Gears of War has 'zero innovation', says EA exec

By Ellie Gibson Published 10 November, 2006

He thinks it's overrated.

Alain Tascan, general manager for EA Montreal, has revealed that he thinks Xbox 360 title Gears of War has been overrated by reviewers - with one or two exceptions.

Speaking in a panel discussion at the Montréal Games Summit, Tascan said, "What is Gears of War? I mean Gears of War brings nothing in terms of innovation to the shooter... Like, zero.

"Only two very brave UK-based journalists said, 'You know what, Gears of War is a great game but it's like what Quake was a few years ago.

"Why are people loving it so much? It's like added production value, incredible cutscenes and the best ever graphics ever. I'm sure it's going to be a great success, I can't wait to play it, but let's face that graphics are still number one," Tascan continued.

He then used the comparison of a nice looking girl you might see in a bar and go up and talk to, "And if she's smart enough, that's the gameplay.

"I'm not talking about my tastes, I'm just saying, when you go to metacritic and you see a 96 for Gears of War, then you read the critics saying, 'Okay, storyline - there's none, gameplay is not innovative...' Then I say, why did they give this 96? They were blown away by the high quality of the graphics... Myself, I prefer something more creative," Tascan concluded.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (267) Latest comment 5 years ago

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

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #1 5 years ago

    I like Alain Tascan! :D

  • The-Bodybuilder #2 5 years ago

    Truly, I'm I first.
    And truly is this a shock, from all the companies in the world.

    Edit: DAMN YOU!!!
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 00:46

  • Calo #3 5 years ago

    Thats right EA, you tell em how to make great games! ;)

    I really want to play GoW, just to see if this is all true

  • Psychotext #4 5 years ago

    Sorry... wait... an EA exec dared to talk about innovation?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..... COUGH..... HAHAHHAHAHAHAH.... CHOKE... HAHA.... DEAD

  • Hunamster #5 5 years ago

    Singing your praises from EA now?

    Lol, i guess they could spot a lack of innovation from a while away, because black was really original :|

  • Psychotext #6 5 years ago

    One other thing...

    "And if she's smart enough, that's the gameplay."

    I'm dying to know how she gets marked on innovation. =D

  • The-Bodybuilder #7 5 years ago

    >"Myself, I prefer something more creative," Tascan concluded."

    More rounds of need for speed carbon? How's about burnout 1546? Or FIFA 007? Or madden: Milk me edition 2145? Where do I stop?

    How's about you lead the way Tascan? Lead your shitty company. All we've got from you claptrap for the past how many years? (excluding fight night). You have oabsolutely NO INNOVATION whatsoever. Yet you talk?
    Face it, it's only because EA wished they had a game to give them the money this chrimbo.

    GOW, does not thing new, it doesn't need to. What it does is optimal shooting mechanics, from controls, to AI, to atleast a rarely used version of shooting (using over is rarely used as the main mechanics of shooting games), fantastic graphics (EA can't even get last-gen games to work on the 360 without framerate chugging), a grat multiplayer, and all out fun.

    And I'm sure EG are happy about this recognition. Expect to see more "harsher" ratings on "certain" games (as in hyped games).
    WHere were you alain, when EG where ripping EA games to shreds in reivews? And isn't EA the only company to more or less say they don't focus on innovation, but on bringing out "what works" annually?

  • Eighthours #8 5 years ago

    This is a horrible article, guys. Truly horrible. You really do love yourselves, don't you?

    *shakes head*

  • Ryu #9 5 years ago

    I have to say, that is rich coming from an EA exec. Perhaps he should look at his own company. This is the equivalent of ITV saying, "there are too many celebrity-based programmes on BBC".
    Edited by 2 at 10/11/06 @ 00:57

  • stoopidgreg #10 5 years ago

    hahaha EA saying a game is not innovative. the ironies are endless

  • SeesThroughAll #11 5 years ago

    "Absolutely, yes. You guys were one of the only people who had the guts to say it."

    Not for Oblivion, you didn't.

  • Darren #12 5 years ago

    I agree that this article is a bit cringe-worthy and very "aren't we brilliant?" but considering this statement comes from the pioneers of non-innovation EA themselves it's more than a little hypocritical and hard to take seriously!!! LOL

    Of course, EG are so fantastic that they decided to only review half of the game instead of waiting until they'd played the multiplayer before posting their verdict. ;)

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #13 5 years ago

    Darren: It was stated clearly in the review that it was a single player review and a multiplayer review would follow on when the code became available/playable and enough time had been spent on it. No other publication did this. How that can be regarded us as doing the wrong thing I don't know.

  • stuarty_2003 #14 5 years ago

    Well, EA has brought so much innovation to the Bond franchise, that yes, Goldeneye 007 (1996?) is still better than anything they created with the license.

    EA also brought innovation in the form of...upcoming developer takeovers!

    Edit: THEY ARE TOSSERS OF THE HIGHEST ORDER!

    Edit (2): He's called Alain? He must be serious...he's acquired an extra vowel for his name.
    Edited by 2 at 10/11/06 @ 01:06

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #15 5 years ago

    Bodybuilder: To be fair though you are excluding titles like Battlefield 2 (hugely popular for the last year), Spore (one of the most anticipated titles of all time - and completely original), Burnout5 (the latest in a fantastic series of games) and C+C3 (who knows, but could be great). I know some of those are sequels but then again GoW will have a sequel and Halo had a couple. I'm not an EA fanboy, I am just as cynical as everyone about their annual updates to games, but they also produce a lot of good games these days too. Any company would be stupid not to make annual updates to these games as it's just part of business, but they are improving by producing new games too.

  • Hunamster #16 5 years ago

    Im sure rauper saw this backlash coming a mile off :)

  • The-Bodybuilder #17 5 years ago

    >"How that can be regarded us as doing the wrong thing I don't know."

    Or you culd have just waited. After all, the game isn't out yet in EUROpe.

    Either way, for you guys to feel proud of this article is disgraceful IMO.
    I personally wouldn't be proud that the praise I'm getting is from an EA exec. That's like Hitler giving someone praise on thier act of kindness.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 01:13

  • Deception #18 5 years ago

    EA make me laugh honestly the title should 'EA has zero innovation'. What do Eurogamer want? a blue peter badge for giving the game a lower score then most sites? this is EA that you guys are proud to say liked your review. Pfft...at least wait until you can try the game over LIVE.

  • The-Bodybuilder #19 5 years ago

    @ rauper.

    Honestly, at any other time your argument may have been valid (doubt it though, especially for the fact that half of those games you mentioned aren't even out yet). But the fact that you choose to defend EA (let's not even get into the way they treat thier staff) at a time when they've just given you a pat on the bum doesn't help your cause.

    Oh and burnout 5 is not a good thing. 1 2 & possibly 3, yeah, but now we're all faced with a new burnout every year.

    Apologies if I have said things out of terms (such as the whole hitler thing). It's out of my character. But I honestly find this article aweful. I personally say get rid of it before the sun shines, otherwise the afternoon is gonna be dreadfull.

    I don't think you understand just how bad this article is. I mean, SERIOUSLY.

    SERIOUSLY. This will only further discredit the (what I once thought was undiscreditable) site.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 01:15

  • tingletanglebob #20 5 years ago

    what like EAs jamming with innovation and exciting games, like need 4 speed carbon, tiger woods list goes on yaaawwn. At least gears of war is exciting and fun to play sounds like ea is getting jealous because people are beginning to realise the ea games are usually 90 percent of time games to avoid as they are usually just an update of an old game, oh yeah and fifa 07 how rubbish.

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #21 5 years ago

    We could have waited but then we would have had people complain the review was "late". Reviewing the two parts of the game separately has been done before and it was made clear in the review.

    BTW I think comparing someone who works to EA to Hitler is not really on. I probably don't need to tell you how what they do/have done is very different.

  • espy #22 5 years ago

    The world is about to implode with irony.

    EA complaining about lack of innovation in the video game industry. Wow.

    Just, well, wow.

  • Forebodin #23 5 years ago

    Classic... Thank god I'm not allergic to irony.

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #24 5 years ago

    I'm not really commenting on this article specifically (I just saw it when I got in from t'pub) and how publishers/developers treat their staff is a separate argument too... I just thought it would be fun to stick up for the fact that we reviewed a game that we believed was 8/10 and therefore gave 8/10... I personally have been amused that this has been regarded as "biased" and "corrupt" when it is really nothing of the kind.

    It is time for bed, but I look forward to the comments that follow this in the morning :)

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #25 5 years ago

    I actually think it's not arrogance, but when thousands of people call you w**kers you have to shrug it off to a certain extent!

  • dsmx #26 5 years ago

    Do my eyes deceive or is someone in ea commenting on lack of innovation? People in glass houses should throw stones and all the other cliches that go along with this.

  • Heartcore_Ninja #27 5 years ago

    Ahhhhh the sweet irony, the black voodoo, the wet jigsaw puzzle....

  • Penguinzoot #28 5 years ago

    Personally I thought EGs review of GOW was very fair and have no arguments with the 8/10. After all, I ain't played it yet but I shall pick it up anyway when it releases. For me the review was pretty positive overall.

    But this story is just, um, wierd... How an EA exec can have the unmitigated gall to criticise another developers product for "lack of innovation" is completely beyond me. EA! I mean, come on!

    I see a train-wreck coming.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 01:56

  • Psychotext #29 5 years ago

    "I actually think it's not arrogance, but when thousands of people call you w**kers you have to shrug it off to a certain extent!"

    Reminds me of high school... :p

    Kidding, but I think if I was a Sony or EA exec lately I'd probably be crying myself to sleep. Then again at least I'd be crying myself to sleep in my bundles of cash!

  • Rodster #30 5 years ago

    Now there's a first EA talking about game innovation. :p

  • PS3lol #31 5 years ago

    Eurogamer hopping into bed with EA to add some weight to there lame GeOW review. Very sad. Maybe you should play Gears of war online, people who have say it's the best onlime multiplayer action you will ever play in co-op.

    You're just digging your grave even deeper quoting EA bullshit as proof you were right. Theyguy admits in that article he hasn't even played the game.

  • Penguinzoot #32 5 years ago

    Exactly, the story is immensely funny.

    Yep, I laughed until I stopped. :-)

  • Vin #33 5 years ago

    This shit just writes itself.

    BUY A 360.

  • MikeJones #34 5 years ago

    Anyone consider Gears the best game they ever played? The way it's going it will be rated that way.

  • drivenstorm #35 5 years ago

    I don't know what you lot are complaining about. Clearly Alain believes he should "Challenge Everything".

    One thing that is making my head hurt is that EA is supporting the Wii which is supposed to be a good thing. The industry's behemoth publisher, the one with zero ideas and never-ending sequels is going to help make Reggie's industry-saving console a massive success.

    I just don't get it.

  • JediMasterMalik #36 5 years ago

    Vin, this is a gaming site, people will undoubtedly be able to mke their own minds up whether or not they want a 360.

    This is in fact highly unusual and ironic coming from an EA guy, and infinitely funny, not that I neccessarily disagree, but still, very funny.

  • 3william56 #37 5 years ago

    Look at it this way; if there's one person who should be an expert in identifying innovation free, high production value wastes of opportunity, it's an EA Exec. Just because it's hypocrisy and his company is one of the worst offenders, doesn't mean he's wrong.

    But Rauper, you realise you're a marked man now. You've been spotted as able to identify and speak out against the mob. You can just see him at his desk in Schloss EA hitting the large red Independant Thought Alarm button. The EA Men In Black will be round to EG towers to take you away quick sharp.

    No way EG is ever going to get to review advance copies of EA games ever again!

  • KiLlerKnight #38 5 years ago

    We should send some mirrors to EA.

    Joke of the month, hahahahahahah.
    Should be a new category in the golden joystick awards, or any game awards.
    The MOST FUNNY/RIDICULOUS MANAGER AWARD goes to...

    Even if he is right, in his position he should really shut up and find a new job/company. Well at least it made me ROFL, hahahaha.

  • tomato #39 5 years ago

    This post is a joke.

    The sheer arrogance seeps from every pore of this and many other pages, it's amazing.

  • Mekah #40 5 years ago

    AHAUAHUAHAUAHAUAHAUA

    Someone should let the moron from EA know that the graphical upgrade to Doom 1 scored a 9/10 at Eurogamer.

    AHAUAHAUAHAUAHAUAHUA

  • Lovemoose #41 5 years ago

    I hardly think that holding up a competitor's view of a game as proof that the EG "emperor's new clothes" review of GoW is correct is the best way to go about reassuring people...

  • loopy #42 5 years ago

    "I don't know what you lot are complaining about. Clearly Alain believes he should "Challenge Everything"."

    Aye, I only wish that were true in the department he accuses Epic of failing on, the irony is amazing :D

  • blender #43 5 years ago

    Eurogamer are indeed innovative journalist. But YA STILL NOT FUNNY!
    also who gave halo 8/10 i wonder
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 03:26

  • Syrette #44 5 years ago

    Wow.

    Possibly the most pathetic article you've ever put out, EG. I'm a long term, long-standing member of the EG community and I don't think I've seen such an arrogant, pointless piece of journalism in a long time.

  • JackB #45 5 years ago

    WOW! If EA is hated enough by gamers for their consistent string of gimped Next Gen games....

    He hasn't even PLAYED IT and he say's the only reviews that got it right gave low scores???? WTF! LOL!

    HE SAID, "I CAN'T WAIT TO PLAY IT...". Didn't anybody else notice that??????

    "Why are people loving it so much? It's like added production value, incredible cutscenes and the best ever graphics ever. I'm sure it's going to be a great success, I can't wait to play it, but let's face that graphics are still number one," Tascan continued

    He is a complete dope.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 03:37

  • mojo_x #46 5 years ago

    *agrees with foreverafternothing*

  • DrunKao #47 5 years ago

    rauper: We could have waited but then we would have had people complain the review was "late". Reviewing the two parts of the game separately has been done before and it was made clear in the review.

    I don't think Eurogamer should have handled the review of such a highly anticipated game as GoW. It almost seems like Eurogamer purposely wanted to give GoW a lower score just to seem controversial in respect to the American sites. Why couldn't EG just have waited till the game released in Europe? It would have made more sense to give a complete review to coincide with the European release, rather than an incomplete review to coincide with the American release. Why would anyone think the review was late anyway? This is a European site not American. If you had released the review on the 17 the only people who could have perceived the review as late would be non-European visitors to this site and why would that really matter? Is it that you at EG didn't want to feel left out of all the attention the American sites were receiving on the 7th?

    The Bodybuilder - ">"How that can be regarded us as doing the wrong thing I don't know."

    Or you culd have just waited. After all, the game isn't out yet in EUROpe."

    from the review -

    Inevitably the multiplayer component of Gears of War is big news, but it's important to stress that until boxed copies arrive, we're limited to testing the offline portion of the game. When that time comes (expected to be next week) we will put that side of the game into its proper context and provide an update to this review to take all of that into account. In the meantime, be sure to check out our in-depth hands-on with all three multiplayer modes here.

    If you know it's "big news", why would you knowingly leave such an important aspect of the game out of the review of a game as big as GoW? It's pretty obvious that the only reason was to intentionally give GoW a lower score than it would have received had you guys just waited.. It's obvious from the preview of GoW multiplayer that it would have weighted heavily in the final review of the game.

    "Generally, the impression of the game is that it is not one of great innovation, but one in which the features are implemented with brilliant cohesion."
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 03:47

  • Royal Fool #48 5 years ago

    Wow, its one developer from EA's Montreal studio and you just all jump on him and claim his opinion is worthless?

    He does not represent the whole of Electronic Arts. He's just the general manager of one studio.

  • oDii #49 5 years ago

    Even if Mr. EAting my own ass was right about zero innovation, that's exactly what we want in the ingame advertising arena.

  • AHiFi #50 5 years ago

    This press release suffered from a lack of innovation. Probably already been said, but I don't care. I'm tired. =]

  • Machiavellian #51 5 years ago

    What make this article bad is that the EA guy has an opinion but has not PLAYED THE GAME.

    Thats like a site that reviews a game but only HALF of it and then gives it a score.

    The other problem with the article is that the irony is that Eurogamer only played half a game and the EA exec has not played the game at all but it appears that you take pride that someone who hasn't played the game praise your site for taking a stand against everyone else. This just doesn't swallow that well especially since there is more to gain from the EA exec and Eurogamer from those comments.

    I think you are going to lose some readership over that article only because not everyone see a joke the same way. You only have to look to this thread to see that maybe you either want to pull the article or at least take the last part out that the guy was talking about Eurogamer but thats just my opinion.

    The reason I come to Eurogamer and read the reviews is because they are well written. I do not always agree with the score but I usually agree with the content of the article.

    Personally, a game does not have to be innovative to be great. The ability to combine all the elements that make a great game and do it successfully is more import then bringing something new. Fun is also a big criteria. There are plenty of games that try new but if they forget the fun and polish of the other elements then new means nothing.

    After playing GOW single and Multiplayer, I can safely say the game is definitely a nice 9. Because it doesn't innovate or bring anything new to the table, I would be hard pressed to give it a 10 but this is definitely a game any shooter fan should not miss no matter what platform is your cup of tea.

  • KiUNiT #52 5 years ago

    Ive been playing this game in canada for two days now and all I have to say is it's the best game I have ever played. I know you won't take my word for it but you will see for yourselves shortly. The single player is like playing an epic movie and the online multiplayer is twice as good. There are moments where you will have just been chainsawed in half by your opponent and just as he's finishing you one of your teammates will exact instant revenge for you and you will be chearing at the fucking tv I kid you not.
    In the campaign mode on casual the game plays almost a run and gun style but thats not how you should start the game, you should start on hardcore because the gameplay becomes very tacticle and satisfiyng ( think graw meets R4). I know it must seem like I am gushing over this game but, well I am and If you are lucky enough to try it for yourself you will be too. Please quote me after you jump in. (jump in jump out seamless online campaign co-op and split screen online multiplayer equals gaming fucking bliss)




    PS If many of you think EG loballed the review score now just wait until you have actually played the game, The servers here will be on fire with the backlash
    Edited by 3 at 10/11/06 @ 04:29

  • Talha #53 5 years ago

    Yeah of course. Need for Speed Carbon is the standard by which all innovation should be judged.

    And by the way, there is a growing place in our hearts for FAMILIAR GAMES DONE WELL, e.g. Company of Heroes. Same is the case with Gears (although I haven't played it).

  • Sl1pstream #54 5 years ago

    Bullshit. Thing is, Gears is supposed to be fun, EA's games aren't. Gears will sell a lot of copies, EA seems to have more and more trouble selling their shit these days. Besides, what the hell does he know about innovation?

    Somehow, I expected more of this website.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 05:24

  • Waldo #55 5 years ago

    Don't break an arm patting yourselves on the back, Eurogamer.

  • old_skool #56 5 years ago

    People , I think the point the EA exec was trying to make was that
    ...graphics still matter...

  • Furbs #57 5 years ago

    EG is in EA's pocket :D

  • vpin #58 5 years ago

    I agree completely with you Machiavellian. EG is pretty damn fetid for reviewing a game whose MP portion of it plays a pretty big role, perhaps an even larger one than its SP counterpart and to leave it out the final score is flatout irresponsible, lazy and unprofessional (yeah yeah we all know you EG have practised this style of reviewing before, word to the wise; it completely blows when you do). To so many others with more self respect, determining the overall picture, handing out a final score while leaving out a crucial aspect would be unheard of. Reitertate how unprofessional it is of EG to practise the art of giving out half-arsed reviews if you ask me, some poor chap would be out a job if it were up to me. Now made even worse thanks to some shitface know it all from EA who hasn't even played the game commenting like he just played for ten hours on insane. Play the game first asshole then save your inane comments for later.

    Edit: For those that have played Gears and think it is one of the, or the best game they've played to date, then by all means don't let some skank schmuck, terrible attention whore of a reviewer, let alone some hack turd from EA change your opinion otherwise. You'd be off worse than them if you did.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 06:23

  • Steroyd #59 5 years ago

    HAHAHAHAHA

    OMG am I delarious because it's so damn early.

    /double checks this is coming from EA.
    /dies of laughter.

  • Waldo #60 5 years ago

    FWIW, I think the EG review was one of the better ones: not a gush-fest like so many of the other ones.

    And what's wrong with an 8/10 score? That's pretty good.

    People should be more concerned about the 10/10 1UP review, which pointed out numerous flaws and still awarded the game a perfect score anyways.

    I feel sorry for the site that scores GoW lower than an 8 (and you know someone will). ;)

  • cgozun #61 5 years ago

    GoW clearly lacks innovation. They made a mistake by not implementing the butt cam. Don't they know all other camera angles have been used.

    If the game is fun why deduct points for not being innovative. If that were to happen, shouldn't all the sports games be 1/10 by now since you can't really change the rules of those sports.

  • Krun #62 5 years ago

    Inovation isnt everything. sometimes its just about making a game that works, is fun and looks good.

    taking the girl analogy further, sometime you just want one who looks good, says nice things to you and is easy. Sure the girl with the PHD will hold a good conversation and knows how to cook, but she'll expect you to be sober and and take her on at least three dates and meet her parents, but that blonde with the ....

    You get my point.

    EA know this very well, and the irony of EA worring about the lack of inovation astounds me.

  • Talha #63 5 years ago

    As said above, what the HELL is wrong with an 80% score? An 8/10 from EG still reprsents an oustanding games. All the other sites perhaps felt obliged to gush appropriately over Microsoft's most important game title to date, and EG chose wisely to go their own course.

    If all this hurts too much, I advise all of you to go to the site of Official XBox magazine. You will get plenty of what you actually desire.

  • Avaloner #64 5 years ago

    I would have to agree with all that was said in the article though Alain should have played the game before commenting.

    EDIT: and ffs everyone get a grip. EA is now the demon publisher apparently and everyone who was dissing Microsoft for trying to conquer the world by going into the console business some years ago has become their lapdog. Just because a company is big does not make it evil. EA has acquired many developers who dared to be brave and help them imrpove on their formula. So what if they release a new game in the series every year? Do not like it? Do not buy it!

    EDIT2: The fact that GoW was given 8/10 (not including the multiplayer segment) and most people still got angry goes to show how much Microsoft's spin machine has gotten at you. In fact most of the people who critisized the review have not yet played the game. So how on earth can you say the game should have scored better? Because the pictures look nice? Or, as the gamespot reviewer said, because once you hear the chainsaw sound you forget all of the flaws? Doom had that a couple of decades ago and the mechanic was almost totally the same.

    I browse a lot of gaming websites and I still rank EG at the top of my list. Reminds me a bit of the Amiga Power days especially with these kind of articles. Keep it up.
    Edited by 2 at 10/11/06 @ 07:04

  • Les #65 5 years ago

    Funny this coming from EA, but he's still spot on. And now I'd like to see some innovation in EA's own games.

  • Norse #66 5 years ago

    EG wanted to justify their lower than average Gears score, and brought in someone from EA to do it? That's priceless

  • Foundry #67 5 years ago

    Drawing on an EA exec to justify your own review - you are clearly begining to have doubts. And, I don't even disagree with the review - I'll wait until I've played it before passing judgement.

  • mattigan #68 5 years ago

    I haven't played GoW, but off of the back of EG's review I will be buying it, as in my opinion the game got a great review, we have to take into account when lookng at all these reviews:

    1. Who's reviewing it

    2. The target demographic for the game

    Now looking at GoW, I don't think I've ever seen another game so squarely aimed at American male teenagers in my life, and funnily enough they seem to be the main source of the outcry against EG's review. Well guess what? this site is called EUROgamer and that's who the reviews are for, Europeans, who I'd like to think are a little more resistant to hype and discerning in their tastes and that's the type of people I want my reviews from, I don't want to see the words "Awsome" "Stoked" or "Kickass" in any review,it makes my brain hurt. I for one am glad that EG credits me with enough intelligence to see that 8/10 is actually a good score unlike 99% of other sites out there.

    A game doesn't have to reinvent the wheel to be good, it also doesn't have to get 10/10
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 07:15

  • itamae #69 5 years ago

    The article was great, but guess what - some of the comments are even better! Not that anything has changed over the last twenty years, mind. I still remember comments like "Wizball doesn't deserve 92%, it's clearly only worth 89%!". The anonymity of the internet just means that people are a lot ruder these days. :-D

    Ive been playing this game in canada for two days now and all I have to say is it's the best game I have ever played. I know you won't take my word for it...

    Of course I believe you mate, but it probably just means that you haven't played that many games yet. :-)

  • cgozun #70 5 years ago

    I agree with mattigan's assessment for the most part except that Europeans are a little more resistant to hype and discerning in their tastes. I'm going to need some pie charts on this one.

  • thinktank #71 5 years ago

    The key word here with this and many other EG articles is "hits".

  • ProtoformX #72 5 years ago

    EA. Lack of innovation.

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

  • thinktank #73 5 years ago

    Do you realise you made a pun proto?

  • Dizzy #74 5 years ago

    EA talking about innovation????? ROFL

    What he means is "damn this game will outsell all our crap this xmas.. I am jealous".

    BTW played this a lot yesterday and I am impressed. Innovation... yes indeed. People who don't play FPS games a lot will indeed see no innovation (they think that all FPS are the same anyway) but GoW truly brings some very cool and new things to the table. It is the first game that manages to turn the slower "squad based gameplay" (like RB6) into a full speed action FPS like Halo or UT. VERY impressive indeed...

    FPSs now are all about cover, AI, vehicles and online. They used to be about weapons :)
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 07:50

  • OllyJ #75 5 years ago

    Good things come to those who wait!

    I think it was a mistake to rate the game as you did with no multiplayer, you could review a game like Modern Combat like that and it would probably get a fairly average score on the single player front (even though it's suprisingly good) but then the multiplayer would easily get a 9!

    So really you aren't reviewing the whole game only 1/3 of it and maybe could have just waited to give it it's proper score (which will still be 8;D)

  • earobus #76 5 years ago

    i thought it was april fools for a minute what a nob, need for speed, fifa, burnout,tiger,john m, the list goes on as you know if i had my way people would stand up for themselves and never buy another ea game again!

  • neuroniky #77 5 years ago

    Bad, bad, bad article.

    I do care for Eurogamer, you know. It's the best read I've had on videogames since ZZapp! (published here in Italy as a multiplatform, half translated and half in-house-written publication). While the public here keep saying EG are Sony fanboys, or M$ fanboys, or Nintendo lover, I've always found the site very objective. Some reviewers were better, some other were less good, but all in all it has always been a great site.

    I didn't play GoW yet, but I did like EG review. I don't know about the score, but the substance is... well, that the score does't matter. Now, this guy from EA comes and say "Hey, look at GoW, it is a 96 at metacritic, and it is not innovative and blah blah blah...". This, I can understand. It's a form of advertising. It worked for the U.S. midterm election campaigns, so why not applying this on the VG industry?

    But then, EG comes and says "Look, we're proud we've given an 8 to GoW! They are actually citing us as examples!"

    What a stupid thing to advertise. A CEO of a company cited your site without reading your review, but just because you had given a lower score in the review and so he could tell the world you were the one right on metacritic, not the others... and he admitted he didn't even play the game! You're right yust because you're supporting his opinion, not because you're actually right.

    And I state this again: I don't think a score means anything when put after a good review.

    But you are trying to make things look like it actually matters.

    Bad, bad article. And unfortunately, lately bad articles are born too often on EG. Sensi Soccer review (I actually got the game becaue of your review, and I still want to shout everytime I see all the unreported and gamebreaking bugs it has). Those terrible article on Wii which read like a kid that complained it had to do all the queues without any interest on what he was supposed to review...

    I just hope you are not changing for the worst. It would be similar to losing a friend. Well, not that tragic, but it would be a loss, anyway.

  • sickpuppysoftware #78 5 years ago

    There's zero innovation in these comments. It's mostly people laughing at EA hypocrisy.

    4/10

  • itamae #79 5 years ago

    It might just be me, but I thought the article was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. After all the whining, the bitterness and the vitriol EG actually has the audacity to say "well, but EA still love us". If that wasn't irony I might have to buy a new humour-o-meter.

  • Clive_Dunn #80 5 years ago

    I think you need to disassociate an EA exec saying GoW lacks innovation ( and the irony contained therein ) and the general point of the article.

    Ultimately, and perhaps more than any other genre, FPS's are judged on their graphics. Did Doom 3 bring anything new to the table apart from shiny graphics ? Not that I can remember. Although I seem to remember EG gave it 9/10 :p

    In fact I struggle to remember that many FPS's that I thought were innovative. Did HL2 actually bring anything fundamentally new to the table apart from the Source engine ? Loved the ant lion bit, got bored by the "physics" puzzles, rest of it blurs into the monotony of running around shooting the same enemies from different angles. Both MOH and COD1 impressed, not on innovation, but on polish and atmosphere ( Omah and Stalingrad both stand out ).

    I'd go as far as saying that the only 2 FPS games I remember being innovative was the original Half Life ( proper AI routines at last ! ), and FEAR - for breaking away from the scripted routines and just having extended deathmatches vs decent AI opponents.

    So basically the EA guy is right, people judge FPS's on graphics more than innovation. Always have done, probably always will. And that's even more magnified when it's a new console that people have only really started to scratch the surface on.

    Anyway, whilst EG are slapping their own backs, back to that Doom 3 review :

    "A bored, apathetic cynic might take a weary glance at Doom III and mutter sarcastically something along the lines of "ooh pretty graphics, shooting, zzzzzz, really exciting". Yes, if you want to completely miss the point about Doom III's appeal"

    Find & replace Doom 3 and GoW ?

  • Gouki #81 5 years ago

    Ohhhh dear.

    I see this been another 700 posts+

    What a crock of SH*T also.

    MY MOM SAYS IM SPECIAL says eurogamer. He really liked our review. Well whoopdie doo!

    And oh dear this article is as news worthy as the head of Atari saying he thinks the PS3 will fail.

    EA Guy can you please shut up moaning and tell whom ever it is making your games to get the frame rates sorted out before releasing a game. Bit rich also innovative, remind me what youve made of late EA?

    I wont lie i intend on picking up Gears of War but couldnt care less what the content of the review was, having read it i must admit. Its the pat on the back Euorgamer thinks it needs to give itself and loose comments shot off from an EA rep that bug me.

    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 08:13

  • Frogger #82 5 years ago

    Did those brave UK journalists told him that they also give a 9 to Doom on XBLA ?

  • Gouki #83 5 years ago

    just re-read to make sure I hadnt missed anytihng and was ranting unjust.

    Now i feel even more sick than before.

    ""Only two very brave UK-based journalists said, 'You know what, Gears of War is a great game but it's like what Quake was a few years ago.'" Any guesses as to who one of those might be?"

    You brave little warriors you!



  • TantrumDevil #84 5 years ago

    ATTENTIONWHOROGAMER FTL

    lawl.

  • masterson #85 5 years ago

    The bloke from EA is as entitled to his opinion as you all are. For EG to feel the need to use his comments to support their (perfectly reasonable) review however only weakens their standpoint.
    Since when was 8/10 was a harsh rating anyway? Go and read any "official" magazine if you need to see a rating above 95% to convince you a game is worth your money. Anyway - I'm looking forward to getting GoW - looks like a solid shooter with lovely graphics and I'm a sucker for a co-op mode.

  • Xerx3s #86 5 years ago

    BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA! EA....saying that others don't have innovation.....

    /falls out of his chair laughing

    EDIT: The only thing that this guy hopes to achieve with this is trying to prevent that GoW beats this years NfS: Chav edition 10 k. Hell, even Contra has more innovation that EA had in the past decade.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 08:28

  • Ryslaw #87 5 years ago

    And that says a guy from the "uber-innovative" EA. Give me a break.

  • peterfll #88 5 years ago

    EG has just gone down from an 8/10 to a 7/10 website.

  • alimokrane #89 5 years ago

    That about does it : Eurogamer YOU STINK!
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 08:30

  • Carlo #90 5 years ago

    \o/

    Murder Death Kill!

  • Xerx3s #91 5 years ago

    That about does it : Eurogamer YOU STINK!

    No, that's just your upper lip that you are smelling. :\

  • septimus #92 5 years ago

    When EA likes your review, you know you've done someting wrong.

    Glad I still have my GS subscription.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 08:39

  • Nige #93 5 years ago

    Unreal... I've heard it all now. Officially.

    EG, you have plumbed new depths.

  • Avaloner #94 5 years ago

    Most people still miss the point. Eurogamer did not say the game is bad. 8/10 is a good score. The reviewer pointed out the good in the review and the bad and it all adds up to a fun game, excellent graphics, but not warranting all the hype it amassed over the months.

    By comparison look at the 1up review. They kept saying the game is flawed in many areas that are really important but then gave it an almost perfect score. Things do not add up. The gamespot guy kept reiterating the coolness of the chainsaw as if that alone warranted the high score for the game.

    If you feel offended by the irony of the EA exec article you missed the point even further and are definitely reading the wrong game site. EG has always been irrevenrent and thinking out of the box and that is what makes them unique. Everyone seems to be pissed because the guys and gal at EG do not conform to what gamespot, IGN, Gamespy and all the other sites say. As for me I am happy to have a gaming web site that dares to say what it feels rather than what its readers might want it to say.

  • alimokrane #95 5 years ago

    @Xerx3s

    How about STFU

  • t8yman #96 5 years ago

    The EG PS3 "first hands on" didnt give the console a score because it wasnt a fully functional retail SKU. and that is fair enough.

    They get Gears Of War "demo 2.0" without multiplayer included and give it their full official review of 8/10

    and EG doesnt want to make a name for itself by giving the most anticipated game of the year one of the worst scores globally, and then publish this shit to justify their standpoint.

    Journalism my arse.

    I'm not "bigging up" GOW at all, and if its an 8- its an 8. I have already been disappointed by CoD3 this week, so I am well open to the view that I might hate gears.

  • BartonFink #97 5 years ago

    Pretty ironic an EA exec slagging off someone for no innovation. Oh and EG actually giving it a story what's that about? A justification for their review score, I hope not? If so it's fairly weak. EG should just stick to their guns

  • morriss #98 5 years ago

    lol.

  • whome #99 5 years ago

    oh dear, always liked EG.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are taking the p**s with that article ;)

  • krudster #100 5 years ago

    Of course it's supposed to be tongue in cheek...

  • Nige #101 5 years ago

    And editing the article retrospectively is even more weasely... strap on a pair.

  • t8yman #102 5 years ago

    jesus christ, they edited it to remove the back slapping bit.

    wankers

  • sharpfish #103 5 years ago

    FFS Games do NOT have to be innovative to be fun. I will take a well produced, adrenaline blast with polished graphics and tight gameplay over something trying to be different and not quite making it any day.

    AND EA OF ALL COMPANIES? Damn!

  • manic_mouse #104 5 years ago

    Is that the sound of EG's credibility imploding? By all means, give GoW 8/10 if you think that's what the game deserves. But by now, with this article, it almost seems as if you gave it that score simply to be controversial. Especially when compared to the Doom 3 review.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 08:50

  • whome #105 5 years ago

    uh oh, is getting worse by the minute, quick pull the plug :o

  • Avaloner #106 5 years ago

    @ Nige

    The journo in question is a woman. She does not have a pair. Well actually she does but not of the kind you were referring to.

  • PS3lol #107 5 years ago

    Yeah they removed it from the front page over night to re edit it. Keep digging that hole Eurogamer. You're just proving our point that you got the GeOW review way wrong. If you need EA to back you up then just quit now.

  • Gouki #108 5 years ago

    Avaloner we havny missed the point.

    We are not been critical of the review just the fact that eurogamer feel the need to say look such and such agree with us.

    And yes they were EA's thoughts but come on is it really news?

    I mean its not even a slow day with the launch of the 8800 GTX and GTS we could have covered something like that or that not everyone who ordered the Wii from Play will get it on the day of release.



  • BartonFink #109 5 years ago

    Yup this one is going to go south fast.
    You would almost think EG are posting stories like this just for hits.

  • Bezzy #110 5 years ago

    I can see the headlines, now:

    "Pod People take over Major Games Publisher: Marked Improvement."

  • t8yman #111 5 years ago

    "gears of war killed eurogamer" shocker

  • Super_Zee #112 5 years ago

    EA slagging off a rival game for lack of innovation?

    It's almost too easy. There could not be a clearer definition of irony.

  • itamae #113 5 years ago

    Of course it's supposed to be tongue in cheek...

    Shame that 90% of the people here seem to be resistant to humour. Oh the humanity... :-/

  • oneiros #114 5 years ago

    They get Gears Of War "demo 2.0" without multiplayer included and give it their full official review of 8/10

    Indeed. Now I accept that this was pointed out in the text, but it doesn't stop the aggregators taking that '8' and including it in their rankings; not EG's problem I guess, but given that we all know that's what happens, maybe posting a score before reviewing the complete game was a mistake. If you must post an early 'single player only' review guys, leave the score off until you're ready to judge the whole.

  • Clive_Dunn #115 5 years ago

    Come on chaps, editing the article afterwards really is a poor show. It's not often EG really annoys me but this is certainly one of those times.

    Either stick to your guns or take it down completely. Don't get people annoyed and then try to cover your tracks.

  • whome #116 5 years ago

    delete the article, blame some pesky hackers and save yourselves while you still can....

    might be too late.

  • BartonFink #117 5 years ago

    I can see the banner changing any day now to red ;)

  • Nige #118 5 years ago

    >Of course it's supposed to be tongue in cheek...

    That REALLY didn't come accross. We're inteligent enough to draw a connection between the original EA Statement 'UK journalists' & your review score. You don't have to ladle it on.

    What you did was was tantamount to saying: "Hey Sun readers - you heard it here first." It's not becoming of what I consdered to be the most credible place to get my gaming news. You guys should be the guardian, not the gutter.

  • lemon #119 5 years ago

    Haha people take this WAY to seriously.

    EG FTW

  • Gouki #120 5 years ago

    Clive Dunn
    10-Nov-06 08:53:06 Come on chaps, editing the article afterwards really is a poor show. It's not often EG really annoys me but this is certainly one of those times.

    Either stick to your guns or take it down completely. Don't get people annoyed and then try to cover your tracks.

    AGREED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Please dont write sometihng then think ohhhh what have we done. You really are destroying any credibility in that review and your site.

  • BartonFink #121 5 years ago

    Yea EG FTW but some of these articles are becoming worryingly tabloid in their content.

  • t8yman #122 5 years ago

    Haha people take this WAY to seriously.

    EG FTW




    s'funny how people get all precious about credibility and all that silly stuff isnt it?
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 08:58

  • whome #123 5 years ago

    assuming everyone would get the joke was not a good idea, I dont see too much on most gaming sites to make me think the interweb is populated by gamers with an abundance of brain cells :D

    I mean this all started because someone gave a game an 8....

  • t8yman #124 5 years ago



    I mean this all started because someone gave a game an 8....

    No, someone gave PART of a game an 8, to make a name for themselves
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 09:02

  • Shrui #125 5 years ago

    I think this comment thread disproves the theories on natural selection.

    Get a f**cking life. It's up to EG if they want to edit the article due to the limited intelligence of some of their readers but to suggest they take it down completely smacks of thought control and leads me to question the motives of some of these comments.

    Move on people, this is now an non-evolution quarantine zone.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 09:03

  • Scientist #126 5 years ago

    "BTW played this a lot yesterday and I am impressed. Innovation... yes indeed. People who don't play FPS games a lot will indeed see no innovation (they think that all FPS are the same anyway) but GoW truly brings some very cool and new things to the table. It is the first game that manages to turn the slower "squad based gameplay" (like RB6) into a full speed action FPS like Halo or UT. VERY impressive indeed...

    FPSs now are all about cover, AI, vehicles and online. They used to be about weapons :)"

    So it's an FPS, are you sure???

  • krudster #127 5 years ago

    Ellie put the story up at midnight when we were in bed, and having had second thoughts she called me up from Canada to ask to tone it down to remove the back-slapping stuff which we agreed didn't come across in the cheeky, tongue in cheek manner that it was supposed to.

    What the guy's saying is perfectly valid and newsworthy in its own right. Clearly it's a hot topic and a lot of people want to have their say on it.

  • Moonprince #128 5 years ago

    Anyone that bitches over an 8/10 score is pathetic and needs to fuckoff get a life.

    As a currently employed Games Designer I'm all for people enjoying and supporting the games I work on but some of you lot just kill me...

    Sort yourselves out...

  • fantabulo #129 5 years ago

    eurogamer readers' ability to whinge and bitch amazes me.

  • neuroniky #130 5 years ago

    "It's up to EG if they want to edit the article due to the limited intelligence of some of their readers"

    Thanks, but I've got enough intelligence to read a videogaming site. And to criticize what I don't like, expecially since I read it daily, and I read it everything they write on it. You people say that was supposed to be humorous? Well, I didn't find it funny, quite the converse, I find the whole "humour" thing like a way to justify something that was, to me, a plain error. If it wasn't an error, I doubt they would have changed the article.

    To EG: thanks for editing the article. To me, it means something.

  • Nige #131 5 years ago

    Hey everyone - Shrui is obviously better than all of us... we should learn our place in the freedom of speech hierarchy.

    Clearly expressing one's opinion in a constructive manner is contrary to the higher agenda of others. My whole life has been wasted.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 09:08

  • Mart #132 5 years ago

    Ban this sick filth!

  • login_name #133 5 years ago

    Gotta love the irony.

    He's right though. I can't wait to play GoW, but it's not because of the gameplay. Looks just like a more polished Si-Fi Kill.Switch. Not necessarily a bad thing.

    Basically, I see it as a hugely enjoyable Unreal Engine 3 tech demo.

  • whome #134 5 years ago

    fair enuff, you're a braver man than me for leaving it up though, hope you've some flame resistent under garments for the rest of today :p

  • Shrui #135 5 years ago

    "Clearly expressing one's opinion in a constructive manner is contrary to the higher agenda of others. My whole life has been wasted."

    You think this thread has been constructive? ;)

  • Steroyd #136 5 years ago

    no, someone gave PART of a game an 8, to make a name for themselves

    It's not like EG have left out the multiplayer part of of a game before, i've seen them do it countless times and on occasion review the multiplayer seperately.

    Don't know what the heck is up with Doom probably still loves the original or something...

    And what second UK based journalist gave GeoW a 8/10?

    @teddyboy

    OVERKILL WITH THE SPACE!!
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 09:14

  • Nige #137 5 years ago

    >You think this thread has been constructive? ;)

    I can't speak for the whole world of course... and don't claim to.

  • PS3lol #138 5 years ago

    Just take down the friggin review and score both the single player and multiplayer together. after both have had a fair play through. It has bloody amazing multi player that easily adds a point to the review.

    Stop trying to get approval from EA execs for that half a review you done.

  • thedaveeyres #139 5 years ago

    Love it! After all the stick that was handed out, it's about time someone stood up for what was a fair review that didn't degenerate into fanboy w*nkdom like the others I read.

  • repairmanjack #140 5 years ago

    He didn't hang around long enough to read your Need For Speed: Carbon review then? Thought not.

  • neuroniky #141 5 years ago

    >You think this thread has been constructive? ;)

    Surely this thread and the GoW ones were useful to add a lot of people to my Ignore List...

  • JayPee #142 5 years ago

    How.. well.. pathetic.

    EG in "Bloke with no track record in innovation describes a game he has never played as not innovative and thus agrees with us and our review that was much chastised before" shocker.

    Really guys I see no value in theis "news", and think less highly of you for it. :(

    P.S.: Afaik NO OTHER GAME has had the cover system with enemies who can simply smash through that cover. So I do see innovation in the game.

    ED: Also, when you do half reviews (as you have done before) dont you normally leave a score until then? The decision to include one in this instance is somewhat transparent.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 09:20

  • Steroyd #143 5 years ago

    didn't Red Faction do that?

  • krudster #144 5 years ago

    JayPee, there's one enemy in the game (the Berserker) that smashes through cover, during about three very brief sections where the gameplay is genuinely interesting, as mentioned in the review. But it's about 10 minutes of an 8 hour game. Also, no, we always put the score on. The last time I did this was with Halo 2, when the servers weren't physically switched on to even try out the multiplayer.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 09:24

  • #145 5 years ago

    Well goodness me, a lot can happen between going to bed and getting up in the morning.

    /wonders if Raups has a sore head this morning after being at t'pub last night?

  • gizmo #146 5 years ago

    Talk about people in glass houses, sheesh.

  • magicpanda #147 5 years ago

    Red Faction did exactly that.

  • Yossarian #148 5 years ago

    poorly judged self-congratulatory wank article or Machiavellian plot for HITS HITS PAGE IMPRESSIONS HITS? you decide!

    I love how Gears is already one of those games, like Halo, that a very great number of people will never play but happily talk out of their arse about because they read on EG it wasn't any good (8/10 is suddenly a HARSH INDICTMENT OF THE MEDIOCRITY OF MICROSOFT'S 'NEXT-GEN' EFFORT for these people). meanwhile messageboards across the Internet continue to hum with resoundingly positive feedback about this game from the people who have sat down with a 360 controller in their hands and given it a try. some of them have even played it on Live.

  • UncleLou #149 5 years ago

    Heh, amusing article.

  • OnlyMe #150 5 years ago

    Didn't read through all the post, but I really liked the idea to send this guy some mirrors. Wouldn't that be fun, having to pick up a few thousand mirrors from the post office?

    And I wonder if he'd get it...

    EDIT: Oh, and this article made me want the game even more.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 09:35

  • smoothpete #151 5 years ago

    Haha, nice edit of the backslappery! You're right, it didn't come across too well. For what it's worth, I think the GoW review was completely valid, and a second multiplayer review at a later date is the appropriate way to do it.

    And the rest of you guys, you really take this stuff seriously don't you. Lighten up for christs sake, it's only a game

  • GrandpaUlrira #152 5 years ago

    Wow. I have absolutely no interest in this game, and I can say without doubt it's a 6/10, even though (like most people commenting) I haven't played it. The multiplayer, where I have to play with a bunch of irritating kids, is 4/10.

  • Xerx3s #153 5 years ago

    How about STFU

    Computer says no.

  • t8yman #154 5 years ago

    @smoothpete, if this was a football website, or a knitting website then fair enough - its only a game. But this is a GAMING website.

  • Pike #155 5 years ago

    I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that this is, without a doubt, the biggest journalistic scandal in the history of written language.

    I sense that it is i sign that we stand on the brink off the demise of western civilization and the beginning of new dark age.

  • enzima #156 5 years ago

    From the way EG comment the news, it kinf of seems like they needed to legitimate their review.......

  • pjmaybe #157 5 years ago

    That's gotta be the funniest story of the year.

    Peej

  • djchump #158 5 years ago

    HAaa hahaa hahahaha ahaha!
    This'll keep me entertained on a dull Friday :-D

  • Nige #159 5 years ago

    I like your style t8yman....

    Although I'd be tempted to clarify your last post with the closing: 'You f*ckwit"

  • Derblington #160 5 years ago

    Although I'd be tempted to clarify your last post with the closing: 'You f*ckwit"

    Why? Oh, because you're a c*ck.

  • Eighthours #161 5 years ago

    Get a f**cking life. It's up to EG if they want to edit the article due to the limited intelligence of some of their readers

    You're a bloody idiot. It had nothing to do with "limited intelligence", indeed your own stupidity couldn't comprehend why people were objecting to the way the article was written. It really did come across as fanboy-baiting backslapping.

    Which EG obviously realised this morning. Well done for editing the article. :)

  • PearOfAnguish #162 5 years ago

    Well, he is right. It's just incredibly hypocritical.

  • JayPee #163 5 years ago

    "Well, he is right. It's just incredibly hypocritical. "

    Played it have you?

  • LarryLoxley #164 5 years ago

    Jesus

    Is EG going for the record on thread comments? This article. Red rag. Bull. Fireworks night was last week. Oh well. Guess I'll sit back and enjoy the show.

  • Nige #165 5 years ago

    >Why? Oh, because you're a c*ck.

    No - because if you can't have a discussion about gaming on here without being told to shut up, for literally no good reason... where can you?

    So if you don't like reading comments... don't read them.

    btw. You're a chocolate starfish.

  • smoothpete #166 5 years ago

    @t8yman. Fair enough, I guess I should have said "it's only a review of a game on an gaming website" which people shouldn't take too seriously

  • [maven] #167 5 years ago

    UncleLou
    You should've read the original... ;) But similarly to Eightours, I think it's better for the edit.

    As for the article itself, to me it sounds as if EA-person hasn't played the game himself, but that may be a misunderstanding...

  • Pike #168 5 years ago


    Is EG going for the record on thread comments? This article. Red rag. Bull.


    Excactly. I'm amazed by how easily some people here can be fooled into going ballistic.

  • Darren #169 5 years ago

    "Darren: It was stated clearly in the review that it was a single player review and a multiplayer review would follow on when the code became available/playable and enough time had been spent on it. No other publication did this. How that can be regarded us as doing the wrong thing I don't know." - Rauper

    I realised that it was only a single player review but what I cannot fathom out is why you chose to do it that way when the game isn't out here for another week. That would have given you ample time to play the online modes against the Americans who've had the game since Tuesday. You could then have then delivered the final verdict as a complete review on Tuesday or Wednesday ahead of the game's European release on Friday, 17th November.

    You did this with Halo 2, another hugely hyped game, but it made sense for that game since it was released in the UK only a few days after the US (if I recall correctly) not ten days so you wouldn't have been able to review the multiplayer properly.

    I'm sure most of your readers could have happily waited another week for your complete verdict - after all, we have to wait a week to buy the actual game anyway - or even posted the review now and left off the score until you'd reviewed the online modes.

  • UncleLou #170 5 years ago

    UncleLou
    You should've read the original... ;) But similarly to Eightours, I think it's better for the edit.


    I read it late last night when it went up, and had zero comments. :p

    Typical Ellie piss-take, obivously, if you ask me. People are just exaggerating excessively in the comments.

  • AcidSnake #171 5 years ago

    @disc:
    Can't find the review for this interestingly titled game 'usexoblivion'

    One of those obscure japanese dating sims?

    I have just logged on and have no idea what the original article was like...nothing wrong with this one though...
    Some people need to lighten up a little...

  • neuroniky #172 5 years ago

    /WARNING: off topic memories follows...

    @disc: nice games you have there. I don't know where I will place Gears of War in that list, if it deserves to be mentioned with all of them or not but let me comment on a cople of them that made me stop nodding in approvation...

    Icewind Dale: Baldur (2, the first one really became good only in the last part) and Torment were ace, but did you really like this? I found it very boring. Too much combat, too light on story.

    Bully: is it really that good? Or it is just the novelty factor speaking there? I'm really curious, cause I'm still on the fence on this.

    Autoduel: tears coming to my eyes. Car wars FTW!

    Ultima 8: I'm sure you wanted to write Ultima 7. Pretty sure. I hope so :D.

    Little Big Adventure: this was one of the most overrated games of the times for me... never "got" it. And I would have mentioned the never forgotten Another World instead...

    Oh, and look at this http://www.amigagame s.com/chart/ for some nice memories... almost brought tears to my eyes :D
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 10:08

  • Rambaldi #173 5 years ago

    Do I even need to say anything?

  • whome #174 5 years ago

    "Is EG going for the record on thread comments? This article. Red rag. Bull"

    would explain the article, I'm waitng for....

    "1 year on and the Xbox 360 is actually a big box of sh*te"

    in a few weeks time.

    PS I dont really mean it....

  • JayPee #175 5 years ago

    "or even posted the review now and left off the score until you'd reviewed the online modes. "

    Woulda been the way to go. Like they have done before.

    A big thing in this game is being able to play the entire campain through over Live in a drop-in/out fashion. Something no other game I can think of offers (well Kameo sorta - and the less said about PD0 the better).

  • t8yman #176 5 years ago

    "The original article wasn't bad, if you have a sense of humor and a bit of intelligence that is.

    nothing to do with intelligence or sense of humour, I am blessed with both - and the article was neither in its original form, simply a back slap fest with a pot calling a kettle black, and a journo saying " was it us that was brave mister?" and "see, we was right" about a hobbled review to catch the headlines.

  • samk #177 5 years ago

    EG half-reviews a game, an EA exec praises the review of a game he's never even played, accuses the game he's never ever played of lacking innovation, and EG backslap themselves at someone who hasn't played the game agreeing with their review.

    You just couldn't make this up.

    Seriously guys, you're a laughing stock on this one.

  • #178 5 years ago

    Where is the Tiger Woods 07 review?

  • gaselite #179 5 years ago

    O LAWD IS DAT SUM CONTROVERSY

    but seriously, obligatory and tired EA bashing aside, he has a bt of a point. Except I disagree that innovation should be the sole factor for determining a highly rated game, it should be about the complete experience, encompassing graphics, audio, gameplay, innovations if any and so on and so on, and GoW looks to offer a fairly great experience but saying it lacks innovation seems fair enough. I can't wait to play it though, but at this point it seems just a tad overrated, partly a byproduct of how it's been very well marketed, but I want to see for myself.

    The whole issue just isn't worth this massive fucking community backlash though, it's sad.

  • FooAtari #180 5 years ago

    I actually worry more about "gamers" these days and some of EG's readers than I do about EG...

    All this over an 8/10, I don't think I have ever seen anything quite like it...

  • AcidSnake #181 5 years ago

    @t8yman:
    Well, but if you were unintelligent you wouldn't realise you were unintelligent right?

    Hope I'm not proving my own point here... :)

  • Baz_Dude #182 5 years ago

    Some bodies jealous =P

  • PearOfAnguish #183 5 years ago

    "Played it have you?"

    Yeah.
    It's a great-looking game and the use of context-sensitive cover and maneuvering is nice, but it is still just a 3rd person shooter. A very good example of one, but not the second-coming that you would believe it to be from the hype. Which I think is what the EA guy was trying to say, except coming from them it's incredibly hypocritical. He should have kept his trap shut really because it just sounds like they're bitter that another game is getting so much attention this close to Christmas.

  • in5ane #184 5 years ago

    How predictable, a bunch of losers diss EA, even when one of their minions agrees with aforementioned losers.

    I wanted to read the comments but most people who diss EA games haven't actually played them, and I almost died from hypocritic overload.

    NFS Carbon is a great example (that was mentioned several times within the comments): if you like racing games of that ilk, it is actually a very good game WITH gameplay innovative year on year.

    How are EA worse than say... Namco? Every elitest gamer, me included, loves Ridge Racer, but it's been the same formula for over a decade (except the boost idea they stole from Outrun Turbo!!)

  • PS3lol #185 5 years ago

    This is what happens when you try to stop people buying the game of they year with a half assed negative review. If you're going to write a review that's payed for with Sony money hats and EA exec blow jobs then you'll pay the price.

    Eurogamer is finished after this mess.

  • smoothpete #186 5 years ago

    Fooatari wrote "All this over an 8/10, I don't think I have ever seen anything quite like it..."


    IT'S THE END OF DAYS! BE A WINNER NOT A SINNER!

    ;)

  • t8yman #187 5 years ago

    @ acidsnake, what you say is correct, and I suspect is why many people on here see the article as "funny" when it simply is not. many people arent looking past this supposed "humour" becasue they don't know what they are looking for.

  • rudedudejude #188 5 years ago

    What did they remove from the article?

    tellustellustellustellustellustellustellustellus!!!

  • krudster #189 5 years ago

    Very little, as it happens.

  • JayPee #190 5 years ago

    @ Disc.
    Yeah, I'm not counting Patches (you could then argue even HL2 has it!), and you'll notice I said Live co-op, so not Halo or Halo2.

    There are very very few shooters with a on-line co-op "Story" mode. The RS games sorta, but they are really missions.

    And none that I can think of with the so-called drop-in-out.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 10:31

  • redd #191 5 years ago

    I thought DOOM 3 was like Quake, and it got a 9/10 over here... I think Kristan can be very incoherent with his reviews.

    - "I'm sure it's going to be a great success, I can't wait to play it"

    Shouldnt the guy at least play it before bashing it? And whats wrong with not bringing anything new to the table? If the game manages to be very a very satisfying, rewarding and yes, a consistently beautiful and fun experience, thats inovative enough for me.

  • Shrui #192 5 years ago

    "You're a bloody idiot. It had nothing to do with "limited intelligence", indeed your own stupidity couldn't comprehend why people were objecting to the way the article was written. It really did come across as fanboy-baiting backslapping. "

    Ah, the tricky thing with parody is you do rely on your audience picking it up as such.

    dammit, now I'm baiting. What levels I have sunk to! ;)

  • UncleLou #193 5 years ago

    t8yman: It was funny for so many reasons.

    1. An EA executive saying a game has no innovation.
    2. Eurogamer quoting EA in a fashion that makes it sound like they are proud. It's like the story was still dripping in the sarcasm that created it.
    3. The Gears of War was 'such' a controversy that all the fanboys had to attack it and then they serve up another article just for those guys.

    Excellent stuff.

    Exactly. How anyone could not notice the sarcasm is beyond me.

  • t8yman #194 5 years ago

    @ adamt

    they removed something along the lines of

    "we asked him if we were one of the websites that was brave enough to stand up and be the lone voice of reason he referred to, and his response was "why of course!" "

    not much admittedly, and I apologise if my paraphrasing is a little inaccurate, but thats the gist of it.

  • AcidSnake #195 5 years ago

    Well...In the form it's in now I don't have any problem with the article...
    What exactly did the original article contain that's different?
    Even if it's just a little?

    EDIT: Ah, I see...Well...
    I see it as rather humourous...
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 10:39

  • Moonprince #196 5 years ago

    t8yman: It was funny for so many reasons.

    1. An EA executive saying a game has no innovation.
    2. Eurogamer quoting EA in a fashion that makes it sound like they are proud. It's like the story was still dripping in the sarcasm that created it.
    3. The Gears of War was 'such' a controversy that all the fanboys had to attack it and then they serve up another article just for those guys.

    Excellent stuff.

    +10

  • Moonprince #197 5 years ago

    "BE A WINNER NOT A SINNER!"

    Would that be the dude in Central London you're quoting there?

  • LightSleeper #198 5 years ago

    @ itamae - I still remember comments like "Wizball doesn't deserve 92%, it's clearly only worth 89%!".

    Wizball was at least a 90% game (though ironically, its 'innovative' control method may've held it back in terms of top marks...)

  • solidred #199 5 years ago

    This is great, I don't know what's more funny. EA's comment or Eurogamer sticking up for EA exec. EA are everything that's wrong with the game industry. What next, Eurogamer bigs up PS3 for innovation and for great games. I forgot, that's already on it's way.

  • Dezm0nd #200 5 years ago

    EA know how much about Innovation? Probably less than ZERO. They just buy anyone who has innovation and rolls in their success and then they pimp them out. (see the burnout franchise)

    So, who's up for Gears Of War 2007? :p Friggin retards. I've not played Gears Of War but i can sure as shit say it's more innovative than Tiger Woods 2007

  • haowan #201 5 years ago

    Hopefully this article will get rid of 90% of the idiots around here. Good work EG

    Also it's not irony this coming from EA, it's hypocrisy. Comments losers, get it right!

    edit: lol speling
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 11:05

  • OnlyMe #202 5 years ago

    disc: so you only want to play two more games before you die. Good for you.

  • space_ace #203 5 years ago

    tears of war

  • w00t #204 5 years ago

    Teacup.

    Storms everywhere.

  • PS3lol #205 5 years ago

    The fact that you all have to defend Eurogamer is proof they were wrong.


    You all suck and you've all lost any credibility you had. Enjoy your PS3 gaming sessions with EA execs and Phil Morrison. Real gamers will be playing Gears of war.

  • krudster #206 5 years ago

    Pass the biscuits.

  • GrandpaUlrira #207 5 years ago

    Why is the count on the main page not the same as that when I click to the goodness inside. The disparity bothers me. It bothers me more than a review score that might be off by 10%.

  • magicpanda #208 5 years ago

    Jammy Dodgers?

  • w00t #209 5 years ago

    /passes Jaffas

    @GrandpaUlrira - maybe you have some people on ignore?

  • Darren #210 5 years ago

    It amuses me that Tascan mentions Metacritic yet that is exactly where you'll find EG's incomplete review score languishing at the bottom of the list along with 360Gamer's verdict too (which sounds like they haven't reviewed the online modes either... tut, tut!). I really don't think either should have rated the game until the game had been properly reviewed, taking into account both the single and multiplayer modes.

  • CallousB #211 5 years ago

    It's a shame it's EA making the comments..as they have zero credibility.

    I have to say I'm surprised GOW has scored so highly considering the single player game is only supposed to last ten hours. I've seen DS games marked down significantly and slated as "minigames" for being that short.

  • DrDamn #212 5 years ago

    @Darren
    "I really don't think either should have rated the game until the game had been properly reviewed, taking into account both the single and multiplayer modes."

    So do you think all the very high scores have reviewed the online elements properly?

  • fkh #213 5 years ago

    Good grief.

    So what if Gears of War isn`t incredibly innovative with fantastic gameplay?

    Sometimes great graphics plus good enough gameplay is enough.

    Just play the bloody game and enjoy it for what it is.

  • Martin #214 5 years ago

    I have no problems with EG's review of GoW and I trust it completely.

    I fail to seen the need to post this as news though. It's not like you need anything else besides your own credibility to back up your review.

    It's more likely - as others have demonstrated in this thread - that you'll lose credibility by referring to other sources agreeing with you, no matter if it's EA or not.

    Stick to your guns without looking for reassurance elsewhere - it's worked wonders so far (and I've been around long enough to know).

  • OnlyMe #215 5 years ago

    disc: neither did zerolight. I'm with the same opinion as him. If the game is good, I couldn't care less about innovation. I just want to play the games and have fun.

    That said, I do enjoy my share of Shadow of the Colossus (don't say ICO was that innovative. It had a unique atmosphere and design, but the game completely lacked any originality in gameplay).

  • smoothpete #216 5 years ago

    Moonprince, yep, the Winner or Sinner man usually found on Oxford Street :)

    http://ww w.b3ta.com/interview/winnerorsi...

  • Bluetooth #217 5 years ago

    Children, stop with your relating to where he works. Just because he works for a company famed for non-innovation doesn't mean his opinion is invalid, and he makes a good point. Why not take it from there instead of taking the easy way out by critiquing the person, and not the opinion.

  • w00t #218 5 years ago

    /waves goodbye to PatAU

  • GrandpaUlrira #219 5 years ago

    @w00t

    I haven't put anyone on ignore as far as I know. My profile tells me the same. There are other people here, watching me...

  • nickthegun #220 5 years ago

    I read the review, thought it was fair and balanced and certainly positive enough for me to pick this up on the day of release.

    What kind of world do we live in that sees a generally positive, 8/10 review cause such a fucking stink?

    I swear to god, the internet was better before they made it easy to access and was flooded with dumbasses........

    I know this will get lost in the flood but, seriously, the review was positive, EG has every right to publish anything they want regarding the review. I mean, fuck, it was like they fucked your mums and awarded them 8/10 'Could do better'.....

  • Moonprince #221 5 years ago

    "Stick to your guns without looking for reassurance elsewhere - it's worked wonders so far (and I've been around long enough to know)."

    -->They weren't. READ:

    "It was funny for so many reasons.

    1. An EA executive saying a game has no innovation.
    2. Eurogamer quoting EA in a fashion that makes it sound like they are proud. It's like the story was still dripping in the sarcasm that created it.
    3. The Gears of War was 'such' a controversy that all the fanboys had to attack it and then they serve up another article just for those guys.

    Excellent stuff."

    +10,000,000

  • peterfll #222 5 years ago

    Did you ever feel life was like looking for a penny in a large room with no light?

  • w00t #223 5 years ago

    /stubs toe

  • jack_klugman #224 5 years ago

    Innovation > Laziness.

  • Scientist #225 5 years ago

    "Moonprince, yep, the Winner or Sinner man usually found on Oxford Street :)"

    He's moved to Piccadilly Circus.

  • Rambaldi #226 5 years ago

    "Linearity", "Innovation", "Next-Gen"

    Where is it written that a game MUST have these traits for it to be worth while? Where is it written that a game MUST have these traits if it is to serve it's purpose?

    When was the last time you saw a Rolling Stone, U2, Coldplay, J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas or George A. Romero fan complaining about the lack of these traits in their works? (open to criticism there but I'm talking about 'in the main')

    Why do gamers (or more importantly game critics) EXPECT their medium to be different (or believe it will be because they believe the hype)?

    GET OVER YOURSELVES, CHILL THE FEK OUT, GROW THE FEK UP AND ENJOY WHAT YOU LIKE AND WITHOUT BEHAVING LIKE A BUNCH OF INDULGED LITTLE BRATS!!

  • AcidSnake #227 5 years ago

    "Did you ever feel life was like looking for a penny in a large room with no light?"

    My large room hasn't even got that penny...

  • Avaloner #228 5 years ago

    @ PatAU

    Can I have your stuff?

  • belziah #229 5 years ago

    Whilst its does smack of Fred West calling Ian Huntley a murdering scumbag, if the man aint wrong, the man aint wrong.

    For all the upset I've seen round these parts, no one's actually called Gears a bad game. From all the reports I've read its a good game, even a great game, once you cut through the bullshit hype but it hasnt redefined anything, (except graphics, which will probably be surpassed in the next year) and certainly bring nothing fresh to the genre.

    The most important thing IMHO is that according to all reports your £39.99 will buy a shed load of fun.

    Surely thats enough

  • DrDamn #230 5 years ago

    @Rambaldi
    "Where is it written that a game MUST have these traits for it to be worth while?"

    Is 8/10 not worth while then?

  • peterfll #231 5 years ago

    \flips AcidSnake a penny

    Go on mate - you 'ave it - you obviously need it.

  • neuroniky #232 5 years ago

    @krudster "Pass the biscuits." I love you, really, can I become your number one fan and stalk you please? Just a litte bit, come on. Oh, and I want a biscuit too.

    @zerolight and disc: I think you are both wrong and right. Innovation lately has become a little bit of an ossession... the problem is that we see too many clones of succesful games, too many sequels, and we're losing a little bit the focus on the fact that a game final objective is just to be fun.
    I've often criticized Halo (1, expecially) for being a mediocre FPS, but then I've obsessively played all the FPS from Wolf3D to Half Life before becoming a little bit too tired of the genre. But if I looked at Halo as a console game for console gamer... well, probably it came like a shocker for all the young generations. Innovation can be relative to a lot of factors, you can innovate by porting a genre to a new platform, you can innovate by changing a control system, you could innovate by changing not the rule of the game, but the looks and the immersion of the game. Half Life 2 was a not-so-impressive FPS if you looked at it gameplaywise, but there was something more in it. The looks, the ridiculously thin "story", the advanced if bug-ridden engine, the bad but at times challenging AI couldn't explain why the game was so good, and so immersive. In what exactly Half Life 2 innovated? In the use of physics in game? I don't think so, expecially since we've seen a lot of other games using physics engines and not obtaining the same results of immersiveness... there is something more you can't really explain.
    On the other hand, a game like F.E.A.R. was beautiful not because of its innovation, but because it was the same old gameplay... refined to perfection.
    Now, GoW looks like a shooter that tries to innovate lightly gameplay-wise (but some innovations in the style of the game looks like are there, by reading the various reviews), but yet it has such a big impact graphically and in the situations it puts the player in, and in terms of perfectioning the same formula, that it looks like it *could* (still have to play it or see it for myself) be innovative in another, different way. Or maybe it has zero innovation, and still it is 100% fun. Does this make any difference on the value of the game itself? I don't think so, expecially for new gamers that havent seen 20+ years of videogaming like myself........

    About the reviewing without multiplayer part debate... I think there should always be two different review, with two different scores, for multiplayer and single player. But I have no problem in a review like the one posted here on EG, since it explicitly stated it was just for single player. What worries me, is the ton of review made without testing the multiplayer part, telling you multiplayer is the best thing ever made on earth... while playing the game on a local LAN of 8 xboxes. Then you connect online and you get a terrible experience because of lag problems, bugs on the net code and so on.................

    /off topic follows.
    "Wizball was at least a 90% game (though ironically, its 'innovative' control method may've held it back in terms of top marks...)"

    Wizball clearly stood among the best of its times. Hey, it is still one of the best games ever made... and not just because of the innovative control, but for the innovative idea behind the gameplay (the whole color thingie is great). To me, its more like a 97%. ;)
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 12:11

  • mezzomorto #233 5 years ago

    Just wanted to build on Faëlnor's post.
    A Studio head is only responsable for what his specific studio produces (whether he works for EA or not). You can only potentially string him up for SSX On Tour (already released) and Army of Two (due 2007), at least according to the Gamespot list I found.
    I personally thought that sticking his neck out over innovation was praiseworthy although marred by the motivation most likely behind it (trash talking a game that is very similar to what Army of Two will probably turn out to be). Look at it this way, if he makes his dev teams stick to his high standards, everyone will have a great game to play in´'07 but keep fanning those flames just in case.

    Having said that, Larry Probst is a much fairer target, so knock yourselves out :p...

  • neuroniky #234 5 years ago

    @disc "Or is a shooter with brawn and no brain all we want? "

    But what if (and I haven't seen the game too)...

    ... what if GoW treated its machismo, its stereotypes so well it makes it the king of the stereotyped marine vs aliens shooters? What if the setpiece encounters in the game were the best you ever had? What if the gameplay was so immersive you could play this all day long even if it was a WWII game or a mad rabbits vs hogan's impersonator shooter?

    You made the example of God of War... which is probably the most derivative masterpiece I ever played. I wouldn't say it is an innovative game, but yet, it is one of the best PS2 game I've played. Gears of War, looks like it does something very similar to it, taking the best from a lot different games, only from another genre.

  • samk #235 5 years ago

    "Or is a shooter with brawn and no brain all we want?"

    Yes, SOMETIMES.

    Sometimes I just want to blast stuff and will play Geometry Wars or whatever. Gears of War sounds like another great game for some good brainless visceral blasting action. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking that.

    Lack of innovation; making a big ballsed shooter with big strapping blokes with chainsaws; being good fun and top entertainment; as long as the game is good quality (which GoW evidently is), these things aren't negative factors at all in my book.

  • JayPee #236 5 years ago

    "Children, stop with your relating to where he works. Just because he works for a company famed for non-innovation doesn't mean his opinion is invalid, and he makes a good point. Why not take it from there instead of taking the easy way out by critiquing the person, and not the opinion. "

    Well he hasn't played it. So if his opinion is not influenced by the fact he works for EA as you seem to suggest, then how is his opinion and more valuable than say mine?

    According to your arguament and Joe off the street who hasn't even played this game could be interviewed and quoted on EG to make their point.

    AKA his opinion is pretty much worthless no matter who he is, until he has played the game.

    However his opinon would be worthless anyway. It would be like asking Bill Gates if he thought OS X was better than XP.

    The fact that he works for a company that generally is the main culprit for lack of innovation in videogames just makes the whole thing worse.

    ED: @ Disc "Something like the God of War giant monster fighting.
    "     - I though there was an element of that in GoW with larger enemies at points?
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 12:33

  • Darren #237 5 years ago

    Bluetooth - "Children, stop with your relating to where he works. Just because he works for a company famed for non-innovation doesn't mean his opinion is invalid, and he makes a good point. Why not take it from there instead of taking the easy way out by critiquing the person, and not the opinion."

    That's fair enough but if this guy likes innovation as much as claims to then why on earth is he working for EA?!? LOL

  • Negotiator #238 5 years ago

    And the hits just keep on coming.

  • samk #239 5 years ago

    "To me it doesn't really sound like they needed innovation but rather something else. Something like the God of War giant monster fighting."

    You mean something like this one?

    [link url=http://www.flickergaming.net/wp-content/uploaads/063.jpg
    ]http://ww w.flickergaming.net/wp-content/...[/link]

  • Yossarian #240 5 years ago

    like I've said before, EG put a premium on 'innovation' if and when it suits them

    that's fair enough, of course, but it can't ever be forgotten

  • darkmistx #241 5 years ago

    What? Are you saying EG is biased?

  • bloodflowers #242 5 years ago

    EAs biggest recent innovation was finding a way to charge people for something they already have.

  • fizzer25 #243 5 years ago

    How boring are we?

    EA dude criticising anyone for lack of innovation is like Titus Bramble criticising John Terry for a lack of concentration!

    I do feel still however regardless of Kristan's review that he does slightly favour Sony over any of the other consoles and that he probs always will i think the video proved that yesterday!

    If you guys keep berrating him for and 8 i swear after reviewing the multiplayer when he gets his hands on it hes gonna give it a 7 just to wind you lot up!

  • jamespo #244 5 years ago

    I bet Nintendo fans don't who to side with on this one

  • SwedBear #245 5 years ago

    8/10 is a great score so I'm amazed that it's seen as a negative score.

    That said I think EG again screwed up badly by reviewing half-a-game, especially when they had a full week more to wait for more US people to come online and play with. In fact, many European websites get their copies now (know a few in Sweden that got them today) so there would even have been more Europeans online. Why the rush? We would flock to the review anyway. You should just have waited.

    And lastly - EG's score is just as valid or invalid as any of the other scores. Claiming that EG's "lower" score somehow proves they are more unbiased or affected by the hype is arrogant and rude to other journalists. Why is it more right to think the game is worth 8 than that it is worth 9 or 10? People complain about the 1UP review but in my opinion he explained it in the end. Even with all the flaws he just kept loving the game and coming up with reasons it did deserve a 10. Games are supposed to be fun. If a game has flaws and yet you absolutely love it, then it deserves whatever score you want to give it.







  • repairmanjack #246 5 years ago

    This one's still going then?

    "EA EA oh!"

  • pagedown #247 5 years ago

    And lo! there was much singing and dancing and merriment and all were happy

  • foglord #248 5 years ago

    well, regardless of who said it, it is right, "innovation" should not AND can not be the selling point for Gears of War, ever.

    if there ever was a game that represents the word "generic"and "unimaginative", this is it.

    i also agree with the EA person saying that the graphics are the main reason for such high scores. i was blown away by visuals on the demo and only after 10/15 minutes of play, i took notice that the game was rather... bland, if you know what i mean.

  • sanctusmortis #249 5 years ago

    After the drooling over Resistance - another game with zero ambition/innovation - we all saw the 8/10 coming. EA are saying stuff like this because A) it's not their game and B) they will favour whoever so looks to take the market. They love the Sony stuff, as it shifts games. Therefore, they will be critical of anything else to a higher degree. After all, the better they're in with Sony, the juicier the stuff thrown their way.

    And it's OK to say EA have some innovative stuff coming out, but they don't. They're PUBLISHING some interesting and innovative stuff.

  • old_skool #250 5 years ago

    *yawn*

    /blinks

    /moves along nothing to see

    NEXT !

  • LittleVoice #251 5 years ago

    Post deleted at 18:03:32 01-02-2012

  • neuroniky #252 5 years ago

    @zerolight: while I agree it's hard to innovate within the confines of a genre like that of racing games, there is room for innovation there too. Take Test Drive Unlimited for a genre breaking idea... half badly executed, admittedly, since the base handling is so-so, but having a whole geographical area to drive on is revolutionary. Is like trying to move the racing genre into a new field (the "driving" genre) much more similar to that of the flying sim. The fact that this area is shared online... well, this is even more groundbreaking. Not that everything worked fine in Test Drive Unlimited, but if you ask how I'd like my GT5 or Forza 2 to be... I'd like them to have something like Oahu inside.
    Innovation is much more then redesigning a genre from ground up. Innovation is just something you haven't seen in any other game. Innovating will make a game interesting, for the lovers of videogaming, but won't make a game fun all alone. Like most Bullfrog games have demonstrated during the years...

  • PS3lol #253 5 years ago

    Why has Gears been singled out for lack of innovation and punished?. Pro evolution is the same damn game every year but it scores 9/10 without even trying. Splinter cell DA is almost a clone of Chaos Theory yet scores 9/10.

    Just admit you've been to harsh on Gears because you can't bare to see a 360 game raise the bar so damn high.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 14:33

  • neuroniky #254 5 years ago

    @crofto: out of curiosity... did you actually play Oblivion?
    'Cause I used to be skeptical about it after having played Morrowind on my PC, and when I got it for my 360 I had to admit it is really something special. Maybe it's just the graphics, but its immersiveness factor is huge... it's the only game that I've tried where I don't like to use map "teleport" to move from one location to another just because the trip could be so eventful...

  • JayPee #255 5 years ago

    My one worry is that RS:V will get passed by in all of this.

    From the demo it really looks to be an excellent title.

  • MasterGrief #256 5 years ago

    I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with EA on someting ;)
    Maybe this marks a bold new direction for the company

  • Iceman_GB #257 5 years ago

    When EA deciede to stop churning out updates to years old games I might be interested in there views on innovation, but until then they can shove off.

  • Martin #258 5 years ago

    @Moonprince: Come on, it's obvious; EG felt the backlash (how can you not with a thread that size, most of it quite sensible objections) and needed to back up their claims by quoting one of the biggest publishers in the industry.

    Yeah, I know "It's EA" but despite their milking of franchises they have had a couple of really great games released.

    Plus, it'd be rather tacky of EG to do this just to bait the GoW fanboys.

    Edit: Them => EG.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 15:20

  • widow88 #259 5 years ago

    I in Chapter 3 of the game and I'm seeing gameplay elements I've never experienced before. I won't mention them here becuase I consider them spoilers to anyone who has not played the game. I will say though that when I found this specific gameplay element that was incorporated into the game which was taken from a concept of one of my favorite Vin Diesel sci fi movies I was blown away by the genius of it's integration.

  • nickthegun #260 5 years ago

    If there is one thing this deeply retarded thread has achieved, it has enlightened me to a whole new world of 'Pot calling the kettle black' metaphors.

    Average post: "HAHA! Thats like saying X does something but says that Y does it too!! HAHAHAHA!!! HOW CLEVER AM I?"

  • thepiedpiper #261 5 years ago

    mr EA exec is a spaz. a bitter spaz.

  • Ihya #262 5 years ago

    I still prefer EG's reviews to any other site on the net. Every US site came to the review surfing on the crest of MS hype. EG cut through the bullshit and said it how it is.

  • Donkeh #263 5 years ago

    Umm, he's the manager of the Montreal Studio, the studio behind Army of Two. One of those "new" games that they were rattling off about a while back.

    Of course we're yet to see anything of this game but I like the idea of it so far. At least his studio are trying to do something different so perhaps not chop off his nuts until we see the goods?

    Or maybe not, still, let's see hey?

  • Malacath #264 5 years ago

    What right have EA got to talk about innovation?
    They should look at their own games before slagging other games off?
    I don't own any EA games for the 360 and probably never will. All they bring out is the same games every year just tweaked slightly and with the year on the end of the title.

  • Mordum #265 5 years ago

    Eurogamer must have known what the reaction to this article would have been, which is why it beggers belief they decided to run it. These comments coming from someone who works for EA is just plain laughable... and the cringe worthy self applauding comments at the end was just a new low, even for Eurogamer (I'm just glad to see that part was removed, proves they at least have some self respect left).
    Regarding the comments that GoW has no innovation... who cares, is it fun?!

    On a side note. How come Eurogamer feels these comments are worthy of an article, but the recent comments from Nolan Bushnell (of Atari) do not get the same treatment? Yes Nolan was talking in a negative light about Sony, but surely thats not reason enough to not also feature them in an article.
    For people who did not read the comments from Nolan Bushnell, here is a snippet from the Game spot article:

    "Bushnell called Sony "arrogant and capricious" in the interview. "I think Sony shot themselves in the foot... There is a high probability [the PS3] will fail. The price point is probably unsustainable," he said, referring to the $499 and $599 sticker prices of the system. "For years and years Sony has been a very difficult company to deal with from a developer standpoint... They have also historically had horrible software tools."

    It's fair to point out that both articles are a waste of reading time, but the point here is why Eurogamer will print comments from some industry insiders, but not do the same for certain others. Not simply because the views do not fit in with the PS3 brand image that Eurogamer are trying to promote I hope.
    Edited by 1 at 10/11/06 @ 20:14

  • RevanEleven #266 5 years ago

    Ha Ha!!

    EA exec: "Gears shows no innovation"

    Next up folks: Pot on calling kettle black shocker!

  • TripleSeven #267 5 years ago

    He's right imo.

  • kentmonkey #268 5 years ago

    Just sack Ellie - it's all her fault anyway! :o)

  • BartonFink #269 5 years ago

    Agreed it was a real red top non story anyway.

  • urizen #270 5 years ago

    `I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that this is, without a doubt, the biggest journalistic scandal in the history of written language.

    I sense that it is i sign that we stand on the brink off the demise of western civilization and the beginning of new dark age.`

    LMAO! My thoughts exactly :-)

  • LittleVoice #271 5 years ago

    Post deleted at 18:03:32 01-02-2012

  • Mordum #272 5 years ago

    @LittleVoice
    Lol, thanks for the link... I bet Eurogamer really regrets this damn article. I have no sympathy though, they surely must have known what the reaction would be, they really are on a slide right now, I don't think their reputation has ever been lower (and not just because of this particular article either).
    And before anyone starts shouting abuse, I've always enjoyed reading this site, its just recently their articles are becoming cringe worthy.

  • BulletMagnet_UK #273 5 years ago

    Recently?

    If you were here about a year ago for the Killzone CGI inspired 'teh real next gen' war you might not be saying that....

  • Endo #274 5 years ago

    Just as an endnote, mayyyyyybe, mayyyyyyybe, his comments might also be influenced by other factors, other mysterious factors, perhaps, I dunno, say, there's a game EA's working on, say, for example, that will be competing with it.

    Maybe.

    http://en.wi kipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Two

  • smoothn00dle #275 5 years ago

    Don't buy 360

  • Carrybagma #276 5 years ago

    Annnndd

    3

  • Carrybagma #277 5 years ago

    2

  • Carrybagma #278 5 years ago

    1

  • Carrybagma #279 5 years ago

    You're over.