Gears of War 2 Xbox 360

User Score
7.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2714 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. ChrisE.
    Nov 10, 2008
    7
    Gears of war 2 starts off pretty good with the single player campaign. i was kinda expecting that you would be able to play as the different characters in the story mode, but unfortunately you get stuck with dom and marcus. Oh well. Doesn't detract from the overall single player experience, which is solid, albeit with a few rough spots here and there. Now, the reason i'm giving Gears of war 2 starts off pretty good with the single player campaign. i was kinda expecting that you would be able to play as the different characters in the story mode, but unfortunately you get stuck with dom and marcus. Oh well. Doesn't detract from the overall single player experience, which is solid, albeit with a few rough spots here and there. Now, the reason i'm giving this good game a 7 is because of the craptastic online multiplayer. I'm not saying Gears of war 2 multi player sucks, i'm saying the online component sucks. There are so many issues with online play right now that it's not even funny: The online lobby and interface looks like crap, you can't find a match you wanna play, you have to wait TEN minutes for the game to find other players to play with, and even when you get into a match, there's no guarantee you'll have fun, thanks to the abundant amount of lag on the servers. Even worse you can't tell the connection strength of everyone, it just put you in a room and says have fun. And yes, this was an issue before the game released, go read IGN's review of the game. There is no grace period for lag when it comes to chainsaw duels, meaning that you'll try to chainsaw someone who you think is unaware, and then 2 seconds after you rev the saw in their face, you're suddenly half way through a chainsaw battle and he's got a second and a half edge of button mashing on you. Not cool. There's also no way to tell who's lagging the game up (which could be me, i dunno) and there's no way to tell your connection strength for gaming (i had to pop in Gears 1 after a really laggy match to find it out... surprisingly it was good enough for a flawless gears 1 match). And the one of the biggest problem is that there are no REGIONAL SERVERS! meaning that Canadians like me will end up fighting Mexicans or Brits that have really bad connections. I can't believe that the gears 2 online is much worse than the gears 1 online. It is a few days after launch but right now its worse than halo 3 in terms of lag. Overall its a good game, but i recommend you rent this first if you're going for the online experience, cause as of right now its a train wreak. It might work for you but lots of people have been experiencing massive lag, so beware. Expand
  2. DavidHull
    Jul 11, 2009
    7
    Looks good, feels good, plays well, has a much larger scale campaign however multiplayer can be rather frustrating should you live anywhere bar the USA and the story line has brutish men with feelings. Honestly where there no story it would probably be better, shooting locust is fun but leave the story to Bungie and Valve
  3. TorgnyH.
    Nov 11, 2008
    7
    the game is a 10. it is a great game. but I must deduct 3 pts for not getting all that I paid for. I bought the Limited Edition thinking I would get the flashback map and golden lancer codes, but with no warning from the publisher... some limited editions in some regions don't have the codes included. this could have been better managed by telling us ahead of time and we the game is a 10. it is a great game. but I must deduct 3 pts for not getting all that I paid for. I bought the Limited Edition thinking I would get the flashback map and golden lancer codes, but with no warning from the publisher... some limited editions in some regions don't have the codes included. this could have been better managed by telling us ahead of time and we wouldn't have necessarily wasted the extra money on the limited edition. Now apparently the flashback map codes are available for an additional price. There is no way I'm buying them as I feel I have already bought them by spending extra for the limited edition. its tainted an otherwise blissful gaming experience. Expand
  4. GrahamM.
    Nov 18, 2008
    7
    No advancement since the first installment. Game design feels old, environments looks messy (some might say detailed, I say messy), and moments of frustration (can't skip cut-scenes). If you were happy with the first one, just stay there.
  5. ShaneS
    Nov 25, 2008
    7
    This game does not have the same emotive quality or graphical purity or, indeed, soul as the first one. The first was more gritty and tougher than this: Stick your head out and it would be blown away! GOW1 was a masterpiece; GOW2 is a cartoon for kids. Basically lamer version of GOW1 on trianing wheels: not challenging at all and a BIG disappointment.
  6. AnthonyG.
    Nov 7, 2008
    7
    Not so polished gears 2 Yet another fast and to the point review on this game. Ok here it is the game is great game and adds some new stuff to do in the solo campaign, but it's a bit short...hold for it
  7. WillThurston
    Jan 4, 2009
    7
    Not the greatest game I've ever played. But you have to look at what it is as a game, it's a first person shooter, which generally aim for good graphics, easy-to-learn controls, and fairly original weapons/characters/plot. In those categories, it does well. The story is fair, but again, it's an FPS. The graphics are very nice, as well as the sounds. I have not played theNot the greatest game I've ever played. But you have to look at what it is as a game, it's a first person shooter, which generally aim for good graphics, easy-to-learn controls, and fairly original weapons/characters/plot. In those categories, it does well. The story is fair, but again, it's an FPS. The graphics are very nice, as well as the sounds. I have not played the first GOW, so I cannot compare them. As a whole, it's a nice game if you like FPS's. Expand
  8. mg
    Nov 10, 2008
    7
    The game is amazing from new weapons, new enemies, and sick graphics. bought it and beaten it. The reason this game isnt getting higher than an 7 in my book is because of one big difference: THIS GAME IS INSANELY SHORT! I beat it in the course of 5hrs. come on. The first one took a bit longer. That made me upset.
  9. JonD.
    Nov 12, 2008
    7
    Highly overrated - this is what we all wanted 2 years ago and now arrives feeling a bit dated. Every gaming cliché in the book is thrown at the story mode, with star wars scenes featuring heavily and some really poorly executed, plainly dull sections to labour through (notably the 'tooth' section). To be fair, there's still an above average game in there and well Highly overrated - this is what we all wanted 2 years ago and now arrives feeling a bit dated. Every gaming cliché in the book is thrown at the story mode, with star wars scenes featuring heavily and some really poorly executed, plainly dull sections to labour through (notably the 'tooth' section). To be fair, there's still an above average game in there and well worth checking out, especially if you missed the first title. Just don't expect anything earth shatteringly new or inspired. Expand
  10. JustinM.
    Nov 7, 2008
    7
    the game is fun, but anyone expecting something different should turn away. The game is average, and far from flawless, with dialogue that was written by a hyped up twelve year old. nevertheless, the game can be very fun with it's run and gun sequences, the gore can feel satisfying, and the color palette is much more colorful than the last two years of generic shooter x. But Gears the game is fun, but anyone expecting something different should turn away. The game is average, and far from flawless, with dialogue that was written by a hyped up twelve year old. nevertheless, the game can be very fun with it's run and gun sequences, the gore can feel satisfying, and the color palette is much more colorful than the last two years of generic shooter x. But Gears hasn't changed and the story still sucks, except now it's a teenage romance, instead of a non existent plot. Expand
  11. DanC
    Dec 6, 2008
    7
    Gears of War 1 and I had a strange relationship; I got it on the PC after hearing every XBox owner in all of sweet Christendom singing it's praises for it's innovation, fast game play and superb multiplayer. I found all of these to be oversold at best; the "innovation" being stolen wholesale from kill.Switch and Resident Evil 4, the multiplayer being dominated by idiots, and the Gears of War 1 and I had a strange relationship; I got it on the PC after hearing every XBox owner in all of sweet Christendom singing it's praises for it's innovation, fast game play and superb multiplayer. I found all of these to be oversold at best; the "innovation" being stolen wholesale from kill.Switch and Resident Evil 4, the multiplayer being dominated by idiots, and the fast gameplay apparently being a figment of the imaginations of 3 million gamers playing something which insisted upon making the player crouch behind solid objects for extended periods of time, firing occasionally. However, the at-the-time stunning graphics, cinematic atmosphere and generally intense nature, which WAS extremely well realised - would have resulted in me giving it a 7 had I bothered to write something up about it. Fortunately, Gears of War 2 is so unoriginal that this review can almost be read as a review for the first one as well. Gears of War 2, for all it's flaws, can't be faulted for messing with this partially winning formula because it's almost exactly the same game. The controls and gameplay elements are the same, the character models are all but copy-pasted, and as for introduced features, there is a new weapon. I can't help being reminded that Team Fortress 2 has been consistently giving us new weapons, levels and game mechanics for free; here, we're expected to pay full game price for what by all rights should be an expansion pack. And since nothing has changed, you can expect all the old problems with Gears of War 1 - the characters are still unlikeable meat-headed pricks, the visual aesthetic, while as pretty as ever, is still monotonous and dull, the new elements are as unoriginal as the first one's "innovation" - human shields are all very well and good until you remember that the Metal Gear Solid series have been doing this since 2001 - and the gameplay is still revolves largely about siege-like gunfights that seem to take so long only to give the obsessives a chance to show off how they can do them in all of five seconds - roughly the amount of time said obsessives' conversations with girls last for. The much-touted deeper storyline is all very well and good, but it says something that despite us caring about the NPCs we're supposed to, the player characters are still the kind of people who you charge directly into the line of fire just for the relief of watching them being ripped apart by Locust bullets. Not that that rather cathartic punishment is available here; GOW2 is incredibly easy However, as with the first one, for all it's over-hyped dumb , it's actually quite fun. The immersion is perfectly achieved, the atmosphere and pressure on higher difficulty is pant wetting - metaphorically speaking, honest - and the storyline gives the player motivation beyond basic bloodlust and perhaps a desire for digitalised homoeroticism (the common-or-garden space marines are still as overcompensatory in their relentless masculinity as ever). The fire-fights have been sped up thanks to human shields giving a moving cover and the sound is superb, even if the voice acting is still reminiscent of what would happen if you got all Canada's toughest ice hockey players and forced them to fight to the death, then used the final remaining one to do the dialogue. It's also more ambitious - for a lot of it, the grey corridors of the first GOW are replaced with more varied environments, even if this is purely aesthetic; the gameplay isn't as affected as better games would have had it. Overall, this is a fun shooter, but I'm still kicking myself that I was playing this when Crysis was sitting in by PC. Expand
  12. RyanS
    Dec 7, 2008
    7
    Gears of War 2 feels different to Gears of War 1 but in a good way. The characters are epic (Cole Train is back!), The guns are epic (better sounds!). The campaign is epic (and it was easy to go through the game a second time on insane difficulty without beings bored). The only flaw to this game is MATCHMAKING. The matchmaking is not programmed to match you up with a good connection. So Gears of War 2 feels different to Gears of War 1 but in a good way. The characters are epic (Cole Train is back!), The guns are epic (better sounds!). The campaign is epic (and it was easy to go through the game a second time on insane difficulty without beings bored). The only flaw to this game is MATCHMAKING. The matchmaking is not programmed to match you up with a good connection. So this can lead to very laggy games! The lag on this game will be so terrible that you will be forced to use the CHAINSAW! This flaw has caused me not to want to play the game any longer and has greatly reduce the games playability after single player. I am currently waiting for a patch of some type. Expand
  13. AluanHaddad
    Oct 18, 2009
    7
    I'll be short and to the point. The single player game is excellent. Apart from a weak final boss fight, the campaign is epic and varied, the story is fairly decent, and the gameplay is smooth.
    Multiplayer on the other hand is terrible. I tried to get into this game for a month. Then a tried again after a few patches came out. Matchmaking takes a long time. 50% of all matches have
    I'll be short and to the point. The single player game is excellent. Apart from a weak final boss fight, the campaign is epic and varied, the story is fairly decent, and the gameplay is smooth.
    Multiplayer on the other hand is terrible. I tried to get into this game for a month. Then a tried again after a few patches came out. Matchmaking takes a long time. 50% of all matches have unplayable lag(my connection averages 10.0mbps by the way) and even in matches where the lag is manageable, the host has a major advantage. If you want an excellent single player TPS get this game. If you are at all interested in the multiplayer, keep in mind that it is truely broken.
    Expand
  14. EirinY
    Jun 13, 2009
    7
    First of all I would like to clarify the fact that I am not a fan of neither the Xbox 360 or PS3, Microsoft or Sony. That aside, I found Gears of War 1 and it's sequel to be thoroughly enjoyable. I have not touched multiplayer, so these are my impression of the 4-6 hour single-player campaign. This game has definitely improved from the original. More focus has been put into First of all I would like to clarify the fact that I am not a fan of neither the Xbox 360 or PS3, Microsoft or Sony. That aside, I found Gears of War 1 and it's sequel to be thoroughly enjoyable. I have not touched multiplayer, so these are my impression of the 4-6 hour single-player campaign. This game has definitely improved from the original. More focus has been put into storytelling and character development, although still not enough to make me baww about Dom's "wife problem" (won't go into detail). The soundtrack is about the same as the previous game with only a handful being memorable. Gameplay is as always: plain fun. The cover system works great and is seamlessly integrated into the detailed scenery and environment. Weapons are easy to use and aim; they work well with the cover system and conjure perfectly in the Gears of War universe. Where's my problem with this game? It plays too similar like Gears of War 1, however that did not stop me from having boatloads of fun. If you enjoyed the original, it's worth playing. If you haven't, get your feet wet and pick up either game. Expand
  15. LennyB
    Nov 19, 2008
    7
    for all those who gaves this a ten, you are obviously blind, or just hitting puberty. grant the game was good. no where near "awesomeness", grant it if that is even a word. besides that. the graphics are decent. but the repetitive chainsaw scenes get old after a while. on that note, if you see your body about to get sliced, you should be able to shoot the blade away, and how the scene for all those who gaves this a ten, you are obviously blind, or just hitting puberty. grant the game was good. no where near "awesomeness", grant it if that is even a word. besides that. the graphics are decent. but the repetitive chainsaw scenes get old after a while. on that note, if you see your body about to get sliced, you should be able to shoot the blade away, and how the scene happens. its like no effort, there should be more effort behind trying the cut someone. like if you come up behind someone, they automatically turn around and except there fake, needs more fight. horde mode was a valuable asset. but got repetive quick. the boss battles, were in my eyes terrible, where was the strategy, where was the effort. i saw none. i know its a game, but like, how does it happen that if you get should so many times in the head you don't die, they call it a headSHOT for a reason, not headshots, thats always been a pet peeve for me in this game, at least in halo, they had helmets, in this they, had nothing. except for carmine. a cool and worthwhile asset to have in gears is the ability to customize, at least your armor, or face, and on the guns a little, kinda boring play as the single player characters. all and all this game deserves a 7. Expand
  16. Sep 29, 2010
    7
    I enjoyed this game, but not as much as I'd hoped. I'll start with the good:

    The combat was well polished and never got old. I was really impressed with the variety of different situations to keep it new. The graphics were superb, one of the best looking games on the x-box (albeit a bit grey and brown) and lets be honest, stamping on a locusts head as they try and crawl away from you
    I enjoyed this game, but not as much as I'd hoped. I'll start with the good:

    The combat was well polished and never got old. I was really impressed with the variety of different situations to keep it new. The graphics were superb, one of the best looking games on the x-box (albeit a bit grey and brown) and lets be honest, stamping on a locusts head as they try and crawl away from you never gets old. I also really enjoyed the coop gameplay, and the horde mode. Bad points: It did get a bit samey after a while. The story was disappointing to say the least. Admittedly it was never going to be the games selling point, but the fact they obviously went to some effort to try and make you care about the characters, but then failed was somehow worse then if they didn't try in the first place - the lack of story in the first one didn't bother me - that's just the type of game it is. However trying to build up an emotionally involving tale about 2D stereotypical characters, just highlighted the overall floors in the narrative. I suppose my biggest criticism is that it took itself too seriously when it shouldn't have done. I wasn't blown away by the online mode either.

    I short, I enjoyed playing this game, but found it instantly forgettable.
    Expand
  17. Oct 17, 2010
    7
    I'm not going to write about multiplayer, because I don't have a Xbox Live gold account (I have my PS3 to play on-line for goddamn free) and I'll only focus on the singleplayer. Well I think the game is quite alright but nothing beyond that. I've played Gears of War 1 on a PC with my friend in co-op and we had a blast. But when I played GoW 2 alone I wasn't that happy about it.

    First of
    I'm not going to write about multiplayer, because I don't have a Xbox Live gold account (I have my PS3 to play on-line for goddamn free) and I'll only focus on the singleplayer. Well I think the game is quite alright but nothing beyond that. I've played Gears of War 1 on a PC with my friend in co-op and we had a blast. But when I played GoW 2 alone I wasn't that happy about it.

    First of all there are plenty of annoying glitches like problems with physics getting stuck at some places and having problems with the cover system. The latter was especially irritating in the level with the murderous ice clogs falling from the sky. I died several times because Marcus kept hugging the walls and not running.

    Another flaw of the game is the horrible , at times, AI of the enemies and team mates. I finished the game on Hardcore and I don't whether the higher difficulty means the dumber your squad mate or did the developer made some mistakes. Dom, most of the time, is utterly useless. He sticks to the wall and doesn't even pretend that he wants to fight. I have kill every goddamn Locust in the vicinity. He pissed me off, when we had to defend a bunch of satellite dishes from reavers. After a cut-scene he shouts to me: "Use one of the Troika's!". "Okay man, but there are two Troika's, why won't you use the other one?" "Nah, I'm too lazy. I'll just stand over there and eat a taco or something..." The problem with that level was that it was kind of botched and it depended only on pure luck rather than skill to kill all the reavers in time. When playing with a friend in co-op mode I bet we would win it in one go.

    Other than that I think the story could be a bit better and more depressing like in its predecessor and someone should throw out the tickers from the game because they are the most annoying **** ever created in a game, ever.

    But, of course the isn't all that bad. The shooting is quite enjoyable and I bet in co-op it kicks ass just as hard as GoW 1. The game has some epic moments, Cole is kind of funny, the Locust are ugly and eager to die, it's nice to rip them apart with the lancer, etc.

    So, for the singleplayer experience I give it a 7. It's fun to play it once, but I don't think I'll replay it. Though I am waiting for GoW 3.
    Expand
  18. Nov 5, 2011
    7
    It was a letdown for me. i was expecting something better from Epic. Campaign, while solid, has some not very shiny points. the ending/final boss was a mess, no difficulty at all. Still worth a rental, at least.
  19. Mar 22, 2011
    7
    Building on what Gears of War 1 delivered, Epic Games did with Gears of War 2. They brought it to a whole new level, adding new weapons, new dynamics to the game play, new characters, and a great DLC package of everything they've released, at a low price of 1200 MSP.($14.99USD)

    The only thing that failed on Gears of War 2, from the launch, was the multiplayer. The host selection was
    Building on what Gears of War 1 delivered, Epic Games did with Gears of War 2. They brought it to a whole new level, adding new weapons, new dynamics to the game play, new characters, and a great DLC package of everything they've released, at a low price of 1200 MSP.($14.99USD)

    The only thing that failed on Gears of War 2, from the launch, was the multiplayer. The host selection was purely garbage, always seeming to choose the worst host possible. This was influenced by Epic Games' decision to add a Matchmaking system on a game that ran great by using a server list (Gears of War had a server list).

    I would rate it higher, but shooter games MUST have a good multiplayer in my eyes to keep their heads above those that deliver a higher quality multiplayer experience. Hopefully Gears of War 3 can deliver on the mulitplayer level, but for now, Gears 2 is not the game to be playing all the time.
    Expand
  20. Feb 27, 2013
    7
    Two years after the original Gears of War Marcus Fenix and his oversized compatriots return to once again take on the Locust horde. Rarely straying far from its predecessor's template everything in this sequel is bigger and louder than before from the explosive set-pieces to the magnitude of the foes. Level design is also improved with every area providing just enough cover to be able toTwo years after the original Gears of War Marcus Fenix and his oversized compatriots return to once again take on the Locust horde. Rarely straying far from its predecessor's template everything in this sequel is bigger and louder than before from the explosive set-pieces to the magnitude of the foes. Level design is also improved with every area providing just enough cover to be able to advance on the enemy whilst getting caught out in the open remains a sure way to get yourself quickly killed. Co-op mode is again available and, as is often the case, the game is better when played with a friend either over Xbox Live or via split screen.

    On a negative note the games narrative is again slightly formulaic and those that disliked the, admittedly rather one note gameplay, of first game will find little to change their minds. Those that are simply after an adrenaline fuelled shooter however will not be disappointed.
    Expand
  21. Jun 12, 2011
    7
    Gears of War 2 feels better then Gears (1) but I'm not sure if it's better. It's not easy to explain but Gears of War 2 is not as good as the first game. But who I'm I kidding? This game has such entertainment and value that everyone who enjoys action games should try this!! The story is bigger this time around... Looking forward to Gears of War 3.
  22. Aug 8, 2011
    7
    Pretty much a let down compared to the original Gears of War but still an all around solid game. Story goes off a bit on you but pretty fun to play. No regrets on buying this game. Decent all around.
  23. May 25, 2015
    7
    Clearly, a lot of money was spent on Gears of War 2. The production values are through the roof. Most everything is well made. Sadly, the core narrative - the thing the developers spent a great deal of time talking up - is essentially garbage, and the reverence the game expects us to show its melodrama proves a constant irritant. Go in with measured expectations.
  24. Nov 28, 2012
    7
    This game had great ideas such as horde, meat shield, guardian, etc. the maps were good the weapons were good. The bad thing is the servers, if this game had better servers, it would no doubt be at least an 8.
  25. May 10, 2013
    7
    A quite good 3rd person shooter game with a little bit over average story-telling and voice acting. The game is fun to play on insanity with co-op. I don't want to overrate this game, it is a solid 7, but I do think this game is unique out there and can be addictive.
  26. Nov 19, 2013
    7
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player) Gameplay (2/2) Visuals/Story (1/2) (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)

    Gameplay (2/2)

    Visuals/Story (1/2)

    (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)

    Accessibility/Longevity (2/2)

    (Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)

    Pricing (0/2)

    Wildcard (0)

    This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.

    The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.

    The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.

    Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, if a game has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.
    Expand
  27. Aug 16, 2016
    7
    Gears of War 2 is a military science fiction third-person shooter video game developed by Epic Games and published by Microsoft.

    + Fun Gameplay
    + Multiplayer
    + Coop Campaing
    - Bad Story
    - Stupid Characters
    - Repetitive
  28. MattC.
    Nov 14, 2008
    6
    Great Campaign, worth going through a couple of times, even online. Co-op horde mode, isn't original but a welcome addition. Basically a 5 player version of terrorist hunt from Vegas 1 &2. This is all implemented and works fine. Multiple however, should have invested a little more time tweaking network issues. Once again this is their Achilles heal. Network lag across Live is Great Campaign, worth going through a couple of times, even online. Co-op horde mode, isn't original but a welcome addition. Basically a 5 player version of terrorist hunt from Vegas 1 &2. This is all implemented and works fine. Multiple however, should have invested a little more time tweaking network issues. Once again this is their Achilles heal. Network lag across Live is horrendous, even with Cable internet. Whole teams experience lag. Worse that Halo 2 was. Yes, worse. Not sure of how they setup the matches ( dedicated servers hosting or gamers, leaning toward the servers by the way you can't set up a match publicly). Searching for matches without 5 people in your party will take too long, longer than 5-10 minutes for possibly a 10 minute game. With a disappointing multilayer experience, but a mostly descent campaign, the designer did say it would be bigger and bloodier which was delivered, not much tweaking was done to actually make the game better. there are some new inclusion which do help but are not enough to out weigh some glaring flaws. After a few playing the campaign on and some attempts to enjoy multi player, you'll be trading in your gears 2 or selling on eBay or amazon. Expand
  29. Vogt
    Jan 7, 2009
    6
    I am, or at least used to be, a big fan of the Gears universe. The original Gears game described a beautiful, desolate, war-torn world, with an almost unreal, ghost-like enemy, the Locust. The sequel takes the fight underground where these Locust dwell and reveals much more of the their society. This is done in a terrible manner, with a colorful medieval theme and a soggy, also colorful, I am, or at least used to be, a big fan of the Gears universe. The original Gears game described a beautiful, desolate, war-torn world, with an almost unreal, ghost-like enemy, the Locust. The sequel takes the fight underground where these Locust dwell and reveals much more of the their society. This is done in a terrible manner, with a colorful medieval theme and a soggy, also colorful, organic mushroom theme, absolutely ruining the beautiful grey, desolate, apocalyptic, mechanic theme of the original game. Gears was never a game which sequel should have been made "bigger, better, more badass", but which art direction should have been held in a firm, responsible grip. Imagine if the sequel to your favorite sci-fi movie turned out to be a musical, with fireworks and silly puppets, with a budget ten times bigger than the original. The Gears universe is finally ruined by the protagonists actually walking around--stairs, paths, platforms--inside a giant earth worm, mid-game. Thank you, Epic, for turning one of the most promising sci-fi universes in gaming into Super Mario World. Finally, on the positive side, guns, especially sounds, are great, and the new Horde game mode is a superb multiplayer co-op experience, unfortunately ruined by the grounded shield exploit, which lets players hold of monsters indefinetly by blocking entrances with shields stuck in the ground. Also, a side plot during the game, that is not very well developed, concerning creatures known as "Sires", was much more in the spirit of the original Gears and could have taken the story in a very interesting direction. Shame that Epic was more concerned with making a "bigger, more bad-ass" sequel, instead of just a good one. Expand
  30. PatrickC
    Feb 2, 2009
    6
    This game is visually amazing. The sound is fantastic. Multiplayer is fun (when it works). Contrary to popular belief, I actually liked the story. However, there are just as many problems as there are positive points. The multiplayer mode is not only broken, but after being out all this time, IT'S STILL BROKEN. The campaign was too short. People say this game was bigger than Gears 1, This game is visually amazing. The sound is fantastic. Multiplayer is fun (when it works). Contrary to popular belief, I actually liked the story. However, there are just as many problems as there are positive points. The multiplayer mode is not only broken, but after being out all this time, IT'S STILL BROKEN. The campaign was too short. People say this game was bigger than Gears 1, but I swear the first Gears took me longer to finish. Many of the backgrounds are, though good looking, not very interesting. There isn't much variety in the gameplay, and it's an easy game, no matter what difficulty you play it on. Expand
Metascore
93

Universal acclaim - based on 90 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 90 out of 90
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 90
  3. Negative: 0 out of 90
  1. There are very few ways that Gears of War 2 could be improved on. Only the story and the final boss in particular are a slight disappointment. Fanboys will love the fact that only one of a multitude of story arcs is concluded; everyone else will feel slightly unfulfilled. But aside from this, Gears 2 is not just the most exhilarating game you'll play this year, but possibly the most heady and downright shocking piece of entertainment full stop. Hollywood, your days are numbered. [Dec 2008, p.61]
  2. The real star, however, is Horde, a ballistic assault on your worst score-rush tendencies that transforms maps into Gears-flavoured Mutant Storm: weapons spawn, then a wave of enemies hits, then more weapons and then another, tougher, wave.
  3. 360 Gamer Magazine UK
    90
    We could be critical of Gears of War 2 simply offering more of the same, but the fact that it simply does everything better than the original in delivering a fantastic display of shoot-’em-up mayhem its quality simply shines through. With some awesome level design, supported by unsurpassed visuals and relentlessly entertaining action it is a compelling experience from start to finish. Forget the crack at putting emotion into the storyline; it’s almost irrelevant as Gears of War 2 is an allguns- blazing extravaganza and, as such, it’s just a glorious shooter that very few can match.