Gears of War Review

By Kristan Reed Published 17 November, 2006

And now the bit about multiplayer.

Version tested: Xbox 360

You can read what we made of the single-player campaign elsewhere on the site.

Gears of War's multiplayer could and should be one of the best online multiplayer gaming experiences around. Right now - when all the stars are aligned - it can be one of the most unique and entertaining, but also one of the most infuriating.

The raw material for you to go online and have a lot of fun is there in abundance. Key to this is the fact that the 10 multiplayer maps are so well designed and pleasantly varied. Based around various key environments that you'll be familiar with from the main campaign, there's genuinely not a bad one among them. Even if you're well versed with the story mode, the first time you play each one gives you that same feeling of wide-eyed awe that reminds us about that next generation we keep hearing so much about (but seeing so little of). But it's not just impressive in terms of stand-out graphical opulence (which is a given), it's the realisation of how well balanced most (if not all) the map are too, without ever resorting to lazy symmetrical designs.

Every map has a start point at opposing sides of the map, with the simple goal of taking out your opposite numbers. After every round you swap to the opposite side of the map, presumably to even out any possible advantage there might conceivably be, and so the match goes on until you reach the first to five - or however many rounds the host dictates. With just eight players supported, it's no surprise to find such tight, confined maps designed around columns and cover points. Encounters with the enemy usually take place within a matter of 10 or 20 seconds, so it's normal to find your opponents all rushing to take up the best spots to pick you off. Anticipation of that tends to be key, so the turnover of rounds can happen in a matter of a few minutes, and as a result you get a really good appreciation of the entire map in no time at all. By design, Gears of War's multiplayer experience is an instantly accessible experience, and yet tough to master.

Nice arsenal

'Gears of War' Screenshot youngman

Young man, there's no need to feel down....I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground.

Part of the reason it's tough to master is working out the best use of which weapon at the right time. Weapon loadout is the same for both the Locusts and the Cog troops, and no side has an real advantage in terms of better weapons or superior health or speed and so on. You all start with a single smoke grenade, the Snub pistol, the Lancer assault rifle (complete with chainsaw bayonet for super-satisfying melee kills), and the short-range Gnasher, and whether you choose to grab any of the other more powerful specialist weapons lying around the map is up to you, but definitely helps. Different maps offer specific weapons, such as the Boomer grenade launcher, the Longshot sniper rifle, or (most commonly) frag grenades, while others might allow you to wield the satellite-enabled Hammer of Dawn (that shoots down a particle beam from the sky) as well as others featured in the campaign mode. But, generally, every weapon has its own set of massive disadvantages. For example, the sniper rifle might be deadly enough to kill a player in one shot, but its load time leaves a player exposed for a dangerous amount of time. Similarly, the shotgun's useless at long range, but absolutely deadly from three metres away, and while the assault rifle is useful at long range, its chainsaw bayonet can catch a player off guard in grisly fashion.

One thing you'll also notice early on is how some maps are more suited to certain weapons than others. For example, the long, narrow Canal map with its various bridges makes it a popular choice for snipers, while others (like the one with the central decaying mansion) favour a more condensed multi-layered approach with doorways offering excellent choke point opportunities for you to lay in wait for the unsuspecting foe with the Boomer primed and ready.

'Gears of War' Screenshot wretchhorde

Marcus Fenix is a big hit at the Locust karaoke night.

Perhaps the thing that takes the most adjusting to is the fact that there's a much greater emphasis on close quarters combat in multiplayer - which simply wasn't such a big deal in the campaign mode where most enemies tended to sit patiently behind cover and pop out obligingly. For a while you might assume the same tactics will work online, where you could zoom in on targets and kill them with a few well-placed shots from your Lancer - but you'll come completely unstuck if you do. Suddenly you'll start to make much better use of blind firing that you ever did before, and appreciate the usefulness of the melee grenade attack, or how essential the Gnasher really is.

Morning glory

Because of the game's rather limited AI scope in campaign mode (even in Hardcore mode), none of these techniques were ever really called for that often (if ever), but playing it in multiplayer really starts to reveal how finely balanced the weapons are, and how using the environment properly is essential. In fact, the entire control system seems much more tailored to the demands of multiplayer conflict, where evasion techniques are paramount. In conjunction with the same recharging health mechanic, a skilful player can roll away from an attack, and perform cover slips and SWAT turns to their advantage. A beginner may make good use of cover, but in these desperate situations a good knowledge of the right weapons to use and how to get yourself out of trouble makes for an interesting battle.

'Gears of War' Screenshot dominator

No.1 Dom-inator.

It's perhaps here that Gears of War can truly start to assert its differentials over the online shooting herd, with a style of multiplayer gaming that does feel somewhat fresh in comparison to a lot of the done-to-death first-person shooters that have been trawled out endlessly. And even against more serious squad games like GRAW, it bothers to make use-of-cover an essential part of the gameplay - something Ubisoft bizarrely stripped out of the multiplayer after basing the entire single-player gameplay on exactly that. At least there's a real consistency in GoW, in that the multiplayer game doesn't feel annexed in any way from the campaign.

The controls, while by no means perfect and easy to get tangled in knots with, at least attempt new things that have a major impact on how multiplayer games play out. The active reload system, for example, is an excellent idea that gives players the chance to reload much quicker by mastering a very simple and effective technique of double-tapping the reload button at precisely the right time. Being able to do this in the heat of battle can make the difference between life and death, as can being able to exit cover and mount low walls in one fluid motion. Put these small things together and you have a game which offers something a little different in many areas. Other shooters have never really nailed that sense of physical interaction with the environment, resorting to crouch and lean options that never really felt right. I wouldn't quite go as far to say Gears of War feels right either, because Epic has introduced enough annoying quirks of its own, to be fair (such as how clunky the whole running mechanic is, for a start), but at least CliffyB and co have tried to offer a different approach.

Just a shot away

Where Gears of War's multiplayer comes into its own is the realisation that even intimate knowledge of the maps isn't enough. Death is always one mis-step away. It may well be a game that's all about cover, but there's always a weakness to wherever you position yourself. As a result, there's a tension to the gameplay that absolutely requires co-operation and teamwork, and knowing which weapons work in given positions. Getting people to watch your back while you lie in wait next to the doorway makes for a compelling game when it all goes to plan. Revving the chainsaw just at the right time and sawing an unwary opponent in half just as they stride through a door - well, Freud would have a field day.

Co-operation is, without question, absolute paramount to getting any enjoyment out of Gears of War. The four-on-four team-based dynamic can work a charm as long as you all have your microphones switched on and can be bothered to communicate with one another. Having people on your side who all know the map's weaknesses and can inform you where the enemy is likely to appear can make a huge difference when you're an unfortunate n00b.

And even then, death itself is a lesson, with a great spectator mode that gives you a chance to observe the tactics of your more experienced team-mates, noting the way that certain players whip out the Gnasher shotgun at close quarters to deal with those chainsaw-bayonet-wielding sods that try and go for the g(l)ory kill. Or the clinical efficiency that certain players pull off a melee grenade kill by ramming it into the body of a shocked opponent, or the sniper specialists who manage to pull off headshots seemingly at will. All the while, you and the other dead players are busy shouting in joy or utter despair as the often-thrilling spectacle plays out in front of you. In the dead space, no-one can hear you scream - which is probably just as well, given the amount of smack talking going on.

Team deathmatch to the power of three

'Gears of War' Screenshot aroundthecorner

Careful with those fingers Marcus...

As you get into the game and start learning the various maps, you start to appreciate the differences between the three multiplayer modes - however subtle they might appear in the first place. In particular, Warzone and Execution feel like the same team deathmatch mode to begin with, but the ability to revive yourself in Execution mode (by hammering the A button) after being injured actually makes a big difference to how the match tends to play out. Whereas Warzone gives you the chance to kill foes from a safe distance, Execution essentially forces players to go for the close quarters kill in most instances, putting the aggressors at risk of being ambushed by opposition laying in wait - possibly using their own team-mate as bait. As such, you have to rely on your team-mates a lot more - not only in the hope that they'll be kind enough to run over to you and revive you in the first place (a risky business in itself in the heat of battle), but that they can help finish off downed opponents before they manage to revive themselves. Assassination differentiates itself from the other two by assigning a leader to each team (one's Hoffman, the other RAAM). The winner of the round is the one who kills the other team's leader, which often leads to quite short rounds if you end up with a gung-ho leader who wades in and gets shot early on. In a sense, it's the most team-focused of the three modes, but it's also by far the least popular for that very reason. Which leads me to my next, and most important beef with Gears of War's multiplayer shenanigans.

The problem with Gears of War right now is that it's only a team game in theory. It sounds great talking about the fun that you can have when you've got a good team with you, but in practice the servers are currently populated with an alarming number of selfish players (notably in ranked matches) that are merely obsessed with getting their TrueSkill rank up and going for as many kills as possible. In one astonishing incident, I was actually booted out of a match for supposedly 'stealing' the host's kills, when in fact I thought I was doing the decent thing of being clinical and finishing opponents off before they were revived. I pointed out incredulously that it was a team game, and that surely all that mattered was that our team won, but sadly, such incidents are not rare in the realm of Gears of War's evidently younger audience. In short, the ranked games are a mess, full of whining kids with nothing better to do than bitch, swear, boast and talk absolute non-stop gibberish. It's a scary glimpse into the void of where we're at right now if people really are this demented.

'Gears of War' Screenshot mansionskirmish

Get some cover, losers!

It could have so easily been avoided, though.

Why on Earth didn't Epic put clan options in the game? Sure, you can host your own match with private slots and get your own buddies together in an unofficial clan, but the whole process of actually finding good team-mates isn't made any easier when the end of a ranked match results in everyone disappearing and having to start afresh - before you've even had time to make a note of who the guy was on your team that wasn't a moron. And so it goes on. You're then left with the lottery of playing with another random selection of people who may or may not end up being a bunch of idiots who have no desire to communicate or play as a team. When that happens - which is with alarming frequency - the game goes to pot. My advice? If you find someone good and not a jerk and evidently knows the game well, definitely make a note of their gamertag.

Tech suppoooooort

The other thing that doesn't aid the enjoyment process of playing Gears of War online is that the actual process of getting into an online game is not far short of a joke for some players. From my own experiences (and from scouting the dreaded forums to check it wasn't just me), it can be a lottery as to whether the game lets you join matches or not, with the 'connection lost' error message repeatedly delivered when you try to hook up to matches. The problem seems to be this: the server reports might state that a match has two spare slots, but in the second or so between giving you that information and you clicking on it, those places will have already been allocated to other people and the game reports that the connection is lost - presumably a consequence of the game's overwhelming online popularity at the moment. The workaround seems to be to immediately pick a game that - at the time of the search - has four or less players in it - any delay on your part will almost certainly see the game also fill up and be lost. But this is completely daft of Epic - the whole point of Xbox Live's quickmatch facility is to be able to hop into the nearest available game without the faff, not to have to select from a list of games the instant they appear. It's messy, and something that ought to be patched as soon as possible.

And if you're not put off by the connection issues or relentless, demented, selfish, smack-talking teenage Americans that seem to accompany every single match without fail (in my tortured experience, at least), you'll encounter idiotic hosts that quit out if it looks like their team is about to lose the match (and therefore the stats don't get uploaded). Just as annoying is the regular occurrence of players who drop out of matches and leave your team high and dry for no apparent reason, or people who just plain refuse to even entertain the notion of team play. The game is so wide open to abuse in so many ways at the moment, it's plain unbelievable that Epic has left the multiplayer in such a basic state for what is the most important Live game on the 360 so far. It's just as confusing why cheats who quit matches aren't punished in some way - some sort of points deduction for those who deliberately quit would soon clear this sort of nonsense up. At least some sort of ability to avoid players with a certain percentage of unfinished matches would help, however hard it would be to monitor in reality.

'Gears of War' Screenshot screenshot00

Is Marcus going bald?

Another thing that struck me as odd is why there aren't any solo multiplayer modes, such as an all-against-all deathmatch set in more expansive maps. Clearly the behaviour of most of the players online at the moment suggests this is what they'd prefer. At least then there would be a chance for the team players to actually be free to enjoy the concept of co-operation. Admittedly, the unranked Player matches are a lot less affected by the problems mentioned above, so perhaps your best bet is to avoid the TrueSkill mob and just have some fun. But when so many of the game's achievement points are directly connected to your performance in ranked games, it seems unfair of Epic to penalise those who go online and choose not to play ranked matches. Also, as a team game that relies so heavily on communication, it would have been nice to be able to filter out players who don't have the voice communicator, as matches are often spoiled as a direct result of people who don't and won't talk. It goes without saying that a lot of these issues just mentioned are hardly unique to Gears of War, but other games have solved them in numerous ways, so why didn't Epic - the developer with more online shooter experience than just about anyone?

Alone again, or...

'Gears of War' Screenshot heinz

Heinz fans rejoice: ketchup aplenty.

All that remains is to talk about the rather lovely online co-op mode. Having played it offline in split-screen for a few hours, there's no question that playing it online is where it's at. Split-screen is a bit confusing, not least because of Epic's decision to go for a horizontal rather than vertical split. On a widescreen TV, you're playing in a very narrow field, and it never feels quite right. Online (or system link, of course) it's a different story, and you can hop into any number of ongoing online campaign games at various difficulty settings, regardless of whether you've unlocked them yourself. Of course, there is the issue of finding a good companion, and some might find it frustrating to have to constantly retread certain sections because of someone else's mistake. For example, when you're both on the same section you can revive one another - which is fine - but on the branching paths you end up having to effectively go solo for a while, and if your partner goes down, it results in an instant return to the start of the checkpoint. Not only is this a bit irritating, it can take an age before they get it right - and on balance you might feel that playing it on your own is more fun after all. Having said that, you'll probably stand a greater chance of getting through the harder difficulty levels with a partner - not necessarily because of being able to revive one another, but because the AI squad members constantly get killed on Hardcore or Insane.

So, where were we? Ah yes, Gears of War's multiplayer has the potential to be great, and Epic had the means to make sure it was great. If anything, the multiplayer shows some of the game's core components - the controls, use of cover and weapons - in a much more sympathetic light. But then came up with a team-based multiplayer game where you can't create an official team, and failed to cater to the crowd that are just here for their own personal glory. And it's essentially these points that make it almost impossible to score - how do you rate something on its potential, if the reality is so wildly varying and the developer doesn't make it easy for it to live up to its potential? In a vacuum I'd have no hesitation scoring the multiplayer a nailed-down 9/10 (which is the very reason I waited to play it on real-life Live instead of dishing out pre-emptive hyperbole), but with all the niggles and issues surrounding the game right now, it's solid enough to still be great, but it still only worth an 8.

8 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (200) Latest comment 4 years ago

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

  • smugla #1 5 years ago

    first lol

  • lambtron #2 5 years ago

    lol indeed.

  • Steroyd #3 5 years ago

    uh oh Spaghettio's!!!

  • Mho7276501 #4 5 years ago

    lol again

  • KnickKnack #5 5 years ago

    yeah yeah yeah, but WHEN does the REAL next gen start? :)

  • Mho7276501 #6 5 years ago

    @KnickKnack, with the release of DX10 games?

  • alpha-0ne #7 5 years ago

    http://ww w.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/9... - 43 Reviews

  • Steroyd #8 5 years ago

    using my calculator Gears of War still Averages at about an eight.

  • rhinoxious #9 5 years ago

    So as good as Halo

  • fizzer25 #10 5 years ago

    Doesn't bother me one bit about the score I have already bought the game as I said I would regardless of the review as I like the look of it, however I foresee another few hundred comments protesting and chastising Tristan!! Feel sorry for him his opinion is different to every other reviewer I have read on the subject but so what fair play to him on being honest least he is prepared not to bow to the majority. When I have played the game over the weekend I will decide whether I agree with him or not!!

  • crazyhorse174 #11 5 years ago

    8?

    Oh God...here we go...

  • spongebob #12 5 years ago

    As good as GOW, then?

  • oceanmotion #13 5 years ago

    After reading through which I doubt many will, seems fair.

  • Oasis #14 5 years ago

    First of all, this thread is safe. Gears of War has officially 'beat' Resistance: Fall of Man, so Sony fanboys have no cause to crow, and Xbox fanboys have no cause to become defensive.

    Second, I still maintain that I have only ever really enjoyed three online shooting series' of games. Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon and Brothers in Arms. They're the only one's I've tried where any sort of attempted running and gunning is punished by death. Tactics and teamplay are a must. Anything less, and you'll be six feet under quicker than you can say "pwned!".

    In saying that though, I have mildly enjoyed the likes of Halo, Quake, Doom and Unreal, if only for their insta-fun sensibilities.

  • rhinoxious #15 5 years ago

    Am still really looking forward to the online co-op, despite the noted flaws.

    I'm amazed that they didn't take a leaf from Bungie's book in the organisation of competitive multi-player.

  • Batman2100 #16 5 years ago

    After the flaming he got for the SP review, I'm faintly surprised Kristan was willing to do this one... Bravo, I say, regardless of score, for overcoming fear of the fanboys...

  • Dr.Mott #17 5 years ago

    I just bought this today. I haven't had a chance to play an online versus mode yet, but the co-op thing is great.

  • gazareth #18 5 years ago

    It seems a tad harsh to mark the game down because idiots play it. Welcome to online gaming!

  • Tonka #19 5 years ago

    Never eat Sushi for lunch. Sure it's nice and you feel healthy and full when you are finnished. It's a chimère though. 2hrs later and you WILL be starving. There is also loads of sugar in the marinade for the rice.

    Did you know that Sushi means marinated rice? It does. Sashimi on the other hand means raw fish.

  • Eighthours #20 5 years ago

    I'm sticking to player matches. People are always far nicer in them than the idiots in the ranked ones... and this goes for most 360 games. So many idiots out there. But with your friends in a player match, this game is a joy.

    Shame there aren't the clan options, hopefully they'll come.

  • krudster #21 5 years ago

    You learn something new every day.

  • sickpuppysoftware #22 5 years ago

    Oh man, the trolls are going to have to multi-task today

  • rudedudejude #23 5 years ago

    A Good Review.

    A let down on the clan thing, I only play pc games online with clans I'm in as I'm so sick of online retards, so I can understand how you feel, moreso as it's heavy reliant team play, akin to the likes of DoW on the pc.

    Hopefully most of those issues will be fixable with a reworked stats/drop system and possibly how points are accumulated.

  • gazareth #24 5 years ago

    I should add that I spent several hours playing unranked games last night with friends and it was the most fun I've had on Xbox Live since I got my 360. I've gotten bored with every other game after a few rounds, but this held my interest all the way through.

    It's a shame that they seem to have made a pigs ear out of the ranked matches system, and that there's no clan support, but the experience I had last night surpassed all my expectations.

    P.S. I agree with the singleplayer review 100%.

  • therev #25 5 years ago

    Interesting. My multiplayer impressions, written earlier today, based on a mere two games so far -

    "I jumped into a quick ranked match and chose to be on the side of the locusts. (As is the way of things, they look much, much cooler than the good guys. Less armour, more cloth, great big teeth and terrible skin. I think I want to be one when I grow up.) We started off outside an old house that had seen better days. The kind of spooky, ruined house kids would dare their friends to walk up to and just touch - because entering would be unthinkable, even in daylight.

    And it was raining. And somehow, despite being almost devoid of colour, the house, the cloth flapping from my teammates' waists and the rain all added up to one of the most beautiful things I've seen in a videogame.

    It was - and I really don't say this lightly - it was up there with leaving the castle in the Ico demo and walking out into the sunlight.

    Then we were off, running towards the house. I followed a teammate, but lost him, found myself alone. Using cover, moving slowly, hearing firefights far off, inside the house. Unintentionally, I'd come up to the enemy from behind. Not sure if I killed anyone that first round, but I helped.

    Soon I'd discovered I had a shotgun and I'd learned the layout of the small but perfectly-formed map. Two very important things.

    I worked with a teammate to take down a sniper crouching behind an old sofa at the top of some stairs. I didn't have my headset, so I couldn't speak, but it's one of those games where you don't really need to. You know what needs to be done and you do it, instinctively working together.

    The sides were evenly matched in numbers, but not skill, and my team won the match, getting to five wins first. I was the worst player on my team, but not by a lot and I got enough kills and downs to feel pretty pleased with myself.

    It was glorious. I want to remember that match for ever.

    The second match couldn't and didn't live up to it. Firstly, it took me about five minutes to get into another match. Then it was two against four and I was one of the two, which really showed up my weakness - the primary one being a weakness to chainsaws being forced into the back of my head. It was still great fun - the one kill I did get felt like a real victory - but it didn't reach the same heights. It was a first-to-ten wins match and after the first couple of rounds it was obvious how each round was going to go. I did feel some comradeship with my single teammate, though, and by the last couple of rounds we were really working well together. (The map wasn't as good, either, for the record. Just a square room with spawn points either end and various bits of cover lying around.)

    You may have noticed that I've not mentioned lag. Simple reason - there wasn't any that was visible to me in either match. End of story."

    The main point being, as someone currently headsetless I enjoyed the fact that it's possible to, effectively, communicate in-game with your teammates. Like I never felt the need to say anything when playing Counter Strike, beyond the odd quickly-typed "sorry" or "oops" or "cheers, bye".

    As I say, though, first impressions only. I'll see how I feel after more play - though hoepfully I'll get my headset back some time today.

  • krudster #26 5 years ago

    The multiplayer isn't marked down based on idiots, it gets the 8 because Epic didn't implement a way to *stop* the idiots. Clan matches and so on would make this an awesome multiplayer experience, but right now it's a teenage dementia city...

  • gazareth #27 5 years ago

    Oh yeah, there's a bug where you can't hear people who join unranked games midway through. If you don't join at the pre-game lobby stage then no one can hear you speaking. A pretty unforgiveable bug really...

  • bonker #28 5 years ago

    /Reserves yet more hours tonight to suck this up along with the R:FOM thread :)

  • therev #29 5 years ago

    Without the headset you do hear people - I had to mute one guy last night in my brief play. He was playing fine, but just singing nonsense in a high-pitched voice the entire time.

  • krudster #30 5 years ago

    Before this point gets lost in the malaise - this is fantastic fun when you get a keenly contested match between two well-drilled teams. But you'd have to be blind deaf and dumb not to point out the issues that I, and probably thousands of others are having with it right now.

  • rhinoxious #31 5 years ago

    Anyone from this thread fancy a sensible team based game tonight?

    If so my gamertag is: SEF

    We can get together some eurogamer teams and play it properly!

  • Clive_Dunn #32 5 years ago

    I'm not sure about the validity of including peoples online behaviour in a review. After all the biggest weakness with online gaming is usually the human element - which is exactly why many of us only play games with people on friends lists.

  • krudster #33 5 years ago

    MMUK: Try clans. Try offering all vs all deathmatch. Try giving % of DNF stats so you can avoid quitting retards. Try giving instant point penalties to users that host and quit. Try a quickmatch system that takes you straight into the lobby.

    There are plenty of easy solutions of fixing what's wrong with this.

  • zErOb_cOOl #34 5 years ago

    I'm sorry for the unoriginal comment, but lol (again.)

  • kangarootoo #35 5 years ago

    Please people. Lets try and keep this thread in good order, if only to show the outside world that gamers aren't all hormonal f'kwits with binary mood controls.

    So who has played this online so far?
    How did your experience line up with Kristans (no doubt it differed slightly, thats life, no-one is wrong ok)?
    Has anyone had a ranked match that WASN'T full of annoying kids?

    Is there co-op online BTW? Maybe you mentioned it (or its absence) in one of the reviews Kristan, but my eyes aren't what they used to be (they used to be ears, ahahahaha... sorry /fires self).

  • kangarootoo #36 5 years ago

    @Clive Dunn

    "I'm not sure about the validity of including peoples online behaviour in a review."

    I think it is entirely relevant if it impacts enjoyment and COULD have been controlled by the developer. if you buy a game, and then it turns out to not be fun for whatever reason, you expect the review to tell you about it surely.


    @disc

    "Mark it down for other people? That's a very patchable offense you know. "

    Surely you aren't suggesting that EG staff adjust their review opinions and scores based on what they presume might get patched at some point possibly in the future maybe?

  • Xerx3s #37 5 years ago

    The multiplayer isn't marked down based on idiots, it gets the 8 because Epic didn't implement a way to *stop* the idiots. Clan matches and so on would make this an awesome multiplayer experience, but right now it's a teenage dementia city...

    I doubt that you will find many game in the near future with those elements. Trueskill system. It doesn't allow things like groups. But both epic and ms said that they are working on it. I really think that ms should take a look at it's system. leaderboards/scores < fun with parties & clans.

    All in all, fair enough. You can't judge something on what it will be but what it is (even though stuff like H2 went from good to fantastic by means of patches and upgrades later on).

  • rhinoxious #38 5 years ago

    At least GOW is a big enough title that patches and improved online matchmaking are a definite possibility. Smaller titles often suffer from lack of post-release support, but I can't see that happening here.

  • sharpfish #39 5 years ago

    Gears of war 8 my hamster!


    Great game, 8 or not. (actually 9.5 average and 14th best game of all time on gamerankings.com so far!)

  • DCrider360 #40 5 years ago

    "The controls, while by no means perfect and easy to get tangled in knots with, at least attempt new things that have a major impact on how multiplayer games play out."

    sounds like the eurogamer crew are just fuckin crap at the game basically!!!

    gears shits on ALL shooters!!!!

  • jack_klugman #41 5 years ago

    14th best game of all time on gamerankings.com

    What a depressing statistic.

  • krudster #42 5 years ago

    If this is the 14th best game ever, I'm Jesus.

  • pjmaybe #43 5 years ago

    Had my first single AND multiplayer goes on this last night and it's absolutely rock solid multiplayer. In fact it's about bloody time a LIVE game came out for the 360 with good solid kick ass netcode as good as Halo 2's. No hassle joining a game, getting into it and it looks as good multiplayer as it does in single player.

    I'm just hoping UT2007 gets a release on the 360 too...

    Peej

  • hula hoops #44 5 years ago

    If you are new to EG and are surprised about the score here are some guides for you:

    1. Football Manager = 10/10
    2. Zelda = 10/10
    3. FPS game on non PC platform capped to 8/10
    4. Xbox (or 360) exclusive games get -1 score penalty
    5. Gamecube (or Wii) exclusive games get +1 score modifier

    you get the drift ... :p

  • Steroyd #45 5 years ago

    This is a crime how on earth did MGS 3 Subsistance rank 21 places behind MGS2. :/

    ...oops off topic.

  • kangarootoo #46 5 years ago

    "14th best game of all time on gamerankings.com "

    Just shows what a sack of bollox gamerankings actually is.

    It sets out to compare all games as if they were the same, and simply demonstrates that assumption is fatally flawed.


    @hula hoops

    Well done, you qualify for membership of the "I don't understand it so it must be wrong" club.

  • Tonka #47 5 years ago

    There is an Indian restaurant not far from my office. I go there maybe 2 times a week. I love their food and it keeps me full for a long time. But it also makes me drowsy. Could it be that stuff they put in the rice?

    The reason I'm thinking this is because I once had some fried rice with lotus buds in it. It made so relaxed I couldn't be bothered to move for 2 hrs. My hands went all warm and fuzzy to. It was great.

    Anyways, indian food with Nan keeps you full.
    Sushi won't.

    Beware of the sushi. I also find it a bit distressing to order food from a girl in a restaurant that smells of raw fish.

    My copy of Gears is lying next to me on my desk and I can swear that Feicks guy is smirking at me.

  • Scientist #48 5 years ago

    "It seems a tad harsh to mark the game down because idiots play it."

    It's the same as marking a game down for bad AI. If the human intelligence affects the player experience, it seems fair to note it in the review.

    @kanga: I agree entirely

  • dudefella #49 5 years ago

    Whoopee, it starts anew... seriously EG, did anyone want this? I suppose it's good for your hits, but this smells like stirring up controversy for the sake of it. If you feel you cannot sufficiently review a game yet, then wait with the review, this 2-part review thing seperated by a week, frankly, is idiotic. And this is coming from a very big EG fan.

  • Eighthours #50 5 years ago

    If this is the 14th best game ever, I'm Jesus.

    What placing will make you the Prophet Muhammed?

  • hula hoops #51 5 years ago

    Well done, you qualify for membership of the "I don't understand it so it must be wrong" club.

    I don't understand the above statement ... and does that mean it must be wrong?

  • kangarootoo #52 5 years ago

    @dudefella

    "but this smells like stirring up controversy for the sake of it"

    Writes something, realises the futility, deletes it, loses faith in gamers and gaming, leaves thread, quits job.

    /not the last one, obviously

  • Martin #53 5 years ago

    Not surprised...

    /me hopes that Epic has this sorted out before I get me an Xbox 360...

  • Quagmire #54 5 years ago

    [link url=http:// www.gamerankings.com/Charts/928234.png
    ]http://ww w.gamerankings.com/Charts/92823...[/link]

    hehehe

  • jamesbee #55 5 years ago

    Spot on review of MP. I wish more dev teams would take a look at how Halo 2 handled things. I know alot of people didn't like that options were removed from you but in my experience if you give people responsability and power, they always sod it up!

    Why on earth are we still gaming online with systems that require me to have to rush to invite people into games and rejoin each other every 20 mins. Party support! PLEASE!! The game is begging for it. Allow me ro find 3 decent players and move around the online world letting my team down.

    I hope Epic don't let us down on the support side. When this game clicks online, it's really really good!


  • glo #56 5 years ago

    Didn't see any mention of voice comms problems. I (and others) have had problems with this in multiplayer games. Nothing to do with my NAT settings (which are open) and nothing to do with my headset or broadband connection. Tried resetting the console, logging in and out of live, unplugging and reconnecting the headset, all to no avail whatsoever.

    Anybody else had issues with this?

  • bavelb #57 5 years ago

    I got annoyed with the ranked matchsystem too untill I realised I didnt give a flying f*ck about my ranking or trueskill. Since then I had tons of fun on unranked, where all these troubles are not the case.

    @glo: when you join a match halfway apparantly your mic wont work at times but you do hear the ones that joined from start.
    Edited by 1 at 17/11/06 @ 15:18

  • Martin #58 5 years ago

    "Beware of the sushi. I also find it a bit distressing to order food from a girl in a restaurant that smells of raw fish."

    The girl or the restaurant? And why is it a bit distressing?

  • S.J.Rogers #59 5 years ago

    I am not a Twat and enjoy team play online and talk using the Headset..!

    Am i the only one?

    Add me to your friends list.

    S J Rogers

  • hula hoops #60 5 years ago

    The girl or the restaurant?

    If it was the girl he would have written it "...from a girl in a restaurant who smells of raw fish".

  • trevd72 #61 5 years ago

    in all honesty the pre and post game options are almost just as important as what happens in the game these days. you need a painless way of getting into the game....penalties for cheaters, lobbies, clans, comms, etc.

    i hate it when you finish a match and you get kicked out to start again which takes ages (saints row). Battlefield 2, Halo2 and rainbowsix black arrow have it about right between them. I don't want to wait as long to get in a match as it takes to play a match.

    what seems like ages ago in RB6:BA you seemed to playing match after match in quick succession with players that worked together and you managed to plan attacks. This one match at a time thing just leads to games with no structure and the inability to weed out the arsey yanks. Battlefield 2 was a painless multiplayer game too. cos you could just jump straight into a battle without any problems were as GRAW had you waiting ages to get into a game but the lobby works well. Halo2 party system was good too.

  • glo #62 5 years ago

    @bavelb - I know about joining a match half way through problem. However this problem continued once we moved onto new matches and continued until I got sick of it (after about 6 matches) and quit out for the last time to try FEAR online and see if there was a problem with my headset/connection. There wasn't.

    The problem also affected other players in the game so it wasn't just down to me. Anyone else found this?

  • Walshicus #63 5 years ago

    So... Eurogamer is SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that Gears of War isn't as good as a Tony Hawk game? Seriously? They're not having some kind of laugh? I personally think that's really quite silly, but whatever.

  • PlugMonkey #64 5 years ago

    "you'll encounter idiotic hosts that quit out if it looks like their team is about to lose the match (and therefore the stats don't get uploaded). Just as annoying is the regular occurrence of players who drop out of matches and leave your team high and dry for no apparent reason, or people who just plain refuse to even entertain the notion of team play."

    And this is basically why I disagree with certain industry voices that online play is the ultimate future of gaming. People are, generally, a bunch of knobs who I spend most of the rest of my life trying very hard to avoid.

    I also completely agree with marking a game down if the experience is marred by the people playing it. I just want to know if it's fun enough to be worth me spending money on. If it isn't, then I need to know. Whatever the reason.

  • KingOfTheC #65 5 years ago

    Every xbox 360 game on LIVE has been a letdown for me.

    Microsoft's ridiculous policy on not allowing ranked matches with friends on your team is seriously stunting their online service, which was so good circa Halo 2.

    I truly don't see what they get out of it! Apparently, though I am doubtful of this and haven't seen the actual quote myself, only a paraphrase of it, a programmer for the online portion of GoW has said that He was basically told by Microsoft that the game would not ship with clans or team ranked games.

    Microsoft seem convinced that gamers who want to play on a team with friends should be relegated to the lowest common denominator gaming of Player Matches.

  • evildonut #66 5 years ago

    I don't think the criticism related to ranked matches is fair. Most of the issues described are inherit to TrueSkill and the idea of ranked matches in itself. They are part of the system, and you will experience the exact same issues playing ranked matches in any other game. Any one developer can't change that, so knocking Epic for it is missing the mark. Any game on Xbox 360 will have these problems, it is in no way exclusive to Gears.

    And it's hardly Epic's fault if the people who play ranked matches are idiots. Stick to player matches, like any sane individual would.

  • dudefella #67 5 years ago

    @kangaratoo

    Come on, man, I am not accusing EG of anything, but you have to agree that it is slightly strange to publish a review in two parts separated by almost a week! What, because I dare criticise EG, I have crossed over the line? What were you going to write? If you've got something to say in rebuttal, I want to hear it. I'd like to hear the other side of the argument. I think it's silly to publish a review with a score attached if you feel you cannot completely review a game yet, which EG obviously did. That is my opinion. That causes you to lose faith in gamers? Get real. I'm not here to blatantly stir up shit or to troll, despite what you may think.

  • alimokrane #68 5 years ago

    I have to say I ABSOLUTELY agree with everything the review has mentioned, having played myself for the last ten hours.

  • Martin #69 5 years ago

    @hula hoops: Yeah, but it's an easy mistake to make.

    Seeing that english is only my second language I'm not sure what it's called in english but the idea is that you're referring to the wrong subject, as in the girl that may or may not have smelled fish.

    Can anyone help a non-anglo out here with the proper terminology?

  • Martin #70 5 years ago

    @Walshicus: Way to go comparing apples and skateboards there, champ.

  • HornedGod #71 5 years ago

    It might be a small consolation to know that if you repeatedly quit out of too many ranked matches (and Epic did their code thing correctly), then your TrueSkill will be marked down. Microsoft's arbitration servers take all that sort of stuff into account. It still ruins your game, but at least they don't get off scott free.

    Same sort of thing if you drop out of a ranked match cos you're doing crap and you don't want your score to count. Ain't going to happen. Every player in a game uploads every other player's scores at the end of the match and the scores are arbitrated.

    I know all this stuff far too well having had to do it for FEAR.

  • Martin #72 5 years ago

    (Did the comments eat my comment? News at 11!)

    @MMUK: If that is the case then you'll have to do a better job of getting the word out as I had no idea that MS has a number of stupid rules that you have to follow.

    Any links to the actual restrictions?

  • krudster #73 5 years ago

    @ evildonut - That's fine - but if you're interested in unlocking the achievements (which, saddo that I am is the case) you cannot do so by playing player matches. That very definitely is Epic's fault.
    Edited by 1 at 17/11/06 @ 15:33

  • Martin #74 5 years ago

    Trying to get your point across, krudster? ;)

    Edit: Less funny with only 2 identical comments compared to 6. Not hilarious with 6 either - just funnier.

    We now return you to your regulary scheduled programming.

    Edit 2: Breaking news! Not fun at all with only one comment from krudster left.

    Thank you for your patience.
    Edited by 2 at 17/11/06 @ 15:36

  • Feanor #75 5 years ago

    "3. FPS game on non PC platform capped to 8/10 "

    FEAR on the 360 got a 9, as did Half-Life 2 on the Xbox.

    Anything else?

  • Rusta #76 5 years ago

    THis game is very good, versus mode is good, but co-op is great.

    If this is an 8 I wonder what a 9 or 10 game is like?

    /goes to look at fear again

  • Rusta #77 5 years ago

    Can you 'ignore poster' yourself?

  • Martin #78 5 years ago

    @rusta: Try it and then report back. :)

  • Psychotext #79 5 years ago

    I'm really hoping they'll fix that clans / groups issue. You can always try making some noise on their forums or leaving messages for Major Nelson... maybe it'll eventually sink in.

  • Steroyd #80 5 years ago

    King Kong also got a 9 on the first Xbox.

  • krudster #81 5 years ago

    First of all FEAR is a first person shooter, and therefore not directly comparable.

    BUT!

    If Gears of War had FEAR's standard of AI and had combat as enjoyable then it'd be a 9 or a 10. Well, maybe a 9, and a 10 if Epic could come up with a plotline, characters and scenarios not aimed so squarely at American teenagers.

  • Putty-Man #82 5 years ago

    Good review Krudster and I agree with all your points about the downside of GOW online.

    However they are SO true of almost any online game (on any format I would guess) so its a bit unfair to just pick on Epic for not sorting them out. I know they could have done a better job, but so could nearly all developers of online games.

  • Mephistopheles #83 5 years ago

    The dilemma of having achievements unlocked in player matches is that you could easily get a mate to stand still while you give him 100 headshots without any consequence to speak of. At least in ranked, you would be seriously harming your leaderboard position if you tried to cheat like this (although you might not care). I think cheating is the primary reason for keeping achievements ranked only.

  • Martin #84 5 years ago

    @MMUK: I will Google for the truth then!

    Cheers!

  • Lovemoose #85 5 years ago

    smugla
    17-Nov-06 14:04:05

    first lol
    ignore poster
    no. no lol at all.

    first != lol

    first = ignored, so if you have anything remotely lol-ish, or even interesting, to say ever again, sadly, I won't hear it. :)
    Edited by 1 at 17/11/06 @ 15:45

  • krudster #86 5 years ago

    Ok, maybe unfair to single out Epic, but it's a Microsoft published game, therefore Microsoft needs a kick up the backside. Also, it's a 3400 word review exhaustively detailing my expreriences with multiplayer - therefore I'm going to explore points that wouldn't normally get the same level of detail. This is, after all, the most important Xbox Live game to be released since Halo 2, and that managed to get almost everything right. We shouldn't forget the standards other games set, and therefore scores should reflect that.
    Edited by 1 at 17/11/06 @ 15:49

  • krudster #87 5 years ago

    @Mephistopheles:

    My partner has an Xbox Live account, but doesn't play GoW. I could quite easily fix it in exactly the way you mention in a ranked match. Lots of online achievements are open to abuse.

  • jamesbee #88 5 years ago

    @ManicMinerUK

    Really? I didn't know? Maybe I need to brush up on MS's policies on live. Sorry to hear they are preventing people from creating what to me is the perfect example of how to handle online.

    I will in future direct my complaints a little higher up.

    Thanks for the info

  • KingOfTheC #89 5 years ago

    @ MMUK - you reckon there's any way that public opinion could actually change this?

    There already is, unfortunately, a storm being kicked up on the xbox.com forums about it, and from the looks of a quick search on the "feedback" part of it, there has been such a storm for a long time, but none of them seem to be listening!!!

    I've actually said this a few times in the last week or so since COD3 came out (I haven't sampled GoW yet - don't have enough cash so my girlfriend is getting me it for christmas instead) that, Does microsoft not wonder why Halo 2, with its online system which no-one is now allowed to emulate in 360 games, is still the most popular xbox live game, not even that, but most popular xbox live game played by 360 owners, even though it is now more than 2 years old, and the nice shiny new games get ignored.

    Most games I buy nowadays, I get excited that the multiplayer might be great and capture the team spirit that Halo 2 did online, playing a ranked team match with your party but, alas, none ever does.

    Maybe a PS3 might be the way to go if they can implement a system which allows gaming with friends without it having to be in the "just for fun" (read as "let's shoot our own team and just generally act like idiots) area.
    Edited by 1 at 17/11/06 @ 15:51

  • bloodflowers #90 5 years ago

    I've put in some time on the game now today - I think the review score was bang on the money, I might even have gone as far as 7. Graphics only get you so far, I'm finding the game (including the controls) somewhat lacking.

  • hula hoops #91 5 years ago

    "3. FPS game on non PC platform capped to 8/10 "

    FEAR on the 360 got a 9, as did Half-Life 2 on the Xbox.

    Anything else?

    Yes please, could you comment on point 1, 2, 4 and 5 as well? ... especially point 1 :p

  • krudster #92 5 years ago

    Depends how important those features are to the game. As ever, you look at these things on a case by case basis.

    Interesting to note your points about these little-known rules from MS. They may have to cave in shortly - especially if Sony starts allowing devs to do all the things Microsoft are so bone-headedly restricting.

  • KingOfTheC #93 5 years ago

    @MMUK - ah I did not know that cheers!

    I think really a halfway house needs to be reached then really where there are simply clan matches.

    This seems to be the only real way around it I would guess. Ranked match, Player Match, Clan Match. The clan matches would be ranked and use TrueSkill but only for the clan itself, the results would not affect the actual players themselves.

    It's an imperfect solution but then if there is no concensus on which way it should go, that would be a good compromise.

  • krudster #94 5 years ago

    Yeah, that sounds a better way around it. Just culling clan matches altogether is ridiculous for a *team* based game.

  • bloodflowers #95 5 years ago

    I wish they'd just put things back how they were. I've never liked the way ranked/truskill carved the community in two. You're either playing for stats, or for fun - the middle ground we had before was better than both.

  • KingOfTheC #96 5 years ago

    Sounds like people need to get vocal about it - it's our service that we're paying for

  • kangarootoo #97 5 years ago

    @dudefella

    As you were so polite, despite my better judgement, I shall return to this thread for one more post.

    I was going to comment specifically about someone yet again suggesting that EG were trying to stir up controversy by writing reviews. I mean, that is what they do here, write reviews. Their reasons for splitting the review were stated and seem quite reasonable to me. In this case it meant they were able to go into greater detail regards each game mode without brying people in pages. I just understand what the big deal is with reviewing the two parts seperately, does it really matter either way.

    Anyway, half way through writing something about how writing two reviews was hardly controversial, I suddenly for dejavu and realised that it doesn't matter how many times I write something like that I will still read the same sort of comment the next day.

    I know EG represents a wide band of gamers, of all ages, with all sorts of tastes. And I realise that grumpy kids (not you, I'm talking generally here) shout loudest and stand out in the crowd.

    Everyso often I forget that most gamers are rational intelligent people, I mistakenly believe if only briefly that all gamers go round saying irrational, hateful, badly spelt and grammar free things in constant uppercase. And I think "christ, is this my audience, is this whom I work for" and its not a happy thought.

    If I think EG have done something wrong I'll politely says so. The reason I seem to jump to their defense so very often is because I see their professionalism under such random and illogical attack so very often. At least I come here under my own steam and so I can always bugger off again (and sometimes I do just give up on the threads for a bit, like when the 360 came out and everything turned to angry shit for a while). EG staff have to deal with this all the time and I swear they have balls of steel (Ellie excepted) and the patience of saints. I would have quit ages ago in the face of such an unappreciative mass and gone to write for Gardening Magazine or something similar where people are a bit more relaxed, a bit less hormonal and a bit less mad.

    Well, thats the long answer anyway :)

  • SBfistfun #98 5 years ago

    Gears of Pants Down more like

  • ChilliKebab #99 5 years ago

    The reviewer does touch on an important point, that being the unacceptably large number of just plan nasty people who are currently online.

    The truth is that the really popular shooters such as Halo, and Gears of War do tend to bring out the worst of the online gamers - even to this day, jumping into a Halo match is more chore than pleasure.

    THere is only so much that Microsoft and the developers can do to make Live a nice place to be but in the end, if you get into public matches, you will always be faced with people who refuse to play the game in a manner that the developers envisaged it to be played.

    My advice, build a solid friends list and create a smal community of like minded players and set up plenty of private matches.

  • thinktank #100 5 years ago

    I'm not bother about this review, 8 is a good score. But EG have just done this for hits.

    Read the reviews for TH8 and SC:DA and the contradictions stand out like a saw thumb.

    You got this wrong and you got halo wrong, but u just have too much pride to admit it, the score that is. In comparison to other reviews your score doesn’t make sense. Unless of course all your after is hits.

    Shame really, when you look at the fact they have effectively reviewed this twice (hits!) combined with the amount of “he said” “she said” rubbish on EG news section these days. They really are just copping out for hits.

    Shockingly I find my self turning more and more to 1up and ign, which is wrong.

  • Salubrious_K #101 5 years ago

    I think this sounds like a fair score. I have no doubt that Epic will fix some of the problems, and I also have no doubt that they plan to release further gametypes and clan support .... for a cost - DAMN THESE MICROPAYMENTS.

    But I think if a developer is going to release an unfinished product with the intention of selling the finished product later on over the marketplace, then they don't deserve more than an 8.

  • krudster #102 5 years ago

    /saws thumb

  • suicida #103 5 years ago

    Crikey! A seriously hyped game that is full of knobheads in ranked matches you say? Where have I heard that before..... It does sound like a fun game but it seems the Halo2 twats have found their new game :(

    Not that I plan on joining any sort of ranked matches against strangers ever again - Halo 2 put me off that for life. It would be nice to be able to unlock some of the multiplayer achievements though - PDZ managed it in player matches so why not GoW? I'm not a 'score whore' by any means it's just a cool feature to be able to compare with your friends...

  • samk #104 5 years ago

    8/10...so, just as good as 360 Pacman then, but not quite as good as Sensi Soccer? :o)

  • krudster #105 5 years ago

    Oh god, who let him in?!

  • JediMasterMalik #106 5 years ago

    @ Adam - You're such a tool.

  • morriss #107 5 years ago

    Yeah EG has an agenda. Soon krudster will be telling you that you should only eat 4 fried chickens and a coke and dry toast, white.

    I still think the whole essence of ANY multiplayer game is playing with friends. As was/is Halo 2. I never venture beyond my own back yard in that respect.

  • Batman2100 #108 5 years ago

    @ Adam o E

    The EG staff don't know you. They've never met you. They probably never will. Same goes for virtually every single gamer on here, be they xbox, ps3, pc, christ even gamecube fanboys, whatever. The only place they interact with us unwashed masses is here. Why on earth would Krudster be too scared of fanboys to review the games honestly? Answer: I don't think he would...

  • rudedudejude #109 5 years ago

    ADM SI TEH GEZAR MAN HA SPEKS TEH TRUTH!!1!!!! LOL DMN UNDARVALUAD RAVEIWS!!1111 OMG

  • bloodflowers #110 5 years ago

    Adam: it doesn't deserve a 9. It's just a very very pretty 3d action game, with some very suspect controls (the more I play it, the more I find the controls are restraining me). Why must you duck+cover before vaulting a tiny wall? That's inane. Why aren't the controls remappable, and why is the melee button placed so that you can no longer use the right stick, and therefore rely on things standing still so you can hit them? That should have been on a bumper button... Why does the graphics engine obviously struggle a bit when rendering multiple humanoids close to the player: hint - watch for when the detail level jumps. Why are difficulty levels seemingly only changing the number of bullets it takes to kill an enemy? Why is running around like a loony with a chainsaw actually /safer/ sometimes than ducking and shooting as you're supposed to? Why can you only crouch when at a wall, stopping you using 'loose cover' for lack of a better description?

    It's a good game, but it's not a great game - it's a graphical marvel and mindless blast that will tide us over until the next one. I will enjoy playing through it, mostly - I'm never going to have it in my top 10 best games ever, but that's the level of game it was billed as.

  • CasperCCC #111 5 years ago

    Well, the more I play GoW, the more I'm enjoying it. Absolutely cracking game, I think, and that's without having much of a chance to play co-op.

    But I agree with the review - think that it totally sums up what is good (and there's a lot that's good) and what's bad about the game. Actually, it's a cracker of a review. Totally fair, IMHO. The lack of any ability to make a party is a disaster, and this is a game that is absolutely screaming out for clan support. And that's coming from someone who has never joined a clan in his life.

    Doesn't really matter whether it's Epic's fault or MS's fault - that's one for people in the industry to argue about. Either way, it's totally irrelevant to the average gamer - all that matters is that there aren't any clans or parties. You can't score a game based on who's fault it is - you can only score the game on its own merits.

    The game itself is superb - had some cracking games against EG people - but it could be much better. 8 seems about right to me, even if (for me) it's an easy 9.

    (Interesting to know the answer to my question - "Why has no online lobby system come even close to Halo 2?". Answer seems to be "Because MS have fucked the system up.";)

  • Psychotext #112 5 years ago

    /eats cheese
    /throws meat

  • #113 5 years ago

    Aha that was a really good write up, thoroughly enjoyed it even though I've only touched on the multiplayer myself.

    I'm a wee bit disappointed that the co-op mode only got a paragraph as to be honest I could wax lyrical about how good this is all day and even well into the night.

    If scores really are important to people, and they are unhappy with an 8 I would happily recommend they try the co-op mode with a friend (online, not split screen). This alone ramps up the score in my opinion to a 9, and if we're going to go on fun value, jaw dropping moments and challenge, then pluck a 10 out of the air.

    Of course that might not be enough to have elevated the score a bit higher for Kristan but for me this past few nights have been the best gaming I've ever had on Live playing with a friend through the first 3 acts of Gears in hardcore. The good news is I've still got another two acts to go.

    Honestly, the online co-op really is that good! For me at the moment it's the best part of the game :)

    Good review, and a good score I can live with even if I'd stick another +1 onto the end, but everyone has a different opinion and folks need to learn to realise that.

    We aren't all robots who feel the same way about films, books, women or anything else in life, why should we feel the same way about games?

    Enough, try the co-op out, did I mention it's great? ;)

  • SeesThroughAll #114 5 years ago

    To be honest, I've heard nothing but good things about the multiplayer elsewhere. I thought the MP would easily give GoW a 9 or 10.

  • krudster #115 5 years ago

    So did I....

    :/

  • yonno #116 5 years ago

    Gears of War - X360
    Avg Ratio: 95%

    whatever this review says the games awesome in single player and co-op, cant speak for dm yet

  • dudefella #117 5 years ago

    @kanga

    Thanks for humoring me. I completely agree with your sentiments regarding parts of the gaming community, and sadly parts of EG's community (though it has to be said that the majority of EG's 'loyal' community is gold compared to many, many other sites like gamefaqs, gamespot and ign). It was never my intention to flame EG or the like, but I do believe that my question was valid. I may have overreacted, but there has been so much controversy lately and I was just thinking out loud. I guess in this case maybe a separate MP review was justified as it is the biggest game to hit Live since Halo 2. Having said that, I do hope EG doesn't make a habit out of this, because good intentions aside, it does stir up controversy. I look at the threads for these games like GoW and Resistance and I can't help but shake my head and feeling genuinely appaled by some of the... less rational comments. And I very much appreciate EG for doing their own thing and not being influenced by hype. Of course there are instances where I still disagree with EG (I thought Splinter Cell DA's review was very, very generous and too forgiving) but I never feel that a review is in any way unfair, it can always be attributed to different strokes for different folks. So yeah, glad I cleared that up.

  • Cubfan #118 5 years ago

    Note to Eurogamer: Please review the game as a whole next time, thanks!

  • dudefella #119 5 years ago

    ...is banning people from the comments section really not possible EG? Never seen someone such a blatant troll as AoE.

    Really, you've stooped to low jabs at EG editors? Good for you.

  • UncleLou #120 5 years ago

    Jaysus, I really hope there's a good enough 360 game soon to cure AdamOfEternia's post-purchase anxiety, he seems really insecure.

  • frod. #121 5 years ago

    To be fair though he does have a bit of a knack for astonishingly unfunny metaphors. Credit where it's due and all that.

  • JediMasterMalik #122 5 years ago

    shinji is a fatso

    LMAO

    And he called me a kid

    (This is my last post today about AoE.)

  • Avaloner #123 5 years ago

    I can totally understand this review. The game is being marked down not because there are morons playing, as some one put it, but because the developers did close to nothing to punish the abusers.

    Its exactly the same way I feel about WoW pvp. There I am guarding the flag in Arathi basin cause I want to win and I need reputation, while everyone else buggers off to kill people and rank up honour. Result? We lose the game and everyone has 10X more honour than I have. What have Blizzard done about it? Absolutely nothing. Anyways, I digress...

    In this day and age the developer is duty bound to FORCE the players into cooperating if the game is a team based game. This is so because most gamers are young adolescents who seem to believe that the world is there to grovel at their feet. The fact that EPIC did not take any of this into consideration is honestly sad. Moreso because the game sounds like it could be so much fun.

    Rant over... ....Wii anyone?

  • patchbox360 #124 5 years ago


    Gears of War and 360 this christmas for me as opposed to PS3 frame rate issues and inferior third party titles

    Damn - Gonna have to change my name to Papstation3 now

    Edited by 1 at 17/11/06 @ 21:03

  • Ace_McCloud #125 5 years ago

    I'll take Wii please Avaloner... And if you could throw in a free 360 and a copy of Gears that'd be great. I'll buy Zelda off my own back, I've got it reserved... Cheers.

  • TheRealBadabing #126 5 years ago

    Until Bloodflowers wrote this I thought I was the only one having problems with the game:

    Why must you duck+cover before vaulting a tiny wall?

    Why is the melee button placed so that you can no longer use the right stick, and therefore rely on things standing still so you can hit them?

    Why does the graphics engine obviously struggle a bit when rendering multiple humanoids close to the player?

    Why are difficulty levels seemingly only changing the number of bullets it takes to kill an enemy?

    Why is running around like a loony with a chainsaw actually /safer/ sometimes than ducking and shooting as you're supposed to?

    These basic flaws, in conjunction with an insultingly bad character design, have made me question whether I know what makes a good game any more. Thank god I'm not the only one less than impressed.

  • brazzauk #127 5 years ago

    I agree there are a lot of morons on Live but I just had the most enjoyable online expirience ever playing this game. Only had it a few hours but I love it. Its not hype, its a great game!! Great to look at and great to play, and there is more to come from the downloadable content.

    Awesome game.

  • bdc #128 5 years ago

    8/10 and 8/10

    OMG 16/10!

  • Feanor #129 5 years ago

    LOL. :)

  • Feanor #130 5 years ago

    "You got this wrong and you got halo wrong, but u just have too much pride to admit it, the score that is. In comparison to other reviews your score doesn’t make sense. Unless of course all your after is hits."

    Yeah they do, most other sites have inflated scores where a 7/10 equals crap.

  • ChairmanYang #131 5 years ago

    Thanks so much for taking the time to properly analyze the multiplayer of this game. Don't listen to the fanboys who complain about the fact you didn't give Gears of War a 10 or that you divided the review into single- and multiplayer components--frankly, I'd take one of your well-written reviews, no matter how much I disagree with the score, over the mass of hasty, shoddy pieces of poo reviews from most other sites. They gloss over the games far too much and rarely give me a good idea if I'll actually like a given game or not.
    Edited by 1 at 18/11/06 @ 01:37

  • Derblington #132 5 years ago

    "None of the above are flaws, it's just your ignorant to what makes a game more balanced and you haven't played it enough to see the reasons why you're wrong."

    What a load of shit. If you seriously think these issues are balanced you're a fool (and what is it that qualifies you to judge this so accurately?). They could've mapped vaulting walls to the 'A' button by holding it down and still used a quick press of 'A' to stick to them.

    "You can move around slightly, it's so people don't run around chainsawing everyone to death in one hit, this makes it harder to get one hit kills and it's a wise move."

    "It's not safer, if you get hit your chainsaw is lowered and leaves you vunerable."

    Err, are you thinking before you type? You think limiting your movement when it's needed most, in a frantic melee situation, is a"wise move"? Especially when, as you next contradict yourself, it's so easy to be hindered with the chainsaw revved up anyway?

    There are plenty of issues in the game - lod issues, floating scenery, clipping through scenery, shadows projecting through scenery/seperate from the player/npc model, frame rate drops, etc (of which I've experienced all first hand). None of them are game-breakers but they are there. Not to mention the serious issues that some people are reporting about missing geometry and disappearing objects.

    Some of the above are definitely flaws, some are just design decisions. Just because they were designed that way doesn't make them the only or best way to do them.
    Edited by 1 at 18/11/06 @ 04:03

  • ave #133 5 years ago

    "Try giving % of DNF stats so you can avoid quitting retards. Try giving instant point penalties to users that host and quit."

    Wow, what world are you living on krudster.

  • Martin #134 5 years ago

    @zerolight: Er... It seems to me that you have read the review as you point out that krudster thinks that a one-on-one mode is needed but it's interesting to see that you don't grasp why it's needed.

    Kristan stated that although he had an absolute blast playing in teams that worked the majority of the time no-one played as a team and only going for top kills (as in WoW), making the entire thing an exercise in frustration.

    Based on this it would be better to have a one-on-one gameplay mode that these gung-ho ego-players could play, leaving the actual team modes to those that likes to play as a team.

    It's a bit like having one runner finishing the relay just because he wants to be the one crossing the finish line, despite the fact that he never wins the actual race. Better to have him run the 100-meter dash and let the team players handle the relay.

    I haven't played GRAW or Rainbow but I'm suspecting that they don't allow/cater to single ego-players f%&#ing things up as much as GoW does. And this is why it's Epics/MS fault that the MP isn't as good as it could have been.

    MMUK pointed out that MS has a number of rules and regulations that a developer must stick to when it comes to MP on the X360 but it seems to me as if either Epic should be able to do better (they're very talented and creative people) or that MS should be able to evolve their ruleset so that it's possible to create MP that doesn't have to cater to the lowest common denominator only.

    Your comment regarding the cheating in Halo 2 and that it should be marked down - although probably to some extent tounge in cheek - is IMHO silly. It serves a very good purpose in this context anyhow as the fact that there *is* a lot of cheating in Halo 2 just means that Epic and MS needs to do something better than Halo 2 for GoW, something that Kristan doesn't think that they suceeded in doing.

    As for reviewing a game based on what might happen further down the road via patches and upgrades - no matter how likely it is - is total crazy and, in my book at least, poor journalism. I'm sure that both Epic and MS will support this with all they got, thay can't afford not to, but no matter what it's not fair to rate a game based on what it might become.

  • Dizzy #135 5 years ago

    "Had my first single AND multiplayer goes on this last night and it's absolutely rock solid multiplayer. In fact it's about bloody time a LIVE game came out for the 360 with good solid kick ass netcode "

    I agree... 360 has some killer games but the multiplayer stuff has, for me, been a letdown due to not very good netcode. Halo 2 still plays like a dream on 360 but a lot of other games have very iffy connections. GoW seems to have VERY good netcode and it is a joy to play. I played a 2h long private match with some of the EG forums guys here yesterday and it was absolutely ace! Thx guys. I love the "innovation" that teammates can be revived. We had some great moment with that, trying to rush to a downed mate before the enemy got to him to crush his face and both of us arriving at same time wielding chainsaws. Truly awesome!
    Edited by 1 at 18/11/06 @ 10:39

  • Ace_McCloud #136 5 years ago

    I'm yet to play Gears but man I want to. Anyway after reading the forums on various sites I'm struck that I've never seen a game with so much hype and so many expectations get such a positive response from the gaming community. Most other games get a shit load of detracters who are massively upset that Bungie/Konami or whoever, didn't live up to their expectations... Gears seems to have lived up to or surpassed nearly everyones.

    Now I don't generally like to criticise scores but someone mentioned inconsistency and I feel its valid. Like I said I've never seen so many people say "this is the most fun I've had in years" in response to a game for a long time. And judging from the content of the reviews, I don't see how a game like Tony Hawks which seems to have innovated very little, can score a 9/10 and then a game like Gears of War which appears to be going down in history with a lot of gamers is gonna score a (i dont care what you say, in the context of great games 8/10's get frowned upon) mediocore 8. I don't mean mediocore in the 'that's an average game' sense but like I said in the context of great games. I wonder if EG finds themselves overwhelmed by hype and tends to be overly critical of the big name releases...

    I agree with whoever said they got Halo 2 wrong. In retrospect I think Halo 2 was a much better game than everyone initially thought, we were just all too god damned excited about it!!! (although the story was boring hell... perhaps EG should split reviews into three for games like that, Single player, Multi player and Story;)

  • vames #137 5 years ago

    SONY WILL DESTROY YOU XBOTS. PS3 RULES. IT'S A REAL SHAME YA'LL HAVE TO WAIT TILL MARCH OR BEYOND FOR THE REAL DEAL

  • Eighthours #138 5 years ago

    SONY WILL DESTROY YOU XBOTS. PS3 RULES. IT'S A REAL SHAME YA'LL HAVE TO WAIT TILL MARCH OR BEYOND FOR THE REAL DEAL

    Yes, the key word there is "beyond", Mr Troll.

    Anyway, I had many games of GOW on Live in a player matchb with 7 people on my friends list last night, and it was one of the best nights I've ever had on the service. Yes, right up there with the early days of PGR2.

    The multiplayer, when playing under those circumstances, is a cast-iron 9. Any frustration caused by the actions of idiots in the ranked mode isn't Epic's fault. If you went into a pub and talked to 50 people, you'd despise a few of them. If 3 idiots came over to your house and played Pro Evo with you, you wouldn't have a good time either, despite Pro Evo being one of the best multiplayer games ever. That's society for you... and that's what Live reflects. Ranked modes put you together with people who you don't know, and could turn out to be utter pricks. I don't see how the developer can be blamed for the problems of society!

    Of course, they should produce a patch to sort out the cheaters as much as they can. Horrific personalities, however... there's no patch for that.

  • Yossarian #139 5 years ago

    basically Bungie's matchmaking needs to be released as middleware for developers

  • weaselrat #140 5 years ago

    I got in from work at 3am this morning and this is the first game for several years that stopped me going to bed and kept me up till 6am. NUFF SAID RUDE BWOYS

  • DFective #141 5 years ago

    I just played a ranked match where everybody was from different places in Europe so couldn't really talk to each other. Was still great fun though, and we won without needing to talk.

    I don't really see too much of a need to talk. If you see a team mate in trouble, you help him out. Doesn't need shouts of "help" and if you see two of your team mates going one route, you and the other go the other route.

  • Martin #142 5 years ago

    @Eighthours: But what if you had a way to sort out what fellows down the pub wanted to talk about what? Say, one line for all who only wants to talk football and one line for those who wants to talk about quantum physiscs.

    That way, if you prefer talking about quantum physiscs you wouldn't have to wade through all the jocks who doesn't give a flying crap about physics, no matter how quantum they are.

    The same goes for the guys outside your house. If you have a way of pre-screening the people you're about to sit down in your living room - a short quiz about their preferences perhaps - you should be able to weed out the majority of the guys who only shows up in order to trash the place and find the ones who'd love a great game of Pro Evo.

  • haowan #143 5 years ago

    "people are such moany pricks these days."

    lol

  • Martin #144 5 years ago

    EuroSexMachine wrote: "It's not ranked 15th best game ever on Gamerankings for nothing."

    You are correct; it's because almost every reviewer reviewing it fell for the hype and/or couldn't/wouldn't give it the score it deserves.

  • Der_tolle_Emil #145 5 years ago

    I haven't tried multiplayer yet, but single player has been a blast until now.

    I totally have to agree with everyone who rates a game lower because the people you get to play with are jerks. Example: Counter-Strike vs Battlefield 2. I played both (PC) online a lot, and I haven't had this much fun online with Battlefield 2 ever. Why? Because the players you get to play with behave totally different. They thank you for supporting them. The gameplay mechanics really force teamplay and even on such a large scale it works. No comparison to any other online game. Counter-Strike is a great game too but the people playing it usually ruin everything after a couple of minutes. Not necessarily because of their inability to play the game how it is meant to play but because of the very rude behaviour. Not a single minute passes by without someone accusing other players of cheating, blabla. Never had any of this when playing Battlefield 2. As I said earlier, I never had such a relaxing experience playing online.

    If the game mechanics do not provide such means for a friendly environment or do not punish rude behaviour (dropping out = loss, no matter what in my opinion) then it surely has to be reviewed accordingly.

  • Steroyd #146 5 years ago

    Army of two?

  • Carrybagma #147 5 years ago

    Ugh. They're back again in force.

    Sweaty, horny Xealots rolling around wanking and shagging in a pit of their own spunk. Looks like someone gave them a shot of adrenaline too.

    There's not been so much offensive hormone over-production since the Halo2 thread. Someone please turn a pink light on here.

  • Ace_McCloud #148 5 years ago

    Hmmm, carrybagma, what's the point in being a prick? This thread has spawned a genuinely interesting debate around how a game should be rated. On top of that the game in question has been heralded as perhaps the first of the 'next generation' of games that everyones been waiting for and getting so pissed off about not showing up. Why so bitter? Because the next generation hasn't started when Sony said it would?...Take that back, it has started when Sony said it would...Ironically on their rivals format.

    Cock.

  • Derblington #149 5 years ago

    "The more I play this game the more certain I am that Eurogamer got the review wrong."
    Funny, I'm the opposite.

  • Carrybagma #150 5 years ago

    Bollocks. If you think this is a 'genuinely interesting debate' rather than a fanboy wank-fest then you should really wipe the spunk out of your eyes and re-read the thread.

    For what it's worth, I actually *like* the sound of GoW and it's something I'll look forward to playing when I get around to getting a 360, but I don't for a second kid myself that it's somehow elevated FPS to a new plain of existance - it just seems to be a case of nothing partiucularly new, but done very well. Like Halo2 was. FEAR on the 360 sounds like a far more interesting or challenging game, yet why do the fanboys not go into a frenzy over that? Oh, and I'm no Sony fanboy.
    Edited by 1 at 18/11/06 @ 15:11

  • asphaltcowboy #151 5 years ago

    I had a go on the multiplayer last night... and it was AWESOME :D

    /goes to play some more :)

    If anyone's interested my GT is: asphaltOnline

  • asphaltcowboy #152 5 years ago

    Oh and according to Major Nelson, GoW is now THE top Xbox LIVE game... not just 360!

  • Martin #153 5 years ago

    @zerolight: Well, I still think you're comparing apples and oranges in a way but I understand where you're coming from.

    Unfortunately I don't think that the idiots will stop playing this in 6 months. We need another Operation Flashpoint, only for the X360. ;)

  • ave #154 5 years ago

    "Bollocks. If you think this is a 'genuinely interesting debate' rather than a fanboy wank-fest then you should really wipe the spunk out of your eyes and re-read the thread."

    You should stop hopping on the bandwagon and have an original thought, tit.
    Edited by 1 at 18/11/06 @ 19:23

  • Ace_McCloud #155 5 years ago

    @Carrybagma: The thing with FEAR is, its isn't as startlingy 'Next Gen' as GoW in the melt your eyes kinda way. I had a play on it today at a friends, and it just has that immediate 'wow, I've never played anything like this before' kind of feel. That feeling like this just couldn't be done like this on current gen. Something I havent had since playing halo for the first time Co-op. (Oblivion didn't really strike you right between the eyes like GoW does).

    As for whether or not you think this is an interesting discussion, I think that yeah there are some interesting points being made about the state of online play on 360 and other points. Ones that I'm finding interesting to read, especially not having gotten a 360 (yet?). So some people are getting a little excited? So let them, this is the first game in a long time that has made the next generation look a little more exciting than the money grabbing microtransaction filled shit hole that its been looking like turning into...

    But if you dont think this thread is up to your level, then why act like an arrogant prick about it? Why not just not bother getting involved, or try raising the bar to your level of thought.
    Edited by 1 at 18/11/06 @ 20:16

  • thinktank #156 5 years ago

    I fail to see the problem with the lack of party feature. Jump in a game and and invite your friends.

    Been doing this all yesterday and today, ok your not spoon fed like halo but it hardly breaks the game.

    The sheer amount critical nit picking that is being directed at this game is absurd, if all games were to be treat this way you woud see some seriously low scores.

    It seems glaring flaws are acceptable in games that are not hyped but slightest problem with a hyped game is blown out of proposion. Sure the reviewer then becomes as much a casualty of hype as any other.

    Commenting on the lack of team work in YOUR on line game. Oh i'm sorry was this games ment to alter social behavours?

    Its not original!
    the characters are too butch !
    B is the meele button
    I have to invite my friends to make a party(Oh god forbid!!)
    I can't do ranked matches with my friends
    dribble dribble

    Its a game, not the scientific break through of the millenium. Its ment to be fun and it is.

    You lot seem to spend more time finding faults than enjoying games, well you loss.

    As for EG, another exercise in bumping up those hits i see, well you have to sell those add spaces some how.

  • BulletMagnet_UK #157 5 years ago

    As good as FIFA Street then?

    You gave them both 8/10.....

    I love the 3 page spread, purely for the advertisers right?

    You shameless shower of -

  • Carrybagma #158 5 years ago

    @Ace_McCloud: Fair points about the thread. The game, well, based on what I've read, I see nothing new. As with Halo2, anticipation and excitement have been pumped up too much for anyone to see it for what it is - 'merely' a good game, well put together, offering little new. Put it this way, Team Fortress(2) will be a lot better than GoW when it finally comes out on the 360, and yet it's essentially an old design.

    Ach. I simply intended to 'Troll and go' and now I'm getting sucked into the discussion. :o(
    Edited by 1 at 19/11/06 @ 02:36

  • Martin #159 5 years ago

    What's "add space"? Is it somehow related to negative space perhaps?

  • Azazel #160 5 years ago

    Oh man, the trolls are going to have to multi-task today

    lol!

    "Hmmm I must ward off these magic missiles whilst eating fanbois and also vomiting on... uh..." *brain explodes*

  • Azazel #161 5 years ago

    Bollocks. If you think this is a 'genuinely interesting debate' rather than a fanboy wank-fest then you should really wipe the spunk out of your eyes and re-read the thread.

    lol, +1

  • LittleTofu #162 5 years ago

    I'm not a big fan of this game, I find the controls too hard to use ... been playing for 5 hours, though will give it another go before returning it.
    I'm a fan of RE:4 which uses the 2nd person view perfectly with a easy control system.

    eg. I'm near cover and getting hit standing up, the obvious thing to do would be to duck for cover ... how do you do that without running to and locking onto a wall or nearest cover thus taking more damage?

  • Fatnick #163 5 years ago

    The clan point is a very good one - in many ways it does feel like some elements of Xbox live have taken a step back over the last year. Halo 2-style matchmaking would have been nice. It also would have helped had games been reported as they were found, rather than a minute afterwards. Overall though, most of EG's multiplayer niggles give the impression of a review needing to fit in with the pre-given score, rather than the other way around.

    With that said, its nice to see a critical review of the game (even if it is a little TOO critical). Too many reviews for this and Zelda have simply been exercises in advertisement.

  • Crea #164 5 years ago

    I've been playing this all weekend, and for what it's worth as post number 190+ I do think EG have underrated this. I'm not particularly bothered about it, though, and the scores aside I think the reviews read fairly - the criticisms therein are valid.

    I do agree with the earlier assertion that EG, somewhat like Edge, do take some pleasure in occasionally taking a contrarian viewpoint. I think that nine times out of ten they are correct to do so, but occasionally I just get this sneaking suspicion that they just like to be different.

    One thing that does strike me that someone else has already pointed out, is that overhyped games are judged more harshly on their flaws than non-hyped games. If this dropped out of the blue unannounced I just flat out do not believe you'd judge it to be a 'very good game' as opposed to an exceptional one.

    I understand that review score consistancy across the board is not possible, and accusations of Sony or MS bias are clearly nonsense. But I just can't get away from the feeling that EG take a somewhat perverse enjoyment out of being the stalking Hubris of the game review world.

    /goes back to GOW

  • monkey-ken-wizard #165 5 years ago

    GOW is far from perfect and I agree with alot of the criticism.
    That said, the game looks superb and its amazing fun to play both on and off line.
    The EG score is a little off and they probably know it.
    We'll no doubt get a back handed apology in a few years time.

    Other EG blunders
    Halo review: 8/10?
    E3 2005 - Playstation 3: the only true next gen console?

    Silly Eurogamer :)

  • Hughes. #166 5 years ago

    I caught sight of this today, and it seems equally appropriate in this thread.

  • Ace_McCloud #167 5 years ago

    @ Carrybagma: Lol, fair enough. Damn pride ay? will always suck you in!!

  • quantumsheep #168 5 years ago

    Cheers Hughes, that was an interesting read =)

  • asphaltcowboy #169 5 years ago

    "Horrific personalities, however... there's no patch for that."

    Capital punishment.

  • Carrybagma #170 5 years ago

    @Ace_McCloud: :o)

  • darkbhudda #171 5 years ago

    With that said, its nice to see a critical review of the game (even if it is a little TOO critical). Too many reviews for this and Zelda have simply been exercises in advertisement.
    Hughes. provided a link which I'd come across elsewhere, where the reviewer who gave Zelda an 8.8 was torn a new one. Massive hate on the forums from people who hadn't even played the game and his Wikipedia entry was destroyed. For an 8.8, and the EG staff thought they had it bad.

    SONY WILL DESTROY YOU XBOTS. PS3 RULES. IT'S A REAL SHAME YA'LL HAVE TO WAIT TILL MARCH OR BEYOND FOR THE REAL DEAL
    Well, GoW will teach people to duck and cover before the shooting starts in the PS3 lines in Euroland. Also, for some reason the phrase Monkey Balls comes to mind.

  • pinhead #172 5 years ago

    Fair doos, I cannot be bothered with the whole detahmatch thing generally, but the co-op through main storyline is great. Something that has been lacking in titles for a while on the 360 platform. Halo3 take note, I want co-op through the main story thread.

    Great title, which has obliterated a lot of the preceding weekend.

    /looks forward to R6 review.

  • kangarootoo #173 5 years ago

    "I caught sight of this today, and it seems equally appropriate in this thread."

    Wow, I'm not alone. My heart is warmed.

  • kangarootoo #174 5 years ago

    @pinhead

    I believe Halo3 is going to have online co-op through the main story.

    Is the co-op in GeOW just split screen or online?

  • Der_tolle_Emil #175 5 years ago

    GoW features instant joinable co-op via splitscreen and also has "host/join coop" menu items - but I don't know if those are online modes are just systemlink.

    I have yet to try multiplayer. Currently I am stuck at the last boss (on hardcore, never tried casual) with crappy weapons and I cannot backtrack - I just hope I don't have to replay the entire chapter, because my efforts yesterday all failed. I wasted about 2 and a half hours trying to kill that guy. Makes me really hate that checkpoint system. It is quite flawed at some places.

  • kangarootoo #176 5 years ago

    Even system link would be nice. I never found split-screen to be a problem in co-op Halo, but Halo 2 suffered a bit because of the daft amount of space some weapons took onscreen (plus their rather odd decision to split the screen vertically if you were in widescreen mode).

  • The-Bodybuilder #177 5 years ago

    After extensive playtime with the game (both offline and on), I have come to my own conclusion.
    Usually, when EG rate a game lower (but 8 is still great. That rhymes), i may initially disagree with them, but after finishing the game, end up grudgingly agreeing (see PDZ for more info).

    However, this is one of those rare cases where I can honestly, fully disagree with the review.
    Many of the "flaws" aren't even flaws at all. This game is pretty much like a rollercoaster. Where most games have great setpieces within the game that warrant you to play through again just to get to those bits, GOW is simply a multitude of great setpieces.
    Granted it does nothing "new", but on pure funfactor alone, this game is right up there. I hgonestly cannot see how people can find this game dull, unless they hate shooters to beging with (or just played the first 2 levels).
    On fun factor alone, this game is up there, and isn't that what gaming is about?
    Honestly, I cannot think of a single part of the game so far that I have no intention of not wanting to play again. Every part, act, & setpieces is so enjoyable (bascally, the game kicks off when you first confront a beserker) that I am shocked that krudster founf FEAR more fun than this (shocking).

    And don't get me started on the multiplayer. Granted I've never played a ranked match (and I have no intention of doing so), on player matches, this is easily the best console online shooter. So much so, that I'm planning on getting a full year's subscription of LIVE just for this game.

    Oh and one more thing, the review GREATLY exaggerrated the "machoness" of the game. Really, thier aren't any cringeworthy "yankeeness" in the game. The only person with the cheesy line's is cole.

    Bird:" There's sh*t everywhere".
    Cole: "Come on baby. A little bit of this builds your immune system".

  • The-Bodybuilder #178 5 years ago

    >"You are correct; it's because almost every reviewer reviewing it fell for the hype and/or couldn't/wouldn't give it the score it deserves."

    Ah yes. Because God forbid reviews actually LIKE the game and give it a great score. God no. They must ALL be wrong. The possibility that all of them think it is a great game must be so slim, that the only reasonable answer is that they refuse to give the game a low mark.

    Riiiiiiiight.

  • krudster #179 5 years ago

    But 8 is not a low mark.

    /repeat until death.

  • guvner #180 5 years ago

    "I don't think the Graphics have set a new standard either. To my eyes they are good, but no better than the other top 360 games."

    You're playing on a 14" portable, right? RIGHT?

  • guvner #181 5 years ago

    "But 8 is not a low mark. "

    But it's the same as Pac-man. :)

  • krudster #182 5 years ago

    /loads gun.

  • guvner #183 5 years ago

    "Is the co-op in GeOW just split screen or online?"

    Both.

    Online has public and private co-op. Additionally, if you're playing single player and you see a mate come online, you can send an invite; if accepted, he joins in (taking over one of the guys who fight alongside you) without having to restart.

    And if that's not good enough, it's lag free too. I've played plenty of co-op online now and not experienced any problems whatsoever with lag.

    Hopefully its success will spur other publishers into giving the green light for online co-op games.

  • pinhead #184 5 years ago

    @kangerootoo

    I hope Halo3 is going to be co-op online because Halo 2 was sorely missing it. Having played through the original cooperatively off of one xboxen, I was sorely dissapointed that they did not bundle in online co-op for number 2. Listen up Bungie.

    /waits for R6 review, hopes they mention online co-op in there.

    /tigerwoods07 review?

  • The-Bodybuilder #185 5 years ago

    >"To my eyes they are good, but no better than the other top 360 games."

    /backs away slowly....

  • The-Bodybuilder #186 5 years ago

    >"But 8 is not a low mark."

    Everyone has moved on from that.
    I'm just baffed that you felt FEAR was more fun than GOW.

  • guvner #187 5 years ago

    "These are good graphics, but they are not striking."

    Would you like a spade to help with that hole you're digging?

  • Martin #188 5 years ago

    @The Bodybuilder: I just troll with the punches. ;)

    And if we're moving on from the "8 is not a low score" argument could we *please* leave the "I can't understand why you don't think GoW is as fun as game XYZ" resoning behind as well?

    I love to ride the roller coasters at the local amusement park but I have friends who wouldn't set foot in them. They enjoy other rides that I couldn't care about though. It's as simple as that.

  • Yossarian #189 5 years ago

    GoW visuals are vastly superior to Oblivion et al.

  • Martin #190 5 years ago

    @MMUK: I'd would like to get in touch with you, could you please drop me a line at martinnr5 AT hotmail DOT com?

  • mingster #191 5 years ago

    thankyou for the 2nd part of the review...
    it has flushed out the few remaining imbeciles that needed ignorin

  • krudster #192 5 years ago

    @Bodybuilder - I'm equally baffled people can't see that FEAR has better combat and AI, and therefore offers the better gameplay. Hey ho. Each to their own.

  • kangarootoo #193 5 years ago

    Thanks to those who suplied info on GeOW co-op options. Co-op is a game seller for me, otherwise I probably wouldn't look at GeOW as a purchase.


    I have to say, as the subject came up, I think the whole issue of graphical superiority is never going to be a clean argument. Does a really nice water effect count for more than realistic fogging? Do huge vista's count for more than realistic metallic surfaces?

    In 'some' ways, the original Ghost Recon looks better than GeOW, as it made me feel like I was in some field in the rain. GeOW does look kind of static in comparison (this is admittedly a tenous angle before anyone flips out, as of course GeOW looks extremely superior to poxy old GR, I was just making a point).

    Most would agree that Shadow of the Collosus (a better example) looks stunning, but its texture and polygon work is clearly not a patch on GeOW. Most might say that GeOW "looks better", but its not really comparing apples with apples and opinion could reaonably differe between gamers. Peaches with apricots... maybe.

  • Crea #194 5 years ago

    GoW had 'best looking game ever' sealed with me the moment I approached the imulsion plant in the rain in chapter 3 (or whatever part that is).

    I agree with the above that graphical excellence is a function of many things - the capability of the game engine, artistic quality and also that 'spectacle' factor that Oblivion and SOTC have in abundance. I do think that GeOW has this, however. Obviously the game engine is extremely accomplished, but beyond that this game exudes atmosphere, IMO.

  • Helios #195 5 years ago

    I played online with some friends last night, and it was fucking amazing fun. When you've got people ready for a good laugh, who will work as a team it's probably the best thing to hit Live.

  • Gouki #196 5 years ago

    it really is old news now but i do think the review was a bit unfair I know 1 mark more sounds a lot to moan about but 9 as it is jus sound better.

    Havin played it as far as storming the house and giving it 5 hours of play this afternoon whilst ill I would agree more with gamespot and less with eurogamer, but hey everybody has an opinion and thats all im sounding on this forum.

    Please check it out though if you have a slight interest as it is easily one of the best games you will play all year.
    Edited by 1 at 20/11/06 @ 18:40

  • The-Bodybuilder #197 5 years ago

    >"@Bodybuilder - I'm equally baffled people can't see that FEAR has better combat and AI, and therefore offers the better gameplay. Hey ho. Each to their own."

    Better combat?
    Better AI? Smoke and mirrors. When you actually look at what they do (for the nth time), you'll see they push over the same objects (that somehow you can't move), crawl under the same spaces, jump over the same objects, e.t.c.

    But each to thier own. I'm sure funfactor doesn't matter these days to reviews. I mean, I'm sure Gow's tighter multiplayer mechanics and netcode, fantastic consistant and seamless co-op and lack of repetition in level design was not as good as the 913th grey corridor, no co-op and friendly-neighbourhood ghosts (that loose thier effect once you realize that they won't hurt you) found in the 1-year old FEAR.

    Horses for courses. I guess bullet-time lost it's effect since the max paynes came to the scene.
    Edited by 1 at 20/11/06 @ 22:34

  • Crea #198 5 years ago

    More importantly I just realised that Fenix is voiced by John Dimaggio, a.k.a. Bender!

    This game gets better and better. If that's not worth a 10, I don't know what is.

  • Calgon #199 5 years ago

    In GOW MS has a game with graphics far beyond anything the PS3 will have in its first year at the very least. The gameplay I cant comment on yet but it does look excellent to me, FEAR getting a higher score? could this be because the PS3 is getting a port of it too? Wouldnt put it past EG these days but I do have a soft spot for Monolith too(they should both be 9s at the very least then surely?... oh that would mean EG would have to admit that 360 has another AAA exclusive on its hands, wouldnt it?).

    Ok with the 8 you gave it... no its not a horrible score but most of the impressions --from GAMERS and other Reviewers-- Ive read are that the game is brilliant, an 8 says something else... even by EG's standards. Tony Hawks will be forgotten by next year... gears will certainly not by the looks of things(they pulled it off thats all there is to it, the game is a success... it was the same deal with Halo, EG are only making themselves appear out of touch with what the gamers want, Im not sure if either of the games fall into the casual market --they certainly arent once a year 3rd party EA calibur games-- or hardcore market... perhaps somewhere inbetween?). Im glad theres been such a positive response from the gamers themselves because I was highly dissapointed in Doom3 after all the hype that got.
    Edited by 2 at 21/11/06 @ 01:13

  • Nige #200 5 years ago

    A belated big up to Eurogamer... I was sceptical of the review score "trying to make a name for themselves" etc.

    But having completed Gears now, I'm in complete agreement. It's a good game, but it's not great by any standard I can think of. Truth be told, I found the whole experience a little disappointing after zapping the final boss.

    More power to you chaps... if you happen to read this tired old thread!

  • spookyzombie #201 5 years ago

    Yawn......

  • Jheronimus #202 5 years ago

    Had a good time with the MP ans SP last night. In my opinion it's a far better online experience then BF2 was. I had quite a shoot-out with 2 Strogg in Warzone mode (which, after 3 minutes ended with a chainsaw in my face after being shot down) and it really showed the potential of this game. They where standing behind a chopper, I was standing behind a crate and despite of the 2:1-situation I was able to keep them back for quite some time. Can't wait to play again this evening!

    My GT is Jheronimus for those who want to join!

  • SteveB #203 4 years ago

    My most pointless post in a comments thread as no one will read it, but hey.......

    I finished this last night and playing it for the 1st time away from all the hype, I'd say this is a 7/10 game (single player only). It's good, but I found the cover system fiddly (Rainbow 6 Vegas handled it better), the melee awkward to use and it was very short.

    The graphics on my HD TV looked good (the character models and the level in the rain really stood out), but they didn’t blow me away like I thought they would.

    Worth playing, but not worth buying a 360 for.