Gears of war (go get it!!!)

man gears of war is awesome, i know it's been out for ages on the 360 but i don't have one and have never played gears before.

but i gotta say the game is totally awesome in every respect, the graphics are awesome and the gameplay is just sheer entertaining, however hardley no one is playing this online which is really sad because this game makes most other pc games look very lame.

heaps of people are still playing old games like counter strike, half life and bf2 when they could be playing gears which is a breath of fresh air on the pc. best thing is the game runs great on my 7950 gx2 which could be harldy called a new graphics card.

if you don't have this game and have never played gears and love shooters go get this one!!!!!!

meh, i didn't like it too much - gave it a 5.5 (mediocre)! read my review, if you care to (but i wouldn't recommend doing that). if you do read it, please leave a comment on my blog and join in on the discussion there with the 1 or 2 people that read the review as well.

meh, i didn't like it too much - gave it a 5.5 (mediocre)! read my review, if you care to (but i wouldn't recommend doing that). if you do read it, please leave a comment on my blog and join in on the discussion there with the 1 or 2 people that read the review as well.

fireandcloud

Already got Gears of War and it have an amazing storyline and game action.Jd1680a

I fail to see the logic in your post. There was a storyline? :shock:

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

meh, i didn't like it too much - gave it a 5.5 (mediocre)! read my review, if you care to (but i wouldn't recommend doing that). if you do read it, please leave a comment on my blog and join in on the discussion there with the 1 or 2 people that read the review as well.

xfactor19990

i was playing on hardcore initially, and i switched to casual about halfway into the game, cuz i wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible.

[QUOTE="xfactor19990"][QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

meh, i didn't like it too much - gave it a 5.5 (mediocre)! read my review, if you care to (but i wouldn't recommend doing that). if you do read it, please leave a comment on my blog and join in on the discussion there with the 1 or 2 people that read the review as well.

fireandcloud

i was playing on hardcore initially, and i switched to casual about halfway into the game, cuz i wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible.

ya that explains why u would not like them cuz on casual its like blah on insane lol they cover u pretty well, its a bit harder go on that level of difficulty

Bleh. I can run the game fine on my XP drive, but Vista wont even install the game. The game play is ok and thestory is fun, but even at $30 bucks, I would not endorse Gears for the P.C.roulettethedog

agreed get it on 360

[QUOTE="fireandcloud"][QUOTE="xfactor19990"][QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

meh, i didn't like it too much - gave it a 5.5 (mediocre)! read my review, if you care to (but i wouldn't recommend doing that). if you do read it, please leave a comment on my blog and join in on the discussion there with the 1 or 2 people that read the review as well.

xfactor19990

i was playing on hardcore initially, and i switched to casual about halfway into the game, cuz i wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible.

ya that explains why u would not like them cuz on casual its like blah on insane lol they cover u pretty well, its a bit harder go on that level of difficulty

i don't think being more frustrated (by getting killed constantly) would add to my enjoyment of the game. then i'd have to watch those excruciatingly long cutscenes every single time i die. and i switched about halfway, so i got to experience enough of the hardcore level to conclude that the experience doesn't change all that much between hardcore and casual. don't know about the insane level, cuz i never tried it (nor would i want to, i don't think), so i'll take your word for it.

[QUOTE="xfactor19990"][QUOTE="fireandcloud"][QUOTE="xfactor19990"][QUOTE="fireandcloud"]

meh, i didn't like it too much - gave it a 5.5 (mediocre)! read my review, if you care to (but i wouldn't recommend doing that). if you do read it, please leave a comment on my blog and join in on the discussion there with the 1 or 2 people that read the review as well.

fireandcloud

i was playing on hardcore initially, and i switched to casual about halfway into the game, cuz i wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible.

ya that explains why u would not like them cuz on casual its like blah on insane lol they cover u pretty well, its a bit harder go on that level of difficulty

i don't think being more frustrated (by getting killed constantly) would add to my enjoyment of the game. then i'd have to watch those excruciatingly long cutscenes every single time i die. and i switched about halfway, so i got to experience enough of the hardcore level to conclude that the experience doesn't change all that much between hardcore and casual. don't know about the insane level, cuz i never tried it (nor would i want to, i don't think), so i'll take your word for it.

ya well they like have snipers and they use em lol

ya well they like have snipers and they use em lol

xfactor19990

see, but for me, that wouldn't make the game any more fun, cuz that would mean i'd be pinned behind cover even more. and the main reason i disliked the game was because that's all i did the entire game - stay behind cover and snipe people. i had absolutely no incentive to move around, because it made no tactical sense to do that. and i wasn't forced to move either by, say, a well-placed grenade behind me or the locusts making intelligent rushes at me. sniping away at me from a distance would just keep me behind the same cover i began with and force me to snipe back at them. it would have been great if, say, dom worked with me to allow me to flank the enemy, but since dom's doing his own **** and getting hurt all the time, it was basically just stay behind cover and shoot at enemies the ENTIRE GAME! the only part that i enjoyed were the pc exclusive parts, especially the brumark part, because the space in which you fought were actually big and open and you had some incentive to move from cover to cover. there's nothing i like more than going cover to cover in a shooter (like in crysis or stalker), but this game gave me very little opportunity and even less incentive to move at all.

I couldn't even get the game to run without Live crashes and BSODs... Hence my 1.0 scoring on GS ;)

I gave up after the 2nd patch still wouldn't allow me to run the game, and the "tech support" on the forums was a shade below useless.

The cover makes a nice paperweight though, I must admit.

Gears of War is one of the worst PC games I have ever played. Its only redeeming feature is its beautiful visuals, but even they have been topped.

Gameplay is stale and constricting, not to mention repetitive. Story is on holiday in another game. Has cool sound effects. That's about it.

Gears of War is one of the worst PC games I have ever played. Its only redeeming feature is its beautiful visuals, but even they have been topped.

Gameplay is stale and constricting, not to mention repetitive. Story is on holiday in another game. Has cool sound effects. That's about it.

fatshodan

I think this game and Halo are the two titles we totally disagree on and I still don't understand why. Well, I understand your explanations, but not the hate for this game. (Hate = strong word, I know)

Fire, we've discussed this before, but I still think you should have played on hardcore. I don't understand how you could get yourself killed all the time. I think the game was pretty forgiving on that difficulty and I played with a pad. A mouse is even more precise.

[QUOTE="fatshodan"]

Gears of War is one of the worst PC games I have ever played. Its only redeeming feature is its beautiful visuals, but even they have been topped.

Gameplay is stale and constricting, not to mention repetitive. Story is on holiday in another game. Has cool sound effects. That's about it.

artur79

I think this game and Halo are the two titles we totally disagree on and I still don't understand why. Well, I understand your explanations, but not the hate for this game. (Hate = strong word, I know)

Fire, we've discussed this before, but I still think you should have played on hardcore. I don't understand how you could get yourself killed all the time. I think the game was pretty forgiving on that difficulty and I played with a pad. A mouse is even more precise.

I beat the game on hardcore and I wish I played the game on easy. Not because I died (I probably died maybe ~5 times through my entire playthrough) but because that it takes an annoying amount of headshots for the enemies to go down.

[QUOTE="artur79"][QUOTE="fatshodan"]

Gears of War is one of the worst PC games I have ever played. Its only redeeming feature is its beautiful visuals, but even they have been topped.

Gameplay is stale and constricting, not to mention repetitive. Story is on holiday in another game. Has cool sound effects. That's about it.

GodLovesDead

I think this game and Halo are the two titles we totally disagree on and I still don't understand why. Well, I understand your explanations, but not the hate for this game. (Hate = strong word, I know)

Fire, we've discussed this before, but I still think you should have played on hardcore. I don't understand how you could get yourself killed all the time. I think the game was pretty forgiving on that difficulty and I played with a pad. A mouse is even more precise.

I beat the game on hardcore and I wish I played the game on easy. Not because I died (I probably died maybe ~5 times through my entire playthrough) but because that it takes an annoying amount of headshots for the enemies to go down.

Headshots don't do more damage in Gears.

[QUOTE="artur79"][QUOTE="fatshodan"]

Gears of War is one of the worst PC games I have ever played. Its only redeeming feature is its beautiful visuals, but even they have been topped.

Gameplay is stale and constricting, not to mention repetitive. Story is on holiday in another game. Has cool sound effects. That's about it.

GodLovesDead

I think this game and Halo are the two titles we totally disagree on and I still don't understand why. Well, I understand your explanations, but not the hate for this game. (Hate = strong word, I know)

Fire, we've discussed this before, but I still think you should have played on hardcore. I don't understand how you could get yourself killed all the time. I think the game was pretty forgiving on that difficulty and I played with a pad. A mouse is even more precise.

I beat the game on hardcore and I wish I played the game on easy. Not because I died (I probably died maybe ~5 times through my entire playthrough) but because that it takes an annoying amount of headshots for the enemies to go down.

Huh? That's not the way I remember it. If you get a 100% clean headshot, they go down without a head. Maybe I'm wrong, I dunno.

I dont regret buying it.

Thought it was a lot of fun. Partly because it didn't require a lot of thought to play through it.

I think some PC gamers feel insulted by the console simplicity. I find it more accessible because of it.

So what that it doesn't have a great storyline and a encyclopedia of information to read - watch a film or read a book if you're not content.

If I want something with more depth, I'll play an RPG. Gears just lets you get on with it.

[QUOTE="xfactor19990"]

ya well they like have snipers and they use em lol

fireandcloud

see, but for me, that wouldn't make the game any more fun, cuz that would mean i'd be pinned behind cover even more. and the main reason i disliked the game was because that's all i did the entire game - stay behind cover and snipe people. i had absolutely no incentive to move around, because it made no tactical sense to do that. and i wasn't forced to move either by, say, a well-placed grenade behind me or the locusts making intelligent rushes at me. sniping away at me from a distance would just keep me behind the same cover i began with and force me to snipe back at them. it would have been great if, say, dom worked with me to allow me to flank the enemy, but since dom's doing his own **** and getting hurt all the time, it was basically just stay behind cover and shoot at enemies the ENTIRE GAME! the only part that i enjoyed were the pc exclusive parts, especially the brumark part, because the space in which you fought were actually big and open and you had some incentive to move from cover to cover. there's nothing i like more than going cover to cover in a shooter (like in crysis or stalker), but this game gave me very little opportunity and even less incentive to move at all.

I experienced plenty of people who despised Gears but once they learn the mechanics efficiently their were having a blast.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="artur79"][QUOTE="fatshodan"]

Gears of War is one of the worst PC games I have ever played. Its only redeeming feature is its beautiful visuals, but even they have been topped.

Gameplay is stale and constricting, not to mention repetitive. Story is on holiday in another game. Has cool sound effects. That's about it.

Baranga

I think this game and Halo are the two titles we totally disagree on and I still don't understand why. Well, I understand your explanations, but not the hate for this game. (Hate = strong word, I know)

Fire, we've discussed this before, but I still think you should have played on hardcore. I don't understand how you could get yourself killed all the time. I think the game was pretty forgiving on that difficulty and I played with a pad. A mouse is even more precise.

I beat the game on hardcore and I wish I played the game on easy. Not because I died (I probably died maybe ~5 times through my entire playthrough) but because that it takes an annoying amount of headshots for the enemies to go down.

Headshots don't do more damage in Gears.

I wouldn't be surprised. It sure felt that way. If it's true, that reason alone deemed the game's failure.

For me Gears felt more of a tech demo than an actual game. The gameplay was very simple and became very repetitive. Aside from the visuals looking great, the enviornments felt very stale and I couldn't get immersed in it even if I desperately tried. The game lacked a story completely and the characters were just really unlikeable (except for Cole Train because he had a personality but it got pretty annoying at times. There was also little variety in weapons and the designs on the different locust monsters weren't very different from each other.

I liked the game's musical score and punishing difficulty though.

Fire, we've discussed this before, but I still think you should have played on hardcore. I don't understand how you could get yourself killed all the time. I think the game was pretty forgiving on that difficulty and I played with a pad. A mouse is even more precise.

artur79

i never said that the hardcore difficulty was too difficult that i kept dying all the time. the reason i switched from hardcore to casual difficulty was because i got sick of the game and i wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible (so i can write my awesome review!). the only complaint i made about dying in the game was that i had to re-watch cutscenes every time i died. certain parts were more difficult than others, and there were some segments i had to replay 3 or 4 times (and perhaps even more than that on rare occasions), but my only complaint with having to do that is that i had to re-watch the cutscenes 3 or 4 times as well. so maybe i do suck at the game - but dying in a game happens often, and i rarely blame the game for my suckiness (oh yeah, that's a word!), but i do blame gears in this case for having a stupid save mechanism.

Bought Gears of War when it came out (at a discount). Installed. Got disgusted with it's mediocre game play, subpar story, and the blatant advertising for Balco. Uninstalled.

Bleh. I can run the game fine on my XP drive, but Vista wont even install the game. The game play is ok and thestory is fun, but even at $30 bucks, I would not endorse Gears for the P.C.roulettethedog

what? gears is totally awesome. i never knew how good it was until i played it. now i understand why it won so many awards on the 360.

sure some people might not like it heaps but if you love shooters (like me) i reckon most people would love it. plus you don't need a NASA Supercomputer to run it like crysis and the game still looks awesome!!

People still play CS, HL, and BF2 as opposed to Gears is because Gears of War sucks. GodLovesDead

no cs sucks and bf2 is great except for the wepons that are 99% inaccurate and the spawn killing and overpowered apc's and jets should i go on?

Gears would have to be one of the best pc games i have ever purchased. the graphics are great and the cover system is fun and effective. If it were such a bad game like most people on this topic have said then why was it such a huge success on the 360? it's a great game and i sure hope gears of war 2 comes out on the pc as well, however i doubt this will happen.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]People still play CS, HL, and BF2 as opposed to Gears is because Gears of War sucks. jaredrichards3

no cs sucks and bf2 is great except for the wepons that are 99% inaccurate and the spawn killing and overpowered apc's and jets should i go on?

Gears would have to be one of the best pc games i have ever purchased. the graphics are great and the cover system is fun and effective. If it were such a bad game like most people on this topic have said then why was it such a huge success on the 360? it's a great game and i sure hope gears of war 2 comes out on the pc as well, however i doubt this will happen.

i don't think this leads to the logical conclusion that you're going for. just because a game is considered great on the 360 does not necessarily and automatically mean the pc version is a great game, for many, many obvious reasons.

[QUOTE="jaredrichards3"]

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]People still play CS, HL, and BF2 as opposed to Gears is because Gears of War sucks. fireandcloud

no cs sucks and bf2 is great except for the wepons that are 99% inaccurate and the spawn killing and overpowered apc's and jets should i go on?

Gears would have to be one of the best pc games i have ever purchased. the graphics are great and the cover system is fun and effective. If it were such a bad game like most people on this topic have said then why was it such a huge success on the 360? it's a great game and i sure hope gears of war 2 comes out on the pc as well, however i doubt this will happen.

i don't think this leads to the logical conclusion that you're going for. just because a game is considered great on the 360 does not necessarily and automatically mean the pc version is a great game, for many, many obvious reasons.

Yeah, I mean - let's face facts, the #1 selling point of Gears of War, no matter how great a game you think it is, is its graphics. If the game had been running in an engine build for the original Xbox, no one would give a **** about the game. Gears was the best looking 360 game ever, and 360 gamers creamed their pants for it.

PC gamers are used to amazing visuals, it doesn't make us go ape**** crazy quite like console gamers do, and UE3 is kinda ass looking anyway.

The game also had well integrated and well built coop that worked well on the 360, while it didn't translate well to PC at all - Gears' best feature is its coop, and it was best played on a 360.

I would give the game an 8 or so on the 360, but on the PC, measured by the PC's standards, I would give it a 4.

Also, consider that console gamers and PC gamers don't have the same tastes. The Half Life games have never seen much success on the consoles, and Xbox gamers generally consider the Halo games to be much better. There are tons of discrepancies between PC and console gamers' tastes.

Console gamers like, here it comes, shallow games with pretty graphics. PC gamers like intelligence and depth. Graphics are valued, but secondary. That's why there are more PC gamers playing games like StarCraft and Fallout than there are console gamers playing pretty much every game made before 2000, combined and totalled.

Gears of War is one of the most horrible games I have ever wasted money on. The combat was dull and repetitive. Nothing but run, take cover, get up, kill enemies, over and over. The graphics were ugly, too: gray, gray, gray, brownish gray, gray... The character designs were ridiculous. Why is Marcus even wearing armor if he's stupid enough to leave his freaking head exposed? Not to mention the generic "tough guy" attitude everyone has is boring. Painfully boring. The story-- wait, no, it didn't have one. Never mind. The whole game was just a massive waste of time and money.

Console gamers like, here it comes, shallow games with pretty graphics. PC gamers like intelligence and depth. Graphics are valued, but secondary. That's why there are more PC gamers playing games like StarCraft and Fallout than there are console gamers playing pretty much every game made before 2000, combined and totalled.

Well, I'm both. How would you describe me? I think you generalize a bit much in that paragraph. But I've discussed this with several people in the past and I have to pack my ****, so I won't go into a lenthy rant about this particular topic.

Moving stuff from one place to another sucks. I hate packing.

Console gamers like, here it comes, shallow games with pretty graphics. PC gamers like intelligence and depth. Graphics are valued, but secondary. That's why there are more PC gamers playing games like StarCraft and Fallout than there are console gamers playing pretty much every game made before 2000, combined and totalled.

Well, I'm both. How would you describe me? I think you generalize a bit much in that paragraph. But I've discussed this with several people in the past and I have to pack my ****, so I won't go into a lenthy rant about this particular topic.

Moving stuff from one place to another sucks. I hate packing.

artur79

I have to generalise, though - I could qualify the statement by saying most or many, but I don't really feel it's necessary. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule - and in this case, tons of exceptions, but generalising isn't necessarily a bad thing. I am, after all, talking about the majority.

I know that the above doesn't apply to you, but then again, it doesn't apply to me, either. Remember that I myself am a multiplatform gamer - I have owned over a dozen consoles over the last two decades, and currently actively use three consoles, or five if you count backwards compatability.

[QUOTE="artur79"]

Console gamers like, here it comes, shallow games with pretty graphics. PC gamers like intelligence and depth. Graphics are valued, but secondary. That's why there are more PC gamers playing games like StarCraft and Fallout than there are console gamers playing pretty much every game made before 2000, combined and totalled.

Well, I'm both. How would you describe me? I think you generalize a bit much in that paragraph. But I've discussed this with several people in the past and I have to pack my ****, so I won't go into a lenthy rant about this particular topic.

Moving stuff from one place to another sucks. I hate packing.

fatshodan

I have to generalise, though - I could qualify the statement by saying most or many, but I don't really feel it's necessary. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule - and in this case, tons of exceptions, but generalising isn't necessarily a bad thing. I am, after all, talking about the majority.

I know that the above doesn't apply to you, but then again, it doesn't apply to me, either. Remember that I myself am a multiplatform gamer - I have owned over a dozen consoles over the last two decades, and currently actively use three consoles, or five if you count backwards compatability.

I'll keep this short:

I disagree. Games you'd never dream would come to consoles are played with a pad somewhere. Some of the biggest franchices in PC-gaming are "casual". No rule without exceptions and all that, but when there are enough exceptions, the rule does not apply anymore. I dunno, maybe those stereotypes were correct a few years ago, but I don't think they tell the truth in modern gaming society.

When we're talking about groups of people, generalizations should be avoided at all costs imo. Things are never black and white, they are shades of grey. Some shades are closer to white and other to black, but it's wrong to assume that your impression of two populations of gamers is dead on. That's why "most", "imo" and "many" are useful words that should be used in this discussion.

I really like Gears Of War, What a fun game to play!

[QUOTE="fatshodan"][QUOTE="artur79"]

Console gamers like, here it comes, shallow games with pretty graphics. PC gamers like intelligence and depth. Graphics are valued, but secondary. That's why there are more PC gamers playing games like StarCraft and Fallout than there are console gamers playing pretty much every game made before 2000, combined and totalled.

Well, I'm both. How would you describe me? I think you generalize a bit much in that paragraph. But I've discussed this with several people in the past and I have to pack my ****, so I won't go into a lenthy rant about this particular topic.

Moving stuff from one place to another sucks. I hate packing.

artur79

I have to generalise, though - I could qualify the statement by saying most or many, but I don't really feel it's necessary. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule - and in this case, tons of exceptions, but generalising isn't necessarily a bad thing. I am, after all, talking about the majority.

I know that the above doesn't apply to you, but then again, it doesn't apply to me, either. Remember that I myself am a multiplatform gamer - I have owned over a dozen consoles over the last two decades, and currently actively use three consoles, or five if you count backwards compatability.

I'll keep this short:

I disagree. Games you'd never dream would come to consoles are played with a pad somewhere. Some of the biggest franchices in PC-gaming are "casual". No rule without exceptions and all that, but when there are enough exceptions, the rule does not apply anymore. I dunno, maybe those stereotypes were correct a few years ago, but I don't think they tell the truth in modern gaming society.

When we're talking about groups of people, generalizations should be avoided at all costs imo. Things are never black and white, they are shades of grey. Some shades are closer to white and other to black, but it's wrong to assume that your impression of two populations of gamers is dead on. That's why "most", "imo" and "many" are useful words that should be used in this discussion.

Most of the stuff you just said pisses me off and many of the things you just said are completely wrong and stupid.

imo.

Clunky movement, repetitive gameplay, and gray makes for a fresh experience?

Gears of War was a terrible game.

[QUOTE="artur79"][QUOTE="fatshodan"][QUOTE="artur79"]

Console gamers like, here it comes, shallow games with pretty graphics. PC gamers like intelligence and depth. Graphics are valued, but secondary. That's why there are more PC gamers playing games like StarCraft and Fallout than there are console gamers playing pretty much every game made before 2000, combined and totalled.

Well, I'm both. How would you describe me? I think you generalize a bit much in that paragraph. But I've discussed this with several people in the past and I have to pack my ****, so I won't go into a lenthy rant about this particular topic.

Moving stuff from one place to another sucks. I hate packing.

fatshodan

I have to generalise, though - I could qualify the statement by saying most or many, but I don't really feel it's necessary. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule - and in this case, tons of exceptions, but generalising isn't necessarily a bad thing. I am, after all, talking about the majority.

I know that the above doesn't apply to you, but then again, it doesn't apply to me, either. Remember that I myself am a multiplatform gamer - I have owned over a dozen consoles over the last two decades, and currently actively use three consoles, or five if you count backwards compatability.

I'll keep this short:

I disagree. Games you'd never dream would come to consoles are played with a pad somewhere. Some of the biggest franchices in PC-gaming are "casual". No rule without exceptions and all that, but when there are enough exceptions, the rule does not apply anymore. I dunno, maybe those stereotypes were correct a few years ago, but I don't think they tell the truth in modern gaming society.

When we're talking about groups of people, generalizations should be avoided at all costs imo. Things are never black and white, they are shades of grey. Some shades are closer to white and other to black, but it's wrong to assume that your impression of two populations of gamers is dead on. That's why "most", "imo" and "many" are useful words that should be used in this discussion.

Most of the stuff you just said pisses me off and many of the things you just said are completely wrong and stupid.

imo.

Was it "I'll keep this short" that pissed you off? Yeah, I admit it's a bit edgy.

I can believe the pc community don't like this game, whats not to like ? the action is good , it requires a lot of skill to be good at it (at insane and hardcore), the levels are fun and the story is solid . I feel very sad for the pc community because when good games come out no one embraces it unless it has some kind of cult following.

most of the people who are **** about this game are probably ones who have 9800 gx2's in SLI but choose to play games like counter strike and WOW. get with the times, sure halo 2 was a crappy port to the pc, the game run fine but it was way to old to be released on the pc. but gears is good, it's something very different to the same old shooters we have seen on pc's for years such as quake, doom, CS, half life, prey etc. it's a tactical shooter with out being too tactical and slow.

if you don't like the game fine, go back to playing WOW, which is just a competition between nerds on who has the most pathetic life. (the most time to waste building up their level)

make the game 20$ not the 49.99 price tag it currently has, the only reason it isnt a popular game is because its a game for window vista, its one of the most popular games on xbox live, id definantly pick the game up to play MP, but with its current price, its just rediculous.Xxgood-timesXx

no it's not just for vista it's for windows, i have windows xp and it runs fine. halo2 was only for vista (which is a joke i know)

I picked the game up for $40