Gears of War 2 screens and media

[Tieno]

http://www.gamersyde.com/news_7147_en.html





  Look at all those mushrooms 











Render

[Smooth Groove]

Look too clean to be real time shots?

It's a bit disappointing that the color palette is still so limited and that the environments are so similiar to the first game's.

But, overall, it still looks mighty impressive.  In terms of detail and lighting, the enemies and vehicles blow away their equivalents in Resistance 2. 

[y2kev]

There are no UE3 games with AA on console. I don't even think the engine supports it.

[demi]

Looks hot.

[dark1x]

Epic sure knows how to handle texturing.  I mean, the textures themselves aren't overly high resolution and the geometry isn't all that complex, but the end result is just incredible.  I recall reading statements from a couple of developers working with UE3 both of which were shocked at how simple and elegant the level geometry in Gears of War was.  They are able to do so much with so little.

I still think Gears of War is one of the best looking games available and this looks to be upping the ante.

Since the comparison was dropped, I don't think Resistance 2 comes even remotely close to this.  It's not that the engine in R2 is unimpressive, per se, so much as Insomniac just doesn't seem to have the skills to design such complex textures.  They continue to approach their designs in a less sophisticated fashion.  Epic seems to focus on making simple surfaces appear extremely complex.  A square object in the world would be textured in such a way that it actually would appear to have details along every edge (chips in the rock face and whatnot) while that same object when handled by Insomniac would maintain its extremely boxy appearance.  A lot of other developers that have employed UE3 in their games have failed to match what Epic has done with Gears.  Many other games end up looking more simplistic while suffering from slower performance.  Epic knows their shit.

Can't wait to play it.

[Smooth Groove]

There are no UE3 games with AA on console. I don't even think the engine supports it.

You can turn on AA in many PC ports of 360 UE3 games so the engine does support it.  The games would just run too slowly on consoles if AA were turned on.

budget console GPUS

[duckman2000]

Look too clean to be real time shots?

Promotional images, as with Gears. And just about every other game, unfortunately; I wanted to post the recent Resistance 2 shots to go along with the video thread, but they too felt far too much like promo images.

[y2kev]

There's a certain depth to their textures that make them stand out.

[Kestastrophe]

Looks pretty cool. Thanks for the analysis Dark1x.

[cool breeze]

Looks great, but definitely touched up shots there.  And chainsaw gauntlet, chainsaw everything.  Rad.

But, overall, it still looks mighty impressive.  In terms of detail and lighting, the enemies and vehicles blow away their equivalents in Resistance 2. 

It is funny how different Resistance 2 and Gears 2 are dealing with this stuff.  Gears 2 again has the tight focus on few enemies that look really good while Resistance 2 has a bunch of enemies that don't look that great but is still decently impressive in it's own way (that or the large enemies).

And I still think UE3 is complete rubbish with natural environments.  It is almost a bit jarring to see how good the characters look compared to the blocky or flat looking environments.  They should have stuck with the urban type locations.  That one map they showed a while back that takes place in a city with a hole in the middle looks amazing.

[duckman2000]

A square object in the world would be textured in such a way that it actually would appear to have details along every edge (chips in the rock face and whatnot) while that same object when handled by Insomniac would maintain its extremely boxy appearance.

The downside to this approach is that everything seems CNC'd from solid materials, surface carved and painted as opposed to made up from individual parts. If anything, I feel that things in this world lacks in detail. Since you guys are intent on comparing it to Resistance, I'd argue that Insomniac seems determined to push modeled detail, which doesn't always net the best results either. It probably has to do with different goals; even Resistance 1 was filled with guns and other industrial designs with moving parts, whereas Gears offered objects with remarkable surface detail, but of the solid CNC variety.

Insomniac is better at simple art, with stuff like Ratchet and Clank. Looks great, for a cartoon look, but you can't apply that to realism. Epic has always done intricate textures, even in all of the UT games.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the best looking parts of Resistance 1 all had to do with alien architecture. That's what they are good at. But then the recent footage shows one of the most convincing forest environments around, so I suppose they have recognized at least one weakness.

[dark1x]

It is funny how different Resistance 2 and Gears 2 are dealing with this stuff.  Gears 2 again has the tight focus on few enemies that look really good while Resistance 2 has a bunch of enemies that don't look that great but is still decently impressive in it's own way

I wouldn't say that the individual elements in Resistance 2 are lacking in detail, however.  If you look at many of the objects in both the original and new game, you'll find that they are geometrically dense, highly detailed figures.  Yet, in the end, none of it really seems to mesh all that well.  They are able to create complex objects, but they can't seem to deal well with lighting and texturing more simplistic surfaces.  So, when looking at wide open spaces, the detail present in each individual object is drowned out by the flaws elsewhere.

The original game certainly suffered from this.  At times the game was stunning to behold, but there were too many areas that felt extremely flat.  The mix of lighting and texturing is vital when creating a realistic 3D world and they don't seem to be able to pull it off all that well.  They also need to take what the player will notice into account.  If you look closely at the worlds in Gears, you'll find that the most common surfaces use the most detailed textures while things off the beaten path generally use much lower quality textures and models.  Epic is great at placement.

[y2kev]

Most of what I've seen of r2 is ugly.

[Smooth Groove]

A square object in the world would be textured in such a way that it actually would appear to have details along every edge (chips in the rock face and whatnot) while that same object when handled by Insomniac would maintain its extremely boxy appearance.

The downside to this approach is that everything seems CNC'd from solid materials, surface carved and painted as opposed to made up from individual parts. If anything, I feel that things in this world lacks in detail. Since you guys are intent on comparing it to Resistance, I'd argue that Insomniac seems determined to push modeled detail, which doesn't always net the best results either. It probably has to do with different goals; even Resistance 1 was filled with guns and other industrial designs with moving parts, whereas Gears offered objects with remarkable surface detail, but of the solid CNC variety.

Insomniac is better at simple art, with stuff like Ratchet and Clank. Looks great, for a cartoon look, but you can't apply that to realism. Epic has always done intricate textures, even in all of the UT games.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the best looking parts of Resistance 1 all had to do with alien architecture. That's what they are good at. But then the recent footage shows one of the most convincing forest environments around, so I suppose they have recognized at least one weakness.

R1 and R2 do have pretty nicely modeled environments but many of the character models and objects look blockier than equivalents in Gears.  Look at the broken vehicles lying around, for example.  They probably have the same poly budgets but the ones in Gears look much more detailed.  

[duckman2000]

 They also need to take what the player will notice into account.  If you look closely at the worlds in Gears, you'll find that the most common surfaces use the most detailed textures while things off the beaten path generally use much lower quality textures and models.  Epic is great at placement.

Which might have something to do with scale, and the limitations that you can realistically put on the game world, given the massive differences between the two games and how they use the game world. It's just an odd comparison; it was odd when it concerned Gears 1 and Resistance 1, and neither of the two have come any closer since the first games in the series. Other than scale, one is specifically grunge whereas the other is specifically clean. I'd be more inclined to compare Resistance to Halo. And if you need one for Gears, I guess Uncharted would be the closest.

[cool breeze]

I wouldn't say R2 is ugly, but it certainly isn't impressive on a sheer graphical level.  That footage of the forest level can be put next to some areas from MGS3 and I would have trouble telling them apart.  At least it doesn't look flat anymore, so it is an improvement over the first game, but that didn't look that great either.  The strength of that game really is just pushing lots of geometry and enemies at you.  In the 1up show when they talked about the co-op, it looked like there were dozens and dozens of enemies just rushing you and the other seven guys.  I still think that is impressive that it is pushing all these enemies similar to how Dead Rising was.  Killzone 2 on the other hand actually looks really good and some of the animations are incredible -- then again the concern there is the gameplay.

[Smooth Groove]

 They also need to take what the player will notice into account.  If you look closely at the worlds in Gears, you'll find that the most common surfaces use the most detailed textures while things off the beaten path generally use much lower quality textures and models.  Epic is great at placement.

Which might have something to do with scale, and the limitations that you can realistically put on the game world, given the massive differences between the two games and how they use the game world.

See, what I don't get is why people don't use the same argument with Halo 3.  

[Smooth Groove]

I wouldn't say R2 is ugly, but it certainly isn't impressive on a sheer graphical level.  That footage of the forest level can be put next to some areas from MGS3 and I would have trouble telling them apart.  At least it doesn't look flat anymore, so it is an improvement over the first game, but that didn't look that great either.  The strength of that game really is just pushing lots of geometry and enemies at you.  In the 1up show when they talked about the co-op, it looked like there were dozens and dozens of enemies just rushing you and the other seven guys.  I still think that is impressive that it is pushing all these enemies similar to how Dead Rising was.  Killzone 2 on the other hand actually looks really good and some of the animations are incredible -- then again the concern there is the gameplay.

Much love for Duckman but KZ2 still looks like a Futuremark benchmark.  

[WrikaWrek]

Looks amazing.

Only KZ2 and Rage surpass this.

[cool breeze]

Looks amazing.

Only KZ2 and Rage surpass this.

Crysis surpasses it. The only thing that could dethrone Crysis is Rage.

[duckman2000]

 They also need to take what the player will notice into account.  If you look closely at the worlds in Gears, you'll find that the most common surfaces use the most detailed textures while things off the beaten path generally use much lower quality textures and models.  Epic is great at placement.

Which might have something to do with scale, and the limitations that you can realistically put on the game world, given the massive differences between the two games and how they use the game world.

See, what I don't get is why people don't use the same argument with Halo 3.  

Because its cool to hate Halo 3.

They did. They don't anymore, because there is a new champ in town and scale suddenly means nothing. Or in the case of Sonytards, they did, then they didn't, but now they do, because now scale means something.

That said, I'm not convinced that the scale argument really applies to anything in Halo 3 other than actual scale of environments and set pieces. It was pretty barren, didn't have a very high enemy (or MP player) count, and didn't do smaller environments particularly well. It was quite attractive in its own way, though. Bungie does BIG very well. I'm just not sure if anything in the game actually calls for something so big.

[Tieno]

These shots aren't like the promo shots of Gears 1.

They also need to take what the player will notice into account.  If you look closely at the worlds in Gears, you'll find that the most common surfaces use the most detailed textures while things off the beaten path generally use much lower quality textures and models.  Epic is great at placement.

Which might have something to do with scale, and the limitations that you can realistically put on the game world, given the massive differences between the two games and how they use the game world.

See, what I don't get is why people don't use the same argument with Halo 3. 

Because its cool to hate Halo 3.

They did. They don't anymore, because there is a new champ in town and scale suddenly means nothing. Or in the case of Sonytards, they did, then they didn't, but now they do, because now scale means something.

That said, I'm not convinced that the scale argument really applies to anything in Halo 3 other than actual scale of environments and set pieces. It was pretty barren, didn't have a very high enemy (or MP player) count, and didn't do smaller environments particularly well. It was quite attractive in its own way, though. Bungie does BIG very well. I'm just not sure if anything in the game actually calls for something so big.

...vehicles and helicopters for one thing...

[WrikaWrek]

Looks amazing.

Only KZ2 and Rage surpass this.

Crysis surpasses it. The only thing that could dethrone Crysis is Rage.

Dur of course Crysis surprasses it, i said in another thread how Warhead puts things into perspective. But i'm talking console talk here.

And regarding Resistance 2? I saw the video where there's this huge Scarab or whatever walking around, all i have to say is, it looked pretty meh, i remember the 1st time i saw the scarab in Halo 3, when it goes over a building, and then you have all these sorts of ways to board it, and let me just say, even though i'm not a particular fan of halo 3 visuals, halo 3 looks better than R2. R2 still has that "look we like to work with washed out colors" thing going on that Insomniac seems to love.

[Tabasco]

This game is the furthest proof yet the PS3 contains superior tech than 360.  This game looks incrementally better than Gears 1.  Sony games may be B level filler as far as fun, but they sure as hell look better.

[y2kev]

Insomniac fails at lighting. Ratchet looks like it is flat shaded at times.

[duckman2000]

Insomniac fails at lighting. Ratchet looks like it is flat shaded at times.

[youtube=425,350]vL-pUV-mXp4[/youtube]

[duckman2000]

Is anyone else getting the feeling that Epic has finally come to terms with that the Unreal universe is just plain dead? I know they already migrated one of the game modes over from UT (which is a bloody good idea; nothing beats a bit of Invasion), and this new enemy type feels a whole lot like a new Skaarj breed.

[The Fake Shemp]

Having played it - the scope of this game is incredible.  Like, visually, I was really blown away by what they were able to do with the engine.  And it was smooth as hell.

[Smooth Groove]

Is anyone else getting the feeling that Epic has finally come to terms with that the Unreal universe is just plain dead? I know they already migrated one of the game modes over from UT (which is a bloody good idea; nothing beats a bit of Invasion), and this new enemy type feels a whole lot like a new Skaarj breed.

How could they not?  There were less than 50 players on UT3 servers when I tried it two months ago.  Everyone left was a hardcore leet player so it was impossible for newbs to join. 

[duckman2000]

Oh, I don't blame them, even if it's a bit sad to see it go. I'm one of the few who really liked the first Unreal game, and I don't think I've ever been angrier at a game than I was at "Unreal II." And I get angry at a lot of games.

[patrickula]

...this new enemy type feels a whole lot like a new Skaarj breed.

He's even called "Skorge" 

[duckman2000]

...this new enemy type feels a whole lot like a new Skaarj breed.

He's even called "Skorge" 

I just noticed that. These guys are brilliant. In fact, the whole naming scheme of enemies in Gears has been brilliant from top to bottom. The fact that they are part of the Locust Horde is in itself brilliant.

[Tieno]

This game is the furthest proof yet the PS3 contains superior tech than 360.  This game looks incrementally better than Gears 1.  Sony games may be B level filler as far as fun, but they sure as hell look better.

Incremental
Here you see a cave in Gears 1


Here you see a cave in Gears 2

[duckman2000]

Those aren't exactly great comparison shots though, which would be why they were posted on GAF in the first place. Not that I understand the need for massive improvements anyway; Gears 1 is still a damned nice looking game, so even if it's only a refinement and minor overall improvement, it'd make for one of the best looking games around. And I'm not even going to add "on consoles" to that. The one thing I would have wished for is 60fps, simply because that's how I played it on PC. But that's not something worth griping about.

[Smooth Groove]

Jewco says the scope and framerate have been improved.  Also, comparison shots showed increased poly detail on that big monster (forgot what it's called).   Technically, there must have been more than minor improvements to the engine.  Subjectively though, they are still quite similar since Gears 1 already looked so great and Gears 2 is still using the same basic colors of Gears 1. 

[The Fake Shemp]

Seriously, the amount of detail you see in expansive environments is ridiculous.  It was one of the best looking games at the expo.  And - yes - better than Resistance 2.

[cool breeze]

Is anyone else getting the feeling that Epic has finally come to terms with that the Unreal universe is just plain dead? I know they already migrated one of the game modes over from UT (which is a bloody good idea; nothing beats a bit of Invasion), and this new enemy type feels a whole lot like a new Skaarj breed.

I'm guessing that they will go the Quake Live route or something.

[Draft]

It's not like Unreal was ever a great franchise, at least the single player installments.

Unreal 1 was Epic copying Quake, only they went hyper on the color and giant outdoor environments. It was technically marvelous, but I don't think anyone looks back at anything in Unreal that fondly. Maybe the opening sequence where the first Skaarj chases through a dark hallway.

It's no surprise Unreal 2 was a giant turd. It's not like they were building off some classic in the first place.

Unreal's street cred mainly comes from the UT series, and even then, you're talking about two installments out of 4 having any sort of big impact on gaming, and really, most people simp on UT2K4 because it was more like UT99 than any of the other installments.

[duckman2000]

It's not like Unreal was ever a great franchise, at least the single player installments.

Unreal 1 was Epic copying Quake, only they went hyper on the color and giant outdoor environments. It was technically marvelous, but I don't think anyone looks back at anything in Unreal that fondly. Maybe the opening sequence where the first Skaarj chases through a dark hallway.

It's no surprise Unreal 2 was a giant turd. It's not like they were building off some classic in the first place.

Unreal's street cred mainly comes from the UT series, and even then, you're talking about two installments out of 4 having any sort of big impact on gaming, and really, most people simp on UT2K4 because it was more like UT99 than any of the other installments.

I thought it was fuck awesome, but that could have had something to do with being new to the genre. I liked the sense of desolation, it really felt like an alien world. Those flying creatures had a lot to do with that. The Skaarj felt like genuinely nasty enemies. Oh yeah, and the weapons were at least partially awesome. I doubt I'd still like it if I played it now, though.

[Draft]

Well sure man, if you had missed out on Quake (and I guess Wolf3D and DOOM and Duke before it), then of course you would bust nut over the most technically, artistically and mechanically impressive Quake clone. I don't want to come off as too harsh on Unreal. It was a great game. It was just, you know, after slagging through Quake, Unreal doesn't have nearly the impact.

[cool breeze]

Unreal 2 multiplayer demo REPRESENT 

[Draft]

Unreal 2 XMB remains one of the best competitive multiplayer games I ever played. 3 great classes, great map design, just all around awesome.

[duckman2000]

What Unreal had that Quake didn't want was a sense of being in a natural alien environment. There were open spaces, it felt like the world was inhabited by tribes as opposed to civilizations (or meanies, in the case of Quake), derelict tunnels, castles and so forth. Quake II was labs and hell and portals, and Quake II was all industrial hell. The world just felt a bit more interesting, and the beginning, while borrowed, set the tone pretty well.

On the topic of Gears, cool preview here

http://www.eurogamer.net/tv_video.php?playlist_id=15082&size=large

[duckman2000]

These guys sure do know how to create mean looking meanies 

[cool breeze]

Unreal 2 XMB remains one of the best competitive multiplayer games I ever played. 3 great classes, great map design, just all around awesome.

I played it a lot, and not to brag, but I was pretty pro at it.

And despite looking forward to Gears 2, I do think that Epic can go fuck themselves.  Saying that the reason it won't be on PC is because the only people who could even play are the same ones who would pirate it for being tech savvy.  I'm starting to lose faith that they have just been blowing hot air when it comes to the PC port. 

[Cormacaroni]

Any reason why Epic couldn't use STEAM exclusively for their PC ports if they're so worried about piracy?

[Cormacaroni]

Microsoft didn't do that deal to get Gears on the PC though. I'd imagine they barely care about it. Surely they'd be amenable to letting Epic do it as a sweetener, if the alternative for Epic is not having it on the PC at all? The PC sales are no threat to the console version, especially if they come so long afterward.

[maxy]

2 new campaign videos from  Poland

http://www.onlinecenter.pl/3469/Aktualnosci/Nowe-materialy-o-Gears-of-War-2.html

Badass...

[dark1x]

Well sure man, if you had missed out on Quake (and I guess Wolf3D and DOOM and Duke before it), then of course you would bust nut over the most technically, artistically and mechanically impressive Quake clone. I don't want to come off as too harsh on Unreal. It was a great game. It was just, you know, after slagging through Quake, Unreal doesn't have nearly the impact.

Man, that's harsh.  I dunno, I knew it was a simplistic shooter back in the day, but I absolutely loved it and a lot of that was the result of its beautiful locales.  There was so much variety present and the sense of scale was incredible back in the day.  It's not as if shooters were all that complex back then anyways.  I had been playing FPS since the Wolf3D days by that point and, of course, had played through both Quakes as well Jedi Knight (the other major true 3D shooter around that time).  I still thought Unreal was incredible.

[Jansen]

i cannot believe epic is still using server side hit detection for gears 2

[Kestastrophe]

Gaffer gets game waaayyyy early, shitload of new pics

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13172120&postcount=1045

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13173622&postcount=1121

[y2kev]

Gaffer gets game waaayyyy early, shitload of new pics

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13173622&postcount=1121

That's so weird. It went gold today and he has it already?

[cool breeze]

Lucky people are getting Saints Row 2 early, Gears 2 early, LittleBigPlanet early, Killzone 2 beta, Fallout 3 early, and Call of Duty 5 beta.

This ain't fair.

[Kestastrophe]

I got Mass Effect 10 days early last year, here's hoping I can find Gears 2 early at my hotspot 

[y2kev]

I know a place that sometimes puts games out the weekend before they are street dated, but a month early? Nicca uh-uh.

[duckman2000]

That's so weird. It went gold today and he has it already?

The real fucked up thing is that instead of just playing this guaranteed fuck awesome game, he's actually taking pictures of it to use for interwebs discussions.

[demi]

I got BioShock early, that's my claim to fame  :'(

[Tieno]

I got BioShock early, that's my claim to fame  :'(

Your claim to fame is your bad taste. You know it, we all know it.

[drew]

oh yeah?  I got Majora's Mask gold cartridge the night before it came out because my Mom did the ads for Toys R' Us.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Halo 3 sucks, Tieno

[close]

[TVC15]

I know a place that sometimes puts games out the weekend before they are street dated, but a month early? Nicca uh-uh.

I know someone with a Banjo 3 printed disc right now, and as far as I know (which means UNOFFICIALLY), it is not yet gold.