Gears Versus Halo

posted by papi blez

Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 01:39:47 AM EST

I'm hitting the road for a couple of days.  I'm traveling to DC for business, but this past weekend I got a chance to go through the Gears campaign for roughly the fourth time (not all the way, just the first two acts).  I did it with someone who isn't a huge console guy, but I talked him into getting a 360 so he and I could play a little one on one Halo.  I had him get it last September.  We played some Halo 2 and he finished through the campaign.

It was interesting to see him and how he played co-op Gears.  Now he isn't normally a big console player, but he took to it very quickly.  Much more rapidly than he adapted to Halo.  He also gave a verdict that night saying, "This is sooooo much better than Halo.  The two aren't even in the same league.  Kudos to your brother."

My response was, "Really?  You think it's that much better than what's considered a classic?"

He simply replied, "Oh yeah."

It got me to thinking.  I would've never said after the month or two of playing Gears that it's better.  I think Halo has a deep and complex storyline and the characters are much more intrigue to them.  I'm more excited about finding out about finishing the fight more than I am about playing Halo 3 multiplayer.  Perhaps it's because I came a little late to the Halo MP game, but I wasn't any good at Halo MP.  So my opinion might be biased, but I think that I love Gears MP more than any MP I've ever played.  Even if you aren't great at it, you can use strategies to have success.  In Halo, you're either good or you die.  And you die fast.

I know, I know, you can't even compare the matchmaking options and the numbers of customizable gameplay types in Halo to the meager offering in Gears.  But the bottom line is that I've never had as much fun playing with friends as I do with Gears.  The Friday Night FragFest has quickly become one of my favorite times of the week.  And while I loved the campaign and story of Halo, nothing is beating the experience I've had going through the campaign in Gears co-op with a couple of Gearheads.  

I wound up wondering if Gears had actually surpassed Halo in my eyes too.  But then I thought long and hard and the story of Halo had me from the very beginning.  If Gears has a stronger story in the inevitable sequel and adds more MP modes, the gameplay in both the campaign and the MP are just remarkable.  It will be very interesting to see how Halo 3 compares to Gears because it will be the first iteration on next gen hardware.

So, as I leave I ask you to vote...now that you've had months and months with Gears which Xbox franchise do you prefer?  Gears or Halo?

  • ::


Tags: (all tags)

Comments Disabled | 40 comments

  •  my take (none / 0)

    I can remember all nighters with my best friend playing co-op through halo one, and massive LAN parties with tons of people and pizza. I can also remember playing halo 2 co-op with my best friend many times and then jumping online. But the thing is, i have played GEARS of War's co-op much more because it is online. And also, i think the game's design is better for co-op all together, so in that case i think i have to go GOW.

    But i really cannot compare the games like you said. To me this makes much more sense: VVV

    Compare Halo CE and GOW. Both weren't too crazy on the plot and were more about new mechanics on the console and shiny graphics. In this case, i still say GEARS of War is more influential at this time in gameplay and visuals than Halo CE was when it came out.

    I think Gears of War 2 will go into plot much more (a la Halo)and then, will be a whole new halo sized franchise of it's own. It just isn't developed yet.

    It's like comparing a seed to a fully bloomed flower.

    by far the gayest thing i have ever said.

    oh well, Halo 3 will be awesome, everyone knows this, but i think the GOW franchise has the chance of being better because its core gameplay is better and its visuals are more ground breaking.

    I mean, EPIC knows what people want exactly now (matchmaking etc) and when GOW 2 comes out, i think using what they now know after launching the first game, they will create a game of monumental stature.

    Also, GEARS OF WAR is selling and has sold WAY more than the original halo did at this time.

    As far as the Halo online community is concerned, the game has honestly lost a lot of its appeal to  me because of it. everyone is an ass and it is in no way a team game. I think the only times i will really hop online will be in player matches with friends. (Not to mention FFF which will be a blast because we can get more people in) But i can honestly say now, we will go back to playing GOW after halo 3's release if it is close to Halo 2. Which say's something about the original question. If Halo was better, would you go back and play GEARS? And this is only the first game of the series, with MP added late in the dev process.

    zoso out

    Not all who wander are lost

    by Zoso Fan on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 02:41:40 AM EST

  •  for me (none / 0)

    I remember halo 1 and playing threw with my brother all summer long. And getting togther with my brothers and nephews and playing multiplayer and having a blast and we couldnt wait for halo2.And when Halo2 came out I played threw the story on my own and it was over as fast as it started. I did not have live so I really only played multiplayer when I had my brothers over. And their never was a need for me to go back threw the story on the different settings. To be honest I have not played either of the halos in a long time.
    Since gears has been out I have not been able to put the game down. All my other games are being neglected. It could be the fact of collecting achievements that have me playing threw numerous times. or the fact that the game is just a blast to play.And now that I have live its like a completly different game for me and I look forward to the friday night get together every week.
    Hopefuly when Halo 3 comes out all those feelings I have for gears wil be their for halo 3. But I think like Zoso said I'll be back to playing gears after about a month of halo 3.              

    by Dan Foster on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 07:13:40 AM EST

  •  DC Huh? (none / 0)

    I'm on business travel up to California MD, just about 50 miles southeast of DC.  Small world, huh?

    Anyway, I am beginning to really enjoy GoW.  Halo 2 just doesn't have the graphics to keep up with GoW, and I have really grown to love the control scheme also.

    Active reload is just too freaking awesome to live without! hahah

    Leader, Masters Few www.MastersFew.com

    by Master Pre on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 07:38:15 AM EST

  •  2 Cents FTW!!! (none / 0)

    I used to be a HUGE Halo fan. I loved playing Halo: CE co-op with my friend all night and beat the game on Legendary to watch the funny alternate ending and after seeing Chief almost take his helmet of and see his face got me so excited that I could see the face of this guy who took out hordes and hordes of Covenant, but to only see that the camera zoomed out right as he took it off. And then Halo 2 was announced and I think I was only 13 when it was released, but my Mom let me go to the Midnight release and pick up the game. Oddest timing was that I had an allergic reaction and was off school three days after the release. I've been playing Halo 2 up to about half a dozen or so months ago. The MP was just getting incredibly boring and with all the immature kids I got tired of it. Now onto GoW. About a year before it was released I was hooked to it already. I remember all the Hype it got and how there were (supposedly) 'codes' that had to be decoded. I don't want to rant too much so I'll just get right to it. After playing the game for the first time I was amazed at what the game looks like on a SDTV. I felt like I was playing in HD. I also found myself looking at the walls, rocks, dead Locusts, and gibs. The MP was so much more fun than I thought it would be. All in all, I have to go with Gears =)

    "Vuht? Ze Panzerz? WHO LET ZE PANZERZ OUWT?!?!?!?!"

    by Grymm on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 08:53:51 AM EST

  •  I think....... (none / 0)

      It's hard to pick personally, it's like choosing kids almost.....  But I think it comes down to "new puppy syndrome". Meaning you've had a dog that was a puppy when you got it(Halo).  Then it matured, grew up and starting getting older.  You still love the hell out of it, but then someone gives you a new puppy (Gears).  Now that you have the experience, you know what to expect you can take better care of this one.  Meaning you know what to look for in the game, it's new, next generation, and it suites your lifestlye more.  Now when these puppies grow up they become monsters.  Look at the GOW Monster in the market right now dude.  So I can't say one is "better" than the other but I like Gears right now because it's new and refreshing.

      I dunno. I hope I didn't lose you guys in the analogy.  Halo's compelling stoy line has spawned all kinds of shit: Toys, Books, a Comic, Machinema, new friends, a big ass community, and forums with stupid shit all over them.
      Gears has brought people together too, look at this website, right?  And has caused quite the stir in the gaming world, as Halo first did.  Making game creaters go to their meeting room and say "did you see that shit!  Let's do something TOO!!"  
      I think the only thing Halo (as a game) has that gears dosen't is the "crack" fix that you seem to almost NEED.  Gears is addicting don't get me wrong it is, but it wears off after awhile, and Halo 1 or 2 never lost that to me.
      BUT even though I've heard alot of my buds bitching about it I think the controls on Gears are awesome I think they are pretty well thought out and flow well.  This can also be credited for Microsoft correcting/stealing a great controller, the Dreamcast's.  

      Summery if you don't want to read all my BS:
    In short Halo paved the way, but Gears is the latest FPS and winning the drag race right now.

    Let's get it own!

    by Macaface on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:26:22 AM EST

  •  The vision of things to come (none / 0)

    Before Gears there was Halo, and as some of you have said, you were either good or cannon fodder in Halo.  This reality is the same for all 1st person shooters.  The most significant difference between the two is the Point-of-view (POV) rendered by either 1st person or 3rd person.  For most folks Halo is a challenge in perspective.  Who am I, what am I supposed to be doing, and how do I do it?  That is the constant question when first being introduced to a shooter.  In Halo, you have to devote a huge amount of effort to imagine what you're character is doing and what your fingers are doing to manipulate the character in the game.  This is challenging becuase most people can't see what their character is doing.  The best tutorial I have been able to establish with a nube is to mirror their actions infront of them while walking them thru their orientation.  

    Now, enter Gears.  Its really the first 3rd person shooter for next-gen, and beautifully rendered with details for all physical actions.  New players can pick up the controls, push buttons, and immediately see the results of their actions.  Plus, no one is really getting motion sick.  More than a dozen friends have saddled up to Halo or some other 1st person shooter and just spun their characters POV from the ground to the sky and in a spinning circle.  After a few hours of that people just give up.  In Gears your character is the anchor in the game world.  Let's not forget the fact that Gears has a damn good camera.  Damn good.  

    Gears has benefited from the engine and the engine has found a good home in a next gen console that lets it serve up all the details that we will take for granted from here on out.  Halo is still a personal favorite, but I think that 1st person was like pac-man so long ago.  1st person shooters may be something we talk about in nastalgic terms.  3rd person is the next stage, maybe the next before we start looking for virtual worlds with peripheral and twitch views.  

    I wouldn't be surprised to see all shooters be upright and motion sensitive games.  Hey, this is all prospective voodoo game wishing, but there is definitely an advance in game development.  I love it and look forward to it.  

    Thats' my 2-cents.

    Ready to finish all the Fights!

    by Damn Boris on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:52:44 AM EST

  •  Hip-hop (none / 0)

    To begin, I know that they are different games with different gamestyles and elements, and that, in general, this is a good thing (i.e., I know that apples and oranges should not be strictly held to one another's standards).

    That being said, there's one aspect of the Halo gameplay that I dearly miss when I'm in Gears (MP especially).  I don't know what to call it, but, namely, it's the abilty to interact with the map/level as a 3-dimensional space.

    What do I mean?  Well, in Halo you can jump, and independent of the jumping, you have the abilty to move left/right/forward/back AND up/down.  From one level, I can get to other levels of the board/map; I can hop on top of things and use that positioning strategically.  This flexibility of movement allows me a lot of choice in shaping how I engage a situation and try to surprise my opponents.

    In Gears, the map is engaged largely as a 2D space.  Sure, I can go up/down only when there's stairs, a ramp, or some surface-level object to allow this.  It's 2D with a few diagnals to move you to another 2D plane.

    IMO (which I know many of you may not share), the ability to navigate in 3D offers a lot to the variety of gameplay and how to engage a map or level.  

    I am not asking for Gears to allow me to bunny hop around, nor hoping for impossible jumps (just crouch at the peak!), nor asking for Marcus to become as nimble as the Master Chief.  I know Cliffy consciously avoided the jumping in favor of a new style.  

    But jumping isn't really what I'm missing, it's more the variety that 3D navigation gives me.  Imagine Marcus diving through a plate glass window on the 2nd floor of mansion, landing with a visceral thud outside, and surpising the enemy.  Imagine shortcutting over walls and barriers as you move up and down Escalation ...

    So without turning Gears into a Halo-esque jump fest, can anyone else think of ways to bring some dimensionality to Gears (obviously gameplay and maps would both need to support it)??  (... and I realize that many or all of you might not be too fond of this approach).

    To sum:  I still love the game ... but this one desire that I can't shake.  And I'm definitely not trying to make it Halo .... I open myself to your criticism.

    by geekinabox on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:01:56 AM EST

    •  Freedom to roam (none / 0)

      I understand where you are coming from geekinabox.  What you are hunting for is a 3-D world that you can more freely roam.  Gears has a beautiful destroyed beauty, but as you play you can feel where your character can and cannot roam.  In particular, uneven surfaces are off limits, short cuts across gaps, and plain doors and windows.  As our first exposure to the world of Sera, I'm ok with this, but I do have a high expectation that future GOW will allow for a more free ranging movement across all types of terrain.  Plus, I don't want to see those instances where you want to dive across a ledge, but get stuck at the edge and then step off gingerly.  I think a fair expectation of what to shoot for was demonstrated in the "Mad World" commercial, where Marcus is running and dives through (THROUGH) a window from the street to inside a building.  Damn that was cool, but you don't see us doing that in the game.  Ok, fine.  Its' the first toe in the pool, but if Epic are showing us this, then they must realize that this freedom of motion is going to be expected in games soon.  

      With UE3, EPIC have created an atmospheric world, so I hope they allow us to explore and use that world in as real a manner as possible. I don't need to hop and jump through a map, like you say, but we do want to traverse it in as realistic a manner as possible.

      In the end, that is why I have high hopes for what gamers want and what designers are working to give us.  With the success of Gears of War, the new bar has been set and many games will be judged by comparison, even the mighty Master Chief in Halo3 will have to face gameplay comparisons to Marcus and Gears.  If Bungie and Halo3 reset the bar again with something we ahve expected, then EPIC and Gears look to have the tailwind into the next-gen market.  

      Also, I think 3rd-person is the shooter for the next-gen.  

      Whoop!!!!

      Ready to finish all the Fights!

      by Damn Boris on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 01:29:30 PM EST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My thoughts (none / 0)

    Halo and Halo 2 were must haves in our home our XBOX will only play a couple of games any more and I still will pop in one or the other and play some of my favorite levels. Due to the drought of any shooters on the market for like 2 yrs Halo would give me my much needed fix. I can remember long nights on my parents pc playing Doom and from that point on having my opinion on first and third person shooters. We bought 360 for GOW no other game released up to that point had caught my attention enough to drop that amount of cash on a new system. GOW right now is the tops for me and my son and we are excited about Halo 3s release but with the inovation of the duck and cover system and the active reload GOW will be hard to beat. We have RB6 vegas and their duck and cover system is well implemented but not as well as GOW. I always say I wish they did this and for the first time on any game it seems like they already thought of it. No game is perfect but GOW graphics draw you in and to me I love having to wait for the background story, like the building excitement on X_mas eve before you bulldoze through your gifts the next day. Also having two people that always are wanting a good co-op mode- with some nice team work thrown in realy helps the fact that GOW has my vote.

    by Captain Crunch on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:16:30 AM EST

  •  Online MP (none / 0)

    I forgot the to mention That GOW online MP is the best I have played in my opinion, Halo2 always makes me feel like its a mad dash to get your kill quota and some other online MPs make me feel like- what was I doing. I love team work and even though one man can kill a hole team the team that sticks with one another will most likely win the match. Even though Id like to see a couple more game types in online MP, To many more could be to much. And Im tired of capture the flag. GOW has what I believe to be the best fomula to date. Thanx Cliffy B and Epic for releasing the the Best game to date. (in my opinion)

    by Captain Crunch on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 11:40:30 AM EST

  •  Never played HALO (none / 0)

    GOW was the 1st shooter I had ever played, besides Duck Hunt that is. Anyway, I never expected to be this blown away by a game. I liked it so much I wanted to try HALO 2 as I heard it was "The BEST". So I borrowed it from a friend, and was completely disappointed. I understand this game is older and not next gen, but it just didn't feel nearly the same. It felt so light, if that makes sense. When I play Gears, it seems like I can feel the weight of the character as I manipulate the map, and/or when shooting its like the weapon is really in my hands. HALO 2 just doesn't have the feel , and no where near the look, but again it may be hard for me to appreciate the HALO franchise as GOW popped my cherry. So I am saying from my standpoint GOW is superior.

    It is 1999

    by DMAN5OOO on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 02:46:55 PM EST

    •  Good point (none / 0)

        That's something I still laugh at in Halo:
      "Oops I flipped my 80 ton tank over again, I better use my pinkie to roll it over."
        The vehicles do look like they are made out cardboard when you flip them.  I think it's fun that the chief can jump so high.  But it's pretty wierd.

        I tried switching between the two in one week, back and forth.  It really freaked me out.  Since Goldeneye came out for the 64 I've used that set up for FPSs.  It's called Legacy, but for third person shooters I use the default, man that's insane.  Maybe there really is that much of a difference between the two I never realized until now.  Thanks guys.

       

      Let's get it own!

      by Macaface on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 04:33:51 PM EST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gears 100 Percent (none / 0)

    I'm feeling California and looking Minnesota.

    by heeyoh2 on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 05:46:45 PM EST

  •  Gears is a wonderful game (none / 0)

    and it was the first game to finally deliver on many of my biggest wishes. It is definitely the game on my mind everyday, while I eat, while I sleep, while I go to class. BUT, it still has a ways to go before it occupies my heart the way Halo does. Maybe it's just because I have amazing memories of Halo LAN parties that simply haven' t been duplicated yet with Gears (not enough people have 360's, plain and simple). After Gears 2 rolls out, however, I definitely expect it could be up there with Halo. Possibly surpass it, but I don't know.

    "The creatures were friendly and could see in four dimensions. They pitied the Earthlings for being able to see only three." -Slaughterhouse-5

    by StarborneRanger on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 06:39:53 PM EST

  •  Torn (none / 0)

    Your asking me to pick one of my kids and kill the other here...haha. Well, I have often started to think about this, but then put it off because I knew that no matter what I would always have both.
     But, for the sake of the argument...
    I simply couldn't compare the entire Halo franchise against Gears so I broke it down:

    Single Player: Halo (1) Draws you in like no other!
    Multiplayer: Gears is too fresh and fun in my mind to allow Halo 2 to win this one out. Adding some phenominal new dynamics to make playing with your friends even more fun- Down but not out; Teamwork

    As a new franchise with Gears, I have wittnessed kids who never ever played videogames come to Gears for it's visuals and stay for the multiplayer....It rocks. They are now video game addicts....

    Ranger said it best when he said that Halo occupies the heart, Gears the mind.

    So, Halo single, Gears multi. Nice and even!

    Ultimetely I think we need to be thankfull that this year we will be playing both Gears and Halo 3....these are the moment that define the term:
    PS WHO?

    "As for FFF we'll see how my social life unfolds that night. Which basically means i'll be gaming lol" -Boxin

    by SweetTea023 on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:06:45 PM EST

  •  hahaha (none / 0)

    "It's like comparing a seed to a fully bloomed flower.

    by far the gayest thing i have ever said."

    -ZOSO

    Hahahha sure is!!!! Nice work Zosy...

    "As for FFF we'll see how my social life unfolds that night. Which basically means i'll be gaming lol" -Boxin

    by SweetTea023 on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 09:08:36 PM EST

  •  play halo with gearheads papi (none / 0)

    and you'll fall in love with it again. good company is what makes all the difference.

    by naveeda on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 12:25:37 AM EST

    •  one thing (none / 0)

      is that the game is not as friendly to newer people to the genre. This will make adjusting to the game's online hard for anyone. GEARS OF WAR is a lot easier to get good at because you can use tactic, something HALO does not have since it is basically a race to who can shoot each other the fastest.

      Not all who wander are lost

      by Zoso Fan on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:12:58 AM EST

      [ Parent ]

      •  its all strategy man (none / 0)

        on a faster pace though. agree that its not friendly to new comers.

        by naveeda on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:18:12 PM EST

        [ Parent ]

        •  no it (none / 0)

          is really not since it is a run and gun. That is far from a strategic shooter, which involves cover and such. Just as the unreal series isn't either.

          Not all who wander are lost

          by Zoso Fan on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 05:38:35 PM EST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ppl kinda do that in gears too (none / 0)

            that is run and gun with the shotty and if the oppossing team doesnt strategize correctly they loose. but that doesnt make the game any different. checkout halowiki.net for some of the basic to advanced strageties for halo. run and gun guys almost always loose against a well strategized team. finding a team like that is a problem though. i dont mean to brag, but for example checkout this  2 vs 4 slayer match, where they all kind of died in  the same location. easy to visualize if you can read the game viewer on this page. its the crazy strategy from halowiki.net

            by naveeda on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 07:45:33 PM EST

            [ Parent ]

            •  well (none / 0)

              the basic gameplay of gears is strategic. Some shotty battles occur, but usually its a one on one thing, and the winner is almost always the one with cover and who travels throughout the map carefully.

              There is some strategy to Halo, but the core gameplay this is not. I love Halo, but there is a reason EVERYONE classifies the game as run and gun.

              Not all who wander are lost

              by Zoso Fan on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:10:00 PM EST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Tough choice... (none / 0)

    This is a tough one, papi.  I can tell you that my buddies & me have never had such a great time playing a game before Gears came along.  We've played & loved Halo & Halo 2, but the Gears experience is something that is truly special.  I threw a Gears-themed LAN-party in late January & created a monster!  It was intended to be a one-shot deal.  In fact, we just had our second Gears LAN-party this past Sunday.  Now we've got everyone on a hosting rotation with every month planned out for the better part of the year.  We're a bunch of working professionals that are an average age of 34 yrs. old.  Our wives & girlfriends just look on & shake their heads.  However, it makes them happy that we're having such a great time.  It's not the carnal or visceral nature of the game either.  Gears simply promotes camaraderie that isn't found in many of the games on the market today.  The fast paced, in your face action promotes a quick addiction to this masterpiece.  Whether you're playing via XBL or in-person @ a LAN-party, Gears has you by the jugular & refuses to let go.  There have been so many nights my buddies & me have grabbed an XBL match & kept telling ourselves, " Ok, just one more game."  You look over at the clock after that "one more game," & it's past midnight with the workday only six hours away.  Is it time to ask Master Chief to step aside?  Heck no, why can't they both exist in our world of virtual addiction?!?  However, you can color my world- red & black.  Gears FTW!!!

    Friends don't let friends two-piece.

    by Blankman on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:01:04 AM EST

  •  They don't deseve comparison. (none / 0)

    I've played video games regularly only since May 2005, and been a halo player since the beginning. So, I can't really compare my experience with that of people who have had the LAN parties since 2001, and the first Xbox Live Halo 2 game (what a wonder that must have been, meaning no technological belittlement to the old school). Thinking back to the original Xbox and Halo 1 I daresay that they are much the same game. Both had massive innovations (I don't know this from experience; I use the words of my gaming predecesores), both were within the early life of the Xbox 1 and 360. I think that perhaps Zoso probably summed it up best with his comment. My argument goes as such:

    When you compare World War 1 to World War 2 using just the numbers and the combative experience, 2 comes out far the victor. With a higher causualtie rate, faster weapons, more reliable vehicles, more powerful bombs, more land covered in combat. But there would not have been a 2. We forget 1 in the hoopla that is surrounded by 2, but in many ways we live in a world shaped by one. The rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia, a scar the world still bears, and bore till the late 80s. The rise and fall of the Weimar republic and the growth of fascim in Germany and Austria. The League of Nations grew as well: soon becoming the United Nations.

    Halo is the first world war. The first shot between Microsoft and Sony. Now we have Gears and Resistance. Did World War 2 destroy more? Build more? Of course it did. But it was a foregone conclusion. This cheap and poorly articulated argument does not give justice to the history of the deaths of millions, and the imprisonment on Boris' grandfather in a prison camp (and likely many more fathers and grandfathers suffered as well). Nor should they really be compared to what we do in our spare time. we must remember that while Gears may have made a splash now, it was just the second salvo of something started 6 years ago.
    We simply see the newest 'innovation' that comes from a long line going all the way back to Goldeneye and even back to MegaMan. We can't compare last generations golden child to this, the former will always come short. Halo 3 will lessen Gears in our eyes, and Gears 2 will lessen Halo 3. Comparison demeans both by making Gears stand before a jury of it's forebears which will always seem just a little less graphically amazing. And making Halo 1 (a 5 year old game) and Halo 2 (a 2 year old game) stand a test they will always fail.

    "We can categorically state that we have not released any man eating badgers into the area." -Major Michael Shearer, UK military spokesman

    by Sparton 501 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 02:26:07 PM EST

    •  I agree (none / 0)

      Well put together.

       Hey on a funnier note of this debate, I was playing Gears this morning with my iPod rocking the backround. I have a playlist set to play all of my Death, Black, Satanic, and Heavy Metal.  It works well with the game.  But somehow the Halo theme snuck in there, so it comes on right when Delta gets back into the APC ending act 2.  It starts with the Monk-like chant and Marcus says "Baird turn that shit off!"  And it keeps playing.
       I nearly died laughing.

      Let's get it own!

      by Macaface on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:08:05 PM EST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wars seem a stretch Sparton. (none / 0)

      First, wow, you have a good memory to recall my comments about my grandfather, and your world history is good.  Anyways, I think your comparison of Gears and Halo to just one war after another and each being more significant then the next is too simple.  I'm not saying your wrong, cause your point is fair, but consider an evolution thing rather than a war thing.

      Halo is a 1st-person shooter (FPS).  Gears is a 3rd-person shooter (TPS).  This is evolution due to a more powerful game system and a recognition of game designers on what gamers want.  Further, it is an evolution in gameplay mechanics and the consoles ability to serve up that complexity.

      Gears is touching on a more interactive game environment and visceral control of the character in it.  I mean, circle straffing, jumping, and zig zags are the fundementals of FPS; not realistic or complimentary of a well designed map.  Now, with TPS you can see your character use cover, know you are in cover, and move in the environment in a realistic manner.  Fast twitch reflexes can be defeated by a smart player who uses the environment around his character.  

      I end with this thought, if FPS was the shit, why isn't Bungie continuing with Halo4 after Halo3? It is my opinion, they are moving on to something else that is not a FPS.  What could it be?  I don't know for sure, but I believe that Bungie sees an evolution in shooters (cause that is what they do damn well, so why stop) and maybe they have a few new ideas on what can be done with TPS.  If ya'll remember Bungie was going to do a RTS for Halo, but they chose and FPS to immerse the player into a world.  If they quit the Master Chief and his FPS world, then maybe they are GEARING-up for the next step.  Right now, EPIC has Gears, and Mark Rein says they could continue to make sequels as long as there is an interest.  I think TPS will be the new genre until a big leap in gaming consoles allows virtual immersion into games.  Something that gives you peripheral vision, quick looks, and makes you sweat a bit while you are switching weapons.

      Of course, I could be talking out of my ass, and be proven wrong in time.  By the way, what is Guerrila doing with Killzone anyways?  Oh, and when someone thinks the PS3 comes out with something better than the 360, I'll be ready to talk about that too. PS Who?

      Ready to finish all the Fights!

      by Damn Boris on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 08:43:56 PM EST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you take me to seriously, Mr. Boris. (none / 0)

        but to go back to my analogie, you'll notice that I do beleive that the 2 wars were an evolution. Had there not been a 1 (Halo) the Xbox would not have likely lived on, as Sweet put it. But had there not been a war from 1914-1918 there would not have been a rise of fascism, totalitariasm, and communism, causing the events leading to 2 (360; 1939-1945).
        So I wasn't saying that theres a great battle between Sony and Microsoft that's waged every few years; there's an evolution that keeps the struggle alive. Our consoles keep getting more powerful, as a Messerschmit (didn't spell that right) was more powerful than a Fokker (knew how to spell that). Both were manned by the same people and both were an evolution. One didn't spring up without the other. Perhaps it was my analogy that was at fault; I didn;t mean for my argument to come across like I want J Allard and Phil Harrison to get into a ring and duke it out, I meant that there was an evolution. I guess I just let Zoso have his flower, I'd take the war in Europe to illustrate my point.
        You make good points, Mr. Boris, I think you took my argument a bit literally for it's own good. Which I suppose is a risk one takes whenever you use prior events to illuminate your beleifs. Especially when those prior events involve genocide and fascism.
        In closing, I agree with you Boris. It is an evolution of consoles, Neandertals v. Homo Sapien. I usually find Patton a little more interesting than Darwin, unfortunately.

        "We can categorically state that we have not released any man eating badgers into the area." -Major Michael Shearer, UK military spokesman

        by Sparton 501 on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 02:19:17 PM EST

        [ Parent ]

        •  if (none / 0)

          you dont give me my flower back... ;)

          Not all who wander are lost

          by Zoso Fan on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 02:46:35 PM EST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Peace Sparton (none / 0)

          I was enjoying your comments and running with my own line of reasoning.  By the way, are you studying for a history exam?  That's cool cause I dig on history?

          Please, don't call me Mr. Boris.  It makes me feel older and geeker than I really am.  Maybe I am, but I need an illusion of sophistication.

          Cheers

          Ready to finish all the Fights!

          by Damn Boris on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 03:05:38 PM EST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Dan Foster had a similar request. (none / 0)

            Please don't think I was trashing your line of reason, I agree with you. Run away, my dear Boris (that right there is pretty gay too, eh Zoso?).

            I'm homeschooled, so I don't really have any exams that I'm preparing for, just lots of time to read (and write). History is by far my best subject though. Perhaps because it never really gets harder.

            I've always called people 'Mr', not really sure why. Wasn't related to my father, or any teachers or anything. Nothing ever lost on courtesy, right? Dan Foster I called Mr., at one point. He made a similar request. Thus, if it makes you feel better I'll leave your illusion intact as long as you feel it necessary, Boris.

            "We can categorically state that we have not released any man eating badgers into the area." -Major Michael Shearer, UK military spokesman

            by Sparton 501 on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:01:37 PM EST

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes Damn Boris (none / 0)

              Sparton called me Mr too.Its cool I do the same thing with Sir. Its a sign of respect and for some one young like Sparton to be respectful in this day and age its nice so many kids these days are so disrespectful. No harm to it. Plus my dad was a marine so what else would his kid say other then Yes Sir.

              by Dan Foster on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:34:38 PM EST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Wow (none / 0)

              I'll repeat something someone asked before...are you sure you're so young?  I've never thought about history in that context before, but you're right.  It truly doesn't ever get harder.

              by papi blez on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 05:44:10 PM EST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah. . . (none / 0)

                nobody needs to tell me twice that Sparton's the coolest.

                "We can categorically state that we have not released any man eating badgers into the area." -Major Michael Shearer, UK military spokesman

                by Sparton 501 on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 06:37:01 PM EST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Hmmm... (none / 0)

                  Fascism took off independently of Communism.  Hitler was the catalyst for the nazi party just as Stalin was the face of communism.  The only reason the two got involved is because Hitler didn't take Russia seriously enough, leading to the whole two border, yackity shmackity, you know the story.

                  To say the two occured only because of the previous world war isn't a true statement. Archduke Ferdinand was the catalyst for that war, which ended with a defeated but not depleted Germany.

                  Germany didn't learn their lesson after the first world war, they grew an ego, gained a leader and went off on a quest for world domination, again, but this time they had friends in Italy and Japan.

                  Halo 1 was the poster boy of the original XBOX, not the sole reason for it's success. Games such as Morrowind also defined it as a grownups console.  The hardware it possessed and Microsoft selling it for cheap and taking the initial financial hit is what launched it into the limelight.  

                  Look at the PS3, Sony's been on top of the game for a decade.  It wasn't a single game that defined there reign but rather marketing and some developers jumping on board.  Now they have a console that the average joe can't afford and a format that is incredibly difficult to port too.

                  Too say that one game defined a console is just not the truth.  It sold a lot of games, it gained some initial interest in the game.  Bungie did a great job with it's online community, which helped with the success of the console.  It was not however the singular reason for the XBOX suddenly jumping onto the scene.

                  (This is of course just my opinion.)

                  Leader, Masters Few www.MastersFew.com

                  by Master Pre on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:39:33 PM EST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How about this... (none / 0)

                    Through a series of conflicts man can reach a utopian state of society.

                    Through a series of iterations Microsoft and Sony are trying to reach a utopian state of console gaming.

                    Leader, Masters Few www.MastersFew.com

                    by Master Pre on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 09:46:29 PM EST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I disagree with your history, Mr. Pre (none / 0)

                    Lenin (who was the catalyst for the communists, not Stalin) was a foot soldier captured by the Germans and sent back to Russia in order to stir up trouble for the Czar (something he did quite well, too). To say that Germany merely 'grew an ego' is a bit of a slap, isn't it? They developed the worst inflation in the history of economics, became what amounted to the whipping boy of France (seriously, how could one grow an ego there, of all places?), watched the Rhineland be stripped of it's resources, the republic that was set up for them by the League of Nations was suppresed by the soldiers of 1, who became the embittered leaders of two. You must remember, Mr. Pre, that the history books are written by the victor, and to say that Germany was in the wrong is due mostly to their having been emptied of useable men in the workforce and military.

                    So you are correct in saying that they took off separately, but they were caused by the same conflict. Lenin would have been a syphilitic soldier returning from a foolish war had the Germans not given him some cash and a get out of jail card to go stir trouble. Hitler came back a blind veteran pariahed of society because he was a temporarily blind artist in a nation that needed construction workers and bakers. he gathered an army of other disgruntled ex grunts and created the Nazi (National Socialist) party.

                    So, one could say (as you have done) that Germany just grew an ego, Russia grew some stones, and Italy and Japan had nothing to do, but this is a gross oversimplification! I don't pretend that my two paragraphs are going to well illustrate the causes of two World Wars, but that seems rather foolish. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I am rather offended that you would reduce these monolithic struggles to what reduces to "Germany is full of idiots and anti-Semites who didn't learn their lesson after the first can of whoop ass we brought down on `em". I'm not accusing you of racism, or being anti-Germany/Russia, I just think that you're perhaps basing your argument on a high school history textbook (a very unreliable source, I must say).

                    As far as the gaming part of your argument, I agree that Halo wasn't the only reason for it's success, and applaud your mention of games such as Morrowind. At the same time, I doubt it would have sold very many people with a line up of Fuzion Frenzy at the beginning.

                    I didn't mean for my article to come across as if I meant a console would be defined by one game, but I think that the one game series that has Sony execs scared is Halo, and now Gears. I don't think the Xbox was a poor console, I love games like Halo, Crimson Skies, and Battlefront. But if it didn't have a select few in the beginning, it would have likely gone the way of Gizmondo. If Winston Churchill had been killed in the trenches, would we all be speaking German with Erwin Rommel's son as president? I hope not, but had there not been a Halo in the beginning, would we all be applauding Gears new arrival on the PS3? I rather think so.

                    So, I apologize if my return is not to your liking, Master Pre. I must say that I'm rather known as the `kid you don't debate with' and when I think I have a good argument to be made, I usually don't go home till I think my point has been well made. Please don't think I'm trashing your thoughts, anybody. It's a fault of my own to beat a dead horse. And I daresay that your opinion is quite valid to me.    

                     

                    "We can categorically state that we have not released any man eating badgers into the area." -Major Michael Shearer, UK military spokesman

                    by Sparton 501 on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:55:06 AM EST

                    [ Parent ]

  •  Ya, (none / 0)

    Sparton put it well...Halo kept Xbox alive, Gears brought it back into the fight and Halo 3 just may finish this next-gen fight...(and if not Gears 2 will...)

    "As for FFF we'll see how my social life unfolds that night. Which basically means i'll be gaming lol" -Boxin

    by SweetTea023 on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 03:15:49 PM EST

  •  My apologies, Papi (none / 0)

    I kinda stole your article, a while ago it was Sergeant Marcus Fenix v. MCPO John, 117. Now it's Pershing and MacArthur v. Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg.

    "We can categorically state that we have not released any man eating badgers into the area." -Major Michael Shearer, UK military spokesman

    by Sparton 501 on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:05:09 AM EST

  •  Wow long topic (none / 0)

    Getting caught up on this one took awhile. With that said there is not a lot to add except my opinion. I had this large response typed up and it was just to long. So here is the short version. On these two games for me it comes down to music and story. GOW had neither to a great extent, I love the game play and chainsawing active reload were nice additions but the game isn't balanced enough for me to say it "kills halo" or someother jackass comment. They are both good games and these comparisons are getting old. This thread gets more responses than a thread just about Gears. I suppose it's the same all over the net. Wait till Halo 3 for compraisons then its justified. Halo 2 was ahead of its time for Live Content downloads and matchmaking. GOW could learn a thing or two from it. They are making a good start with two new maps already but just let this topic lie until we can compair apples to apples.

    by Windowlicker77 on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:59:20 PM EST

Comments Disabled | 40 comments