Gears tops Live charts

By Tom Bramwell Published 19 November, 2006

More popular than Halo 2.

Xbox Live's director of programming Larry Hryb says that Gears of War has finally overtaken Halo 2 and become the most popular game on Microsoft's multiplayer service.

Even with Call of Duty 2 and titles like Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter attracting huge crowds in the Xbox 360's early months on sale, Halo 2 has always managed to maintain its position on the top of the pile - and its ousting in favour of a new, 360-exclusive property is likely to be seen as a big deal.

There's a bit of movement elsewhere in the most-played charts, too, with Call of Duty 3 perhaps predictably overtaking Call of Duty 2 to slot in behind Gears, while Contra is the third most-played 360 game amongst connected users, despite the release of Midway's Defender last Wednesday.

You can read what we made of Gears' multiplayer in Kristan's review.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (74) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Tiiti #1 6 years ago

    I was up until the early hours of this morning playing co-op over live with my brother. I'm not surprised this has taken the top spot, it's incredibly fun.

  • Mr_Brown #2 6 years ago

    Ordered GOW a few days ago, should come next monday and can't wait. Live Co-Op was probably the main reason why I ordered it so its not surprising.

  • alimokrane #3 6 years ago

    the game is so Addictive. I have been hooked to multiplayer since i got the game and I havent even finished the single player.

  • effinwooly #4 6 years ago

    its truley amazing !

  • dllord #5 6 years ago

    Yeah this is one sweeeeeeet game!

  • Xerx3s #6 6 years ago

    We played this from 5pm to 3am with a couple of lads last night and it was brilliant. We literally had to force ourselves to quit.

  • the_dudefather #7 6 years ago

    so it IS better than halo!

  • sharpfish #8 6 years ago

    Sounds like more than an '8' to me.. ask a thousand people and see what they say ;)

  • bdc #9 6 years ago

    Let's not bring up that review again for fuck's sake. Get a grip of yourself.

  • Veldaban #10 6 years ago

    Got an 8 in Edge too, can't be that in accurate then! :)

  • n3rdh8r #11 6 years ago

    Oh my god! This game is teh roxxor!

  • OhWiseOne #12 6 years ago

    Kristan's review would hold a little more water if he hadn't given a 9/10 to SC:DA and F.E.A.R.

    This site has as always been Pro-Sony, I know it's to be expected, Sony are well known for bribing and I bet Kristan's house is full of Sony gadgets given to him to curry favour.

    But even he's gone too far on GOW this time, it's absolutely amazing. GOW is a Halo beater, without any question. And definitely a PS3 killer, which is probably why he slammed it, expect a 9/10 for R:FOM soon....maybe even a 10 hey Kristan? Then you'll get your free PS3 in the next few weeks. Or perhaps you got that email from SCEE saying "Don't review any PS3 launch titles or you free gadget supply will be cut off" that all the industry knows about. Is that why you've not imported everything and revierwed them like you usually do?

    Kristan's gamertag is Krudster, for those that don't know, check out his gamerscore, it's mighty low for somebody who's paid to play games and give an accurate reflection of the game. He reviewed PES6 online without even playing 10 games online, The Outfit was another classic, the list goes on - check it out for yourself.

    Poor journalism. Biased scores. Sony's bitch.

  • sharpfish #13 6 years ago

    "Kristan's review would hold a little more water if he hadn't given a 9/10 to SC:DA and F.E.A.R. "

    Exactly, I could "admit" it was an '8' if these other games were at most 8s, or probably 7s. It's all about context, the other sites may have scored GeOw higher but they are in context with games like F.E.A.R, C.O.D etc so it makes sense (which all score lower than GOW on those sites).
    Edited by sharpfish at 19/11/06 @ 13:54

  • Crea #14 6 years ago

    OhWiseOne, come back, you dropped your tin foil hat.

    /waves tin foil hat

  • Xerx3s #15 6 years ago

    I agree that, after playing the game for a long period, the review is a bit off. As I don't look at scores I don't care in that respect. I also played FEAR and such and I seriously don't get how such a game could possibly score higher.

    However, unless you have some serious proof to back your claims up, I would suggest that you stuff them because you are making a mockery of yourself.

    Don't forget, a reviewer writes in a combination of objective and subjective viewpoints, it is possible that he thinks something that the general populous doesn't agree on. Doesn't mean that he is wrong. He just writes what he thinks of it. That's why you should read more than one review to get a good idea.

    Don't like the reviews in general? Find a site that better represents your taste.

  • Veldaban #16 6 years ago

    "expect a 9/10 for R:FOM soon..."

    I'm guessing, and it's just a guess mind, but I'm guessing Resistance will get a 7.

  • GordonJ #17 6 years ago

    Maybe OhWiseOne should actually read the site, and maybe even check out the Resistance review that was posted on the 17th.

  • udat #18 6 years ago

    I doubt it, he probably thinks they gave it a seven just to prove him wrong...

    GoW is good fun, although it took me a while to zero my sights as it were with the control scheme. I'd give it an 8.

    BTW, Project 8 is sweet as.

  • Tiiti #19 6 years ago

    Yea for the first few hours I had to give it a bit of a meh 7 or 8 out of 10 but after completing it last night, it easily gets a 9 or even a 10 from me.

  • polar #20 6 years ago

    Personally, I agree with an 8 and also agree with Krudster's assertion that the multiplayer has immense unrealised potential due to the whole ranking system and the proliferation of shouty american teen types on Live at the moment.

    However, I agree that the score of 8 in context of other recent reviews here is a mistake. Tom said in his article about buying a PS3 that each game had to be judged in context of the system it's on - which was backed up by Krudster in his Fear review. If I were to judge GoW purely based on how it compares to other 360 titles (SCDA included, which I haven't played once since GoW arrived over a week ago), I would give it a 9. It's a really great game to play despite its flaws and stands clearly above the likes of GRAW.

  • DCrider360 #21 6 years ago

    right now, GEARS is the "BADDEST GAME ON THE PLANET".

    i've already completed the game(arrived last wed in the post) , but there's a strange need to play it EVERYDAY!!!


    it's of no surprise it has claimed the 360's throne.

    GAME OF THE YEAR
    Edited by DCrider360 at 19/11/06 @ 15:35

  • asphaltcowboy #22 6 years ago

    It's no wonder it's beating Halo, it's astounding! The multiplayer is really great - working my way through the singleplayer now and looking for some co-op action in the near future! It's easily a 9 for me (as I predicted it would be). Game of the year for me... with Splinter Cell: DA a close second.

  • captainrentboy #23 6 years ago

    Well I'm halfway through chapter 3 on hardcore at the moment,and in my opinion it's more of a 9/10 experience(No i'm not trolling,different people have different tastes and what not)
    It's been a while since a game came along that has had me so on edge and fooking tense at regular intervals,infact the last game to get the same reactions from me was Res Evil 4.
    I shit it in G.O.W a lot,especially when the bastard locust know I've got a crappy gun,or are doing their suicide runs towards my spot and they leap over my barricade,the relief I get when I jammily stick the chainsaw in them is off the chart.
    Other highlights were the Berzerker attack and the nifty driving section which I managed to do on my first attempt with like a milimetre of health left.

  • Poorandugly #24 6 years ago

    "the nifty driving section which I managed to do on my first attempt with like a milimetre of health left."

    Me too! \o/
    I'm not looking forward to doing that particular mission again in insane. I imagine it can be quite frustrating.

  • YourMessageHere #25 6 years ago

    Oh for god's sake, get over this score business. Eurogamer's job is to score reviews based on what THEY think, not what YOU think and not what other sites think. It's not as if they said it was actually bad. If this is so insulting to you, why are you still here? I don't think something as globally hyped as GoW needs moral support, really.

  • crazyhorse174 #26 6 years ago

    I'd agree with the 8...its good - really good - but not mind-blowing.

    It does look fantastic though.

  • sharpfish #27 6 years ago

    OK... all of us who are loving gears of war will agree that EG was correct to give it an 8. However we will all agree that all their other recent reviews need marking down 1 (or 2) also because it just doesn't make sense! ;)


    /sarcasm (edited to point out that "GeOW is an 8" if "all recently reviewed HIGHER scoring games on EG were changed to sub 8".. the context thing again).
    Edited by sharpfish at 19/11/06 @ 20:10

  • guvner #28 6 years ago

    "all of us who are loving gears of war will agree that EG was correct to give it an 8."

    Speak for yourself FFS. It's an awesome experience. Co-op in particular is incredible. In the context of other reviews here (SC:DA and Fear being 9's), for me GoW is a 10, easy.

  • Rambaldi #29 6 years ago

    After seeing the quality of the GOW graphics online, R6Vegas online looks about as impressive as a Wii game.

    How DID they get it looking that nice?

  • Dreddnaught #30 6 years ago

    I daren't take this game online.

    I'm having major issues with the control scheme and it's complete and utter stupidity at leaving an x-axis invert option out for the camera.

    I can't imagine getting a shot off at anyone online

  • Xerx3s #31 6 years ago

    How DID they get it looking that nice?

    Simple, Unreal engine. It has not been bested since '97.

  • sharpfish #32 6 years ago

    "Speak for yourself FFS. It's an awesome experience. Co-op in particular is incredible. In the context of other reviews here (SC:DA and Fear being 9's), for me GoW is a 10, easy."

    You missed the sarcasm, I said We would agree it's an 8 if ALL other games on EG get lowered scores (by 1 or two).

    I would rate GeOw a "9.5" on my own scale for it's genre and for what it's supposed to do. It was an extension of my first post in this thread further up that whas basically saying what you just did "IF GeoW is an 8 then those other games are 5/6/7s etc".... of course it's one dudes opinion (Krudsters) and that is why reviews are flawed if they involve a NUMBER than can be compared to other games that the reviewer enjoyed more.

    Just look at gamerankings.com for an aggrate score (if a number is what you are after; Gears does very well there) and best of all listen to the players (user reviews/ratings/online player numbers) all of those show that the game is popular because it's a great game and certainly much more coveted than F.E.A.R or this years Splinter Cell Sequel.
    Edited by sharpfish at 19/11/06 @ 20:14

  • polar #33 6 years ago

    its great but lets not get carried away here

  • freedumb #34 6 years ago

    'Cover adds so much more realism to this game, and it's made all other shooters look basic in comparison.'

    Epic didn't invent cover in a game, you'll find a myriad of games have already used effective cover systems, 2 are FSW and BIA.

  • Azazel #35 6 years ago

    OMG! DIS IS DA BEST GAME EVAAA!!!1 MY PURCHASE OF A 360 IS TOTAILY JUSTYFIED!

    I may well bite the bullet and get this for the single player actually.

    I don't think I could stomach the multiplayer mind you... if I wanted to play on-line with a bunch of trash talking moronic kids I'd go back to CS. Typical big flashy graphical shooter packed with the kind of wankers who occasionally download a copy of Quake, log on to a server and proceed to shout: "LOL, THese gfx r shit! Y do U play this shit?!"

    Basically the kind of people who get told to fuck right off everywhere they go.

  • JayPee #36 6 years ago

    "Epic didn't invent cover in a game, you'll find a myriad of games have already used effective cover systems, 2 are FSW and BIA."

    I'm guessing you haven't played the game, as the cover system in Gears works totally differently to these games.

    GRAW or Kill.Switch would have been far more astute comparisons, however Gears does 'do' the cover system better than any other game I have played, dare I say it, even better than the RS:V demo, which I thought was almost perfect before trying Gears.

  • darkbhudda #37 6 years ago

    Just picked it up on my lunch break.

    It's just come out in Aussieland.

    It's on.

  • FooAtari #38 6 years ago

    I am enjoying the single player quite a lot, havent ventured online yet.

    It's easily one of the best games of the year. But I must admit, I agree with EG review over most others. It's very very good, but I'm not sure I would call it game of the year or something special. I'll need to wait until I complete it and play online before making that call...

  • davisorle #39 6 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • Xerx3s #40 6 years ago

    It's funny that the usual sad bunch abused the rating system to give this game a 1 & 2.

  • sharpfish #41 6 years ago

    @Azazel... I understand your concerns, but it's clear you haven't played it (in europe). I've clocked up around 15 hours online so far and it's been a pleasure everytime. All the guys (and some girls) are courtious and helpful. The team spirit is quite strong considering there is nothing "forcing" you to not be a lone wolf.

    I had some AMAZING matches last night in "The Mansion" and on "Canals" and "Rooftops"... those 3 Maps alone would be enough to give this games very high scores.

    I think most people simply won't understand how great this game is until they, not just take it online but get used to it online. You need to give it a few hours before you will feel the addictiveness coming in. Not many games are FUN to look out even when you are OUT of the round, just watching team mates is a laugh and the whole things works great.

    The cover system is the jewel in the crown, it slows down gameplay (In a good way) to actually turn "camping" into a good thing... staking out a busy point with a sniper rifle is immense fun (compared to previous shooters I've played like Unreal Tournement where slow, tactical play is a bad thing).

    The best part is when you leave the game, your mind is buzzing with "flashbacks" to situations in multiplayer, you feel as if you were there far more thanks to the cohesive gameplay and brilliant graphics. The nuances of gameplay are also brilliant, Blind Firing in a standoff between the last two survivors to see who makes the first wrong move.

    I have only played the single player game through to the start of act 2 at the moment (play more today) but I've spent more time online and there the game is easily the best/most well balanced online shooter I've played. A '9.5' for multiplayer and a '9' for the single player game based on around 3 hours play of singleplayer. THe game just keeps getting better and not more and more samey/annoying like HalfLife 2 did to me. The loading (singleplayer) is great, seamless loading as you progress so you never see a "loading screen" to bring you out of the immersion, just one huge world.

    And while I normally prefer more colourful graphics (I love Dead Rising) the ones in this game are breathtaking in their solidity and realism... watching the raing trickle through the cracks in the cobbles and sheets of water coming down outside the mansion (with refraction and all that gubbins when you look through it) just make it an amazing game that can be played and played again for long periods of time. Epic KNOW about making long players as they did the same with their unreal series.

    Compared to this, the RSV and FEAR Demos look like something running on a N64! And more importantly the gameplay is also spot on.

    Ok... review over ;)

  • dieseljunkie #42 6 years ago

    Post deleted at 14:42:38 15-12-2011

  • davisorle #43 6 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • davisorle #44 6 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • onyxbox #45 6 years ago

    played this all weekend co-op online on hardcore and had a lot of fun. makes me wish there were more co-op games.

  • sharpfish #46 6 years ago

    "The visuals are awesome, but no way to give it the highest mark just for that"

    I don't think everyone is rating it highly purely because of the visuals. I think they just happen to be great anyway. The GAMEPLAY is the only reason I would rate a title so highly.

    I agree that the story and development (and environmental "excitement";) was higher in Half Life 2 for example, but it's chalk and cheese. This is not a story based first person shooter. In HL2 the shooting is a game mechanic you "happen" to use to get through the game, in Gears the shooting (and cover) *IS* the mechanic and it's been honed to perfection.

    To put it another way, its more like an Arcade game that happens to be placed in a stunning universe. The same kind of gameplay over and over again in Gears, but that isn't a bad thing because that is what the game is intended to be. Each situation is another chance to have fun "solving" the problem, you can replay it loads and still enjoy it. In the typical Story led FPS's you don't get that much enjoyment from actually KILLING the enemy, just from progressing to the next area. In this game, the shooting action is actually fun.

    If you try and compare it to games like HL2 or FEAR (Or even Far Cry which I love as well) you will say this game is "Not as good" because you are looking at different kinds of games.

    It all comes down to good old fashioned gameplay with this which if you think about it is actually higer/more tuned gameplay than in these FPSs we mention who's only driving mechanic is merely to progress to see the next bit of story or to "see some new graphics".

    I understand some people won't get it or they will be dissapointed with it but coming from Unreal Tournment (Also by Epic) mainly this is similar, a tuned gameplay mechanic that you can play over and over again. Even in single player.

    So HL2 has a better story (no doubt) but how does that make you want to replay it anymore? You know the story, you won't forget it. Playing Gears again (I've replayed early levels a few times) gives you oppurtunities to really do better each time and get used to being in the game. Once the controls become second nature, doging, ducking and taking cover never get tired and always feel awesome.

    There are better single player games out there, but as a single AND multiplayer game this is hard to beat if you want sharp and focussed gameplay over overblown story led "blast through and forget" games. This is like Pac Man, Or Space Invaders or Street Fighter II... a game that does one thing extremely well and is addicitve because of it not inspite of it, after all we have many other games to fill those gaps that are in this game but they can't compensate for their lack of hyper-tuned sport like gameplay.

    /Review #2 over ;)

  • DCrider360 #47 6 years ago

    @sharpfish

    great comments bro!! i totally aggree.


    take a bow son

  • Moonprince #48 6 years ago

    You two are really pathetic. If only you could take a step outside yourselves and see how your comments read. Must suck to be you :/

  • davisorle #49 6 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • TelexStar #50 6 years ago

    By dieseljunkie - "I do not understand why so many people are so angry about this review. Most of it is right. This game is not a 10/10... nor a 9/10. It is a 8/10. The visuals are awesome, but no way to give it the highest mark just for that."

    I'm not angry but I look at the Eurogamer review and think it's well written but it doesn't make sense when you place it against other reviews like Splinter Cell: DA, which garnered a 9. I’ve played both and while I enjoyed Splinter Cell, there’s nothing original in the gameplay and it plays *exactly* the same as previous Splinter Cell games (and please don’t kid yourself into thinking that the trust system is anything more than a gimmick).

  • pjmaybe #51 6 years ago

    42 people on my friends list this weekend playing this at once...

    That's bloody popular all right :)

    Peej

  • Der_tolle_Emil #52 6 years ago

    @EuroSexMachine: As far as I know, Gamespot rated Zelda 8.8/10, which makes it basically a 9. But let's not argue about that. In a way you are right; Zelda will always be Zelda. But are the various Zelda games really all that similar? Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask may be similar, but every other Zelda incarnation was vastly different overall, although using the same gameplay mechanics. It felt fresh - maybe not totally innovative, but definetly something that felt new and at least a bit unique.

    @sharpfish: Good comment. I am currently stuck at the last boss with Gears of War, and I enjoyed the game most of the time, but there are a lot of things that bother me. It all comes down to individual taste. The game is exceptionally well done, no question about that. But to be honest, I really don't feel the need to replay it once I am done with it. I cannot be bothered to collect all the cog tags (and I like collecting stuff in games).

    Things that put me off most are: Checkpoint system. I usually favor a checkpoint system. But at some points the checkpoints in Gears of War are just placed so wrong. Sometimes you have to go through a whole lot of dialoge again and again ("Whoah, look at all that juice. Marcus, do you have any idea how much that imulsion is worth? - I don't think I can count that high" or something like that). I heard that time I don't know how often, because the fight is really tough and I died a lot. The checkpoints in this game also disallow backtracking, which is a very bad thing if you left out ammo and really need it. And they do not save everything correctly. Act 4, before entering the mansion, there are two troikas. I killed one, just to find that the way collapses and I have to go back and take the other route. Once killed, the guard at the troika I killed before reappeared, making it a lot more difficult. I think that Gears of War features one of the most flawed checkpoints system I know. Sometimes it is really frustrating to reload.

    Then: Act 3. The most boring part of the game. Everything looks the same, everything plays the same. And it does nothing to drive the story. It was sad because I liked the little sequences in the first 2 acts; Feeling sad for Rojas because of his child's birthday, the first time you meet Cole and recognize him as a sports star. All those little things get dropped during Act 3 to 5. It was Act 3 that I started to realize, that once you finished awing at the incredible visuals, the game is quite repetitive. It plays exactly the same, over and over again. Act 1 and 2 were fine because of the beautiful environment and the little chit-chat between the characters.

    Then there is another thing: The music. Sometimes I wished it was more dramatic. I really like orchestrated games but the compositions are a bit bland and don't really underline what is going on. It definetly needs more drama like at the last act on the train when the music also features drums. Until then the music just plays along withough me really noticing it.

    It all comes down to this: The shooting is very, very well done. There is a lot of stuff going on and everything plays well together - until Act 3. It then becomes apparent that the game is actually the same over and over again. Still well done, but nothing that would keep me wanting to play the game over and over again.

    It eventually comes down to an 8/10. There is so much to write about this game, things that are done so incredibly well and things that spoil the gaming experience and are really frustrating.

  • sharpfish #53 6 years ago

    I can see your point, I'm sure there are flaws in the singleplayer. I know one or two things that I would prefer to be different even as early as act 2. It doesn't fully detract from the game in relation it's peers flaws though. It's an equal in different ways rather than an inferior product in my opinion.

    I admit, had I not been so enthralled by the online multiplayer that I wouldn't be quite so happy about the game. However, maybe it is because I know EPICs games and i understand that they tend to favour online (ever since Unreal Tournament). In UT the singleplayer was even more repetitive than GOW, just going round maps doing the deathmatch thing with bots. This is because the game was basically a multiplayer title, as I believe is GeOW. The singleplayer "story mode" is in my eyes an added bonus and it keeps it closer to what console players typically expect from a game. I am certain that when CliffyB came up with the fledging ideas for Gears he was concentrating mostly on the "feel" of multiplayer, the visceral, "every move is fun" and "every shot is a buzz" feeling. Of course they had to invent some backstory and a universe to set it in (as they had done previously in UT) but I can see clearely the games purpose is to get a group of people together and immerse them in fire fights like it's never been done before. To give a sense of how it is in real life (more akin to the paintball he mentioned in the preface due to emphasis on the fun and shooting rather than being shot and killed).

    I don't know what it is but I've been pretty burned out on multiplayer shooters since UT2k3 and some console stuff. Nothing has tempted me back into multiplayer but Gears did and I'm glad because it finally delivers the experience I tried to create myself in Unreal Tourney, Quake, Far Cry, R6, HL2 etc but the game mechanics never really allowed it until gears came along.

    I can certainly see why some of the commenters think an 8 is correct, or even less if it's not to their tastes (btw I rate Dead Rising as an equal to Gears for different reasons which shows how tastes differ).

    As was said numerous times, the only reason those of us who love Gears (esp who given it time online) have a "problem" with the 8 is purely because of games whos flaws are greater and whos gameplay is lesser getting higher scores on this here site.

    Not that it really matters. Gears is already Game Of the year to thousands of people and will likely win a shed load of awards.

    /review #3 (sorry) ;)
    Edited by sharpfish at 20/11/06 @ 11:02

  • davisorle #54 6 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • Der_tolle_Emil #55 6 years ago

    Yep, I hate that bow :) I am having a difficult time with it. I don't have a problem with active reloading, and I agree that it adds a lot to the game, especially once you manage to do a perfect reload without looking at the bar on the top right.

    @sharpfish: I still have to try multiplayer. The comparison to Dead Rising is a good one. I really like Dead Rising and would prefer the game over Gears of War any time. Gears of War is fun but Dead Rising delivers an experience that feels totally new and fresh (yes, Zombies are nothing new, I know that).

    To make a point, there is no sense in ranting about the score. Tastes are thank god different, 8 is a great score and I can imagine a lot of people would rate that game 10/10; Even more than people who would rate it 8/10. But if you are not a die-hard fan of endless shooting then the flaws seem so much more obvious and sometimes ruin the gaming experience. Even with the 8/10 rating I would nominate the game for game of the year.
    Edited by Der_tolle_Emil at 20/11/06 @ 11:13

  • davisorle #56 6 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • WestBullet #57 6 years ago

    @der_tolle_emil

    I thought ACT 3 was easily the best chapter in the whole game, infact i would have prefered if ACT 5 and 3 swapped places and 3 was the end.


    SPOILERS******


    ACT 3 has the best caves in any game ever and the final push to the pumping station to deploy the resonator was great! Most epic part of the game IMO.
    Edited by WestBullet at 20/11/06 @ 11:30

  • Azazel #58 6 years ago

    @sharpfish - to be honest if I do buy it, which I probably will this week, I'd say I will almost certainly be trying the multiplayer anyway. I was just having myself a little rant as I conjured up all the llamas I have encountered in the past. Some games seem to attract them more than others.

  • The-Bodybuilder #59 6 years ago

    >"Got an 8 in Edge too, can't be that in accurate then! :)"

    They gave halo a 10.

  • sharpfish #60 6 years ago

    "I was just having myself a little rant as I conjured up all the llamas I have encountered in the past"

    I know the ones... thankfully haven't seen them yet on GeOW.

  • The-Bodybuilder #61 6 years ago

    GOW is making me not do my university assignments.

    I mean, really, other than the first hour or so of the game, I can't even think of a single moment of the game I don't want to play again.
    I want to play everything, from the first encounter of the beserker, to the nightfall of the krylls, to driving to the camp, to the first fight against the corpser.
    I want to play the multiplayer, single player and co-op. I want to play EVERY PART of this game over and over and over.

    I honestly cannot understand how krudster found FEAR more fun than this. I mean, he's entitles to his opinion and all, but.......HOW can find FEAR more fun?

  • guvner #62 6 years ago

    @sharpfish: Sorry buddy, my apologies. :)

  • Tiiti #63 6 years ago

    makes me wish there were more co-op games.

    +1 x9million

  • The-Bodybuilder #64 6 years ago

    >"I don't think I could stomach the multiplayer mind you... if I wanted to play on-line with a bunch of trash talking moronic kids I'd go back to CS. Typical big flashy graphical shooter packed with the kind of wankers who occasionally download a copy of Quake, log on to a server and proceed to shout: "LOL, THese gfx r shit! Y do U play this shit?!""

    Don't worry about it. GOW does what GRAW does and matches you with local people (aka brits and/or possibly other europeans).
    I haven't come across a single crazy american teen (not the adults) so far. But I have stayed out of the ranked games.

  • dog2_99 #65 6 years ago

    i have to say that i have been mightly impressed by GOW...i love the single player, got in an agrument with my housem8 as i was playing it sooooo much and the multi player was fun as well across l!ve, all the people were from UK or EUR and it was civilised and really enjoyable with no swearing on the voice...all really refreshing...makes me wonder what i am to do with my PS3?

  • guvner #66 6 years ago

    "I'm not angry but I look at the Eurogamer review and think it's well written but it doesn't make sense when you place it against other reviews like Splinter Cell: DA, which garnered a 9. I’ve played both and while I enjoyed Splinter Cell, there’s nothing original in the gameplay and it plays *exactly* the same as previous Splinter Cell games"

    Precisely. EG have made a rod for their own back with their reviews of others games. Having a harsher review scale than other websites IS FINE, as long as the reviews are in context with each other. Yet comparing GoW with other RECENT 360 games; SC:DA and Fear got 9's and Pacman got 8.

    And please, no comments about reviews being subjective and thus capable to variation; even a buffoon can see there's something wrong about GoW scoring identically to Pacman, and also, surely the reviews here aren't a free-for-all but there is someone in charge of some quality control steering the ship.

    Additionally it didn't help reviewing half the game. Splitting a review into two bits is ok, but giving each bit a score is BS (especially when splitting reviews is only rarely done) and invites valid criticism since seperately the scores won't be as high.

  • dog2_99 #67 6 years ago

    upon playing the game i feel 8 is a little too harsh...i think 10's should be rare and perhap this does just miss out on that but having played FEAR this is far more entertaining and everyone that see it (had some non-gaming m8s over) is totally blown away by the graphics they thought it was the PS3 running (which i know is not reason alone to award high marks but still it has more than great graphics)...by the way i think COD3 is great as well, played it and loved it but GOW is just too good, it will have to gather dust!

  • davisorle #68 6 years ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • Der_tolle_Emil #69 6 years ago

    The recent scores of other games are the most valid criticism I think. Pacman aside (giving this an 8 is inexplicable), I enjoyed Splinter Cell and I find a 9 a bit high. Then again, it has a very fun multiplayer part too. I haven't played Fear yet but I ordered it.

    The problem that I have is, that the 10 scale is not entirely used. Good games rank between 8/10 and 10/10 (maybe all equally good but rated differently depending on the reviewer's taste), 7/10 is already beginning to be an average game, while everything 5/10 or lower equals a bad game. That means that most good games are bound to have a rating with 7/10 or higher. That leaves us with a scale that covers about 4 points. I don't know about the average score throughout all the 360 games but I doubt that the points scale is used how it is supposed to be used.

    In the end the problem will never go away. People want scores, heck, even I want a score at the end of a review because I usually look at the score first and then read the review (due to lack of time mostly). I guess people are mostly put off by the fact that someone does not agree with their opinion. They need to get their opinion confirmed, they don't really care what others think. Luckily I don't have that problem. 8/10 is a must buy if I am interested in that game, and 10/10 is reserved for very few titles that are totally awesome - like Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

  • dog2_99 #70 6 years ago

    actually thats a good point across L!ve once i was killed (which happened loads) i honestly didnt mind watching on the camera of my team members, it is a lovely game to watch! that is RARE

  • JayPee #71 6 years ago

    When you're playing with better players than yourself (as is often the case with me :/) I find it very useful to be able to follow a player and watch how they play. It gives great insights/tips on where one's own gameplay is lacking.

    Sometimes people just get lucky (foe walks into shotgun barrel) but most of the time skills/tactics shine through.

  • Barry619 #72 6 years ago

    As most i'm not surprised, single player and online are both amazing, and even thought it really can't be compared to halo 2.... it still blows it away in all aspects! not to mention anything the PS3 current has to offer! i'm still pleased i went 360 :)

  • sharpfish #73 6 years ago

    My actual review of Gears Of war:

    [link url=http://sharpfish.realityfakers.com/?p=104
    ]http://sharpfish.realityfakers.com/?p=104
    [/link]

    325 out of 350! FTW! ;P


  • darkbhudda #74 6 years ago

    @EuroSexMachine

    Apology accepted.