Gears of War 2

Review from Starks - Friday, 19 December 2008 @ 11:01pm

One of the best parts of AustralianGamer, despite the constant drunken phone calls from Yug and abusive e-mails from Matt when we break VURP or the Content System, is being able to specifically address elements of the gaming industry that are important to you. With the release of Gears of War 2, I was extremely interested in the competitive nature of the multiplayer, and begged requested to be allowed to review it. Knowing it was greedy of me to do so when all I would be focussing on was the multiplayer, I decided to throw the lanky one Oracle the review copy to do the single player campaign, whilst I myself bought a copy to review the multiplayer on.

As such, I hope my thoughts on the multiplayer will be able to give you more of an insight into the mechanics and gameplay of Epic's sequel.

The original Gears of War was one of the more unique titles I’ve ever played. During the lead up to the release, and after watching and reading a fair bit of material released by Epic, I had my reservations about the 3rd person perspective they were going for. Indeed, I never thought it would be a competitive title and one of the reasons contributing to this though was that there was no ‘jump’ feature. I thought to myself ‘Here we go – Perfect Dark Zero did this and I nearly murdered my dog after I finished playing a few rounds of multiplayer.’ In all seriousness, that game was a piece of rubbish. The entire engine was just terrible and even to this day my blood boils at the thought of it.

*Takes a deep breath*

Thankfully, for my dogs sake anyway, Gears of War pulled off the 3rd person perspective and what we were left with was a gritty, apocalyptic game that in some ways redefined the consoles competitive scene with a multiplayer experience that was remarkably different to the established Halo series. A kind of hybrid where the round system of Counter Strike was mixed with a dash of Unreal Tournament found in the unique weapons and combining the level of depth that true competitive titles will possess.

The original GoW also presented, from a console point of view, a completely different style of game to play and watch. It wasn’t ‘precise’. In fact it was downright dirty. There was no prestige in ‘clean’ kills. It wasn’t like CS where precision was counted towards your skill level. It wasn’t like Halo where your strafe or a series of clever jumps and grenades could get you out of a tight squeeze.

Were it not for the constant destruction, this place would be a nice holiday deistination.

GoW was just outright dirty. It was like a pub brawl that got out of hand, really. You did what you needed to do. You were ruthless, you pulled hair and you kicked in the nuts. The idea was to very firmly establish the idea that the game was about winning at all costs, and the more blood the better. Nothing, however, was more satisfying than ‘1 and 4’ing’ a team, and ending the round with a delicious curb stomping.

I’ve always found curb stomping to send a cold chill down my spine. The fact that the lead up to GoW’s release had a lot of emphasis placed on the cold hearted, brutal nature of the games multiplayer as well as its ‘take no prisoners’ attitude and the keynote ‘kill’ being a curb stomp, I was often reminded in game of the following cut scene from American History X. Comparison is given in two clips below.

Gears had its mood very clearly set.

Even with this as the mentality of the game, as time wore on and players began to sink more and more hours into learning the in’s and out’s of the title for its competitive play, gradually the bugs and the problems surfaced. Namely, the ‘sticky’ wall cover, the change in power and range of the Lancer and Shotgun and the distance you could ‘frag tag’ from after a major update from Epic.

Not to mention, and probably most importantly, the absolutely shocking net code that hindered the online and LAN experience. Without a doubt, GoW possessed some of the worst net coding I’ve ever played on. I honestly thought that LAN for GoW would negate this, as LAN, although host still has some small advantage in some games, is relatively even for all teams. Sadly, this was not the case, and various tournaments I have run – Most notably the 2007 WCG GoW finals – were at best frustrating and at worst an exposure of Epic’s poor net coding.

I make these points as I feel that when reviewing a title that is competitive, where a prequel exists, a degree of relativity needs to be established. Essentially, what the prequel created, established and was known for, the sequel is required to run the fine line of keeping to what worked the first time round, improving on the errors, and innovating to keep the franchise fresh.

With this in mind, Gears of War 2 has succeeded well in the first and third categories, but still has a lot of room for improvement in the second.

Boom!! Headshot!!

Firstly, the good. The engine itself feels fantastic. Players will immediately feel at home with the second instalment, and anyone familiar with the game will be able to pick it up and play within seconds due to no change in the camera angle, controls, engine HUD.

Keeping with what worked is a refreshing experience for a competitive gamer. The differences in game play and engine between, say Halo:CE to Halo 2, or Call of Duty 2 to Call of Duty 3 created a lot of frustration and annoyance to fans of the series that took their gaming to the extreme. Thankfully, Epic have realised this and seem to have looked to fix what was broken, rather than reinvent the wheel.

Secondly, improvements to the variety of game types, whilst retaining all the variants from the original, have added some extra spice. Whilst Horde isn’t specifically competitive, the enjoyment received from a multiplayer perspective is immense and is the equivalent to the Zombies game type from Halo. I would also suggest that completion of Level 50 on Horde would be a badge of honour for any player.

Certain new game types, such as Submission, have fantastic potential to join the Annex (King of the Hill) and Execution game types as competitive variants. Frankly, I find this a big relief, as although the Execution game type was, in my opinion, the strongest of all the competitive game types in Gears of War (Prior to Annex’s inclusion later), both Submission and Annex will add considerable depth to the tactical movements and strategy of all teams competing.

Bitch stole my car!!

Map wise, Epic have really, in my opinion, out done themselves. One of my main gripes about the original title was that certain maps stood out as superior to others, and as a result competitions invariably favoured them. This cut down on the variety and meant teams were able to focus more on certain map types, and thus limited the breadth of skills that they possessed as a competitive player. The maps in Gears of War 2 are, in my opinion, fantastic. Certain staples of the original, such as Tyro Station, Canals (My personal favourite of all) and Gridlock return, but they are matched by such strong new arrivals as Avalanche, River and Day On. Frankly, I’m impressed by all the maps in GoW2, and this is one of the things Epic’s map designers should be proud of; Whilst some games such as Halo have a selection of maps that are competitive, Gears could probably play all of the maps at a competitive level and not have too much of an issue.

Probably the most important of the differences between the original and the sequel is the weapons. Gears had a fantastic and unique armoury. From the Torque Bow, one of my personal favourites, to the versatile Lancer, the distinctive Hammer of Dawn and the Boom Shot were all weapons that held quite a lot of character and distinction when contrasted to other weapons in futuristic shooters. Frankly, the level of ingenuity in weapons such as the Torque Bow and Hammer of Dawn should have been expected from a developer who created such interesting arms as the ‘Ripper’ and ‘Shock Rifle’.

On the weaponry itself, some serious improvements have been made to specific weaponry – Mainly the Hammer Burst (A weapon I previously believed to be a last minute thought in the origina), the Lancer and the Pistols.

The Hammer Burst, a mid range, short burst rifle in the original, has had a major overhaul and is now my weapon of choice. Where in the original title it was really an underutilised and often unsuitable option it is now a weapon I happily take. Although not great at close range, but then that’s why you also have a shot gun, it is an extremely potent weapon with what seems to be a 2x zoom that reminds me of the Battle Rifle from Halo 3. Were it not the fact that the Lancer was the flagship weapon of Gears, similar in principal as the SMG in Halo 2 (And much to my disgust – I hate that gun) and the Rocket Launcher from Quake, then I would suggest that the Hammer Burst be seen as the ultimate default weapon for the game. Never the less, Epic now gives you the option of starting with a Hammer Burst or a Lancer – A good option and one that pleases me.

Suffice to say the Lancer has also been slightly fixed. Both the Hammer Burst and the Lancer have had their ‘sound’ changed. Both are now have a meaty, clankier, voice and to my ears they sound like the gun holds a lot more punch to dish out. Further changes to this are that the Lancer seems to spray less and have a much tighter ‘cone of fire’ over short distances. The gun could still be considered the most functional of the game, allowing you the flexibility of down and dirty close combat with the attached chainsaw, and also short range combat when fighting in enclosed spaces and around terrain – Combined with a sniper or a Hammer Burst, the Lancer is very much a gun that is easy to get the handle on, crucial to master, and always a key component to a squads success. The major shift for the Lancer is in the Chainsaw, which now allows you to have ‘Chainsaw Duels’. The duels themselves are… interesting. There’s some skill to getting it right; Namely the timing of your button presses. I’m inclined to say button bashing, but it is a little more complex than that.

Why can't we settle this over a cup of tea?

The pistols have also had a tweak. In the first, it took a great deal of skill to use them effectively. Namely, you needed ‘X’ amount of head shots to the head with the Snub to make his head pop. Whilst the Snub has stayed relatively the same, the Boltok has had some steroids injected, and I believe that one head shot will make an enemies grey matter splatter against a wall, as opposed to three shots in the original.

Some of the weapons included do seem slightly unbalanced. The Mortar is one, although the jury is still out on that one for me. I guess I just need to use it more before I can discern if it is a fair weapon or not. Suffice to say it’s incredibly satisfying to spot some camping prick sitting behind the wall with a Boom Shot and some marsh mellows only to scream out ‘Suck it up you useless twat!!’ then proceed to dump 10 shells of high explosives on him. It does take a degree of depth perception and skill to use accurately as well. I see it as an alternative to the Hammer of Dawn.

The Troika Turret and Mulcher are definite exclusions from competitive game play. Fun to use, and extremely valuable in Horde mode, but unbalanced in competitive matches and degrade the skill level of ‘spray and pray’ tactics.

The Scorcher, aka Flamethrower, presents some interesting opportunities as well as interesting challenges. The actual concept is ok; I have no problem with the inclusion of a short range flaming device that will help flush out campers. I actually welcome that idea. Is the Scorcher the solution? I’m not so sure. For example, the range is quite significant, meaning it is only easily combated at a distance and with a sniper or Hammer Burst. Close combat is both dangerous and ill advised unless you prefer your skin to be the same constitution as melted cheese. I’d err on the side of caution and state the Scorcher needs to be avoided, particularly on smaller maps where it takes on a whole new meaning of ‘lethal’.

Unfortunately, as is always the case, there are some problems with the game itself. Namely, the glitches. Now, I have no idea if this is due to Epic having a lazy QA department, but frankly the level of game exploits is alarming, to say the least. Some of them, which you’ll see below, give significant advantages to the player performing the glitch and not only ruin the enjoyment of what is quite possibly 2008’s best multiplayer game, but it taints competitive game play as it is bloody hard to both monitor for these glitches and eradicate them from the game.

Whilst I don’t know how to label each glitch successfully, below are a few clips of the glitches found in Gears of War 2. Before you ask, no – I’ve only been victim to them, I can’t do them.

These types of glitches ruin Gears of War 2’s otherwise clean slate. Frankly, I’d go so far as to say that, yes, whilst Halo 3 is probably the front runner in competitive console games, were Gears 2 glitch free then I would suggest it would have gone a long way towards bridging the gap to Bungies title and possibly levelling the field.

Added to this problem is, again, the absolutely dreadful net code. I would have thought that after their last attempt, Epic would have cleaned up the net code to make online play a whole lot smoother and deal with lag better. Na – uh. It seems epic has simply ported the existing net code across, and frankly I find that totally unacceptable for a company to release a game with net code like this. If I wasn’t lagging across the screen in jerky intervals, I was dying mysteriously only to see some dude run past me and fire a shot gun shell off 3 seconds later. Picking up weapons had delays of almost a full one to two seconds at times and firing off rounds would have delays and in some cases not register.

For me, these two elements along create quite a bitter sweet experience for me as a gamer. Knowing Epic have probably one of the greatest Xbox games on their hands, and knowing how good the game is makes playing the game under adverse circumstances incredibly frustrating and disillusioning as you know what you’re missing out on when one of your Aussie mates has a poor host or you are unfortunate enough to play against a squad of Yanks.

I’m serious in my statement that Halo:CE, a game that had no Xbox Live capability, has better net code than a game that proceeds after it 6 and a half years later. Does that shit you or am I the only person retarded enough to get pissed off when I fire the Torque Bow, appear to miss the target, walk 10 metres forward, then explode into a mess of giblets because the lag is so bad that I somehow walked into my own fire.

To be honest, I may be the only one retarded enough to actually do that, but I can assure you it’s a true story.

All in all the multiplayer experience with Gears of War 2 is fantastic despite the last two problems I have described. I am amazed at the graphical wonders this game pulls off without missing a beat. The competitive nature lends itself to me in a way that the original didn’t. I put that down to better map design and the arsenal of weapons suiting my game play more than the original did. The Hammer Burst itself is a huge leap forward for this game and one I believe makes a huge difference.

Competitive gaming needs a title like Gears of War 2. It’s gritty, bloody warfare that makes for entertaining spectator viewing. Watching as two teams tear each other limb from limb is attractive to the general public in the same way as the gladiatorial fights of early Roman times attracted thousands to a Colosseum as Sunday afternoon viewing. Provided Epic patch some of the glitches and small hit box problems, I think you can count on Gears of War 2 being played competitively and with a strong following right through to the third instalment.

Finally, and just because I can, I have included this wonderful little video. Enjoy!!

Pros

Fantastic weaponry generate many varied and entertaining encounters between two players – There’s never a ‘I’m screwed because I’ve got X and he’s got Y’ instance as you always have a fighting chance of sorts. Superb map design - Literally incredible from a competitive stand point and force a lot of thought into tactics and strategies.

Cons

Net code is absolute garbage. Glitches destroy enjoyment of the game as well as taint the competitive nature of it. Some hit box problems.