Gears of War Hype?

[SpiderMonkey]

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you there.

Despite how fun this game looks, the commercial was just flat-out pretentious.

I wouldn't really call it pretentious. It reaks of high school level thinking. "Gee, what piece of music would make our ad more moving. Let's pick the most clichéd thing from the past 5 years, and bonus, we can even cash in on some of the Donnie Darko love our target audience has." It wasn't a trailer, it was a music video.

The shoot-and-cover mechanic sounds great

Shoot and cover mechanics have been around since Time Crisis.

The whole thing smacks of Emperor's New Clothes. Hype sells magazines/website pageviews (=ads) just as much as it sells the actual games. The reviewers have nothing to gain from doing anything other than perpetuating the frenzy surrounding the game.

This kind of shit always happens at the start of a cycle. Good games get reviewed as if they're "omg ultimate mega games", and then 3 years later, everyone is kinda embarrassed by the scores and the hysteria. Witness also Resistance Fall of Man getting a 9.1 from IGN.

[SiN]

Shoot and cover mechanics have been around since Time Crisis.

And 3D platformer games have been around since '96, yet we still hold Psychonauts in high regard.

I don't understand what everyone is getting so angry about. GoW seems like a solid, polished game with a couple of innovative ideas. It also happens to have a rather uninspired art-style.

But so what? I don't expect every game to be super-innovative in terms of gameplay and art. Some games can be great, without changing everything. GoW is one of those games.

The whole thing smacks of Emperor's New Clothes. Hype sells magazines/website pageviews (=ads) just as much as it sells the actual games. The reviewers have nothing to gain from doing anything other than perpetuating the frenzy surrounding the game.

Well, if that's how you think, you might as well not read reviews at all. If you don't trust them, why bother reading them at all?

I for one, think that game journalists have some integrity. Their reputation depends on it. For years, I read PCGamerUK and it never failed me. Every "Kieron Gillen" recommendation has been great. And hell, even gamespot/ign get it right every so often.

This kind of shit always happens at the start of a cycle. Good games get reviewed as if they're "omg ultimate mega games", and then 3 years later, everyone is kinda embarrassed by the scores and the hysteria. Witness also Resistance Fall of Man getting a 9.1 from IGN.

I should point out that the X360 is a year into it's lifecycle, and a 9.1 isn't exactly an "omg ultimate mega games" score.

Also, as it's been said many times before, the content of the review outweighs the number at the end. I read the Vice City Stories review on ign/gamespot, and despite the number at the end being big, I'm definitely not picking it up.

SiN

[Redwall]

And 3D platformer games have been around since '96, yet we still hold Psychonauts in high regard.

Not because of its gameplay...

[SpiderMonkey]

And 3D platformer games have been around since '96, yet we still hold Psychonauts in high regard.

I don't understand what everyone is getting so angry about. GoW seems like a solid, polished game with a couple of innovative ideas. It also happens to have a rather uninspired art-style.

True, but Tim Schafer didn't declare an intent to "invent the platformer genre", whereas CliffyB made that declaration about his 'new' "cover-shooter" concept. I find the hype offensive because 3 months ago, the same people who are circle-jerking over this game, were writing articles and posting on message boards/blogs, moaning about how there is no innovation or originality in games and devs just make the graphics prettier with the same gameplay and story clichés, and how they want more from their games. And in 6 months time when they've forgotten this game, they will be tapping the same shit into their keyboards. I'm sure it's a good game, though I do wonder whether it's a great one. It's the inconsistency and hypocrisy that busts my balls.

Also, as it's been said many times before, the content of the review outweighs the number at the end.

Isn't this the very core of the issue? Why can't scores and review content be consistent? I think journalists do have integrity for the most part. I just think they have none when the huge hype trains come calling into town. I don't think an editor for something like IGN would have the courage to give, to use the current example, GoW a 7 if he really felt that was what it deserved. It's like taking a piss in someone's beer, in terms of how he would be treating his readers. And I don't think the person writing the review is able enough to separate themselves from the hype to write something appropriately impartial.

There are plenty of examples of this happening from the past, where people have given utterly retarded scores to mediocre, over hyped games. You can't deny the phenomenon exists. You only need to go back a year and see the scores given to stuff like PD0. I'm just trying to figure out the reasons for it.

[SiN]

True, but Tim Schafer didn't declare an intent to "invent the platformer genre", whereas CliffyB made that declaration about his 'new' "cover-shooter" concept.

Ahh, fair game. I haven't followed the game at all, so I wasn't sure what was being said about it. To be honest, Cliffy saying it's a "new" concept isn't *too* far off the mark. AFAIK, there was kill.switch that did this before, but apart from that I haven't heard of too many FPSs/TPSs using this mechanic. So yeah, it isn't brand new or anything, but for most people, it might as well be.

God, I can't believe I'm defending Epic here ... I really don't like them! :)

I find the hype offensive because 3 months ago, the same people who are circle-jerking over this game, were writing articles and posting on message boards/blogs, moaning about how there is no innovation or originality in games and devs just make the graphics prettier with the same gameplay and story clichés, and how they want more from their games. And in 6 months time when they've forgotten this game, they will be tapping the same shit into their keyboards. I'm sure it's a good game, though I do wonder whether it's a great one. It's the inconsistency and hypocrisy that busts my balls.

But then how does one score a great game that doesn't do something radically different? I mean, it's still a great game right?

This is the issue I had with Vice City Stories. Big 8.0+ numbers for the reviews. As a GTA fan, this means I should buy it. But having read the reviews, I decided against it, because all they said was, "VCS is LCS will all the same bloody flaws but set in Vice City. We should mark it down, but it's GTA, we love GTA!". And frankly, I've had enough. I've played every GTA game in existance, and I can't play the same game again.

So how do they rate VCS using numbers? I've had enough of it, but many people haven't. Do they mark it down because it doesn't do anything new, or leave it relatively high, because it still has that "winning" GTA formula?

There are plenty of examples of this happening from the past, where people have given utterly retarded scores to mediocre, over hyped games. You can't deny the phenomenon exists. You only need to go back a year and see the scores given to stuff like PD0. I'm just trying to figure out the reasons for it.

You know what, that's a very good point. I remember reading gamespots PD0 review and wondering how the hell it got a 9.0+. I think it has to do with, like you said, the ability to be completely impartial. Which is quite difficult to do. Admit it, you get over excited when you've got a new console, on a shiny new TV, and some stunning graphics. The issue I think is that gamespot and such need to rush these reviews out. There's no time for hindsight.

Ever play a game for a week, and think it's the greatest game ever, only to deem the game terrible the following week? I think thats the issue.

SiN

[Roderick]

Yes, that's a problem. A good reviewer has to hone these skills though, prick through the initial wow-factor and hype, but it'll always be a problem.

For hindsight, we've got Idle Thumbs. Hind-hind-hindsight.

[DanJW]

Ahh, fair game. I haven't followed the game at all, so I wasn't sure what was being said about it. To be honest, Cliffy saying it's a "new" concept isn't *too* far off the mark. AFAIK, there was kill.switch that did this before, but apart from that I haven't heard of too many FPSs/TPSs using this mechanic. So yeah, it isn't brand new or anything, but for most people, it might as well be.

Red Dead Revolver had an identical mechanic also

[EvilDonut]

Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter has the same cover mechanism. Gears has a few more options when you're in cover, but the core of it is exactly the same. Same thing with the A-button being used for all sorts of context sensitive commands.

GRAW has that squad mate revive thing as well.

Gears is MUCH more forgiving, though. You can take a lot of damage (and heal fully by staying out of fire, ala Call of Duty 2), and your squadmates can't really die permanently.

The gameplay is hardly original. But it is fun, and that's what counts.

[lobotomy42]

I don't understand what everyone is getting so angry about. GoW seems like a solid, polished game with a couple of innovative ideas. It also happens to have a rather uninspired art-style.

I wasn't really complaining about the game itself, as much as the seemingly inflated scores it's been getting. I mean, a perfect 10 from 1up? That means, literally, that no game EVER will be better than Gears of War. It is either the best game that has ever been or will ever be created, or it is equal to the game that is. Doesn't that seem a bit extreme?

[lobotomy42]

Never mind, apparently 1up is just completely unreliable anyway. Here is its list of "perfect 10" games:

Medieval: Total War

WWE WrestleMania XIX

The Sims: Unleashed

Grand Theft Auto Double Pack

Freedom Force vs. the Third Reich

Splinter Cell Chaos Theory

The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay -- Developer's Cut

Silent Hunter III

Bully

Final Fantasy X

Grand Theft Auto III

NBA 2K2

Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2004

BookWorm Deluxe

Decisive Battles of World War II: Korsun Pocket

Madden NFL 2003

Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

Company of Heroes

Gears of War

Ninja Gaiden Black

I guess, when push comes to shove, I must admit that Gears of War is probably at least as good as Madden NFL 2003. Probably, Gears is even better than Madden, so it rightly deserves a 10. My bad.

[brkl]

I wasn't really complaining about the game itself, as much as the seemingly inflated scores it's been getting. I mean, a perfect 10 from 1up? That means, literally, that no game EVER will be better than Gears of War. It is either the best game that has ever been or will ever be created, or it is equal to the game that is. Doesn't that seem a bit extreme?

I can't really agree with that. I'd say a perfect score would say that one couldn't make a significantly better game the way the games industry is now, technologically and otherwise.

[SpiderMonkey]

I can't really agree with that. I'd say a perfect score would say that one couldn't make a significantly better game the way the games industry is now, technologically and otherwise.

Yeah I do believe there is an article on the nature of what it means for a game to be "perfect", somewhere on this very site, from the distant past?

[Noyb]

Anyone own the game and care to refute me?

I'm waiting for someone to refute you on "Sam and Max Hit the Road :tdown:"

[lobotomy42]

I'm waiting for someone to refute you on "Sam and Max Hit the Road :tdown:"

Heheh. I actually just added that to my sig last night. It's the first LucasArts adventure game that I haven't loved. It's not that I hate the game, I was just kinda disappointed with it. There wasn't enough plot to make me feel invested in the characters, and the jokes alone weren't hilarious enough to compel me to continue playing. I ended up finishing out sheer inertia. (And a desire to move on to "Touch Detective," which I'm loving.)

[lobotomy42]

You know, there's a point when figuring out whether this or that game is really this or that number misses the point. Especially when the assumption is that a game deserves a single, absolute score that applies for everybody.

Ok, granted, numeric scores are stupid and meaningless, yadda yadda yadda, but the text of the review itself essentially said "This game is flawed but I don't care it's awesome so it's perfect!" The 1up review was more of an example of my complaint (overhype) than the complaint itself. (If that makes any sense.)

Anyway, I again state that I haven't played the game and so this could all just be my little anti-macho-marine bias flaring up. I will officially stop whining (for real) now.