Slashdot Mirror
Mixed Impressions For Gears of War
jayintune writes "One of the writers from 2old2play had a chance to sit down with the multiplayer section of Gears Of War for a hands on review after a public screening of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The game comes off as a little less then stellar as the author sites controller issues and game mechanics as having some disappointing flaws." Richard at Aeropause, on the other hand, just loved the game when he played the title in Chicago. "The best thing about Gears though had to be that fact that it was a breeze to pick up and play. The controls were perfect and felt as if they needed no tweaking whatsoever. Moving from cover point to cover point was easy and a lot of fun." At least, if things go badly, the game was 'cheap' to make. Mark Rein of Epic Games is quoted as saying Gears 'only' cost $10 Million to make. While that's still a lot, it's much lower than the $30 Million some companies are claiming is required for next-gen gamemaking.
That would be "cites". Go editors!
In other shock news reported today it has become apparent that people can have different opinions, and that you cannot please everyone all of the time.
Is gears of war suddenly so important that Slashdot is publishing links to pre-previews as some sort of scoop?
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
Yeah, that doesn't include the hundreds of millions they have spent developing their tech over the past 10 years...
Honestly, does it surprise anyone that a game that was hyped based off of its graphics and is sold based off of it's Mature content is an average game? I hate to be the one to tell you, but expect most big name Next Generation games to let you down.
What so many people do not understand about the PS3 and XBox 360 is that with the increase in complexity of content development there is a much higher risk of producing a bad game.
If you read the first article is seems more like the author liked the overall game but just had some difficulty adjusting to the controls. I've played GoW and I can understand where he's coming from; it took me a while to master the controls, however I'm not much of a console shooter player and I have an awful time at games like Halo on Xbox. Once I got used to the GoW controls I liked them much better than most other console shooters so YMMV.
Gears of War was never meant to be Microsoft's 'big game' or 'system seller'.
It was a easy way for Epic to crank out another bald space marine style game as an exclusive while they worked on their main focus UT. The Gears team is definitely one of Epics B teams in talent. The game is dreadfully average. Although I hear it has gotten better, it has been a jaggy and low-fps mess that has been living off of bogus high rez marketing shots - the infamous bright shiny armor shots everyone has seen so many times.
Epic really dug their own grave with the game and the bogus screenshots. People are going to be shocked to see what it really looks like in person. The days of gamers being impressed with low-poly overly normalmapped shiny armor are long gone.
Ignoring the outdated graphics and focusing just on the game, it pretty much is ten hours of popup, shoot,popdown,popup,shoot,move foreward through the level. Repeat.
Microsoft isn't going to be selling anymore 360s from the game. The lack of other big games this holiday on the 360 assures the game will sell well to existing 360 owners though.
Apparently, stealing entire articles and republishing them as your own right, left and center is to be rewarded. Hence 2old2play being given two Slashdottings in two days. 2old2write? 2old2research? Probably be more accurate. Plus, if you're 2old2play, what are you writing about? NOT playing?
About 1,500 journalists played Gears of War's multiplayer mode (8 player system link) at X06 in Barcelona last week (me being one of them), and the majoritative response was that it held up well and should become one of Xbox Live's most played titles. I have to say that I agree - I thought it was superb fun and saw no issue with the control system. An above poster is right - everyone has their opinions and they should be respected.
Just make sure they're your OWN opinions guys, huh?
Are you sure you didn't mean FTFC? : p
This guy's the limit!
Sounds like it's one of those super-realistic FPSs, where you have to really aim and work with your team and stuff.
I could never get into those, personally. I just want to kill things. Isn't the full "simulation"-type FPS more of a PC thing? Isn't the console market more about "fast action", like Halo (which isn't that fast, but you know what I mean)? I'm curious how 360 owners will respond.
So far, the 360 really seems like a cheap(er) way to play high-end PC games. It doesn't have many traditional console-y games, in my opinion.
The word is cites. A site is a location. To cite is to make a citation.
I always expected Gears of War to cause mixed impressions... its one of those games that looks good but doesn't play as well as you would hope. I'm sure it will be a decent game, but all this hype is starting to make me sick. I have some doubts about GoW... although I'll probably buy it anyway. And the cost of 10 million doesn't include all the time and money they spent on developing the Unreal 3 Engine... so it's safe to say it only took 70% of a traditional FPS development team to make Gears of War.
Slashvertisement much?
I've got to say I'm definitely aching to try this game out, it's coming out for pc too right?
Is that $10 million total, or $10 million just for Gears of War? It's been built using Unreal Engine 3, which Epic have also been working on simultaneously, and I believe using Gears to demo the tech. Separating the cost of developing that engine from Gears' cost is fair enough, but it's also pretty deceptive.
It's not technically a First-Person Shooter (FPS) game, since the view is in the 3rd-person, over-the-shoulder. It's got a lot of the same elements otherwise, though, where aiming is important and it is team-based. So technically not an FPS, but it sure acts like one. And it is a "fast action" game, not a "simulation" type.
... or at least open up a new "sub-genre" of the FPS.
Lost Planet is another similar title. I just recently checked out the demo on Live Marketplace, and it has similar control-scheme. I remember reading somewhere that it was Capcom's attempt to make an FPS-like game that Japanese gamers would actually like. That is, have a lot of the action elements, without the traditional FPS control scheme that a lot of folks (myself included) don't like on a console. (I much prefer keyboard + mouse)
If both those games really take off, then that might signify the end of the traditonal FPS control scheme
BTW - I got a chance to play Gears of War as well, and I have to say that it did take a little bit of time to get used to. But that was a good thing, since as I mentioned before, I'm not a fan of traditional FPS console controls. I liked it quite a bit, and am definately looking forward to it. I suspect that all Epic Games needs to do is release a demo of it on Live Marketplace, and that alone should sell a lot of copies (similar to how it helped Dead Rising really succeed almost out of nowhere). I'm always a fan of letting people try things out themselves, rather than hyping it to death using traditional marketing.
-- jchenx
"Screw multiplayer, where are the CRABS!"
Check your underwear.
The old guy's complaints don't sound too serious to me. One is that you can't fire from cover, from what I've seen you just need to get to the edge of cover and you can fire. His ohter complaint is that you have to aim to hit your targets, and that you can't run around when aiming, well duh!
I bet they didn't include costs for the development for the Unreal Engine 3, which the dev team used as middleware.
A friend is looking forward to this and I said 'Ah, I'll have to try the demo' and he told me there wouldn't be one. My response? 'Oh, it'll suck then.'
There's only 1 reason not to provide a demo of such a hyped game: They think they'll get more sales if people have to buy it blind.
Sad, but true.
People used to say it was a size problem blah blah blah... There's demos over a GB on XBLA. Size is no excuse.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
You may be right. It may suck. I'm taking the wait and see approach myself. But, to the team's credit, they said they didn't have time to come up with a solid demo and finish the game on time.
Gears 'only' cost $10 Million to make. While that's still a lot, it's much lower than the $30 Million some companies are claiming is required for next-gen gamemaking.
The justification for needing to charge $60/game rather than the more normal ~$40 for the last generation was that games had got so much more expensive to make.
If this game only costs a third as much as these allegedly super-expensive next gen games, will that be passed on to the consumer at one third the price, too? At $20/copy, the increased volume should ensure stores, distributors, etc. can more than make up for the decrease in per unit profits.
Unless, of course, $60 has next to nothing to do with actual costs of making a game and everything to do with carefully calculating what you can gouge consumers for in exchange for the promise of "next gen". Now why exactly was Lego StarWars II, exactly the same game as on other consoles, suddenly $10 more on a 360?
I was actually invited to take part in the TCM / Gears of War preview through my website jackass critics but didn't take part.
From viewing the many and trailers / previews.. I will say that Gears of War looks like an updated Kill.Switch. Painful "on the rails" gameplay, with nice looking graphics.
I'll be interested in seeing how it works out. XBL Marketplace Demo will be very telling, when it's released.
www.jackasscritics.com