680 réponses à ce sujet

[Dasher1010]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Not much. Gears 3 was the worst in the series.

lol, wrong, Gears 2 MP was abyssmal. Weapon damage was too low + lag + smoke knockdown + chainsaw spam

[Someone With Mass]

Not to mention that Gears of War has a pretty high level of gore that I don't think Mass Effect will ever get close to. I mean, you're literally swimming in blood in Gears 2 at one point.

[RAF1940]

111987 wrote...

Adugan wrote...

I hate how GOW is a console-only game. Why do they do that? There is a giant PC fanbase that could give them more money, but those idiot marketing teams love their exclusive content.

You think if Nintendo published Mario and Zelda games on Xbox and Playstation, they'd still be in business?

Good point.

[CerberusWarrior]

jreezy wrote...

DarkDragon777 wrote...

Not much. Gears 3 was the worst in the series...in my opinion.

Fixed.

   


Gears 1 and 2's story was pathetic Gears 3 is the best gears game and seems like from reading the leaked stuff of ME 3 a better game even on a story level .

[S.A.K]

GoW is just a shooter to me. Mass Effect is much more. So ME is already better.

[Someone With Mass]

jreezy wrote...
The look of that was actually pretty awesome. Especially when they chainsawed their way out afterwards.

True.

When it comes to story and characters, though, I don't think ME3 has a real competition.

Mostly because I felt more moved by the first level of ME3 than I did by the entire Gears trilogy.

And while the characters are fun (oh hai Saren and Aethyta/Xen) I don't think they're meant to hold up in the long run, you know?

[Dasher1010]

Someone With Mass wrote...

jreezy wrote...
The look of that was actually pretty awesome. Especially when they chainsawed their way out afterwards.

True.

When it comes to story and characters, though, I don't think ME3 has a real competition.

Mostly because I felt more moved by the first level of ME3 than I did by the entire Gears trilogy.

And while the characters are fun (oh hai Saren and Aethyta/Xen) I don't think they're meant to hold up in the long run, you know?

Yeah, but Mad World didn't play when Anderson died

[onelifecrisis]

ADLegend21 wrote...

The Opening credits have to play.

[Steppenwolf]

felipejiraya wrote...

I love the two franchises and never understood why people try so hard to compare them, it's two totally different franchises with different philosophies.

This. A thousand times this. Seriously, comparisons are pointless. One aspect is similar so the series are in competition? That's like comparing Final Fantasy and Winning Eleven because Final Fantasy X had that weird underwater soccer mini-game.

[Drone223]

BasilKarlo wrote...

felipejiraya wrote...

I love the two franchises and never understood why people try so hard to compare them, it's two totally different franchises with different philosophies.

This. A thousand times this. Seriously, comparisons are pointless. One aspect is similar so the series are in competition? That's like comparing Final Fantasy and Winning Eleven because Final Fantasy X had that weird underwater soccer mini-game.

The combat style is what the two games have in common that's it , GOW has no RPG elments in it its focus is on combat expeience, ME main focus is a action RPG experience

[KingDan97]

Adugan wrote...

I hate how GOW is a console-only game. Why do they do that? There is a giant PC fanbase that could give them more money, but those idiot marketing teams love their exclusive content.

The real reason GoW2/3 won't be ported is because the GoW port was so pitiful. It was glitchy, full of lag and had the attrocious Games for Windows Live plugged into it.

[Bluko]

I don't care much for cover shooters, because most fail to get it right IMO. A good cover shooter should let you take cover behind anything relatively flat. This could be a wall or a car door. Taking cover only behind cinder blocks, walls, or any specifically programmed context sensitive environment piece isn't really a "cover". It makes the game feel artificial because the first thing you do is scan the environment for the cover pieces you can use, and less for what actually is "cover". It's no better then the old on-rail arcade shooters really.

Ideally what you should be looking for is the best cover/line of sight and less what is essentially a shooting position in the game. See problem is in these games a flipped wooden desk is as a good piece of cover as a 3 foot thick concrete wall.


My opinion is if you're going to let people hide behind things you should be able to blow em' up too. Otherwise what you're essentially doing is giving players a shield of invulnerability which just makes the whole challenge of combat in the game pretty laughable. May as well give players a riot shield and a gun to use at the same time then.

To be honest I much prefer ME1's style of taking cover (even though it was a bit awkward) to ME2's GoW style press a button. It also was nice to toggle between standing and crouching. Now don't get me wrong I like the Gears of War games and have had fun playing them. But I do not consider Gears the pinnacle of cover shooters or TPS combat. I'm a bit at loss for why everyone else seems to think so. (Although I'm going to guess because it's very simple to use.)

Personally I consider Red Faction: Guerilla to have the best cover system of any game I've played this generation. You can actually take cover behind anything. And better yet if a bunch of enemies are shooting you from behind a wall a rocket will take care of that problem like it should.


For me a better a question is: Why is Mass Effect trying to be better then Gears of War?

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I got into Mass Effect under the impression it was suppose to be an Action RPG where you shoot things. I wasn't looking for, much less wanted, another game that plays like Gears which is all about shooting things. This among other things is why I find the gameplay changes in ME2 a bit baffling. I get the impression EA took a hot iron to Bioware to make ME2 more like Gears so they could have their own title to compete with Microsoft. Much in the same way I'm sure they nudged Bioware to include multiplayer so it could be "comeptitive" with more populist games.

I think what EA and some other gamers fail to understand is: there isn't just one formula for success. Making a bunch of replicas doesn't bode well for the longterm as eventually people will get tired of playing the same game. A bit of diversity is good as then there's options for gamers and possible opportunities to expand your audience. Would CoD be as popular today if it played exactly like old WWII CoDs? Probably not.

Mass Effect was something different. Now it's getting to be more of the same. Can't say I'm happy about it really.

[Swampthing500]

Let's compare the two shall we:

Gears of War

You shoot people

You take cover


Mass Effect

You shoot people

You take cover

You design your own character

You have control over dialogue outcomes

You have control over numerous quest outcomes

You can explore a galaxy

You can level up and develop your party

You are not compelled to go in one, linear direction.


I think the winner between the two is obvious

[Drone223]

Swampthing500 wrote...

Let's compare the two shall we:

Gears of War

You shoot people

You take cover


Mass Effect

You shoot people

You take cover

You design your own character

You have control over dialogue outcomes

You have control over numerous quest outcomes

You can explore a galaxy

You can level up and develop your party

You are not compelled to go in one, linear direction.


I think the winner between the two is obvious

Ones is ment to be a Third person shooter, the other one is a action RPG, they have very liitle in common and should therefore not be compared

Modifié par Drone223, 01 décembre 2011 - 07:25 .

[lucidfox]

The very fact that there is a thread asking what it would take for a BioWare game to surpass a shooter is a giant worrying sign.

[Drone223]

lucidfox wrote...

The very fact that there is a thread asking what it would take for a BioWare game to surpass a shooter is a giant worrying sign.

And and reinforce's the fact the the majourity of BSN user's are Gears of war hater's (no offence)

Modifié par Drone223, 01 décembre 2011 - 07:06 .

[FutureBoy81]

This is when you know Bioware and mass effect have lost the plot, comparisons between a shooter and an RPG, which of course is warranted by the OP because essentially thats what mass effect is now .

[Goody Two Shoes]

lucidfox wrote...

The very fact that there is a thread asking what it would take for a BioWare game to surpass a shooter is a giant worrying sign.

The OP is talking more about combat than anything else.

Improving combat = / = Neglecting other areas of the game

[legion999]

Alex_SM wrote...

I still think Fallout 2 is better that 99% of games of this generation.

This except New Vegas.

Anyway as long as Mass Effect 3 answers the nagging questions I have, improves on ME2 and is a great ending to the series it will be better than GoW3 for me (by a long shot as well).

[StephanieBengal]

jreezy wrote...

Swampthing500 wrote...

Let's compare the two shall we:

Gears of War

You shoot people

You take cover


Mass Effect

You shoot people

You take cover

You design your own character

You have control over dialogue outcomes

You have control over numerous quest outcomes

You can explore a galaxy

You can level up and develop your party

You are not compelled to go in one, linear direction.


I think the winner between the two is obvious

Not exactly. It's all about preferences.

I'm glad you get it, thank you.