First Gears of War 2 Footage


Recommended Posts

Check out the analysis video, they do a good job of detailing many of the new features:

http://www.gamevideos.com/video/id/18777

Sweet! cant wait

"heres the new carmine - he got killed in the first one but ehm...now hes back" wtf? :huh:

Will it have more than 2-player coop through LIVE?

I take it that was directed at my post :laugh:

Well to me his face looks a little bit "broken" :p

I hope your a virgin otherwise I'd be making sure you haven't been making love to Cliffe's face all these years if that's what you think a vagina looks like.

Sweet! cant wait

"heres the new carmine - he got killed in the first one but ehm...now hes back" wtf? :huh:

Will it have more than 2-player coop through LIVE?

What number were you exactly thinking? There is a reason why it was set to 2 for GOW, it balanced the gameplay. I think anymore than that and the challenge is gone.

I have more friends with an xbox than 1 :s

The more the merrier

Yes and so do I. The point is that if you would try to play a Co-op Live campaign with more than 2 people it would be greatly unbalanced in your favor. People would then complain, it isn't hard enough and want a higher difficulty when it wasn't meant to be played like that in the first place.

Yes and so do I. The point is that if you would try to play a Co-op Live campaign with more than 2 people it would be greatly unbalanced in your favor. People would then complain, it isn't hard enough and want a higher difficulty when it wasn't meant to be played like that in the first place.

So add more enemies? up the difficulty?

So add more enemies? up the difficulty?

As I said before, no matter how high of a difficulty you have, people will always want more. When you have that many people, any difficulty would be destroyed by those numbers.

Besides that, the fact that having that many enemies using a better AI script (higher difficulty) is eventually pushing what one game could do.

Once again, this is a reason why 2 person Co-op hasn't been changed much in the last 2 years, its right where it is.

What number were you exactly thinking? There is a reason why it was set to 2 for GOW, it balanced the gameplay. I think anymore than that and the challenge is gone.

Yes, for GoW1 it would imbalance the gameplay, but I'm sure that now Epic is showcasing their updated engine to handle more enemy AI (hundreds if not thousands of enemies on screen at once) that it would actually make more sense to have more than 2-players in Co-Op mode.

So add more enemies? up the difficulty?

Exactly. Epic has already stated that there are a lot more enemies in GoW2.

As I said before, no matter how high of a difficulty you have, people will always want more. When you have that many people, any difficulty would be destroyed by those numbers.

Besides that, the fact that having that many enemies using a better AI script (higher difficulty) is eventually pushing what one game could do.

Once again, this is a reason why 2 person Co-op hasn't been changed much in the last 2 years, its right where it is.

I'm not so sure about that. Look at Halo 3, having 4-players in a Legendary campaign with a few difficulty skulls turned on is, for lack of a better term, epic! It is a lot of fun and I'm sure that Epic has the capability of pulling it off just as well as Bungie, if not even better (since they can look back and see what worked and what didn't in Bungie's campaign).

I'm not saying multiple co-op is definitely coming to GoW2, but I'm saying it's very possible and I wouldn't be so quick to rule it out as you have.

Yes, for GoW1 it would imbalance the gameplay, but I'm sure that now Epic is showcasing their updated engine to handle more enemy AI (hundreds if not thousands of enemies on screen at once) that it would actually make more sense to have more than 2-players in Co-Op mode.
Their updated engine can handle more enemies, but if you look in the video shown, when Marcus fires at the enemies, he doesn't hurt them. The shooting reticule shows up white instead of red. So yes you could have more enemies on screen, but if you can hurt/kill them in a battle, what's the use? In the video, it is effective for creating a deeper sense of a battle, but if you can't shoot them, that's just it, they are there for the looks not the game play.
I'm not so sure about that. Look at Halo 3, having 4-players in a Legendary campaign with a few difficulty skulls turned on is, for lack of a better term, epic! It is a lot of fun and I'm sure that Epic has the capability of pulling it off just as well as Bungie, if not even better (since they can look back and see what worked and what didn't in Bungie's campaign).

I'm not saying multiple co-op is definitely coming to GoW2, but I'm saying it's very possible and I wouldn't be so quick to rule it out as you have./quote]Halo can be compared, but I am not sure how great of a comparison it is.

First, Halo is no where near the graphics of Gears. The detail put into Gears (into smaller settings) is enormous. Many of the Halo stages were sent in large more open battlefields, thus making it viable for more than 2 players. Putting 4 players into certain aspects of Gear's campaign would just be insane, because its just too small. I can see why Bungie had so many enemies in Halo 3, because it was more spread out, giving the enemies more angles of attack. The close quarters in Gears just don't allow that.

Putting the amount of enemies required for a 3-4 co-op, enough so people don't complain, added with the graphics of Gears is just too much for a 360 to handle right now. Maybe I'm just spit balling, but for Gears, it just won't work.

^ Again, you're assuming way too much.

The fact that the reticle was white instead of red could simply mean that the enemy was "out of range" of that particular gun that Marcus was using at that point it time. It does not necessarily mean that those enemies are just for show, although that is a possibility. But in that case, if they were just for show, why would the player have bothered to shoot at them? We don't know for sure either way.

You're also assuming that GoW2 will be the same close-quarters combat as GoW1. Who is to say that Epic hasn't expanded on the battle gameplay and made it more open, etc?

Unless you know for a fact because of some inside source or something or other, I wouldn't be so quick to rule out certain things. I think you're assuming way too much here.

First off, I should have said I am a realist. It means I don't always assume, but I try to keep things in perspective.

The fact that the reticle was white instead of red could simply mean that the enemy was "out of range" of that particular gun that Marcus was using at that point it time. It does not necessarily mean that those enemies are just for show, although that is a possibility. But in that case, if they were just for show, why would the player have bothered to shoot at them? We don't know for sure either way.

I agree, it could mean there will be more on the screen that are shoot-able, but not to the extent that he saw running on the ground (4 man team versus all that...yea right :p). I think the player shot at them because he is normal. If I were in his spot, I would have shot too, why wouldn't we. :p

You're also assuming that GoW2 will be the same close-quarters combat as GoW1. Who is to say that Epic hasn't expanded on the battle gameplay and made it more open, etc?

Epic had a winning formula on their hands when they made the original Gears. They aren't going to drastically change an essential element to that formula if they want to innovate in other areas of the game.

Unless you know for a fact because of some inside source or something or other, I wouldn't be so quick to rule out certain things. I think you're assuming way too much here.
That is the key. I didn't say something would never happen, I am just trying to keep people's expectations in perspective. People get over-the-top hyped up for something, and it doesn't deliver every hype exception (but is still an awesome game), people will predictably yell.
Glad we could reach some sort of agreement. :p

:p For the record, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just felt like you were assuming way too much and I decided to play devil's advocate.

Either way, I'm sure GoW2 will be a great game regardless of whether or not Epic decides to introduce 2+ player co-op.

Their updated engine can handle more enemies, but if you look in the video shown, when Marcus fires at the enemies, he doesn't hurt them. The shooting reticule shows up white instead of red. So yes you could have more enemies on screen, but if you can hurt/kill them in a battle, what's the use? In the video, it is effective for creating a deeper sense of a battle, but if you can't shoot them, that's just it, they are there for the looks not the game play.

QUOTE-SNIP

Halo can be compared, but I am not sure how great of a comparison it is.

First, Halo is no where near the graphics of Gears. The detail put into Gears (into smaller settings) is enormous. Many of the Halo stages were sent in large more open battlefields, thus making it viable for more than 2 players. Putting 4 players into certain aspects of Gear's campaign would just be insane, because its just too small. I can see why Bungie had so many enemies in Halo 3, because it was more spread out, giving the enemies more angles of attack. The close quarters in Gears just don't allow that.

Putting the amount of enemies required for a 3-4 co-op, enough so people don't complain, added with the graphics of Gears is just too much for a 360 to handle right now. Maybe I'm just spit balling, but for Gears, it just won't work.

But there was always 3 other NPCs with you in the game? :huh:

I cant see why real human beings cant take their roles?

But there was always 3 other NPCs with you in the game? :huh:

I cant see why real human beings cant take their roles?

Are you kidding me? NPC's aren't even closing to an actual human being that thinks.

NPC's will never provide the same amount of intensity (bullets, strategy, actually doing something, etc.) that a human would. NPC's may put up "cover fire" or fire, but I don't think much of a comparison can be made.

Are you kidding me? NPC's aren't even closing to an actual human being that thinks.

NPC's will never provide the same amount of intensity (bullets, strategy, actually doing something, etc.) that a human would. NPC's may put up "cover fire" or fire, but I don't think much of a comparison can be made.

But that's the thing. The skeleton is there, adding human players just means you'll need harder AI. The transition really is not all that difficult. I really think you will be surprised. But, who knows, we'll see...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Onkyo Dolby Atmos AV receivers are really solid deals by Sayan Sen Recently we covered great deals on several soundbar models from the likes of Sony, JBL, Samsung and others for really good prices (the lowest in several months). Aside from that we also reported on the Edifier S3000MKII, a hi-fi two-way bookshelf monitor that's available for only $800. Today we bring a list of AV receivers from Onkyo that are available at great prices including the Onkyo NR7100, RZ30, and 8470 (purchase links under the specs table down below). The Onkyo TX-NR7100 and Onkyo TX-RZ30 are both 9.2-channel AV receivers designed for immersive home theater setups but they occupy slightly different tiers within Onkyo’s lineup with the RZ30 positioned as the more advanced model. The TX-NR7100 is a THX Certified 9.2-channel receiver offering up to 100 W per channel (8 ohms, 2 channels driven). It supports Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, and IMAX Enhanced formats, with flexible configurations such as 5.1.4 or 7.1.2 speaker layouts. A key highlight is its built-in Dirac Live Room Correction which should help optimize sound based on your room and its acoustics. In comparison, both models share several core capabilities though the RZ30 is geared toward enthusiasts seeking more precise calibration and system flexibility, while the NR7100 is positioned as a slightly more accessible, value-focused option with strong all-round performance. The technical specs of the RZ30 and NR7100 9.2 AVRs are given in the table below: Specification Onkyo TX-RZ30 Onkyo TX-NR7100 Power Output (FTC, 2ch driven) ~100 W/ch (8Ω, 20Hz–20kHz, 0.08% THD) 100 W/ch (8Ω, 20Hz–20kHz, 0.08% THD) Dynamic / Peak Power 9 × 170 W (6Ω, 1kHz, 1% THD, 1ch driven) 220 W/ch (6Ω, 1kHz, 10% THD, 1ch driven) Frequency Response 5 Hz – 100 kHz (+1/-3 dB) 10 Hz – 100 kHz (+1/-3 dB) THD 0.08% 0.08% Room Correction Dirac Live (full bandwidth) Dirac Live (with AccuReflex support) Immersive Audio Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, IMAX Enhanced Dolby Atmos, DTS:X, IMAX Enhanced Speaker Layout Support Up to 7.2.2 / 5.2.4 / 9.2 processing Up to 7.2.4 / 5.2.4 / 9.2 processing HDMI Inputs / Outputs 6 inputs / 2 outputs (eARC) 6 inputs / 2 outputs (Main + Sub/Zone 2) HDMI 2.1 Support 8K/60, 4K/120, VRR, ALLM, QFT, DSC, eARC 8K/60, 4K/120, VRR, ALLM, QFT, DSC, eARC Video Formats HDR10+, Dolby Vision, HDCP 2.3 HDR10+, Dolby Vision, HDCP 2.3 Streaming / Network Wi-Fi, AirPlay 2, Chromecast, Bluetooth, DTS Play-Fi Wi-Fi, AirPlay 2, Chromecast, Bluetooth, DTS Play-Fi Get them at the links below: Onkyo TX-RZ30 9.2-Channel AV Receiver: $797.00 (Sold and shipped by Electronic Expo) Onkyo TX-NR7100 9.2-Channel AV Receiver: $699.00 (Sold and shipped by Adorma) Onkyo TX-8470 2 Ch Stereo Receiver: $449.00 (Sold and Shipped by Adorma) Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links or authorized dealer links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from such links only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • A different thing with Russia. When you say is it better, depends on things. It is better that we don't have the E.U making rules and laws that have nothing to do with them. Is the trading part better? No, that is really mucked up, but then we knew that was going to happen and we would have make agreements, like we do with other parts of the world. Freedom of movement is certainly better, but could be improved, we still need more control over our borders. do you live in the U.K?
    • So what am I quoting from them? I never listened to what Farage or his cronies said. I wanted the U.K to leave the E.u years before the referendum and it had nothing to do with Farage and his cronies. So what country do you live in? Did we work much better together? We were always at logger heads with the E.U because we disagreed with them so much. Maggie was always on at them. I would have thought the E.U was glad to get rid of us as we stopped the integration or made it a two tier. Now without us they can integrate more. I would not have voted out if it was just a trading block and we can still work together on somethings.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      498
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      224
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      148
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!