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

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!