why "Gears Of War" isn't the perfect 10 people claim it to be

[Zenzerotron]

These might be all my fussy nitpickings, but having owned the game for a few weeks and beaten it a few times, here are my nagging-feelings as to why "GOW" is a great game, but not a "killer apt" piece of perfection........

*most parts of the various envirments don't show damage from gunfire and explosives. I wish that more objects and structures were of the "destructable" nature

* I wish your foes would show damage. For instance, if you shoot a grub a few times in the chest, he should show some bullet holes and bleeding in his chest.

These two things really strike me as making this game not being truely perfect or "next gen" as far as graphics.

As far as gameplay, just in general, I wish there was more variety.

I wish there were some situations were you can freely "run and gun", instead of almost always being forced to take cover and shoot from behind cover.

I also wish there was a deeper, more complex hand-to-hand melee fighting system, and on the same token, situations in the game where hand-to-hand combat is your best option. Bonking those little creepy-crawly screamers with your gun doesn't count.....

I know all this stuff is pretty picky, but these are the little things that make me grade "GoW" a B+ game instead of an A+ game.

[a1]

I understand the last 2 complaints, but the first 2 sound really fussy. You're marking it down because you want bullet holes and speckles of blood?

[Hargrada]

I feel almost the exact same way. Don't get me wrong, the game looks great and plays smoothly, but the little things just seem to pile up here. I got to the final act and just don't seem to care anymore about the game in any way to play through till the end. 

 

There is little to no story at all, the enemies seem bland and generic (they remind me of the original quake), and I have yet to make use of the squad commands in any way. The stop and go aspect of the battles (stop, fight, go on) also gets old fast. I also wish the game allowed for more exploration of the fantastic environment thats on display.

 

Good points include the awesome reload bar, the fun and interesting Berserker fights, and hilariously cheesy/crappy  macho dialogue. I haven't touched multiplayer at all yet and i'm hoping it's at least better then Halo 2 in that dept. 

 

Part of my reaction might result from the high review scores and all the hype surrounding the game so i'd probably be more lenient if my expectations weren't so high.

[Superjay]

Sorry I disagree. If you compare this game to everything else out there Gears of War kills everything hands down. You complaining about the graphics in Gears of War is the equivalent of me saying that I don't like a Ferrari because it's not fast enough. Since when did Legend of Zelda have slash masrks on the guys after you buttered them up a little. Someone would have to have some huge negative bias on Microsoft to complain about the graphics on Gears of War. The Story maybe but graphics.. yea ok. I think I might make a new post about why Zelda deserves a 9 instead of a 10. The graphics being last gen and all.

[Atarifever1]

None of those complaints even rank on a list if things that would remotely concern me. If they bug you, that's fair, but none of them would be enough to move me from A+ to A on a game, let alone dropping it anymore than that.  Heck, they wouldn't move me from 99% to 98%.

[bluemonkey1]

Little to no story? <-- WRONG.  Just because it isn't in the manual there is tons of back story.  The game is great in that it has loads of hints to what happened but doesn't bog the game down explaining every little detail.  It's like a film in that so much of the story is not told through exposition but through decent acting and the surroundings.  I fail to see how anyone could fault the game for this as it has far more story than most games out there, except for RPGs.

 

Destructible scenery <-- What are you on?  Name me any shooter besides Red Faction where that was the case.  Those graphics and then have everything destructible - not to mention how you would even go about designing the game around that.

 

Generic enemies? <-- Right because we have seen those Pitch Black monsters in games before, or the Corpsers.  Not to mention the fact that with the enemy living within your own planet you have a whole new concept of fear.

 

More hand to hand combat <-- Have you seen the SIZE and ferocity of those things.  This game is meant to be REALISTIC, like ghost recon.  You would never choose to get up close with them.

 

More involved hand to hand <-- Please show me how this would have worked given that it is a third person realistic based shooter without it being completely stupid.

 

Foes should show damage <-- Well they bleed ALOT not to mention how cool it is when they fall to their knees and start panting.

 

More run and gun <-- That is not what this game is about.  Go buy PDZ, Far Cry or Quake 4 for that stuff.

 

Come on none of these factors you mentioned are even vaguely important.  Most of what you mentioned would make the game WORSE.

[ActRaiser1]

I'm in complete agreement with bluemonkey here.  The single player rocks to the nth degree.  I've lost count the number of times I've been through it.  When you start thinking insane mode is easy, you know it's a killer app.

If you're going to knock it, knock it on the multiplayer aspect at the lack of a party feature similar to Halo 2s.  I've yet to figure out how to play a match game against a bunch of people with a friend.  If there's someway to do that fill me in.

 

Thanks much

[ShawnReturns]

I also agree with BlueMonkey and Actraiser. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. The only thing I find funny about your statements is the, and I paraphrase, "I wanted to explore the environment more" comment - this isn't an adventure game! Buy an RPG if you want to wonder the country side and explore. Heck, buy Oblivion!

 

This game is fun and it is the first game I have played through more then once (I've lost count) in many years. I agree with Actraiser that there are certain elements of the multiplayer that are missing and I wish there were there. However, the co-op play absolutely kicks ass (Actraiser and I have been taring it up like crazy) and the single player mode is very addictive.

 

Also, as far as close quarters combat goes, how the hell can you beat the chainsaw? It never gets old! And I am not sure what version you are playing but when I shoot the enemy they wind up in a bloody mess!

 

Is Gears overrated? Maybe? Is it a perfect 10? I don't think so. But what it sets out to do it does extremely well. I have had more memorable firefights (usually requiring Actraiser to save my ass) and moments in this game then any other in recent memory. I would say the game is a solid A.

[sega saturn x]

Show more damage?  There is not one part of them that can't be blown off.  And it isn't a run and gun, tough titty go play quake if you want that.

[zenzerotron]

I actually like&support the fact that GoW doesn't offer alot of story line and explainations of things. If you've seen the ending, it's clear that this is all a set-up game for more sequals.

I'd compare it to Star Wars~A New Hope or the first Matrix movie. I like the mystery element of it, and I like the fact that more things will unfold as sequals come about.

About destructable enivorments, explorable levels, and visual damage on foes&objects............those are the sorts of things that truely draw you into a game, making you believe everything is real. I never once said that GoW was a graphically stunning game. But for me personally,  pretty graphics aren't really what truely immerse me into a game's world; it's realistic envirmental interactions within the game's world that draw me in.

I also forgot to mention this part before...........the end of story 2, the driving segment............really really sucks monkey balls. I wish that segment was cut from the game. Can ANYONE here say that part of the game is fun??