Do you think Gears Of War is overrated?

I played it for about 30 minutes at my friends house. It seems really hard to shoot guys (really hard) while you're moving, running. Was I doing something wrong? I understand it's a cover game, but I could hit anything without going into first person mode. Is there someway to get a better lock on the opponents?
 
[quote name='Vegan']Yes, but I've never played it and have an already-established dislike for console FPS. :p[/QUOTE]
Ignorant on many levels; mostly for the fact that Gears of War isn't an FPS.
 
Not really... love the game. I would prefer playing the game on the mouse and keyboard since it feels a bit difficult to manage everything on the gamepad sometimes (pretty rarely), but the game itself is fantastic.
 
I preferred Halo, even Halo 2 over Gears of War. Overall better campaigns and much better multi-player. Still a great game for what it is though, semi-first person shooter/action.
 
[quote name='Vegan']Yes, but I've never played it and have an already-established dislike for console FPS. :p[/QUOTE]

:roll:

I didn't know Gears was a FPS, you must have the ultra rare copy quick sell it on Ebay now!!!!!! On a serious note hell no it isn't overrated. It is a great game and I reccomend it to anyone with a 360 to at least give it a rent and see what you think.
 
very much so. it's a very good game and does a lot of things well, but it's also very limited by it's gameplay mechanics. 9/10? sure thing. game of the year? never.
 
[quote name='rocksolidaudio']very much so. it's a very good game and does a lot of things well, but it's also very limited by it's gameplay mechanics. 9/10? sure thing. game of the year? never.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, I didn't think it was game of the year material either. I can see how it got fantastic reviews, but there were definitely better games in 2006.
 
[quote name='coltyhuxx']I played it for about 30 minutes at my friends house. It seems really hard to shoot guys (really hard) while you're moving, running. Was I doing something wrong? I understand it's a cover game, but I could hit anything without going into first person mode. Is there someway to get a better lock on the opponents?[/quote]

So, is behind cover where ALL of the gameplay takes place? I would like to check it out again, like I said, I only had 30 min with it but I was confused as to how to take people out while moving. It seemed really hard to get the reticle on them in that third person perpsective.
 
[quote name='Vegan']Yes, but I've never played it and have an already-established dislike for console FPS. :p[/quote]

Eat some meat you fucking hippie.
 
Yes and no.

I enjoyed the story mode a lot (co-op was sweet) and honestly felt that it deserved the credit it was given. I don't really feel it's overrated in that regard (although more length would have been nice).

The multiplayer, on the other hand, just wasn't for me. Sure, I'll give it credit for being different, but if you don't care for that style of play or dislike being stuck with a bunch of idiots for teammates (playing with friends helps) you're only going to get so much out of it. Personally, I find GoW's multiplayer to be one of the more overrated features/modes in any game, period; but as I said, it's not for everyone.

All in all, Gears is a good game, but I didn't even think it was the best 360 release last year. I think both Oblivion and Rainbow Six Vegas were better all around experiences. Had Gears' multiplayer been more diverse from the beginning it may have been a different story.
 
Its a quality game, online can be fun, the graphics, story, and art are good to great.

I don't play it online a lot. But the co-op campaign with a friend was a extremely fun. The online can be fun, and is flawed in a way. So no I don't think its overrated. I think it might be over hyped in some circles, But not overrated. The Hypetrain helped it a lot in sales, and reviews as well.
 
If you have to ask it probably is.

Then again, a game being overrated doesn't stop from being awesome...and probably any game that has a large following is overrated.

There are tons of games that are overrated...I wont name as to start a flame war, but I think most games are overrated (yes, even games I really like).
 
I think it's a little over rated. The single player storyline is fun, and I like the online co-op, but I prefer Call of Duty 3 multiplayer to Gears multiplayer.
 
[quote name='coltyhuxx']I played it for about 30 minutes at my friends house. It seems really hard to shoot guys (really hard) while you're moving, running. Was I doing something wrong? I understand it's a cover game, but I could hit anything without going into first person mode. Is there someway to get a better lock on the opponents?[/quote]I've been wondering the same thing. The 3rd person view seems only good for moving and melee moves. Beyond that, you can hit crap. A simple cross hair on the screen for where your guy'd be shooting would help immensely.

It's very overrated for me; for others that really like it it's probably accurately rated. One of these days I'm going to have to hook up for a coop game with another CAG who's just not getting into it and see if we can have some fun online plaything through it together.

For now, I'd rather play the original Halo than Gears.
 
I thought it was at first but after playing it some more I don't think it is. I think the major fun factor lies in becoming one with the controls. When you start running into cover, shooting, nailing active reloads, moving to another cover point and then shooting some more, the game really starts to flow. I think the major thing that bothers me is the game is very dark overall. I can't believe how much people complained about Zelda TP being dark when this game is much darker and greyer. The graphics are great but I would have liked to see a bit more of them.
 
Not at all. It was the first game that's been hyped beyond belief that actually surpassed my expectations.
 
[quote name='jkam']I thought it was at first but after playing it some more I don't think it is. I think the major fun factor lies in becoming one with the controls. When you start running into cover, shooting, nailing active reloads, moving to another cover point and then shooting some more, the game really starts to flow. I think the major thing that bothers me is the game is very dark overall. I can't believe how much people complained about Zelda TP being dark when this game is much darker and greyer. The graphics are great but I would have liked to see a bit more of them.[/quote]

Dark as in the lighting? I can't think of a map that isn't bright as hell.
 
Gears and Zelda TP are overrated. I'm not saying that the two of them are bad games, it just that they're not as good as they where hyped to be and also rated at. I belive Gears and Zelda are in the top 10 games of the year, but instead of being rated at first and second i would rate them at around 4 and 5
 
[quote name='TheRock88']Nope, single player was good but multiplayer is like crack.[/QUOTE]

exactly, not overrated at all, multiplayer adds a fuckload of fun to the already good single player.
 
Yes it was overated... mainly the single player aspect.

the part that did turn out good and the only reason to get the game for is multiplay...

also, the content for the IP needs some work and some stuff tends to be a bit campy... they could learn a thing from the Halo games or Killzone for a solid IP.

and yes, I still think Cliffy is a douche.
 
Do you think Gears Of War is overrated?

Absolutely. It's the definitive '8.5' game, not "Game of the Year". A lot of great things about it, but the sum doesn't quite match most of its standout attributes. Obviously, the 'elephant' in the 'room' here is the graphical excellence. I guarantee you if everything else were exactly the same, but the visuals were, say, Call of Duty 3 caliber, the game would not be garnering nearly as much praise. A lot of graphics whores out there in denial on this one.

The single-player is short, the characters are apathy-inspiring even by gaming standards, the narrative is sub-porn, your fellow "Gears" are borderline worthless, the color palette is too washed-out all the time, and it just all gets monotonous after awhile. I finished it mostly out of the need to see it through, not the addictive nature of the game.

The multiplayer, while pretty huge, doesn't seem like it's going to have the same legs as Halo 2. It clearly isn't as developed as that game's online structure. Gears online is a 'tide over' game for Master Chief's trilogy-capper, let's face it. I will give it kudos for having really outstanding online co-op, though.

Honestly, having seen its engine in action now, I'm more excited for Unreal III than I was for Gears. Exponentially more variety of gameplay, bots to practice against, more diversity in the locales, and, well, the dialogue and writing can't be any worse, right?

Can't wait to hear the civilized and reasonable reactions to this post. After all, when I think Gears, I think sophistication!

P.S. They could've made the characters and the narrative less Neanderthal. I don't see how it would've hurt the final product, i.e. distracted Wally Wal-Mart from his visceral killing sprees and frustration venting. I mean, why bring acredited 'script doctors' in if you're only going to stifle them at every turn? Just what sort of powertripping and consumer generalizing was going on at Epic during the development process? Oh well, I guess the gamers want the cheese, so that what we're all going to keep getting. Hey, thanks, shooter consensus!
 
I really think the hype for GoW is justified. Beats Halos copy/paste SP campaign, that's for sure.

And the setting kicks the crap out of most sci-fi out there.

Though without the gorgeous architecture, (And as a result, dull military compounds) the game would've sucked.

EDIT: The impact of Jollydwarf's somewhat humorously condescending screed is diminished when he speaks highly of Halo, guilty of the pretty much ALL of the crimes he accuses GoW of.

And he completely ignores GoW's very solid gameplay, but, hey, when you condescend, you don't need to address such piddling details!
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']Do you think Gears Of War is overrated?

Absolutely. It's the definitive '8.5' game, not "Game of the Year". A lot of great things about it, but the sum doesn't quite match most of its standout attributes. Obviously, the 'elephant' in the 'room' here is the graphical excellence. I guarantee you if everything else were exactly the same, but the visuals were, say, Call of Duty 3 caliber, the game would not be garnering nearly as much praise. A lot of graphics whores out there in denial on this one.

The single-player is short, the characters are apathy-inspiring even by gaming standards, the narrative is sub-porn, your fellow "Gears" are borderline worthless, the color palette is too washed-out all the time, and it just all gets monotonous after awhile. I finished it mostly out of the need to see it through, not the addictive nature of the game.

The multiplayer, while pretty huge, doesn't seem like it's going to have the same legs as Halo 2. It clearly isn't as developed as that game's online structure. Gears online is a 'tide over' game for Master Chief's trilogy-capper, let's face it. I will give it kudos for having really outstanding online co-op, though.

Honestly, having seen its engine in action now, I'm more excited for Unreal III than I was for Gears. Exponentially more variety of gameplay, bots to practice against, more diversity in the locales, and, well, the dialogue and writing can't be any worse, right?

Can't wait to hear the civilized and reasonable reactions to this post. After all, when I think Gears, I think sophistication!

P.S. They could've made the characters and the narrative less Neanderthal. I don't see how it would've hurt the final product, i.e. distracted Wally Wal-Mart from his visceral killing sprees and frustration venting. I mean, why bring acredited 'script doctors' in if you're only going to stifle them at every turn? Just what sort of powertripping and consumer generalizing was going on at Epic during the development process? Oh well, I guess the gamers want the cheese, so that what we're all going to keep getting. Hey, thanks, shooter consensus![/QUOTE]


:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

couldn't be said better. And yes, it's a 8.5 type of game definitly.

though, I'll never be a Halo fan. put a gun to my head and I still wont be.

I'm going to say a part of the reason why the gears multiplayer always has people to play is because alot of people bought into the hype.
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']Do you think Gears Of War is overrated?

Absolutely. It's the definitive '8.5' game, not "Game of the Year". A lot of great things about it, but the sum doesn't quite match most of its standout attributes. Obviously, the 'elephant' in the 'room' here is the graphical excellence. I guarantee you if everything else were exactly the same, but the visuals were, say, Call of Duty 3 caliber, the game would not be garnering nearly as much praise. A lot of graphics whores out there in denial on this one.

The single-player is short, the characters are apathy-inspiring even by gaming standards, the narrative is sub-porn, your fellow "Gears" are borderline worthless, the color palette is too washed-out all the time, and it just all gets monotonous after awhile. I finished it mostly out of the need to see it through, not the addictive nature of the game.

The multiplayer, while pretty huge, doesn't seem like it's going to have the same legs as Halo 2. It clearly isn't as developed as that game's online structure. Gears online is a 'tide over' game for Master Chief's trilogy-capper, let's face it. I will give it kudos for having really outstanding online co-op, though.

Honestly, having seen its engine in action now, I'm more excited for Unreal III than I was for Gears. Exponentially more variety of gameplay, bots to practice against, more diversity in the locales, and, well, the dialogue and writing can't be any worse, right?

Can't wait to hear the civilized and reasonable reactions to this post. After all, when I think Gears, I think sophistication!

P.S. They could've made the characters and the narrative less Neanderthal. I don't see how it would've hurt the final product, i.e. distracted Wally Wal-Mart from his visceral killing sprees and frustration venting. I mean, why bring acredited 'script doctors' in if you're only going to stifle them at every turn? Just what sort of powertripping and consumer generalizing was going on at Epic during the development process? Oh well, I guess the gamers want the cheese, so that what we're all going to keep getting. Hey, thanks, shooter consensus![/QUOTE]

I pretty much agree with everything said here.

I'd also like to comment that the cover mechanic (which the whole game is built on) wasn't done nearly as well as Rainbow Six: Vegas (which came out around the same time). Cover controls just work so much better holding L then constantly having to press A to stick and unstick from cover. The reason they had to put it so many different ways to run from cover to cover with a press of s button was because the base cover controls weren't all that good. It was still a fun game, but it was extremely repetitive and there are much better cover-based games out there.
 
I think that it is a great game but I personally enjoyed Resistance and RB6 Vegas more. I would say that it was overhyped but not overrated. I would give it a solid 8.
 
The impact of Jollydwarf's somewhat humorously condescending screed is diminished when he speaks highly of Halo, guilty of the pretty much ALL of the crimes he accuses GoW of.


Well, while I do prefer the Halo games somewhat over Gears (it just feels like a universe I want to immerse myself in more), all I said above was a.) that Halo 2 has had an online dominance that I don't think Gears is going to match (to some degree because of the options available for the former and not the latter) and b.) for most people, i.e. not just message board denizens, 'right' or 'wrong', Halo 3 is the 360 game they've really been waiting for. That's just a statement about popularity, not quality.

I saw a lot of dropped opportunities with this game. Let's see those rectified, and let's see a deepening of the story elements next time around. Hey, it won't be able to get by on looks by then, as it's sure to have plenty of company (which Epic will be happy about...cha-fucking-ching). I was never rooting against it, as it's still essential 360 gaming. I just feel like it's gotten a little bit too much love for the wrong reasons (graphics, years of hype, assured clear distance from Oblivion, sublimated mancrushes on CliffyB, etc.).

And I am what I am, and if that's "condescending", then so be it. It's not (usually) my agenda, however.
 
Just get ready for the "Why you gotta be hatin'/Yeah, you wish that was you, dawg" responses, RR.

Of course now that I've preemptively called them out, they'll jump on me for that and for the distinct possibility that I'm also hatin'/jealous.
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']Just get ready for the "Why you gotta be hatin'/Yeah, you wish that was you, dawg" responses, RR.

Of course now that I've preemptively called them out, they'll jump on me for that and for the distinct possibility that I'm also hatin'/jealous.[/quote]

who in their right mind would actually want to be cliffy b?
 
Is it a very well polished and great game? Yes. Has it been over-hyped way too much by both companies and consumers? Most certainly. Everyone was looking for a stadnout shooter in that first year and the 360 is a console of shooters and sports games. GoW filled that billed as a good multiplayer shooter, but IMO it's not even the best shooter, let alone game, on the 360 and my guess is when Halo 3 launches people will pick up Gears of War less and less for multiplayer (as well as every other game).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top