Slashdot Mirror
Gears To Be A Trilogy, Ousts Halo 2
Epic's Gears of War has finally ousted Halo 2 as the most-played game on the Xbox Live service. It's not too surprising, given the game's popularity. Epic was apparently expecting that; GameDaily spoke with Microsoft Corporate VP of Global Marketing Jeff Bell, who as much as says that Gears is the first chapter in a trilogy. From the article: "Gamers today demand an excellent story in their games; they need to know what's at stake, and why they should care. Excitement tops the list of desired emotions, but they want to be scared, too. They want the rush that comes from being scared by an enemy or trapped in a dark room and escaping with their lives. The goal of this ad is to establish Marcus Fenix as the hero of the Gears of War trilogy. The intention is to create emotional connection with him that is lacking in typical third-person action title marketing, by communicating a sense of desperation, loneliness, overwhelming odds, and the ultimate futility of the situation he faces."
Not to be cynical, but after seeing the response and sales it's gotten they're certainly going to say it's the begining of a trilogy _now_, regardless of what they originally expected or had planed.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
I, for one, am extremely surprised that developers are willing to make sequels to an extremely popular game. This has never happened before in the gaming industry.
I can't RTFA because of firewalling. From the quote, it sounds like he's talking about the 'Mad World' commercial they've been playing in theatres and on television. I've got to say that is one of the best game ads I've seen in a long time...
That's surprising..I had always assumed UT2007 would be 360, PS3, and PC. I guess their 360 'division' was too focused on Gears of War? That's the only reason I see why they would miss the 360 with UT.
Or maybe the people doing the reviews didn't buy into the halo hype...as in, maybe they were one of the people with a head on their shoulders.
Don't get me wrong, halo 1 and 2 were quite fun and all, but they were hardly revolutionary...compare them to PC shooters, and suddenly their graphics resemble games that came out 5 years prior to them...their stories horrible and canned and typical...their voice acting spotty...and quite frankly, their gameplay repetitive. Personally, I think the best thing halo had going for it was it's sound effects.
Still, in comparison to other shooters that were around at the same time, halo 1 and 2 did NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING that other games hadn't done ten times over. The CONSOLE fanbois (notice I didn't say microsoft) for some reason thought that they were a gift from god, when in fact they belonged in the bargain bin from the get-go
Living With a Nerd
Games take time, and Halo has historically taken 3 years between installments (H1: 2001, H2: 2004, H3: 2007). Perhaps Microsoft could've shipped a Halo 2.5 at the 360 launch (one year after H2 shipped), but a Halo 3? No, you just need to be patient. The multiplayer beta/demo will be out next spring, and you can look forward to Halo overload throughout all of next year. And then around November (because Halos release in November, so assume Halo 3 will also release in November) you'll finally have your hands on Halo 3.
Why are all these posts anonymous? I mean, can't a game get good reviews without the publisher being accused of throwing money at the sites and mags? Have you played the damn game? Have you read what the reviewers said about why they liked it? It's not a perfect game but it is extremely well done and extremely fun, which you're picking up on from the reviewers.
Go pick up your check at the Sony office and ask them if they'll throw in FF LXIII or Ratchet and Clank 19 as a bonus. Since you evidently think that no good game can come out unless it has come out before.
You (and your friends) seem to be in the minorty.
Fastest Selling 360 Game
#3 Most Popular Game
9.4/10
9.6/10
beh, can't edit.
Anyway, in addition to what I said, the first entry in a trilogy is hardly the most interesting in terms of story...that is what the SECOND entry is for.
As for GoW having repetitive gameplay...fine I'll give you that. But at least it required some bit of tact...not to mention a bit more realism in a war-like situation (i.e. the whole cover system) Considering halo was supposed to be a trilogy, the first and second did VERY VERY little to make me look forward to the third game...I am, however, anticipating the second and third installment of gears of war with great fervor
Living With a Nerd
hey, 15 years ago, I was given the metrics that the average buyer played a game for 5 hours. Yeah, many of us will play a 70+ hour game. But might it be more memorable if it were shorter? I mean, there's lots of crappy dialogue and "filler" out there. Would I have enjoyed GTA3:Vice City just as much if they left half of it out? By the end, I knew the city inside-out, twice....
It's the Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings dilemma: do make it absolutely clear how you spend you money, or do you leave the world a little fuzzy in the edges? Tolkien had laid several layers of mythology/backstory, which cheerfully got nodded at in the movies: by just, for example, leaving statues of the kings, without explanation, we get the feeling the screen (and the world) is bigger than what we see.
With Harry Potter, we get the feeling we're on the veranda of a big South American plantation house, overlooking the pampas. But when we turn around, there's no house.
Or was that Borges?
All I know is that I want either a long game or one with a lot of replay value. for a game that I can't mod (like almost anything on a console) it had better be long, because the replay value will be low unless it's a racing or sports game. Not that I play sports games - the last one I enjoyed was NHL '98 and that only because you could check players (or the ref) through the glass. And I'm not counting racing games in with sports games, although racing is [arguably] a sport.
I wouldn't mind a game with 5 hours of gameplay as long as it cost no more than 1/4 what it costs to buy a game normally, since games seem to typically have 16-24 hours of play. Certainly just about everything I've played lately has taken 20 hours or less to beat, if I apply myself. Which I usually don't, because I have a car and a girlfriend. (Which makes one wonder what I'm doing here - except I'm leaving in just a few minutes.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Gamers today demand an excellent story in their games; they need to know what's at stake, and why they should care. Excitement tops the list of desired emotions, but they want to be scared, too. They want the rush that comes from being scared by an enemy or trapped in a dark room and escaping with their lives. The goal of this ad is to establish Marcus Fenix as the hero of the Gears of War trilogy. The intention is to create emotional connection with him that is lacking in typical third-person action title marketing, by communicating a sense of desperation, loneliness, overwhelming odds, and the ultimate futility of the situation he faces."
Apparently I'm a super gamer, then, since I want a challenge. Doom 3 was a yawn, and I have no desire to be alone, desperate and against overwhelming, futile odds.
Playing Tribes 2 several hours a day for 5 years does that to someone.
There is no death, only respawn.
Because when you ski at the enemy flag at a good 350KPH; mid-air the defender and the mine they just tossed as an attempt to kill you; killing them instantly from 300 meters; then disk the heavy-on-flag off of the flagstand who happens to be standing 3 steps foward and anticipating where you're going to try to shoot him off; and succeed at doing it with a well placed shot at 40 meters at speeds equaling half the projectile speed; then pull the flag out of 2 entrances barely larger than yourself that form a room barely large enough to hold 2 said heavies, while dodging turret fire, mortar fire, mines, and inventory stations through anticipatory movement; and happen to get it, then hit a diskjump on a hard ramp and blow back to your base at a good 400kph while ensuring to have enough of an un-anticipated arc-up that snipers can't hit you but also ensuring when you hit the top of the arc you jet left or right, anticipating when they hit the trigger and for lag, to force them to miss, you kinda get over nuances like fear, doubt, and uncertanty.
When other people see you do it, they are usually unimpressed, until they try to do it themselves.
And they get killed, over, and over and over, and over.
The few, the strong, grunt through it and go on to other games to find themselves outclassing other players. In tremulous, for example, I regularily gross 2-3 times the killcount of everyone else in the game. I was playing natural selection, but then I got board of it for the same reason. Serious sam was fun for awhile, until I memorized the enemy runs and got bored.
So when you go to their website, and see you have to look around, with a lit match at the links, and that there is absolutely no content accept junk that would only scare and entrance a 13 year old, your patience level immediatly drops to the point where you decide to do better things.
Like submit to slashdot.
And go about your merry way.
Cinematic gaming never suceeded and it will never succeed because it's based on communications, not empowering the user to create their own world and play in it.
I was in a movie theatre waiting to see the new James Bond film. It was a Saturday night and it was packed. I had bought my ticket half an hour before the movie started because it was going to sell out. Everyone was talking and it was pretty noisy in the room and it was 60% full. There were ads playing on the screen while everyone was waiting, but it was pre-trailer time and the ads were ignored. When the Gears of War trailer came on the screen and the music started, everyone shutup and watched it. When it was over, people began speaking again.
This holiday season is a best case scenario for Microsoft. They have solved all of the their production problems and have an ample supply. Both Sony and Nintendo are dealing with supply issues (Nintendo less than Sony) and quality control (Nintendo less than Sony). Using Gamespot's reviews, there are 4 games rated between 9.0 and 9.6 and 35 games between 8.0 and 8.9 on the Xbox 360. There are 6 games rated between 8.0 and 8.9 on the Playstation 3. There are 7 games rated between 8.0 and 8.9 on the Wii (don't yell at me, Gamespot rated Zelda 8.8, I've seen it rated higher on other sites). There will be other games released, but right now the Xbox 360 has the better selection of games for next gen consoles. If Microsoft can't dominate this holiday season, then they are going to rank third place this generation.
Does anyone know if the Wii is having backward compatibility issues? I don't want to pick up a Gamecube, but I would like to play Resident Evil 4 (I don't have a PS2 either). If I remember correctly, the Wii is supposed to be backward compatible with the Gamecube.
Remember its good review about a nintendo products, its am honent opinion. But if microsoft or sony release a product that gets good reviews, they obviously payed off the reviewers. Carry on.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
There was a lot of hype for Gears of Wars. So much so, that I was beginning to think that the game had "jumped the shark" on hype alone. From my non-scientific observation (reading game sites, forums, etc.), I think people were starting to expect the game to suck. And in general, I am not a fan of hype at all, as it does tend to hurt more than help.
... because it was so different than your standard FPS shooter. Go read some game forums, for example the Games board at Penny-Arcade. People are very pleased with the game. Heck, go read the earlier Slashdot article, and you can read people's comments about it.
So, it was surprising to see that the game was quite good. In fact, better than what a lot of people had expected
-- jchenx
Nothing, Zonk's just a 360 fanboi.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Personally, I think the best thing halo had going for it was it's sound effects.
My girlfriend bought an XBox recently to play a single game. She also bought it to keep me at her place more. So, I decided to go get the Big game, Halo (I got Halo 2... Halo wasn't available used). Holy crap! What a rotten game! I couldn't believe how shitty it was. I played it for 3 hours or so, hoping that it was going to get better.
Oh yeah, my point... I thought that the sound on Halo2 was really terrible. Flat, boring, repetitive, and no music to speak of. Just a lot of "zap zap" sounds. Halo2 went back to the store.
How can you possibly compare the Xbox 360 and the amount of 'quality' games they have [...] when they've been out for a freakin' year and the other consoles have been out roughly 2 weeks?
Why should one not compare them? People are buying them right now - this is how things stand right now, and those 360 games are available today, to play today. What good are promises of future goodness, when you go to play a game today?
This is the whole point of getting to market a year sooner - to get that head start.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
"Still, in comparison to other shooters that were around at the same time, halo 1 and 2 did NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING that other games hadn't done ten times over."
.. Wrong .. and Wrong.
.. etc ..
.. the game just auto-adapted to my control scheme !(I'm a flight simulator type, push the stick forward to lower my view). .. now that's smart. This game just jumped +10 points in my book ...
Wrong
My credentials :
Hosted LAN parties in my appartment for 3 years, 6 to 8 people every time.
We started with Quake II, then Half-Life, then Half-Life : Opposing Force, Counter-Strike Betas, FireArms, Quake III, Unreal Tournament, Day of Defeat, Sven Co-op, etc
And I grew weary of all those. Rather burnt-out with FPS' playability, really.
It was I guess, either get one shot in the first 20 seconds of a match then wait 3-5 min looking at the paint on the wall (CS). Get in prone position defending your flag and an enemy just ran past you in the hallway even if you spray assault rifle on him (jacket defense + run speed. FireArms).
See all avatars do the bunny hopping move on steroids all around you with one shot-kill weapons (UT).
If you enjoy all the situations, fine. It simply wasn't for me and found it deeply unsatisfactory.
Then enter Halo. I have my xbox but no games, I'm borrowing my friend's. Can't complain about the titles, beggars can't be choosers.
First action scene, after the story setting, the masterchief (you) is thawed from his artificial slumber. The crew asks you to look at lights patterns up and down to check if you are fully restored.
Fine.
And then I realize
Holy crap
Then let me present you what I dub the holy trinity of Halo gameplay.
At any moment in the game, you have always three different ways to hurt an enemy
_Fire you main weapon
_Launch a grenade
_Clobber with whatever you're holding in your hands.
The choice and use of these three is seamless and requires NO prior action (like changing weapons/selecting another) and fits a gamepad play perfectly.
Second point, and very important one :
You run SLOWER than other FPS. (You jumps are slower too)
And that boosts the playability tenfold. Because it makes it easier to clobber someone, as well as stick a grenade on him, magnifying the beneficial effect of the trinity decribed earlier.
(example : in QuakeIII you have to switch weapons in order to brawl. and the run speed is way higher)
Third point, Halo is in part a platformer game.
There are places you can reach and vehicles you can obtain if you use your head and the physics engine. Places you can bring a vehicle to. And it's very rewarding when you succeed, not to mention fun as hell to lay waste with a vehicle on enemies you had to fight on foot otherwise.
Fourth point, Co-op rules.
There was nothing that came close to doing the whole Halo campaign in co-op with your buddy. Nothing.
Fifth point, multiplayer goodness
Blood gulch CTF with vehicles. Enough said.
I would pay $$ to join a party.
Halo 2 was a disapointment for me gameplay wise, and I like it nowhere as much as Halo 1.
Which just shows that, once again, game producers are taking their cue from the world of novel publication. Cutting bloated, oversized stories into thirds is a classic technique in books.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
No, people are just using common sense. Microsoft always buys good reviews for their games, even when they don't need them. You know, just in case they do. It's standard operating procedure for them to determine who can be bought and who can't and then buy out everyone they can.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
so because a game ASKED you which way you would like to aim, it earns points? It's in the option menu...big deal.
Have to change weapons to throw a grenade? Really? Cause for PC shooters I usually just hit the "g" key (or g or h, if it is TFC)...oh and in case you missed it, in halo 2, if you are dual wielding you cannot throw a grenade...
I never said halo wasn't FUN, it was...it just wasn't anything new or revolutionary. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but considering you started your LAN parties beginning with quake II...well, it's just showing your age, that's all (or lack thereof)
Living With a Nerd
Yes except those were 20$ per episode instead of 60.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.