Slashdot Mirror
Gears of War Review
Reaching for perfection is a funny thing. By aiming for a high mark of quality, you ensure that your end product is as good as you can possibly make it. The reality is, of course, that perfection is unattainable. Every work of art, be it book, painting, movie, or videogame, is going to be flawed in some way; this is the reality of being human, after all. Gears of War, on that note, is far from perfect. The much-hyped and highly anticipated Xbox 360 shooter from Epic suffers from some truly terrible AI, a brief single-player campaign, and some unfortunately rough storytelling. Just the same, the flaws in this particular gem make the whole gleam that much brighter. Gears may just be the best game to be released on the 360 this year, and deserves the attention of anyone who enjoys holding a controller. Read on for my impressions of CliffyB's masterpiece, spots and all.
When we pick up the story, Marcus is just being retrieved from rotting in a jail cell by his long time friend Dom. He was imprisoned for some unknown transgression (we're told nothing more than 'cowardice'), but what with the war on everyone has gotten a 'get out of jail free' card. Dom and Marcus flee the jailhouse, and hook back up with members of the tough-as-nails members of the 'Gears'. The squad Marcus hooks up with is on a mission: take the fight to the enemy. They do so, again and again, in some incredibly varied and rich locales. Act 1's broken city-scape turns deadly at night in Act 2, and is followed in Act 3 by a haunting factory and mining complex. The only real dissapointment is the somehow more brief Act 5, which takes place very quickly on a speeding train. The story that follows those acts raises far more questions than it does answers, with a sequel obviously in mind at the game's conclusion. What's surprising is that, even with this bare-bones story and somewhat stereotypical heroes on screen, Gears of War is actually a fairly grippy tale. A combination of looks, cinematography, and genuinely likable characters accomplishes what less technically advanced titles have failed to do; for once, shiny tech actually does somewhat compensate for weak storytelling.
The likable characters are probably the weightiest of those three elements. As much as George Lucas would like you to believe otherwise, a good camera angle won't make a boring character interesting. Aside from some swear-laiden and utterly predictable dialogue, they've almost always got some interesting commentary on a given situation. Strong vocal performances give you a clear sense of who these guys are. While we don't get to know any of them well, we are given at least some sense of what they did before the war. As much as your average nerd may dislike a ropy-armed ex-football player on principle, it's hard to feel that way for long when he jokingly refers to himself as 'The Cole Train' ... and then proceeds to pepper the next ten hours or so of gameplay with references to his nickname. It's all weirdly endearing, and Epic's ability to make you care about these guys is a big selling point for future chapters in the series.
What's not endearing is how profoundly and utterly stupid these likable fellows are during actual gameplay. It is almost impossible to get across how totally unhelpful your AI assistants are during most of the game. The game's unique and highly enjoyable 'cover' system makes for high survivability in firefights. This trait is almost entirely negated if you take cover on the side facing your assailants. By the same token, mindlessly mantling back and forth over a wall while people shoot at you is not helpful. Wandering aimlessly back the way you've come while skittering horrors assail the human player is not helpful. Running straight into the fire-line of a blazing mounted weapon so that you can engage in melee combat with a grunt ... well, it's a wonder you make it to the end of the game with any AI helpers at all.
Why this aspect of gameplay was so grossly overlooked is beyond me, but most others easily surpass it in terms of polish. The 'stop and pop' playstyle suggested by the cover system works wonderfully, for example. Touted as the main attraction for the game, it's effortless to move from one area of cover to the next. Pulling the left trigger raises you up out of concealment, allowing you to lay into your opponents and quickly disappear to safety. You can no-look fire from cover as well, affording you almost complete safety. Not only is it thematically appropriate for the war on Sera, but the system almost requires some degree of forethought. Questions like "Where do I go from here?" "How can I flank him?" reveals a level of tactical depth not usually seen in console FPS titles.
In fact, most other elements of the game allow a level of tactics that has been sorely missing from the genre. The reload mini-game was questioned as a waste of time by several people I've spoken to, but extended play shows the damage boost and time savings you get from playing accurately to make a huge difference. Essentially, when you hit the reload button a slider moves along a horizontal bar. If you hit the button again in a small window along the bar, you'll reload faster. Hit it in the exact right spot, and your reloaded bullets do extra damage. In tight situations, this extra damage can mean the difference between taking on several enemies at once (almost always a losing proposition in this game), and going one-on-one. It's a small element in the overall gameplay, but a good example of how the designers have managed to make the game more thought-intensive without being clumsy.
The game's multiplayer modes allow these strategic elements to come to the fore. I've had the most experience with co-op mode, which is available both in split-screen and via Xbox Live. As the enemy AI suffers none of the abject stupidity your squad mates are cursed with, pitting yourself and another human against the might of the Locust is an incredibly satisfying experience. Flanking enemy groups, planning out routes through a given map, and discussing which weapons to use in a given encounter makes the final piece of the puzzle fall into place. Co-op multiplayer over Xbox Live in hardcore mode may just be the finest experience the Xbox 360 has to offer. It's challenging, seamless, and deeply engaging. This is the best way to play Gears of War, and has to be tried at least once by everyone who owns the disc.
More combative multiplayer is something of a mixed bag. It's quite a bit of fun ... when you can get a good group together. The problem is that, unlike the extremely robust multiplayer system offered by Halo 2, Gears of War has an almost primitive matchmaking system. Consistent teams are not allowed by the current setup. There are also currently only three gameplay types, meaning that you're going to be playing a lot of team vs. team deathmatch and not much else. Given the game's overwhelming reception there are sure to be improvements and additions to the multiplayer component, and despite the lack of variety Gears' multiplayer is already very popular. Last week Gears finally dethroned Halo 2 as the most-played title via Xbox Live. Just the same, it's frustrating that what could have been another slam-dunk element of the game is so comparatively weak.
The game's biggest slam-dunk, of course, is its graphical presentation. The beauty Gears of War offers has been endlessly discussed, and can be seen in the screenshots included here. Suffice it to say that everything you've heard about the game's beauty is spot-on. Gears looks perfect. It's even more breathtaking to behold while in motion, and Epic very kindly allows you the opportunity to stop and smell the roses every once in a while. Pre-launch fears that the entire game would be a never-ending slog through greys and browns were unfounded. The game offers a differing palette of colors and effects from act to act, with the rain-soaked and subterranean portions of a factory in Act III probably getting my vote for most vivid locale. Even if you're not a console shooter fan, or hate Microsoft, or despise videogames, the visual feat that is Gears of War is just not possible to dismiss. This game is the first title I've seen to really deliver on the promise of 'next gen' graphics, and I can only hope more titles like it mark the rest of the 360's run.
So, again, we're back to the concept of perfection. The synthetic beauty on display in Gears of War is as close to perfect we've yet seen from this no-longer-next generation of consoles. With elements like innovative movement controls, subtle tactical elements, and an extraordinarily gripping co-op offering, it's hard to fault outlets that have given this game a 10 out of 10. Just the same, it's impossible to overlook the controller-tossing frustration of the AI or the lack of modernity in the game's multiplayer component. If you haven't bought the game yet, probably the best thing you can do is find out if you have a friend that already has it. If you do, you've got the recipe in place for co-op, which is the way this game really should be played. And, after all, there are sequels on the way. If nothing else, Gears of War makes you feel confident in owning a 360, and hopeful for the future of the system.
- Title: Gears of War
- Publisher: Microsoft Game Studios
- Developer: Epic Systems
- System: Xbox 360
When we pick up the story, Marcus is just being retrieved from rotting in a jail cell by his long time friend Dom. He was imprisoned for some unknown transgression (we're told nothing more than 'cowardice'), but what with the war on everyone has gotten a 'get out of jail free' card. Dom and Marcus flee the jailhouse, and hook back up with members of the tough-as-nails members of the 'Gears'. The squad Marcus hooks up with is on a mission: take the fight to the enemy. They do so, again and again, in some incredibly varied and rich locales. Act 1's broken city-scape turns deadly at night in Act 2, and is followed in Act 3 by a haunting factory and mining complex. The only real dissapointment is the somehow more brief Act 5, which takes place very quickly on a speeding train. The story that follows those acts raises far more questions than it does answers, with a sequel obviously in mind at the game's conclusion. What's surprising is that, even with this bare-bones story and somewhat stereotypical heroes on screen, Gears of War is actually a fairly grippy tale. A combination of looks, cinematography, and genuinely likable characters accomplishes what less technically advanced titles have failed to do; for once, shiny tech actually does somewhat compensate for weak storytelling.
The likable characters are probably the weightiest of those three elements. As much as George Lucas would like you to believe otherwise, a good camera angle won't make a boring character interesting. Aside from some swear-laiden and utterly predictable dialogue, they've almost always got some interesting commentary on a given situation. Strong vocal performances give you a clear sense of who these guys are. While we don't get to know any of them well, we are given at least some sense of what they did before the war. As much as your average nerd may dislike a ropy-armed ex-football player on principle, it's hard to feel that way for long when he jokingly refers to himself as 'The Cole Train' ... and then proceeds to pepper the next ten hours or so of gameplay with references to his nickname. It's all weirdly endearing, and Epic's ability to make you care about these guys is a big selling point for future chapters in the series.
What's not endearing is how profoundly and utterly stupid these likable fellows are during actual gameplay. It is almost impossible to get across how totally unhelpful your AI assistants are during most of the game. The game's unique and highly enjoyable 'cover' system makes for high survivability in firefights. This trait is almost entirely negated if you take cover on the side facing your assailants. By the same token, mindlessly mantling back and forth over a wall while people shoot at you is not helpful. Wandering aimlessly back the way you've come while skittering horrors assail the human player is not helpful. Running straight into the fire-line of a blazing mounted weapon so that you can engage in melee combat with a grunt ... well, it's a wonder you make it to the end of the game with any AI helpers at all.
Why this aspect of gameplay was so grossly overlooked is beyond me, but most others easily surpass it in terms of polish. The 'stop and pop' playstyle suggested by the cover system works wonderfully, for example. Touted as the main attraction for the game, it's effortless to move from one area of cover to the next. Pulling the left trigger raises you up out of concealment, allowing you to lay into your opponents and quickly disappear to safety. You can no-look fire from cover as well, affording you almost complete safety. Not only is it thematically appropriate for the war on Sera, but the system almost requires some degree of forethought. Questions like "Where do I go from here?" "How can I flank him?" reveals a level of tactical depth not usually seen in console FPS titles.
In fact, most other elements of the game allow a level of tactics that has been sorely missing from the genre. The reload mini-game was questioned as a waste of time by several people I've spoken to, but extended play shows the damage boost and time savings you get from playing accurately to make a huge difference. Essentially, when you hit the reload button a slider moves along a horizontal bar. If you hit the button again in a small window along the bar, you'll reload faster. Hit it in the exact right spot, and your reloaded bullets do extra damage. In tight situations, this extra damage can mean the difference between taking on several enemies at once (almost always a losing proposition in this game), and going one-on-one. It's a small element in the overall gameplay, but a good example of how the designers have managed to make the game more thought-intensive without being clumsy.
The game's multiplayer modes allow these strategic elements to come to the fore. I've had the most experience with co-op mode, which is available both in split-screen and via Xbox Live. As the enemy AI suffers none of the abject stupidity your squad mates are cursed with, pitting yourself and another human against the might of the Locust is an incredibly satisfying experience. Flanking enemy groups, planning out routes through a given map, and discussing which weapons to use in a given encounter makes the final piece of the puzzle fall into place. Co-op multiplayer over Xbox Live in hardcore mode may just be the finest experience the Xbox 360 has to offer. It's challenging, seamless, and deeply engaging. This is the best way to play Gears of War, and has to be tried at least once by everyone who owns the disc.
More combative multiplayer is something of a mixed bag. It's quite a bit of fun ... when you can get a good group together. The problem is that, unlike the extremely robust multiplayer system offered by Halo 2, Gears of War has an almost primitive matchmaking system. Consistent teams are not allowed by the current setup. There are also currently only three gameplay types, meaning that you're going to be playing a lot of team vs. team deathmatch and not much else. Given the game's overwhelming reception there are sure to be improvements and additions to the multiplayer component, and despite the lack of variety Gears' multiplayer is already very popular. Last week Gears finally dethroned Halo 2 as the most-played title via Xbox Live. Just the same, it's frustrating that what could have been another slam-dunk element of the game is so comparatively weak.
The game's biggest slam-dunk, of course, is its graphical presentation. The beauty Gears of War offers has been endlessly discussed, and can be seen in the screenshots included here. Suffice it to say that everything you've heard about the game's beauty is spot-on. Gears looks perfect. It's even more breathtaking to behold while in motion, and Epic very kindly allows you the opportunity to stop and smell the roses every once in a while. Pre-launch fears that the entire game would be a never-ending slog through greys and browns were unfounded. The game offers a differing palette of colors and effects from act to act, with the rain-soaked and subterranean portions of a factory in Act III probably getting my vote for most vivid locale. Even if you're not a console shooter fan, or hate Microsoft, or despise videogames, the visual feat that is Gears of War is just not possible to dismiss. This game is the first title I've seen to really deliver on the promise of 'next gen' graphics, and I can only hope more titles like it mark the rest of the 360's run.
So, again, we're back to the concept of perfection. The synthetic beauty on display in Gears of War is as close to perfect we've yet seen from this no-longer-next generation of consoles. With elements like innovative movement controls, subtle tactical elements, and an extraordinarily gripping co-op offering, it's hard to fault outlets that have given this game a 10 out of 10. Just the same, it's impossible to overlook the controller-tossing frustration of the AI or the lack of modernity in the game's multiplayer component. If you haven't bought the game yet, probably the best thing you can do is find out if you have a friend that already has it. If you do, you've got the recipe in place for co-op, which is the way this game really should be played. And, after all, there are sequels on the way. If nothing else, Gears of War makes you feel confident in owning a 360, and hopeful for the future of the system.
stop crying. this game rocks.
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
I love it when a review doesn't bother to mention the system specs. Will this run on a basic Core System, do you need a hard drive or a high resolution screen?
Didn't Oblivion come out this year?
"The much-hyped and highly anticipated Xbox 360 shooter from Epic suffers from some truly terrible AI, a brief single-player campaign, and some unfortunately rough storytelling. Just the same, the flaws in this particular gem make the whole gleam that much brighter. Gears may just be the best game to be released on the 360 this year,"
Sounds like a bad game (not saying it is) yet its the best game on he 360. Dosn't this just say that the platform has few good games?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Pre-launch fears that the entire game would be a never-ending slog through greys and browns were unfounded. The game offers a differing palette of colors and effects from act to act
OK, I believe you, but the three screenshots you chose to attach to this review look like a bunch of greys and browns. I look forward to seeing the game myself.
How does one play a game enough to give a review and not know that you're Delta squad FINDING Alpha squad in the game?
Plus, I'd swear I read nearly the identical review somewhere else...
... just wait until Duke Nukem Forever is released!
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
How do you have good technology when you have a terrible developer?
Wow, spending most of the review focusing on supposedly crappy AI and crappy plot, only to barely mention graphics and the end and some multiplayer action as being great. Personally, I think Gears of War is awesome. The AI really isn't as bad as Zonk makes it seem. The folks on your side duck and cover and flank left or right, and the enemies do, too. On occasion they do pop up for too long, or run for different cover, and go down. If the AI were absolutely "perfect", you could simply hide the whole game and let the bots kill everything for you. Instead, you find yourself running to save them during a firefight. Multiplayer is a blast, too. Co-op is seemless, almost no lag, and deathmatch is the same. This game really shines.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
I thought that the AI in this game was more than terrible... I was impressed by the amount of interaction and co-operation by the AI. At one point, my buddy and I were being pinned down by four AI, and could not get out without being owned, because they were cross-firing and pinning us down. IMHO the AI was one of the strongest points of the game.
It is by FAR the best game out this year.
I don't have an XBox 360, but the people I know who do all bought this game they have all finished it (multiple times). I hear that there are some new maps for it coming soon, but the game seems kind of short, with little replay value.
Anyone care to correct me on that?
crazy dynamite monkey
Zonk's review sucks. This game really is awesome. I think he falls somewhere in the very very small category of people who won't be pleased no matter what you do. I have *never* seen better graphics in any other game, the AI isn't nearly as bad as he imagines, and the multiplayer is great. Your comment is true in a sense that most other games on the 360 look so "first gen" after playing Gears of War.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
The visuals are, indeed, stunning. The only things that don't look practically raytraced are splashing liquids - and, unfortunately, the contrast between the blood spray graphics and the rest of the game make the blood spray stand out as disappointing. That being said, I'm unaware of any other title that does such particle effects better. One other caveat, it has some of the "shininess" to it that is characteristic of the UT enginge (IMHO), and which will certainly be familiar to JRPG fans.
At the same time, the allied AI is mind-bogglingly bad. Perhaps this can be offset by issuing squad commands; that's a game mechanic I haven't really exploited at all. But watching Dom race from off screen behind you into your rifle fire to go hand-to-hand with a Grub is a singularly frustrating experience, right up there with following Isabela in Dead Rising.
The story itself isn't real thoroughly developed (it falls short of Halo, and certainly of HL), but the exposition of the setting is fantastic. You really get the grittiness of the world, the futility of the war, and the deep-seated cynicism of the soldiers who have managed to survive this long. It does the best job I've seen since FreeSpace 1 of putting you on the losing side of a war.
Unfortunately, it does suffer from what all console FPSes that I've played suffer from: pretty much complete linearity. It's not that I look to the FPS genre for massive environments to free-form explore, but it doesn't even bother having significant alternate and/or dead-end paths. You miss out on the worry of deciding which way to go, trying to figure out which way is the way into the level, and which way is the way to the powerup. Again, though, that's hardly unique to this game (or even limited entirely to consoles - it's just that the only FPSes I've seen that don't have you on rails are on the PC).
Collecting the COG tags seems a tacked-on afterthought; the game isn't exploration-oriented enough for me to find it entertaining to try to track them all down.
It's worth noting that this is also the only FPS I actually wouldn't rather play with a KB+M setup - but then, I'm not one of the KB+M jihadists that are running around, either. Rather than trying to replicate the KB+M interface on the console as so many shooters do (and always lose in the translation), the game is designed from the ground up with the controller in mind.
But the game does what it does very, very well - in my opinion, this is, without a doubt, the high-water mark for campaign-mode FPS titles on the console, and rivals some of the best campaign-mode FPS titles on the PC (with the caveat that I haven't played Resistance: Fall of Man). If you have any interest at all in single player/co-op FPSes on a console, you're doing yourself a grave disservice if you don't play this game. By the same token, of course, if you have no interest whatsoever in that style of game (if you only play FPSes for multiplayer, for example, or if you don't like the FPS genre at all), then there's nothing here to interest you.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
Speak for yourself, i found UT99, Unreal 1, and Ut2004 to be some of the best multiplayer FPS of all time
UT99 is still played more on the LAN at every college in the area than any other game
{The reality is, of course, that perfection is unattainable.}
I just took a dump that is perfect in every conceivable way.
1 foot long, 4 inches circumference,
2 wipes
and a scream from the next person that wandered upon my present.
On a more serious note, let's stop waxing intellectual about art. I think everybody over 10 can intuit that nothing is perfect. Except me.
The multiplayer is seriously flawed. It gives constant "connection to host lost" errors, and you can't have 2 people on the same xbox on live without 2 live accounts (who the hell does that). The games are very short as well, and there aren't a lot of game modes! I really hope they release something on the marketplace that will give more multiplayer options, it must be doable and for once it would be worth it. Having said that, the game is amazing and the maps are incredible. Lets just tone down the damned chainsaw and make the shotgun a little more effective and we'd be rocking!
There aren't many dislikes to this game. The big one is that this game is too short. Also the enemies shotgun range seems to be longer than when I use the shotgun. There are scenerios that don't playout well or aren't as exciting as they could be.
First example is when Marcus and Dom need to retrieve a vehicle. Well I never thought that once we got the car that we would drive it. To my surprise you do drive it. The vehile looks tight and drives pretty well, but the game play just blows and feels out of place. It does break up the game play a bit, but when you play it the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th time, it becomes a hurdle to get back to gunning.
The 2nd example is when you go underground and have to find the carts to get to another section. Well the cart scenerio could have been exciting and fun, but it was boring and you rarely have to get up from your cart to do anything. This should have involved high speed chases and shooting Locust who chase you in other carts. Co-op could have been great on this scene, but like I said it was boring.
Other than that I rate this game great. I'm currently playing through on INSANE using DOM on Co-Op to unlock my achievements. I would recommend getting it or going over to a friends house who has it.
Can I bum a sig?
http://xbox360.ign.com/index/reviews.html
Doesn't look that way to me. An awful lot of 8+ scores in the recent releases. Could have been more clearly worded I suppose.
- Toby
You can certainly read his review that way, but that's not an accurate conclusion. The game is excellent, among the best FPSes I've ever played, and certainly the best on a console.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
I've always respected Slashdot's uncanny ability to overanalyze, but about putting on a condom?? Oh, and too funny that it's on a gaming article.
my blog
Interesting choice of wording. He basically says the the games has several problems, but the problems make the game better? Huh? How does that work? I think he may have meant that even though it has issues, it's a good game in spite of them, not because of them...
whatever..
I'm a fan of Epic and all, but never played an Xbox anything game in my life...so if [one of] the best games for the Xbox has that many down sides, then it does indeed highlight the lack of excellent games out there for it.
Ha! That honor goes to Twilight Princess, my friend.
Gears of War is YAS (Yet Another Shooter) for the XBox 360.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Are the mods accepting bribes from gaming companies of late? Gotta pay for site bandwidth somehow...
I have no idea what Zonk's problem is. I own the game. I'm not a fanboy - I had always thought GoW was going to suck. I was _immensely_ surprised when the excellent reviews came in.
The friendly AI isn't that bad. It's not great, mind you, but calling it "some of the worst ever seen" is just _not true_. Your team mates get killed a little too often, but they do a reasonably good job of killing the enemy, too.
The humor isn't stale. There are many funny lines in the game. The story isn't as bad as Zonk makes it out to be - apparently he's easily-distracted and illiterate. I mean, it's not an RPG, but it keeps you going.
The reloading mechanism (calling it a mini-game sounds wrong) adds _tremendously_ to the title. It creates a tense, spur-of-the-moment decision on whether the risk of blowing the reload is worth the reward. And, trust me, you'll blow it sometimes. The fact that it's "not realistic" is totally irrelevant - I mean, is that any worse than the friggin' Locust Horde emerging from underground?
This game is fantastic. Best ever? Maybe not. But it'll stand pretty nicely in the top 20 console games of all time right now. If you own a 360 and like third-person shooters at all, it's a must-buy.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
and Twilight Princess is YAZ (yet another Zelda).
oops there goes my karma
No. Reading the review has only told you that Zonk thinks that the story is weak, humor stale, AI == Bad, etc. Unless you are the same person, wouldn't you agree that it's best to try things out yourself?
The only thing you can do while reloading your weapon to do more damage is to chamber a more powerful (or explosive...) round.
That's because you don't have a gun from this funky future post-apocalyptic game. Magic? Scifi? Whatever, it works and it's fun.
You gotta give him props to admit that his favorite game is a "princess" game... ;)
I normally don't touch an FPS without a keyboard and mouse, so it has to be one of the best games ever for me to be at all interested. No FPS will ever likely be on my top 20 games for consoles list, no matter what the rest of the world says. At least, not unless it supports KB+Mouse...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Mostly because it can play on almost anything. Heck, I played it at LAN parties probably 5 years after it came out.
jason
If you have an Xbox 360 and do not own/intend on owning this game. shoot yourself. The few flaws are passable because of the gripping gameplay. you'll have a blast with this game. if you somehow do not enjoy this game then go back to playing with your barbies.
You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.
Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies
I think the intention is to say that the game is flawed, but despite those flaws the overall product is excellent.
I'd be inclined to agree. I've been playing the campaign in co-op for a couple days, and it's the most fun I've ever had with a 360.
Sorry, the subject just fit with yours
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
A troll is when you say something you don't believe in order to elicit a desired response. Offtopic is when something is, you know, off topic. Which this is not. It's a response to the interview.
At least no one has yet used overrated, which as we all know is simply what cowards do to avoid metamoderation.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The friendly AI isn't that bad. It's not great, mind you, but calling it "some of the worst ever seen" is just _not true_.
:-)
You're right. That honor is reserved for Daikatana.
But there's one and only Zelda. There are tons of crappy XBox shooters, and none of them last 70+ hours.
"Sufferin' succotash."
...then you're not a smart guy. Zonk always just shits on any platform not made by Nintendo, and it's sad to see him posting his biased, month-old reviews to try and sway people. Gears of War is the best game of the year, simply because it IS a masterpiece, and anyone else that has played it agrees. Zonk is always finding ways to top himself on how low he can go.
The commercial was what really got me interested in the game. It had a cinematic feel to it, full of grittiness and sadness, and superb graphics. "Mad World" really added to the atmosphere.
The game is a letdown compared to the commercial. Not enough backstory, and the gameplay is mediocre. The stupidity of the chain-saw bayonet is beyond words.
Some of this criticism is overblown. As far as the AI goes, it's about right. The point isn't to sit back and let the computer beat itself for you. The AI characters are like refs. They outcome of the game should not depend on them. Could use a little more help on insane difficulty, but thats what co-op and friends are for. This is the best shooter I've ever played. So much so that I was actually dissapointed when I went back to Halo, GRAW, and Battlefield after a week or so of GOW. I go back to other games and I find myself looking for cover and actually trying to preserve my digital life in a deathmatch. There is a waist high obstacle that I stand behind only to find myself being pelted in the face becase I can't use cover. The seamless use of cover in Gears of War has ruined other shooters for me. They nailed it. As far as the characters/story are concerned, they are a bit underdeveloped. They give you enough to know these guys are bad ass. Too much more story and they'll want to make a crappy movie out of it anyway. The game is a bit short, but intense. I saw someone mentioned 6 hours... not at any average gamer skill level, and not without a strategy guide handy, IMO. Co-op on Hardcore took about 11 hours. Act 4 accounted for most of that. I'd say 9.5/10 Points off for not allowing guests on Live without two accounts on one machine, and restricted Live play. Although the modes are good, only 8 players and they could have thrown in the classic death match as an unranked option.
I think it's a question of gameplay point of view.
If you're a console user, you will find it good or very good.
If you're a PC FPS user, well, I'm an UT2004 and UT fan and watched 3 kids play it, and I was basically thinking just what this article says aka shinny graphics but disappointing dull gameplay. But I thought "hey! Maybe it's just me!" when one of the kids just said:
"they should release it on PC, it wouldnt be that slow and boring."
So yes, maybe in coop mode, it's not that lame.
I thikn the "mini-game" is really quite a brilliant idea. It can really add to the tension in multiplayer, because you CAN actually reload faster than your enemy if your timing is good. (Which isn't easy when you're in a firefight)
... well whatever gets the job done :)
It also makes for great fun when you and an enemy are blindfiring at eachother and you hear him yell "Damn!" because he jammed up his gun trying to reload it. That's your cue to bust around the corner and pistol-whip, or shotgun, or chainsaw, or sticky grenade, or
You should be into the review writing business for these company's. Your reply has given me more information about the actual gameplay, how things work (mini-game-esque even) and how the game compares to the FPS Genre on consoles. Not being a fan of non-mouse/keyboard FPS' games, I may have to give this one a shot. Zonk, as much as he writes reviews and I usually find them to have some factual merit, your response seems to add more depth to his findings, explaining more where he could have gone into more detail about the actual functionality of certain aspects of the games interaction with the user. Knowing that the game has many features of the gameplay, as Zonk described them, helps. And I don't believe your response has negated anything he said. Rather, I feel it has added a lot. I'm replying because a mod point just wouldn't do the same job. Needs more explanation :D
I believe that is a required trait of a reviewer... mentioning what is good and picking on what is not.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
It's not an FPS. It's a third-person shooter. This game would not work nearly as well as an FPS - the behind-the-back view gives a much better view of the action than a first-person perspective.
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
The is one the first shooter titles that I can't imagine playing with a keyboard and mouse, and I never got used to playing Halo because of the controls. Part of it is because Gears is largely NOT a "first person" shooter...
The standard camera view is more over the shoulder.
Other stuff that works really well about the controls:
Cover-to-cover moves by pushing the stick in the direction you want followed by a button press.
walk vs run based on how far you push the stick. They've put enemies in that can hear you, so you'll occasionally need to sneak around.
Dodging
Popping out of cover
zooming in with any weapon
It's possible all these these could be done with a mouse and keyboard, but you'd need a TON of keys assigned in a very tight cluster to do it.
Istill think Kb+M is the best control setup for an FPS, but I really like the control system in GoW.
Except, of course, for this perfect exposition into the nature of reality and perfection! I copied and pasted your text right into my Master's Thesis, and I got an A++!
I finished the game just about an hour ago, and I liked it. It is true that the AI is stupid at times. But it only bothered me a few times. One time was when a lot of enemies were rushing into the room and the AI guy was just standing there taking hits.
But the only thing that bothered me is that I think the game was too short, and I made a effort not to rush through it. The games are so expensive that I feel that I should have gotten more out of it, also because the multi player can be fun, but think that it will be boring after a while.
A good thing is that it does not have wait for the game to load, unless you die and have to restart. By the sound of the drive I figure it must be some sort of dynamic loading?
Of course you have to be able to stand the noise of the DVD drive which drowns out the fans completely. Imagine the sound of the cheapest DVD drive you can find, running at full speed all the time you are playing. But this is not the games fault.
Dont get me wrong, the game was awesome. But in the end it seemed like a $60 tech demo, rather than a game. The multiplayer Versus is just too buggy and limited to even bother with. If they ever add in Capture The Flag and up it to 40 or so players, then I might pick it up. But 4 vs 4 straight DM is just lame. The Co-Op should have also allowed up to 4 players as well. It was hard to play this game with all your friends wanting you to join in. Only two at a time stunk.
Basically, I played through the campaign twice over the weekend it came out and haven't touched it since. It should have been a rental.
They did the whole sketch-lloking graphics on purpose though - the atmosphere and story in the game seem pretty good, though I've read that GOW graphics are better looking overall than R:FOM.
I also like in R:FOM how you can target breathing tubes and the like on enemies, about time all those complicated looking protrusions aliens are fond of wearing on suits were malleable.
And of course 40 player online support with clans and such supported is not too shabby...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I had great fun with Gears of War. But I felt Resident Evil 4 was much better. Resident Evil 4 didn't even let you relax @ cutscenes. Resident Evil 4 had more challenging boss figts and at least a complete story(which sucked, but didnt leave you with annoying questions). If I compare those two games I would say RE4 is a bit better and more fun.
Sorry, it cost 10 million to make instead of 20-30 million. In any case, it's a moot point. They should have spent that extra 10-20 million on hiring more level designers to make the game longer.
UT99 is still played more on the LAN at every college in the area than any other game
I assume by UT99 you mean the original Unreal Tournament? I can see why it's still played, that game was fun.
In UT, the characters you control are fast, agile, and reasonably tough. And man oh man you could jump. By contrast, the controls of UT2003/04 (and even Q3A to a lesser extent) may be more realistic, but seem slow and boggy.
Combine with wide, varying maps and creative weapon design, and you've got a hit. I used to run a UT server for some friends back in the day. It was always fun to play with the Relics mod, and we had a few custom mods (Last Team Standing gametype was so much fun).
Perfection is attainable but very rare. It's what people who create strive for. Take a look at http://www.jwwaterhouse.com/ and tell me that at least one of these canvases are not perfect. Artist like Waterhouse redefine out notions of what is achievable. Also try http://www.michaelwhelan.com/. I've found in life that their is a direct correlation to a persons level of cynicism and how much they think is possible by other human beings and themselves. If we relate this to game design then how can you say Pacman isn't perfect. For the time and the limitations of technology that game was perfect, the game designers achieved exactly what they set out to achieve. If your applying photorealism as a criteria then your missing the point or personal preference for that matter. What's flawed and in-perfect to you might not be for others no matter what you think of them.
Morality, filters both ways.
Have you gotten past the beserker? I figured we'd just kick it into god mode, get past that part, and then go back to normal play... no such luck. I can't find any cheat codes at all.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
The berserker wasn't that hard once you figured her out. She charges you, and doesn't exactly turn on a dime once she gets going. Use that to your advantage.
Ole!
Seriously everyone seems to love it, but Zonk has problems with it... ok. But he's faulting stuff that people love. I find it odd when this is one of the first games to beat Halo 2 in popularity and he doesn't like the multiplayer? Well apparently people do like it? Faulting the AI and all and then giving one paragraph to the fact that this has Co-op, and not just a tacked on one but one of the finest co-op sessions yet?
Personally I found the characters to be lacking, and the story to be abysmal but that's because me and my bud were laughing our asses off making fun of them because we where hanging out together online. We were saying stuff like "He said What? what a loser". The simple fact this is the perfect game not because of the sum of the parts but because of the sum to each player. I don't know many people who like any type of shooter who doesn't enjoy this one. It might not have brilliant AI for partners, but the enemies are so intellegent you're in trouble on hard core, and the co-op gameplay give an experience over live not found in many places. If you two are hard core gamers, insane will challenge you, if you're good gamers you'll enjoy casual and struggle through hard core. But the challenges the game presents will keep you riveted.
But then again Zonk is the editor so his opinions are what matters here I guess, lets keep fileting this game even if he's one of the few people who find faults with it.
Stop calling it an FPS people! Gears is not an FPS! It's a third person shooter.
I for one welcome our new crazy hammer-wielding, scuba-diving overlords!
Infinite time means everything that can happen, will. You being you is absolutely incidental. You do not exist.
So would they have charged $120 - $180 for the fully fleshed-out version, or are they ripping off customers by charging full price for a game that's one third of what it could have been?
You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
the first thing that came to mind was William Shatner on Saturday Night Live: "GET A LIFE, will you people?"
As I mentioned in a different thread, you are, strictly speaking, correct. However, the camera control is such that it plays/feels like a FPS. Particularly indicative of this is the "down the gunsight" view while aiming, which is typical of FPSes (although without the side of your face in frame, admittedly) rather than 3rd-person games.
So yes, it is a 3rd-person game, insofar as you're never inside the main character. However, its feel is very much that of a FPS, and as such, that's (in my mind) the appropriate genre for it.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
I would have been fine with paying for this at $30 to be perfectly honest. Thats about what I feel I got out of the game, content wise.
because of his contributions to ut99 ut2k3 ut2k4 and now his very own masterpiece gears of war(hes leader designer of gears of war)
You must be new here. Zonk sucks. Bad.
What are we programming ourselves for with this kind of media?
If your focus determines your reality, then it pays to take care in where you point your eyes, heart and mind.
--Which is not to say that all lessons aren't valuable, but chainsaws on guns? Sheesh. Sounds like a nasty time to me. At least you wouldn't have to spend much time alive in such a world.
-FL
The whole, "This game has some flaws, but it's still an incredible game" may seem rather unintuitive, but those who have played the game (including myself), will understand. And it's a common theme across many reviews of the game because it's very much to the point.
It goes down to what you're looking for in a game. Yeah, there are all the little bits and pieces you expect out of a great game: storytelling, plot, AI, gameplay, sound, maybe graphics, etc. But that's just being technical. At the end of the day, what you want is to be able to play the game and have fun.
That's an argument that Wii owners will probably find familiar. Yeah, so Twilight Princess may not look as great as some PS3 or 360 games, and it include some tired Zelda-cliches, have some weird clunkiness with the Wii-mote, etc., but at the end of the day, it's just a fun game. It's the same way with Gears of War. Sure, if you examine all of the details and the nuts and bolts, you will find faults. But the fact that you still play the game with a huge grin on your face, means that everything else is meaningless.
-- jchenx
You can't play FPS's with a gamepad. It's ridiculous. It's like playing tennis with a bat. Sure, you can hit the ball but...
Demand is high for this sort of title because playing a game where you get to kill things with a chainsaw that's mounted on your gun is more fun than say, playing game where you save the rainforest (and that's even though the melee option in GoW isn't very well executed). That's true no matter how much fun you make saving the rainforest. Unless maybe, where you get to kill loggers with an axe. That has a chainsaw on it. And I'm so much of a tree hugging hippy, I don't even eat meat.
I much prefer the co-operative aspects of FPS games though - from Doom (and mods like Aliens:TC) to BF2/BF2142. I love a game I can get lost and wonder round in (i.e. Morrowind, and to some extent Oblivion, but I am not a huge fan of the non sensical leveling system in Oblivion so I gave up early on - I'll have to try again with some of the mods to 'correct' that installed).
Morrowind and Oblivion are the only games that have come particularly close to being 'holodeck' style experiences - worlds you can almost immediately explore a huge world at your will and get completely immersed in. Though RPG's like KoToR are well done, they are much more 'on the rails' affairs, and MMO's are all basically treadmills rather than sandboxes (by virtue of the subscription model).
I would much rather pay more per game to be able to play and explore in a larger world (maybe co-operatively with one or two friends at the same time, at most - but without having to compromise the immersiveness and overall experience by having to interact with random stangers as in an MMO). I can quite happily spend hours exploring areas, reading books and solving problems without any skeleton bashing (as fun as that is).
I have to agree with Bega above me, here... The AI of your teammates is pretty lacking. On several occasions, Dom (your squad partner) will run out in what seems to me to be a completely random direction. That might seem harmless enough in many cases, but when you need to follow Dom with a spot light only a couple metres wide, you'd hope he'd choose a straight and predictable route. Like towards the objective, for instance.
But, for what it's worth, I love the game.
Of the two I've met I gleaned some tips.
A) MOVE SLOWLY
B) They charge in a pretty straight line so use your roll if you have to.
C) With the second one there's only one of two places to nail it with the hammer of dawn so to move them there stand itn eh spot and shoot. The sound attracts them.
My opinion of the game. Wicked graphics, great co-op game play (haven't tried online yet), and smart oppositing AI. (although they sem to know when you aim at them. Just as you get your sights on them the suddenly duck under cover or open up thier Troika on you.)
The biggest annoyances of the game. LACK OF WEAPONS! Seriously I ended up using the Chainsaw gun and the shotty almost all the time. and like TFA says your dumbshit team mates. I swear if one of them walks infront me when I've got a perfect shot I'll kill 'em.
Over all. I like it. The banter and comments by the grunts is amusing and helpful and the action is fast and furious. Best two days I've wasted in along time.
Nice attempt to twist a single bad review into some kind of confirmation that Microsoft sucks. How Slashdot-ish of you.
To answer your question, no it doesn't mean Xbox 360 has few good games, it means Zonk is a terrible reviewer. You'll see a lot more evidence of that once he begins reviewing Nintendo Wiiiiii games, since this site is approximately 90% Nintendo fans.
Comment of the year
He's reviewing a title made exclusively for a Microsoft console - anything less than picky and he'd get ripped in the comments. I think it's a reasonable review, matches what I've read elsewhere, and I am now thinking about getting a 360 sooner than planned (I get a lot of value out of my current Xbox!).
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
Thr real question is: if Gears of War didn't have such pretty graphics -- i.e. it looked like, say, Quake 3 -- would **anyone** be gushing over this game? Would anyone care?
I dare say no. It's really not that special except for the graphics. I dare say that is why a lot of games are getting such high marks -- because it's a semi-decent game wrapped up in shiny graphics, and people see it being a lot better than it really is.
It's not that GoW isn't *bad*, exactly, it's just not all that people say it is.
This is a sig. Deal with it.
HAHA, 'Fuck Epic', when I read this I thought of a porno based off of LoTR. >8|... I need to get out more...
Har?
Why in the world, the heavily armored soldiers have the most vulnurable part of the body, the head, exposed? Why??
Why does he has lights on the back of his armor? So he can shot in the back easier?
~ yes, please sniper rifle should have this big flashing scope!
Please explain that to me, because I just do not understand the future anymore.~
No, I'm sorry to disagree, but GoW really is a third person shooter. It in no way performs like a FPS, especially when you consider that the 'down the gun' aiming severely limits your movement. Your argument would also classify Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 as FPS, as they also have 'down the gun' aiming, yet many (most?) would consider them prototypical examples of the 3rd person shooter genre.
I think the reason some people say that GoW is similar to a FPS has less to do with the actual game-play, and more to due with the controller layout. The control scheme is not unlike that of many FPSs (namely Halo, though I think the 'twin stick' control scheme actually originated with Turok if you are only counting default controller configurations... 007 had the option), but GoW is certainly not the first TPS to employ a 'Halo-like' control scheme. Its a fairly common control style within the TPS genre.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
"To answer your question, no it doesn't mean Xbox 360 has few good games..."
Well in all fairness, 360 does have very few good games, as at this point it has very few games period. Still... XBox 360 is the first game system I've purchased (unless you count the NES, which my parents purchased, but made me cut the grass for an entire summer first) and I can't say I regret the investment. Between GoW, Oblivion, Fight Night 3, and Geometry Wars I've been pretty well entertained. GoW is probably the best shooter fun I've had since Goldeneye, its an amazing party game. The rate at which games are released will pick up as more development houses finish their 'next-gen' projects.
"Nice attempt to twist a single bad review into some kind of confirmation that Microsoft sucks. How Slashdot-ish of you."
Yeah it really sucks to have to choose between Sony and M$ (getting a Wii is a given). I hate them both. Given the way that both companies are hemorrhaging money on their consoles, its probably best to just buy the system spawned from the company you hate the most, then buy all your games second hand so as to deny them the royalties.
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
Unreal 2: XMP
Finest multi player game ever made.
One of these days I must get around to playing UT:XMP (U2:XMP is, sadly, dead, remade for Unreal Tourney though)
J1M
Gears of War is an amazing game! Don't let these fools tell you otherwise.
I got that game last week, it is simply fantastic. The graphics make Oblivion look mundane by comparison. The fighting is much different, you can't just charge ahead guns ablaze, that will get you killed in seconds. You are basically hiding behind a chunk of concrete, pop up, draw fire to see where the hell they are shooting from, then hope you can pop up and shoot the guy before he shoots you. Or just shoot blind. You are always keeping an eye on your ammo, since you don't know when you are going to run into an ammo point. There's no health bar, if you can see the logo of the game in red it means you are dead.
The only thing I don't like is that there is no easy level. I am from the wuss demographic
(really crappy eye to hand coordination plus over use of caffeine is not a good combo for gaming), as a norm "easy" mode is usually hard enough to challenge me. GoW starts with two levels: hard as hell, and pretty much impossible. If you beat it in pretty much impossible, you unlock a third one that is even harder and I can't even visualize.
Some of the reviews accuse it of being too linear, but let's be honest: there's so much going on that most people won't even notice that. Plus that's my main complaint about the Halo 2 single user campaign, most of the time I don't know where the hell I am expected to go to.
Another thing I don't like is I am spoiled by Oblivion to carry around a ton of crap. In GoW I am limited to two kinds of rifle, one handgun and 4 grenades tops. This is for a character that looks like a frickin football player. This forces you actually think, instead of blindly swapping out weapons because the one you found is cooler.
So far I am getting a lot of bang for my buck, I am close to finishing the game for the first time, and I am tempted to try it again in "pretty much impossible" just to see how far I can go. And I have not even tried it online, that should be a blast.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
Is the voicechat bug in versus. If you join a game in progress you will often experience some combination of not being able to hear your team, them not being able to hear you, or only being able to hear people between games.
Hopefully they patch this soon, it's really aggravating.
So I really do not think the author has fully understood what happens at the end of the 30 day grace period. And as usual the majority of the anti-ms types of slashdot have blindly agreed with any anti-MS sentiments voiced. At the end of the grace activation period (30 days) Windows Vista goes into 'reduced' functionality mode. Microsoft do not encrypt data, they do not delete data, they do not prevent you from getting to that data to off load it. What happens is that Windows Vista runs the default browser (yes even if its Firefox it runs it) that will allow you to connect to the activation site via the web, or any other web site if it comes to that, or present instructions on how to activate via the telephone. After one hour the logged on user is logged off. The user can immediately log back on. Users are presented with reminders about activation as the grace period expires, with increasing frequency until, they activate or elect to not. The purpose of Activation is not to be able to deny you access to data but to deny people who pirate closed source software a revenue stream. Have a look at the following two URLs for more detail. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/plan /faq.mspx#EYPAC
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004970
No, I believe you're thinking of this.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
Best multiplayer game I ever played was Tribes (the first one) but maybe that was because I played with a bunch of regulars, and we actually did the whole teamplay thing, rather than all being lone wolves.
I think it's more that shooters in general have become synonymous with the FPS acronym. People don't even think twice about what the acronym means.