NeilT

Well I've been playing mine, trying to get into it and I just can't. To linear, actions too broken by sodding intervals and too repetitive. How the hell could it get such rave reviews?

In fact I've spent more time recently playing Frogger on the 360 than Gears of War.

Never felt so let down by a game since the Sega Mega CD and 'Ground Zero Texas'


Neil

chrisowe

I voted "all eye candy, zzzzz" . I haven't played it for weeks, much prefer playing Crackdown and TDU. To me its very linear and just involves getting to a point, shoot aliens, cut scene.
I've got to the last level boss but haven't completed it yet. It maybe better online but I haven't tried it.

swiss scooby

I just voted 'Yep, all eye candy, ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz' as well. Not very innovative after all.

john_s

iTrader: (1)

I've not played it.

John.

richie001

iTrader: (3)

got last weekend after a couple of guys at work said at was really good but i don't see what the fuss is about i think its boring i turned it off and played fifa07

JackClark

Great Christmas title and best played Online Co-op with a friend. Probably won't play it again.

ScoobyDoo555

Gotta admit - all eye candy tbh. Finding it pretty boring at the moment.
Much more into Splinter Cell

Dan

Mogsi

Xbox live with your mates is where it's at.... Not played any game online this much since Halo2..

A'K

agree online with your mates on verus mode is a right scream.. love it!

its all I play at the moment..

STi wanna Subaru

iTrader: (1)

got this from ebay yesterday.... hope it's good but not impressed with the reviews here

will give it a go

PeteBrant

Single player - average.

Online - very very good.

DJ Dunk

iTrader: (5)

Of course its not for everyone and the online multiplayer is where it really shines. If you're not into online multiplayer gaming then no doubt you'll find it lacking little in substance. But then I thought this was made clear from the reviews I'd read.

PeteBrant

I don't know about that - Everyone was raving about it in both Single and multiplayer.

Gears of War (xbox360: 2006): Reviews

Neanderthal

iTrader: (6)

Single player isn't great but playing co-op with a mate takes it to a WHOLE other level

DJ Dunk

iTrader: (5)

And rightly so IMO. I don't have the time to spend weeks on a game. I enjoyed it because it left me feeling like I'd just watched and been part of a great movie.

Shaolin

Really dont understand you lot on here ?
Ive been playing games since the old atari etc and i can honestly say this is one of the best games by far that i have ever played ! single player is amazing, co-op is amazing, and online multiplayer is the dogs danglies.
At first it can seem very shallow, but trust me, there is so much strategy in it ! it is so deeeeeeeep esp in multiplayer.
You people on here are just about the only people ive met ( in geek world ) that dont like it !!!
Are you all men ? or just woofters ;-) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Each to there own and all that, but for me, this is the only game for a long while that has lived up to the hype .....and then some !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NeilT

Have you read the title of this thread as you're obviously referring to another game (possibly frogger?)

Neil

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

The 'problem' with it though is that if you don't care about multiplayer then the game is extremely shallow and when it only takes about 10 hours to complete that is pretty poor imo on the other hand if multiplayer is your thing then it has plenty of life in it.
Rainbow 6 is another example single player is good but nowhere near as good as the multiplayer.
The game was so hyped up it was bound to disappoint (Halo 2 is a good example imo)

Shaolin

I just cant believe someone would buy this game and not like it ? it doesnt hide what type of game it is? so therefore if you like this type of game, in my opinion and about 8 trillion others, this is the best game of this type and prob one of the best games to have ever beeen released !
Are you sure you lot arent sony fanboys ? ;-) are you sure your playing the same game as me ?????!!!!!!!!!

PeteBrant

Well its all about opinion isn't it - Really it doesn;t mater what other people think as long as you are happy with the purchase. Personally I found it getting a bit formulaic towards the end - there was nothing new after the first level really - just shoot duck repeat, no new enemies, other than the

However, it was incredibly polished, a good fun blast, and on multiplayer it absolutely rocks.

Not quite sure its deserving of some of the plaudits it got - GamesTM rated the game 10, and then in the MP review gave it 9. Most odd.

Personally I felt that Lost planet had the better single player game


I don't really have a problem with shorter games. I would far rather play a great game for 10 hours than an average one for 20.

Some of my favourite games ever have been fairly short - ICO, SotC etc.

GoW would not have benefitted by being any longer IMO - There was not enough variety in it to justify doing essentially the same thing for another 10 hours. As it was, it was long enough for you not to get bored by the whole thing, and in fact encourages you to go through it again on hardcore/insane. (assuming you started on casual).

Overall I wouldn't say GoW was purely eye candy by any stretch. It's just the single player wasn't *great*.

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

'There was not enough variety in it to justify doing essentially the same thing for another 10 hours.'

That's a good point but imo a game does need a bit of variety to keep me interested(multiple routes,different areas to explore etc.).
Some of my fave games are short i just happen to prefer the longer lasting games (Morrowind and Oblivion to name two).Lets face enough people bought it for them to make a sequel.

brihoppy

i voted for option 2...im no hardcore gamer but i loved halo, and like a good shooter...agree with it being a bit linear but i used to hate those old games where you could just get completely lost on a level with no way of getting back or saving...

PeteBrant

Well GoW didn't do a "halo" and introduce a completely new element (or a HL2 and introduce a new one every 10 minutes ). THat was the problem. Had they done that, then it could have gone on longer quite happily. Of course the problem of budget and time then come into play.

As an aside - THose of you not on live really need to get it sorted. Like it or not, multiplayer is here and here to stay. It is now a massive part of gaming. Single player won't die of course, but you will find more and more effort being diverted to the multiplyer element.

InvisibleMan

a lot of these type of games are now designed more around MP rather than SP. Just as long as they dont get rid of the offline co-op mode

NeilT

the last game I completed on the 360 was F.E.A.R. and found this a far better blast than GoW (infact pretty much played it solidly 'til the end) and online its bloomin fast and good fun, but despite this F.E.A.R. doesnt seem to have sold that well (in comparison).

InvisibleMan

have been playing MP Fear on a lan, good laugh even though i find mouse & keyboard control is too much on some of these games. Will have to get the adapter so i can play it via the xbox controller

Iain Young

Bad news

Multi-player / internet play is good (and rapidly exapnding), but it's not a substitute for the single player experience. It compliments it (i.e. I want both - I don't always want to just play multi-player games against american teenagers shounting profanities at me over the headset). Unfortunately, most games these days seem to be promoting the multi-player aspect at the expense of the single player experience.

p.s. I thought Gears of war was rubbish

PeteBrant

I think there is room for both - Obviously MS forced the issue by insisting ever 360 title have live capability, which is a double edged sword.

We still have games like Bioshock and Mass effect on the way

Iain Young

Looks likle we've got to wait until at least July before they appear though

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

But by the looks of them i think they will be worth the wait