Wisdom of the Collective Xbox Edition: Gears 1 or 2?

[Natrak]

With Gears 3 making quite an awesome impression at E3, naturally there's been a lot of talk surrounding both the game and the previous titles of the series.

One thing I've noticed, that I hadn't really noticed before, is that there seems to be a lot of love for the original game over Gears 2. Personally this struck me as a surprise, I really enjoyed Gears 2's campaign over the original's and it remains one of my favourite of any game to date.

Dude Huge himself mentioned that Gears 3 will see the game return to the structure of the original title a bit more.

Despite releasing to widespread acclaim and success, Bleszinski said he thought the team "got a little bit drunk on the whole idea of set-pieces" in Gears 2, promising a more balanced offering that enhances replayability.

"[Set-pieces are] wonderful, they have their own place - buildings collapsing, monsters bursting out," he said. "And we will absolutely have plenty of that. But one thing that got a little lost in the shuffle in Gears 2 is the idea of nice combat bowls.

"I hope it's a love letter to what everybody loved about the first game while taking the spirit of the story and the cinematic moments of the second and putting it together with a really crazy feature set."So what do the collective minds of Hyperactive think? Was Gears 2 a bloated sequel that fell in love with overdone setpieces? Did you prefer Gears of War 1? Is this really all about Epics relative failure with Gears of War 2's multiplayer (specifically the matchmaking)?

Which do you think was the better game?

[Slippery]

I didn't play 2, but I hardly thought 1 was full of replayability, if that's what they're arguing is the problem with 2.

[AranchineD]

And I was just thinking of reviving this thread today too.

GoW2 had the better campaign, IF you were playing it co-op. It wasn't really balanced for playing it solo, I thought, so that's all I really want them to fix in the next game.

Or, you know, they could put in the same number of set-pieces, but make the game longer and have some more GoW1 style play as well. Just a thought.

[TrinityJayOne]

I like Aran's suggestion, more of both!

The second game did have an awful lot of setpieces now that I think about it, but it didn't detract from the game or anything. I'd be happy with more of the same, as long as they don't go over the top by trying to make every setpiece bigger & badder than the last games'.

[Starscream]

Gears 2. Only because of Horde mode.

[Lazlow]

Haven't played either. Am I a bad person?

[adam_91vn]

GoW2 campaign was kind of shit due the last boss being pathetic but worth the playthrough I guess. Just get them both Gears is $8 at game and you can get gears 2 for $20 - $30

[Natrak]

I really disagree with the whole 'last boss was pathetic' thing. It never was a boss, it was just a moment where, rather than having Marcus and Dom use the Hammer on it in a cutscene they handed the control over to you. I don't think that's a bad thing, myself. I actually thought it was a cool moment.

[sausage]

Never played these games - can you level up and distribute skill points and harvest loot?

[aubergine]

Yes, but not in these games.

I find both awful from a writing and art direction pov but the second one has it all over the first for it's coop and sheer over-the-toppedness.

[TrinityJayOne]

Are you talking about Horde when you say co-op? Cos the first game's campaign was co-op as well! 4p co-op for number 3 is of course new. :D

[Jickle]

Campaign wise, Gears 2 is definitely better, and as much as he was decried for it, Cliffy B's 'bigger, better, more kick ass' promise was spot on. There was much more variety (in terms of enemies, gameplay, environments and weapons) and the set pieces were generally pretty glorious. It also digs into the lore of the world quite a bit more - in Gears 2, you get a good sense of just how badly humanity has ****ed up, and it's hinted that the entire war is pretty much their own fault, which is interesting. Graphically it was amazing and the fights were ludicrously, brilliantly intense.

Non co-op multiplayer was absolutely borked for a while (even Horde not allowing you to jump in and out of games was ****ed), but apparently it's been fixed more or less completely now. So that's a plus too.

[Starscream]

Non co-op multiplayer was absolutely borked for a while (even Horde not allowing you to jump in and out of games was ****ed), but apparently it's been fixed more or less completely now. So that's a plus too.

It's faster to get into a MP match in Gears 1 than it is with Gears 2 even after the patch.

Only realised that it's 6 XP on Gears 2 during E3 week. :(

[Spazzola]

Currently replaying Gears 1 due to a campaign cheivo ****-up. Did insane on co-op with a mate, he hosted. I have all of the act cheivos, but no overall campaign achievements; he, on the other hand, was lucky. I'd also lost all my cog tags. Doing the same thing yesterday, he has now had the same shit happen to him, except he has the cheivos already.

To be honest, I like both of them, but overall prefer Gears 2. Gears 1 had a nice weight to it, and the weapons felt to pack more punch. The Hammerburst and Lancer firing in the first one still looks and feels better then in Gears 2. But in terms of gameplay variety (i.e. shit other than ploughing into bits of well-placed debris) and story, the second one wins imo. That and horde/wingman with friends is just plain fun.