Official Gears of War 2 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter help1
- Start date
Is there a way to keep track of all of the co-op chapters you've played through? A friend and I played through most of Act 2 together and now we decided to go for the achievement and play the entire game - I'd rather not repeat sections but I'm afraid if I skip any in Act 2 we won't get the achievement or something...
NTolerance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='seanr1221']I will NOT give the evil company known as Epic my 10.00!! Instead, I will buy lunch.[/QUOTE]
It's not Epic being evil here, it's Microsoft. Valve and Epic routinely give away free DLC for their PC games, but Microsoft won't let them do that on the 360.
It's not Epic being evil here, it's Microsoft. Valve and Epic routinely give away free DLC for their PC games, but Microsoft won't let them do that on the 360.
Galego23
Banned
[quote name='javeryh']Is there a way to keep track of all of the co-op chapters you've played through? A friend and I played through most of Act 2 together and now we decided to go for the achievement and play the entire game - I'd rather not repeat sections but I'm afraid if I skip any in Act 2 we won't get the achievement or something...[/quote]
I don't know if this helps but...
One-Night Stand10
Complete 1 chapter in co-op on any difficulty (Marcus or Dom)See "Friends With Benefits" for more info.
Open Relationship30
Complete 10 chapters in co-op on any difficulty (Marcus or Dom)See "Friends With Benefits" for more info.
Friends with Benefits50
Complete all acts in co-op on any difficulty (Marcus or Dom)I would suggest coupling this with your Insane difficulty run as this will make it much easier. If for some reason you have to do this out of order, that will not affect the achievement. You do not have to be the second player like in the first game, both players will get these achievements.
I don't know if this helps but...
One-Night Stand10
tiredfornow
Banned
:weirded out that cmart wants to see my weiner: 
---
anyway, is there a new playlist for the map pack or is it going to be thrown into the regular playlists?
---
anyway, is there a new playlist for the map pack or is it going to be thrown into the regular playlists?
[quote name='cmart05']I don't know if this helps but...[/quote]
Thanks. We have an open relationship right now. Hopefully we will be friends with benefits by the weekend. I didn't keep track of the levels we played so I guess we will just play through them again. Not a big deal and it's only about an hour's worth of playtime.
Thanks. We have an open relationship right now. Hopefully we will be friends with benefits by the weekend. I didn't keep track of the levels we played so I guess we will just play through them again. Not a big deal and it's only about an hour's worth of playtime.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='NTolerance']It's not Epic being evil here, it's Microsoft. Valve and Epic routinely give away free DLC for their PC games, but Microsoft won't let them do that on the 360.[/QUOTE]
Not entirely true.
Microsoft mandates that they charge for it. But it's ultimately up to Epic WHAT they charge for it (400 points being the lowest they can go).
Not entirely true.
Microsoft mandates that they charge for it. But it's ultimately up to Epic WHAT they charge for it (400 points being the lowest they can go).
NTolerance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Not entirely true.
Microsoft mandates that they charge for it. But it's ultimately up to Epic WHAT they charge for it (400 points being the lowest they can go).[/QUOTE]
Exactly as I said, they can't release it for free.
Also, for the sake of splitting more hairs, does anyone have an issue with the use of the word "playlists" for what is really a "map rotation"? When I think playlists I think m3u.
Microsoft mandates that they charge for it. But it's ultimately up to Epic WHAT they charge for it (400 points being the lowest they can go).[/QUOTE]
Exactly as I said, they can't release it for free.
Also, for the sake of splitting more hairs, does anyone have an issue with the use of the word "playlists" for what is really a "map rotation"? When I think playlists I think m3u.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I think the word playlist is misleading and stupid as well. Especially when this game shipped without unranked match support. The first Gears supported playlists.
I have a hard time believing Bungie and Epic decide what to charge for the maps. Can anyone back that up with a link? Both Bungie and Epic have said they didn't want to charge for maps in the past and have gotten MS to make the maps free after a certain amount of time.
The first Gears didn't have playlists. It had a stupid, out dated set up. This game has playlists. Also, if we're being technical here, the game did ship with unranked match support via Friends or Bots. You're thinking of player matches.
The first Gears didn't have playlists. It had a stupid, out dated set up. This game has playlists. Also, if we're being technical here, the game did ship with unranked match support via Friends or Bots. You're thinking of player matches.
tiredfornow
Banned
[quote name='Trakan']I have a hard time believing Bungie and Epic decide what to charge for the maps. Can anyone back that up with a link? Both Bungie and Epic have said they didn't want to charge for maps in the past and have gotten MS to make the maps free after a certain amount of time.
[/quote]I've been googling everywhere, but only found where Valve pointed finger at MS, and Kotaku stating the indie developers they've talked to forcing MS to charge. The DLC Wiki links to a blog post where Bungie is upset about the pricing of the DLC, but it wasn't up to them. (The blog post was removed)
[/quote]I've been googling everywhere, but only found where Valve pointed finger at MS, and Kotaku stating the indie developers they've talked to forcing MS to charge. The DLC Wiki links to a blog post where Bungie is upset about the pricing of the DLC, but it wasn't up to them. (The blog post was removed)
NTolerance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd pay the 800 pts if I was playing the online multiplayer more, but I just couldn't get into it. May try it again down the road after I get done with/bored of Oblivion and give it one more shot.[/QUOTE]
IMHO Gears does a better job as a co-op game than a competitive game. The main issue I have with competitive multiplayer is the regenerative health system. Sure, that system is intrinsic to Gears gameplay, but the way it works right now makes it way too difficult to get kills in multiplayer with the assault rifle style weapons. I think the regenerative health system should be less forgiving in multiplayer. If I unload 3/4 of a Lancer magazine into someone without stopping they should go down. But they don't. They'll turn around, look at you and laugh, and then put you down in one shot with the torque bow, boomshot, sniper rifle, etc...
The regenerative health system should exist in competitive multiplayer, but the damage taken should mirror that of the damage you'd take during an insane mode campaign. This would force players to actually take cover in online matches instead of just running around like madmen with the high-powered weapons or the chainsaw/shotgun. Look at anyone's "time in cover" statistics on their Gears 2 stats page and you'll see that most people don't really spend any time in cover during multiplayer.
I know the people who enjoy Gears competitive multiplayer will think this is sacrilege, but I think the competitive game should do a better job of mirroring the combat that is so much fun in co-op.
IMHO Gears does a better job as a co-op game than a competitive game. The main issue I have with competitive multiplayer is the regenerative health system. Sure, that system is intrinsic to Gears gameplay, but the way it works right now makes it way too difficult to get kills in multiplayer with the assault rifle style weapons. I think the regenerative health system should be less forgiving in multiplayer. If I unload 3/4 of a Lancer magazine into someone without stopping they should go down. But they don't. They'll turn around, look at you and laugh, and then put you down in one shot with the torque bow, boomshot, sniper rifle, etc...
The regenerative health system should exist in competitive multiplayer, but the damage taken should mirror that of the damage you'd take during an insane mode campaign. This would force players to actually take cover in online matches instead of just running around like madmen with the high-powered weapons or the chainsaw/shotgun. Look at anyone's "time in cover" statistics on their Gears 2 stats page and you'll see that most people don't really spend any time in cover during multiplayer.
I know the people who enjoy Gears competitive multiplayer will think this is sacrilege, but I think the competitive game should do a better job of mirroring the combat that is so much fun in co-op.
SoulReaver
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 99 (100%)
Wow, this price is BS.
I'm not even considering it. They need to fix the friggin' online first. Matchmaking is still on and off, and half the games I go into are laggy as anything (any other game is fine and my NAT is open).
I'm not even considering it. They need to fix the friggin' online first. Matchmaking is still on and off, and half the games I go into are laggy as anything (any other game is fine and my NAT is open).
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='Trakan']I have a hard time believing Bungie and Epic decide what to charge for the maps. Can anyone back that up with a link? Both Bungie and Epic have said they didn't want to charge for maps in the past and have gotten MS to make the maps free after a certain amount of time. [/quote]
The proof I have is friends working on 360 titles telling me so.
Microsoft is open to letting developers set the price (as long as it's standard and not something weird like 1136 points), but they are very strict on what they will let you give out for free. That's pretty well known among all developers.
Microsoft is also very very strict about publicly discussing their policies, projected release dates, or certification system as well. Which is why you don't get a lot of quotes about that stuff except by the most brazen developers.
To me, a playlist is setting up a game type I want to play, the maps I want to play, and cycling through them without having to go back to a menu screen unless I want to change something. I also want random people to be able to join, at any time, when their are open slots.
Gears 1 did that. Gears 2 doesn't, so I would say Gears 2 is inferior in it's playlist and matchmaking.
Gears 2 does have superior Ranked matchmaking than Gears 1. But completely omitting unranked matchmaking makes it overall inferior.
The epic forums are writhe with people complaining about the omission of unranked matchmaking, so I would not be surprised if that gets patched in.
I already have 3 old Gears 1 buddies that I played with religiously that have quit Gears 2 because they can't stand the "searching for players of similar skill" between every match.
The proof I have is friends working on 360 titles telling me so.
Microsoft is open to letting developers set the price (as long as it's standard and not something weird like 1136 points), but they are very strict on what they will let you give out for free. That's pretty well known among all developers.
Microsoft is also very very strict about publicly discussing their policies, projected release dates, or certification system as well. Which is why you don't get a lot of quotes about that stuff except by the most brazen developers.
To me, a playlist is setting up a game type I want to play, the maps I want to play, and cycling through them without having to go back to a menu screen unless I want to change something. I also want random people to be able to join, at any time, when their are open slots.
Gears 1 did that. Gears 2 doesn't, so I would say Gears 2 is inferior in it's playlist and matchmaking.
Gears 2 does have superior Ranked matchmaking than Gears 1. But completely omitting unranked matchmaking makes it overall inferior.
The epic forums are writhe with people complaining about the omission of unranked matchmaking, so I would not be surprised if that gets patched in.
I already have 3 old Gears 1 buddies that I played with religiously that have quit Gears 2 because they can't stand the "searching for players of similar skill" between every match.
slickkill77
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 78 (100%)
They were able to release the one map pack for free in Gears 1 because they got that Discovery Channel sponsor. Then again its up to who you believe.
[quote name='NTolerance']IMHO Gears does a better job as a co-op game than a competitive game. The main issue I have with competitive multiplayer is the regenerative health system. Sure, that system is intrinsic to Gears gameplay, but the way it works right now makes it way too difficult to get kills in multiplayer with the assault rifle style weapons. I think the regenerative health system should be less forgiving in multiplayer. If I unload 3/4 of a Lancer magazine into someone without stopping they should go down. But they don't. They'll turn around, look at you and laugh, and then put you down in one shot with the torque bow, boomshot, sniper rifle, etc...
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Gears 1 and Gears 2 are my favorite co-op games of all time.
I disagree that the regenerative health is the problem. Call of Duty 4 has it as well and those play fine. In the Gears games it just takes too many shots to down somone with the assault weapons period--healing aside. The Halo games have the same problem IMO.
But that's just the style of the game, and many people love it so it's not something they should change. Those of us that prefer more strategic games where only a few shots kill can play games like CoD.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Gears 1 and Gears 2 are my favorite co-op games of all time.
I disagree that the regenerative health is the problem. Call of Duty 4 has it as well and those play fine. In the Gears games it just takes too many shots to down somone with the assault weapons period--healing aside. The Halo games have the same problem IMO.
But that's just the style of the game, and many people love it so it's not something they should change. Those of us that prefer more strategic games where only a few shots kill can play games like CoD.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']Not entirely true.
Microsoft mandates that they charge for it. But it's ultimately up to Epic WHAT they charge for it (400 points being the lowest they can go).[/quote]
Exactly. Companies only blame Microsoft because it is an easy way to make another company look bad and make them seem sympathetic. The truth is that they know they can make money, and the seize the opportunity.
Microsoft mandates that they charge for it. But it's ultimately up to Epic WHAT they charge for it (400 points being the lowest they can go).[/quote]
Exactly. Companies only blame Microsoft because it is an easy way to make another company look bad and make them seem sympathetic. The truth is that they know they can make money, and the seize the opportunity.
Galego23
Banned
[quote name='help1']Exactly. Companies only blame Microsoft because it is an easy way to make another company look bad and make them seem sympathetic. The truth is that they know they can make money, and the seize the opportunity.[/quote]
Wrong.
Microsoft has since then been known to force developers to release their content at a charge, when the developers would rather release their content for free.[14] Some content has even been withheld from release because the developer refused to charge the amount Microsoft required.[15][14] Epic Games, a developer known for continual support of their older titles with downloadable maps and updates, believed that releasing free downloadable content over the course of a game's lifetime helped increase sales throughout, and had succeeded well with that business-model in the past, but was forced to implement Microsoft's strategy of limited-time, fee-based downloads when releasing content for their Microsoft-published game, Gears of War.[16][14]
Bungie, developers of Halo 3, abated anger over the high price of their "Legendary Map Pack", by reiterating that they had no choice in the pricing of the content.[17]
Wrong.
Microsoft has since then been known to force developers to release their content at a charge, when the developers would rather release their content for free.[14] Some content has even been withheld from release because the developer refused to charge the amount Microsoft required.[15][14] Epic Games, a developer known for continual support of their older titles with downloadable maps and updates, believed that releasing free downloadable content over the course of a game's lifetime helped increase sales throughout, and had succeeded well with that business-model in the past, but was forced to implement Microsoft's strategy of limited-time, fee-based downloads when releasing content for their Microsoft-published game, Gears of War.[16][14]
Bungie, developers of Halo 3, abated anger over the high price of their "Legendary Map Pack", by reiterating that they had no choice in the pricing of the content.[17]
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
It's very possible that Epic was strong armed into going 800 points. It's not outside of the realm of possibility knowing Microsoft. Especially since Microsoft is the Publisher of Gears 2, that right there probably proves it.
Cheatmaster8
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Still should have been 400 ms points, I mean 1 of them is from the pc game.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Of course they will be free eventually. But getting to play them now, while the game is still semi-hot is what you are really paying for, not the maps themselves (imo).
Yeah, like I said I don't mind paying for maps in a game I'm actively playing. I shelled out for the CoD4 map pack as I was playing it a ton when it came out. Gears 2 I've put on the shelf for now as I just can't get into it. I really think the game's just not for me, but the matchmaking is so frustrating it's hard to tell if that's just jading my opinion on the whole multiplayer experience.
Yep, that's why I'm leaning toward it not being my cup of tea. I suck at online FPS games and I'm not interested enough in them to "practice" and get better. So I have more fun with something like CoD4 where it doesn't take a ton of shots to kill, and the games are faster paced with respawning in death match modes etc.
refusedchaos
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 272 (100%)
[quote name='zewone']Gears of War multiplayer is an acquired taste.
You have to be pretty damn good at the game to enjoy yourself, IMO.[/QUOTE]
nope...im pretty damn good at the game (probably not anymore since i stopped playing) and i didn't enjoy Gears 2...and i LOVED Gears 1. So now Gears 2 is on the self
You have to be pretty damn good at the game to enjoy yourself, IMO.[/QUOTE]
nope...im pretty damn good at the game (probably not anymore since i stopped playing) and i didn't enjoy Gears 2...and i LOVED Gears 1. So now Gears 2 is on the self
Reck_Havoc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Trakan']I have a hard time believing Bungie and Epic decide what to charge for the maps. Can anyone back that up with a link? Both Bungie and Epic have said they didn't want to charge for maps in the past and have gotten MS to make the maps free after a certain amount of time.
The first Gears didn't have playlists. It had a stupid, out dated set up. This game has playlists. Also, if we're being technical here, the game did ship with unranked match support via Friends or Bots. You're thinking of player matches.[/QUOTE]
Stupid out dated setup? Hardly. Gears of War 1 had a MUCH better server selection, PC's have always had that style of server selection, and it's a MUCH more superior way to choose your servers, as it actually lets you CHOOSE what server your actually joining and going to be playing on.
But now thanks to games such as Halo with their noob friendly matchmaking, Gears of War 2 decided to also adhear to the casual market, and outfit the entire multiplayer with matchmaking, which IMO sucks ass.
Now instead of just picking my server and joining it instantly, I have to sit here and wait for it to find "opponents", so instead of me finding my own opponents, the stupid matchmaking does it for me.. and slowy at that.
Honestly.. is it really THAT hard to select a server from a list? Knowning some Xbox owners, it was probably far to complicated.
The first Gears didn't have playlists. It had a stupid, out dated set up. This game has playlists. Also, if we're being technical here, the game did ship with unranked match support via Friends or Bots. You're thinking of player matches.[/QUOTE]
Stupid out dated setup? Hardly. Gears of War 1 had a MUCH better server selection, PC's have always had that style of server selection, and it's a MUCH more superior way to choose your servers, as it actually lets you CHOOSE what server your actually joining and going to be playing on.
But now thanks to games such as Halo with their noob friendly matchmaking, Gears of War 2 decided to also adhear to the casual market, and outfit the entire multiplayer with matchmaking, which IMO sucks ass.
Now instead of just picking my server and joining it instantly, I have to sit here and wait for it to find "opponents", so instead of me finding my own opponents, the stupid matchmaking does it for me.. and slowy at that.
Honestly.. is it really THAT hard to select a server from a list? Knowning some Xbox owners, it was probably far to complicated.
[quote name='Reck_Havoc']Stupid out dated setup? Hardly. Gears of War 1 had a MUCH better server selection, PC's have always had that style of server selection, and it's a MUCH more superior way to choose your servers, as it actually lets you CHOOSE what server your actually joining and going to be playing on.
But now thanks to games such as Halo with their noob friendly matchmaking, Gears of War 2 decided to also adhear to the casual market, and outfit the entire multiplayer with matchmaking, which IMO sucks ass.
Now instead of just picking my server and joining it instantly, I have to sit here and wait for it to find "opponents", so instead of me finding my own opponents, the stupid matchmaking does it for me.. and slowy at that.
Honestly.. is it really THAT hard to select a server from a list? Knowning some Xbox owners, it was probably far to complicated.[/quote]
Knowning some Xbox owners, it was probably far to complicated.
But I agree. Matchmaking is garbage.
But now thanks to games such as Halo with their noob friendly matchmaking, Gears of War 2 decided to also adhear to the casual market, and outfit the entire multiplayer with matchmaking, which IMO sucks ass.
Now instead of just picking my server and joining it instantly, I have to sit here and wait for it to find "opponents", so instead of me finding my own opponents, the stupid matchmaking does it for me.. and slowy at that.
Honestly.. is it really THAT hard to select a server from a list? Knowning some Xbox owners, it was probably far to complicated.[/quote]
Knowning some Xbox owners, it was probably far to complicated.
But I agree. Matchmaking is garbage.
Dynasty1756
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='genfuyung']Knowning some Xbox owners, it was probably far to complicated.
But I agree. Matchmaking is garbage.[/quote]
Im still shocked and a little confused that Epic would release DLC maps for 800 ms pts when Multiplayer is still mostly broken. Matchmaking is a little faster but there are still alot things that need to be fixed especially LAG! Every match is nothing Lag... Epic needs to get its priorities straight and fix multiplayer first.
But I agree. Matchmaking is garbage.[/quote]
Im still shocked and a little confused that Epic would release DLC maps for 800 ms pts when Multiplayer is still mostly broken. Matchmaking is a little faster but there are still alot things that need to be fixed especially LAG! Every match is nothing Lag... Epic needs to get its priorities straight and fix multiplayer first.
[quote name='Dynasty1756']Im still shocked and a little confused that Epic would release DLC maps for 800 ms pts when Multiplayer is still mostly broken. Matchmaking is a little faster but there are still alot things that need to be fixed especially LAG! Every match is nothing Lag... Epic needs to get its priorities straight and fix multiplayer first.[/quote]
Seriously man, I got on today and the first 4 matches were un
ingplayable. If the maps were free and presented like an apology for their ups then it'd be fine but ten bucks? off.
Seriously man, I got on today and the first 4 matches were un
ingplayable. If the maps were free and presented like an apology for their ups then it'd be fine but ten bucks? off.
Droenixjpn
CAGiversary!
I just wait until they become free, like the Halo 3 Heroic Map Pack. Although it sucks that some of the good games require all of the map packs, which imo is crap.
Hope to pick this game up for Christmas, looks really good. Hope the multiplayer is actually populated unlike the original when I was playing.
Hope to pick this game up for Christmas, looks really good. Hope the multiplayer is actually populated unlike the original when I was playing.
[quote name='Reck_Havoc']Stupid out dated setup? Hardly. Gears of War 1 had a MUCH better server selection, PC's have always had that style of server selection, and it's a MUCH more superior way to choose your servers, as it actually lets you CHOOSE what server your actually joining and going to be playing on.
But now thanks to games such as Halo with their noob friendly matchmaking, Gears of War 2 decided to also adhear to the casual market, and outfit the entire multiplayer with matchmaking, which IMO sucks ass.
Now instead of just picking my server and joining it instantly, I have to sit here and wait for it to find "opponents", so instead of me finding my own opponents, the stupid matchmaking does it for me.. and slowy at that.
Honestly.. is it really THAT hard to select a server from a list? Knowning some Xbox owners, it was probably far to complicated.[/quote]
I'm not getting too deep into this again, as I've discussed it too many times in this thread.
Yeah, the out-dated setup. There's a reason why games don't use it anymore. In Gears 1, you couldn't play ranked matches with friends, you had to sit and play lobby for 20 minutes before a room would even fill, and people usually quit within minutes of starting the match. I don't give a shit what I'm playing gametype-wise, I just want to playin' Gears. Annex, Execution, whatever. I don't care if I can't pick what map and what gametype. I just want to be able to enter a ranked game with my friends and kick the shit outta people. Now I can do that. The system now is way better.
I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but since the patch I have literally had zero problems getting into a game. With two people, three people, or a full team, the longest I've waited is 30 seconds.
But now thanks to games such as Halo with their noob friendly matchmaking, Gears of War 2 decided to also adhear to the casual market, and outfit the entire multiplayer with matchmaking, which IMO sucks ass.
Now instead of just picking my server and joining it instantly, I have to sit here and wait for it to find "opponents", so instead of me finding my own opponents, the stupid matchmaking does it for me.. and slowy at that.
Honestly.. is it really THAT hard to select a server from a list? Knowning some Xbox owners, it was probably far to complicated.[/quote]
I'm not getting too deep into this again, as I've discussed it too many times in this thread.
Yeah, the out-dated setup. There's a reason why games don't use it anymore. In Gears 1, you couldn't play ranked matches with friends, you had to sit and play lobby for 20 minutes before a room would even fill, and people usually quit within minutes of starting the match. I don't give a shit what I'm playing gametype-wise, I just want to play
in' Gears. Annex, Execution, whatever. I don't care if I can't pick what map and what gametype. I just want to be able to enter a ranked game with my friends and kick the shit outta people. Now I can do that. The system now is way better. I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but since the patch I have literally had zero problems getting into a game. With two people, three people, or a full team, the longest I've waited is 30 seconds.
tiredfornow
Banned
[quote name='Trakan']
I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but since the patch I have literally had zero problems getting into a game. With two people, three people, or a full team, the longest I've waited is 30 seconds.[/quote]
Same.
I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but since the patch I have literally had zero problems getting into a game. With two people, three people, or a full team, the longest I've waited is 30 seconds.[/quote]
Same.
Since the patch, the handful of times I played matchmaking has been hit or miss. Sometimes it's been very fast, other's it's been pretty slow--often varying over the same evening. That's mostly playing solo. The one time I partied up with CAGs and had a full 5 man party we were getting matched up against much higher rank teams and then it quit matching at all (at least was taking 5+ minutes and we weren't willing to keep waiting after resetting it a couple times.
But I just hate the getting kicked back to the lobby after each match crap, and that new players don't get put on teams when people quit mid match Call of Duty 4 had it right IMO as it was easy to get into matches by yourself or with a party, and it's much better to have new people pop in mid match to keep the teams full rather than having a game with one team short of members due to quitters who can't be replaced....especially when matches go 5+ rounds.
But lag is definitely a bigger problem overall.
But I just hate the getting kicked back to the lobby after each match crap, and that new players don't get put on teams when people quit mid match Call of Duty 4 had it right IMO as it was easy to get into matches by yourself or with a party, and it's much better to have new people pop in mid match to keep the teams full rather than having a game with one team short of members due to quitters who can't be replaced....especially when matches go 5+ rounds.
But lag is definitely a bigger problem overall.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep, that's why I'm leaning toward it not being my cup of tea. I suck at online FPS games and I'm not interested enough in them to "practice" and get better. So I have more fun with something like CoD4 where it doesn't take a ton of shots to kill, and the games are faster paced with respawning in death match modes etc.[/QUOTE]
That's understandable, especially since the less competitive, more practice-friendly unranked matches are completely MISSING from Gears 2.
[quote name='refusedchaos']nope...im pretty damn good at the game (probably not anymore since i stopped playing) and i didn't enjoy Gears 2...and i LOVED Gears 1. So now Gears 2 is on the self[/QUOTE]
Care to explain why?
[quote name='Trakan']
Yeah, the out-dated setup. There's a reason why games don't use it anymore. In Gears 1, you couldn't play ranked matches with friends, you had to sit and play lobby for 20 minutes before a room would even fill, and people usually quit within minutes of starting the match. I don't give a shit what I'm playing gametype-wise, I just want to playin' Gears. Annex, Execution, whatever. I don't care if I can't pick what map and what gametype. I just want to be able to enter a ranked game with my friends and kick the shit outta people. Now I can do that. The system now is way better. [/quote]
Ok. What you said is true about RANKED matches (Which you admit is all you care about).
Ranked matches do in fact work better in Gears 2.
Unfortunately, everyone I play with and know never cared about Ranked matches in Gears 1.
They cared about:
Choosing servers
Cycling maps eternally
Setting up matches under their terms
Friends AND random people joining
The game Auto-filling spots when people left
Inviting friends mid-game
Playing for hours without ever seeing a menu.
Only waiting for slots to fill to start a game once.
Gears 1 did all that. Gears 2 does none of that in a public match. Obviously, by the frequency of complaining going on here, you are in a minority since priority one for you was Ranked matches to begin with, and those work better in Gears 2.
I would concur with this. Finding matches is much better for me after patch. Although it's still slower than Gears 1.
That's understandable, especially since the less competitive, more practice-friendly unranked matches are completely MISSING from Gears 2.
[quote name='refusedchaos']nope...im pretty damn good at the game (probably not anymore since i stopped playing) and i didn't enjoy Gears 2...and i LOVED Gears 1. So now Gears 2 is on the self[/QUOTE]
Care to explain why?
[quote name='Trakan']
Yeah, the out-dated setup. There's a reason why games don't use it anymore. In Gears 1, you couldn't play ranked matches with friends, you had to sit and play lobby for 20 minutes before a room would even fill, and people usually quit within minutes of starting the match. I don't give a shit what I'm playing gametype-wise, I just want to play
in' Gears. Annex, Execution, whatever. I don't care if I can't pick what map and what gametype. I just want to be able to enter a ranked game with my friends and kick the shit outta people. Now I can do that. The system now is way better. [/quote]Ok. What you said is true about RANKED matches (Which you admit is all you care about).
Ranked matches do in fact work better in Gears 2.
Unfortunately, everyone I play with and know never cared about Ranked matches in Gears 1.
They cared about:
Choosing servers
Cycling maps eternally
Setting up matches under their terms
Friends AND random people joining
The game Auto-filling spots when people left
Inviting friends mid-game
Playing for hours without ever seeing a menu.
Only waiting for slots to fill to start a game once.
Gears 1 did all that. Gears 2 does none of that in a public match. Obviously, by the frequency of complaining going on here, you are in a minority since priority one for you was Ranked matches to begin with, and those work better in Gears 2.
I would concur with this. Finding matches is much better for me after patch. Although it's still slower than Gears 1.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
After talking myself into buying the maps, I then found out none of my regulars I play with did.
Bastards.
Bastards.
I can get into a game of Horde within seconds. Every other game type I pick takes forever. I usually give up after 5 mins of waiting and just go back to The Horde.
And I was appalled to see 3 maps for $10 when I signed in yesterday. The game has not been out long enough to charge for new maps. Especially at $3.33 each map.
MjC
And I was appalled to see 3 maps for $10 when I signed in yesterday. The game has not been out long enough to charge for new maps. Especially at $3.33 each map.
MjC
Galego23
Banned
[quote name='MCalvert1']I can get into a game of Horde within seconds. Every other game type I pick takes forever. I usually give up after 5 mins of waiting and just go back to The Horde.
And I was appalled to see 3 maps for $10 when I signed in yesterday. The game has not been out long enough to charge for new maps. Especially at $3.33 each map.
MjC[/quote]
I still even have problems with Horde. Last night I got booted from the game out of nowhere and the game literally froze.
I checked to see if my internet connection was down but the internet on my computer was fine.
And I was appalled to see 3 maps for $10 when I signed in yesterday. The game has not been out long enough to charge for new maps. Especially at $3.33 each map.
MjC[/quote]
I still even have problems with Horde. Last night I got booted from the game out of nowhere and the game literally froze.
I checked to see if my internet connection was down but the internet on my computer was fine.
Reck_Havoc
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Trakan']I'm not getting too deep into this again, as I've discussed it too many times in this thread.
Yeah, the superior setup. There's a reason why most games use it. In Gears 1, you couldn't play ranked matches with friends, you had to sit and play lobby for 20 minutes before a room would even fill, and people usually quit within minutes of starting the match. I don't give a shit what I'm playing gametype-wise, I just want to playin' Gears. Annex, Execution, whatever. I don't care if I can't pick what map and what gametype. I just want to be able to enter a ranked game with my friends and kick the shit outta people. Now I can do that. The system now is way better.
I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but since the patch I have literally had zero problems getting into a game. With two people, three people, or a full team, the longest I've waited is 30 seconds.[/QUOTE]
Fixed a few key words for yeah.
Ughh.. all PC games still use the "out-dated" system as of today.. it may be outdated to you, but for us real gamers it's the only way to join a server, but answer this, how is it outdated..? It's basically a box with 6-7 servers listed, the way it's been done since the start of online gaming. Matchmaking takes an average of 2-3 minutes, while joining a server with the "out-dated" system will take you a whole 5-10 seconds. So in actuallity, the "out-dated" system will actually get you into a game faster.. but oh man.. it's so unbearably hard to choose a server from a list, because GASP, you may actually have to think about it.
The reason Console games don't use the so called "out-dated system", is because it actually takes a bit of brain power to find a server, and considering thinking is a HUGE step for most Xbox owners, matchmaking has been the way to go. And of course your not going to get to "deep" into this, your opinion is that matchmaking is excellent and belongs in games.. that right there is more than enough to suggest you don't quite understand the difference.
Face it, matchmaking is for newbs, it does what PC gamers have done for years.. find a server. It's really sad when gamers can't even be bothered to find a server from a list, which is the way games have been and will always do it. You are right though, matchmaking fixed the ranked games, but screwed everything else up.
Matchmaking sounds perfect for you.. but us gamers who want a choice, and a REAL way to join servers, are out of luck, just yet another blow to the hardcore croud.
Yeah, the superior setup. There's a reason why most games use it. In Gears 1, you couldn't play ranked matches with friends, you had to sit and play lobby for 20 minutes before a room would even fill, and people usually quit within minutes of starting the match. I don't give a shit what I'm playing gametype-wise, I just want to play
in' Gears. Annex, Execution, whatever. I don't care if I can't pick what map and what gametype. I just want to be able to enter a ranked game with my friends and kick the shit outta people. Now I can do that. The system now is way better. I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but since the patch I have literally had zero problems getting into a game. With two people, three people, or a full team, the longest I've waited is 30 seconds.[/QUOTE]
Fixed a few key words for yeah.
Ughh.. all PC games still use the "out-dated" system as of today.. it may be outdated to you, but for us real gamers it's the only way to join a server, but answer this, how is it outdated..? It's basically a box with 6-7 servers listed, the way it's been done since the start of online gaming. Matchmaking takes an average of 2-3 minutes, while joining a server with the "out-dated" system will take you a whole 5-10 seconds. So in actuallity, the "out-dated" system will actually get you into a game faster.. but oh man.. it's so unbearably hard to choose a server from a list, because GASP, you may actually have to think about it.
The reason Console games don't use the so called "out-dated system", is because it actually takes a bit of brain power to find a server, and considering thinking is a HUGE step for most Xbox owners, matchmaking has been the way to go. And of course your not going to get to "deep" into this, your opinion is that matchmaking is excellent and belongs in games.. that right there is more than enough to suggest you don't quite understand the difference.
Face it, matchmaking is for newbs, it does what PC gamers have done for years.. find a server. It's really sad when gamers can't even be bothered to find a server from a list, which is the way games have been and will always do it. You are right though, matchmaking fixed the ranked games, but screwed everything else up.
Matchmaking sounds perfect for you.. but us gamers who want a choice, and a REAL way to join servers, are out of luck, just yet another blow to the hardcore croud.
Reck, if the matchmaking actually worked fast, isn't there something to be said for playing with a group of TruSkill matched players? Not everybody is a pro gamer.
I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater a little.
Otherwise, I need an education on how I can look at a list of servers and decide which ones have hardcore players and which ones don't. Which is especially important for some of us CAGs since we wait for the price to drop before we jump in and everybody else has the one-up on us.
I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater a little.
Otherwise, I need an education on how I can look at a list of servers and decide which ones have hardcore players and which ones don't. Which is especially important for some of us CAGs since we wait for the price to drop before we jump in and everybody else has the one-up on us.
bread's done