Gears of War

Fenix from the flames.

A while back, Microsoft readily admitted that its torrid new relationship with the Xbox had lead to the company neglecting the PC as a gaming platform. It went on to say that it would fix this, and it got pretty worked up telling us about DirectX10, the Games for Windows brand and the Games for Windows Live online multiplayer service.

Nice ideas in principle and all, but without the games to make use of them and with Steam acting as such a strong competitor, it had the impact of a soggy tissue. And what has Microsoft managed on the actual games front? Well, the PC version of Gears of War is coming out just one year after the Xbox release, compared with the two and a half years it took for the port of Halo 2. Hardly an improvement that'll have PC gamers across the country rummaging through their cupboards for the balloons and silly string.

On the plus side, in the last year Epic has found the time to fasten a few bells and whistles to its grunting, stomping monster of a third person shooter. When the PC version of Gears is released this October it'll be with an all new King of the Hill multiplayer mode, three new maps, a game editor and five new single player chapters. It's up for debate whether this makes up for the 360 days spent waiting since the 360 release, but after our playtest we can at least tell you that it's all good stuff that has Gears' trademark polish.

The new single player levels slot neatly into the middle of the original campaign, the aim here being for them to fill the holes in the plot. So hopefully PC gamers won't have to employ as much guesswork as to how and why the train and bomb at the end of the game come about.

'Gears of War' Screenshot 1

Burns, burns, burns. The ring of fire. Doo doo doo doo-doo (*bang*)

More excitingly, the Brumack that you ran from briefly in the 360 version (the awesome, massive, techno-dino monster thing) will feature, with an entire level that has you being hunted by it in the cinematic way that Gears excels at. The climax of this sequence is a fight where you actually go mano a mano with this six-storey cybernetic bastard. And while we can't figure out how this is going to work (maybe that age old game mechanic of trapping the head and then just fighting that?), we're pretty sure it's a battle that's going to leave us with the kind of testosterone afterglow that has us wanting to eat a steak or crush a beercan with our heads. God forbid playing it in co-op mode. There'll probably be Top-Gun style windmill high-fives.

The new King of the Hill multiplayer mode works well, too. Horizontal rings about twelve feet in diameter float at waist height at various points on the map, and the goal is, as ever, to have members of your team stand in them, uncontested, for as long as possible. But these rings are always out in the open, which is kind of a problem in a cover based shooter. So trying to hold one of these pieces of territory for your team involves making yourself a sitting duck in one of the most well-equipped shooting galleries in gaming.

Winning this mode is going to need an interesting kind of tactics. If one of these rings is under the control of your team, your instinct is to hurl yourself into the fray and fight shoulder to shoulder with these defenceless guys who sorely need your help. But then you're left in just as terrible a position as them, which doesn't help anybody. What you really want to do is flank your opposition, rush them, play the irritating sniper, or do just about anything else which draws the fight away from your friends. You don't want to kill your opposition, or push them back, your goal is to distract them.

'Gears of War' Screenshot 2

How can we honestly claim there's nothing at all horrible about games. I mean really.

This contrasts nicely with what you want to do whenever the 'hill' slips into the hands of the other team, which is launch the kind of balls to the wall assault you rarely get to do in a game where the benefits for hunkering down are so great. While your team being the only ones in that circle is your ultimate goal, if you can just get one of your own inside it or kill the enemies in it, their score will stop ticking up. Which is pretty desirable.

So that's all well and good, but it didn't stop us being disappointed at the lack of a four player co-op mode, especially since most of Gears' levels are designed for four soldiers anyway. But Epic fed us the usual line about how it would have taken too much time, and how it wanted the features it chose to be working perfectly at the time of release, so that's a shame.

As for the lack of cross-play, that's more understandable. The PC version of Gears is getting a lot of slight tweaks to make it work better on the mouse and keyboard, tweaks like how much kick your weapon has that make it a fundamentally different game. But for anyone who wants to use a pad, Gears will recognise it instantly and let you use it with the default 360 controls from the second it's plugged in.

Graphics are a little more disappointing. Playing the PC version did reveal the kind of improved resolution that we were told about before we were let loose on the demo units, but it's going to take a serious rig to get Gears to make use of them. What's worrying is the version we were playing seemed to have lost some of the post-processing effects- the blood spray in particularly seemed more vivid and more defined, appearing even more cartoony than the 360's ketchup splodge gore.

'Gears of War' Screenshot 3

Say hello! And, indeed, 'OHMYGODWHATTHEHELLISTHAT'.

Maybe that's something someone will be able to fix using the included SDK, maybe not. It'll be interesting to see what the mod community coughs up in the months after release, but on that front Unreal Tournament 3 is the Epic game we're really looking forward to. Any levels or mods for Gears PC are going to stay on Gears PC. With UT3, that stuff's going to be available for download from Sony's network. That's what we should be seeing Microsoft announcing here - it's not often these days it lets Sony get one over on it.

Comments (22) Latest comment 4 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • LeD #1 4 years ago

    Still 'NO' for the inclusion of the extra chapters in the 360 version I guess? I'd be well up for that though. Might even buy the game again if they made a GeoW GotY Edition or something like that, with the extra chapters thrown in.
  • Caimbeul #2 4 years ago

    Madness that the PC version has lost any effects given that most decent spec'd PC's (not even ultra high end) are technically superior to the 360...hopefully it was just the demo?

    Is this Vista only BTW?
  • Cylinder #3 4 years ago

    Still can't decide whether to pick this up on release or not. Hmmmm :S

    Also: XP and Vista compatible
    Edited by 1 at 25/09/07 @ 12:10
  • UncleLou #4 4 years ago

    Not sure it's such a clever idea to release this at pretty much the same time as the Orange Box, Crysis, UT3, CoD 4 etc. etc. etc. - the interest of the PC community seems diffident, to put it mildly.
  • afghan_jones #5 4 years ago

    isnt that 'new' king of the hill mode just Annex from the 360? as it sounds exactly the same.
  • Skeletor #6 4 years ago

    "Any levels or mods for Gears PC are going to stay on Gears PC. With UT3, that stuff's going to be available for download from Sony's network."

    At least that's what they say;-)
    Reality will probably be a little different since the PS3 runs pretty short on RAM compared to most PCs running this game. Not many people will go into the hassle of redesigning their maps so they can be played properly on the PS3 too.
  • skillian #7 4 years ago

    Madness that the PC version has lost any effects given that most decent spec'd PC's (not even ultra high end) are technically superior to the 360...

    When the game's been designed for a console, it's not that surprising. Epic will probably have done more work than most console-to-PC developers, but it's still a console game at heart.

    Agree with UncleLou that there's alot of other more appealing distractions released for the PC at around the same time, but I don't think Epic are expecting it to make anywhere near the impact it had on 360.

  • morriss #8 4 years ago

    360 version looks and is better.
  • UncleLou #9 4 years ago

    360 version looks and is better.

    Almost like Bioshock, just vice versa. ;)
  • Dizzy #10 4 years ago

    "Reality will probably be a little different since the PS3 runs pretty short on RAM compared to most PCs running this game"

    True. UT3 consoles (PS3 and probably also 360) already has less maps than the PC version due to ram restrictions. So evil PC level designers will probably max out their maps ;)
  • UncleLou #11 4 years ago

    Yeah, I read that earlier (although only about the PS3 version). That'll become another great comments thread once it's in the news here...
  • kapowaz #12 4 years ago

    It seems churlish to compare the release schedule of this game to that of Halo 2 PC; PC game enthusiasts may recall that Halo 2's Xbox launch was around the same time as Nvidia's catastrophic GeForce 5 series products; the 'mainstream' version of which had shader performance so abysmal as to render them effectively useless. (Remember Gabe Newell's presentation saying how Half-Life 2 downgraded those users to an earlier shader model just to get reasonable framerates?) With so many customers buying these shonky cards, it just wasn't viable to release a game that would only play on a handful of high-end ATI customers' PCs.
  • CouldntResist #13 4 years ago

    UT3, Orange Box, Crysis may or may not be better on many levels.

    BUT, i'd buy this just for the co-op.
  • Skeletor #14 4 years ago

    According to this info on IGN, the transition of maps from PC to PS3 could turn out problematic:

    "Mark Rein said that they are shooting for a November release and did say that the PS3 version would have "most" of the content that would be found in its PC brother. He said that there would be a couple of maps that would be left out of the PS3 version simply because the system didn't have the resources to produce a smooth gameplay experience."

    http://uk .pc.ign.com/articles/821/821934...
  • ZuluHero #15 4 years ago

    "Almost like Bioshock, just vice versa. ;) "

    I beg to differ - the demo running on my pc's PS2 card looked markedly worse than my 360 version of Bioshock ;)
  • BadBoyBonner #16 4 years ago

    Lets not forget that the port of Halo to the PC brought even Ninja PC's (at the time) to their knee's.

    Who knows why, as the Xbox itself had less total memory than most people's graphics cards had at the time with a CPU barely running at quater of the speed of PC's with an 1/8th of the RAM! lol

    However, maybe that one was borked on purpose, but here ya have the same team using the same engine.

    Come back Carmack all is forgiven! lol
  • Caimbeul #17 4 years ago

    @ Skillian - True to an extent I would say but the 360 and PC are that different a beast. I just dont think its acceptable for a game to run poorly on a machine that is considerably more powerful than the console it came from.
  • Skeletor #18 4 years ago

    @Caimbeul
    Nobody said that it runs poorly or worse than the 360 version (not counting the moronic oneliner by morriss who hasn't played the PC version anyway...)!
    The article just states that certain post processing effects are different though looking at the HD gameplay clips at gametrailers (yes, PC ones) it makes you wonder what exactly he's talking about. Clips look very good and the game runs at 60 FPS and not 30 like on the box. Why didn't the article mention this?
    Edited by 1 at 25/09/07 @ 19:25
  • skillian #19 4 years ago

    @Caimbeul: Agreed that it's less than ideal, experience of previous console to PC ports tells me that we'll just have to put up with it (if indeed it's the case).

    @Skeletor: How can anyone say the PC version runs at 60fps? it'll run at 6fps on a shitty PC, and 160 fps on a monster (unless it's locked at 60fps, which isn't any kind of achievement).
  • Klumhru #20 4 years ago

    @CouldntResist

    I thought it said there wasn't any co-op?

    That's the reason this bites the dust to the plethora of fps games coming out next couple months for me.... Co-op would have been the only point for it to beat the crappy graphics and game-play.
  • Skeletor #21 4 years ago

    @skilian
    It's locked at 60FPS of course which means that with the proper hardware you get constant 60 FPS instead of the 30 FPS of the 360 version. It's no achievement, just the technical possibilty to have better looking and "flowing" animation...if your machine has the "horse power".
    Don't get me wrong, 30 FPS is perfectly playable but once you played it at a (nearly) constant 60 you don't want to go back to 30 again. This might not be a big issue with RPG but in FPS it is.
  • CouldntResist #22 4 years ago

    @ Klumhru

    Hmm, the article specifically states that there's no 4-player co-op. I assumed this to mean that 2-player co-op is in fact included. If there's no co-op at all then i'm not buying it.