Gears of War 3 Officially Confirmed For April 2011

A few days after an untimely leak on Xbox Live, Epic Games has now officially announced Gears of War 3 for next April. Details are scant (though Edge speculates on possible new gameplay features), but it will contain 4-player co-op and be an Xbox 360 exclusive. A trailer was released for the game, and designer Cliff Bleszinski had this to say: "When we released Gears of War more than three years ago, we set out to tell the world an unforgettable story of bravery and sacrifice in the face of insurmountable odds, and a year from now, players will get the chance to experience the final chapter in the story of Marcus Fenix and his companions in Delta Squad. This is definitely the biggest and most dramatic chapter yet in the Gears of War saga, and we can't wait to deliver it."

Comments

I propose a rename.

[Tei]

Maybe "Gears of War 3" sounds much like a twist of the formula, and we know this will not be true. Is also not 3.0, we know will use the same engine, maybe with minor buffs. A more honest name could be "Gears of War: Episode 3".

A ironic name will be "Gears of War, Episode 3: shot from cover", or "Gears of War, Episode 3: Run, Sprint, Shot..choose only one" based on the limitations of the FPS genre on the console where a especial cover system is added, to let players choose one action, to cope with the unability to do two things at once.

Re:I propose a rename.

[RogueyWon]

I think this is decidedly harsh (and probably just a troll, as has already been reflected in the initial moderation). I'm not necessarily sure that having a new tech engine is required to make a sequel. I also disagree with the implied assertion that anything which isn't a PC run and gun fps is inferior.

I quite like the Gears of War games. I'm not a massive fan; I don't like the online competitive multiplayer much (but I don't like the online competitive multiplayer in pretty much any action game these days), but I've played them both through in single-player and co-op and had plenty of fun with them. They're third person shooters (not fpses, like you say) and they make good use of the mechanics of the genre. If you want fast, free movement, then you probably want an fps, and there are plenty of good titles on both consoles and PC. Third person shooters generally lose some of the pace and precision of an fps. However, what they bring to the party (when done well) is a sense of physical presence. In the Gears of War game, you are controlling large guys wearing heavy armour - and it feels like it. They have inertia. Actions - even turning around - take a bit longer than they might in an fps. You need to think a littke bit more about your immediate surroundings, and be aware of your character's whole body. This can make for a very fun experience (when it's done well - and the GoW games do it well), but it's not comparable to a Quake-style fps.

I actually find third person shooters substantially more intuitive to play on a console than on the PC (with the reverse applying for fpses). We have an expectation that mouse controls will translate into very rapid changes of direction - with a quick flick being enough for an instant 180 degree turn. This is disconcerting when controlling a "heavy" character, who is actually designed to turn relatively slowly.

Re:I propose a rename.

[Tukz]

I agree with you about the tech engine and all that, but regarding the "fps on console" issue, I somewhat agree with OP.
It works great on console, as you say yourself, however, have you tried GoW on PC?

It's horrible because of those exact same features.

Don't get me wrong, I am no PC fanboi, and I got both Xbox360 and PS3 with big stereo and HD TV to enhance the experience.
But as I've said somewhere else when this discussion came up, what works on console, doesn't necessarily work on PC.

I prefer FPS on PC, but not if the game is specific crafted for console, like GoW is.

Re:I propose a rename.

[Tei]

Your comment is very good. Full of substance.

But you still avoided the main issue. Why I can't sprint & shot in a third person shooter? I do these type of things on movies, so ... why not in a game?

Also, play Mass Effect 2. EVERYTHING is a cover. The whole map of the game is made of cover areas. Is like a Doom2 map made of barrels on fire. I think this "shot from cover" gameplay break the inmersion, is too "gamey" and result on a very artificial, predictible, (and imho) boring gameplay.

My comment is not a troll, but don't deserve a 2 either. I was talking (mostly) to myself. Yours is very interesting, so pleased mods, mod parent up!.

Re:I propose a rename.

[RogueyWon]

To be honest, I've never assumed that GoW on the PC has ever been anything other than a second-rate consolation prize for people without a 360 (I don't think the second one ever came out on the PC). Certain genres work better on certain platforms. If there's a cross-platform fps, then I'll generally get it for the PC, unless there are truly hideous DRM issues. If there's a cross-platform third person shooter, I'll go to a console. I played Dead Space on the 360 and enjoyed it; later, I had the opportunity to try the PC version and found it utterly rancid. This often gets down to "nasty console port", but the fact is that some genres do work better on consoles (just as some work better on the PC).

Re:I propose a rename.

[RogueyWon]

Ok, maybe you weren't trolling. However, I think that the lack of ability to run (or rather, sprint) and shoot comes back to the same point - the presence of a "physical body" in the game. GoW's "sprint" is just that - heads down, arms tucked in, running hell for leather over a short distance. Your chances of hitting anything at all with a gun in that kind of posture is almost zero. People occasionally do it in movies; but generally only in silly action movies aimed at the "box of popcorn and no brain" crowd. Gears doesn't aim for realism (far from it), but it does aim for verisimilitude - something that has the outward appearance of being realistic. The traditional PC fps ignores this (though a few more recent examples have moved in this direction) and allows you to bounce around hell for leather at full speed while shooting. That's one way to play and some people like it. However, it's also valid to have a style of play that restricts the player and forces them to make choices within a tightly defined rule-set.

I remember a clique back when I was at university that held the Quake games up as the absolute paragon of gaming because they basically applied almost no restrictions to the player's movement. This always seemed to me to be missing the point. It was like saying that Chess would be better if any of the pieces could move in the same manner as a Queen, without all of those pesky restrictions.

And the cover system? Well... again, it comes back to verisimilitude. Since the invention of the repeating rifle and the fragmentation shell, real-world combat has invovled a hell of a lot of use of cover. Most action games, including GoW, are actually ludicrous in the sheer amount and pace of movement they encourage from players. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (it makes for a more interesting game in some cases). But as games that look like they're realistic become more popular, it's inevitable that cover mechanics will become more important. That said, I do agree that Mass Effect 2 went a bit too far. I felt that a lot of the level design in that game felt quite aritificial and "overly convenient". GoW has generally been more subtle, I think.

Re:I propose a rename.

[Tei]

Again, a great post.

Thanks Mr. RogueyWon. You made me understand third person shooters better.

Re:I propose a rename.

[ledow]

"We have an expectation that mouse controls will translate into very rapid changes of direction - with a quick flick being enough for an instant 180 degree turn. This is disconcerting when controlling a "heavy" character, who is actually designed to turn relatively slowly."

It leads me to wonder, just how long does it take to hear a noise of a gun behind you, turn around to see what the noise is, throw yourself to the ground and shoot back with the weapon you're holding? I would suggest much, much less than a second or so in a combat situation, even with a 40-lb pack strapped to your back. Anything slower, then, is counter-intuitive and unreasonable no matter what the "heaviness" of a character. If you can walk / run / jump at any speed with any amount of dexterity then you can see behind you in the time it takes your head to turn (next to nothing), rotate your arms in a fraction of a second to point that way (especially if you're already looking that way because your shoulders will be halfway there) and only a step or two with your feet to turn completely around.

I know realism isn't everything (it's only a game) but I think in any FPS there is a certain expectation that sometimes you have to turn around bloody fast, run, shoot vaguely accurately and quickly, and quickly observe your entire surroundings (not all at the same time). That's only possible with a mouse in my experience - every FPS I've played on any other control system is hideously slow, quirky, "unnatural" (I know a mouse isn't natural either), or just too inaccurate / robotic. I have seen FPS where it can take 4 or even 5 seconds to turn 360 degrees, and that in a perfectly straight line. They were all on limited-control-system consoles with input devices that can't handle both rapid turns and accuracy with the same control devices (not at the same time, necessarily, just both extremes of control). The only other system that would be close that a mouse's control in that would be something approaching VR suits where you can do the movement yourself.

Seriously... stand up with a big tip-you-backwards rucksack filled with weight and see how long it takes to turn 180 when you think a bomb's gone off behind you.

Re:I propose a rename.

[0100010001010011]

Why does every game HAVE to fit into the this little box that every die hard gamer has outlined?

Every single time a game comes along that is on a console and not a PC, not a 'traditional' fps, doesn't have 1080p graphics, etc there's always quite a few people that come out decrying how this game will never work.

I'm not a 'traditional gamer'. I don't normally play FPS, but I did enjoy GoW when I went to visit an old college friend. GoW2 also gave me an excuse to go visit. We talked through them both, played them back to back straight through.

Right now I have a Wii. One of the games most often played is Mario Party, and not by myself, but with a group of people. In Real Life. Not only do we just play it to hang out, but sometimes we turning it into a drinking game before going out. (Mario Kart is for drunk driving when we get home). So Nintendo somehow tricked me into spending a few hundred dollars on a device that Microsoft and Sony hadn't managed, plus money for games.

I found GoW fun. It doesn't fit your little box of a Model, GoW2 was a wedding gift for my friend. Therefor what ever designer came up with GoW got me, a nontraditional gamer, to spend money on a game.

While slashdot comments are great, your ability to predict what will be a hit, fails miserably.

"Less freedom of motion than an FPS. No Running and shooting. LAME"

Re:I propose a rename.

[KDR_11k]

What I hate about GoW is that it's not released in Germany. I'm playing The Scourge Project now, it's very clunky (there's fun to be had but I'd suggest holding off until they patch some of the annoyances out of the game, maybe if you play 4 player coop all the way through it'd be good already but if you involve bots there's often trouble) but at least I can get it without importing.

Re:I propose a rename.

[Xest]

"I know realism isn't everything (it's only a game) but I think in any FPS there is a certain expectation that sometimes you have to turn around bloody fast, run, shoot vaguely accurately and quickly, and quickly observe your entire surroundings (not all at the same time)."

So in other words, you don't like slower paced FPS' and in your opinion all FPS should be fast paced?

Some of us (quite a lot judging by sales figures of the likes of Gears of War, Rainbow Six etc. that use this style of gameplay) actually like to play games that aren't all about pretending to be Rambo, where using teamwork and cover to flank and so forth actually mean something.

If I want something fast paced, I play MW2 and run round with my knife class and it's fun sometimes, but it'd really really suck if all FPS games had to be this way. There's too little experimentation and differentiation between games nowadays as is, the last thing we need is for every game to be CoD clones, there's too much of that already.

Re:I propose a rename.

[Alamais]

Most action games, including GoW, are actually ludicrous in the sheer amount and pace of movement they encourage from players.

Well, I think some of them are covered (ha) by the presence of 'armor' (or 'shields' ala Halo) that provide protection from flak. Soldiers stay in cover and don't move much in a real-world battle because nobody wants to be turned into mush. If they had magical gear that could completely protect them, at least for a while, even from just light fire, you can bet tactics would change again. And no, real-world armor doesn't count: it only covers parts of your body, and even then isn't 100% effective. In the GoW case, no shields, so you need cover, but you do have regenerating health (not to mention picking up fallen allies), which gives you some ability to reposition or charge the enemy.

GoW has generally been more subtle, I think.

Except for the Hive levels in GoW2...stupid popup cover. -_-

Re:I propose a rename.

[Alamais]

This. GoW co-op with a friend (split-screen or two-console in the same room) is so much fun. I also recommend Army of Two for fun shooty co-op, though you do have to get past the fist-pounding "yay, murder!" aspect.

Re:I propose a rename.

[ledow]

You obviously missed the word sometimes.

In fact, I'm a Rainbow Six fan myself, but the older versions (I find the latest ones too "showy"), and Thief fan, and Quake fan, and Counterstrike fan, and Project IGI fan, and DoD fan, and L4D fan, so I do cover all types of FPS... you can't play Rainbow Six or Thief by just charging in guns blazing. However you *ALWAYS* need to ability to fine control your shots and then in the next minute turn around fast to react to something, no matter what the game... you hope you never need it but otherwise you might as well be playing a slideshow, tactics or not. And without that sort of turn ability, accuracy, etc. you tend to die, get caught out in the open, get shot by the one enemy you missed sneaking up behind you etc.

Teamwork and cover are nothing to do with having the correct control system for the job. Hell, L4D requires teamwork and cover and I'd hardly class that as a non-action FPS. And when that job needs pixel-perfect aiming for sniping one minute, accurate movement for traversing through dense forest the next, rapid turns for reaction to events, etc. *even if it's only once in a while* then you need a control system that can do all those comfortably and equally as well.

But those people who "enjoy" taking literally 5 seconds to do an about turn in a game (and usually those games give you a key to "quick-turn" because they know it's so awful and you can't do it with the usual control system) need a kick up the arse, fast-paced gameplay or not. It's not about speed of thought, or snap-shots, or the style of gameplay - when you *do* need to duck back into cover after sniping, you still need a control system that doesn't take 5 seconds to turn you around.

Re:I propose a rename.

[Xest]

You really just proved my point, because you demonstrated that the FPS' you like are all playable in a Rambo fashion.

I know full well that RB6 prior to the newer ones and Theif were meant to be about slow speed and tactics, but that's simply not how they played.

The older RB6 games were easily playable in a rambo fashion, and that's the point- you like them because you only like Rambo style games.

L4D is another fine example, you can pretend it's about tactics, but ultimately it's not, it's just a braindead shooter, where the only tactics are not running off ahead of the rest of the group. Completing L4D on hardest difficulty was a push over even with nothing more than a random group that are all too shy to use their headsets.

I get it, I really do- you like fast paced FPS that's fine, but you still seem to have this delusion that all FPS should be fast paced. That's just dumb, not every game should be the same style. If you don't like slower paced games you don't have to play them, but millions do, it's as simple as that. It's not even as if consoles don't have faster paced FPS either- L4D series, CoD series, Halo series all follow this pattern of faster paced gameplay and it works fine- fine enough in fact that far more people play these games on consoles than they do on the PC even.

You mention requiring fine control of shots between fast paced combat, perhaps you should look at people who play Operation Flashpoint on consoles, you need to be able to act fast one minute, whilst switching to pixel perfect sniping the next- so much so that you need to be able to adjust to the pixel your aiming angle so that shots curve down on targets accounting for the range of your target and weapon. All that and again, people play it just fine on consoles.

You see, ultimately there's no difference between a full 360 degree analog thumb stick, and a mouse ball- if you want to move faster, you just up the sensitivity so you get more in game movement for less physical movement. When there's no real difference though it sounds like the issue is simply that you just never got used to using a gamepad. The granularity of units both inputs detect is so small that they can both easily cater to exactly the same levels of sensitivity and movement, the only difference is how fast you can move your thumb, compared to how fast you can move your wrist. It's really just about getting used to the difference in input rather than an inherent disadvantage of the input system.

We had the same arguments from keyboard only folks when mouselook became prominent in the first place- they just didn't want to bother getting used to a new way of controlling, so instead they just sat and whined about that new way telling everyone it was somehow inferior, when really, it simply wasn't.

It's not like we're dealing with the low fidelity analog sticks, or even digital sticks of old, modern analog sticks on the likes of the 360 and PS3 just aren't that gimped.

As Marcus Fenix says....

[Suhas]

...bring it!

Re:As Marcus Fenix says....

[_PimpDaddy7_]

Griiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind!

Hahahaha, cheesy as they sound, I love all the short phrases in Gears.

I'm really looking forward to Gears of War 3. The first Gears has a special place for me. It was the FIRST game I got on the 360 AND it is THE game that sold me on that platform.

I'm hoping they end the trilogy with a GOOD final story.

COG TOWN!

Re:As Marcus Fenix says....

[Ordonator]

Shit yeah!

Re:As Marcus Fenix says....

[Suhas]

Love them? I would be dead many times over if it were not for the short phrases like Griiiind, Boooom, Incoming Ink!, Incoming Frag! to know what's going down 1/2 a second from now. GOW was my first game on the platform, and I love GOW2 as well. The Horde is the killer feature. No other game comes even close. Just finished level 50 on Horde "Day-One" and am looking forward to the other maps!

A story..

[Dayofswords]

"When we released Gears of War more than three years ago, we set out to tell the world an unforgettable story of bravery and sacrifice..."

and chainsaw guns!

Re:A story..

[RogueyWon]

They do have a weird look for these games, don't they? If you've seen the artbook that comes with the collector's edition of the first game, you'll have seen how they witter on about "destroyed beauty" and all that gumpf, and how they wanted to create haunting environments and stuff. In fairness, if you look at some of the location art in the game, they do a fairly good job of this. Many of the locations do feel like a plausible interpretation of the ruins of a culturally advanced civilisation.

And then they go and populate the world with men the size of small trucks wearing huge armoured suits and carrying machineguns the size of a cow with a huge chainsaw bayonet, whose primary methods of communication are grunting and fist-pounding. I did wonder at times whether the environment and character art teams had ever even met each other, let alone actively collaborated.

I guess if they were aiming for anything, it was probably "Warhammer 40k without all of the religious symbolism". That's not necessarily a bad thing; there are elements of the WH40k aesthetic (from what I've seen in the video games) that are appealing, but they just go ludicrously overboard on everything. GoW also goes overboard... just to a slightly lesser degree.

Re:A story..

[MaWeiTao]

I doubt they thought that hard about. They wanted a game full of fist-bumping machismo. Hence the characters. The environments are there to impress us with their graphical wizardry. So that inevitably means all kinds of flourishes and intricate detail, something difficult to accomplish with more modern minimalist designs.

Re:A story..

[KDR_11k]

WH40k's aesthetic was designed to be identifiable in the form of small tabletop figures, the exaggerated proportions remain very visible even from a distance but I'm not sure it's very fitting for a game where you see people up close.

Why announce it so early?

[dingen]

The game is due april 2011. So why are we talking about it now? What does Epic Games hope to gain by creating buzz a year before they've actually got something people can buy?

Re:Why announce it so early?

[DeadboltX]

Gives kids time to save their allowance, maybe save enough to buy an xbox 360 too if they enjoyed the first or second game on a friend's xbox, but want to get in on the 4-player coop this time around

Re:Why announce it so early?

[dingen]

Ah, that's actually a pretty good reason. I hadn't thought of that.

Re:Why announce it so early?

[billsayswow]

You say that as if most kids who have a 360 and would get Gears of War actually end up having to save up money to buy any of it, rather than just having a parent buy it for them, as was the majority case when I sold games as a job. Not to say that all kids aren't responsible, and more power to the ones that are, but if this was the case... I'd say the year's gap was to plan birthday and Christmas lists accordingly, or know when to play cute with their parents, or know when to start nagging for the game, without interfering with another game's release-nagging.

Re:Why announce it so early?

[delinear]

Well from what I can tell the suggestion is that the video was meant to be a very early teaser (I've seen it, there's no gameplay just an FMV of "man's last stand" (spolier - looks like this time around it's woman's last stand too)) but the date was added at the end and kind of forced Epic's hand. Apparently it was run on some US TV show a couple of days earlier, I assume without the date, maybe someone screwed up and posted the wrong version, more likely the whole "Ah, you got us, okay we weren't going to talk about this yet but yeah, it's true..." is just FUD and the whole thing is a marketing exercise. When it's a couple of years between games, I'm sure it doesn't hurt Epic to have a bridging point where suddenly people are talking about the series.

Re:Why announce it so early?

[SenseiLeNoir]

Kids? for a Teen/adult game?

Re:Why announce it so early?

[dingen]

Despite the 18+ label, I think it's realistic to say people from 16 years upwards will play and like this game.

Someone in the range of 16 to 20 years old is a kid in my book.

Re:Why announce it so early?

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly I bring only anecdotal evidence, but I personally know of at least a dozen adolescents less than 13 who pretty much exclusively play the most violent, death-addled game so they can screech loudly at each other about who's cock is the largest when they're double dick anal-raping each other's mother while blowing each other up.

I wish upon all wishes that I was joking, but that may very well be the majority of Xbox live.

Re:Why announce it so early?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a game about BIG MACHO MEN DOING MANLY THINGS AND KILLING STUFF, naturally, 13-year-old boys will be all over it to seem "mature".

Only people over 20 have the maturity to be able to maintain their dignity while playing more cartoony, family-friendly games.

I'm exaggerating, but this mindset does exist.I know 12 years olds who will mock their peers for playing Pokemon, calling it a game for babies.

The smartest (profits-wise, not protecting the kids-wise) thing the ESRB ever did was call the game "Mature" not "Adult". Wanting to appear mature seems to be second only to sex drive in young boys, imho.

It's going to take them a year

[mjwx]

It's going to take them a year to produce 6 hours of content.

Really, the industry would be better off if it would get rid of "rock star" devs like Bleszinski and get more originality into games.

When we released Gears of War more than three years

If you're game cant survive 3 years without one sequel, let alone two it wasn't that good.

Re:It's going to take them a year

[Tukz]

I really don't expect single player games to "survive" that long.
And how do you measure survival in a singleplayer game?

I replay old games now and then, does that count as survival?

Re:It's going to take them a year

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a multi-player game. Also, hey if that game can survive for that long, i.e. HALO. Other games must be able to, or else they are inadequate trash.

Re:It's going to take them a year

[annex1]

Bleszinski doesn't matter. None of these so called "rock star" devs are important. They are marketing figures putting a "cool" face on game development. Mr. Bleszinski may be an excellent coder or digital artist, but even if he is hauling his fair share of the labour, he's still just one guy in a list. His "personality" when making public appearances and the like, well...again, he's a talking head for the studio's marketing department. I almost wonder sometimes, do the parties responsible for "images" like Mr. Bleszinski, walk through the office and pick out the most "easy to clean up" or arguably attractive person working on the game and offer them this kind of job; "You can keep pounding out lines of code this week ORRRR you could faux hawk your hair, get some 'hip' clothes on our dollar, take a pay increase of no less than 25%(just for the sake of example) and be our new 'The Guy!!!1!'(again, as example)." I will say this for certain, when you play a Gears of War game on a large screen, with some large audio, it starts smashing your face as soon as you load up the game. If often feels worth it to have had to listen to guys like him even talk in the first place.

Re:It's going to take them a year

[delinear]

It is a multiplayer game, but a lot of people (myself included) play it mostly for the single player storyline. I don't have enough time to get into the MP side of every game that comes along, so it's nice to have a bit more of the story every couple of years, but having said that, horde mode was a great, fun addition to the MP aspect that was probably worth the sequel. I'm also not sure Halo is a great example of longevity, considering we've had Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3, Halo ODST and now Halo Reach is on the radar. Also, on GGP's claim of two sequels in three years, it's actually closer to five years (series started 2006, second sequel is 2011), that's pretty much on a par with Halo.

Re:It's going to take them a year

[dingen]

It's a multi-player game

Really? I own both GOW1 and 2, but have only played the single player campaign in co-op mode with a friend. I like the game a lot that way and I've never tried any other mode, nor do I feel the need to.

Re:It's going to take them a year

[RogueyWon]

Same here. I've found that as I get older, climb the greasy pole at work and generally find myself with more cash but far, far less leisure time, my interest in competitive online gaming wanes. Back in my student days, I pumped hours and hours into Counter-Strike, playing the game, getting heavily involved in the UK community, running first a clan and later a relatively major league. There were plenty of irritations due to dealing with cheaters, whiners and the generally immature, but I put up with these because it was a good way of getting a fairly decent amount of fun from a very small initial outlay. I puchased Half-Life with money I got for Christmas in 1998, and that £35 provided the platform for the majority of my gaming over the next 5 years.

These days, I just can't be bothered with the whole online scene, even though I know it's a great way of extending the value of the games I buy. Even online "anonymous" co-operative play is starting to wear thin with me. I don't like running the risk that I may end up wasting that portion of my leisure time I give over to gaming putting up with some foul-mouthed kiddy.

Increasingly, I find that my gaming is tending towards single-player experiences and multiplayer (mainly co-operative) with people I actually know. And in the latter case, my circle is tightening. I play WoW at the moment, because most of my time playing is co-operative with my guild. But even there, I'm getting sick of dealing with idiots I don't know well. Come the next expansion, I'm out (quitting at a new expansion release minimises the disruption to your guild-mates, as all of the gear they've helped you acquire is obsolete at that point). The only way to avoid aggravation is to play with people I know in real life (where I'm lucky to have a few friends and colleagues with similar taste in games).

Back when I was a student, the idea of paying £35 for a 10 hour singleplayer campaign would have been fairly hair-raising. These days, I just don't mind it so much. There is a point at which I feel it crosses the line into "just plain silly" - Modern Warfare 2's singleplayer campaign was *too* short (and ended too badly) to leave me feeling anything but ripped off. But the GoW games? Yeah, they were fine. I was perfectly happy with my purchases (and the co-op play is among the best around).

Re:It's going to take them a year

[spire3661]

Up until GoW 2/UT III, Cliffy B deserved his 'rock star' status. Now hes just another console schlep that forgot who it was that put him where he is today. "I think people would rather make a game that sells 4.5 million copies than a million and “Gears” is at 4.5 million right now on the 360. I think the PC is just in disarray what’s driving the PC right now is ‘Sims’-type games and ‘WoW‘ and a lot of stuff that’s in a web-based interface. You just click on it and play it. That’s the direction PC is evolving into So for me, the PC is kind of the secondary part of what we’re doing. It’s important for us, but right now making AAA games on consoles is where we’re at." - Cliffy B Epic is dead to me.

Re:It's going to take them a year

[KDR_11k]

One year? You think this announcement was made in the same month as development started?

Re:It's going to take them a year

[KDR_11k]

Interesting, GoW2 and UT3 are the turning point for you? Wasn't UT 2003 botched because it was based on a console game? Wasn't GoW1 already designed primarily for consoles?

Re:It's going to take them a year

[spire3661]

UT 2004 MORE then made up for UT 2003. UT III they just stopped trying. I own it for PC (collectors edition) and PS3 (bargain bin $12). I also own every retail PC game (physical discs) Epic ever put out, plus UT on dreamcast, and Xbox 1.

Re:It's going to take them a year

[mjwx]

And how do you measure survival in a singleplayer game?

If people still want to play it in 10 years time. I still pop in the Deus Ex (1999) disk now and then (Played multiplayer once over dial-up, it was crap), the original Half-Life(1998) which had excellent multiplayer by all accounts but like many others I've never played it and System Shock 2 (1998) which didn't really have multiplayer at all. These games are still in demand due to the originality of their stories and strength of their gameplay, 10 years on and I'm still finding new ways to play System Shock 2 and Deus Ex.

GOW, Killzone, Halo and so forth are practically the same game with different coats of paint and are really quite weak in the gameplay department. They just don't have replayability and that, sir is how you measure survival in a single player game, a player wants to finish it several times, the pinnacle of this is several times a year.

Re:It's going to take them a year

[mjwx]

One year? You think this announcement was made in the same month as development started?

So you're saying it's going to take more then a year to produce 6 hours of content.

In all seriousness, games do not need to be big budget in order to be good. Sins of a Solar Empire was produced in 17 months on a budget of less then 1 million US dollars and was a huge success for Stardock. 1 Mil may be a bit low but 40 mil is way to high. Something the size of Modern Warfare should have been produced on no more then 15 mil, given it's last generation graphics on PC and incredibly short single player campaign.

Re:It's going to take them a year

[Xest]

"It's going to take them a year to produce 6 hours of content."

That's 6 years of dynamic, explorable content.

Which isn't too bad when you consider how long it can take Hollywood to produce 2 hours of static content.

"If you're game cant survive 3 years without one sequel, let alone two it wasn't that good."

Who said it can't survive? Thousands of people still play the original. This is not about being unable to survive, it's about providing sequels for one of the top 5 best selling franchises of this console generation because a) a lot of people enjoy it, and want more, and b) it means more money for them.

What kind of company doesn't try and make more money when there's a massive demand for their product? Certainly not one that's produced a game that can't survive at least.

The only let down is ...

[oztiks]

Is i have to wait a year to play it :( My 1st xbox game and i seriously didn't leave the couch for days. Come back a year later GOW still a great game.

this is not an id announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

so why the quake3 rocket launcher icon?

Re:this is not an id announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's the icon for FPS. Are you seriously that dense?

Re:this is not an id announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Gears of War isn't an FPS.

Re:this is not an id announcement

[KDR_11k]

A game where you move freely and aim manually plays pretty much identical independent of whether the camera is inside or next to the head of the protagonist, the first games that used this style were using a first person view so that name stuck but it's really not dependent on the view.

Re:Non-PC game on /. front page?

[Narishma]

Because (one of ?) the editors only have an Xbox it seems. For example, all the games that were reviewed here in recent years have been Xbox games.

Re:Non-PC game on /. front page?

[RobotRunAmok]

Why do we care about a non-PC game on a Microsoft gaming console on /.?

Because slashdot caters to an area of interest wider than is found around your particular cafeteria table?

We get more excited with every re-warming!

[Rogerborg]

If you can't wait for Gears of War 3, then you won't be able to wait to start being unable to wait for Gears of War 4, so get started on that right away!

I guess if you know what you like, then you'll like more of what you know. It's just a little sad that so much effort goes into making games with a number in the title.

Re:We get more excited with every re-warming!

[Allicorn]

Like "Half-Life 2" you mean?

Whether a game is part of a numbered series or not is unlikely to be the most significant measure of it's quality, surely?

To my mind, the first "Gears of War" - which had no number - was just as disinteresting and dull as this announcement of a 3rd episode.

Re:We get more excited with every re-warming!

[Xest]

To be fair, Gears of War was from day one always said to be a trilogy- something it also notes in TFA.

Epic have had a clear plan for the franchise all along in this respect, so I suspect the franchise was developed with the overall storyline for it developed the same time they were developing Gears of War 1. I don't mind this so much, because if they feel the story they wanted to pull off was too much for a single game, then it's really their best option.

I know what you mean though in general- Call of Duty is perhaps the most obvious example. It's not as if the MW branch has anything whatsoever to do with the WW2 games, and even the WW2 games in the series were completely disjoint. Despite this, the success of MW demonstrated that going against the previously established does often end up producing things people want more than they wanted the previously established.

It's just a shame as you say, there isn't more will to make the jump the MW team did. Innovation nowadays seems to come almost entirely from indies.

Yay another sequel...

[Lumpy]

Sorry but the sequels always suck. Yes GOW2 is not as good as GOW1. Just like Mass-effect 2 is not as good as Mass effect 1

I was enthralled with mass effect 1 and GOW 1 far more than the sequels... and my current bane... Dante's inferno has the same effect. I'm sucked in completely. something the sequels just cant do.

Honestly, GOW3 will be GOW 2 with even more purchasable content...

Re:Yay another sequel...

[dingen]

I think both ME2 and GOW2 are much better than the first parts.

Re:Yay another sequel...

[Lumpy]

ME2 - far more limited in where you can go. I can explore 1/50th of the citadel than I used to. most planetfalls are super short and dont let you explore or find any hidden sub sub plots or little things that are just cool or gives you more gear. (the gear loadout is so limited in ME2 it's a joke.)

I finished ME2 in 1/4th the time it took me to finish ME1 and that is counting all the planet grinding you had to do.

Re:Yay another sequel...

[Chaos Incarnate]

About the only way I can see someone thinking Mass Effect 2 is better than the original is if they didn't like the original and instead wanted another third-person cover-based shooter like Gears of War. :-P

Re:Yay another sequel...

[Anonymous Coward]

While on average I do agree with you and usually prefer original IPs to sequels, knockoffs and retreading, there are some exceptions to the rule 'sequels always suck'.
Take for example Thief 2 which was worlds above the first one. Never played the first Fallout but Fallout 3 I found to be more fun then Fallout 2. Civ 2 was better then Civ. I've also heard similar things about Silent Hill 2 and Assassin's Creed 2 in respect to their original but haven't played them.

Re:Yay another sequel...

[delinear]

I think a lot of the time it's just that you can't recapture that initial impact. When I played GoW back in 2006, the graphics were amazing, the cover system was clever and new, the game world was unexplored so every encounter was something new - even if the basic underlying game improves on the predecessor in every way you're still not going to get that same first time feeling without the kind of jump forward that usually requires a technology or format shift.

Re:Yay another sequel...

[dingen]

No, I don't particularly like the action parts of Mass Effect anyway. For me it's all about the storyline, meeting characters and making though decisions.

I like ME1 a lot, but altough it's story is a bit more epic than it's sequel, the way the story is told in part 2 is a lot more engaging and immerse. The dialog is better and also brought better visually by offering more interesting camera movement.

And even though the universe to explore is smaller in part 2, it's also a lot nicer, offering a few hub worlds instead of just one large Citadel and all of the landing points are actually nicely designed levels instead of generic repetitive generated worlds.

All in all ME2 just feels more refined and realistic, while still offering a great story and interesting charactars and dialog. What's not to like?

Re:Yay another sequel...

[RogueyWon]

I'd agree with you on Gears of War. The sequel was more polished, flowed better and had better integration of its co-operative play into the campaign. I'd disagree on Mass Effect. The sequel felt overly restrictive and I cannot find words to describe how much I hated a) planet scanning and b) the move to an ammunition-based weapon system.

I would definitely agree with what I suspect was your main point; that the grandparent is talking rubbish. There are plenty of sequels, both classic and modern, that have bettered the original (even when the original was very good in itself). To list but a few in no particular order:

Star Control 2
Ultima Underworld 2
TIE Fighter (assuming X-Wing as the prequel)
Descent 2
Final Fantasy sequels (not a straightforward progression from worst to best, but all of the sequels are better than the very first Final Fantasy game)
Baldur's Gate 2
Fallout 3 (controversial this one, I know)
Warcraft sequels (the original Warcraft is pretty dire)
God of War sequels

Re:Yay another sequel...

[dingen]

The sequel felt overly restrictive and I cannot find words to describe how much I hated a) planet scanning and b) the move to an ammunition-based weapon system.

Planet scanning is imho less stupid than the automatically generated levels of ME1. And it's more easy to get a child to do it for you.

About the ammunition, well... it's really just a switch between the guns and the health. In ME1 your health is a number and your ammo replenishes automatically. In ME2 it's the other way around. To me it seems like a trivial thing.

Re:Yay another sequel...

[KDR_11k]

Game sequels often improve on the previous game because the medium is so heavily based on mechanics that can be tweaked to be better. Not many sequels are actually worse, often they just fail to bring as much new stuff to the table as the original did.

Re:Non-PC game on /. front page?

[MoFoQ]

agreed....plus wasn't the second one all...u know...whiny?

trying to remember...there was this one youtuber who did a review (much like how RedLetterMedia's Mike does Star Wars TPM and AotC but with less comedy and no pizza rolls) and basically hated it for all the whining about ex-wives and crap....coming from a big buff marine...who's suppose to be a bad-ass...killing shit-ton of Cogs...but can't handle a single divorce.

it's not like she's coming after you with a 9-Iron or something.

*sigh*

[vikingpower]

one more addiction looming ahead....

I hope it has Natal compatibility!

[tgd]

Curb stomping my friends will be so much more satisfying if I'm actually curb stomping my friends ...

remember when Epic made good games?

[Anonymous Coward]

ZZT? Tyrian?

It's too bad they turned into a console developer.

Re:remember when Epic made good games?

[KDR_11k]

I believe they only published Tyrian. BTW, did you know that the Tyrian graphics have been released under an open license and you can use them in your game?

Keep it, Cliffy B

[Greg_D]

The reason that Gears of War was so popular for so long had nothing to do with the single player mode. The multiplayer was the shooter equivalent of a fighting game. It was wildly popular.

But they decided that since the multiplayer didn't fit their vision, that they'd create a completely FUBAR version complete with a screwed up lobby system where you could wait 10 minutes between matches with levels so large that it almost guaranteed that you'd end up playing hide and seek at the end of rounds while everyone else watched, and completely changed the dynamics of the weapons on multiplayer simply because lesser players were getting beaten soundly. They didn't even test the game enough to see that visitor side shotguns weren't even shooting at the target. Instead of competing for the top spot on the XBox Live charts, it's battling Hello Kitty Sings and Muppet Massacre and who knows what else.

When 3 versions of Call of Duty rank above your game in online play, you have a serious problem.

I played the hell out of Gears 1, couldn't stand Gears 2, and won't spend a single cent on Gears 3.

It's like boar...

[PeeShootr]

...better even.