Gears Of War- any good?

A place where you can chat about anything that isn't to do with games!
User avatar
E. Randy Dupre
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:26 pm

Re: Gears Of War- any good?

Post by E. Randy Dupre »

Damocles wrote:Probably not what you're after, but if what you're looking for is a 3rd-person shooter with a cover mechanic try Stranglehold. It doesn't have regenerating health and is quite good. Most of the Tequila Bombs are pointless, but eh. You can also get it for something like $3 on Ebay.

Online is dead, however.
Tequila's slippery arse got right on my tits after a couple of hours - there was far too little precision in the implementation of the bullet-time moves and I barely ever found myself performing the one that I was intending to. I'm probably alone in this, but I thought WET pulled this element of gameplay off much more convincingly (although the cover mechanic was largely pointless in that one).
User avatar
Skykid
Posts: 17655
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:16 pm
Location: Planet Dust Asia

Re: Gears Of War- any good?

Post by Skykid »

E. Randy Dupre wrote:
Damocles wrote:Probably not what you're after, but if what you're looking for is a 3rd-person shooter with a cover mechanic try Stranglehold. It doesn't have regenerating health and is quite good. Most of the Tequila Bombs are pointless, but eh. You can also get it for something like $3 on Ebay.

Online is dead, however.
Tequila's slippery arse got right on my tits after a couple of hours - there was far too little precision in the implementation of the bullet-time moves and I barely ever found myself performing the one that I was intending to. I'm probably alone in this, but I thought WET pulled this element of gameplay off much more convincingly (although the cover mechanic was largely pointless in that one).
Both games were flawed, gimmicky and lacklustre. My little bro bought me Stranglehold for xmas because he knows I like shooting people (virtual people, that is) so I finished it out of gratitude. But boy, after the gimmick wears thin that game is boring.
Always outnumbered, never outgunned - No zuo no die

User avatar
Strider77
Posts: 4732
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:01 am

Re: Gears Of War- any good?

Post by Strider77 »

It does suck... I agree.
Damn Tim, you know there are quite a few Americans out there who still lives in tents due to this shitty economy, and you're dropping loads on a single game which only last 20 min. Do you think it's fair? How much did you spend this time?
User avatar
Damocles
Posts: 2975
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:23 am

Re: Gears Of War- any good?

Post by Damocles »

Hmm...I didn't realize it was disliked that much. Perhaps the $3 price clouded my perception. Ah well, I had fun with it at least...especially in Hard Boiled mode.
User avatar
Gungriffon Geona
Posts: 583
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Gears Of War- any good?

Post by Gungriffon Geona »

Acid King wrote:I think that the second game would have been awesome if they had taken out all the turret/vehicle sections and the giant worm. More repetition would have improved it and they had more open area battles and fewer tunnels and hallways.
you want LESS variety? Now, that's just crazy talk.
The first game was nothing but the same shit over and over of trudging through boring city/industrial sections. (and dying in one hit once they introduced Theron Guards, creating even MORE repetition.) Atleast in the second you have plenty of 'holy shit!' moments. It helps that there was cool new scenery and level design to go along with it.
Image
FLYING CARS WITH CRAB CLAWS
User avatar
Acid King
Posts: 4031
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Planet Doom's spaceport

Re: Gears Of War- any good?

Post by Acid King »

Gungriffon Geona wrote: you want LESS variety? Now, that's just crazy talk.
The first game was nothing but the same shit over and over of trudging through boring city/industrial sections. (and dying in one hit once they introduced Theron Guards, creating even MORE repetition.) Atleast in the second you have plenty of 'holy shit!' moments. It helps that there was cool new scenery and level design to go along with it.
The secondary stuff wouldn't have bothered me so much if they would have successfully employed and expanded on the mechanics in the other sections. You rarely have to really think strategically on how to use cover because so much of the game focuses on linear set pieces where the game says "here's the cover you have to use". The threats are rarely dynamic enough or the environments open enough that you have to think about your surroundings and how to use them to your advantage, which is critical in Horde and multiplayer. Rob summed it up pretty well in his last post.
Rob wrote:
...Enemies in campaigns are retarded - they'll just keep popping their heads up in the same spot until you take care of them and the pace will be as slow as you make it. When they exit cover they will walk in a line towards you.

The campaigns are for the spectacle, a little training and that's about it. They don't bring out the best in the game mechanics. If you have cover in the campaign you're basically invincible since the AI isn't that aggressive. Online - people move around a lot, are harder to hit and will hit with enough damage to make regenerating health a relief when you can get it (rather than a tedious constant).
Feedback will set you free.
captpain wrote:Basically, the reason people don't like Bakraid is because they are fat and dumb
Post Reply