Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Personally i have always thought of the gears of war collection of games (soon to be a trilogy) way better than the C.O.D. series of games simply because it is like nothing else on the market. The way i look at it is that although black ops is prob the best 1 person shooter game out there at the moment and trust me there are loads, i feel although ive seen it all before but with the gears of war games it gives a refreshing feel to shooter games and although you cannot really compare these games for many reasons including one is first person and the other third but anyway what do you guys think?

My vote is with Gears.

gears.....Im sick of the same old FPS, released every year bull that is cod.

gears, call of duty isn't the best FPS by FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Lol i was expecting loads of people to say cod.

shouldn't this be in video games section?

day of defeat ftw

Oh i had no idea there was a gaming section. My bad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeh just seen that. My bad if i new how to move or delete the thread i would.

Off to Video Games with you!

Cheers lol

After spending the time to complete COD:BO single player and spend some time doing multiplayer, I can honestly say that, in my opinion (an many others), black ops is the worst COD ever made, one of the worst FPSs ever made, and a terrible game all around.

If you want modern multiplayer FPS, try battlefield.

As far as gears of war, I have only played a couple hours of it on the xbox with my buddy, and I loved every bloody second of it. The story line is engaging and deep, you really feel like you are fighting for something important. Above all the other aspects of the game, I think that the storyline really makes it good, it just makes everything you do...so important, I suppose. You feel like you MUST succeed, or what is left of the planet is doomed.

I wouldnt say it was the worst FPS ever made but yeah gears does have quite an epic storyline agreed!

ChaosWarhound wrote:I wouldnt say it was the worst FPS ever made but yeah gears does have quite an epic storyline agreed!

I thought Gears of War story was cheesy and over the top, mind you most videogames have mediocre storylines anyway so it wasn't too big of a deal. Gameplay imo is always the most important part of a videogame.

Gameplay is a very important part in a game but i still think a good storyline is very important to making a good video game.

I wouldn't consider either of those games to have a good storyline personally.

ChaosWarhound wrote:Gameplay is a very important part in a game but i still think a good storyline is very important to making a good video game.

You don't need storyline or graphics to have a good game, just game-play look at super mario bothers that's a great game but it's story and graphics are piss poor.

Cheesecat wrote:

ChaosWarhound wrote:Gameplay is a very important part in a game but i still think a good storyline is very important to making a good video game.

You don't need storyline or graphics to have a good game, just game-play look at super mario bothers that's a great game but it's story and graphics are piss poor.

I rather like the graphics in mario games.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

ChaosWarhound wrote:Gameplay is a very important part in a game but i still think a good storyline is very important to making a good video game.

You don't need storyline or graphics to have a good game, just game-play look at super mario bothers that's a great game but it's story and graphics are piss poor.

I rather like the graphics in mario games.

I agree most Mario games have solid or great graphics. But super mario bros it wasn't that great graphically for a NES game unlike Castlevania 3.

Fair enough Shuma and i do kinda agree to a point with that point, take for example the pokemon franchise ;D

The artistic style in the latest mario galaxy was excellent, it doesn't need HD (although the component cables do make it look better than the composite ones.)

Also, gears.

Gears. In my opinion, best shooter game EVER.

Yes, the story is over the top. You're complaining? You have a gun with a CHAINSAW on it. You knew it was over the top from the get-go, that's its focus.

Anyone playing the Gears 3 beta? Because it's ridiculously awesome and you should be!

geisthammer wrote:gears.....Im sick of the same old FPS, released every year bull that is cod.

Released every other year technically. Treyarch had two years between Black Ops and World at War, just like Infinity Ward had two years between Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2.

Gears of War and Black Ops lack a truly unique storyline, and the story for GoW consists mainly of grown men grunting. Black Ops has people who can actually speak the english language in it.

GoW is also a gore fest, if you want to see a person impaled with a flamethrower or sawn in half you should go with that because that's probably the only thing its the best at. Seriously, don't kid yourself into buying CoD if you want to see arms ripped from someone's torso. If you want a slightly more probable or realistic shooter then you should get CoD. Its a simple choice between a borderline gore fetish or a run of the mill shooter without the gore but with some gibbing in the single player. I miss the multiplayer gibbing.

As far as graphics go, they tend to aim for different atmospheres. GoW seems more sweaty and dirty than Black Ops because it is dirtier than Black Ops(save for one mission in Black Ops).

Or you could;

1) Wait for Gears of War 3.
2) Get Bulletstorm Epic Edition and get into the Gears of War 3 beta.
3) Rent both and see which one you prefer, seriously people spend the extra six or so bucks to see if you really like the game. Buying a game you don't like without renting costs $59.99 plus sales tax, renting a game and not liking it costs $6.00, and renting a game and buying it because you like it is $64.99 with sales tax applied to the $59.99. Sure its an extra six bucks but its a guarantee on getting a game you like.
4) Rent Gears of War 2 for the story then get Gears of War 3 for multiplayer and story.
5) Rent Gears of War 2 for story then get Black Ops for story and multiplayer because Gears of War is coming out and that will cause people to leave Gears of War 2.

If you're in a tight pinch with the wallet, get Gears of War 2. It should be about $19.99 to $29.99 new depending on where you go.

ChaosWarhound wrote:Personally i have always thought of the gears of war collection of games (soon to be a trilogy) way better than the C.O.D. series of games simply because it is like nothing else on the market. The way i look at it is that although black ops is prob the best 1 person shooter game out there at the moment and trust me there are loads, i feel although ive seen it all before but with the gears of war games it gives a refreshing feel to shooter games and although you cannot really compare these games for many reasons including one is first person and the other third but anyway what do you guys think?

My vote is with Gears.

Gears... hands down. If you are after realism then I suggest Rainbow Six Vegas 2 or Battlefield 2 BC. Stay away from COD if realism is your thing. If not then the gorefest Gears of War is right up your alley!

Surprising how many people prefer gears to the COD franchise...

halonachos wrote:
Gears of War and Black Ops lack a truly unique storyline, and the story for GoW consists mainly of grown men grunting. Black Ops has people who can actually speak the english language in it.

GoW is also a gore fest, if you want to see a person impaled with a flamethrower or sawn in half you should go with that because that's probably the only thing its the best at. Seriously, don't kid yourself into buying CoD if you want to see arms ripped from someone's torso. If you want a slightly more probable or realistic shooter then you should get CoD. Its a simple choice between a borderline gore fetish or a run of the mill shooter without the gore but with some gibbing in the single player. I miss the multiplayer gibbing.

As someone who has played through both Gears several times, I definitely have to disagree with the first statement, and ask, have you actually played through the campaigns? I'm not going to argue that it has an amazing storyline, it really doesn't, but it's far from bad. I know that my buddies and I all find it pretty epic, but to claim it just consists of men grunting? No, not even close.

As for the second statement, it just seems like you're bitter against Gears. Yes, it's a gore fest, but being over the top is the only thing it's good at? Try to remember that it's pretty widely heralded as the best third person shooter out there. Not to mention CoD is anything but realistic... Did you play the campaign of Black Ops? Or... Any of them, for that matter?

"LOL Shooting a shotgun on a motorcycle WHOO!"

Or you could just play Counter Strike Source

RiChYc wrote:Or you could just play Counter Strike 1.6

fixed for you

The Fragile Breath wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Gears of War and Black Ops lack a truly unique storyline, and the story for GoW consists mainly of grown men grunting. Black Ops has people who can actually speak the english language in it.

GoW is also a gore fest, if you want to see a person impaled with a flamethrower or sawn in half you should go with that because that's probably the only thing its the best at. Seriously, don't kid yourself into buying CoD if you want to see arms ripped from someone's torso. If you want a slightly more probable or realistic shooter then you should get CoD. Its a simple choice between a borderline gore fetish or a run of the mill shooter without the gore but with some gibbing in the single player. I miss the multiplayer gibbing.

As someone who has played through both Gears several times, I definitely have to disagree with the first statement, and ask, have you actually played through the campaigns? I'm not going to argue that it has an amazing storyline, it really doesn't, but it's far from bad. I know that my buddies and I all find it pretty epic, but to claim it just consists of men grunting? No, not even close.

As for the second statement, it just seems like you're bitter against Gears. Yes, it's a gore fest, but being over the top is the only thing it's good at? Try to remember that it's pretty widely heralded as the best third person shooter out there. Not to mention CoD is anything but realistic... Did you play the campaign of Black Ops? Or... Any of them, for that matter?

"LOL Shooting a shotgun on a motorcycle WHOO!"

While adding a choke to a shotgun decreases spread and increases its range, they don't really mention it and I would really like them to add that as an option.

Yes, I have played the campaign for both and violence is the only thing they did right. I mean there's a mission where it rains the equivalent of broken glass, even nature hates everything. The campaign really isn't that epic for me and I'm not saying that Black Ops is either, although if you read my post completely you would have noticed that I said neither is truly unique. So while Dom cries "Maria" the entire time Marcus is busy shouting and kicking things in the face while Carmine seems to be the only Cog soldier who doesn't need a throat lozenge.

The cover system idea was done well before Gears of War by a game known as Killswitch. The only thing that hadn't been done before was the level of hyper violence that makes the new Mortal Kombat and Kratos blush, and face it, when they tote the new 'soft body physics' as a major development point(they showcased a cube of flesh that they repeatedly hacked into to show off the gore they could accomplish) I would say that they were aiming for a violent experience. Gears of War is a gorefest and that's all it ever will be.

I also never said that CoD was realistic, I said it was more realistic and there is a stark difference between saying the two. So while you're at it maybe you'd like to say that I said GoW is a game that deserves to be used as a frisbee instead of a game disc. I never said he should, but you seem to argue against things I never said.

halonachos wrote:Yes, I have played the campaign for both and violence is the only thing they did right. I mean there's a mission where it rains the equivalent of broken glass, even nature hates everything. The campaign really isn't that epic for me and I'm not saying that Black Ops is either, although if you read my post completely you would have noticed that I said neither is truly unique. So while Dom cries "Maria" the entire time Marcus is busy shouting and kicking things in the face while Carmine seems to be the only Cog soldier who doesn't need a throat lozenge.

The cover system idea was done well before Gears of War by a game known as Killswitch. The only thing that hadn't been done before was the level of hyper violence that makes the new Mortal Kombat and Kratos blush, and face it, when they tote the new 'soft body physics' as a major development point(they showcased a cube of flesh that they repeatedly hacked into to show off the gore they could accomplish) I would say that they were aiming for a violent experience. Gears of War is a gorefest and that's all it ever will be.

I also never said that CoD was realistic, I said it was more realistic and there is a stark difference between saying the two. So while you're at it maybe you'd like to say that I said GoW is a game that deserves to be used as a frisbee instead of a game disc. I never said he should, but you seem to argue against things I never said.

You honestly don't find a different kind of hazardous weather interesting? I thought it was a neat idea. Again, never said Gears' storyline was unique. Let me ask, are you married? Have a girlfriend? I know if my girlfriend went missing I'd sure as hell be obsessed with trying to find her, as I hope anyone would be. Once again you seem to avoid the actual storyline itself and complain about their voices and other minor things. The Lightmass offensive? The assault on Jacinto? The invasion of Nexus? The sinking of Jacinto? You seemed to conveniently leave all the interesting parts out and generalize it as "nothing more than a gorefest" while still not even assessing the story or its contents whatsoever.

I didn't say it was the first of its genre, just widely heralded as the best. I see you didn't even try to touch that, and while you claim I only argue against things you never said, you seem to be doing exactly that here, as well as the fact that you seem to think that I said Gears isn't violent.

I didn't say "LOL YOU THINK COD IS REALISTIC" I just said it's anything but realistic, so saying it's more realistic is a bit of a moot point. "There is a stark difference between saying the two."

B. Carmine got eated by a giant worm. A giant worm you later battled through to cut wholes in weak spots in the intestines and then the heart. Your guys come out of that mission covered in blood. Dom has to kill his wife, the big samoan guy is killed by Marcus after they find him in the Locust tunnels after seeing he had been tortured. I'm not complaining about just GoW's story, I said that both games lacked a unique storyline.

I was looking at the selling points for both games. While CoD totes a more realistic experience by using real weapons and vehicles in historic settings. They used a Tom Clancy storyline though, these are usually a bit farfetched into conspiracy theories. GoW is a game about an alien race trying to take over the world, not unique at all and a giant worm has been done before. Its called Dune. GoW makes up for it by having a super aggressive adrenaline type of gameplay which focuses on gore.

Actually you did say that I thought it was realistic by asking if I played the campaign and tying me to it. You said that it wasn't realistic and adding in that extra bit insinuating that I may have played it but didn't grasp the fact that some things were unrealistic.

The realism stems from the names of the weapons and the likeness of them, although it is possible to hit someone with a shotgun from the back of a truck and yes there is a thing called "Dragonbreath Rounds" for a shotgun, they shoot phosphorus.

So to sum it up for you, seeing as though you seem to be missing my earlier points.

1) NEITHER game has a truly unique storyline.
2) CoD focuses on a more realistic type of game.
2a) CoD is a game that is supposed to be fun, they made up a story and used real weapons, vehicles, and settings in a real era of time.
3) GoW is a game that is supposed to be fun, they made up a story and used hyper violent gore to attract customers.
3a) There is a story, but the violence is more of a drawing factor.
4) Both games have a 'meh' rated story with different offerings. CoD is more probable, as a series of special operations being conducted did happen during the cold war. The Bay of Pigs invasion, Tet Offensive, etc. GoW is more unrealistic,since its a sci-fi game, but offers a lot of gore which is satisfying in its own right.

I'm going to put this in bold in hopes that you finally comprehend. I never said it was completely unique or the first to do anything. That was you putting words in my mouth.

Gears of War is a story about humanity's struggle against a race hell-bent on killing them all, while not unique it is a fun concept. Did I say "OMG RIFT WORM SO ORIGIANL"? No. I would also say that Gears is focused on intense firefights that result in gore, not the gore itself, though I will say that gore is one of the main points, it is not the center focus.

That's just your assumption, you know what they say about assuming, right? I was curious if you had actually played it, you'd be surprised how many people just play online and shout about how realistic it is, I never implied that you didn't grasp it.

I wasn't calling those into question, I'm quite aware of both.

Please stop putting words in my mouth, please stop making assumptions. I hate to get nasty but I can't help but feel that you aren't even reading my responses and then claiming that I'm doing the same. It's not the case, I provide points, you dance around them. So please, do me a favor and actually respond to what I'm saying or don't respond at all.

halonachos wrote:Gears of War and Black Ops lack a truly unique storyline, and the story for GoW consists mainly of grown men grunting.

This was the first main point of my comparison of the two games. To which you replied:

The Fragile Breath wrote:As someone who has played through both Gears several times, I definitely have to disagree with the first statement, and ask, have you actually played through the campaigns? I'm not going to argue that it has an amazing storyline, it really doesn't, but it's far from bad. I know that my buddies and I all find it pretty epic, but to claim it just consists of men grunting?

So if you note, I said that neither game had a truly unique storyline and that they grunt a lot in GoW. To which you replied that you disagree with my statement. THis doesn't mean that you disagree with a portion of the statement, it means you disagreed with my entire statement. You then continued to say that you find it pretty epic, but its not the best, but not the worst. You say nothing in agreement with my statement saying that neither has a unique story, you just said that you disagreed with my statement.

It would be okay for you to say that I assumed incorrectly that you said that GoW has a unique story if you said that you agreed in that first reply. Unfortunately you didn't say that, you said that you disagree with me so I could say that you disagree with me in the fact that 1)Neither game has a unique storyline and 2)There's a lot of grunting in GoW.

Also, saying that something is "Anything but realistic" means that you think it is unrealistic.

And yes, there is a saying about assuming, something about whether or not a person has played a game you know.