Gears of War was BRILLIANT! It was just the right length too.

The only thing that ruined Gears was the first online update which made it near impossible to find the same game as someone on your friends list.

See, I was never fond of Gears online. But then again, as y' all know I' m not the biggest fan of Halo either, and despite the massive stylistic differences, the basic mechanics are quite similar.

I like having good reflexes give me an advantage. You don' t have that in Halo or Gears. As long as you can track your reticle over the enemies head, you' ve got the upper hand in a match. It leads to lots of " less than tactical" moments, even though Gear' s cover system appealed in some ways to the tactical shooter crowd.

The campaign was absolutely mind-blowing though, especially co-op.

Even though aiming and shooting wasn' t as skillful, the level design and balance of multiplayer was refined. It was clever to stick to 4 vs 4, with each level having a place for different styles of play - long range, short range, defensive, offensive, corridors, open arenas etc. More interesting than a free for all in an open level with 60 players imo.

This broke down though if you had a host with an amazing ping, who would then constantly rush and shotgun you in the face before you could react.

I dunno. There' s something to be said for large 24+ matches.

Smaller matches certainly have their place as well. I' m not discounting the design or quality of Gears multiplayer, but I' ve always disliked the 10-15 hit kill system. If you can' t do it in one or two, I' d rather not do it at all.

This broke down though if you had a host with an amazing ping, who would then constantly rush and shotgun you in the face before you could react.

Yeah. They need to get rid of the ridiculous host advantage, and more importantly the glitching. Nothing pissed me and my friends off more than to be playing a ranked match only to have some of the other teams players crab walking, or chainsaw glitching, etc. It might just be me, but that ruined Gears online for me and I have never gone back.

First we got Aerosmtih last year to spill the beans on Rock Band, and Guitar Hero. Now we have the voice of Marcus Fenix giving us some more " beans" regarding Gears 2.

ohn DiMaggio is the voice of Bender. He' s also the voice of Marcus Fenix, which is the more likely reason IGN were interviewing him, hoping no doubt that - as is becoming common these says - as a voice actor he' d spill the kind of games-related beans a developer wouldn' t dare. DiMaggio didn' t disappoint. He reveals that, like the PC version of the original, players will face off against a Brumak in Gears 2. He also says Franklin will be returning, then goes and loses himself with excitement:

Oh man, dude - there' s new weapons, new beasts, there' s a couple of new characters, and it' s just badass.

Yes, that' s wonderful, but is there story this time, John?

There just might be.

It looks cool as s---. The storylines are really cool and the relationships of the guys in the game - the sequences that explain things that are going on - they' re a lot deeper.

Well, his insider commentary was sure revolutionary.

Well, his insider commentary was sure revolutionary.

He must be low on alcohol.

I like having good reflexes give me an advantage. You don' t have that in Halo or Gears. As long as you can track your reticle over the enemies head, you' ve got the upper hand in a match. It leads to lots of " less than tactical" moments,

Whaaaa...? What are you getting at, man? Do you think hiding behind a corner in COD4 and then suddenly spotting someone and frantically shooting the hell out of their leg until they die is a better measure of reflexes than aiming for enemies who are actively evading you in Halo? I will grant you that it is not realistic " tactically," but don' t try and say that Halo isn' t about good reflexes. If anything, it' s about good reflexes and good aim.

Another problem I had with COD4 would be, while trying to crouch down next to the bottom of a window ledge, then peak over and look around, I' d get killed. From my point of view, I was barely peering over the window sill. But watching the kill cam, it would show my entire torso and head exposed. I just can' t trust a FPS where you can' t see your own player model. There' s no way to prove that your own perspective is the same as someone else' s.

Whaaaa...? What are you getting at, man? Do you think hiding behind a corner in COD4 and then suddenly spotting someone and frantically shooting the hell out of their leg until they die is a better measure of reflexes than aiming for enemies who are actively evading you in Halo? I will grant you that it is not realistic " tactically," but don' t try and say that Halo isn' t about good reflexes. If anything, it' s about good reflexes and good aim.

Another problem I had with COD4 would be, while trying to crouch down next to the bottom of a window ledge, then peak over and look around, I' d get killed. From my point of view, I was barely peering over the window sill. But watching the kill cam, it would show my entire torso and head exposed. I just can' t trust a FPS where you can' t see your own player model. There' s no way to prove that your own perspective is the same as someone else' s.

You' re too slow old man. COD4 is elevated beyond fast reflexes. If you want to play well you have to anticipate what the opponent will do next. In Halo 3 you have entire seconds to figure it out. Hey look fool I' m standing right in front of you and I' m shooting you with my [insert random Halo 3 weapon].....I' m still shooting you with my [insert same weapon]. Halo 3 doesn' t even have weapons. they might as well be waving around flashing dildos, you' d get the same effect.

In Cod4 a rifle does what you would expect it to do.

ORIGINAL: choupolo

Even though aiming and shooting wasn' t as skillful, the level design and balance of multiplayer was refined. It was clever to stick to 4 vs 4, with each level having a place for different styles of play - long range, short range, defensive, offensive, corridors, open arenas etc. More interesting than a free for all in an open level with 60 players imo.

This broke down though if you had a host with an amazing ping, who would then constantly rush and shotgun you in the face before you could react.

The aiming and shooting in Gears is more skill based than any other console game. Even the power weapons require skill. The boom shot requires a body shot, the sniper rifle typically requires a headshot. It isn' t an easy game to use power weapons in.

Laggy hosts ruin the game though. It really pissed me off they didn' t have options for dedicated servers. It isn' t worth playing with any lag.

I see an emerging pattern. Seems whatever game people are into, they thinks its skillful. Personally I think in the pure aiming and shooting department - Quake3/UT99>CSS>COD4>Gears>Ghost Recon>Halo.

I agree both Gears and Halo require skill in shooting though. I think what lets Halo down is the huuuge aiming reticle.

After playing COD4 for so long and then going back and playing Halo 3 online, Halo 3 is just way too damn slow. Now the only actual problem I have with Halo 3 online is the aweful melee system in place. You can have a guy shoot you for a bit and then hit melee and he seems to be able to glide along the ground 10 feet and melee you for a kill.

Oh and Loco, if you are peering through a window enough to peak over the ledge to look around, then at the very least your head is exposed for a quick head shot kill.

I see an emerging pattern. Seems whatever game people are into, they thinks its skillful.

Well, I think you' re probably right to a large degree there. There' s also no way to really objectively test it, because most everyone who isn' t getting paid has to focus on developing skill and tactics in one particular game, or at least just has one particular game that they vastly prefer.

I guess my point is that most of the anti-Halo vitriol is just a backlash against the marketing hype surrounding it. It' s only a matter of time then before a lot of these same gamers are going to be slagging COD' s next incarnation for being overhyped, regardless of its quality. It is now in the hot seat as the most popular game, and will get the hype machine treatment. Anyhow, I don' t take it too seriously, but I' ll be around to counter anyone' s oversimplified arguments with oversimplified arguments of my own!

Of course, it' s generally expected that Treyarch' s COD5 will suck. That' s gotta be a salty pancake.

The multiplayer will be a nice distraction, as it was with CoD3, but I have zero expectations for the single player component.

I see an emerging pattern. Seems whatever game people are into, they thinks its skillful. Personally I think in the pure aiming and shooting department - Quake3/UT99>CSS>COD4>Gears>Ghost Recon>Halo.

Well, no, that' s just because I' m a certified badass in every game I touch.

[/sarcasm]

The only two multiplayer games I' m confident I could take anyone here in are COD4 and GRAW2.

ORIGINAL: Eddie_the_Hated

The only two multiplayer games I' m confident I could take anyone here in are COD4 and GRAW2.

When you get the 500 headshots and 4 kills in 4 seconds achievements... we' ll discuss this.

When you get the 500 headshots and 4 kills in 4 seconds achievements

Dont those two only signify patience, and luck respectively?

There are hardly any achievements in any game that requires skill to get.