Author Topic: Gears of War Video (Read 40422 times)

wandering · « **Reply #25 on:** October 26, 2006, 09:22:31 PM »

Quote
good shooter

Oxymoron.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #26 on:** October 26, 2006, 10:09:10 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Pryopizm
Yeah, there are a ton of third person shooters that play like Resident Evil 4. Crazy market saturation. You guys can skip it, I'll be enjoying the hell out of this game.

So it is a RE4 clone then?

Anyway from what I've seen of the game is nothing like RE4 from what I've seen, RE4 was more action oriented but not to the point of Gears of War which from I've seen is a shoot em up through and through. When we talk about market saturation we are talking about post apocalyptic games with little to differentiate them because of their setting, but I guess it could be considered a blessing that it is in a 3rd person view instead of first. Even though I will try the game out, it still doesn't look like anything more then a mainstream game that is "cool" because you can shoot lots of stuff, which may or may not get repetitive as you progress.

Update:

I watched some of the newer IGN videos and color me even more unimpressed. If these gameplay videos are any indication this game could suffer from some repetitive level design. The formula for the levels so far are "Move in a linear path until you hit a fairly wide open area with conveniently placed cement barriers, shoot bad guys, rinse and repeat throughout the level". I think it is an insult to compare this to RE4 based upon those gameplay videos. Perhaps it gets better as the game chugs on (It will be at least fun for a bit) but those gameplay videos have not shown me anything that would make this game one of the greatest of year much less of all time like RE4.

vudu · « **Reply #27 on:** October 27, 2006, 09:44:27 AM »

I read in some gamer mag about a guy who got a Gears of War logo tattoo (the skull in the gear). For his sake, I hope the game's really good.

I feel bad for everyone who got a Killzone logo tattoo before the game was released.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #28 on:** October 27, 2006, 09:57:30 AM »

The gameplay video I saw of GoW made it look pretty good. I'll definitely try it when it launches.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #29 on:** October 27, 2006, 11:01:26 AM »

Where did that video take place? The I saw seemed very repetitive with lots of ducking and shooting.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #30 on:** October 27, 2006, 11:07:38 AM »

I can deal with ducking and shooting, so long as there's a sense of accomplishment from defeating foes.

Red Steel will feature tons of ducking and shooting as well.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #31 on:** October 27, 2006, 12:51:09 PM »

I'm sure Gears of War will be huge on Xbox 360 this year, and I'd probably even enjoy it if I played it, but to me the game is just so much the stereotypical Xbox game. At times it feels like Xbox is only for Halo and games that remind people of Halo. But yeah, the game looks okay.

As for the trailer, the video actually looks just pretty good. I just don't feel the song fits with the image I've gotten of Gears of War so far. Perhaps the story will be about the horrors of war...but the gameplay has to reflect that, otherwise 80% of your audience is skipping over the lip-service cutscenes to get to the good stuff - like curb-stomping people's heads or chopping them up with chainsaws.

Strell · « **Reply #32 on:** October 27, 2006, 12:52:35 PM »

Wow!

Namco upgraded the graphics in kill.switch!

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #33 on:** October 27, 2006, 01:23:23 PM »

I don't think you're killing many "people" in GoW at all.

From the looks of it, you have a nasty alien invasion which needs dispatching.

Kairon · « **Reply #34 on:** October 27, 2006, 01:53:04 PM »

I think the aliens invade from underground? LOL.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #35 on:** October 27, 2006, 02:26:09 PM »

Or it could be a mutant invasion.

Not sure.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #36 on:** October 27, 2006, 03:07:20 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I can deal with ducking and shooting, so long as there's a sense of accomplishment from defeating foes.

Red Steel will feature tons of ducking and shooting as well.

At least it looks and sounds like Red Steel is trying to innovate a bit, I don't see that in Gears of War. Not to mention that Red Steel has variety from what I've seen.

Pryopizm · « **Reply #37 on:** October 27, 2006, 05:46:20 PM »

Hmm. Sick of post-apocalyptic games, eh? How about those fantasy games? Those have been done to death! Damn Zelda, why can't they set it in Manhattan and make it a spy thriller or a western? Same thing with those damn strategy games. Old old old.

And H.A.M.M.E.R by Nintendo? Ugh, even more post-apocalyptic crap.

Kairon · « **Reply #38 on:** October 27, 2006, 06:02:51 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
At least it looks and sounds like Red Steel is trying to innovate a bit, I don't see that in Gears of War.

-"embedded reporter" Shaky Cam
-contextually adhering to and peeling off of cover
-curb stomping
-D-pad used for camera shortcuts in empty rooms to emphasize points of interest
-multiple paths through levels so the user can dynamically set their difficulty
-destructible cover
-a shooter based less on shooting or headshots, and more on intelligently moving around levels to take advantage of cover and to use your chainsaw

and that's all just from the E3 2006 demo I saw demonstrated at a workshop. There's also potentially:

-squad based gameplay introduced later in the game when appropriate, with either co-op or a.i. players
-after around 2 years of dev time, who knows what else?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #39 on:** October 27, 2006, 07:17:44 PM »

Red Steel has the unfair advantage of the Wiimote.

I'l give GoW a try and take it for what it is (which I'll know once I try it). It looked like it might be a decent game, but we'll just have to wait and see when it launches.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #40 on:** October 27, 2006, 07:24:25 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
At least it looks and sounds like Red Steel is trying to innovate a bit, I don't see that in Gears of War.

-"embedded reporter" Shaky Cam
-contextually adhering to and peeling off of cover
-curb stomping
-D-pad used for camera shortcuts in empty rooms to emphasize points of interest
-multiple paths through levels so the user can dynamically set their difficulty
-destructible cover
-a shooter based less on shooting or headshots, and more on intelligently moving around levels to take advantage of cover and to use your chainsaw

and that's all just from the E3 2006 demo I saw demonstrated at a workshop. There's also potentially:

-squad based gameplay introduced later in the game when appropriate, with either co-op or a.i. players
-after around 2 years of dev time, who knows what else?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Wow, multiple paths to more open spaces with conveniently placed cement walls? I'm impressed. Taking cover? Never seen that before. Squad based gameplay? How INNOVATIVE. Curb stomping? Um ok. Shakey camera? Another sparkling feature, I'm impressed. Destructable cover? Haha. Two years in development? Yeah we know time in development equals greatness, like Superman 64. If those are seriously your examples of innovation in Gears of War, that is beyond sad and further cements my point that it could easily be generic and mindless (taking cover does not make this game deep from what I've seen), perhaps with some fun thrown in towards the beginning.

With all that said I'm still keeping it open as a purchase, but I do not see a special game, solid action game, yes, but I fear it could get super repetitive once you get past some of the control and level design features. I've seen much better on the PC in the way of action games.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #41 on:** October 27, 2006, 07:26:46 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Pryopizm
Hmm. Sick of post-apocalyptic games, eh? How about those fantasy games? Those have been done to death! Damn Zelda, why can't they set it in Manhattan and make it a spy thriller or a western? Same thing with those damn strategy games. Old old old.

And H.A.M.M.E.R by Nintendo? Ugh, even more post-apocalyptic crap.

Please, if you don't see how over abused these realistic post-apocalyptic games are, there is no point in even discussing it with you (strategy games are overly abused too). Post-Apocalyptic games are the new mainstream game that a bunch of hormone driven teens and young adult boys can feel cool because they can shoot things while shutting off their brains.

Smoke39 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 27, 2006, 07:44:48 PM »

I think Pryo has a point, VG. How are the manifold games with fantasy settings any less of an "over abuse" than having a bunch of games with a post-apocalyptic setting? And setting does not imply gameplay. If guys get off on shooting things while shutting off their brains, they can do it while shooting in any setting. A post-apocalyptic setting could easily be utilized in a classic point-and-click adventure game.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #43 on:** October 27, 2006, 07:50:22 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
I think Pryo has a point, VG. How are the manifold games with fantasy settings any less of an "over abuse" than having a bunch of games with a post-apocalyptic setting? And setting does not imply gameplay. If guys get off on shooting things while shutting off their brains, they can do it while shooting in any setting. A post-apocalyptic setting could easily be utilized in a classic point-and-click adventure game.

The point is that most post-apocalyptic games are used for FPS or action games (one of the same sometimes?). It is getting harder and harder to differentiate them, heck give Resistance: Fall of Man a 3rd person view it may be hard to distinguish from Gears of War. With fantasy games (a genre that I feel is being under utilized lately, we've had Okami and um what?) you can do so much with the enviroments, but most of these post-apocalyptic games have little to no soul in their design so far (I dunno maybe it has more potential but right now I'm seeing more Halo wannabes).

Smoke39 · « **Reply #44 on:** October 27, 2006, 08:00:53 PM »

To me, a lot of fantasy games aren't very differentiable. Most of them seem to be RPGs, with a medieval flair with generic elves and dwarves and dragons and the like, with the same basic spells that try to impress you with fancy particle effects.

To me, Zelda always seems to be different enough to engage me. I just don't feel that many fantasy games distinguish themselves as well as Zelda. I think post-apocalyptic settings have just as much potential. Whether or not very many games use that potential is another matter entirely, though.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #45 on:** October 27, 2006, 08:06:49 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
To me, a lot of fantasy games aren't very differentiable. Most of them seem to be RPGs, with a medieval flair with generic elves and dwarves and dragons and the like, with the same basic spells that try to impress you with fancy particle effects.

To me, Zelda always seems to be different enough to engage me. I just don't feel that many fantasy games distinguish themselves as well as Zelda. I think post-apocalyptic settings have just as much potential. Whether or not very many games use that potential is another matter entirely, though.

Well I have to agree and correct myself, I guess when I think of fantasy or post apocalyptic I'm thinking of a particular genre. For fantasy I was thinking more in the way of Zelda esque action/RPG, for post apocalyptic I am thinking of FPS/action (which is basically the vast majority of what you see) trying to suck off Halo's popularity (one game I will never understand its popularity).

Pryopizm · « **Reply #46 on:** October 27, 2006, 08:19:49 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Quote
Originally posted by: Smoke39
To me, a lot of fantasy games aren't very differentiable. Most of them seem to be RPGs, with a medieval flair with generic elves and dwarves and dragons and the like, with the same basic spells that try to impress you with fancy particle effects.

To me, Zelda always seems to be different enough to engage me. I just don't feel that many fantasy games distinguish themselves as well as Zelda. I think post-apocalyptic settings have just as much potential. Whether or not very many games use that potential is another matter entirely, though.

Well I have to agree and correct myself, I guess when I think of fantasy or post apocalyptic I'm thinking of a particular genre. For fantasy I was thinking more in the way of Zelda esque action/RPG, for post apocalyptic I am thinking of FPS/action (which is basically the vast majority of what you see) trying to suck off Halo's popularity (one game I will never understand its popularity).

Understanding Halo's popularity would require a modicum of understanding console FPS's first. If you think it's all mindless shooting, then your exposure has either been at a minimum or you've shut your eyes to the reality of the genre. Tactics, teamwork, and skill are a great part of the best FPS's. I'd love them if I didn't suck so badly at them. I'm looking forward to the Wii as a better way of playing them (I hope).

As for Gears of War sucking off of Halo's teat, you must've forgotten about Unreal. If Epic is ripping off of anyone, it's themselves. If you want to argue the art style, feel free, GoW has bland character artwork, however the visuals are amazing, and a fast paced shooter based off of RE4 style controls sounds brilliant to me and I look forward to the multiplayer that will be available on Live.

If you don't enjoy shooters, avoid them, but don't call them mindless. Mindless shooters (like Black) are quickly forgotten. I hate fighting games to death (and as such, I will never win Ty's heart) but I know that there's a vast amount of skill that goes into becoming a master of those games and that the best have immense depth.

bustin98 · « **Reply #47 on:** October 27, 2006, 10:03:00 PM »

VG, I would absolutely love to sit down and play some games with you. And I don't say that with any tone of sarcasm. I really think you have a particular point of view that would be killer to play with.

That said, I love playing Halo2 online and agree with comments that its all about strategy, tactical thinking, and teamwork. And at times that serves as an escape from my reality.

I'm torn with Gears, I want to think it'll be awesome. But how many times have we been burned by the hype machine? (Black, anyone?) I want to hop down to the store and pluck down $60 as soon as its out, but I also want to wait and see what all the reviews report.

Back when the NES was king, I never knew when a game was supposed to be released, it was just out. Those were the days.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #48 on:** October 27, 2006, 10:05:40 PM »

Halo was outdated the day it came out, the PC FPS genre had already overtaken it. I think I have a fair understanding of the console fps genre and I've been into gaming much longer than I want to admit (Maybe moreso than yourself? It is tough to tell). I've played everything from PD, PD0, Timesplitter series, Goldeneye, Halo 1 and 2, Red Faction (corrected) along with others. So once again I state I fail to see the popularity of it unless people are so unexposed to FPSers on the PC, and see Halo as something unique when it is hampered not only by generic design but also piss poor controls that plague most console shooters. For a console FPS, it is one of the best but that is like being the best of the dung heap, there are far better multiplayer and single player experiences out there for PC.

I'm still failing to see how Gears of War is like RE4 (mainly in reference to gameplay, I fail to see how potentially similar controls between games is promising. If that was the case every platformer since Mario 64 would have been great), they are two completely different games. Perhaps you can enlighten me on the similar aspects besides you shoot things in both games (Yes RE4 is more action oriented but it still has puzzle solving and other elements from the survival horror genre). Everything looks like mindless shooting such as the Halo games (which had some of the most pathetic single player story modes ever) with little in the way of planning (I am talking about single player) which is what I consider mindless. Does not mean it can't be fun but it doesn't appear to take many brains to get through it, just twitch firing at hordes of enemies with ducking built in. If the demo is any indication (I could be wrong about the final game) level design is poor, and AI does not appear to be much better (it seemed way to easy to "sneak" up on some enemies).

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #49 on:** October 27, 2006, 10:11:27 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: bustin98
VG, I would absolutely love to sit down and play some games with you. And I don't say that with any tone of sarcasm. I really think you have a particular point of view that would be killer to play with.

That said, I love playing Halo2 online and agree with comments that its all about strategy, tactical thinking, and teamwork. And at times that serves as an escape from my reality.

I'm torn with Gears, I want to think it'll be awesome. But how many times have we been burned by the hype machine? (Black, anyone?) I want to hop down to the store and pluck down $60 as soon as its out, but I also want to wait and see what all the reviews report.

Back when the NES was king, I never knew when a game was supposed to be released, it was just out. Those were the days.

I do want to be clear I am referring to the single player mode in Halo 1 and 2, not the multiplayer, I've never played either game online though I've seen others (I have done split screen, but strategy is out the window there!). All I can say is give me Battlefield 2 for tactics and teamwork (one of my favorite online games of all time). In regards to Gears, throughout all my complaints I still am open to the game but I do think there is huge potential for dissapointment.

My judgements are based off seeing the demo being played on IGN, and I worry big time that this could be an overrated game that may be solid, but nothing special (and also like Black, could get repetitive if the demo level design is ANY indication). If I didn't have sattelite internet (my only choice) I would be intrigued heavily by Gears of War's online mode, but as it stands I don't, so I'm having to judge based upon what I've gathered is the "meat' of the game which is the single player mode.

On a side note I am also concerned that Red Steel will also become repetitive and will be mindless shooting along with sword fighting. I'm just hoping the stated innovative uses of the Wiimote actually turn out decent.

News:

Author Topic: Gears of War Video (Read 40422 times)