Kotaku

But the halo series didn't innovate much either...

thats good, 360 is getting more and more first party titles!

Btw, the APC sucked.... thats what i think tho....

You liked the APC in Gears? Oh dear, that was my most hated moment of the game. Each to his own I guess.

I do agree, however, that it needs more than just run-duck-shoot gameplay. I think what it really needs is a few more innovative enemies to have as boss battles to provide a bit of variety and challenge to what you do. You know, the kind of bosses which require a technique to beat rather than just an overpowered regular enemy you pump a load of lead into until it dies. The beserkers were good in that aspect, but that was about as great as it got really.

You liked the APC? Wow that was the worst part of the game IMO...What Gears needs is a story.

I also hated that part of the game and playing on insane didnt help either :)

I actually found that section to be incredibly tedious and dull.

I didn't like the way the turret controlled for killing the kryll. It was more about memorizing where they came from then any actual skill. Just my 2 cents. I want more boss fights. The berserker was cool. Seeders don't really count. General Ramm was neat. My personal favorite was the corpser. I'd like to see more stuff like that. Maybe some bigger scale battles too.

Halo was just a generic shooter. only thing it had was WIDE OPEN multiplayer maps that have been featured on PC games well before. I mean in goldeneye, sniper rifle in the facility? C'mon!!!

But the one "innovative" thing if you must say it...the 2 gun system. I am not 100% sure if there was a game before it, but still nothing grand.

And yeah....more first party titles are good, now M$, it is time to add a variety of games besides just shooters (yes I know there are more than just shooters but all the AAA titles ARE shooters).

Please no more vehicles. Who invented vehicles. Why are they in my video games.

Ahhhh!

Anything more than a jeep for transportation in a game really pushes the balance of the game away from its FPS origins. =(

Halo may not have innovated much, but it was great to play, and it has it's great characters and universe. They could pretty much make endless Halo spin-offs.

Gears of War in the other hand, I thought was good as best, definetely nothing special. It got very repetitive very fast, the story was unintersting and the characters were weak. I'm not excited for a sequel, even if the first did end in a cliffhanger.

Yes, gears definitely needs a story. It got old pretty fast. The APC blew.

I think Gears Innovated quite a lot actually. I think active reloading adds another great skill point. In addition i think the scope of the cover system is something that hadn't been done and we'll see a split in the shooter genre, True FPS ala Halo and Third Person Cover shooter ala gears and R6Vegas.

Did Halo not invent the infinitely popular "shield instead of health" thing? It was also the first shooter I ever played with real flying vehicles that aren't scripted.

So when does Microsoft try to buy up Epic? Any predictions?

dowingba

Halo has health and shields much like GoldenEye had body armor and health.

What I'd like to see in the next "Gears":

- More varried color pallets. Yes, the world is war torn, and yes, part of it takes place underground, but perhaps there could be stages off the planet...or in underwater glass tunnels...something to add some color.

- "Choose your own Adventure" type story. Perhaps one major choice in each stage, resulting in, a variety of endings. This might screw up Gears 3 though.

- Perhaps some human enemies. They could be crazy, or infected, etc. Just for some variety.

- Vision camera support, a la Vegas.

- A whole stage taking place in the world of Viva Pinata.

Gears - driving = brilliance.

You should not be able to drive in Gears.

I am so pumped for Gears Kart Racing.

Besides, if it's a Gears of War franchise, wouldn't it be "evergray?"

BlindsidesDork, uhh...no. While the first Halo did have "health" it was almost absolutely irrelevant. And you've either never played Halo or never played Goldeneye if you think the shield system is anything alike. I don't know if Halo was the first to do it, but it was the first time I saw it, and almost every shooter (3rd and 1st person) since then has used it, including Gears.

I've played both. Halo was generic and eh. Yes the shield can regenerate and trust me it is RELEVANT when you have one little bit of health left while you run around looking for health and/or waiting for your shield to refill.

"So when does Microsoft try to buy up Epic? Any predictions?"
I think the value of Unreal Engine 3 would mean Epic would only sell up at a very high price.

Also, the fact that the engine has been quite a success in regard to selling it on to third party developers just goes to show that Epic are probably minted right now and really don't need to be purchased. They have a successful market and are earning loads of profit from Gears alone, not forgetting royalties from the engine license. Neither company really has any benefit as a result of Epic being bought out by MS, except for the fact that PS3 will probably lose Unreal Tournament 2007.

Halo 2's Mulitiplayer options in my mind was and still innovative. I wish more MP consoles titles allowed me to track my stacks and view individual match detail via the web. Oh, and allow for a crap load of different type of game types. It halo-like in sales but I don't see reading a Gears book or buying the theme music. Halo did more in the details, the voices, music and attention to the MP.

Luke, you nailed it with the leap in graphics making the Gears as popular as it is. The game play while fun might get a little bit monotonous in Gears2. Yes, I'm still buying it. ;-)

BlindsidesDork, what exactly do you think makes Halo more generic than something like Half-life, or even Goldeneye? It may be another sci-fi shooter, but there wasn't exactly very many of those at the time, especially on consoles.

It has a great story, and very interesting characters, enjoyable vehicles and some pretty unique weapons. I'm no Halo fanboy, but I'd certainly consider Halo to be up there with the best, and yes, that includes PC shooters.

I'm sick of people bashing Halo just because it's Halo, when it's painfully obvious most of the people doing the bashing have never even played the game.

The shield system was a great idea because it lets you get right back into the action within a few seconds, instead of having to trail around half the level looking for a health pack. It means the enemies have to use tactics to defeat the player and pose a challenge, rather than just having a lot of enemies in the same room like previous shooters had done.

"Neither company really has any benefit as a result of Epic being bought out by MS, except for the fact that PS3 will probably lose Unreal Tournament 2007."

Besides, MS can just buy another exclusive if they want to. It's not like Epic has any love for the PS3.

AlteredBeast says:

- A whole stage taking place in the world of Viva Pinata.

YES!!!!!!!!! There would be soo much candy carnage everywhere! Take that sour pinatas.

Are you nuts? The driving bits were the worst part! Oh well... To each his own... I do however, agree that they'd have to change certain things to really be able to milk it as a franchise. What that is I don't know, but I guess we'll find out whether or not Epic can do it, won't we!

I've beaten Halo on Legendary. My roomate in college had it and he couldn't beat the end of Halo 1(the warthog ride to escape) so I had to beat it FOR him. I actually beat it before he did. We would play 12 player games over the lan sometimes.

Levels were bad, fun at times but really generic. Supposedly there was supposed to be "advanced" AI on Legendary when all it was was just bad guys who had stronger guns and shields. I saw NO additional intelligence, never saw them shoot my grenade out of the air like I was told would happen. And I am not the only one who thinks it is generic, I know a bunch of people who do too.

Whenever I hear the word "leverage", my skin crawls. Especially where the word "milk" should be substituted.

Halo had no innovation? Sure it didn't have revolutionary features, but it had evolutionary features which made the FPS genre that much better.

- Recharging health
- Weapon carrying limit
- Throw a grenade at the touch of a button instead of having to switch weapon (in my opinion this was the most important one!)
- Seamless on-foot and vehicule gameplay
- Great AI with command hierarchy

I can't remember any games using the save points like Halo did before either...

Anything else you guys can think of?

Oh and back to the topic, how can you say that the driving bit was like a dream?? More like a nightmare, especially on harder difficulty levels.

Come on, guys! The thing about the APC section was a joke. You can tell because the APC section was a joke.

Gears of War's story wasn't up to much. That was the problem for me, I think: calling the characters one-dimensional is an insult to lines everywhere, and there's a similar problem with labelling the plot paper thin. Heck, half the time it didn't even explain what you were doing. You should not be getting critical information from the 'objectives' list!

Given story development isn't really a viable option, I'm failing to see what a Gears of War 2 will be able to provide that the first one doesn't have.

Hmm, I seem to not be getting it because Gears of War has been the only game I've really wanted to play online in a long time. Halo is nice and all, but I can't seem to get a grasp of why everyone has gone nuts for it. As far as its been explained to me, its got a better lobby system and more multiplayer modes. Ok. It could just be me, but somehow it seems like Gears could get an update for this kind of functionality. For me Halo has one thing going for it that Gears doesn't - vehicles. I'm ok with that. I find Gears to be much more immersive and satisfying to play.

I think part of the problem, and I find this in Gears as well, is that the single player portion of most games is lacking. Gears has a fun single player mode, for which i am eternally grateful. Hard as hell to keep Dom from dying but I guess that's the real challenge.

I'd welcome more Gears of War games. Have had a lot of fun with it so far, especially with the co-op campaign. I do hope the story makes a bit of sense next time around though, that the driving bit is gone, and the boss battles are better. Raam was just dreadful.

All that said, I find the constant comparisons with Halo quite tedious.

I honestly think that people need to just... get over Halo a little, and stop treating it with such reverance. Every game has its share of flaws, and Halo has plenty of them too. I enjoyed it of course, (or rather, I enjoyed the bits that didn't involve the Flood, the Library and which didn't involve endless sequences of identical cut-n-paste corridors) and I appreciate that Halo does a lot of things very very right, but Halo 2 was such a disappointing mess so... it'll take Halo 3 to convince me that Bungie actually understand what was great and good about the original.

I like how your suggestion to make Gears more worthy of being an innovative Halo-like series is to make it more like Halo..

Personally, and I'm probably in the vast minority here, I had a hell of a lot more fun playing Gears of War than I have with either of the Halo games. But then, I'm not a big FPS fan, and Gears doesn't handle like one.

Halo 1 had a great, immersive plot. Gears of War really didn't have much of a plot. If GOW1 was simply meant to intoroduce the characters, it did well. If GOW2 doesn't substantially advance the plot, it's going to be disappointing, however.

I just don't understand how people can say that gears single player is generic repetitive gun and cover...and then proceed to praise halo, which is the same thing...but minus the cover aspect. Sure it had some new ideas...but gears has many of those same ideas in the game, so you can't use them to halo's advantage when arguing the two.. It doesn't matter who had it first, it matters which one is more fun NOW.

Multiplayer you really could argue that halo is better...single player not so much (especially with halo 2).

And to whomever said that non scripted flying vehicles were in halo first...that's wrong, tribes had them a LONG time ago.

How often did Microsoft MILK its own franchises? They're VERY good with them. Halo is a huge hit, so why is there only 2 games in 6 years? THEY'RE MILKING THE SHIT OUT OF THAT PUPPY. Never say that Microsoft milks anything when you have Nintendo which uses its mainstay characters to sell ANY game type.

Shitty soccer game? Not when your playing with Mario! Now it'll sell!

Gears did have story but it wasn't obvious and it wasn't really apparent to anyone that didn't seek it out inside and outside the game itself. That's where it falls short on the story side. The story is actually pretty interesting and I hope that Gears was indeed just an introduction to the characters and that the sequel will do *much* more fleshing out of the characters and story.

As for comparing Halo and Gears...it's pointless. Both fun games, both with their share of successes and flaws.

And I agree with Watership that MS hasn't really "milked" the hell out of their franchises. I appreciate that they know to let Bungie work on their game until it's done, not till it needs to counter another product or boost holiday sales. Finished games are always better than rushed ones.

With so many copies sold, yeah its a given there's going to be a sequel. And I'm really looking forward to it. I loved GoW and I'm not a huge FPS type game fan.

I actually finished the single player game over LIVE with a friend. Now THAT was fun working on the campaigns and having a buddy to back me up when I screwed up and got myself killed.

Nintendo has been milking the sh*t out of Mario for over 20yrs now.

I would like to see more of the story in Gears fleshed out. The Queen is very interesting and intriguing.

Digital Extremes owns the Unreal engine doesn't it? I thought Epic had it on lease or was it the other way round?

Regardless; Epic won't sell to MS, unless they find an I.O.U at their front door reading: $9,999,999 - love from Uncle Bill & co. Personally, I want Microsoft to buy Epic just so the 360 can have all the fun games. Oh, does anybody know if and when Unreal Chamionship 3 will come out? The second one was ace and cool like the original so it would be nice to see a third on the 360.

The only thing that made Halo great was the control scheme. Before Halo came around, controls for FPSes were wonky and unintuitive. Halo was the polished FPS that people were waiting for for the longest time.

I have to agree with some other commenters and say that the APC driving segment in Gears was by a wide margin a huge letdown. It was just so uninspired and dull.

ugh.. are you kidding me? the vehicle level was fun, but if there were more of it, i'd have thrown the game out the window

Gears is no Halo? Gears is the smart man's Halo. Why shun duck and cover gameplay when it's the best of it's kind? Possibly you prefer your circle strafing to using tactics.

Forgive my fanboy rant, but Gears truly is the best game I have ever played. Agreed, it's far from perfect. However, there is a balance to it that Halo hasn't come close to achieving. Gears can truly place players in a stand off with human opponents utilizing cover. There is no such thing as a power player in Gears. You work as a team or you lose. Once the patch rolls out and fixes some of the bugs, Gears will start climbing towards that same level of polish that Halo has.

If we're talking story, then that's different. Halo: CE had an excellent story and it was fleshed out very well. Halo 2 fell flat on it's ass. The execution was terrible and as much as I tried to care about the breaking of the Covenant (which could have been an excellent story development had it been executed correctly), I didn't give a damn. I think a lot of players felt the same. Gears wasn't heavy on story, but the way it progressed through it was excellent. I liked the segments where you would walk along and chat it up with your squad. It really pulled you into the atmosphere and helped make it all believeable.

Anywho, I'm off to work. Hopefully some day Gears fans and Halo fans can live happily ever after. It's amusing how the top two MS franchises are almost competitors. There is obviously no such thing as harmony in this industry.

More variety was needed in Gears- more weapons, more varied environments, and without a doubt, more vehicles. Oh and the story really needs to be fleshed out more, the basics for an engaging tale are there, so it shouldn't be too hard. Oh and some smart bosses would be great, not like that incredibly easy (even on Insane!) but imposing Corpser fight.

The list for Gears to go from an A to an A++ masterpiece may seem large, but it shouldn't be too hard. If Epic can incorporate all of the above (and vary the multi more- not to mention a party system) it will be on the same level the Halo franchise.

This coming from a guy who prefers 3rd person shooters to 1st person, 2 awesome franchises, one that so far has had a much greater impact on gaming.

Gears was better than Halo. Though both were overrated, Halo was a mediocre FPS that didn't do anything that hadn't been done before (it might've seemed that way had you stuck to console shooters). I will never in a million years understand how Halo became a popular franchise. Shit characters, shit story, same old gameplay.

"he basics for an engaging tale are there"

They didn't even come close to the basic for an "engaging tale" in Gears. It was a mindless shooter, nothing more.

"but Gears truly is the best game I have ever played."

I guess you haven't played too many games.

Umm...Although Gears is definitely "very good", it wasn't "great."(IMHO) I mean, for one, it was really darn short. There was little to no incentive to play it again at a harder level (I don't care that much about achievements), the story was non-existent, and I felt no bond to the characters by the end. Don't get me wrong, the game was really cool and the graphics were awesome, but there isn't enough there to warrant a sequel.

Honestly, I preferred Resident Evil 4 to Gears, and my fiance would rather play GRAW than Gears. (so this isn't just a "girls hate shooters post") Just my two cents.

Halo 2 didn't just have a "cool lobby system" or something. Halo 2 simply has the best online multiplayer set up ever. Period. No game has come close before or since. Not only was it perfectly balanced, quick, and ran like a dream, not to mention the "playlist" concept has kept things fresh for years now; but the sheer statistical glory that is Bungie.net also has to be mentioned. To be able to access an RSS feed of your realtime in-game statistics is an amazing achievement, and something more games should do. Not to mention the online "game viewer", with which you could literally see every move you've ever made in a match.

Halo 2 was one of the best games ever made. The single player was amazing -- the co-op is some of the best ever -- and the multiplayer has yet to be surpassed (I even have doubts if Halo 3 will be able to better it).

You people hating on Halo (who show up every time Halo is so much as mentioned in a thread): I hate to be so blunt, but shut the fuck up already. Fine, you don't like FPSs. An FPS will never please someone who doesn't like FPSs. Or maybe you're one of the elitist PC gamers who think Halo fans are retards with no motor skills because we use a thumbstick. If you're one of those mouse snobs then just shut the fuck up. We get it, you think you're better because you use the same tool to play video games as you do to select cells in Excel spreadsheets. BRA-FUCKING-VO.