Title: Gears of War

Date: 11.10.2006

Genre: Third-person Action

Platform: Xbox 360

Developer: Epic Games

Publisher: Microsoft Game Studios

Gears of War happened to be one of the most hyped games for the upcoming generation. However I believe it was for all the wrong reasons. Sure, the graphics and visuals and production values were truly next-gen and never before seen in a video game, and would take a valiant effort to surpass them. However, graphics and visuals and production values don't make the game. What makes a game? Gameplay. And in this game, it seemed like an afterthought, something to complement the technical achievements.

Visuals

The graphics are great. The detail and look make this game seem lifelike and real, as if it were from a movie. However, the amazing graphics and polygon count and detail are quickly derailed because of the boring art style. The art style is the same we have seen time and time again from shooting games, the bland and boring gray/brown/black art style we have all become accustomed to. No creativity or anything here, the art direction really makes the graphics stand out less than they could. We could have seen more of the color spectrum here, it would not have hurt. Some levels do use the color spectrum, but its monotone. It uses all of the same color + shades; rarely will you see the color palette display more than a few different colors. However the detail really saves the graphics. I have never seen a game have as much detail before. The bad thing about graphics, though, is that the appeal and "wow" factor will wear off, so its up to the gameplay to come to the rescue.

Sound

The sound is really presented well. The effects and how the sound blends in with the game is spot on. The headshot sound could not be more realistic, and the locust sounds really want to make you kill them due to how spooky their sound is. The drones and guards also make sounds that fit their characters like a glove. The music on the other hand could have been better. The score fits the game perfectly, but its too generic and not memorable enough. It's like they took the soundtracks from other shooters in past games and mixed it into one giant score. Nothing really new here, they could have gone the extra mile to provide us with sound that is really fresh and unique a la Halo.

Gameplay

The gameplay is what keeps this game from being a masterpiece. After playing through the game and some multiplayer, it almost seems as if gameplay was behind graphics, visuals and presentation in priority. Almost as if they were making the game to look at and not to play. The game is quite simple: A 3rd person shooter where the key is to defeat enemies by taking cover and minimizing leaving yourself open. Attempt to make it a run and gun like Halo and you will be killed in a matter of seconds. You have AI(or Co-op if you want) partners to help you exterminate the enemy, which are locusts, drones, and other baddies along the way. The game is divided into "chapters", some which are long and eventful and some which are short and pointless. The cover system is really the only part that sets this game apart from your standard basic shooter. Use it to your advantage. The enemy will also use it to their advantage, though sometimes they don't which leaves for easy kills. Most of your kills will be over the shoulder from behind whatever object you are using to block bullets.

With that being said, the over use of the A button will become noticeable. You use it to do almost everything. With 3 difficulty settings the game can become easier or harder. The harder difficulty, insane, can extend the length of the game. But it’s all the same mission; a short mission at that. I beat the game on the default difficulty, hardcore, in 8 hours, one sitting. When all was said and done, the gameplay of this game really did not bring anything new to shooting games. The cover system tried, but it’s not big enough. There was no innovation in this game, nothing that made me say "wow" at the gameplay like it did with the visuals. It was too formulaic and nothing that would be worth coming back to. The game flat out just wasn't there gameplay wise. There was something missing. I'm not saying it wasn't fun, but in the back of my mind I knew it could have been far better.

Multiplayer

The multiplayer, which should redeem the single player shortness, came up short as well. Only 4 vs. 4 makes you wonder if they really spent their resources on the gameplay as much as the visuals. The 4 vs. 4 doesn't ruin the multiplayer, however, it just makes it seem like it could have been more. It is fun at first, but over time it gets old. The maps are small and crowded. The multiplayer modes are too similar and not enough variety. All of them are basically a form of deathmatch. The worst part of the multiplayer is how cowardly some players can be. This game, multiplayer wise promotes camping, so in the end it all turns out to be whoever has the courage to show their face first. In many games people stay hidden, camping forever without anything happening with a fear of losing their cover.

This gets old quick, the ranking systems help but the multiplayer could have been much more than this. It seems like it was an afterthought. The matchmaking also seemed lazily done, as in ranked games you can't join with your friends or clan if they have different ranks than you. It's all random, really. Not too big of a deal, otherwise the matchmaking is fine. The one sentence description of the Gears of War multiplayer would be: "We have seen this before, now it’s just in a different coat of paint." You aren't missing out on anything in Gears of War multiplayer if you skip out, unless you haven't played a multiplayer shooter before.

My Take

This game did not live up to the hype for me. I thought this game would be the complete package, seeing as it was being hyped to no end. However it just delivered (sort of) in one way: visuals and production values. The gameplay, however, seemed like an afterthought, as if it was just thrown in there to compliment the visuals. Honestly, what were the developers trying to get out of this game? Were they making a video game or eye candy? It's hard to tell. It makes you wonder what exactly they wanted this game to be. A game should be gameplay first, visuals/production values second. I think the developers got this reversed, unfortunately. I had a bad taste in my mouth after playing through the game, half of it being let down, and half of it knowing my $60 could have been spent elsewhere. If I spend $60 on a game, it should supply me with fun, not with eye candy that’s lasting appeal is far shorter than a game with good gameplay.

Buy or Rent? Rent. The single player is short, and you aren't missing anything from the multiplayer. The multiplayer is your basic shooting multiplayer that you have seen on every other multiplayer shooter that has come out. Save the $60. The graphical appeal will wear off after a while, and so will the wow factor. When that happens, its time to bring the rental back.

Overall

I just didn't get the most out of this game as I thought I would. Shigeru Miyamoto once criticized Donkey Kong Country, using it as proof that people will buy things just because it looks pretty. This is pretty much the same way. Donkey Kong Country was a great game, and Miyamoto retracted his statement. However, Gears of War is a good game, just not in the ways it should be, and I will not retract my statement when I say this game is getting good vibes because of the visuals and production values, not in the game itself. I don't think Miyamoto would either. We don't play games to look at them, we play them to play them, and when it came to that this game was just your basic shooter. But a day will come when we can get “through the roof” gameplay to accommodate “through the roof” production values like in Gears of War. That game will be just about perfect.

Game Score

C+

Reviewed By: Contributed