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

    • Yup, that's a doozy right there 😄
    • It's a bundle of tools created by a variety of people, so things can go wrong sometimes. It's a great addition to Windows, and I use a lot of the tools on a daily basis. Also, it's still a 0.**** release so quick updates are to be expected 😉
    • Oh, I did. And it's even worse than I was hoping! Besides a lot of techno-babble jargon (yes I understand 100% of it but it's still all just techno-babble) there's 2 key points that make me super-weary about even considering testing this out. -- By default, after installation, a relay is automatically set up, so you do not need to care about that. * Non-chatmail apps use email servers as a long-term message archive while chatmail clients use email servers for ephemeral instant message relay. * Supporting the full variety of classic email setups would require considerable development and maintenance efforts, and complicate making chatmail-based messaging more resilient, reliable and fast. -- Basically, the end-user device is the 'server' (relay) so there is NO ARCHIVING whatsoever because every message is necessarily ephemeral. Great for techno-paranoia (and for illicit activities preferring no tracks to cover) but terrible for everybody else. It's also ironically contradictory to engineering principles of redundancies besides the transport layers due to the explicit absence of any persistent storage. Instead of 'classic email address' retaining multi-GB messaging archives on its server, now every device must retain 100% of those storage demands. (Email messages were originally meant to be short correspondences, not the multi-MB attachments boondoggle that now exists with unlimited spam engines flooding every potential recipient.) Any device swap or reset (or loss) makes the entire message history go bye-bye forever... lest there's an off-device auto-archival "relay" mechanism that's really a separate server that holds onto all transported messages (an email server) that utilizes 'chatmail email address' identities (like an email server) and its own persistent storage archive (like an email server). But... this solution is hoping to exist alongside real-world email address identities (based on the email server relay pathway) but simply render messages in chat thread format in an ephemeral manner (with contents being encrypted, and messages auto-expiring) ... In the end, it's a chat app/experience for the Web3/P2P-at-all-costs zealots. (I have accts on all sorts of federated web3 services so I understand the technical and non-technical alike.) For any practical users, however, it's just another service to download/install, register, cross-share id cards/qr codes, but know that there's no history/archive whatsoever (by design) so no account/message recovery whatsoever... update the device, install a bummed update patch, or dare upgrade your device... all history, poof, gone. Ya gotta start everything over again like they're a brand new person.
    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
  • 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
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!