Better Multiplayer Gears or Vegas?
 

I was insanely hooked on Gears multiplayer when it came out, and still find it to be pretty fun at times, but man I think R6: Vegas really blows it out of the water.

Yes the graphics arent even close to Gears, but there is just so much more variety to be had with Vegas. Gears is basically Deathmatch in all the modes. With Vegas I can do some online co-op terrorist hunt, play some survival deathmatch, team deathmatch, attack and defend, CTF, co-op story, among others. Not to mention the addictive leveling system, buttloads of unlockables, and character customizations.

But after playing some Gears online tonight for the first time in a while, I realized the main reason R6 is more fun. Not once in Vegas do I find myself screaming Bullsh!t at the TV when I'm killed. In Gears there is just way too many variables that decide who wins a battle, often times leaving skill out of the equation. The shotgun is horribly inconsistent, the host advantage, the chainsaw, all of it seems like one big crapshoot. In Vegas I can basically know how I will perform in a game of team sharpshooter, in Gears I can have 15 kills one match and 2 the next.

Gears has just become wayyyy to inconsistent for me to enjoy it for any prolonged stretch of time. Not to mention that every game I've played people can be seen floating across the map or running full speed firing away at people. If they dont catch these glitches soon, I'm afraid this game is destined to the same fate as Halo, which is too bad because if you find a good room the game can still be a blast to play.

For now, Vegas is going to fulfill my online needs.

Thoughts from anyone?

I'd say most of your "points" are completely subjective.


Thinking you lose at Gears for any reason besides lack-of-skill is a ridiculous notion, really

Gears of War has a lot of kids
Vegas has a lot of army commander wannabes who bark orders

So it's a push.

I really haven't played my copy of R6 too much online. I will say theres pros and cons to each games online "clientele".


Lately, I just play without my mic plugged in :lol:

I like the multi-player aspect of both games but I choose R6 because it has more variety. Which usually means longevity. In Gears, no one plays assassination and execution/warzone are practically the same. The 2 player coop in Gears is loads of fun. But R6 has all of that plus more.

I don't think so at all. In fact I totally agree with his GOW assessment.

I agree, especially in close quarters situations GOW leaves much to be desired as the game is super flakey.

This isn't to say that R6:V isn't without fault either, but with R6's variety I have to sway towards it.

Yeah, and I've run across Neo Nazi/White Power fucktards on R6V. But it's still an awesome online game. I think GOW is great online but I also agree that it's limited. Anyway, I've been playing R6V online more than GOW.

I would say that most of his "points" are facts and not really subjective at all. He points out many of the glaring problems with GoW multiplayer. To say that the shotgun is inconsistent is a fact. To say that there are a lot of variables is a fact. I am not saying that you can't improve your skill, but in Vegas, you get shot, you die. In GoW? Not so much.

BTW, Vegas has problems, too. To me the problems are much less frustrating than GoW's, however.

Vegas. Though the occasional GOW match is fun.

care to back that up?

How is he supposed to back that up? The fact that numerous people including myself is agreeing with it is proof of it's own..

well, considering you all chose R6 over Gears, and that you are just disagreeing, I'd say your "opinion" is biased...

If you guys are so sure of this, I figured it would be pretty self-explanatory how to back it up

I think I'd tend to agree with everything that the OP posted, whether its a fact or not. He points out every reason why I avoid GoW multiplayer. Co-op was fun, but short. I tend to think that I'm an above average FPS game player. I get really frustrated when the sloppy controls or inconsistent gameplay are the reasons that I lose. It's one thing if I just suck at a game, but it's another when it seems that the throw of the dice determines whether I win or lose. I'd choose RS:V over GoW any day, and I usually do every night.

How about you tell us why we are wrong instead of forcing us to prove to you that we are right.

Im not trying to pick a fight, but merely trying to get the opposite perspective, considering most here choose R6V

I mean, if you guys want to agree to disagree, I have no problem with that. But saying I "dont agree" and giving no support to that claim, well, you aren't exactly going to change anyones opinion

You've got the opposite perspective. All of those "subjective points" that the OP posted are the exact reasons why many of us avoid GoW. He asked for opinions about why we don't play GoW. He doesn't need proof in the form of some sort of statistical analysis to show that there is no telling what is going to happen when he pulls the trigger on the shotgun.

It's simple.......R6:V doesn't have nearly as many glitchy problems as GOW does. I would venture to say that I'm a better than average GOW player and I'm not very good at R6:V and I can still plainly see that R6:V is a much more complete game.

precisely...


but that's exactly why I said it was purely subjective.

As tbird has said, the fact that so many people have the same complaint lends itself to proof there is an issue.

It isn't something that will have concrete proof visible for all to see. I'm also sure that you will have the developer denying any such claim as well.

Just as you call those that support R6 biased, I think you might be biased towards Gears as well. The best that can be offered is to agree to disagree.

I don't think either side is going to change the others minds.

For what its worth, I'm in agreement with the Op though. Gears plays like there is some sadistic GM behind the scenes rolling a 1D20 to see who wins and looses each confrontation.

Dude, you may not be trying to pick a fight but A LOT of posts I read of yours sure do come off like that.. You come off very much as a "know it all" and someone who can't accept they are wrong..

Just my 2 cents..

To offer my opinion on why I don't like Gears MP it has to do with lack of variety.

I enjoy the deathmatch type games once in a while. I would much rather play a team, objective based game 9 times out of 10. With Gears, I don't get that option. It is kill, kill or kill. In R6, not only are there the larger MP game types with deathmatch(free-for-all and team based), there are CTF types as well.. In addition to that, you have the ability to co-op story or co-op terrorist hunt which allows everyone on your team to hunt terrorists in a common goal.

There is a ton of variety and maps to play through in R6. For the most part, Gears has a decent selection of maps. However, the lack of variety in game types has kept me away. Throw in the problems the OP mentioned, and I've yet to fire up Gears for any MP after my first couple of times.

thats really the thing. Sure, you could consider me a "know it all", but when you are argueing terms that are subjective, thats not really an uncommon response.

Considering I own both games, and obviously the choose most here do not, I wanted to know why people thought that way (in regards to shot gun and glitches) and what draws them towards R6V.

I really don't have a problem, if someone can argue constructively why they believe I'm wrong. Stating something like "popular opinion" isn't an objective reason for me to sway my vote. I mean, it's not a popularity contest.

:lol:



To stay on topic, RS:V has so many more choices and several of them offer me the chance to avoid random asshats on the internet. That is the biggest benefit right there. I don't have to prove that, do I?