When I post this do not mistake me for being a microsoft fan boy, for that is one thing I am not. I own all three last generation consoles and believe that each one brought great games to the table. At the dawn of the new console age and subsequently the new console war we see two big hitters coming out for the two biggest systems. Gears of War for the Xbox 360, and Resistence: Fall of Man for the PS3

I have had the great opportunity (thanks to my friend owning a 360) to have some intimate...alone time with GOW and I must say the experience was amazing. While the story was heavily lacking in the campaign (no real background...no real anything...just a goal to plant a bomb) the graphics alone were enough to draw my attention away from that fact. Then we hit the gameplay...

It was one of the most refreshing experiences I've had in a long time. Constantly having to take cover, unleash suppression fire, gain ground, and ultimately erradicate an opposing strike force just feels amazing. You feel a sense of accomplishment every time you land a kill. Take the thrill of all this and play coop (split screen or over live) with a friend and it's even better. In this "thinking man's" shooter two minds are almost always better.

Hitting up the online multiplayer was extremely intense and took all the beauty of the campaign to the next level. Some people scoff at the thought of 4 on 4 matches. Nonsense, your smaller group makes it easier to let everyone know what you're doing (not to mention any more would make the game feel a little crowded).

Theres just something great about two of my buddies suppressing the opposing force behind a car while I swing around the side of the level to sneak up behind them and chainsaw them to death, or having a sniper blow off an enemies head while the rest of the team advances up the level, shotguns in hand, ready to raise some hell. The only real downside is that the three game types are basically all variations of deathmatch. To be honest GOW is the most intense and addictive, thought filled multiplayer i've had the privilige to enjoy in a very long time.

Unfortunately for me I know little to nothing about Resistence. The main things I've heard about it are that the weapons are over the top (which can be good or bad) and that the multiplayer can support up to 40 players.

In my opinion, while "the more the merrier" looks good on paper, having 40 people bitch and scream and make racist comments into my headset could possibly be enough to make me shoot myself. I already get irked enough when there are 3 or 4 ten year olds in my 4 on 4/ 8 on 8 rounds in halo. My fear is that I could very well be the unlucky soul who gets plopped into a party of 39 dipshits. The other problem with 20 on 20 is that I feel much skill will be lost from the game and that it will be purely "CHARRRGE! Oh God...I'm dead" gameplay. I forsee a clusterfuck of nonsense where no one really knows whats going on and they just shoot everything that could even theoretically decide to get up and move. Once again I havent played it so I can't make any judgements.

ANYWAY theres my rant...lets hear some opinions and please no bitching

I would have thought the answer is pretty simple:

>Do you wish to join a 40 player match?

>No.

Sarcasm aside, while I will accept you're no MS fanboy it does sound a little like you may have been drinking little more Gears Hype Kool Aid than is healthy
It seems to me across the board that the reviews for both games have been very biased towards Gears. I'm one of the few people who doesn't blame this on MS paying off the reviewers, I think it's more a case of such a long build up in anticipation for the title as well as a respect for Epic as a thoroughbred FPS developer. (A good example of this syndrome was a test where a rare classical piece of music was played to 2 test audiences who had never heard the piece before. One group wasn't told who the composer was, the other was told it was by Beethoven. Guess which group thought the piece was mediochre, and who thought it was superb?)
There's no question Gears is really 'superb' graphically, but as for gameplay I'd argue that's pretty subjective. Some folks will like the Killswitch type stop-start mechanic, while others will prefer the more fluid 'traditional' Halo/Half Life style of Resistance.
Personally I think there's been a lot of unfair criciticism levelled at Rfom because it ended up being caught in the limelight of being the PS3's 'flagship' title. Are the graphics really that 'average'? Apart from textures mipping down because buildings are generally further away from you than in the narrow 'corridor' like spaces of Gears, the overall quality and design of the visuals is pretty damn cool, especially when you get to the last few levels which are absolutely jaw-dropping. Without giving anything away the final level interior is arguably the most impressive real time environment I've seen yet on any console.
Also where was the climactic ending for the game? I was expecting a lot more than what Gears delivered. Perhaps at least a huge impressive enemy? or amazing environment? I was surprised to see it lacking in that department.

As for the idea that the weapons are "over the top", what exactly does that mean?? In fact a lot of people complained it was generic, then they said it's bound to have great weapons since it's Insomniac, etc. Again, being pre-judged because of the developer.

The single most unfair point is this whole 40 player thing that so many reviewers decided to pick on. For starters, if you don't like it, you don't have to choose 20 v 20. Secondly, in year or so's time when 40 players will be laughably low, where is that going to leave the current criticism? Totally meaningless.
It's a lot like test driving a new Land Rover and saying the storage capacity is "too big". Pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

lol I did mention that the Story of Gears was complete shit right? It was nonexistant shit haha. I wish I had a chance to play resistence...from what i've read it sounds really fun

I have both systems and games, and I can honestly say, I like resistance quite a bit more. It plays like Call of Booty, and Halo combined. I think GOW was really overhyped. The graphics are hard core, no doubt, but It just felt to linear. Overall I'd take resistance over GOW. Halo 3 will destroy all, however.

Gears of War. Simply because Gears of War is far more innovative and is reinventing the action genre. Resistance is just a very refined FPS with some new weapons. If Gears isn't superior then I consider them equals because Resistance isn't doing enough to be called better.

I think they're equal (game engine, action elements). But I think Resistance looks prettier graphics wise.

Just curious D.A.N. - have you actually played Resistance?

quote:

Originally posted by Primordial:
Just curious D.A.N. - have you actually played Resistance?

Indeed I have. I don't believe in joining debates if I only know one side of the arguement.

Hmm, ok. You seem to have edited your previous post.
I wonder which you felt had the better ending?

One thing about Gears, with it being so short I was expecting some kind of amazing visual climax for its final stage but was pretty disappointed.

quote:

Originally posted by Primordial:
Hmm, ok. You seem to have edited your previous post.
I wonder which you felt had the better ending?

One thing about Gears, with it being so short I was expecting some kind of amazing visual climax for its final stage but was pretty disappointed.

I did not edit my post.

Resistance does have a better ending. But an ending alone is not enough to push aside the overall feel and innovation in a game. It would be hard to truly debate one better than the other, but I'd rather hold them as equals.

quote:

Secondly, in year or so's time when 40 players will be laughably low, where is that going to leave the current criticism? Totally meaningless.

40 man games laughably low in a year? I doubt it man. Size of servers has just CREPT up throughout the years. I don't doubt that eventually a 40 man game would be considered small, but not in the near future I'd say.

Gears of War definitely, although its quite short its awesome singleplayer and Co-Op which i never seem to get bored of and the multiplayer is great too espescialy with the xbox live updates with new maps and game types. Awesome game. graphics are amazing too, i completed it on insane yesterday..omg that was hard and only on co-op, must be like impossible on singleplayer

Gears of War for sure, I have played both and GoW is a true next gen experience, resistence is still a good game but I did not find it as nearly as fun. Gears of War's beautiful graphics and its cover system makes it so immersive. I just didnt get that feel when playing resistance. By the way whoever said resistance looked prettier, GoW clearly has better graphics in every way possible.

GOW, but Resistance was still pretty fun, Resistance justmn felt like with a little less graphics it could have been a PS2 game, but Gears Of War was the first step into next gen, and I'm no Mircosoft fanboy, I own a 360 PS3 and a Wii, i just think GOW was better in gameplay, not story, the story was almost nonexistent, but the gameplay made up for it, while Resistances story was very detailed and interesting it offered no HUGE next gen gameplay