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 3)
2-27-2008 @ 12:38PM
Gemini Ace said...
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.
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 1:08PM
SeNiLe911 said...
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.
2-27-2008 @ 1:23PM
Matt said...
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.
2-27-2008 @ 1:31PM
Delgado said...
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.
2-27-2008 @ 2:33PM
Mikeawesome said...
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.
2-27-2008 @ 12:39PM
E-Rock said...
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.
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 12:39PM
killploki said...
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.
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 12:40PM
Intentless said...
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...
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 12:41PM
itsburnsie said...
Can't.... pick....
WANT BOTH!
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 12:43PM
ccc said...
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.
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 12:53PM
homerj312 said...
Give me a Rainbow 6 Vegas style lobby system
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 12:54PM
mark.j.smith said...
Wow, that is a close poll.
I'd rather have the party system...it was tough getting with friends and going into the GP.
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 12:54PM
Yzzerdd said...
Gears Of Wars has horrible multiplayer I'd take 4 player co op to shotgun dancing with Halo matchmaking.
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 12:57PM
Chance Morgan said...
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.
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 12:58PM
MDJ2010 said...
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.
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 1:00PM
Ben said...
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.
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 1:01PM
TORO said...
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 :)
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 1:04PM
ryan said...
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.
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 1:06PM
Bmurph said...
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.
Reply
2-27-2008 @ 1:16PM
ZEBRA NINER said...
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.
Reply