E3: Gears Of War: Judgement Impresses

[Right Hook]

3 games wasn't enough, I see. Is this the future of gaming? Constant sequels and prequels and almost no new fuckin' IP's?

It's sad, the industry sucks right now. I liked the Gears games but I highly doubt I'll buy this. E3 has been a letdown for me so far.

 

[jollybarracuda]

I guess i'm the only one excited that People Can Fly is developing it? I guess im just reserving judgement (ba dum psh) for some gameplay footage to see if People Can Fly was given the freedom to change any core aspects of the gameplay. I do admit that the linear cover-fest shooting is excessively stagnant, but with the right developer behind, it could be done well. I mean Max Payne 3 has cover-based shooting and everyone's all cool with it.

 

[Legion]

3 games wasn't enough, I see. Is this the future of gaming? Constant sequels and prequels and almost no new fuckin' IP's?

I know right, it's not like Mario, Sonic and Pokemon have about 15 games each already huh? Strange how people only ever complain when shooters do it.

How many Madden, Fifa, NFL, NBA, Tiger Woods, Need for Speed (in other words sports and driving games) etc. have there been? These games don't even have anything significant to add, they use the same engines, slightly better graphics, updated rosters and normally add one or two minor new features each instalment, and charge full price for it.

Shooters do that and more with their multiplayer. New maps, weapons, abilities, game-modes and so on. Then you also have the entirely new 6-10 hour campaign to go along with it.

Yet people only seem to complain when it's a game that actually has a story.

 

[RustlessPotato]

3 games wasn't enough, I see. Is this the future of gaming? Constant sequels and prequels and almost no new fuckin' IP's?

I know right, it's not like Mario, Sonic and Pokemon have about 15 games each already huh? Strange how people only ever complain when shooters do it.

How many Madden, Fifa, NFL, NBA, Tiger Woods, Need for Speed (in other words sports and driving games) etc. have there been? These games don't even have anything significant to add, they use the same engines, slightly better graphics, updated rosters and normally add one or two minor new features each instalment, and charge full price for it.

Shooters do that and more with their multiplayer. New maps, weapons, abilities, game-modes and so on. Then you also have the entirely new 6-10 hour campaign to go along with it.

Yet people only seem to complain when it's a game that actually has a story.

I don't think he was being specific about shooters. He just stated that there aren't that many new IPs, a sentiment I can agree with.

O.T It is good that it's focused on Baird now, because I think he was the most interesting one of the bunch. I enjoyed the Gears, so if they manage to actually keep the story interesting this time, i might enjoy this one too.

 

[ksn0va]

3 games wasn't enough, I see. Is this the future of gaming? Constant sequels and prequels and almost no new fuckin' IP's?

There are new IPs. You just have to turn the other way. If the new IPs don't please you then there probably are hundreds of games that you might have missed that are still worth playing, some of which are 'quick 8 hr games' and some are infinitely replayable. There are also sequels that look like they're actually worthy of being made. Live life!

 

[Suave Charlie]

I was just thinking that. Really, do we need another Gears game?

And I'm not to on top of my Gears background history, but wasn't it Fenix who was on trial? And uh, 15 years later? Wouldn't the make Baird a teenager or something? He never seemed that old.

Different trial for something else.
As far as I remember baird should be 20~ in this. In Gears 1-3 all the characters are at the far end of 30.

 

[Legion]

I don't think he was being specific about shooters. He just stated that there aren't that many new IPs, a sentiment I can agree with.

I can also relate to that, I'd like to see a bit more variety in games, but to be honest, even with new I.P's nowadays, all they seem to try and do is copy the ones that already exist, and due to the fact that they are new, they are normally worse.

The reason being is that sequels not only have their predecessors to learn from in terms of what the audience likes, they can also build and improve on other things such as physics and game-play elements.

Just look at Gears of War 1 compared to 3. Ignore the obvious graphical improvements, and look at how much smoother it runs. Over the three games Epic have almost perfected cover-based mechanics.

Then you get Quantum Theory. A new I.P that tries it's very best to be Gears of War as far as visual design and game mechanics goes, but it fails in almost every aspect and comes across as nothing else but a rip-off attempt.

What we need really are more new ides, and settings, as opposed to simply new I.P's. If an I.P can evolve and expand on it's original, then that's still worth looking forward to.

Another GoW game?

Another one for the "Games I will never buy nor play" list.

So you come onto a thread about a game you don't want to play, literally just to announce you don't want to play it.

Why the hell do people bother doing this? What is the fucking point?

 

[RustlessPotato]

I don't think he was being specific about shooters. He just stated that there aren't that many new IPs, a sentiment I can agree with.

I can also relate to that, I'd like to see a bit more variety in games, but to be honest, even with new I.P's nowadays, all they seem to try and do is copy the ones that already exist, and due to the fact that they are new, they are normally worse.

The reason being is that sequels not only have their predecessors to learn from in terms of what the audience likes, they can also build and improve on other things such as physics and game-play elements.

Just look at Gears of War 1 compared to 3. Ignore the obvious graphical improvements, and look at how much smoother it runs. Over the three games Epic have almost perfected cover-based mechanics.

Then you get Quantum Theory. A new I.P that tries it's very best to be Gears of War as far as visual design and game mechanics goes, but it fails in almost every aspect and comes across as nothing else but a rip-off attempt.

What we need really are more new ides, and settings, as opposed to simply new I.P's. If an I.P can evolve and expand on it's original, then that's still worth looking forward to.

That is true. I thouroughly enjoyed the gears trilogy and have only seen improvements with each installments(I haven't played much online so I can't really comment on the multiplayer aspect). It's just that I feel that the Gears franchised had his trilogy, the campain is over and the story is finished and when they announce another Gears people might feel it to be an easy cash-in. I am rather glad that it will focus on Baird, but I feel they could've expand to the Pendulum Wars etc...

As to your last point, it's true we need more idea's and settings, but the problem is that if you stay within your IP, you can't really stray too much from its original. Look at the Assassins creed series, yes each installments has new settings, but the core gameplay remains the same throughout the game. Same with the Gears franchise.

What i'm trying to say is, it's easier to think about new idea's, mechanics and settings when you start with a new IP, because at that point you're rather free to go every direction you want to. After your IP has been set, you can't really deviate that much from it.

 

[Legion]

That is true. I thouroughly enjoyed the gears trilogy and have only seen improvements with each installments(I haven't played much online so I can't really comment on the multiplayer aspect). It's just that I feel that the Gears franchised had his trilogy, the campain is over and the story is finished and when they announce another Gears people might feel it to be an easy cash-in. I am rather glad that it will focus on Baird, but I feel they could've expand to the Pendulum Wars etc...

As to your last point, it's true we need more idea's and settings, but the problem is that if you stay within your IP, you can't really stray too much from its original. Look at the Assassins creed series, yes each installments has new settings, but the core gameplay remains the same throughout the game. Same with the Gears franchise.

What i'm trying to say is, it's easier to think about new idea's, mechanics and settings when you start with a new IP, because at that point you're rather free to go every direction you want to. After your IP has been set, you can't really deviate that much from it.

I agree, to be honest I don't feel another Gears game is needed all that badly either, and that's coming from a 'Gearhead'. I think my interest probably stems more from the general apathy towards most other games that have a foreseeable release date. I can only think of two games announced (apart from Gears) that I am definitely getting and only a couple aside from that which I am even considering. So having a game I will be guaranteed to enjoy at least to an extent is something I look forward to.

I know what you mean with Assassins Creed, and truth be told it's one of the reasons I am not particularly excited about the next one, I loved AC2, but felt that Brotherhood and Revelations were unworthy sequels that added very little to the franchise. I can see why people might think the same of Gears of War, but I think the difference is, that with GOW, the story has a nice simple logical progression. Assassins Creed seems to pride itself on giving you ten times more questions than answers, and I am starting to get bored with the lack of explanation.

Truth be told it's also why I was somewhat disappointed with Gears 3. They left many questions unanswered for no other reason I can think of than "We wanted a bit of mystery", something that is all well and good for a horror or psychological game, but not so good for an action based shooter with a thin enough plot as it it.

I can't fault your last point either, I think the main issue is that the type of company that is willing to be a bit more daring are the smaller ones, or the newer ones. The older and larger ones are a bit more cynical and only push what sells. The problem of course is that smaller/newer companies are also less likely to have the funds to really get their games comparable to the larger ones. Some can do it, but by and large they simply cannot compete for quality. They normally only bring forth decent indie/arcade titles.

A shame, I'd like to see a bit more risk taking within gaming too.