Gears Of War 1 or 2?

[Benjani]

Which do you thinks best.

I think Gears 2 is better

[Xpl0$ivem0m]

2 has better online and campaign imo.

[Benjani]

yer, and you can play against comp offline on 2 but on 1 you cant

[Shadowmire]

2 obviously

[h83r]

Gears of War 1 was new, innovative, and ground-breaking, and therefore deserved all its praise. Gears 2 built on the first one extensively, added new things such as Horde Mode, but while it was a great experience, it wasn't as earth-shattering as the first one.

[magma legend]

yaa i think gears of war 2 is better
ive defeated that game on easy,normal,and half way on hardcore

[Shadowmire]

Gears of War 1 was new, innovative, and ground-breaking, and therefore deserved all its praise. Gears 2 built on the first one extensively, added new things such as Horde Mode, but while it was a great experience, it wasn't as earth-shattering as the first one.I've always thought it to be silly to rank an original release (of anything) over its sequel purely because it came first...

[h83r]

I've always thought it to be silly to rank an original release (of anything) over its sequel purely because it came first...
That's not what I said. I said that there's a difference between sequels that improve on games that are already pretty amazing to begin with and sequels that have more room to improve simply because the original, while having neat ideas, was flawed.

While I'm sure the majority here don't judge games like I do, and my way may seem a bit unusual, but when it comes to sequels, I simply have to judge them based on their predecessor. Like I already mentioned, I rank Gears 1 higher than Gears 2 because Gears 2 didn't innovate, it refined what was already pretty amazing. I feel exactly the same way when it comes to sequels like Modern Warfare 2 and God of War 2. The first God of War and Modern Warfare I believe were absolutely brilliant and brought something new and fresh to the gaming world. Story-telling, gameplay accessibility, stunning visuals[for their respective times], they had it all.
Then God of War 2 and Modern Warfare 2 came out and they refined and improved everything that was "iffy" in the first games, and did introduce some new ideas, but not nearly enough to warrant praise exceeding the originals, simply because games said originals literally defined the way games were made during their times.
If I were to take a more recent example to explain what I'm on abou, I'd have to say Batman: Arkham Asylum. I mean, that game was comic book heaven. The Riddler's riddles around the island, the carefully planned backtracking throughout the adventure, the perfect execution of "easy-to-learn-difficult-to-master" combat, it was such a great experience from start to finish. Now, Rocksteady has announced a sequel, and I'm honestly a bit skeptical. The original was such a breath of fresh air that came completely from left field. No one was expecting to be any good. Now, I'm not saying whether the sequel will be completely terrible or anything. Don't take this like that. All I'm saying is that the room for improvement is insanely small, and I highly doubt it will be as innovative or "a breath of fresh air" because the first one is that good.

On the flip side, there are franchises like Assassin's Creed and Uncharted, where while their first ventures weren't completely up to par with other titles that were released around them, they were good enough to warrant a sequel out of the developers and those sequels completely BLEW the originals out of the water.
Such sequels, I believe do deserve all the praise that they get because they go above and beyond what anyone expected out of the sequels. Assassin's Creed 2 and Uncharted 2 are, by far, my two games of the year. They not only refined the groundwork that their predecessors laid down, they improved existing features while adding enough new ones that these titles could stand on their own without anyone ever having to refer to the originals again.
Since I talked about Arkham Asylum in the previous paragraph, for symmetry's sake, I feel like I should mention a franchise like Mirror's Edge. I think it deserves a sequel that I believe can improve greatly on what the original set out to do, but didn't succeed. Mirror's Edge was a game in which your character's movement and momentum meant everything. However, the game's tendency to rely heavily on the player having to use the trial and error method over and over again completely wrecked any momentum and fluidity that you might've had. The reason why I feel Mirror's Edge would be a great candidate for a sequel is because when you had the movement, the momentum, the game felt great. When you knew exactly where you needed to go and how to get there, the smoothness of the movements felt so good. Unfortunately, that rarely ever happened.

~~~

After all that, I hope that you at least understand why I said what I said about Gears.

[Shadowmire]

I understand, and yet my logic is still there. :P

Love it when you write long posts btw.

[h83r]

Love it when you write long posts btw.

They take up so much time, dude. I don't like doing it. I mean, I've got much better things to do. ;[