Gears Of War. Over rated?

[qbert4ever]

OK Well everyone has their own opinion - and "to each his own" etc. that is just in the "opinion" category - but when it comes to rating something, you've gotta take all things into consideration, if it got a 6.74/10 - it doesn't mean you will hate the game, that's just a fair score, and if your only rebuttal to it is "well I liked it" or "well i hated it" - without criticism, you basically just become a fanboy.

Example: Gears of Wars graphics are great! They have very high res. textures!

Other person: Yeah, but it was overly lighted, had blurry backgrounds to disguise flaws or make the areas seem bigger than they are, the only colors are "Brown, Grey, Red, Muzzle Flash" - and it just doesn't make the most of the engine.

So do you give the graphics a "8/10" or a lower number? You've gotta balance things out when it comes to rating something, but just because something is over or under rated shouldn't effect how you feel about the game, but it doesn't mean there isn't a such thing as "over or under rated".

But all ratings are are opinions. They are the subjective opinions of the person writing the review that reflect how the reviewer feels about the game. I can concede the point that something may be overrated for individual people, but to say something is overrated in general seems to be a sweeping generalization.

As to the review part, you need to take time into account. Very few will argue that Goldeneye for N64 is a great game, but what if it were released now? The levels are linear, the targeting sucks, and the graphics can only be described as fugly. As for Gears, when it came out the graphics WERE among, if not the best at the time, the gameplay was fairly fresh, and the online must have done something right, because it beat Halo 2 for most played online games. Did it deserve the scores it was given? Maybe. Does it still deserve those same scores? Hell no. And no reviewer worth his salt will say it does either.

Now as for the only response being "well I liked it" or "well i hated it" making you a fanboy, care to explain that one? I can give a list the size of a small house why Star Trek sucks, but if you can look at the flaws and still love it, how does that make you a fanboy? I view a fanboy as being somebody that refuses to listen to reason or logic, denying any failings with his game and insisting that all other games suck in comparison. I can say Goldeneye sucks for the reasons above, but if you can say "well, yes, the graphics are poor, but it doesn't really matter that much to me" then would you call yourself a fanboy?

10 out of 10 does not mean perfect, look in any game magazine or site that uses a "score" system to figure that one out, what it does mean is that any flaws in the game very rarely distract you from the game, if at all, and can be easily overlooked. If you disagree with the reviewer, fine. Make your own review saying so. I happen to know a site with its own section where you can do just that. But the point still remains that if I disagree with you, there's not a damn thing you can do to change my mind.

Oh, and it also had "blue" as a color, so stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

"Now as for the only response being "well I liked it" or "well i hated it" making you a fanboy, care to explain that one?"

- the reason i say that is because when I say "I didn't like it because..." and then someones says "well I liked it" - in the tone that is like "Well everything you said is totally valid but because I liked it, then you shouldn't care" -- I should have mentioned that.

(ok fine, "occasional primary color")

But all ratings are are opinions. They are the subjective opinions of the person writing the review that reflect how the reviewer feels about the game. I can concede the point that something may be overrated for individual people, but to say something is overrated in general seems to be a sweeping generalization.

Yeah but you are kind of missing the point(just a little), if someone likes the game and gives it a 10 just because it was fun for a few hours, it doesn't make the game flawless, you have to be fair in the review, whether you liked the game or not.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the "time" thing - that is touchy, you could tip-toe on either side and someone will get pissed off, but the main thing is progression, at the time something may be good, but if 5 years later games still look and play like Wolfenstein 3D - then something is wrong.

 

[PurpleRain]

It looked good and a few levels were fun but it was very boring. I just didn't have a lot of fun playing it.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

People complain about the lack of color in "realistic" next gen games, but let me ask you something. Have you seen the film Saving Private Ryan? If so, did you complain because most of it was gray, brown, and green?

You are talking about the WWII movie right, or is this a different Saving Private Ryan? - because when I saw it, it wasn't all brown and grey constantly, when the sun came up, it didn't turn everything brown, it just brightened everything up. When it was grey-ish, it was either raining or very cloudy, and even then, the sky was a darker blue, etc.

There is a middle ground, you don't need "grey brown or Mario color pallette" - saving private ryan was "grey" when it had to be.

 

[Fire Daemon]

I like Gears of War and still play some Multiplayer with friends (they don't have the orange box so this is the only game I can really play with them).

However I think that Gears of War is a very subjective game, the things that make it good to one player might make it horrible to the other. This is why people might think it is over rated.

As for the colour thing, I think people expect to see too much colour in their life. Have you watched Tv recently, or more importantly the ads? The amount of colour that these bloom into your face make the world seem like one big fucking rainbow.

 

[Noobzorz]

Gears of War really is all that good.

There are a few claims, however, which I whole heartedly support:

Major game breaking **** online drove me up the wall on more than a few occasions. Weapon sliding mother ****ers held the game hostage for six months before Epic finally fixed it.

Also, at launch, the shotgun was WAAAY overpowered. Using the lancer was as good as death. This has since been BEAUTIFULLY resolved, and the balance is near perfect.

I have never, ever, ever seen a game which so expertly walked the line between baddittude and needless intellectualism. The delivery is ***the best*** I have ever seen in a game, and the dialog is utterly flawless. They are cold blooded murderers, probably psychopathic, and they love what they do. They are no idiotic frat-boy-turned-monster caricatures, nor are they pseudo-intellectual reluctant warriors. Ever line sounds perfect. Nothing sounds forced.

Oh, and the gameplay is tight as hell.

 

[Noobzorz]

Also:

The checkpoint placement is totally excellent. It never coddles, but neither does it brutalize you. Even better than Halo's (though the approach to the game is a little more linear, so you can forgive Bungie); I would have said better than CoD 4's, but that game, for all its ridiculous awesomeness, had really, really bad checkpoint placement.

If you're doing more time watching a loading screen than you are playing, turn the difficulty down. It's a problem on your end.

 

[Joeshie]

I thought that the single-player was fantastic for the co-op, but the multiplayer was pretty meh. It was the best single-player available on console at the time of it's release.

 

[qbert4ever]

Bunch of stuff

You took the time to write a block of text that has no offering of why you disagree with what I said other then straw-men, insults, and an obvious lack of rule reading, and you say I'm the one that's "irrational" and has "problems with reality"?

How long did it take since Joe left for this to happen?

 

[MRMIdAS2k]

I have GOW, It's the Spec-Ed Tin version, and I got it dirt cheap.

I finished the game, and never played it again as I hated it, I thought it flat-out sucked.

The cover system feels almost tacked-on, now for most games this is irritating, but like someone above said, the game is supposed to REVOLVE around getting cover and taking pot-shots.

I mean, I wouldn't mind, but there's so much stuff the system needs it's really not funny, like the ability to jump low walls while running without having to duck behind 'em first, a separate button to dive (I cannot count how many times I've died near that feckin' rig with the Torque Bow guys on it, just because I've pushed "dive" and my guy's decided to "go into cover against a wall facing the enemy"), An overhaul of the cover mechanics in general, I want to be able to run down a covering wall, instead, i've gotta edge down slower than a snail dragging a house brick because if I DO decide to run, I'll get shot because I'm not "in cover".

 

[Rolling Thunder]

The cover system is stolen from Kill.Switch, the charecters might as well have fill-in-the-blank spaces, the enemies are stolen wholly from warhammer 40,000 tyranids (stealers), the vehicles are silly and yet still, somehow, I really enjoy this game. Its got a degree of style, excellent multiplayer and a good co-op system and all the stolen, borrowed and replicated parts are welded together to form an excellent package.

It's like driving a stolen Ferrari- its cheap, illegal and technically belongs to somebody else, and it probably won't last long. But who gives a shit- It's a fucking Ferrari!


User severely beater for trollike behaviour.

 

[bulletproof12]

i hated GoW. the single player was run of the mill, all the boses you couldnt shoot to death, you had to make a wall fall on him or something. and the multiplayer.......i hated it so bad.

the good players would rush for the torque bow and then stand at top of map and kill everyone. and then there would be one guy left alive who would hide in the back of the base for 20 minutes holding out against them.

granted i think it had alot to do with me not being able to kill people in that game. i would sneak up on a group of 2 people, then using my shotgun or rifle i would unload on the first one.....nothing would happen they would turn around and i would die. then if you use your chain saw, you kill the first and due to the 20 second cinematic the other one would have you dead before you finnished raping his head.