Gears to become a trilogy?

By Tom Bramwell Published 21 November, 2006

Ad man drops hints.

A Microsoft ad-man looks to have inadvertently confirmed Epic Games' plan for further Gears of War titles.

Speaking to GameDaily about the company's Xbox 360 promotions this Christmas, Microsoft's corporate VP of global marketing, Jeff Bell, says, "The goal of [one particular ad] is to establish Marcus Fenix as the hero of the Gears of War trilogy."

Fenix of course is the front-man in Epic's recently completed Xbox 360 exclusive, which is now on sale in both the US and Europe and has picked up excellent reviews.

"I love the universe and everything involved in it and if the game does amazingly well I wouldn't rule anything out," lead designer Cliff Bleszinski has previously said.

With Microsoft predicting more than one million sales worldwide this Christmas, and the game already the most popular title on Xbox Live (more popular even than Halo 2), it's hard to imagine it'll be viewed as a failure.

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 (49) Latest comment 6 years ago

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

  • woodnotes #1 6 years ago

    I think it's an awesome game!

    It's really spoilt me though. All other shooter now seem really weak in comparison, not just in graphics, but because they have no cover technique. Try playing Gears for a few hours and then go back to any other FPS (edit: 3rdPS) and you'll see what I mean.
    Edited by woodnotes at 21/11/06 @ 19:12

  • skillian #2 6 years ago

    Colour me shocked. :p

    p.s. woodnotes, Gears isn't an FPS.

  • captainrentboy #3 6 years ago

    If this stays as a 360 exclusive it could really help Microsoft out,as I'd imagine G.O.W 2's hype levels in the future could surpass even that of Halo 2 and 3's.
    Still thoroughly enjoying G.O.W,just getting into act 4 now,one thing they could do for the next one is make it a tad longer mind.

  • EmiliasHorse #4 6 years ago

    I agreed with the 8/10 for single player but co-op over Live is brilliant. This game seems to have been made with co-op at its heart. A trilogy is great news; sign me up for a lot of that.

  • Ainudil Verified QA Engineer, Easy Studios #5 6 years ago

    It seems reasonable as I thought Gears of War ended just when the story got interesting.

  • PlugMonkey #6 6 years ago

    "A Microsoft ad-man looks to have inadvertently confirmed Epic Games' plan for further Gears of War titles."

    Shurely not!!!

    Woodnotes - I know exactly what you mean, but it took me a while to adjust to it. When three enemies burst through a door, 15 years of FPS experience tells me that my first impulse should be to shoot back. In GoW your first reaction has to be to dive for the nearest cover. And bizarrely, that's far more satisfying.

    The first time I consciously realised I'd made a split second decision to dive left instead of right because the cover on the left provided me with more strategic options, I was hooked.

  • superted #7 6 years ago

    i agree with woodnotes too... can't go back to games without being able to cover!!

    Looking forward to gears 2 and 3... as long as they dont fuck it up like the Matrix :)

  • davisorle #8 6 years ago

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

  • The-Bodybuilder #9 6 years ago

    Deserves all the praise it gets IMO.
    Atfer MS failing to make any phenomenon of a game since halo (failed with brute forse and pfz), GOW does it....with a BANG.

    This game is not just a system seller, but a LIVE seller. I lived on free month and 48-hr trials prior to GOW. Now I have to get atleast a 3-month gold subscription tomorrow.

  • JackB #10 6 years ago

    Try playing with friendly fire on in multiplayer. Even more strategy around which cover position to take. The team that gets themselves in the best firing position has the edge. You can't run in single file or you'll shoot your buddies.

  • Kostabi #11 6 years ago

    Considering they weren't brand names when launched it's amazing MS has carved out such a following for Halo and now Gears of War.

  • EmiliasHorse #12 6 years ago

    Don't forget PGR and Forza.
    MS are doing a great job.

  • JediMasterMalik #13 6 years ago

    OMG I'm SHOCKED!!

  • ralphwolfenstein #14 6 years ago

    OMFG! Succesful game to spawn sequel! Scoop of the century guys...

    Here're some more for you:

    Halo: Prelude - 'We're stopping at 3"? I don't think so!

    Final Fantasy: XIII (actually, this may have been announced... actually, this may even be out... I lose track, but fuck it, you get the point)

    Next Gen Zelda! (I mean the REAL next gen)

    etc.

  • Inquisitor #15 6 years ago

    I think its a shame that none of Microsofts attempts at platformers have really garnered much attention. Voodoo vince, conker, ghoulies, these were all actually pretty decent. Psychonaughts was a microsoft game as well, before they let it go. Seems like the xbox crowd just don't appreciate that sort of game.

    Can't really remember that many other microsoft franchise attempts. Mech assault and crimson skies and midtown madnees I guess (whats happened to these, I remember them being pretty popular at the time?). Oh yea, and the great sports titles like amped, links and rallisport challenge. Certainly been a real struggle for the big M$, but they've been constantly releasing quality at least.

  • Dark_Stranger #16 6 years ago

    @Inquisitor - unlike Sony, MS have a vast amount of quality control over the games released (unlike its OS), resulting in a higher amount of good quality games compared to sony who allow any 3rd party micro developer to churn out binnary crud.

  • woodnotes #17 6 years ago

    "p.s. woodnotes, Gears isn't an FPS. "

    Yup, that's weird. It absolutely isn't but because it controls (mostly) like a FPS, I remember it as so in my head.

  • Xerx3s #18 6 years ago

    This game is so brilliant. The coop is just fantastic. And the graphics in the caves.... 0_0 You haven't seen the light until you've seen that. And all that combined with gameplay that changes with every chapter.

    @ Inquisitor - unlike Sony, MS have a vast amount of quality control over the games released (unlike its OS), resulting in a higher amount of good quality games compared to sony who allow any 3rd party micro developer to churn out binnary crud.

    I'm sure that I can dig up a couple of one's. ¬_¬

  • The-Bodybuilder #19 6 years ago

    >"Can't really remember that many other microsoft franchise attempts. Mech assault and crimson skies and midtown madnees I guess (whats happened to these, I remember them being pretty popular at the time?)"

    brute force, pdz, and many others.

    >"Yup, that's weird. It absolutely isn't but because it controls (mostly) like a FPS, I remember it as so in my head."

    Actually, it doesn't control that much like an fps. for instance, thier isn't a constant aiming reticule.

  • mattigan #20 6 years ago

    It's weird, but for me it's like a puzzle game, where every set piece (and the whole game is basically set pieces strung together for me so far), has a fairly specific method of getting through and the real fun is working out the solution of who to shoot when and where the grenades are hiddeng.

    That said, I'm not through Act 1 yet so it might all change.

  • allyjweir #21 6 years ago

    i just hope it comes out on PC

  • SirStanley #22 6 years ago

    @Inquisitor

    Mechassault, Crimson, Links, Amped (1&2): all made by MS internal studios which were sold-off or closed-down.

    Midtown, Rallisport: made for MS by DICE, now part of EA.

    In other words, all R.I.P., with the exception of Amped which was (temporarily at least) resurrected.

    Sad because, as you say, most of those games were pretty decent at least.

  • EmiliasHorse #23 6 years ago

    Co-op with a friend and gaming bliss is just a short load away. In single player Dom is plain stooopid, forever getting himself killed after foolishly charging when hiding behind a box was the thing to do. In co-op Dom may still be thick but at least you can yell at him/her happy in the knowledge that they are listening to your words of advice (Unless they threw their headset at a wall after continuous Fenix blunders) Most fun since Halo2!

  • Azazel #24 6 years ago

    T3H AWESUMEST GAME EVA time 3!!!1 ZOMG! 48/10!

    @mattigan: actually that's how I tend to find a lot of these scripted linear action beasties as well. In a good way usually.

  • effinwooly #25 6 years ago

    great news eh ! best game i have played in ages !!

  • gooners2006 #26 6 years ago

    i like the sound of a GoW trilogy...this could potentially be the next Halo...the only thing that they need to do in the next GoW is to make the story mode longer since there is only 5 Acts and doesnt last really long unless u play it again at a higher level

  • spongebob #27 6 years ago

    Cliff B just likes burly beefed up men, that's all.

    Nah, but really, good if more of the good stuff is coming soon.

  • numptyboymatt #28 6 years ago

    I never thought I would like co-op online play, but I tried it tonight for the 1st time and now I really can see what all the fuss is about.... just a shame Im a bit rubbish really.

  • asphaltcowboy #29 6 years ago

    Good news!

  • PlugMonkey #30 6 years ago

    Gears is an amazing game but you have to understand it's not an FPS. It's more of an action game (not a "first" person shooter).

    Meh. I think the term 'FPS' has pretty much developed to be shorthand for any game where you run your character around with a gun pointing a cross hair at stuff. I don't think the mildly different perspective means comparisons to other shooters suddenly become irrelevant. Gears is a lot closer in gameplay to FEAR or Doom or Quake than it is to Resident Evil or GTA or Dead Rising.

    Sort of how RPG doesn't mean any game where I play a role. To me FPS describes a gameplay style ahead of a camera type, as that's the far more important factor in what I'm describing.

  • sharpfish #31 6 years ago

    "The first time I consciously realised I'd made a split second decision to dive left instead of right because the cover on the left provided me with more strategic options, I was hooked."

    Yeah, that's the charm of the game. It's such a basic instinctive thing. And the way you "locked" into the cover is why it feels so good. Much better than holding crouch or non-dynamically moving between cover (clumsily) in other shooters.

    I am on act 4 now, act 3 was awesome (though a little gimmicky in places and reminisent of RE4 on the mine cars and what have you)... The caves were great. Sliding down the paths to slam into cover felt cool as hell and the atmosphere there really punctuated the rest of the game. I like the atmosphere of it.

    The cut scenes are still great, the one at the end of act 3 being my favourite so far.

    And someone mentioned above how the game got 16/10 (a joke about the two '8' reviews) but it occured to me (and not wanting to start the debate up again) but if you score a game purely on it's single player and it scores and 8 then whatever the multiplayer scores is in ADDITION to that score because it's what you get for the single price you pay. So it's not an '8' at all and it was a really daft way to review it.

    If the Single player is an '8' you would then raise the games score because multiplayer is also solid as hell (actually it's even better than single player) and both parts are done well. So, a nice single review of this game without that stupid two-score system would have been better even if it meant leaving the score off the first review and slapping a final '8' on the whole product because it still doesn't make sense to review 2 seperate parts as if 2 games, both getting an 8 and then treating the game like a single part and calling an average score. It should be an ADDITIONAL score not an average. Obv 16/10 isn't possible and that shows just how flawed that double review was. Sorry but it's a fact guys. 8 is 8 and if thats what you think the *WHOLE* game deserves then that's your right, but the seperate reviews should reflect and for example be "singleplayer: 4 and multiplayer 4".. as you know neither of them are '4s' so hello flaw-city. :)


  • Veldaban #32 6 years ago

    What's it matter whether the two reviews of the game are "added up" or not? Personally I'm not really interested in the multiplayer part, so it's good to have a review of just the single player component (can we have more reviews like this?). Maybe some people really only play this game for the multiplayer. If you're interested in both, you can read both reviews and know that both modes are good. Isn't the point of the review to find out whether you want to buy the game or not?

    Yes, it messes up the "metascore" but metascores aren't and shouldn't be the problem of individual review sites.

  • sharpfish #33 6 years ago

    "What's it matter whether the two reviews of the game are "added up" or not?"

    The problem is all other games on this site (with a few exceptions) are reviewed as a single entity, the multiplayer in them can "make up" for the single player flaws or vice-versa, the overall score being awarded for the fun in BOTH parts of the game and the value it provides for the price compared to other games (whatever genre) for the same price. If they genuinely believe that the multiplayer ALONE is worth an 8 then an overall "8" must mean the singleplayer is worth zero? Surely you can see that logic?

    If both parts are worth '8' it doesn't make the entire package worth 8 because you are getting two "8 rated games for the price of 1" which in anyone's book is a high scoring game (ergo 16/10).

    A single game should be awarded a single score taking into account ALL of it's parts not marking parts seperatley and ending up with a confusing score.

    And please it's not about a stupid number or a score, I really don't care that much about what one site thinks, I know the game is a blast as I'm knee deep in the action on it right now. It's merely highlighting that in future EG should think twice about split reviews as it's just not helpful or fair to the games. Split up F.E.A.R or Splinter Cell into single/multiplayer reviews and see what they score seperatley that would show the flawed logic at work. When you buy a game you buy both parts so I want to know the single score for both parts as "a package", if both are really 8 then the game is obviously not an 8 overall but far higher.


  • Jonathan_Fakenham #34 6 years ago

    So, when the next Xbox is out, and you're looking over the little pile of old 360-games you decided to keep, it's all going to be a bunch of trilogies, then??

  • Veldaban #35 6 years ago

    "If they genuinely believe that the multiplayer ALONE is worth an 8 then an overall "8" must mean the singleplayer is worth zero? Surely you can see that logic?"

    Not only can I not see that logic, I would go so far as to say there is no logic. Two parts of a product can both be "good" but that doesn't necessarily mean that the whole product is "extraordinarily good". I can well imagine Eurogamer considering the whole package to still be an 8. Or a 9 or 10, hard to say. I think it's left to the reader to determine the final score depending on how important single/multiplayer is to them. Isn't that beneficial to the reader?

    It's true that some games are scored in this way and some are not. I wouldn't say it's "unfair" to the game as games aren't people and they're not in competition (the companies behind them are of course, but it's not Eurogamer's job to be fair to THEM). It does make it a little harder to compare games between each other, that's true. I guess you'll have to read the actual reviews themselves to compare the games then...

  • sharpfish #36 6 years ago

    ... Imagine I have £40 in my pocket and i'm interested in some games (F.E.A.R or SC and Gears as examples). Pretend i'm someone who bases my purchase decisions purely on the score EG gives to games (esp if it's my last £40 and I want to read a review site that effectively compares and rates games against other games).

    I look at F.E.A.R .. Great it's got a '9' it must be hot and that 9 is for *all* of the game both single and multiplayer which is what *I* am buying it for (as would be Splinter Cell).

    Then I read Gears review part 1.. fine I can comprehend what they are saying in the text and see it's a great game with some flaws as all games have. Then I read Part 2, again great online game with some quirks that the reviewer didn't like... but where is the consistent rating for the game? Is it "really" an 8 based on two part reviews both giving 8s? The problem is I am buying the game as a whole the same as I would be buying FEAR as a whole so I would like a review score BASED on the whole game (even if it is an 8 overall - just frickin say so and be done with it).

    The gears review score is meaningless and out of context because of a random act of splitting it's parts up. And as anyone will know, typically the sum of something is usually greater than it's parts, the total sum of the package you get for you money is more than the individual parts rated 8 each alone.

    Therefore the sum of 8+8 doesn't equal 8 but EG haven't actually stated anything of usuable value because they changed the format of reviews for reasons best known to themselves. A single gears of war review giving a score of '8' would have been fine because we can trust the score then as it's looking at the whole picture and it's in context with and comparable to the other reviews on the website.

    Until then 16/10 it must be! ;)

  • Xerx3s #37 6 years ago

    I don't mind the score and the review is fair enough. However, I have played both SCDA and Fear (it's effin ancient ffs) and I can in no way see those games being better than this. They where 'meh' at best. 7/10. GoW is imo in a league of it's own. I had a coop game this night and it was a hundred times more fun than those games (imo, some people will probably disagree).

    But then again, why bother with scores at all? A review and a conclusion will do nicely.

  • JayPee #38 6 years ago

    I think the buzz over Gears in the forum and rather large continued presence of about 20 EGers + on live every night playing this is their own rooms & playing the co-op campaign through at every difficulty speaks a lot more volumes than Kristan playing this through on single player, a little bit co-op and saying "Well, it felt like an 8" and complaining about lack of innovation, which is very disagreeable anyway.

    I think as soon an MS piled on the pressure to get the game out the developers thought "trilogy" TBH. It is far easier to knock a quick one out (ooh-er) and then do the same twice over than spend the same development time for 1/3rd of the revenue.

  • skillian #39 6 years ago

    FPS is a first person shooter. Gears is a third person shooter.

    Those meanings haven't morphed into anything else over time, they are what they are.

  • thinktank #40 6 years ago

    @Jaypee

    I totaly agree, it did seem as if kristan just dipped his toe in the online side and decide "meh its ok" as if he had already made his mind up b4 playing. Especialy shocked considering that SC:DA (4!!!) and TH (8!!!!!!!) scored 9. Innovation was lacking in gears was it?

    Any how in response to an earlier comment, i feel gow has totaly spoilt me too, i tried the R6:V multiplayer demo earlier and after gears, it looked, played, and felt, al least two years old (Single player demo was good tho). Are we stuffed now till halo 3??

    How the hell have epic managed to keep the graphics that good when online when all other games take such a graphical hit when played online. Even halo!

    colour me baffled
    Edited by thinktank at 22/11/06 @ 00:32

  • Jheronimus #41 6 years ago

    Had my first rounds yesterday, and despite the fact that I'm utter bollocks it is the shooter that surpasses every shooter to date. A definite 9/10 for me!

  • MJ #42 6 years ago

    Surely two 8 out of 10s = 16 out of 20. I don't think you can treat them like fractions.

  • sharpfish #43 6 years ago

    "Surely two 8 out of 10s = 16 out of 20. I don't think you can treat them like fractions."

    It would be that way if you had to buy two seperate games that were both marked 8. Collectively they would be 16/20.

    Because you buy ONE game with two included parts that BOTH scored 8 seperately you get the 16/10 business because all titles reviewed on here (a single game) are scored out of 10 not 20.

    Of course 16/10 is wrong, it just highlights the mistake of scoring a single game TWICE (two part reviews are fine, but keep a single score until the end of the second part and award it to the game as a whole which is what you are buying!).
    Edited by sharpfish at 22/11/06 @ 09:08

  • sharpfish #44 6 years ago

    "Enough about the 8/10, it doesn't really matter any more, this game has so much momentum no bad reviews can stop it being wildly successful"

    Yeah I know, I'm not concerned about EG's score of the game, it just the way they arrived at it (or not arrive at it more to the point, what is the "overall" score for the whole package?).

    I wouldn't really, in my busy life, take all this time to go on about it if it was just a case of "waaa my favourite game of the moment didn't get a 10". I don't care if they scored it 5 or even 2, I don't seek validation from a bunch of strangers who happen to run a website.

    I am saying the random change in scoring system does matter (whatever game it was and whatever score it got) because the reviews are flawed if you give two scores to a single game because you can't average them for one game and then "guess" how they arrived at a single score for another game, keep it consistent FFS. I mean is the FEAR score an average score of what they would award it's multiplayer and singleplayer? or is it an "overall feeling" of what the game as a whole deserves, singleplayer being great and multiplayer an "added bonus"?

    Answers on a postcard please.

    I don't care about the '8' being 'less' than the obviously inferior SC or FEAR but no-one seems to get how wrong it is to score *any* game twice as if you have to buy two parts when it comes as one package. It throws on-site comparisons out the window and makes a mockery of the scoring system, the two scores may as well not exist and they should just give us a scoreless review if they are going to mess with the formula when it suits them.

    A shame that's all because 9 times out of 10 I think EG reviews are spot on and I like the website generally.


  • sharpfish #45 6 years ago

    "360 is kicking ass at the moment, I mean next year we get Forza 2, Lost planet, Mass effect, Halo 3, Fable 2, GTA IV, Bioshock, PGR4, Halo wars, C&C3, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Trusty bell.

    People say next gen isn't bringing anything new to the table, I don't care these games have got me more excited about gaming than I've been in a long time. Gears of war is just the beginning."

    Yes, agreed on that one. As a 32 year old "gamer" I've become jaded over the years and nothing really impresses me these days (games wise) I've seen it all before and played it all before (since the Atari VCs in the early 80's to be precise).

    Due to the higher level of graphics and controls in the 360 games I like (PGR3, Dead Rising, Gears etc) I find I can more readily feel incentive to play and replay them. Achievements are also an incentive booster (though not gamerscore, who cares about scores right? ;) ) and mostly because developers are now finally getting nearly all ingredients just right even in "done before" games. It's like the ultimate versions of your favourite genres are now emerging (from emergence holes no doubt). They are polished and solid and even if they don't innovate they are still a lot of fun.

    Those games you mention above and the ones I mentioned are reason enough to own a 360. Viva (pinata) the revolution!! :p
    Edited by sharpfish at 22/11/06 @ 09:56

  • penhalion #46 6 years ago

    Please don't do a Halo 2 on this one Epic!

    I don't want to know the back story to some obscure Locust Theron guard, nor do I want to play as a locust for half the game! I'm killing them for butchering my race so trust me when I say I don't also want to have to sympathise with them.

    What I do want though is lots more of the run, duck, shoot, cover and snipe. I want to have the controls tweaked so that A doesn't do too much. I want to have Dom still playable for co-op. I want some different environments and maybe even some more travel. Maybe visit a moon of sera or one of the orbital hammers.

    In short I want more of the same with some extras added to make me feel like I'm not buying gears twice! Oh and advance the story with maybe 8 chapters instead of five

  • kangarootoo #47 6 years ago

    I'm getting more tempted by this as time rolls by.

    Other thoughts in no particular order.

    Whether this qualifies as an fps or a 3rdps is about the least important topic of discussion I can imagine. We all know what we mean, pedants be silent.

    Co-op is awesome. Co-op online is the thing that may eventially sell this to me.

    "I love the universe and everything involved in it" says CliffB. Well each to their own Cliffy. The whole "my ass can fire more bullets that yours, now drop ans give me twenty, Goddamn it!!" style of GeOW is one of the things putting me off (not by much mind, I can simply ignore these things if the gameplay is good, same as FSW's politics).

    sharpfish wrote,
    "Of course 16/10 is wrong, it just highlights the mistake of scoring a single game TWICE".

    No it doesn't, it highlights the complete inability of some people to find the average of two IDENTICAL numbers. I learnt to average a bunch of different numbers when I was about 10 years old. Is it really so hard for people to comprehend? The fact that EG reviewed this in two parts is an utter non issue and I can't believe people are STILL rattling on about it.

    Who cares what the overall score is (even if, should you absolutely need one, averaging the two will give you a number that will help you sleep at night)? But seriously, who bloody cares? Gamerankings and metacritic can go kiss a whale's butt. Are you people or punch card readers ffs? Use your minds!

  • YourMessageHere #48 6 years ago

    They'll not take any notice, but still, you tell them, kangarootoo. Anyone would think they'd made the game themselves.

  • skillian #49 6 years ago

    Whether this qualifies as an fps or a 3rdps is about the least important topic of discussion I can imagine. We all know what we mean, pedants be silent.

    I'd rather discuss that than the fricking 8/20 score again :p