Why is Multplayer so small??? - Page 2

L0n3c0mrad · 06-06-2007, 02:33 PM

I agree with you, dimitri. The four on four is better than eight on eight because you don't have to worry so much about being killed. plus, the maps don't have to be so big then, allowing the developers to put more DETAIL into them than size. Plus, with more people in a gears of war game, it would be crazy! you'd be getting pot-shotted every which way!

iancmysterio · 24-06-2007, 02:25 PM

i heard that GOW 2 will support for people live up to 6 v 6 on some maps

iancmysterio · 24-06-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperGentleJoe

Mik you look so stoned in ur pic

indeed!

SuperGentleJoe · 24-06-2007, 05:03 PM

OMG!!! Thank you iancmysterio i thought i was the only one who noticed

ElderScroller27 · 25-06-2007, 01:27 PM

The size of the maps is a balance to the flow of the battle...and the weapons available... it's just all in balance man..... the only weapon that can be freaking unbalanced is a Longshot in the hands of the host with some shooting ability..

stonespike · 25-06-2007, 04:17 PM

Every weapon is unbalanced when the host has it. I'd say the Torque Bow and the Longshot are the 2 weapons that don't rely on host damage-- since they are usually 2 shots = kill weapons.

SuperGentleJoe · 25-06-2007, 05:18 PM

Yea I hate host advantage.. they own you and if you start to kill them they just end the match. I hope in gow 2 they fix host advantage. It really ruins the game at some points. And a major reason why gears isnt as popular as it could be