Would You Rather ... Connecting the Gears Edition
In our continuing effort to bring you fresh and interesting content, X3F presents Would You Rather ... a weekly feature that asks you the hard questions. The point? If you had to choose one or the other, which would you go for?
You may have heard that a little game called Gears of War is getting a sequel this November, so in the spirit of that shocking announcement we're going WUR Gears-style! This week's question is all about the connected experience.
Gears of War had a great co-op mode and a solid online multiplayer, but some people bashed Gears for a shoddy matchmaking system and wondered why Gears didn't adopt the Halo 2 play list formula. So, with that in mind, if you had to pick one of these features for Gears of War 2 which would it be?
Feel free to share the reasons for your vote in the comments. We'll share the results of the poll during the next edition of Would You Rather ... which hits X3F every Wednesday.
Last weeks WUR results can be find after the jump ... Ensign!
Last week's results weren't all that surprising, but there does seem to be an interest in the fabled Halo MMO. With 54.7% of our readers picking Halo 4 as their next want in the franchise, it looks like there is still quite a lot of steam behind Master Chief's adventures.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Gemini Ace @ Feb 27th 2008 12:38PM
Every 360 game that hopes to compete with Halo 3 and CoD4 needs to have a good matchmaking system. There will be no excuse if it's not in Gears 2.
SeNiLe911 @ Feb 27th 2008 1:08PM
I agree!
I was one to bash Epic for a shoddy matchmaking system. It really turned me off, especially after the second or third update, I was done.
Matt @ Feb 27th 2008 1:23PM
I agree, as well. Gears 2 absolutely needs a party system like Halo 3 and COD4. It will be a travesty if it does not.
Delgado @ Feb 27th 2008 1:31PM
I even think CoD4 needs a good amount of work, even though its way ahead of everything but Halo 3.
At least the update will change the stupid host problems.
Mikeawesome @ Feb 27th 2008 2:33PM
My thoughts exactly.
Not to mention that 4-player Co-op was something I utilized with Halo 3 maybe 5 times. That matchmaking system? It's a great system. The only thing I'd like to see changed is maybe show the number of people in each type of match vs. the overall like they do in CoD4, there are times when that's very useful. Like when you're playing late at night and there's 10 people in one gametype. If that weren't there I'd be waiting for 10-15 minutes before I moved on.
E-Rock @ Feb 27th 2008 12:39PM
I'd prefer that more game include ways to play with your friends rather than against them. Not the VS modes should be removed, but more co-op would be nice.
killploki @ Feb 27th 2008 12:39PM
two player coop is fine with me, its still a challenge and its easier to share ammo and health than with 3 other players. not to mention i dont want to get warped through portions of a level if i want to explore a bit and one of my team mates is sprinting through a map.
multiplayer needs all the help it can get though. i never got into the multiplayer and i think more games should copy the style of halo's matchmaking.
Intentless @ Feb 27th 2008 12:40PM
4 player campaign would be cool for the first few run through but if it wants to last like COD4 or Halo 3 it needs to have matchmaking where you can play ranked with your friends...
itsburnsie @ Feb 27th 2008 12:41PM
Can't.... pick....
WANT BOTH!
ccc @ Feb 27th 2008 12:43PM
that was a hard call.
But in the end co-op does get old and nothing sucked in GOW quite as much as sitting in a room waiting for players 1 to 2 hours at a time.
homerj312 @ Feb 27th 2008 12:53PM
Give me a Rainbow 6 Vegas style lobby system
mark.j.smith @ Feb 27th 2008 12:54PM
Wow, that is a close poll.
I'd rather have the party system...it was tough getting with friends and going into the GP.
Yzzerdd @ Feb 27th 2008 12:54PM
Gears Of Wars has horrible multiplayer I'd take 4 player co op to shotgun dancing with Halo matchmaking.
Chance Morgan @ Feb 27th 2008 12:57PM
4 Player Coop -- My favorite part of gears was storming through the game on insane with a friend of mine. It also helped that he was a much better player than me.
I would go for the matchmaking if I actually liked the multiplayer. But again, this may be a function of my not being very good.
I think I better start practicing now for GoW2.
MDJ2010 @ Feb 27th 2008 12:58PM
Well I have never had any problem with Gears multiplayer matchmaking system so Ill have to go for the 4 player co-op. Although in reality i want to be able to weild two chainsaws at once with a Boom helmet on.
Ben @ Feb 27th 2008 1:00PM
I would play multiplayer Gears 2 more if the matchmaking system were more like Halo. I don't know about anyone else but when I play more than 2 people co-op on H3 the game just won't play. I would rather have a smooth experience with only 2 people than have a lagfest with more people.
TORO @ Feb 27th 2008 1:01PM
Focus on multiplayer that's where the longevity is at, suprise us Cliffy with vehicles and 6 vs 6 epic battles with bigger maps. Yea I have a dream :)
ryan @ Feb 27th 2008 1:04PM
never liked how huge the levels had to be for 4 player co-op, not to mention the graphical hit 4-player co-op would have. I don't see Resistance's 8-player co-op lookin all that pretty.
i much rather a tighter 2-player experience.
Bmurph @ Feb 27th 2008 1:06PM
Wow. That was the toughest WUR yet. I think 4 player co-op for reasons already stated. The co-op was just so much fun in Gears with a friend.
ZEBRA NINER @ Feb 27th 2008 1:16PM
Wow, what a tough choice. I love CO-OP... it's got to have that. However, Halo 3's match making was FANTASTIC (COD4 fell short).
I can get around the crap match making for 4 player co-op, but both would be fantastic!
However, no one will just outright copy halo 3(even though they should) and so you will never see that.
Bravo6 @ Feb 27th 2008 1:20PM
Talk all the shit you want about Halo, but the matchmaking setup is second to none, and GoW's sucked ass.
mattclarkie @ Feb 27th 2008 1:20PM
I hated the 1 death and you have to wait for the next round, especially as it was nearly 1 hit kill.
matt mcclard @ Feb 27th 2008 1:24PM
this is basically why i never played Gears, i hated the matchmaking.
ccc @ Feb 27th 2008 1:25PM
@Toro
Careful what you wish for, or at least be more specific about it. Asking for vehicles will get you machines we can ride in but only fire light, heh.
But you are right, multi is where the game will truly shine brighter and longer.
chris @ Feb 27th 2008 1:39PM
Go take a flying F at a rolling donut you Halo3 rednecks, you're vote does NOT count !
Amber @ Feb 27th 2008 1:40PM
Four player co-op because Halo 3 matchmaking is RETARDED. And completely confusing. My friends and I first played Multiplayer Halo 3 this weekend and we all agreed that the matchmaking was easily the most retarded part of Multiplayer. COD4 is way superior.
The Dolphin904 @ Feb 27th 2008 2:09PM
really? please explain...
ZEBRA NINER @ Feb 27th 2008 2:09PM
Retarded? Check the operator. ;)
DjDATZ @ Feb 27th 2008 2:51PM
I agree with Zebra. The matchmaking system in Halo 3 is second to none. Not even COD4 can compete with it. Its really really easy to understand and use. And obviously, only the party leader has control of what will be played. DUH.
ccc @ Feb 27th 2008 2:30PM
GOW was flawed by the seriously achievement and the lack of match making. Everyone wanted to play in ranked to work toward the cheevo, but in ranked it was hard and sometimes impossiable to find friends to play with. But when you could get together on a team it was unfair battling guys on the other side that had never played together before and lacked just about any stradigy. We always plowed them down with little effort and maybe 1 out of every 100 matches we would actually play against a decent team where no one quit and knew what was up.
ZEBRA NINER @ Feb 27th 2008 2:36PM
oh teh noes! You said CHEEVO! *queue cheevo police*
George Arauz @ Feb 27th 2008 4:00PM
Halo 3 system needed
Triforceowner @ Feb 27th 2008 4:01PM
I'll take the Halo 3 matchmaking if instead of "Lone wolves" I get to select my map and game type.
dylan @ Feb 27th 2008 4:11PM
Why do we have to pick? You can do both in Halo...
Xav de Matos @ Feb 27th 2008 4:55PM
You don't have to, but the point of this feature is IF you had to which would you pick.
Ryan @ Feb 27th 2008 4:42PM
I'm fine with no matchmaking in player matches since you can send invites to get your friends in and only had to fill up the room once since the room stayed alive from map to map.
Waiting 10 minutes for a ranked room to fill up only to have to do it all over again after the match ends and it kills the room was seriously lame though, so there needs to be matchmaking at least for ranked matches even if player matches stay the same as before.
Jayslacks @ Feb 27th 2008 4:42PM
How about both. Yeah, I said it. Both. And, for the love of all that is holy, FIX THE HOST SHOTGUN!
Ryan @ Feb 27th 2008 4:47PM
Oh, and all I REALLY want from Gears 2 is for them to put the Lancer back the way it was before the last update. Or at least make it a power weapon that you don't spawn with.
wickedpheonix @ Feb 27th 2008 5:26PM
Excuse me if I put for co-op - not necessarily because co-op is better, but because IMHO Halo 3 matchmaking sucked - yeah, you heard right. Coming from a PC gamer, not being able to choose which map I'm playing and what gametype and with how many people and instead leaving it up to the developers and chance sucks some serious balls. Give me a couple choices - throw me in the server best for my TruSkill and connection, throw me in the server with X number of people, or let me decide the map and gametype and just let the game find me a server that fits that and then best meets my TruSkill etc. Failing that, just create a server and fill it up a la Halo 3. Add a decent party system and we're set.
In any case, it should not take me more than 20 secs after entering the main menu to get thrown into a multiplayer game - something Halo 3 sorely lacks at.
Zeus.:God @ Feb 27th 2008 6:06PM
Fuck Matchmaking. Matchmaking seriously sucks cock.
Leave it the way it is but keep the host name in there.
caramelzappa @ Feb 27th 2008 6:15PM
4 player co-op is a must, even if it's system link only.
I like the halo 3 matchmaking system to an extent, but I liked the system Gears had more. It's nice being able to get in a party with your friends before joining a game, however I hated the playlist part of Halo 3. I loved gears because I could search for the exact number of rounds, map, and game type. In halo 3 the game chooses for you and if other people don't agree with your veto then you're stuck, and if they do it might pick something else you don't like. That killed the online for me. A party system that lets you choose the games that you want to play is the way to go.
Demetrius Trisby @ Feb 28th 2008 12:55AM
ok if they had the party that would be cool and and more then 4 on 4 it would be cool but if the switched like halo would make it suck cause i like to pick what map i want to play on not just get thrown into a random one but also with more player it would suck if they did all the glitching crap
julyguy @ Feb 28th 2008 3:59AM
Matchmaking that gives you the choice of either being matched with other players of similar skill (like Halo 3) with more criteria (map, gametype, etc) or being able to browse lobbys (like PC games) would be perfect. My favorite part of the Halo 3 party system is that you can switch between co-op, custom games, forge, theater, and matchmaking without loosing the people in your party.
Boff @ Feb 28th 2008 6:14AM
4 player co-op for me.
My most enjoyable moments in that game were in oline co-op with my *real life* friends. If we could all play together, a la Halo3, then it would have been even better.