GoW....first impressions

Not bad...heh. I'm about an hour into it.

But it doesn't really have the style of play that I like. For me it's an engine issue. If the movement isn't what I like then there's really a limit on how much I'll like a game.

For example....no jumping? Sorry, any type of combat game has to have it. It's like you're taking an entire dimension away when it's not there. If I can't step down to another level that's just a few feet lower then please just add a wall so I'm not stuck running into invisible barriers.

No dedicated grenade button? I really hate having to switch to grenades then take time throwing it. This is the same for the Ghost Recon games. If grenades are too slow then you can't use them in the heat of battle. Mostly I'm using them while under cover and far away from the enemy. No fun.

No crosshairs? When I shoot without holding the zoom you can't see where anything's going. That means I have to use the zoom all the time, even if the person is relatively close by, which makes for some strange views. This is true with the canon as well (troika?). You have to shoot first just to get your positioning, then aim for the enemy.

No radar? A couple of times a monster got right behind me but I didn't know until he killed me. Then when I got to the same spot again I just turned around and waitied for them. Eh....not really my thing.

What's with the blood? Beautiful graphics, but every blood splatter looks cheap and tacked on. The characters and surroundings have a really polished, tight feel to them but the blood explodes like glossy paint balls. It just doesn't seem to fit in with the surroundings.

Are head shots important? They don't seem to be.

Mostly it seems to be the same thing. Enter an area, take cover, shoot. Enter the next area, take cover, shoot. Most of the battles seem to be straight on where you engage or simply flank the enemy. Without radar, quick granades, or the ability to jump you're basically left just running behind things. No other strategy.

The good parts really are good, tho. The graphics are great and the sound is really good as well. The cut scenese are getting better as the game goes on which is saying something. The story isn't bad. The actual world they created is amazing....very good feel to it and consistently gives you a feel of decay. Fits in well with the theme of the game and it makes me want to see what's going to be next.

But...like I said...I'm an engine man. That puts a limit on how high I can rate it. So far I'd give it an 8/10....

 

i tried giving the game a chance but i just cant get into it.i agree with what you have to say but i would like to add that i liked that you could take in your friend once he died(or vice versa).i always feel like i must be missing out on something becouse i can never get into most of the games that are massivly popular like this and halo.

 

It's a very fun game, after awhile stuff like no crosshairs and such starts to make the game a little more challenging and fun I thought. I kinda like no jumping because then multiplayer doesn't turn into nothing but jumping with rockets or grenades and stuff like a lot of games lol. I noticed though on hardcore and insane difficulty, the game shows a lot of bugs. For instance I chainsawed myself somehow picking up the Lancer, and I went to curbstomp a Theron Guard and he started sliding around on all fours shooting arrows at me!

 

The controls took a little getting used to, and after the problems i had with the damn bugs i didnt even want to play it anymore. In fact, im selling it to someone who's picking it up tomorrow.

 

Well, some of these omissions are intended by the game's creator. Read Cliff's intro in the instruction manual and you'll see that he wanted to change the direction of the genre and modeled somewhat after his experiences playing paintball. And you can see that very influence by way of how important the cover system is, and the fact that darting from cover, finding a good angle, laying down blind or suppression fire, and lack of jumping is implemented into the gameplay.

For me, it's a competent game and I'm glad they limited some of the questionable elements (again, like jumping) that we've seen in these types of games over the years. A fresh direction, if you will.

 

I love the lack of jumping for nothing more than no crouch-jumping twats in multiplayer.

 

To each his own. Limiting the range of motion limits the possibilities, in my opinion. It's already feeling repetitive.

 

I love the game. I found it a little confusing getting used to the whole action system at first, but you get used to it.

As to the other points....

Jumping: Since when does ANY soldier go jumping around like a twat in the battlefield. HEY! LOOK AT ME! OVER HERE! I'm the one wearing myself out and making myself easier to hit! Yeah, OK.

Crosshairs: Are for noobs. Since when does a real gun have a crosshair, other than when you're looking down the sights? All the GOOD gamers I know have known that since, what, Goldeneye, relying on a crosshair doesn't do you any good. Shoot from instict, not some technical system that tells you where to shoot. Ever see that film where the kids are trying to get a jar of coffee across the street? Look what happened to that kid who calculated trajectory and everything. Sure he was good, but for how long?

Grenades: Since when do you have a grenade "on hand" in the field of battle? Oh yeah, I'm gonna run around with my M15 in both hands, and grip a grenade in the palm of one hand too, just in case. Won't affect my shooting at all. Oh yeah, and I'm keeping the pin out, too... just in case.

How many FPS games are there now? TOO MANY. And until recently, they were ALL the same, with different weapons, storylines, settings, whatever. They were THE SAME. At least this game tried to give it a fresh twist... to the actual GAMEPLAY. Who cares about wizzy graphics? Developers seem to be getting lost in them, and forgetting about ORIGINAL GAMEPLAY.

Classic scenario: PS3 launch titles. Ridge Racer.... Final Fantasy... Dead or Alive.... blahblah rehash sequel number 100 same crap wizzier graphics.

As for Gears of War, I agree with you that its not perfect, and 8/10 is a fair score. Saying that, 8 out of 10 is a high score, and I'd be happy to buy a game that was given an average of that.

 

M15? Since when was that in the game? GoW is not a realistic game, so crosshairs and grenade launchers could fit in nicely. Grenade launchers actually exist, but I certainly never saw an assault rifle with chainsaw attachment in real life before.

 

It does feel a little repetitive after awhile, especially playing all the difficulties, but still pretty fun, especially Co-Op. We kept running around diving and making our guys screw up the reload so theyd cuss hehe. But major bugs do start popping up.

 

Why do people keep calling Gears of War a FPS? It's not. It's a shooter, but not first person. Also, I'm very glad there is no jumping. Jumping in war games is ussually ridiculus. Soldiers don't jump around on the battlefield 5 feet in the air.

The crosshairs aren't supposed to be there if you aren't aiming! Just like a real gun you can shoot it without aiming with decreased accuracy. The same is in GoW. And when aiming, you aren't going to be running while doing so.

The grenade thing is silly in my opinion because they made the grenade into a whole different animal. They actually let you bounce it rather faithfully, as well as tag enemys. Unlike other games were grenades are cheap and easy to aqquire throw like mad items, in GoW they are actually special.

Radar? Since when do soldiers have radars on the battlefield that detect their enemys locations? Also, when you are hit, a red mark appears telling you which directions you are being hit from.

The blood is supposed to be ultra high, but you can I believe reduce it and even turn it off if it bothers you.

Headshots are important against good opponents. In multiplayer they can make a huge difference, though you go for the head with a applicable weapon. The machinegun is not.

I don't know why you think "just running behind things" is dull, or you don't like the game being the "same thing". What shooter is different? In Gears of War you must strategize and work with teammates to use what cover you have to take down your opponents. Unlike other shooters, you can't go running around fragging people and expect to walk away from it.

If you don't like it you don't like it, but I think the game is well built and solid. All the things you mentioned didn't bother me at all. The only thing that bothers me is that often times you will intend to roll but instead you take cover on something you didn't want to and die for getting stuck on it. Also if you do accidentally get on cover it can be hard to get off it sometimes. But all this doesn't stop the game from being a blast.

 

I havent played the game yet, but is kinda funny you find the story and cutscenes to be amusing since most reviews I read said the acting was kinda tacky and predictable, like a swazenegger film...

About gameplay, good point from mottzilla: GoW isnt a FPS, but a TPS, like what the Halo1 alpha and early beta was.

 

Preach it brother !

That's why I never played CS, too many bunny hoppers.

Umm there are crosshairs when you zoom in.

 

On a totally unrelated note, I am currently playing through the original Killzone for PS2, and I think it's a lot of fun. It's the best console FPS I've played since Halo 2.

I have yet to try GoW.

 

I felt the same with killzone, but don't worry, its fun for the first levels, but when you will understand that its just the same bunch of enemies for the whole damn game,that every fight will look the same for the whole damn game, and that levels are more and more resembling like a plane polygone surface with a bunch of enemies for 3 miles around and that the only thing that may keep you going are the weapons that you've already seen in multiplayer anyway, you'll understand why it's bad.

multiplayer isnt bad though, but better if it wasnt of this 3 shot shotgun bug, wich can kill you from 20 yards away.

 

At first I was kinda confused, but after I figured out all the controls I loved it. After reading the intro from Ciffy B in the manual it seems he wanted to make a more realistic shooter, and he has achieved that.

I will say its strongest point is taking cover behind any wall or object that can block bullets. I got so use to the control setup I at first had diffculty playing lost planet since I was hitting the A button thinking I would take cover behind a wall or object.

But for some I can see why they wouldn't enjoy the game. However for others, it takes some getting use to.

 

when i play shooters, fps, what ever you want to call them that dont have features like crosshairs or radar i get extremely frustrated. it feels like im driving a tank...in a video game i allready have no prefrial vision or an obstructed view, no sense of smell, touch, limited ability to hear, limited movement...why get rid of tools that help me better understand and interact with the surroundings. its the future right...they dont have radar and crosshairs in the future?

has anyone played the day of defeat mod for halflife? it had a stamina bar. that would deplete when you jumped...after a couple of jumps you would slow down to a crawl. they also made it so you couldnt shoot and jump at the same time. i thought it worked very well. you dont have to get rid of jumping...people like to jump. not being able to jump is realistic?

i saw paintball on t.v.. they run out from behind these inflated plastic wall things, kneel and shoot. thats it. nothing more than that. if that was the designers inspiration...fuck i dont know what to say.

 

I played this for a few minutes. The graphics are fantastic. I am just really into very, very simple gameplay right now. Give me a stick and two buttons any day.

 

I never thought of getting GoW for realism so it never even entered my mind. It's like saying, "When you're battling two aliens in outer space while flying faster than the speed of sound it's silly to think that you'll be able to grab a grenade so fast." heh....I mean it's either real or it isn't.

I don't play games like that for realism in the same way that I don't watch WWE for real wrestling. Who wants it to be real? Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter is real and in that game I can completely understand the delay for grenades and realistic jumping. But it doesn't enter my mind when fighting the undead.

Having radar doesn't make the game easier or more difficult. It just adds another thing to think about. Your enemy has it too so you have no advantage. You have to deal with both the good and bad of it and prepare strategy. I think the strategy involved with having it is better than the strategy involved with not having it. Maybe that's a good way to put it.

Crosshairs? My overall point was that there is no real precision shooting unless you zoom in. The bullets have a splatter area rather than a real bullseye. For this game it feels like I'm shooting paintballs rather than weapons.

As for jumping I had two reasons....and the other was that I lose the "willing suspension of disbelief" when I can't just walk down a 2 foot drop, or when there's an invisible wall stopping progress in too many areas besides just the edge of a map. The combat aspect of it bugs me but not as much as this does.

Anyway, I wasn't ripping on the game. I could have written just as much about the good aspects of it but I'd just be repeating a lot of what others have already said. I hadn't heard people talk about these issues before so I thought I'd bring it up.

 

"I am just really into very, very simple gameplay right now. Give me a stick and two buttons any day."

Yeah that crossed my mind last week when my friend brought over the Wii. Some of the games were basic but they were fun. It was also easier to hand off games with 4 people since the basic games don't take long to learn or play. The electric air hocky thing was cool to play or watch. The tank game, too. I was more into those than the Bleech fighting game. We played 4-person Halo 2 after and it was just too involved and confusing for new players.