Why Gears of War is more than you think it is.

Recommended Videos

Santhenar

New member
Dec 27, 2007
51
0
0
After seeing this thread:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.354010-Bleszinski-Gears-Became-a-Negative-Stereotype
I got pretty mad.

And I wrote this:

(Quick note: I haven't read any other Gears books or other items surrounding the series. This is purely based off just playing through the three games.)

A lot of negative things have been said about the Gears of Wars series, mostly complaining at it's macho aesthetic, over the top weapons and enemies, and general lack of real characters, plot or narrative. I expect you feel the same way about Gears, but let me take a moment to tell you a few things you probably missed.

In the Gears universe the planet of Sera is at war, and has been for a hundred years. First human on human in the Pendulum Wars, followed by the emergence of the locust from beneath the planets surface. The characters we see are perhaps the third generation born of a society caught in a bitter war. They have to be tough, they have to be strong physically to survive. All those who looked like an average Joe would likely have been killed in combat, lacking the physique to make it through. If we look at the Gears weapons and technology we can see that it is not complex or subtle, it is based on brute strength and as such takes brute strength to use. Another reason why scrawny Gears would not survive the battlefield. Remember, by following Fenix and his squad we only get to see the most battle hardened of soldiers, and see nothing of those who do not fight.

The famous lancer with it's chainsaw bayonet is a product of the war against the locust, these are numerous creatures often engaging at close range with many a tentacle- A chainsaw bayonet makes logical sense as it allows for close quarters combat as well as saving on ammunition, which is likely to be scarce on a world torn apart.

Everything the Gears are and do is influenced by this vast history of war, but they are not without emotion. As soldiers fighting a war to save the world it is only natural that they must keep their emotions in check, but they are shown to posess them in the way Dom talks about his wife, or Marcus about Anya. When Dom is reunited with the tortured and tormented Maria he slips into a dream and imagines her as she was, happy and smiling. Only to be confronted with the reality that she has been destroyed. Throughout the third game Dom is continually suffering emotional issues over the loss of his wife, but his anger is not targeted at the locust who captured her, but at himself for participating in the war against them.

In the third installment the Gears come across a small settlement of humans, living away from the cities. The inhabitants ask the Gears to leave, implying that they live peacefully alongside the locust and that it is not the locust, but rather the Gears whose undying agression has perpetuated the war and lead to the destruction of the planet, including the loss of Doms wife. As the game progresses the Gears become increasingly aware that it was they who sent the world into ruin. The game is scattered with hints that the locust are a peaceful race, betrayed by the COG and turned upon by a society so tuned for war that it is incapable of anything else. In the introduction to Gears 3 it is stated that in the COG burnt human cities and murdered civilians in it's original quest to kill the locust. As the game progresses Marcus becomes increasingly desperate to fix the damage that he and the Gears have caused, but he is so twisted by war that he cannot comprehend a peaceful solution.

Marcus sees a locust victory as the end of the planet, but the existence of the aforementioned human settlement proves that this is not the case. What Marcus is actually fighting to preserve is his soul, his belief that what he is doing is right and will save the world. The sad truth for him is that the world doesn't need saving. He and the Gears are fighting a battle that only exists between themselves and the locust. He is not saving the world or protecting humanity, that is a fiction that the Gears have invented to justify their own existence, because without an enemy, what use are soldiers? And if they're not soldiers, what can they be? The Gears don't know how to survive, they can't exist without war, they have been brainwashed by the COG all their lives to fight and fight and it has turned them into a dark spectre of humanity, shunned by all yet still believing themselves to be virtuous. Only when the COG is destroyed does the truth begin to emerge- that they are in fact part of a political movement dedicated to the genocide of a peaceful race. That they are the evil blight upon the world and the locust are the cure, a victory for the Gears is a victory for an evil, destructive regime.


I guess that's why Gears 3 wasn't all that much fun.

Plus where were all the huge creatures Cliffy B? I hardly felt like I killed anything all game.
 

Freechoice

New member
Dec 6, 2010
1,019
0
0
There's very little depth or complexity shown in a game like Gears primarily because the guys behind it know fuck-all about characterization or narrative beyond good guys-bad guys with monstrous aesthetic. Anything that resembles philosophical intrigue was either pure luck or a holdover from watching Hamburger Hill.

What Gears 1 (and to a lesser degree, Gears 3) had going for it was world-building and atmosphere. They really captured that "destroyed beauty" thing with the world (but the best parts were the ones made by People Can Fly) and the game was novel enough that it worked. Advance forward to Gears 2 and none of it is really that interesting and then we get Gears 3, a ham-handed attempt at emotional drama by what amounts to marines trying to perform a Shakespearean tragedy.

The Gears aren't vicious tools, but they are tools. They're products of humanity's inability to square their problems away. And the Locust ARE the bad guys. The only reason they invaded after the Pendulum Wars was because they knew that mankind was at its weakest. Myrrah didn't simply establish terms after conquering most of the world. She just went for the annihilation of mankind. It's natural that humanity would resist and that protracted war would create men that are incapable of knowing much beyond war. But people can't fight forever. Most people DON'T want to fight forever I can say with a reliable amount of certainty that they will endeavor to find something beyond war in order to satisfy their natural impulse to do shit. Will there be hiccups? Of course, but they get over it.
 

daveman247

New member
Jan 20, 2012
1,366
0
0
Ehhh, i think you read a bit too much into it. The way i see it, an 80's movie plot that just about justifies all the violence. And gears 3 is the best campaign to date. The combat has finally been fine tuned and COLOUR! Its about damn time it changed from grey all day. Plus there is many enemy types to keep combat fun. They pulled the stops out for the last game ^_^
 

skywolfblue

New member
Jul 17, 2011
1,514
0
0
Santhenar said:
Throughout the third game Dom is continually suffering emotional issues over the loss of his wife, but his anger is not targeted at the locust who captured her, but at himself for participating in the war against them.
Wait, what? Dom never sympathized with the locust, never forgave them for what they did to his wife. He was tired of war yes, but that doesn't mean he thinks the locust are OK guys.

Santhenar said:
In the third installment the Gears come across a small settlement of humans, living away from the cities. The inhabitants ask the Gears to leave, implying that they live peacefully alongside the locust and that it is not the locust, but rather the Gears whose undying agression has perpetuated the war and lead to the destruction of the planet, including the loss of Doms wife.
No. The locust are not peaceful. The locust kill the stranded wherever they meet. It's just that the stranded have been screwed over by the CoG as well so they'd rather take their chances hiding.

Santhenar said:
As the game progresses the Gears become increasingly aware that it was they who sent the world into ruin. The game is scattered with hints that the locust are a peaceful race, betrayed by the COG and turned upon by a society so tuned for war that it is incapable of anything else. In the introduction to Gears 3 it is stated that in the COG burnt human cities and murdered civilians in it's original quest to kill the locust. As the game progresses Marcus becomes increasingly desperate to fix the damage that he and the Gears have caused, but he is so twisted by war that he cannot comprehend a peaceful solution.
Did you miss the Queens genocidal rampage speeches? The locust are not peaceful. They're out to wipe out all of humanity off the face of the earth. Locust artifacts indicate that they were a violent species long long before e-day or the emulsion were problems. The locust wiped out billions of innocent civilians. Regardless of whether or not the Queen may have been trying to "save her race" she chose to do so by wiping all of humanity out instead of working for a peaceful solution.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
Let me tell you why you think it's more then it is, imagination, you love the game so you gloss over any nasty bumps and fill in the blanks with imagination.
We also had people singing praises for the beautifully written stories in the likes of CoD, Bulletstorm, even racing games... if you want to see them bad enough then they will always be there.

Does not however mean the actual game presents all those fancy ideas.
 

Tanakh

New member
Jul 8, 2011
1,512
0
0
Mr.K. said:
Let me tell you why you think it's more then it is, imagination, you love the game so you gloss over any nasty bumps and fill in the blanks with imagination.
We also had people singing praises for the beautifully written stories in the likes of CoD, Bulletstorm, even racing games... if you want to see them bad enough then they will always be there.

Does not however mean the actual game presents all those fancy ideas.
And that is why Skyrim was the best RPG of the past few yers for me, it gave me just bits and pieces for my imagination to do the rest. That and the mods of course. Though at face value i guess Witcher 2 was better.
 

Swifty714

New member
Jun 1, 2011
315
0
0
While most of your points couldn't have flown farther away from the actual facts, it is refreshing to see someone try and defend GoW, instead of looking down upon it like the elitists they think they are.

Such as when you said the locust are a peaceful race.

Locust were never a peaceful race.

The reason for the stranded, asking the COG to leave, was because of the Hammer of Dawn strikes, and those strikes left a less then favorable look on the gears themselves.(Not to mention the chairman Prescott's own image.)
 

Santhenar

New member
Dec 27, 2007
51
0
0
"The locust are not peaceful."

In Gears 3 it is highly suggested that it was the COG who struck the first blow against the Locust, driving them to fight for survival. There are mentions that the COG and locust engaged in some kind of peace talks before the war began.


"Ehhh, i think you read a bit too much into it."

I won't even justify that with a rebuttal (That's like complaining someone read ALL the words in a book). However for your other points, I do agree that there were some interesting enemies in Gears 3, but Gears 2 definitely had the more exciting and engaging campaign. That's just opinion.


"Does not however mean the actual game presents all those fancy ideas."

But it does, I didn't just make this up. There is ambiguity sure, but all these thoughts are derived from simply playing through the game. Gaming will always be a subjective medium, and some people will only see guns and aliens, but there is almost always more.

(Also, Bulletstorm- although it did perhaps lack in the plot department, it's about so much more than shooting a man in the asshole. It is well written and has interesting characters with real thoughts, dilemmas and even relationships. Now that I've said that, everyone get your moron shields on!)


"Wait, what? Dom never sympathized with the locust, never forgave them for what they did to his wife."

Dom is angry at the Locust sure, but I can't help but feel that his eventual sacrifice/suicide is an attempt at redemption for his part in the whole affair. Had he truly felt that the locust were responsible he would have continued fighting, would have tried for revenge.
 

Terminate421

New member
Jul 21, 2010
5,773
0
0
Unlike most people I nearly shed a year when Cole lived his happiness again in Gears 3

Of course it is a deep franchise, its deeper than most games I know.

Campaign wise, I felt the second was the best, then the third, then the first
 

Deathmageddon

New member
Nov 1, 2011
432
0
0
A lot of the things I've read so far are actually reasons I enjoy Gears of War. It doesn't bend over backwards trying to give us the deepest characters or the richest story ever made. It's a very original series with great gameplay, creative baddies and weaponry, and a story that keeps my attention. Incidentally, I felt more for Dom in Gears 2&3 than I did for any character in the Mass Effect series.
 

Deathmageddon

New member
Nov 1, 2011
432
0
0
Zeel said:
It will be a cold day in hell before I play Gears of War for characterization or riveting plot points.
Dante's Inferno (the book) actually describes Hell as being very cold, especially as you go deeper, and many a Gears fan shed manly tears when Dom died. Sure, it's not Hamlet, but it's not Red Dawn, either... Just saying.