But I doubt they'll be able to do anything against EA. =D
Because they only reviewed offline co-op. Online co-op is still being finished. Will they update their review like 1up did? Otherwise this review carries far too much weight especially if it focuses only on a single part of the game that isn't even finished and still gets counted towards the final average as if it was the full finished game.
"but Its freakign Dom and Marcus ..its accepted"
Who cares? Their storyline is about as interesting as that of Hulk Hogan and the undertaker. You have to be a fanboy to really just "accept" a storyline even before you have played the game.
More wishful thinking by the Xbox fanboys. Next-up, Content on demand: The Killer of Blu-ray?
My point is that Gears of War 2 is just a minor improvement over the first one, and it didn't raise the bar unlike other franchises. It could have done 8-player co-op, Horde Mode could have enlarged the storyline, and the game looks the same as last time. Did they run out of ideas or what? Certainly not other dev teams.
Oh, and SOCOM? Who even mentioned SOCOM? You want my opinion? That game should have been delayed...
oops wrong post
So basically take the first gears of war and add co-op that isn't up to today's best standards (8-players and a storyline of its own), with multiplayer's measly amount of players per round, and another short campaign whose only additional features over the original game are "meat shields", and you get GeOW2. That warrants a near perfect score?
If that's so, I wonder what a game that actually delivers the best in every front would get... I'm guessing a 12, because a 1...
After all, they did an 18 page report on Gears of War 2, but the review felt so weak in terms of justification for that score. The claim "One of the best shooters ever made" is not really justified, it's simply passed on as a fact when it's only a baseless opinion.
For an 18 page report on GeOW2, I don't doubt Microsoft sent a huge cheque to Gamepro. And I doubt Gamepro editors' dared to give their honest opinion and anger Microsoft (and its fans) by saying how Gears...
Either that or reconsider the way they score games.
"5-classic
4- excellent
3-good
2-Fair
1-Terrible"
To me it sounds like they rated it a 5 because a 4 or below would have infuriated 360 fanboys. However, it sounds to me more like their 5 equals a 10-9 out of 10, their 4 a 9-8 out of 10, their 3 an 8-7 out of 10, their 2 a 7-6 out of 10, and their 1 anything below 6, instead of a "5 out of 5" system.
...
"Outrageous gore and crisp visuals also help make GOW2 a bewitching blaster;"
They look the same as last time. It's not like you're gonna be wowed because you've already seen this before.
"and while series aficionados may feel as if they’ve seen it all before," <-------------
Major keypoint here. Just for this the game doesn't deserve perfect scores. Obviously scores don't matter, but Xbox fanboys take them as gospel so just...
Someone looking for hits, it seems. So 5 games are "broken" (assuming that needing a patch for an improved experience makes the game broken), 3 of which were fixed the month they launched (SOCOM, Little Big Planet and Bioshock), one of which has exclusive DLC for 360 (Fallout 3) and another of which its developer hates the PS3 (The Orange Box)?
Right, another dipsh1t looking for hits.
They think this game is as good as Resistance 2, even though resistance is multiplayer, single player and co-op and this is only multiplayer. Proves just how f*cked up 1up is.
...he gets excited over nothing. I am excited for games and getting new features in sequels, not for the midnight launch parties (especially not for sequels that don't really move the franchise forward too much). That's the rational thing to do as a gamer, because almost everything else is just fanboy fodder. But of course, he thinks that ignoring me will suddenly make his problems go away. I don't even care if he reads or not my comments, hell that's perfectly fine by me, after all I'm only ...
We know it sucks on PS3 (in comparison) since weeks ago, I don't think we need a new article reminding us every day. For that reason I'll get it on 360 like I did with orange box and GTAIV, and also they have extra DLC.
This is the exception, not the rule, and I'm also not surprised considering microsoft paid for additional DLC. Perhaps they paid for not putting much effort to the Ps3 version too.
They must be confused, this game looks just like the original Gears of War. Are they sure they are showing the sequel? They can hardly be distinguished if this is indeed gears 2.
"R1 had nothing on Gears 1 just like R2 has nothing on Gears 2". All I read here is "NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM gimme more microsoft NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM NYUM".
Gears 1 had a 5 hour campaign with very few enemies in a single moment. It's all about closed corridors and close up detail, but it's hardly "Epic" in size of levels, which is ironic considering it is made by... well, Epic. R1 had nothing on Gears 1? Please, R1 had a much l...
Science is not subjective, it's not a democracy, the reason pluto is not considered a planet is because it doesn't fit with the updated definition of planet, and they'd have to re-define what planet means. There is a scientific (and perhaps even philosophical) reason for that definition, it's not just abitrary bullsh1t (for that there are creationists and Xbox fanboys).
Stupid zombies.
After all, this is a planned event. If the game sucked, they wouldn't do something like this. However, it takes time to plan these things, and somehow they knew ahead of time it would be a good game? Something smells fishy here. After all, they barely reviewed the game.
This game is gonna get 10 from the following websites:
Gamespot (Gerstmann Fiasco, 9.5 to Gears but 8.8 to Zelda TP lol), 1up (Dan Hsu, nuff said), GameTrailers (HD configuration fiasco), Kotaku (...
I have enough to worry about my own console exploding, so I'm glad that a non-free service doesn't explode. But then again, we'll see...