Gears of War 3

[Gwardinen]

There didn't appear to be a thread for this game, but I've not actually started it for the purpose of discussing it per se (feel free to do so, though). Microsoft has sent out extra Gears of War 3 beta codes to those of us who were in the beta anyway, so I have a spare code and it's possible there are other Thumbs that do as well.

If you have any interested in receiving this code, PM me. It expires on 15th May (Sunday).

[Sno]

So it's been out for a while now, and i would say that Gears of War 3 is pretty incredible.

I wasn't really sure what to be expecting, i wasn't particularly hot on Gears 2 since it had ended up being a lot more linear than the first game was, a lot more focused on these kind of cinematic set-pieces. (Bit by that CoD-bug, maybe.) The first few levels of Gears 3 had me worried, the game seemed to almost play itself, but that lets up pretty quickly. Gears 3 seems to try and keep kind of the cinematic intensity of the second game, but opens things up even wider than it was in the first game. Tons of branching paths through environments, a lot of just really enormous combat spaces for interesting and dynamic gameplay.

I really fucking loved it, great game. Best campaign experience in the series, no question. It was long too, my playthrough on the hardcore difficulty had logged in around 18 hours according to an in-game clock. Maybe a couple of those are the game idling? That sounds about right, but it's still probably nearly twice as long as either of the first two.

There's a few pretty blah boss encounters, but that's proven fairly typical for the series. Vehicle sequences are back too, but there are far fewer of them than there were in the second game, at least. The game is also probably the easiest in the series, with how forgiving the player revives end up being. You can kind of just clumsily and recklessly brute force through some of the tougher spots.

Game is gorgeous.

I maintain that the Unreal 3 engine is really, really awful at rendering naturalistic environments, and i think that holds true for Gears 3, but the industrial/urban locations are simply the best looking visuals on the 360. The new lighting system they have in place is also just really stunning, though the dynamic water effects from 2 are gone, and it seems like a fairly glaring omission in some spots.

I have also been playing a fair bit of versus and horde, and have been having a great time outside of occasional match-making/disconnect woes. I'm probably going to stick with it for a while if it doesn't go horribly awry. I'm not willing to pass judgement on the multiplayer right now, with the way both of the first two games ended up becoming increasingly less playable as time went on. (2, in particular, was just such a technical disaster.)

People are already complaining about the shotguns, naturally.

I think it's a great game though, CliffyB did good.

[JonCole]

I pretty much agree with everything Sno had to say about Gears 3, honestly. There's no question in my mind that the game is both the ending the series deserved and the near-perfect iterative point of all the elements core to the gameplay.

I really fucking loved it, great game. Best campaign experience in the series, no question. It was long too, my playthrough on the hardcore difficulty had logged in around 18 hours according to an in-game clock. Maybe a couple of those are the game idling? That sounds about right, but it's still probably nearly twice as long as either of the first two.

My argumentative ass side automatically read this as "It was too long", but you never seemed to suggest that this was negative. In my opinion, the length is one of the best parts of the game. It gave them plenty of time to address pretty much any loose end out there, especially those which were introduced in the novels associated with the series. I was really hoping there would be a nod to guys like me who took the time to read the surprisingly good novels, and there were frankly a handful. I'm curious as to how a person who didn't read the books would react to

going to Anvil Gate to retrieve the encoded data disc, both elements of which were only given significance in the books. Or even the brief and largely unexplained character connections to Sam and Bernie.

Also, the game has great checkpointing and plenty of breaking points that make putting down/picking up the game at almost any time natural.

There's a few pretty blah boss encounters, but that's proven fairly typical for the series. Vehicle sequences are back too, but there are far fewer of them than there were in the second game, at least. The game is also probably the easiest in the series, with how forgiving the player revives end up being. You can kind of just clumsily and recklessly brute force through some of the tougher spots.

I can't disagree too much, but I would like to add that the bosses are kinda the anti-DXHR bosses, in that they at least have a place both narratively and mechanically in the storyline. I don't feel like Epic went particularly out of their way to think up infeasible enemies, more like bosses who you might not have thought of yourself but give you that "oh yeah, that's what happens when you add lambent to X, Y, or Z".

People are already complaining about the shotguns, naturally.

Yeah, fuck those guys. Dedicated servers seems to have cleared any "host advantage" issues, meaning everyone can be dicks with shotguns. Just like you have to realize the best way to exploit killstreaks in Call of Duty or whatever, you need to figure out how to best use shotguns.

[Sno]

My argumentative ass side automatically read this as "It was too long", but you never seemed to suggest that this was negative. In my opinion, the length is one of the best parts of the game. It gave them plenty of time to address pretty much any loose end out there, especially those which were introduced in the novels associated with the series. I was really hoping there would be a nod to guys like me who took the time to read the surprisingly good novels, and there were frankly a handful. I'm curious as to how a person who didn't read the books would react to

going to Anvil Gate to retrieve the encoded data disc, both elements of which were only given significance in the books. Or even the brief and largely unexplained character connections to Sam and Bernie.

I do feel there is a place for shorter games, and i don't think something being longer is instantly a good thing.

In a general sense though, more is better, right? I definitely feel that Gears 3 is making good on having a longer campaign. It never settled into feeling like i was just going through the paces, nearly every scenario they throw at you feels worthwhile and justified. I really enjoyed playing through it, and i'm glad it is as long as it is.

As for the novel/comic tie-ins, speaking as somebody who has played a lot of the games but touched nothing else, i came away feeling that the story still makes a good deal of sense. They state clearly that the game is set several years after the last one, so the sudden introduction of several new major characters and plot elements wasn't that jarring. I think they also kind of retroactively make good on the frequently incoherent narratives of the first two games. They don't answer everything, but the answers you do get are satisfying. If you care about the fiction at all, it's a good conclusion.

Really, the story is actually kind of one of the strong points. I mean, hey that stuff they do with Cole earlier in the game, that was actually kind of affecting.

Of course, all that really matters is that the third Carmine lives! Fuck yeah!

[twmac]

Interesting. Maybe the game opens up after Chapter 3?

I am feeling pretty awkward about the game at the moment. I think it does some really interesting things in the beginning but soon becomes a funnel into set piece after set-piece.

I also disagree completely, one of the things that impressed me so much about Gears 2 was that, after the tunnels of Gears of War 1 they managed to introduce a lot of arena battles with a lot of opportunity for creativity.

Gears 3 has, so far gone in the opposite direction. The set pieces are stunning but a few of them feel a great deal more linear than Gears' 2 (the second had some turret sequences but at least it felt like you could die and that you really did need to kill those guys).

Not saying that I am not enjoying Gears 3 but I am struggling a lot as I do not like a lot of moments in here where I am constantly being shoved (Half Life 2 style) somewhere else even if I want to or not and the game producing moments where I can't kill something or can't go somewhere until the game says I can is really annoying.

[Sno]

I'm very confused by your comments, and all i can really imagine is that you're not far enough into the game yet. You say you're only up to chapter 3 of the first act? So you've only seen the stuff on the ship so far? That would explain it then, i was feeling similarly lukewarm at first. You've barely even started.

I do so disagree about Gears of War 2 though.

Personally, i don't like one-off setpieces. I don't want special conditions being drawn up for each encounter, i want the core mechanics to be thoroughly explored in the ways they deserve. I think good design is taking what you've built your game around and making players discover interesting things inside of that existing framework.

Gears 2 was not that game, it does not have enough faith in its own design.

One level you're driving a tank, another level you're playing a bad panzer dragoon rip-off. Then you're finally playing the game you want to play and what it does is put you in a small ten meter square while enemies pop-up randomly all around you, and tactical ideas about flanking and cover are just gone. Then you ride a Brumak. Then a turret sequence. Then it's poorly lit tunnels for a while until you fight an awful QTE boss. (No, i don't have that all in order, i know... Also, there should be the worm thing and thrilling co-op box-carrying action in there somewhere.)

In broader terms of what have been bad second outings in trilogies, i don't think Gears 2 is among the worst, but what it offers is something i didn't enjoy as much as Gears 1 or Gears 3. Gears of War 3 might just have you roaming through corridors again, but they're large, interesting, and well-designed spaces that encourage the kind of creative gameplay that i believe was sorely missing from the parts of Gears of War 2 that actually let you get around to chainsawing dudes.

Edit: This all makes it sound like i really hate Gears 2, i don't.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Sno

[twmac]

Sorry, that is me getting confused with Chapter and Act 3. I am past most of Act 3 and have found it more clositered than 2.

You nailed every part of the game where the game deviated from its arena battles. I'll not defend the panzer dragoon section but the bits in the tank and Brumak were great as, you know, you were drivng it unlike all the moments in Gears 3 so far where you are strapped into the rollercoaster with not even the slightest illusion of freedom.

I liked Gears of War 2 from the opening in the hospital where one of you can up while the other can go down (or not at all if they so choose), Gears 2 was full of moments with great chances to breathe. The armoured centipede that you use for mobile cover was inspired.

So far in Gears 3 I have witnessed a protracted tour through a boat, followed by a forced battle that had some nice verticality that was instantly stymied by a section ripped off from Lost Planet 2 but without the arena feel of LP2 so, although very diverting there was this niggling feeling like I didn't really need to be there for the game to complete this section for me.

This was followed by another protracted walk through a town where Cole is being weird. Followed by a marginally fun multi tier fight that is immediately turned into yet another drawn out interactive cutscene briefly followed by a quick time event dressed up as something else. Then some fun bits that turns into a heavily scripted set piece (oh really, no matter how many times I head shot those guys they are just going to infinitely respawn until I trigger a cutscene?).

Then a scene in which you can pretty much sit in a jeep and watch the spectacle (you couldn't do that in gears 2's two rail shooter sections) and not really shoot. This is followed by yet another protracted walk through a village where I am prompted to press X quite a bit but with no real danger. Then a little bit of fighting and then some gary john jules's instrumental version of Mad World.

There are fun bits in there (I don't want to mention them for fear of spoilers), and I have deliberately picked out the worst parts of Gears of War 3 to point out my distaste in these CODified sections.

It makes it sound like I am hating Gears of War 3 so far, I am not. I just find that its scripted set pieces, although more impressive to look at, are far less interactive than previous instalments.

I haven't had any moments like carrying the bomb where it required proper Co-Op for player 1 and 2 to carry it, nor have I had any moments where the game took its limited verbs and did something interesting with them, like sneaking through the installation's security. Everytime I have arrived at an arena fight it has either been over far too quickly or it is deliberately scripted so that you really aren't doing anything but drawing a dot on a locust and waiting for the game to tell you to move, SEGA help you if you so much as dawdle too, as the game will more often than not kill you.

Anyway, sorry if this comes off as a little blunt but you asked me to clarify myself and I felt that Gears 2 was my favourite campaign so far. Gears of War 3 does do some really good work with the settings, the pallette, and when it does give you some freedom it sings. However its lows have been the worst of the series as they exemplify the COD style of all boom with no bite.

[JonCole]

Well yeah, you picked out four or five events amidst 8-9 hours of gameplay. Not a particularly depressing amount of cutscenes in the context of so much to offer. I also can't help but notice that you completely glazed over essentially all of Act 2, which had a diverse range of gameplay environments with branching paths and plenty of new, challenging enemy types and scenarios -

-The beginning of the Wasteland section, where you dispatch guards in small groups quickly so they don't sound the alarms

-The trenches, where you have to dodge mortar shells and flank fortified groups of enemies with turrets

-The ticker manufacturing plant, where you could fire at tickers suspended on a pulley system to drop them on top of enemies behind cover

-The top of the Locust installation, where you fight Theron guards that drop off of a gas barge

Those were all off the top of my head, with undoubtedly more fun encounters just in that act. My point is, while I do recognize that there were some cutscenes or even in-game scenes where you passively witness what's happening around you, they represent such a minimal segment of the game that it's hard to accept that they spoil your experience so heavily. At the very least, the setpieces in GoW3 tend to have a much greater narrative reason or at least mechanically rich reason to exist.

[Sno]

You nailed every part of the game where the game deviated from its arena battles. I'll not defend the panzer dragoon section but the bits in the tank and Brumak were great as, you know, you were drivng it unlike all the moments in Gears 3 so far where you are strapped into the rollercoaster with not even the slightest illusion of freedom.

We are definitely going to have to disagree on this, because all the time Gears 2 spends engineering scenarios to take me out of the game i am there to play is absolutely the worst thing about that game. I do not think the brumak or tank sequences are enjoyable in that game, and they are even less so when played on higher difficulties because it becomes painfully evident that those mechanics have not been tuned to the same degree that the rest of the game has.

This was followed by another protracted walk through a town where Cole is being weird. Followed by a marginally fun multi tier fight that is immediately turned into yet another drawn out interactive cutscene briefly followed by a quick time event dressed up as something else.

"a quick time event dressed up as something else"

Huh?

There are fun bits in there (I don't want to mention them for fear of spoilers), and I have deliberately picked out the worst parts of Gears of War 3 to point out my distaste in these CODified sections.

It makes it sound like I am hating Gears of War 3 so far, I am not. I just find that its scripted set pieces, although more impressive to look at, are far less interactive than previous instalments.

I don't know man, just... I think we're just going to keep pulling out examples from both of these games to justify our points of view, there's a lot of weird scenarios in all of those games.

I've played through all the Gears games multiple times now, and Gears 3 does not strike me in any was as being more "scripted" than 2. So much of 3 is spent in huge multiple-level spaces with numerous flanking options. The AI acts unpredictably, interesting gameplay is happening constantly. Reload a battle, play through it again, it'll play out in a completely different fashion. That is the mark of good shooter design imo. (And the antithesis of most CoD design.)

Gears of War 2 relied much more on distance combat, guys lined up parallel to eachother on opposite sides of a room shooting at each other from cover. I remember spending most of the underground sections of 2 with a sniper rifle in hand, never needing to think tactically about the encounters, never being forced to get close enough for the combat to become risky or particularly engaging.

That would be the crux of my argument, right there. I think the campaign in 3 does a great job presenting spaces that make for interesting combat.

I haven't had any moments like carrying the bomb where it required proper Co-Op for player 1 and 2 to carry it

There is an analogue for that in Gears 3, they've taken that idea and built a weapon around it. It only appears once or twice in the solo game, but you'll run across it fairly frequently as an objective reward in Horde. They've taken a one-off element and made it something that integrates more completely into the game.

Then some fun bits that turns into a heavily scripted set piece (oh really, no matter how many times I head shot those guys they are just going to infinitely respawn until I trigger a cutscene?).

Everytime I have arrived at an arena fight it has either been over far too quickly or it is deliberately scripted so that you really aren't doing anything but drawing a dot on a locust and waiting for the game to tell you to move, SEGA help you if you so much as dawdle too, as the game will more often than not kill you.

Just... I think you're misreading the game if you feel like this. There generally aren't infinite respawns or enforced momentum. There are exceptions of course, it's a long game with a lot of scenarios to truck through, but by and large it lets the player control the engagements. I mean, and are you saying Gears of War 2 didn't do this? Because it did, quite frequently.

Anyway, sorry if this comes off as a little blunt but you asked me to clarify myself and I felt that Gears 2 was my favourite campaign so far. Gears of War 3 does do some really good work with the settings, the pallette, and when it does give you some freedom it sings. However its lows have been the worst of the series as they exemplify the COD style of all boom with no bite.

Egh, alright, whatever. Disagreements are allowed, absolutely. We've both been pretty blunt, but i hope this doesn't turn heated, there's no reason for that.

What difficulty have you been playing on?

[Noyb]

I do not think the brumak or tank sequences are enjoyable in that game, and they are even less so when played on higher difficulties because it becomes painfully evident that those mechanics have not been tuned to the same degree that the rest of the game has.

The tank was awful in Gears 2, especially when crossing that iced-over lake. So much trial and error. I plummeted to my death many times after naturally stopping safely next to an edge, but forgetting the tank had no way of backing up cleanly.

[twmac]

Gears of War 2 relied much more on distance combat, guys lined up parallel to eachother on opposite sides of a room shooting at each other from cover. I remember spending most of the underground sections of 2 with a sniper rifle in hand, never needing to think tactically about the encounters, never being forced to get close enough for the combat to become risky or particularly engaging.

Funnily enough that is exactly how I played both Gears 2 and 3, that is generally how I play any game with a good sniper rifle in it. I will agree that Gears 3 has forced my hand a couple of times but I already have 'snipe guy doing roadie run award' about 20 odd times as they tend to rush me and get popped in the head again.

There is an analogue for that in Gears 3, they've taken that idea and built a weapon around it. It only appears once or twice in the solo game, but you'll run across it fairly frequently as an objective reward in Horde. They've taken a one-off element and made it something that integrates more completely into the game.

Yeah those two moments were utterly flash in the pan, disappeared before I even noticed they were there and, it might be because I was only playing this in 2 player Co-Op so the invincible AI teammate added no tension to the scenario.

"a quick time event dressed up as something else"

Huh?

The bit where Cole Train runs through the stadium to plant the bomb

Just... I think you're misreading the game if you feel like this. There generally aren't infinite respawns or enforced momentum. There are exceptions of course, it's a long game with a lot of scenarios to truck through, but by and large it lets the player control the engagements. I mean, and are you saying Gears of War 2 didn't do this? Because it did, quite frequently.

I am not saying that at all, just that there are no scenarios that stick in my mind that did it didn't kill me if I so much as idled for bit, or present me with infinitely spawning enemies nor have a bit with a guy literally telling me 'I can't do that right now' as the game was waiting for my Co-Op teammate to catch up. I played Gears 2 on both Normal and Hardcore and I loved how difficult those on-rails sections were, it justified them being there as you could and would die, unlike similar sections in Gears 3.

@JonCole

All of those moments you mentioned were over before I could remember them, again, it was a case of me lining up a few shots and then moving on. The first bit you mentioned was especially dull for me as that was just more of what I normally do but with all of the challenge removed.

Also, I am not talking about the actual cutscenes, I am talking about all the sections where you just walk along not really doing anything. I think they are supposed to be setting a mood but for me, having never really cared about the mood of Gears, they just play out like dull cutscenes with minimal interactivity.

Anyway, these comments have definitely been food for thought and don't worry Sno it has been nice to debate these points especially as I think we are both struggling to see each other's perspective (for once). It also strikes me that I might just be playing the game wrong (just using the sniper rifle all the time).

Is it bad that I love/hate what they did with Horde mode?

EDIT: Also, again, please don't take this the wrong way. Overall I am enjoying the campaign a good deal and I can't wait to finish it. However, I am just not enjoying it as much as Gears 2.

Edited September 28, 2011 by twmac

[Sno]

I am not saying that at all, just that there are no scenarios that stick in my mind that did it didn't kill me if I so much as idled for bit, or present me with infinitely spawning enemies nor have a bit with a guy literally telling me 'I can't do that right now' as the game was waiting for my Co-Op teammate to catch up.

I can only think of two or three spots in the game where you are potentially killed for idling and maybe only three or four spots with infinitely respawning enemies, so again... I dunno.

All of those moments you mentioned were over before I could remember them, again, it was a case of me lining up a few shots and then moving on. The first bit you mentioned was especially dull for me as that was just more of what I normally do but with all of the challenge removed.

Playing the game myself, i had the thought that they've made the AI squadmates generally much tougher and more aggressive, probably to compensate for the game being balanced for four live players. If you're just hanging back with a snipe, they might be finishing these battles almost before you get to them. (God, they're still so dumb though, stop throwing smoke grenades!)

I'd normally say bumping up the difficulty might make for a more interesting experience, but i don't know if that would have any meaningful impact with the way Gears 2 and Gears 3 handle difficulty levels as player-specific handicaps. (It's unfortunate that they've made the mutators such an ordeal to unlock.)

It also strikes me that I might just be playing the game wrong (just using the sniper rifle all the time).

I am surprised that you would be able to, the game gives you far, far less ammo for the snipe than in either of the first two games.

Is it bad that I love/hate what they did with Horde mode?

I think it's maybe a bit unfortunate they don't have a classic horde mode option in there somewhere, what they've basically ended up with is a way crazier version of CoD Zombies. Epic is still really good at survival modes though, there's a great structure to things, the dynamic wave composition with the predictable peaks and valleys. Having a Brumak randomly appear during a boss wave is pretty thrilling, though it's usually the Berserker variants that end up killing everybody.

[JonCole]

I'd normally say bumping up the difficulty might make for a more interesting experience, but i don't know if that would have any meaningful impact with the way Gears 2 and Gears 3 handle difficulty levels as player-specific handicaps. (It's unfortunate that they've made the mutators such an ordeal to unlock.)

This is actually one of the worst things about Gears 3, in my opinion. It does a pretty poor job of signaling what difficulty is most appropriate for the player... I honestly think that 90% of the people who have any interest in Gears-type games probably would benefit from overlooking Normal and going straight to Hardcore. Normal just feels way too easy, which is odd because Hardcore was far more challenging in previous games. Also, the mutator problem is certainly annoying... one of the most interesting ways to differentiate multiplayer/arcade mode is locked unless you put a significant period of time into the game.

I am surprised that you would be able to, the game gives you far, far less ammo for the snipe than in either of the first two games.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking. There don't seem to be enough Longshots to accomodate a snipe-only experience, especially since they changed the ammo crates to only supply starter weapons and pistols.

I think it's maybe a bit unfortunate they don't have a classic horde mode option in there somewhere, what they've basically ended up with is a way crazier version of CoD Zombies. Epic is still really good at survival modes though, there's a great structure to things, the dynamic wave composition with the predictable peaks and valleys. Having a Brumak randomly appear during a boss wave is pretty thrilling, though it's usually the Berserker variants that end up killing everybody.

I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see them reintroduce original Horde in DLC. That said, I think the new mode is a huge improvement. Again, it puts a lot of weight in playing the game frequently, but I think the reward outweighs the risk of alienating beginners. I love that my time directly results in a higher chance of winning, whether it's through better fencing, exploding decoys, or accurate turrets.

[Sno]

That said, I think the new mode is a huge improvement. Again, it puts a lot of weight in playing the game frequently, but I think the reward outweighs the risk of alienating beginners. I love that my time directly results in a higher chance of winning, whether it's through better fencing, exploding decoys, or accurate turrets.

As somebody who wants to have from games a level playing field for competitive multiplayer, i respect that they've kept such leveling mechanics to a co-operative mode. With how much pressure there seems to be to work progression systems into online shooters as a means to encourage players to stick with games for longer periods of time, it seems like competitively balanced online shooters are becoming increasingly rare.

[twmac]

You'd be surprised one shotting everything will get you with 8-15 shots a level. I did switch out occasionally but not enough for me to be going 'when do I get my sniper back?'. At those points I usually resort to the Hammershot and use that at long range with a decent active reload it still pops heads.

I really liked that the ammo crates only supplied basic ammo, it makes you appreciate how precious your shots really are, that is definitely a step in the right direction where sometimes I would get lazy.

As for the Love/hate thing with the new Horde mode, I am content with the new additions, there are just moments where I am literally yelling at the screen 'FUCK YOU, how the fuck am I supposed to kill those guys?'. With a well coordinated team though, the thing purrs.

The idle killing in Gears 2, that made contextual sense, you are being chased by something inside the belly of a beast or a building is collapsing. In Gears 3 there have been 2 moments where it literally kills you without any proper context for why, you'll be holding your own against a huge number of enemies and then the game will get tired and gib you.

I do not remember any blatant infinite spawns but the one that got me straight away was

the bit where you fall back inside the base three times and then you have to use the Last Resort cannister

me and my team mate held them off forever as there is unlimited ammo with the game shouting at us to what we were supposed to do. We couldn't quite figure it out so kept on killing the waves. Then I left him to it, wandered around for a bit then spotted the trigger, shot it and felt a little disappointed.

[Sno]

As for the Love/hate thing with the new Horde mode, I am content with the new additions, there are just moments where I am literally yelling at the screen 'FUCK YOU, how the fuck am I supposed to kill those guys?'. With a well coordinated team though, the thing purrs.

I can definitely understand, i've been doing a lot of random matches and just fucking nobody knows how to deal with the armored enemies.

God help you if you have to fight an old-school non-lambent Berserker in a boss wave and the only way you have left to harm it is to coordinate fire by having somebody weaken it with the flamethrower while other squaddies hammer on it with other weapons. Best case scenario is that three people instantly die, and two are left to slowly grind away its health for a half hour. (Before running out of ammo and cash and dying anyways.)

The idle killing in Gears 2, that made contextual sense, you are being chased by something inside the belly of a beast or a building is collapsing. In Gears 3 there have been 2 moments where it literally kills you without any proper context for why, you'll be holding your own against a huge number of enemies and then the game will get tired and gib you.

I've played through the game twice now, and was never actually killed for dawdling, so i really just can't say anything on this. There were a few spots i suspected that the game would kill me if i stopped moving, so in those spots i kept moving. The rest of the time, i moved at my own pace. I never ran into problems.

I do not remember any blatant infinite spawns but the one that got me straight away was

the bit where you fall back inside the base three times and then you have to use the Last Resort cannister

me and my team mate held them off forever as there is unlimited ammo with the game shouting at us to what we were supposed to do. We couldn't quite figure it out so kept on killing the waves. Then I left him to it, wandered around for a bit then spotted the trigger, shot it and felt a little disappointed.

I didn't really like that part either, to be fair.

[JonCole]

Oh yeah, the regular Locust Berserkers are easily the worst. Especially on later waves, when they throw... THREE of the fuckers at you along with like 10 grinders and 10 maulers.

That said, I've found that with a good team at my back, Horde is definitely doable. In addition, knowing when to abandon my fortress and keep mobile is a very valuable skill.

[Sno]

I think they could have probably done a better job educating players on how to deal with the many new armored types of enemies. I mean, given how much it's the armored enemies that end up stream-rolling everybody in Horde.

Armored Kantus, you hear Dom yell at you "USE EXPLOSIVES" or something during the campaign. Basically any kind of indirect or melee damage will bring them down, not a big deal, but people still waste bullets.

Lambent Berserkers have these giant obvious weak points, but people generally don't seem too sure how to go about efficiently bringing them down. (Get them to run at you, take your shots, dive out of the way. You'll never hit that weak point if they're not facing you.)

But then regular Berserkers show up in horde and most players just have no idea what to do. Completely new mechanisms for killing them are in place, frequently with no Hammer of Dawn in sight. I haven't fought them that much, so maybe i've just been really lucky executing improper strategies, but fire seems to weaken their armor so other weapons can harm them. So it takes coordinated fire from multiple people who understand what is going on, which just does not ever happen in random matches.

The Serapedes and the baby Corpsers generally aren't as much of an issue.

Edit: You know, i've begun feeling that games like Halo and Gears could use some kind of higher-level tutorialization just in general, not just how things work, but when you use them and what you use them for. These games are way more complicated than people give them credit for, and it's really stunning just how bad people are at them. Especially with Gears, it's obvious that a lot of people really, really struggle with the mechanics and the interplay between the weapons and everything. (The shotguns should not be an issue in this game, but people will just continue to always leave their cover to try and bull rush me with the chainsaw, and so i will continue to carry the sawed-off. It's not like the chainsaw is underpowered either, people just don't know when to use it.)

Edited September 29, 2011 by Sno

[toblix]

Just finished this. Fun stuff, with some varied levels and interesting combat (I don't remember the other two games having enemies that can't just be shot dead). I haven't really paid attention to the overarching story in these games; the broness and cliché dialogue makes it hard for me to take it seriously, so I end up being "along for the ride", which is fine.

The retro lancer was terrible.