this is on the "inferior" free network.

dear sweet lord jesus christ.

All my brain is saying at this point is the word "clusterfuck" over and over and over and over and over with an image of a grenade in my brain.

You'd think so, but huge area maps for 40 players bouts actually manages to counter that.

Thats a lot of players, I doubt many connections could host 40 people let alone 60.

Fire Daemon:

Indigo_Dingo:

Ultrajoe:

Indigo_Dingo:
Wow. 10 players. Thats big yeah...

Know how many Resistance 2 can fit? 60! The original could fit 40 at a a time. And this is on the "inferior" free network.

dear sweet lord jesus christ.

All my brain is saying at this point is the word "clusterfuck" over and over and over and over and over with an image of a grenade in my brain.

You'd think so, but huge area maps for 40 players bouts actually manages to counter that.

Thats a lot of players, I doubt many connections could host 40 people let alone 60.

Mine can, and mines not that special

Gears of Wars' multiplayer isn't geared towards huge battles, it's about small, usually quite tactical games, a nice break from games trying to fit as many players as they can in to make the multiplayer remotely fun. I mean, look at Halo 3 as another example, great with 4-8 players on either split-screen or on Live, whereas the big battles are, most of the time, pretty crappy and full of lag.

I agree, lots of players does not equal good multiplayer.

So by that logic, making the Gears2 multiplayer bigger is a mistake.

And you cannot deny its a technological feat, making the multiplayer big enough to fit 60 simultaneous players

Indigo_Dingo:
So by that logic, making the Gears2 multiplayer bigger is a mistake.

And you cannot deny its a technological feat, making the multiplayer big enough to fit 60 simultaneous players

It'd be a mistake if they added like, 15-20 players, but 10 is not such a huge step where the whole core idea behind Gears' multiplayer is messed with.

Sure it's a feat, and I'm not say Resistance 2's multiplayer won't be good, it's simply the fact more players doesn't always mean better multiplayer.

Indigo_Dingo:

Fire Daemon:

Indigo_Dingo:

Ultrajoe:

Indigo_Dingo:
Wow. 10 players. Thats big yeah...

Know how many Resistance 2 can fit? 60! The original could fit 40 at a a time. And this is on the "inferior" free network.

dear sweet lord jesus christ.

All my brain is saying at this point is the word "clusterfuck" over and over and over and over and over with an image of a grenade in my brain.

You'd think so, but huge area maps for 40 players bouts actually manages to counter that.

Thats a lot of players, I doubt many connections could host 40 people let alone 60.

Mine can, and mines not that special

So can Frontlines.Halo,CoD and other 16-player games run P2P system where one player is a host while Resistance and Frontlines are running on Dedicated Servers owned by Sony and THQ respectively.The fact that one runs on PSN while the other works with XBL has nothing to do with it.

Indigo, why are you lambasting a game that decides not to go down the route of epic grenade-spamming battles? Splinter Cell MP only started out with 2v2, but that was one of the most tense and interesting multiplayer concepts in years. Gears isn't built for epic battles. It's based around skirmishes in tight environments, and you making sure you stay in cover and don't get your head blown off.

Then they shouldn't have made such a big deal about adding two new spots as the OP described, and making it sound like it was an amazing technological feat. I'm simply keeping things in perspective.

And for the record, there's not that much Grenade spamming in Resistance multiplayer, or at least not the ones I've played. People are more likely to stick you with an AFG, though. That can get tense

Trogd0r:
I agree, lots of players does not equal good multiplayer.

Trogd0r:
lots of players does not equal good multiplayer.

QFT.

So we're in agreement that bringing the total no. of players up to 10 is not an accomplishement that should warrant such atrocious self-congratulation as the OP pointed out?

Yes, we do, but I severely doubt that the people behind Gears brought it that way.
And if you have played Gears online, you would know that having a fifth member on a team changes the online formula quite a bit.
It's not your average run&gun shooter with endless respawning.