Talk:Gears of War 2/Archive 1

Archive 1

Confirmed at GDC. Capitalization needs fixed.

Since this game has finally been confirmed, this page needs to be moved to Gears of War (not "war")... Please unprotect or make the move. Thanks. xenocidic (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please do that. john.n-irl (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the protecting admin to lift the restriction. xenocidic (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I filed a request on the protection page, so hopefully we'll be able to redirect this page to Gears of War 2 soon. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 20:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to do that but it suggested that you contact the protecting admin first. Whichever is faster, I suppose. xenocidic (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks all good now :) --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 21:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, just a simple move was needed. heh :p JAF1970 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye, when I wrote the above comments, "Gears of War 2" was edit-locked. xenocidic (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Semi-prot requested for a few days. JAF1970 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fact error

Soft body physics has nothing to do with textures. It is purely a geometric deformation effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.22.148 (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Box art

The box art is official Microsoft and Epic Megagames box art, issued as part of the press kit. They're issued as official. The disclaimer on the bottom is legal, allowing them to change their minds at some future point. But that IS the official box art from now til release. JAF1970 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The cover specifically states "Artwork Not Final", meaning that there is no guarantee that Microsoft will use that specific box-art. Given its from a fan kit, the images are nearly promotional, and not really a box art, meaning they should also use a {{promotional}} tag until a final box art is officially announced. While the image is official is there a real need to add it? Is there a reference or document from the fan kit that actually verifies that the boxart' is actually official? This article is only a few days old, adding promotional images is not really a major concern at this point. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 20:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME? A "fan kit"? No. Do you even KNOW what a press kit is? This is issued to websites, including resellers. This is OFFICIAL MICROSOFT BOX ART. "Artwork Not Final" does not mean this is placeholder - it means they're sticking with this unless they get a better idea. Learn the industry. JAF1970 (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the Gameplay section

At this point, there is no information on gameplay. Whoever created that section and said there was a trailer featuring gameplay entitled "Duel" at GDC is a goddamn filthy liar. All we have right now is a cinematic teaser trailer with Marcus "dueling" with a Locus. With that being said, until there's an official statement saying chainsaw dueling will be in the game and not for cinematic purposes, anything said is only an assumption and has no room in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Boss Inc. (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith. oh, and sign your posts. xenocidic (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a tech demo that shows some gameplay. If you want a link it's right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkcM4djkvLI

So you see, I'm no liar, it is pretty much confirmed how gameplay will be. (talk) 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying that we know nothing about gameplay is a pretty naive statement in itself: it's a sequel. They're not exactly gunna break the mold here. xenocidic (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, all information on Wikipedia must be cited. We do not know what the gameplay will be. We can assume all we want to, but editor assumptions are not allowed on Wikipedia. Your personal assumption that the gameplay won't change because its a sequel is irrelevant, we need reliable sources. Sorry, but YouTube is not a reliable source of information. Source it or remove it until you can.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. in future perhaps just tag it with a for a day or two before deleting it. though, I agree that deleting the speculation regarding "dueling" was warranted. cheers. xenocidic (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Cinematic teaser? You mean the game isn't entirely black-and-red? I thought that was the new style for Gears of War 2 and that was a real time rendering of the game in a state comparible to the finished product. 142.165.59.39 (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What was said about "a trailer simply titled "Duel" demonstrating gameplay and a new feature called "chainsaw dueling" was a lie. Therefore, you are a liar. And yes, it's a cinematic trailer, but if people weren't making false claims saying it was a gameplay trailer I wouldn't have had to remind everyone. Also, smartass comments that don't contribute to the discussion have no place here. Big Boss Inc.(talk)

Again Big Boss, please remain civil. I need not remind you that you began this argument against the gameplay section by calling an editor a "goddamn filthy liar" when you should have simply assumed good faith. xenocidic (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Boss, I didn't say there was a cinematic "gameplay" trailer, I said there was a teaser (nothing about gameplay included in it was said) entitled "Duel" which Marcus dukes it out in a chainsaw duel with a Locust. So please, pay more attention to what people write before pointing fingers. dude527 (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008

I quote from the mentioned section that was deleted "

The trailer released for the GDC show, entitled "Duel", showed gameplay features that were primarily similar to Gears of War, a third-person, "run and gun" style game that emphasized the use of cover for protection. An additional feature included in the trailer was the ability for players to engage in a duel using their Lancers (the combination machine gun-chainsaw weapons), with only one player surviving the fight."

Right there, first sentence, states that it was a gameplay trailer. The bit about chainsaw dueling was a fabrication. Stating that within the trailer there was demonstrating of the player's abilities to "duel", when there was certainly not, thus it is considered a lie. This is the edit that I have been refering to since my original post. So you're either mistaken, or simply unwilling to admit you knowlingly submitted false information to the article. Big Boss Inc. (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Big Boss Inc.

While it's not an official announcement from Epic, here is a link that says the chainsaw dueling is an actual feature in the game. SeanMooney (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

“ I was talking to two people last night who are close enough to the development team at Epic to know and they confirmed for me that this will be a mechanic in the game ”

This is too much o a "my sister-in-law who's boyfriend is dating the receptionist at Epic..." situation =) -- nn-blog without first-hand knowledge. not saying it's not true, but we just can't use this as a source. xenocidic (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken, I didn't write that, Big Boss, my apologies. While it's likely that there will be chainsaw dueling in Gears 2, that isn't a valid source, coming from a Epic spokesperson so we can't use it. Find another source then come back and we'll see if it's valid. dude527 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's cool, bro. Big Boss Inc. (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

IGN Interview with John DiMaggio

[1]; includes new details, the latest info, etc., etc. Just posting for anyone keeping track of the article.  Comandante Talk 02:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Chainsaw duels

No mention yet of this critical new addition to the game. JAF1970 (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there confirmation that this is a gameplay feature? We've a pre-rendered promo video, but that's not proof. --MASEM 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proof It was also extensively discussed on the OXM podcast. JAF1970 (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Added. As long as we've got other sources than just the video, that's all that's needed. --MASEM 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Added the KOXM link, after a lot of stumbling. :p JAF1970 (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the Deleted Gamplay section, we went over this. Promotional cinematics do not prove anything about gameplay without an official statement. Podcasts and blogs from fans are NOT reliable sources here at wikipedia. Big Boss Inc. (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not correct; those types of sources are generally not reliable, but you have to consider where the source is from. The podcast is from Official Xbox Magazine, who is a reliable source, and thus the podcast is a reasonable inclusion. The blog is a Variety magazine editor, which is also a reliable source. In this case, it's appropriate to include these though the cavaet of "chainsaw duels have been confirmed by Source 1 and Source 2" should be included because if they are wrong, it's not egg on WP's face. --MASEM 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the guys at OXM spoke to some of the devs. JAF1970 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that it should be included.Wageslave (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, most of the important stuff N'Gai Croal posts is in his Newsweek blog, not articles. JAF1970 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

From the podcast given -- although it features an allusion to the chainsaw battles, the podcast seems to be more of a discussion of something which is already referenced with the link which preceded it. I appreciate that they may have spoken with developers, but the fact that it's the Official Xbox podcast does not mean that all the information on there is intrinsically factual and quote-worthy as the podcast does give them some room for speculation.

You do know that these two are EDITORS of the OFFICIAL Xbox Magazine who have a ton of regular contact with CliffyB, etc, right? JAF1970 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, though -- I'm quite sure if Cliff Blezinski had told them it is guaranteed to be in the game, they would most likely be discussing it candidly. In other interviews I have seen, although as irrelevant, CliffyB seems somewhat reluctant to reveal any future features for the franchise as there would have undoubtedly been a "gagging order" issued by Epic Games in order to maintain their assets. It doesn't matter if they are in close contact with Cliff because that is relatively circumstancial and has no bearing on what is actually in the material, because it simply isn't discussed. As of this moment, I'm not going to be pursuing in this discussion further as I don't wish to waste further time and storage space which is a seemingly unfruitful discussion. J O R D A N ^[talk ] 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I've checked the podcast link out, and they're speaking about how the feature is a latent inclusion after it was considered for the first release of the game, but from what I have listened to it doesn't actually seem to give any specific information which could be quoted particularly, but I haven't had time to listen to the entire podcast.

The reason I removed it before was that, if you are to reference a podcast -- it's better to have a reference to the material within the podcast so that it can be verified because even in that podcast the allusion to Microsoft and the developers in the 3rd person gives the suggestion that they aren't developers speaking of the game from a perspective inside Epic Games. If you actually give quotations of the presenters which contain more information than the other link, then you can reference it as an audio clip.

As the quote was given, was incorrect. It was cited as a website reference,when it's an audio reference -- the URL given didn't contain the information, the audio clip did and they need to be referenced differently. If you supplied a quotation and position in the clip then I'd be happy to keep it, providing it added more information than the other link. J O R D A N ^[talk ] 23:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, how else are people going to access the podcast? Give the link to the podcast which gives people an opportunity to listen to the raw podcast.

And please, don't act like these are two guys recording in their Mom's basement. JAF1970 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources are required, but as disclaimers on most sites hosting podcasts -- they give no claims as to the accuracy of the information they hold as they can be simply representing the image of "Microsoft Xbox" through an intermediary, such as a publishing house.

Again, I'm not being asinine here, and I have certainly not suggested that they are "two guys recording in their own basement", as that would be somewhat reductio-ad-absurdium on your part. I am suggesting that the citation at least give a quote of the information so that it is more verifiable for other editors, rather than just a link to a podcast page which does not even list the topic on the brief description. Although the template is now named cite video, the medium= parameter can be supplied as "Podcast" and the quote added in without too many problems.

Do not misunderstand my intentions in this situation. I am not doubting the validity of the material as being from Xbox, but what I am saying is that within the medium of podcast -- there is somewhat of an "artistic license" when they are referring to the topic, which can encompass speculative speech clips "I think it may be", or "I'm gonna say it may be". Just because it is endorsed or linked to by Microsoft itself does not grant the medium rites as an immediate bona-fide reference.

Here, for your information is the quote of the presenters discussing the trailer which contains the imagery of the chainsaw battle between the protagonist Marcus Fenix, and a Locust. This is referenced by speech before this segment in which the Xbox 360 Dashboard is discussed as promoting Gears of War 2:

Excerpt from the "OXM Podcast"

Exerpt from "KOXM Episode 103" [05:21 - 07:04]

Speaker	Transcript quotation
Ryan	"Most of you probably have watched the trailer by now, so hell let's just talk about it anyway. Chainsaw duels, Paul.. chainsaw duels. Is that not awesome?"
Paul	"Yeah, if you think of it it's a natural evolution from the first game, in terms of almost "Mortal Kombat" style finishing moves; stuff going.. but with that kind of Epic-Gears-of-War-love team behind it, but the grizzly factor of Marcus stabbing the locust with the chainsaw was just awesome. If you can picture the gameplay dynamics that will evolve as a result."
Ryan	"Yeah, you gotta figure that that's probably if you happen to .. you could maybe argue that they're maybe borrowing from the sword-clashing in Halo 3 but why not? It's better with chainsaws. I would have to figure that would probably the case where, you know .. if you and a locust got at it at the same time, or of course in multiplayer if you and another guy go at it at the same time. I'm guessing there'll be a, you know.. a random button prompt where you gotta wail on the button faster than the other guy.. I would have to imagine that's the case."
Paul	"Something to that effect i'd expect too, yeah. Either it'll be a "Track and Field" who can pound it faster, or who can type "AXB" randomly in the fastest order."
Ryan	"Yeah. But then that.. that.. [Coup de grâce].. that.. flip the gun over and carve them up with the chainsaw.. cannot wait to see that in the context of the game and see how many moves they end up having."
Paul	"Looks like they'll do a good bit of variety, but for me the winning moment was seeing him flip the chainsaw up in the air and do that kinda 180[o] spin and just gag the locust right away with it.. that was just.. That was good stuff."
Ryan	"So good for, yeah .. you put it well man.. best non-gameplay trailer ever."

I hate say it, but that just seems like commentary on the actual trailer and speculation on the features, rather than them admitting to know it will be in the game. There hasn't been any allusion to the fact they have been told it is in the game, they are just speculating on the issue; regardless of the fact they have spoken to developers, were likely to or not still really doesn't assure me that the quotes give the same information as other sources, or that they are even citation worthy. J O R D A N ^[talk ] 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Check earlier in the podcast. JAF1970 (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In the end, it's not that big a deal, since we still have the other citation from a reliable source. JAF1970 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC) "Doesn't show real gameplay", November release date. There is nothing in this section, either, which suggests that this is anything other than commentary as the previous section is mostly to do with "Name that Xbox Sound effect", which oddly doesn't contain the information either. Again, as I have stated before -- I am not going to discuss this issue further as this will likely become exhaustive. J O R D A N ^[talk ] 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreal Tech Demo

I know an improved version of Unreal Engine will be in Gears 2, but what relevance does the detailed explanation have to the article? It's not necessarily the actual game in the tech demo. It's just that.. a tech demo. Too loosely related to deserve such an explanation. I suggest that it simply be summarzied elsewhere in the article like "Gears of War 2 will be running on an improved Unreal Engine 3." Scarslasher (talk) 05:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The demo was entirely based upon improvements of the Unreal Engine specific to Gears of War 2, rather than just improvements to the engine itself. All of the features shown are noteworthy as they are indications as to improvements and changes in the future game. Although the description is a little technical, I prefer an explanatory paragraph rather than a pittance of a sentence which contains nothing more than an allusion to the engine.

Also, as noted in the paragraph explaining the technical demo -- it doesn't allude to it being the game, but then again they do themselves use it as a demonstration of the features which they are coding for the next release. Sure, it's not the full game as that encompasses the story aspect of the game as well as significant plot points, et cetera. The point of the matter is that, if there's information to be had about the technical demo which is relevant to the game, it is better to quote it rather than to make some vague tokenistic gesture that it's "running on an improved unreal engine 3". J O R D A N ^[talk ] 11:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

“ At the 2008 Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, California, as a showcase for the functionality of the Unreal Engine 3, Gears of War creators Epic Games showed various improvements to the engine with specific reference to the sequel itself. ”

God of War II

Resolved

God of War II should be re-derected here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.225.212 (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a completely different game and series. --MASEM 13:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that "GOW2" should be redirected here instead of "God of War II", there is already a disambig at the top of the that page. I think that perhaps GOW2 should be redirected here closer to Gears of War 2's launch. xenocidic (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the "GOW2" should be redirected closer to launch. Wageslave (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter, since both articles will refer to each other? JAF1970 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion to redirect GOW2 over to Gears of War 2 is because closer to the launch, more people will use GOW2 to search for Gears than God of War. (Perhaps they already are). The redirect should go to the more frequently desired article, should it not? xenocidic (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Gears of War 2 is closer to launch na dI beleive it should be changed. Not to be...."fanboyistic", but I think Gears if War 2 article is being visited more often anyway. Or we could change it to GeOW2, like some game sites do.Dcwil477 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why can't GOW2 just be made into a disambiguation page like BF2 used to be? At least for the time being it seems like a good compromise. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, a disambig page with 2 links seems like a waste to me. I was thinking of redirecting GOW2 to Gears 2 in May (6 months to launch). But if there's resistance from the God of War folks, then a disambig page would be the most neutral way to go about it. xenocidic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say I disagree with you in this case Xenocidic, if you type GOW 2, you come to Gears of War 2, which can be a page that people that want info about God of War 2 don't want to see. Thats why I made the redirection info at the top of the article in the first place, because I wanted to go to God of War 2 and got to Gears of War 2 instead. So both GOW2 and GOW 2 should have info about Gears of War 2 and God of War 2... Jørgen88 (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think about putting a space in between GOW and 2. I made a proper diambig tag. My earlier statement still stands that GOW2 and GOW 2 ought redirect to Gears of War 2, with a single disambig tag sending people to God of War II, but a proper disambig page would work as well. xenocidic (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good. Jørgen88 (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On this topic, I can totally see this becoming a fanboy battleground in the future. I agree with Th1rt3en that GOW2 should bring you to a disambiguation. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I got off my lazy behind and created the disambig page. No fanboy wars = everyone happy. xenocidic (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Game Informer preview

Check out the issue for new info JAF1970 (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the highlights mentioned by X3F, but someone should get the mag for the details. JAF1970 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I just got it, I will try to add in next couple of days. --MASEM 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've dug up most of the interesting top-level details for the time being. There's likely more on development but its hard to tell how that would all fit at this time. --MASEM 05:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dialog trees and extended COG tag collection

I haven’t heard about any of this in the pre-release material, and can’t find the claimed reference. Someone else care to confirm/deny? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.252.133 (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Both are cited in the Game Informer preview article. --MASEM 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Brumaks are aliens?

The article says that Brumaks are aliens... is this true? What planet are they from? 142.165.59.39 (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Brumaks are not Aliens They are Geneticly modified by Locust from smaller native apes Butters0422 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

New Weapons Section Needed

A section for The new Wepons added to Gears of War 2 is

needed ie. The Gorgon Burst Pistol and The Poison Grenade

Butters0422 (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Weapon sections are rarely necessary unless there are notable aspects of the weapons. --MASEM 03:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The Character Section needs to Be returned to its original form

Due to the fact that there are new Characters in gears of war 2 and some characters that havent returned from the original gears i dont find it approate to have the Gears of War "1" listing In the Gears of War 2 list of the Characters Butters0422 (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We have no idea who will be returning or won't be beyond the four in Delta Squad; there is no point at this time until the game is out to expand too much on the characters. Remember, this is Wikipedia, we are here to cover the game encyclopedically, not from the standpoint of a gaming news source. --MASEM 13:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Acutaly We do know who is not returning and who Is new ie. kim is dead and General Ramm as well and the new characters listed in Game Informer and the new enemies and Encyclopedically it would be incorect to list The old Characters as all Being in the This version Butters0422 (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This Version of The character section is perfect it Tells exactly What needs to be told Butters0422 (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've readded the link to the characters article even though it appears to be a point of contention; it may be out of date and such, but I feel there is no reason to have a general character page for the series and not have both article link to it. The solution here (if we don't want the link) seems to be either we adequately update the character page to include updated info concerning the new game, or delete it. I personally think that the character article is nothing more than gamecruft put together by fans of the game and that the game articles alone are enough to describe the characters, but I doubt it could be discussed calmly and without bias on WP:AFD. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

i do Believe you are right my good sir i do also think that the article pertaining to the characters of gears of war alone is quite unnessary as per your statement Butters0422 (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Comandante42 i am quite new to wikipedia so i was wondering if it is at all possible for you to set up the deletion process of the gears of war characters page at WP:AFD. Butters0422 (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll get around to it sometime this weekend, maybe on the 19th or 20th. Right now I just don't have the time. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Found a spare moment and went ahead and nominated the article, see here. -- Comandante {Talk} 00:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the characters should be left on a page, and brief synopsis on this page. There are going to be many games (2 and 3 at least). Having duplication in each page and incomplete information isnt as good as a single page with all the character info.

There are other articles just like it for this purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_video_game_characters

Please go and vote to KEEP this page by going here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Gears_of_War_characters_and_adversaries

Wageslave (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nomination and am only waiting for it to close. It has been updated with some of the new characters, and is being revamped as a character page rather than a game guide/list. -- Comandante {Talk} 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Made up Nonsense

The paragraph that reads "New multiplayer features, . . .featuring 100 player game types. . . .multiplayer mode, such as achieving 1,000 headshots" is both poorly written and categorically untrue. The source does not support ANY of the claims that are made; the paragraph consists of fanciful and wild inferences from actual material in the article. Since it's nonsense, I'm removing it. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The part about achievements is true (since I added that from the GI article); however, I agree that the other statements are likely false since I never remember seeing that in the article. --MASEM 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, even that is not true. If you look at the actual text, you will notice the word "if" being thrown around. They are talking about a hypothetical situation in order to explain the new way the achievements work in both singleplayer and multiplayer: "For instance, if you need to nail 1000 headshots..." That is unequivocally not confirmation. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I will concede its plausible. Nevertheless, as you say, Wikipedia is encyclopedic. Speculation is not really topical. Michael.A.Anthony (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I beleive it was mentioned about the hundred locust horde tyo game mode, or something along th elines of intgrating the new Unreal Tech in to MP, but either way, it was poorly worded and should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcwil477 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

New Video Tonight

There is a new video of Gameplay being released tonight on 1up.com and on Xbox live--Butters0422 (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And on IGN and very likely the other big gaming sites. Looks like the release time is set at 11 pm, and will feature "a first look at chainsaw duels and ranged combat on a much larger scale than what was seen in the original." See here. -- Comandante {Talk} 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Here it is JAF1970 (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Posted the chainsaw duel pic. There's a ton of info in the video - someone else should post the rest of them (ie. the Brumaks) - have to get on a flight soon. JAF1970 (talk) 05:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a nice list by X3F:

• The Locust now have the ability to sink entire cities with giant emergence holes.
• To defend against the Locust onslaught, the COG transport vehicles called Derricks bring tunnel machines called Grind Lifts to Locust occupied areas. Underground combat ensues.
• Campaign level act one, chapter three is named "Assault".
• Reavers are back for GoW2 and they are trouble.
• Both the cover system and active reload look to stay true to their Gears roots.
• Overall combat is much more open and expansive, it truly looks like you're in the middle of a war.
• Brumaks are back and yes, you will be gunning them down. Take that Gears of War PC!
• The ability to generate hundreds of Locusts on screen looks (as we expected) to be used to set the mood of the battle and make it more frantic. Think of these hundreds of Locusts as interactive decoration.
• We're introduced to a new Lancer style weapon that shoots ammo in bursts.
• We're also introduced to a new pistol weapon that sort of looks like Halo 3's Brute Spiker.
• When a Locust falls to his knees you'll be able to use him as hostage cover.
• Locust neck snapping is now an option.
• They've added a new chainsaw animation that was seen in the teaser trailer. Basically, the chainsaw is flipped over, stuck into a Locust's back and is forced up vertically through the torso. Bloody disgusting.
• Chainsaw duels are real! The chainsaw victor is the one who can press "B" the fastest in the mini game.
• Assault Derricks pack a lot of firepower and do a pretty good job at running over Brumaks. JAF1970 (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We're introduced to a new Lancer style weapon that shoots ammo in burst. That weapon isn't new, its the hammer burst. The only real difference between the new and old hammer burst is that the new one has a longer barrel, same deal with the Lancer it has a longer barrel. We're also introduced to a new pistol weapon that sort of looks like Halo 3's Brute Spiker. That weapon is called the Gorgon burst pistol. 69.76.53.232 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The new lancer has a reflex scope like the original concept pictures for Gears 1. It shows an illuminated blue crosshair on the rear and a blue dot on the front. Alby13 (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New information Official Xbox 360 magazine

-New weapon Scorcher (Flamethrower) "most realistic fire in a game we've ever seen"

-5 vs 5

-Assasination gametype altered. everyone respawns until their leader is dead. when the leader is killed they stop rewpawing and the game ends when everyone is dead on one team.

-Assasination renamed 'Guardian'.

-New gametype 'Wingman' 10 players split into teams of two.each team is played as different character (eg marcus and marcus vs Dom and Dom etc)

-Features Matchmaking

-Exectucions now vary on the weapon you holding (ie. sniper rifle will be used like a golf club)

-Curb stomp returns

-'Y' will cause your character to unleach several brutal punches to a downed enemy, killing him.

-'A' will cause you to pick up the enemy and use him as a shield. The player your using as a shield will go to the respawn line.

-New gametype 'meatflag' sort of like CTF but epic have done this in their own way. The flag will instead be character wandering around the centre of the map. He has his own weapons and even a place on the leaderboard. To capture him you will need to down him and pick him up as a meatshield and take him back, slowly, to your base. If you shoot the meatflag enough times while he's being dragged back to base, his captor will loose him and he'll go crazy on everyone around him.

-Specific weapons will cycle round the maps.

-Stopping power - if your running towards an enemy but he is firing straight into your chest, you will slow down.

-The oppurtunity to spawn with either the lancer or hammerburst.

-Hammerburst gone through significant alterations. The faster you tap the the right trigger, the faster it fires. quicker shooting = more recoil however.

-New weapon Medusa. could be considered a power weapon. 6 shots per burst.

-Bullet shields. big metal shield that stops you from getting hit. can be planted into the ground to make a new cover. enemies can kick it down though if they get close enough.

-Grenades can be stuck anywhere. not just on enemies. they can be planted on the ground,walls,doors etc to produce a proximity mine.

-smoke grenades carry a stun effect that ragdolls anyone in range.

-new weapon poison gas grenade. produces a cloud of smoke that kills anything that lingers in it. they can be stuck onto enemies were the will slowly die. people stuck by the gas grenade can also injure team-mates if the get too close.

-On games with no respawn, when you are dead you can fly around the map as a "ghost cam". You can even take screenshots that will be uploaded to the community.

-Gridlock returns. However its more overgrown now, plants and grass growing. (everything is still the same though- cars are where they where etc)

-New map - 'river' - symetrical map, each team has a thin strip of land with a house and sniping tower, and inbetween them a river.

-New map - 'Security' - long thin map. to the left and right are stairs leading to veranda's that run the entire length of the map. you are barred access however by red lasers, which will kill you if attempting to pass through. A power weapon is barred on the other side of the map while at the other it is defended by sentry guns. There is a button in the middle of the map that turns the lasers and sentry's off for 20 seconds.

-New locust 'hammerhead' (helmet makes him look sorta like a hammerhead shark)

-New locust 'Grenadier' (this is the guy we saw in the video were marcus punches him to death)

-Two people can chainsaw one guy at the same time.

-New cog 'Tai' has a dark color skin, much like the people of Africa.

-New cog 'Dizzy' "looks like chuck Norris"

-Cole returns for multiplayer at least.

Official Xbox 360 magazine

The 'Grenadier' is Not new --Butters0422 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Will there be a 4 ppl co-op like (like halo 3 or better) or are they gonna keep that the same '2 player' co-op —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.145.43 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I revised the online section

So please dont just Delete all the text actualy fix it--Butters0422 (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Not calling anyone a liar here, but who said anything about the new characters?--Kondrayus (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

what are you reffering to Butters0422 (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In the characters section it says there will be new characters.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There will indeed be new characters; this was first mentioned in the cover story of an issue of Game Informer a month or two ago. The article names them, but they are described in more detail here. -- Comandante {Talk} 22:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh OK.--Kondrayus (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiplayer Section needs to be fixed

It states that there will only be three gametypes - guardian, meatflag and assassination. This is incorrect. IGN has stated on June 2 that Warzone will be returning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanxBlackrose (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a specific citation for it? --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  07:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it's here--XDanxBlackrose (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It actually states that their will be at least 7 game modes out of the box including meat flag gaurdian execution etc. At least 10 maps will be ready at lauch including a slightly changed subway and Gridlock.Jdacheifs0 (talk) 03:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Marketing

The Crimson Picture Pack actually goes for 80 Microsoft Points, but the "Bare Your Teeth" Theme is free. I don't have an account and this page is locked - someone please rectify this for me. 74.166.50.213 (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New Gameplay

When's there gonna be some new gameplay videos?--Kondrayus (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Jacinto

For a secondary source on at least one location (Jacinto) in the game, see Rod Ferguson, "Gears of War 2: Jacinto," Game Informer 181 (May 2008): 49. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wingman change?

In the new developer video for Gears 2, they mentioned Wingman as different as what was mentioned. They mentioned that it was a sort of a 2 against 8 mode with different models for the former team (Marcus and Fenix in the video) instead of a 5 team 2v2 gametype. Should this be changed? Thanks. The Phantomnaut (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you give me a link, I tell you wether or not to add it. King Rock (Gears of War) 19:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[2] It's also in the Xbox 360 version of UT3. I might have interpreted incorrectly, I checked a GameTrailers interview with Cliffy B. [3] and he said the 5 team 2v2 form of the mode. EDIT! AGAIN! Sorry! HD link fixed. Recent links that lead to it was messed up.The Phantomnaut (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. Remember to cite it. King Rock (Gears of War) 19:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I viewed the video, but I think words are being misconstrued here. When the video says that it will be you and a partner against everyone else, I believe it's referring to the fact it will be your team of two against the other four teams of two, i.e. "everyone else." A game of two versus eight would not only be a mistake (in my opinion, that's a horrible disadvantage for any players, and I doubt anyone would want to play the mode), but it would also directly contradict the recent IGN UK article on their experiences in the multiplayer (see here). I doubt that WIngman would be changed only days after it was confirmed to play a certain way. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh all right, he didn't seem to specify what was Wingman was even though I read the article before the video released.The Phantomnaut (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There must be some terrible misunderstanding here. He mentions right before that it is a "Free for all coop" kind of mode. As in 5 teams of 2 ( those 2 sharing the same player model) all try and kill the other teams. So it is essentially 2 on 8 if you want to look at that way.Skeith (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

E3

Okay, E3 is Monday at 7:00 clock eastern time and will spotlight Microsoft first. I need someone to be keeping an eye on that because Gears of War 2 will be the first game introduced at the E3: Microsoft Spotlight. King Rock (Gears of War) 03:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

An RSS feed would do it. Updating a subject as new things come up by the second has never turned out well :p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

is it 7:00 pm or am? and what tv station or website will it be on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.53.232 (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

7:00 pm. King Rock (Gears of War) 22:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

GET PUMPED!!

Get happy guys. The game is on it's way so get ready to turn it on. Lets crank ths article to B class as soon as possible. King Rock (Gears of War) 23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we just need to expand a few things here and there, and maybe later on get a better resolution image of the cover art. I know the article can't be upped to GA status, let alone A or FA, until the game actually comes out, so once it gets to B we'll only have to keep it clean until release. From there, it's straight-on Plot and Reception work, with touch-ups here and there. Of course, that's being optimistic. Playing Gears 2 will at least be more fun that editing the article. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Carmine

Was it ever confirmed that Carmine from Gears of War was killed? as far as i know he was shot in the neck and was flown out, it seems that his death is only assumed by players and should not be stated as fact in the character section, unless someone has some proof that he did die. Sickness5080 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Carmine was killed. King Rock (Gears of War) 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It was really a headshot, right in the gears guide. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.59.2 (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Carmine brother is in gears 2 called anthony according to ign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.75.14 (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "gameinformer preview" :
  • {{cite news | pages =46-57 | date = May 2008 (Issue 181) | title = Gears of War 2: Great Expectations | work = [[Game Informer]]}}
  • {{cite news | pages =46-57 | date = May 2008 (Issue 181) | title = Gears of War 2: Great Expectations | work = [[Game Informer]]}/ref> In a developer's video, Cliff Bleszinski stated that ''Gears of War 2'' would feature "drop in and out" co-op in the campaign.<ref name="IGN Clears Rumors">{{cite web|url=http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/874/874664p1.html|title=IGN exposes rumors on Gears of War 2|publisher=IGN|language=English|accessdate=2008-07-03}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Comandante {Talk} 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Special Edition

Should reference be made to the ultra special edition that has a life size replcia of the lancer rifle? Olog-hai (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there such thing? --DoubleDee0614 (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah apparantly a US only thing through Amazon Olog-hai (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Article. JAF1970 (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that's awesome. Put me down for one. On a serious note, it should be noted that it is sold by itself, and if it is bought with Gears of War 2 or Gears of War 2 Limited Edition, both items will be discounted. There is no edition of the game that will include the lancer prop. --DoubleDee0614 (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention of lack of PC version

If there's no PC version, why mention it? Even if the first came to the PC, the lack of a version isn't noteworthy. There's plenty of sequels that didn't go multiplatform (see: Metal Gear Solid 3) JAF1970 (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statement. I still feel it should be mentioned, but perhaps it is indeed too trivial in this case. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A cancelled port is worth mentioning, but a lack of release is not. You could list a hundred systems that Gears 2 isn't getting released on, and that would be pointless. While I desire a PC release, it has nothing to do with the article itself. Leave the information out as it has no real relation to the main article. Alyeska (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This is an important thing to include. The reason why is Cliff Blezinsky made a point of saying there will be NO pc version. People were expecting one like in the first game and it could be misleading to readers if they thought there was one coming. All that needs to be added is a small sentence in the intro and a reference, nothing big. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GroundZ3R0 002. Gears of War later came out with a PC version and for Gears of War 2 there was speculation that there would be a PC version at launch, or in the future a PC version would follow like it did for the original. It makes sense to include it in the article. Especially since the game developer, EPIC, is known for their PC games. alby13 (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

AI Bots

Will someone find sources and elaborate on the AI bots feature? This would help majorly. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Not enough is known about the bots to add anything. All we know is that they were confirmed, we'll either have to wait for more info from the developer or the release of the game itself for anything more detailed. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

9/26/08 : AI bot have been confirmed. Players can now have bots to fill in the empty player spaces while they play and when LIVE player join a slected bot will be taken out. During a game Bots can be used with diffuclty settings Casual, Hardcore, Insane. The AI bot have been programed too interact with the Enivorment ex. Ai can plant mines. Bots also may Execute the player with the weapon they are holding.

Screenshot

I see that a screenshot has been requested to better illustrate the article. If it does need one, what would be a good screenshot to add? alby13 (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Achievements

should the gears of war 2 achievements section be modified to include the confirmed list of achievements? because at the moment it has the "500 kills with weapon X" which is not an achievement for gears 2... just a thought on how the page can be brought up to date, because i am unable to edit the page myself

That achievement was given as an example of an achievement, it wasn't supposed to be an actual one. Beyond that, point 6 of WP:GAMECRUFT discouarges using lists of game concepts in articles. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

okay... thanks for telling me that... much apreciated -- Trigger Happy Mole (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Added PC version to the article

I think that it is essential that people understand that Gears of War 2 will not be ported to the PC. I've been reading alot of complaints from PC users. Somebody who can add more info should definitely add in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rendog92 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This was previously discussed, and it was decided that there's no point in mentioning something like a not-to-be-made PC port in the article. We wouldn't have added anything to the article speculating about a PC version anyway had it never been brought up (that would have been WP:CRYSTAL), so there's no reason to treat this any differently. If there isn't going to be a PC version, then the lack of any mention of a PC version can attest to that fact as effectively as, if not better than, its inclusion. -- Comandante {Talk} 21:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture in GDC Tech Review Section

There is no point in having a picture to demonstrate visual differences in the engines when the image is of too low resolution to make out any differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.47.19 (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Starting Weapon

A new feature has been added in which during online a player can choose to start with a Lancer or the Hammerburst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkickel (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Additional starting weapons include the golden hammerburst and the golden lancer via downloadable content cards. The golden hammerburst is obtained through the "midnight-madness" download card while the golden lancer is obtained through the use of the "special-edition" content card.--Snickers46 (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The Last Day Viral Campaign

Someone should add this in a marketing section of this article. Info on this event is availible on the offical gears website. XXWRAITHXx (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Added. If removed, talk here please. The Phantomnaut (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep this on the page

We need to keep this on the Gears 2 page until at least a week after it's release because more info will be coming for a while. If there is another template we could use that is related to this or more accurate then that would be great!

The game is out so keeping that would be lying.(124.184.114.24 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC))

Act 1 plot details.

The November issue of Official Xbox Magazine provides an in-depth plot-and-action summary of Gears of War 2's Act 1. It also notes that there are five total acts in this game. I was wondering whether or not I should contribute said Act 1 summary. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is better to wait to be able to write a concise overview of the plot instead of doing it by each act. --MASEM 23:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think an Act 1 summary, though, will do for now, until the complete game is released. I'm going to skim through and add important details differing from plot details as I await your reply. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional Plot components (including MOST story spoilers):

There are 2 or more Carmines who aren't dead and are COG Gears.

It is Dizzy and Tai who are left behind to fight Scourge when the rest of delta squad takes the grindlifts into the hollow.

Tai is either severly injured or captured and tortured by Scourge and is later found by Delta squad on a slave transport barge; he has deep wounds to his chest and on his back. Marcus hands Tai a shotgun and tells him to fight, but instead he turns the shotgun on himself. Dizzy's fate is still unknown after the encounter (rest of the game).

The assault on the hollow fails after Delta squad finds that Scourge is destroying the cities surrounding Jacinto with a giant worm in an effort to sink Jacinto for reasons other than what they believe. On evac by King Raven Ben Carmine falls into the worms mouth and the helicopter is swallowed by the beast. Delta squad finds Ben Carmine in the beast breathing but is burned to the bone by acid (chest exposed) from internal creatures. Delta squad fights through the beast and cuts the arteries to its 3+ hearts rendering the beast dead. It surfaces and the squad cuts through the beast's skin to freedom.

The squad is contacted directly by Hoffman and told to go to a secret abandoned COG facility by centaur. Hoffman tells Delta that this was "recently declassified". They get to the facility which is full of wretches and apparently the lab is working on hybrid humans/locust or some other type of hybrid/chemical weapons program; Sires (sp?) are in holding tanks complete with automated weapons protecting the facility. This was done under another COG leader in the past. They find information on the Locust "Nexus" (they're Headquarters) underneath a mountain top (name?) and are sent to the location to take down the locust queen to end the war.

They get into the moutain by centaur after fighting off most locust and find stranded living in the mountain apparently unharmed by the locust; the owner of the destroyed fuel station from Gears 1 (name?) tells Dom that his wife Maria was with another group of stranded in the same location. Marcus sends Cole and Baird to take the stranded to safety without having to be conscripts in the COG army. Dom and Marcus fight their way to the slave quarters and find Maria in what looks like an old grindlift (a human sized pod) and she is malnourished and has lost her mind. Dom holds her in his arms and kills her with his pistol.

The pair take off toward the Nexus and find the locust are fighting mutated locust called "Lampen" (sp?) which the queen calls "inferior". They are glowing locust. It is unclear if this is a mutation from the immulsion (or lightmass bomb) or some sort of COG chemical weapons program but these particular locust explode when shot. Cole and Baird rejoin Marcus and Dom by grindlift near Nexus and they fight into the city and find the Queen and Scourge. The queen is humanoid and/or human and Scourge is apparently her protector. She knows Adam Fenix (marcus' father) and taunts him by telling him he is nothing like him. Their plan was to sink Jacinto to bury the Lampen in sea water allowing them (locust) to escape and live on the surface. The queen flees on the locust flying beast (name?) with Baird and Cole chasing her. Dom and Marcus fight Scourge; scourge flees on a larger flying beast after 3 chainsaw battle losses. Delta squad leave Nexus by the same beasts and return to the surface; Scourge chases them but after Marcus blows up his beast he hits the surface of Sera apparently dead but not necessarily.

They return to Jacinto and Marcus tells them that in order to end the war AND kill ALL locust they must sink evacuate and sink Jacinto...the chairman agrees. It's unclear where the COG evacuate to, but the locust attack Jacinto once more and they take toward the sinkhole with Cole and Baird prepare the bomb to come by King Raven. A Brumak attacks Dom and Marcus' they kill it's driver and take control of the beast to get to the underside of Jacinto. They destroy 3 pillars beneath Jacinto in preparation to deliver the bomb then leave their Brumak just as he begins transforming (the same mutation or infection that the lampen have). The Brumak takes out the helicopter with the bomb in it and Marcus decides to use hammer of dawn beams to destroy the Brumak and use his body as a giant bomb (the lampen explode when they die). It works and Jacinto falls and sea water floods the hollow as they escape.

The queen is still alive and delivers a speech about how destroying Jacinto wasn't going to do what they thought it was going to do. Credits roll. At the end of the credits (an hommage to Cloverfield I'm guessing) a scratchy voice over the radio comes up of Adam Fenix and says "I am Adam Fenix. What have you done? You destroyed Jacinto" (correct?) as a foreshadow to the last game in the apparent trilogy. Adam Fenix is definitely still alive but it's unclear whether or not he's working with the Locust and whether or not the humans actually created the Locust (to mine immulsion?) and whether or not the Locust are just immulsion mutated humans and whether or not the Locust are using their captured human slaves to replete their ranks through mutation or infection and whether or not the Queen is actually human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.193.245.144 (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Leaked, but not hacked

As the page currently is, it states under Leaks that the game was hacked and leaked. Technical speaking this is the incorrect use of the term hacked as that would mean the game was modified before being leaked although there were no significant changes made to the core of the game. The only reason I can think of is if the release was made region free so that it is able to be played on different systems with the same release. I recommend to remove, "hacked and" so that it reads that it was simply leaked. alby13 (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The game was leaked but in no way whatsoever was it hacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbycheesedrum (talk • contribs) 01:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the information about the game being leaked has been removed. To the person that deleted it, please discuss changes. If there is no discussion, I will see about adding it back in to the article. alby13 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The section was removed because we barely had enough to make a single sentence, stating basically that the game was leaked. Should Epic or Microsoft mention the incident again in the future, we might have more to add. -- Commdor {Talk} 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I believe the plot summary is much to short to fully explain to the reader what happens during the game. The section does not tell the reader that Ben Carmine does or how Marcus and Dom make their way to the palace (In which they faced many new challenges). Also the Sires, from when Dom and Marcus go to the abandoned outpost, are never mentioned. I think that overall it's a little too brief. I'd be willing to contribute to it if there is no objection. 24.46.97.106 (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries here are not meant to be in-depth, and adding overly-detailed summaries is strongly discouraged. As it is, the summary is adequate for the casual reader's needs, although it will continue to be fine-tuned. At this point, we do not want to add more to the plot, but rather improve what we have. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game guide or fansite. -- Commdor {Talk} 00:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I agree with Commdor. I could pull out more than one Wikipedia guideline where it says to outline briefly what the characters do. For example, rather than giving a harsh description, saying resistance was met and the Gears struggled, but overcame, we are only supposed to say that they did overcome. You can feel free to debate what you believe the focal points of the plot line are, but I do believe it is currently adequate. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but i must disagree on you. Compared to other featured articles this plot summary is far too vague as it is. In fact, it has now cut out the brand new character of Tai. If he's gone from here why bother including him in the character section? Overall this is a subpar article and the plot should definitely be lengthened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.104.65 (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plot summaries disagrees with you, and it has the ultimate say. Most featured articles go overboard with plot summaries, but I assure you we will not here. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a Featured Article supposed to be what users strive to make other articles appear as, hence why they are made INTO featured articles? Or am i just spouting crazy talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.104.65 (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles are not the standard for good. I have seen many a Featured Article that no longer fits the standards, but has not yet been demoted. Featured Articles are generally superior in many aspects, but many of them don't follow at least one rule. We strive to make articles follow rules rather than make them as if Featured Articles. The featured article process is a flawed one, anyways; its very possible for articles that are not to their top possible standard to get in there. Bare bone fact: Rules -> Featured Articles. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You should read the rules you posted me to. Wikipedia's stance seems to have changed since you last read it. It says that Wikipedia plot summaries should have a "Comprehensive plot summary" The word limit that many people live by actually seems to be something that is disregarded as you make the plot summary more detailed, it clearly states that the plot can and should be made longer to help coherently display the plot. As it is, this is a short blurb about the plot. Please review how to properly conjugate a Wikipedia summary and give this article the Comprehensive(Synonyms of which include thorough and exhaustive) plot summary that we all know it deserves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.104.65 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:Plot summaries is an "essay," and in no way is meant to be taken as an official policy or guideline. The essay suggests how to make plot sections, but we do not need to follow it to the letter. -- Commdor {Talk} 00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The essay (thank you Commdor) I posted said its appropriate to outline main events in the plot, not details. It recommends 300-500 words, giving an outline of the main events that happened in the work of fiction. It says it is appropriate to go beyond that 300-500 limit variably depending on complication in the plot line. In this specific case, Gears of War 2 does not have a complicated plot line. Delta defends the hospital, is drilled underground, find that the Riftworm has been sinking cities and that Locust are taking prisoners, and then kills the Riftworm. From there they go to a base, find information about a back door to the Hollow, then go to that back door. They infiltrate the Hollow, and free Maria, then go on to re-group with Cole and Baird. From there, they infiltrate the castle, have a short confrontation with Skorge, escape the Hollow with new plans to kill the Locust. On the way back to Jacinto, they kill Skorge, then defends Jacinto, head back underground, hijack a Brumak, then use it as a bomb because it is lambent. All of this is major plot events, an outline on what happens in the game, not detailed, because it should not be detailed, as per Wikipedia:Plot summaries. Here's a quote: "Some editors feel that longer plot summaries are a good thing as they provide more information to the readers. However, in many cases a more concise summary may in fact be more informative, as it picks out only the truly important elements. By focusing the reader's attention on the larger structures of a plot, without drowning it in trivial detail, a shorter summary can often help the reader to understand a work much better than an overlong one." The current plot run down is adequate, and will certainly be exquisite with a bit of clean up. Really, all plot summaries are supposed to do on Wikipedia is outline major events, which this one does, and then variably lengthen it due to complication of plot. This plot is not complicated, so it doesn't require a complicated plot summary where we define every single event, every single action and quote every character says. It is adequate. Trust me, you're not the first (and won't be the last) to debate this. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I still feel it could be a little more detailed, two paragraphs hardly seems like enough to tell the story of any game. Also, i notice that the queen and Tai are both cut out of the plot with Carmine being introduced for no discernable reason. Not to mention, that a plot summary IMO should answer the questions Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. As in who are the characters who help move the story, what happens in the story, when do the key events happen, where do they happen, why do they happen, and how are these events both set up and accomplished. Following a basic structure like that will certainly give you a plot summary which will aide the reader in their information, and also provide proper details. Because as it is right now i as a reader find it lacking in depth and actually have questions left unanswered by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.104.65 (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot should alert people of spoilers

Anyone who hasnt played the game, after reading the plot, will know the ENTIRE storyline, so can someone please post something alerting spoilers?

WP does not use spoilers, see WP:SPOILER. --MASEM 15:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify what Masem said wikipedia does not use spoiler warnings... People reading an encyclopedia should expect a full treatment of the subject material including a full discussion of the entire plot. –xeno (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who hasn't played the game probably shouldn't be reading a "plot" section anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.113.41 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the game has not came out

The article needs MAJOR cleanup. It is still formatted where it sounds like the game has not been released yet and information about it has just been announced.

Examples:

• "X360 magazine reported that Gears of War 2 will contain at least three new online multiplayer modes, called "Guardian," "Wingman," and "Submission."
• "Returning characters will include Marcus Fenix and Dominic Santiago and others from the first game, as well as Cole and Baird."
• "New weapons have been announced as well as the return of weapons from the previous game."

--^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 01:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

--74.92.143.237 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)klll

Then fix it...though I did fix this one: *"Returning characters will include Marcus Fenix and Dominic Santiago and others from the first game, as well as Cole and Baird." to *"Returning characters include Marcus Fenix and Dominic Santiago and others from the first game, as well as Cole and Baird." I can do the others if you tell us where they are. --N0tverycreative

Page is locked right now, but the "Carmine is rumored to be included" line in the character section, followed by the confirmation of his appearance should probably be cleaned up and just replaced with "Carmine's younger brother makes an appearance as a new recruit". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.113.41 (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mention of Adam Fenix and the Ending Dialog

Ok ONE Adam Fenix is NEVER mentioned in the article or ANY Gears related article on Wikipedia. and TWO the ending dialog is what links the next game from this one. Want an example here it is from the first game.

"In the game's final sequence, Hoffman delivers a victory speech as the tunnels collapse and explode, whereupon the voice of the Locust Queen promises that the Locust will keep on fighting, and will not stop."

So the ending Dialog from this game is not important to the ending Dialog in the second game? I think it is seeing that it was used to link the first gears to the second gears but the Dialog from the end of this game is not even mention to show hint for the third game? I think that we should keep the Quote Adam states at the end of game and she should give Adam more credit in the plot summary than the current one(which NEVER mentions him at all). The Queen mentions him, then info of the tunnels was provided by him and the plan to sink the city which is the MAJOR ending of the game was his. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The quote and Adam Fenix's "role" in the game are trivial details, unimportant to the overall plot of Gears 2 in terms of this article. The quote is, in effect, meaningless; it neither confirms a third game will be made nor elaborates on an important factor of the plot. Adam Fenix isn't even a true character, since he has never been seen in either of the games and it is unknown of he ever will play a bigger part than a recording in a cutscene. Including the info would not further the reader's understanding of the game unless the reader had actually played the game and took into account speculation, and we can't write speculative articles or articles tailored for a specific group of people. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So we should just pretend its not in the game. Fact is, Adam is a true character. You dont need to see him for him to be there. You hear a recording at one point in a cutscene. Ok I can see him not being a character there. But the audio at the end is "live" audio. Meaning he is alive and present. you can read into it many ways, just like you could read into the ending of the first gears of war. this one is just more secretive. Didnt MS studios already announce that this was a trilogy though? I would do the search for that, but I cant search alot of gaming stuff in my present local. But ignorning Adam Fenix's quote as trivial to the plot means your ignoring the overall bigger picture of the Gears of War story line. Instead of ignoring it, it should be put in, and add in and put in a statement that this does not confirm another game. But it is important to the GoW2 story line, cause it is flat out telling you that you just messed up big time in the sinking of Jacinto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't about the overall picture of the series or the next game, if there is one (MS saying there will be the trilogy is not the same thing as confirming that a third game is in production; we need something much more concrete). The audio at the end also does not confirm the sinking of Jacinto was a mistake, and can be interpreted in numerous ways. These details imply a third game, but are not an official announcement that Gears 3 is in production, and again mean nothing but speculation to the plot in this particular game. -- Commdor {Talk} 21:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

100% support Commdor. It would be impossible to say that Adam Fenix is an indicator as to a third game, and it is a trivial factor in the plot of this game. By that, I mean that the recording never alter the player's course through the game, nor does it bear any confirmation of anything. Commdor has a point in saying that recording can be interpreted in numerous ways. When I first heard it, I thought it was an old recording (in-game old recording) and not a live transmission. It would be impossible to say "this means this" without using original research. Fact is that Adam Fenix does not play a major role in this game, and nor will he in this article. --The Guy _complain ^edits 01:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I argue that. Even if you cant see a character does not mean the character is not there. Adam did have MAJOR significance to the games plot though he is NEVER MENTIONED at all in the article. Even if he is not the main character and not shown does not mean he does not exist. Look at the first game we NEVER get to see the Locust Queen but her Dialog and presence is mentioned in the articles plot which does not seem fair at all seeing she also had as many roles as Adam does in this game from the last. It would be unfair for the article not to mention a character that did play a part of the main role of the plotline, if not, an important side role. If you look at other games or movies that leave something at the end the article DOES mention it than just ignore it completely. The ending Dialog SHOULD NOT be trivia as trivia is something that is not directly involved in the actual plot at all. Even so if this short dialog is not mentioned in the plot area I DEMAND it to be mentioned in the article somewhere besides trivia seeing under wiki guidelines trivia is not allowed.

• To Commdor: How will it not further the understanding of the reader IF you do not include the character in the plot because you say he does not exist as a character in game. IF you mention Adam in the plot before you mention the quote, readers will understand than not include him at all.
• To The Guy: "Fact is that Adam Fenix does not play a major role in this game, and nor will he in this article." Like I said earlier, Its the exact case like the Queen in the first game she NEVER played a role at all and yet she is still mentioned as of her end of game Dialog. If you see it that way I might as well delete the Queen's ending quote in the Gears of War article. OR HELL delete anything mentioning the Queen as she does not exist in Gears of War. Wikipedia I agree is not a place for original research. Mentioning the Dialog is not original research because its a quote and not a statement of interpretation Example if someone adds "links the plot to the next game" then its considered original research seeing the quote is being analyzed. Stating a quote is not considered original research until its given unofficial meaning. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 02:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between what the reader needs to understand about the plot and pure flavor material. The ending quote is irrelevant to this game's plot, and adding it would provide nothing but speculation fodder. Mentioning Adam Fenix would be an elaboration of the plot, but overall an unnecessary one given that his "role" in the game is only as a short recording. Such details might be more suited for the character article, which is supposed to provide more background on the characters and their roles, but not here. -- Commdor {Talk} 03:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Locust queen plays a more significant role than Adam Fenix in both games. Also, Commdor never said the character does not exist, he said that he does not appear, except a recording in the Locust stronghold of the game, and another recording after the credits that has no immediate bearing on this game's plot. The queen, however, was a live voice, and that was clearly evident. With the end recording of Adam Fenix, it is not. Also, I would like to mention that I do not regularly edit the Gears of War article, but I do believe the Locust queen's final words do play significance. It is very clearly evident of events to come. That said, I do not think it should have been mentioned in that article until after the release of this game, when we can clearly confirm (albeit without reliable sources) that it has a significant bearing on this plot. But please, I would ask you to stop comparing the articles. This is an article about Gears of War 2, not Gears of War, and just because one article disobeys a guideline, does not mean you should argue that others can. Although, I do agree that you should delete the last sentence in the Gears of War article's plot about the queen. But I would like to ask this; even if this is not original research, how would it serve to further the readers' understanding? It would be quoting a statement, then leading it nowhere. There is no point to do that in an article on Wikipedia. --The Guy _complain ^edits 03:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that if we're looking for a good precedent, Halo 2 and Halo 3, both of which are featured articles, include details on their vaguely plot-relevant after-credit scenes. Peptuck (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Any game with a ending cliffhanger OR movie for instance has it mentioned in the article. For wikipedia, articles follow guidelines put in place by wikipedia itself. If one article is not like another doesn't mean that the article is right. If you look at it compare this article to OTHERS like Halo, Cloverfeild, Transformers, The Hulk, Iron Man which had something small at the end was mentioned in the article NO MATTER if it had a impact on the plot or not. Also about Gears of War your assuming the ending Dialog of the Queen was hint to there being a second game when a matter of fact Cliff Bleszinski has stated that "Gears of War was at first not intended to be a series and there was no plans for a second game but when it became a hit everything changed. The Dialog in the first place was put there just to grab the attention of the player when they beaten the game. What you said completely contradicts. You say this dialog is not hint to the 3rd game BUT the Queen's was hint to the second game when it was actually not. If you want I can find the article Cliff actually states that. IF you guys believe thats how to set up articles go ahead delete the cliffhangers in those articles I mentioned to prove your guys point that cliffhangers does not affect the plot (or most) and should not be included in the article at all.

Another thing I need to point out seeing your guys fear on the Ending Dialog confusing readers is that the current plot section cuts soooo much detail out of it that it already confuses the reader. I agree not to add ever single small detail BUT doesnt mean to leave out the secondary details that will help readers understand the main plotlines. The plot should be rewritten/cleaned up as of adding a little bit more to it will defiantly help the ending Dialog make more seance as it refers to the recent actions at the end NOT ABOUT THE NEXT GAME as of what is going on in the plot than just skipping around to the major events.

To Commdor: The mention of Adam Fenix is not even stated in the Character section of the Article, Though I want the Dialog to be actually be include ANYWHERE in the Gears of War 2 article besides trivia, The mention of Adam could go to the character section or the GoW2 article I dont mind, but I dont have time to actually commit and make a section for him as I do have a busy life. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you made one point about trends, but you failed to deliver on it. I'd like to see the guideline proving that we can add cliffhangers to articles, because I have seen many that contradict that. About Cliff's statement, go ahead and link me. I was making that statement ignorant of any quotes, besides remembering that Cliff originally said this was going to be a trilogy (before Gears 2 was even announced). For many of those articles you pointed out above, though, the "cliffhangers" (if that's what you really wanna call some of them, but I don't think they fit the description) have enough notability to be mentioned, that is, they have been discussed via many media outlets widely enough, this has not. But again we're comparing when we shouldn't be. Take a look at the plot summary policy, specifically the section about the length. It suggests 300-500 words, and it suggests to summarize the entire plot to only depict the main events of a work of fiction, not deep details, nor should quotes of dialogue be quoted. Here, I will pull you a specific quote: "Some editors feel that longer plot summaries are a good thing as they provide more information to the readers. However, in many cases a more concise summary may in fact be more informative, as it picks out only the truly important elements. By focusing the reader's attention on the larger structures of a plot, without drowning it in trivial detail, a shorter summary can often help the reader to understand a work much better than an overlong one." It says later in that section that plot summaries should indeed be enlarged for more complicated plots. Fact is that Gears of War 2 does not have an overly complicated plot summary, and the quote at the end of the plot summary, is not a major event, and so should not be mentioned. I mean we would take a longer sentence to explain a quote that appears for 5 seconds at the end of the game, than to explain Delta killing the Riftworm, which is an appropriately small sentence. The current plot summary is adequate. --The Guy _complain ^edits 19:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better myself, the quote from the policy clinches it.
And Mythic, you can add a section about Adam Fenix to the character article if you so desire, that is where he and the recordings would best fit in. I'd think that if you have enough time to make this protracted argument, then it would be no problem to add the section yourself. And I was not suggesting adding the ending quote to a "Trivia" section, since such sections are expressly discouraged; rather, I was arguing that the quote itself was trivial, and would not belong in the plot section nor any other part of this article. Again, if you insist on this info being included, then the more in-depth character article is the best place for it, not here. -- Commdor {Talk} 19:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yanno what forget it, seeing I always lose discussions every time i get into one do what you must to fix or screw up the article i don't care. To The Guy: Article Here it says that he really did not intend sequels but Microsoft wanted the series to be so he did seeing how much the game sold. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 04:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dosent the fact that the audio/video clip seen/heard by Marcus and Dom in the "complex" mean that Adam is infact an important character? In the clip he mentions a plan to sink Jacinto. Marcus then determines that it is the right course of action, and takes it back to the COG leaders and they agree. So without Adam Fenix, you have no Act IV or V, at least not the way the plot was written.

I love a good pointless argument. The end dialog is in the game, so we can mention it, probably under the 'plot' section. What we can't say is that it links to the next game, or that it implies a next game (although it almost certainly does both), as this would be original research. In my opinion, it should be mentioned.

Also, whilst I see what you're trying to say when you argue that Adam Fenix doesn't play a large role in the game, I don't agree with you. Should we miss Godot out of the 'Waiting for Godot' wiki entry just because you never see him in the play? Silly example, perhaps, but you get the point. Adam's messages influence a huge part of the plot (the decision to sink Jacinto). So anyway, I'm adding it to the plot section but feel free to revert my changes, because my last point is it's not that important anyway 86.135.82.201 (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Scrap that, it's semi-protected and I'm not making an account for this nonsense. But anyway, point made. 86.135.82.201 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not (well, at least I am not) questioning the role of Adam Fenix in the game. The question is what significance does the quote in itself hold? Zero. We do not say "Oh, this person said this that had no significance in the play/movie/game, but that person was pretty significant in themselves, so this must be mentionable as well." Uhh, no. Just because Mr. Fenix said it, that does not make it noteworthy. This holds true in a lot of cases. --The Guy _complain ^edits 23:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack needs to be added

There is a soundtrack for this game that I believe should be added to this article. Do we have plans on adding it? alby13 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You can go ahead and add it. Try and format it like in the first game's article (if you weren't already planning to do so). -- Commdor {Talk} 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning on adding it in the same format. Thanks. alby13 (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'd add it myself, but I don't have the cd and may not get it for a few weeks. -- Commdor {Talk} 00:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Riepl?

Does anybody know why Kevin Riepl didn't compose for the sequel? I've only heard the music from the original and it's awesome. I have some doubts about Jablonsky. I don't think he will be as good as Riepl. --Surten (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Surten

I've hear the main theme for Gears 2, and it sounds exactly like Transformers. Should they put that into consideration?--Surten (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Surten

I've never heard why Riepl was replaced, but from this article, it appears that Epic thought Riepl was small potatoes compared to Jablonsky, and he was hired over Riepl likely because they thought he would do an even better job with the music. I guess Epic thought they needed a composer with a bigger resume. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum, if you can find something from epic explaining why and can put it in without going off message then go ahead. But otherwise we can't do anything.(58.168.78.208 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

Mention?

On the Gears 2 launch the Live servise broke a new record of most people on Live at one time. I think I heard Major N. say that or I read it on some game news site. I think it deserves a mention in the article somewhere. (Assuming someone knows what I'm talking about and can put the source aswel)mcnichoj (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is in the article. Under "Sales" of all places. Probably the best place for now unless it sets more records, then a "Records" header should be made.

It makes more sense to be in a sales section, since it is a reflection of the game's retail success. A records section isn't a good idea because there's no telling if the game will ever break any more such records, and one instance alone does not deserve its own section. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay

Why does the gameplay section start off talking about brumarks? Shouldnt it cover basic game play or is that too game-guide-y? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.187.129 (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

In the last paragraph on gameplay, "game" is spelt "gamee".

Also in the last paragraph, "Players can also ride a Brumak in the game; previously, the Brumak could only be fought by the player as an enemy, in the PC version of the game" should be changed to "Players can also ride a Brumak in the game; previously, the Brumak could only be fought by the player as an enemy, in the previous version of the game" as the game wasn't released exclusively for PC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willemvzyl (talk • contribs) 19:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GOTY

Say the game won some E3 awards and hide the fact that lost many GOTY awards is POV. For some balacing, I added the fact the first game won 2006 award at Gamespot and now was not even nominated for main Game of the Year award. --Ciao 90 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats a little pointless, should we do that for ever game and every award?(124.179.43.86 (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC))

Not winning the award this year may be a fact, but that does not mean it should be added. Why should we mention in this article every award that this game hasn't won? If Gears 2 didn't win GOTY, then there's nothing to say, unless it was nominated and didn't win. Keep in mind this article is about Gears of War 2, not about its predecessor or how well it did in comparison to its predecessor. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Gears of war 2 torrent discovered

i think we should add in a sction on how a torrent was found on a file sharing website "Xboxer360.com reports thats a Gears of War 2 Torrent has been uncovered in the murky underworld of file-sharing websites." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smythface (talk • contribs) 00:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be worth documenting when a reputable source covers the topic. Xboxer360.com is not loading properly on my system. However, an article on GamerBlorge mentions the leak.[4]. There's also something on Kotaku about it.[5] --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked one torrent site I know, and as far as I can tell from the comments, the file posted is legit. Everyone who downloaded says it worked fine. Search ThePirateBay for Gears of War 2 if you don't believe me.

We don't need to know if the torrent is real or not, what we need is a reliable source pointing out that there has been a leak and the developer is taking steps to prevent further leaks and punish those responsible for the current ones. Any link to the torrent file in this article will be removed as spam. -- Commdor {Talk} 19:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree; we shouldn't mention the torrent unless a more reliable source comes up. --DJS24 18:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it against Wikipedia regulations to add illegal information to the page seeing torrents are illegal anyway. Also seeing that Microsoft have access to this page they can do more than see actually found the torrent. I just say least keep the article to only state that the game was leaked before release date. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 01:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Torrents are not illegal. 62.56.126.73 (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to nitpick, no, torrents aren't illegal in and of themselves, but downloading and utilizing a torrent for the purpose of downloading copyrighted material is. Just like cars- not illegal until you hit someone with it. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictures in template

This is the template I am referring to template:

Currently in said template, we have a picture of the limited edition version, which I snapped myself. Now, I would snap the regular edition, but I don't have it, and I won't until Christmas (when my dad gets the game, and I'll be able to snap it at Christmas Eve). Now, I don't want to wait until Christmas to add this, so if anybody else could take a snapshot of their entire package, booklet, disc, etc, I'd appreciate it. PM me and I'll add it to the template. --The Guy _complain ^edits 00:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Better late than never. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 20:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)