If you guys think the goty awards are given out purely on merit, then you're sorely mistaken. I stopped looking at the awards ever since the 04 ones. Burnout 3 winning xbox goty reeked of EA advertising money, not to mention the horribly overated score.
Gears 1 was no doubt outstanding, but if even if it deserved it....you must be naive if you didn't think gamespot was also influenced by microsoft's ad money. This time around, microsoft didn't need to fork out as much so gamespot got ancy about it. Jeff Gertsmann was also influenced by ad money but only when it involved good games where it would make no difference.
Let's not forget that burnout 2 was one of jeff's favorites when the franchise wasn't on ea's lineup. He jumped at the advertising money because he wanted to overated the series anwyay. It's funny that gamespot's still on ea's payroll and nobody notices it.
if you think that gears 1 was "unoriginal", then what would you consider an "innovative" shooter?
its important to remember that gears 1 wasn't just another shooter with a cover system. it was the first game with a good cover system,
and it was what sparked that flood of cover-based shooters
ffcecil
So they ripped off KillSwitch, then a bunch of other games ripped off Gears. Big deal.
i think i said GOOD cover system game. kill.switch sucked
It doesn't matter whether Killswitch sucked or not. The point is, Cliffy B and his group of flunkies ripped off the cover system (even the animations for it) as well as the targeting from Resident Evil 4. Gears 1 is a derivative game. Gameplay = Killswitch. Art design = Killzone (another sucky game, I guess they like ripping off sucky games) And the whole "badass soldier(s) kills evil aliens" thing is pretty much lifted straight from Halo.
Gears 1 is an unoriginal, generic shooter, and the only reason it got any attention in the first place was because of it's graphics. Boring, repetitive 6-hour campaign, and yawn-inducing multiplayer. And Gears 2 has a boring, repetitive 7-hour campaign with broken, yawn-inducing multiplayer. I guess the GameSpot reviewers finally saw through all the Gears hype, and rightfully ignored Gears 2 when it game to GOTY nominations. it doesn't even deserve to be nominated in any category, much less win GOTY.
[QUOTE="JakeTD21"] I know it was just like Gears 1 except way better. So if it was 1.5X better then it should of gotten a 14.4 WTF Gamespot way underrated.JakeTD21
I still don't see how you came from my remark saying gears 2 = gears 1.5 (meaning gears 2 is to similar to gears 1 to constitute in my opinion a sequel that is significantly better than the original) and your making a remark about how gamespot underrated gears 1 because if its 1.5x better than it should have got a 14.4. I don't see the connection between my comment and yours apart from the 1.5.
i dont think gamespot is what you want to be following right now...when braid is nominated for best 360 games, you know something is wrong...ahmedkandil
I haven't seen that much complaining. I seen more people using Gears 2 not getting nominated a reason to bash and say the series is trash, which is utter bullcrap.
[QUOTE="ffcecil"][QUOTE="GinoNYC"] So they ripped off KillSwitch, then a bunch of other games ripped off Gears. Big deal. GinoNYC
i think i said GOOD cover system game. kill.switch sucked
It doesn't matter whether Killswitch sucked or not. The point is, Cliffy B and his group of flunkies ripped off the cover system (even the animations for it) as well as the targeting from Resident Evil 4. Gears 1 is a derivative game. Gameplay = Killswitch. Art design = Killzone (another sucky game, I guess they like ripping off sucky games) And the whole "badass soldier(s) kills evil aliens" thing is pretty much lifted straight from Halo.
Gears 1 is an unoriginal, generic shooter, and the only reason it got any attention in the first place was because of it's graphics. Boring, repetitive 6-hour campaign, and yawn-inducing multiplayer. And Gears 2 has a boring, repetitive 7-hour campaign with broken, yawn-inducing multiplayer. I guess the GameSpot reviewers finally saw through all the Gears hype, and rightfully ignored Gears 2 when it game to GOTY nominations. it doesn't even deserve to be nominated in any category, much less win GOTY. GeOW hater: check play it on pc -.-
[QUOTE="ffcecil"][QUOTE="GinoNYC"] So they ripped off KillSwitch, then a bunch of other games ripped off Gears. Big deal. GinoNYC
i think i said GOOD cover system game. kill.switch sucked
It doesn't matter whether Killswitch sucked or not. The point is, Cliffy B and his group of flunkies ripped off the cover system (even the animations for it) as well as the targeting from Resident Evil 4. Gears 1 is a derivative game. Gameplay = Killswitch. Art design = Killzone (another sucky game, I guess they like ripping off sucky games) And the whole "badass soldier(s) kills evil aliens" thing is pretty much lifted straight from Halo.
Gears 1 is an unoriginal, generic shooter, and the only reason it got any attention in the first place was because of it's graphics. Boring, repetitive 6-hour campaign, and yawn-inducing multiplayer. And Gears 2 has a boring, repetitive 7-hour campaign with broken, yawn-inducing multiplayer. I guess the GameSpot reviewers finally saw through all the Gears hype, and rightfully ignored Gears 2 when it game to GOTY nominations. it doesn't even deserve to be nominated in any category, much less win GOTY.
earlier you said that the only reason gears 1 got any attention was because of its looks. if its looks are just "upgraded" from killzone(a sucky game), and that, which is what you are claiming, was the only reason for its attention, then wouldn't its "upgraded" cover from kill.switch(a sucky game) be a just as good reason for its attention?
and yet you have neglected to answer my original question. if gears 1 was unoriginal and derivitive, what do you believe is an original and innovative shooter?
well there have been many games that have improved much more than gears 2 did this year, just becuase it got a 9 doesn't mean it should win a award. to bad if no x360 exclusive games made it, live with it. fallout 3 and gta4 are better games and left 4 dead has much better multiplayer. btw gears 2 is in for best competitive ,mp
[QUOTE="ffcecil"][QUOTE="GinoNYC"] So they ripped off KillSwitch, then a bunch of other games ripped off Gears. Big deal. GinoNYC
i think i said GOOD cover system game. kill.switch sucked
It doesn't matter whether Killswitch sucked or not. The point is, Cliffy B and his group of flunkies ripped off the cover system (even the animations for it) as well as the targeting from Resident Evil 4. Gears 1 is a derivative game. Gameplay = Killswitch. Art design = Killzone (another sucky game, I guess they like ripping off sucky games) And the whole "badass soldier(s) kills evil aliens" thing is pretty much lifted straight from Halo.
Gears 1 is an unoriginal, generic shooter, and the only reason it got any attention in the first place was because of it's graphics. Boring, repetitive 6-hour campaign, and yawn-inducing multiplayer. And Gears 2 has a boring, repetitive 7-hour campaign with broken, yawn-inducing multiplayer. I guess the GameSpot reviewers finally saw through all the Gears hype, and rightfully ignored Gears 2 when it game to GOTY nominations. it doesn't even deserve to be nominated in any category, much less win GOTY. HAHA, OH WOW.
Log in to comment