Anybody else think Gears of War was a letdown

[flash9286]

How did this game get a 94% on gamerankings. The campaign was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to short. It probably took me less than 5 hours to beat it. It is probably the easiest game I have played in a couple months ( granted I did just play on the default level). The enemies are pretty much the same all through the game, expect at the very end. The storyline seemed pretty bare to me, good premise but it wasn't fleshed out enough.

I can't say anything about the multiplayer content, but speaking strictly from a single player viewpoint GOW deserves, at best, a 80%.

[Asher]

If it's too easy, why did it not occur to you to crank up the difficulty? It's insane on the hardest difficulty, much more fun also.

In summary, I think your review is stupid and I give it, at best, 40%.

[snoopy369]

Five hours of content, though? That seems, well, rather short for a full priced game ... even if you assume it takes a good bit longer on higher difficulty level, if it's only 20 hours of content, that's not really that much ...

Oh, maybe that's why I don't play console games

[Asher]

Easy mode is less fun, is quicker, and generally not very interesting.

The best parts of Gears of War are the multiplayer: namely, cooperative play (locally or on Xbox Live). The multiplayer versus component's good too. Bunch of new free maps are available for download on XBL also.

Oh, maybe that's why I don't play console games

Yes, you miss out on a lot of Game of the Years.

[Zero]

duh. games that have good graphics = commercial success and good reviews. welcome to 21st century.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Asher
If it's too easy, why did it not occur to you to crank up the difficulty? It's insane on the hardest difficulty, much more fun also.

In summary, I think your review is stupid and I give it, at best, 40%.

I just got it two weeks ago, and have only played through it once. I assumed, wrongly, that the standard difficulty would be a challenge, like it is on most video games. I plan on playing it over again on the hardest difficulty, just haven't got to it yet. I don't see anything really changing though. The game will still be short, repetitive, and have a weak storyline, and the chainsaw sucks ( just thought I would throw that in.


In summary, why did this game get higher scores than it deserved, graphics, who cares about graphics, not me.

[Nostromo]

Five hours of content, though? That seems, well, rather short for a full priced game ... even if you assume it takes a good bit longer on higher difficulty level, if it's only 20 hours of content, that's not really that much ...

Oh, maybe that's why I don't play console games

It would have been the same on the PC. With the push towards intricate graphics and photorealism, games (FPS's in particular) are getting shorter and shorter.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Zero
duh. games that have good graphics = commercial success and good reviews. welcome to 21st century.

Yes. Soul Calibur II was overrated for this reason.

[Kuciwalker]

I agree. The easy mode was stupid (virtually no enemies to fight). The hardcore mode was pretty fun, but the plot was nonexistant (actually, worse - the plot felt like it should have been there, but was missing) and even on hardcore it's over really fast.

[FrostyBoy]

If it ever gets ported to PC, all these issues might be fixed. Just like what happend to GTA

[DrSpike]

Re: Anybody else think Gears of War was a letdown

Originally posted by flash9286
How did this game get a 94% on gamerankings. The campaign was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to short. It probably took me less than 5 hours to beat it. It is probably the easiest game I have played in a couple months ( granted I did just play on the default level). The enemies are pretty much the same all through the game, expect at the very end. The storyline seemed pretty bare to me, good premise but it wasn't fleshed out enough.

I can't say anything about the multiplayer content, but speaking strictly from a single player viewpoint GOW deserves, at best, a 80%.

I think they are just catering correctly for their playerbase and therefore probably deserve the good reviews.

[Jamski]

Well the target audience are 12-15 year old middle-class caucasian males with short attention spans, so blowing things up with no real effort for 5 hours is probably about all they can handle. If it looks realistic, so much the better.

P.S. if you are 13 years old the chainsaw rocks - at least according to what the boys of 8P3 tell me.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes. Soul Calibur II was overrated for this reason.

damn right it was. Not nearly as good as 1. 2 was still decent enough to play but 3? 3 was damn near unplayable.

You think im just trying to insult ur fav game, but its not just console, fps, rts, pc, mac, adult porn, watever. Fighting games are the same way these days too.

In summary, why did this game get higher scores than it deserved, graphics, who cares about graphics, not me.

if u didnt care about graphics wat else did u expect. i kind of find it hard to believe that u'd expect well thought out gameplay from a game that went for the graphics as selling point.

Well the target audience are 12-15 year old middle-class caucasian males with short attention spans, so blowing things up with no real effort for 5 hours is probably about all they can handle. If it looks realistic, so much the better.

well i think target audience are young adults in 20's with money who'd be willing to pay big bucks for gadgets and play games casually to entertain their liking for cool CG graphics.

[flash9286]

In summary, why did this game get higher scores than it deserved, graphics, who cares about graphics, not me.
if u didnt care about graphics wat else did u expect. i kind of find it hard to believe that u'd expect well thought out gameplay from a game that went for the graphics as selling point.

.


I don't know, you know there are games that have good graphics and good gameplay, plot, etc. And if I remember the reviews from the big gaming sites its gameplay was touted as great alongside with its graphics.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jamski
Well the target audience are 12-15 year old middle-class caucasian males with short attention spans, so blowing things up with no real effort for 5 hours is probably about all they can handle. If it looks realistic, so much the better.

It doesn't look realistic, it's heavily stylized.