Giantbomb: The campaign has aged pretty poorly and the graphical updates to the campaign side of Gears of War feel half-baked, so unless you're really excited for the competitive part of Gears of War, there's nothing for you here.
now that's just absurd ...
Based on what the reviewer said it seems it may not be COMPLETELY. I guess the remaster focused on the graphics and not the AI :/ I usually trust Giantbomb but this time Im going to buy the game or at least rent it to get the campaign in.
I just played for hours and I can tell you that this game feels brand new and that is rare for a 9 year old game to make me feel that way.
It's a remaster, not a remake. Gears of War while it can, was never intended to be played with the AI. It was and still is meant to be played cooperatively. Complaining about the AI is silly! For God's sake, your AI companions can't even revive you!
I'm all Geared out I'm afraid. Even the new one does nothing for me let alone this Remaster. I think the formula got stale at the end of the third game, although Horde and Beast modes were great. This and the Gamespot reviews are in the minority however.
The review is well written and fair. It's simply an opinion. This reviewer rated it on their enjoyment, the same as reviewers who rated it 9+ did so on their enjoyment. Neither is right or wrong, nor is one more correct than the other. Different people, different opinions. N4G users should know this all too well with the amount of 'opinions' passed of as fact around here, that's hypocritical. I don't expect the fanboys/trolls to understand but just remember, Giant Bomb giving this a 2/5 does NOT change YOUR enjoyment of the game. If it does, that's your own issue. I am loving Until Dawn, easily a 9 so far for me, I saw one reviewer gave it a 4 or 5. Is he more correct than me? NOPE. Am I more correct than him? HELL NOPE!!! Does that low review take ANY enjoyment away from my first play through? NOPE. Simply differing opinions with and arbitrary number tacked on.
3:1 disagree rating and no replies....... I know it's N4G but come on, I love a good conversation where I can be impartial while voicing my simpleton opinion. It's easier to blindly disagree than discuss in a mature manner.
AI? AI?????????? AIAIAIAIA????????? WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GIANTBOMB YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT THE AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII? wooooooooooooow
nice to see some honest reviews for pseudo-quality games
The AI? who cares. Gears 1 is basically a MP only game... Anyone who buys this for SP is 100% stupid.
Yeah and it's funny that GiantBomb and Gamespot are the only sites that gave it a bad review. lol!! I can understand some of his points of view, but a 40 score for this game is just ridiculous. Most of the reviews for this game are very positive, so I would take this review and GS with a grain of salt. I already got my copy of the game and will be installing it tonight so I can play it in the morning.
Gamespot's 7 out of 10 is not a bad review. A 7 from them is good.
A 7 on any scale is a GOOD score
@meganick & Darkwatchman I mean a score lower then all the other reviewers who reviewed the game. I completely agree with you both. Yes a 7 score isn't bad at all, but it's not an 8 or 9 score that everyone would expect from this games. The game is definitely better then a 40 score, that's for sure.
So many disagrees. Can those that think the game is only worth a 2/5 please state why they feel that is? A 2/5 would suggest to me the game is a mess, broken, damn near unplayable and not worth its asking price. A 2/5 for this game smacks of opinion and not an objective review.
So all the changed and improvements they made feel half baked but they didn't feel that way about God of Wars simple up rez. That's ridiculous.
Dan Ryckert reviewed God of War. Jeff Gerstmann reviewed Gears. Different people, different opinions. And Jeff hates God of War so if he had reviewed that remaster it certainly would have gotten a lower score.
I would only agree with your statement about God of War if every game aged exactly the same... but unfortunately some games age much worse than others. One of the most beloved games ever, FF7, hasn't aged very well at all. It's ridiculous to think every game will age well. And TBH Giantbomb is usually pretty tough when it comes to reviews.
@its_JEFF How has FF7 not aged well? Because the graffix aren't at "Uncharted" levels of fidelity? The game plays as well as ever.
We're reaching a pretty logical conclusion here. GB does rely on its reviewers to do their own thing with scores and opinions - you know what happened with Kane and Lynch 2, and that's why. I think it's pretty clear from reading most reviews that if you really want your Gears of War 1, you'll love this, and if you think it doesn't hold up, nothing in the remaster changes what was originally here. I mean, if this were remastered Crackdown 1, it would probably be a higher score from Jeff, because he still likes that game - he probably thinks it holds up today. Contrast something like this with Mega Man Legacy Collection, for example, where so much stuff was added and critics were mostly picking on the things that *weren't* true enough to the original. All valid points, but different approaches, as your approach would be when buying or not buying this game.
God of War,.. maybe uprezed,.. but it is up-rezed perfection (graphically,..It is simply hard to imagine looking even better,..because even PS3 version is still one of the best looking games ever made),.. Game simply holds up better on it's own,.. It is it's own game and a different genre,.. Maybe comparing it to remastered DMC or Even Bayonetta2,..would be fair,.. and it is still one of the best action adventure games out there Gears 1 ,.. apparently in Jeff's opinion has not aged all that well,.. ( I maybe a bit biased,..Only played the PC version back in the day,.. and did not click with me then either,..and always thought it was overrated a lot)
No, its pretty legit.
Dam Giant bomb
LOL and they gave God of war 3 remaster a 4/5 LMAO wtf I've never seen that much hypocrisy in my life. Don't get me wrong, God of war 3 is one of my favorite games, and one of the best action games ever. But Gears of war is also one of the best TPS games ever made. And this is judging straight by the points in the review. How can they possibly give and HD remaster a 4/5, and the complete remake with multiplayer in 60 fps, and 4 free games...a 2/5? If he's really reviewing a 9 year old game (that's still better than many games today) by 2015 standards then I'm at a loss for words...
Every outlet's different, dude. GB doesn't collectively decide on a review score - it's author by author, and they're hired and brought in because they're all trusted to do their own thing. Jeff reviewed this and Dan reviewed GoW.
This is absurd? Those f~# gave DriveClub a 2/5 ... with no flaws but an agressive AI and not working online multiplayer. A remake to a 9 year old game has to run at 60fps, period. It does not look better, in some areas the 360 has some "minor god rays" in place, whereas the XB1 has none, it dips rarely during combat and overall, well ... pers. i would wait until you can replay part 2 and part 3 through the restricted Backwards Comp. App coming this november or can we already play the second and third installmenet?
Lol! Giantbomb you're a pos.
Eh, most of these reviews seemed way too generous for something that was just a facelift and a few additions to the multiplayer anyway.
its not just a facelift the multiplayer runs 60 fps and includes weapons and maps from 2 and 3 of course in this guys review he all but completely dismisses the mp which makes no kind of sense
As someone who doesn't play Gears multiplayer aside from Horde, that makes no difference to me.
I just want to say this , gears are ultimate game (like halo , uncharted and TLOU) so even if they didn't upgrade the graphics and didn't make it 60fps , this is a 3 games in one deal and a great opportunity for those who didn't play them on 360
I don't agree with the score but I can understand his frustration. Reading the review, I agree with: "Nine years later, Gears of War's encounters feel simple-minded and very one-dimensional" "The rest of the time, you're crouching behind conveniently placed obstacles and popping out to shoot at the Locust foes until a gong sounds, informing you that the encounter has been completed" "The AI in Gears of War: Ultimate Edition can be profoundly dumb. Your squadmates have a habit of just, like, stopping in the middle of a path and not bothering to catch up, even if you issue any of the game's rudimentary and ultimately meaningless squad commands." "Lastly, the campaign runs at around 30 frames per second, but even then it still takes some hits during some of the larger encounters. That it can't even maintain a rock-solid frame rate while also not looking especially great for 2015 seems like pure madness." I remember when I mentioned that I had noticed frame-drops below 30 in the campaign direct-feed, not many agreed/believed me. Well, there you go.
This are fair points and its good they are pointing them out. Hopefully the developer take notice and improves on it in Gears 4.
I'd imagine they would. In 2004 the cover system was in its infancy and now reviewers are coming back to the game and attacking these mechanics? That's like playing PONG and reviewing it and talking about how it doesnt have a career mode or online multiplayer, and the gameplay is very simple and you can master the few moves available to you after only 5 games. If this wasn't a remaster and someone was just visiting old games, would it receive the same criticisms? Or would they highlight how far we've come since then with these type of features in various games?
So funny how none of these commentors comment on reviews praising this remaster yet flock to the lone negative one and say "seems legit". Not really sure Giant Bomb appreciates that this games campaign is just a remaster. Every remaster ever released has maintained the original mechanics. Changing AI, even though maybe warranted, is changing too much. You don't buy a remastered movie and cry that there haven't been any improvements to dialogue you just appreciate how much nicer it looks.
6 comments is "flocking" now. Some of you guys need to eat some cement and harden up, it's like a baby cryathon in most articles now.
Compared to the zero comments of all those 30 plus 8-9 reviews so far...yup, it is flocking when this article and a review from an unknow radio station in Toronto thar gave a 6.5 have tons of negative comments and is at the front page. Gears of War: Ultimate Edition Review | Digital Chumps. 8.6 Comments (0) Gears Of War: Ultimate Edition Review | XboxOne UK. 9.9/10 Comments (0) VGS Review: Gears of War: Ultimate Edition – A Nearly Broken Experience. 6.5/10 Comments (53) Gears of War: Ultimate Edition CheatCC. 4.6/5 Comments (0) See a patten here? Don't forget this article just got approved, so expect many more haters will comment within the hours. You been here long enough to know how the deal goes around here.
@ Rookie Giantbomb is a very trust worthy reviewer IMO. Also, that happens to every game, especially when the reviewer is well known.
@Magoo. So how many other Gears review articles have you visited today? Only this one? Cuz it's a low score? I thought so.
It seems that rookie should've been here back in 2006-2009 to see what the word flocking really means. Believe me there was a clear pattern back then.
Yup I was right, Guess what are the 2 current hottest and most responded news on N4G is? Yup, the 2 lowest scores from the entire 75 reviews of the game on N4G. Gears of War: Ultimate Edition -- All Platforms -- PC Xbox 360 Xbox One Average Score8.5 Reviews(75) http://n4g.com/channel/gear... Seriously guys, when 70 plus other reviews gave it 80 and above, these 2 are the only ones that matter? K
@rookie Where is the correlation between the amount of comments and how much it matters? Most people agree with the 8s and 9s the game got and when you agree with something there is not that much reason to comment. Same goes with all the other 70 good reviews the game got. Should people be flocking to each and every positive review iyo? Weird! This flocking to the negative news is nothing new. If you truly are new to this site (joined in 2015) then I can understand your stance but to everyone else this is nothing new. The media absolutely SHAT on the PS3 for YEARS and people had their fights and arguements in every single negative news. Houndreds of comments in every single one. Are you sure you are not portraying this site as pro PS4 and Sony on purpose cause everyone else knows that once Sony makes the smallest of mistakes all hell will break loose once again. MS lost this gen in the initial DRM-ridden console reveal. That is what killed the competition from this gen and Sony secured the win by making the right moves and capitolizing on MS's eff up. Case closed. Better luck next gen MS. The third console is always a tough cookie. Happened with Nintendo twice now (N64 and WiiU) and Sony went through hell with PS3. Now the Xbone is the third console from MS and is continuing this odd pattern.
"Same goes with all the other 70 good reviews the game got." lol, show me all the 70's? Right now Metacritic has 49 reviews. 45 are 80 or higher 17 are 90 or higher There 2 in the 70s, a 70 and 78 Along with the 2 lowballs that's 4 lower than 80 out of 49.
@foehammer FFS he said "70 plus other reviews gave it 80 and above" and I said same goes with all the other 70 good reviews. I have no idea how many good reviews there really are but I think I can use his number at face value given the context I'm using it. You read too hastily it seems.
@rookie Controversy generates conversation...you'll find more fans of the game bashing the review on those threads than you will detractors praising it. No one pays much mind to yet another standard 8 level review. Remasters have uniformly dropped scores from their original on every outing this gen, that's just the way the tides are heading. I'm sure one would expect the UC collection to get around a 9-9.5 based off of a composite of the 3 games metacritic but I guarantee it'll sit around an 8, with multiple outlets most likely giving it anything from 4-7, regardless of whether or not there are true improvements. We have access to more opinions than ever, and some of those are likely to be biased or uninformed or containing some hidden agenda. The days of reviews only coming from a handful of outlets and sticking close together in opinions based solely off of the quality of a title and a comparison of similar titles are in the rearview there will be a lot fewer unanimously praised games going forward. It's up to the gamer to make up their own minds, and their best interests would be to pay no mind to sites that don't share their opinions or tastes.
"So funny how none of these commentors comment on reviews praising this remaster yet flock to the lone negative one and say "seems legit". " Bingo! funny how the countless reviews that gave this game 9 and above didnt seem to sit at the top of the page, yet the two reviews that gave it low scores did...and with it a boat load of comments from PSfanboys who were absent in ALL of those other positive reviews. How do people think this goes unnoticed on N4G? I dont recall a flock Xbox gamers in until dawn's numerous bad reviews, never mind the positive ones. Pretty obvious whassup....
That Is weird, This same Reviewer here gave the original game a 9.6 when he wrote for gamespot. http://www.gamespot.com/rev... Now, he is saying it is the same game and hasn't aged well; thus, the 2/5 scores? It is an HD remaster, what does he expect? LMAO
This is telling. How could a game go from a 9.6 to a 4?
When you're being asked to buy it again.
You have the choice to buy it with the enhanced visuals or play it through b/c if you like. This is a remaster, not a remake. Where is the confusion?
I thought it wasn't a mere remaster, I thought it was a remake? All of a sudden it's just a HD remaster? EDIT: I recall people saying uncharted collections was just a remaster, that Gears UE was on a whole other level with pretty much every aspect of the game redone and a bunch of stuff added.
"All of a sudden it's just a HD remaster?" Its assets are redone..not upscaled. its a remake NOT a remaster.
@ flexluger That's my point. Everyone was saying this was a remake, and yet rookie monster just labelled the game as a HD remaster (when I'm sure he has called it a remake before). His comment was implying their expectations were too high because it is a HD remaster. Seems like your comment should have been directed towards rookie monster instead. @ spicelika Microsoft marketed Gears UE as something more than a remaster, so they themselves set the game at a higher standard. When you increase the hype for a game, expectations may also increase. Apparently this particular reviewer didn't think the game lived up to his expectations (which may have been effected by Microsofts marketing for the game). It's not uncommon for games to be reviewed by different standards based on the type of game (not to be confused with genre). You wouldn't hold an AAA game to the same standards as a indie type game, the AAA game would have higher standards. So why is it hard to believe that a remade game can be held to a different standard than a remastered game, if the remade game is being marketed as something of higher caliber?
Where were you seeing that this game was a remake? Because I read from everyone that this was only a remaster.
@ gangsta red A few comments above, flex Luger states the game is a remake because of the redone assets. I remember reading a lot of similar comments when gears UE was announced and they stated all the changes being done. A lot of people on here were saying so much was being done that it's more of a remake than a remaster. Even in uncharted collection articles people were comparing the two, stating that what's being done to gears exceeds what being done to uncharted as far as redoing assets completely, updating game mechanics, and adding levels and such. This was their reasoning as to why they considered it a remake. All I'm saying is I read a lot of comment like "gears UE is more than a remaster, they are redoing almost every aspect of the game" and "that's how you redo a game, take note Sony" and things of that sort. Now I read comments in this article like "it's just a HD remaster, what do they expect". Just seems odd.
Gaming has evolved in 9 years. Plus, he's mentioning how bad and how average the remaster look. I'm pretty sure if people were to review GTA IV nowadays, it wouldn't get 10/10.
Why is it weird? When he reviewed it 9 years ago it was a new franchise on a new console. 9 years ago it was great game for him, now not so much. Not everything ages well. If you bought the game,and are enjoying it, what do you care what anyone else thinks?
Wow. That's crazy.
He lost me when he said he was upset their was no horde. This is a remaster of the ORIGINAL gears that had no horde. It looks like they wanted Gears 4 out of this remake. I have played it, MP only at this point and I am taken back on the graphics updates. I played the BC Gears this month when preview got it BC and the difference is astonishing. The dedicated servers are great and the they really listened to user feedback from the beta. As a Gear head, they really did the original game with justice. I love it so far. My only gripe, the time between matches is too long.
It's a re-master of 9 almost 10 year old game, what re-master has updated the AI from the ps3 & 360 era. Let alone a game that came out in 2006. It was innovative for it's time and was a graphical powerhouse back then. The game is to keep the gear heads & xbox gamers excited for next years next gen release & for those who missed it. As many will focus on the MP for months. They reviewed this game like it was a next gen game lmao, you review the game based on what has changed and if it was a 9 then, it should be a 9 now. Because it's an old game re-mastered for todays gamers. Keyword OLD....
That's not how it works man, a remaster doesn't just automatically get the same score as the original. Tbh the next gen remasters we've been getting are in a sense competing with regular next gen games, they should at least look and play like a next gen game. If it is a 10 year old game then it better be 1080p 60fps for the entire game, sp & mp.
But the thing is it won't unless it's a remake, no remaster will play like a next gen game. It can look close with a rez bump and assets boost. Even have 60 fps bumo but at it's core the game is the same as it was for it's time. A Remaster of ff7 will still play like ff7 but a remake won't this is the misconception and why comapring a remaster to a remake or next gen title is a bit wrong. In a remaster your only upgrading whats the core of the game to make look and feel a bit up to date but to truly compete as a next gen title, they would have had to do more like rebuild the game from scratch.
@Len Gears was no "graphical powerhouse". Resistance looked better and released at the same time and it was a launch title compared to gears being a year in and on the easier to develop for console. Comparing it to a game released a year into PS3s lifespan, Uncharted, and Gears looks like dog turds. Most obviously the color pallet, then the textures, the foliage (tree leaves and such), character models, lighting, I remember one site comparing the two they showed the character's hair, much better on Uncharted. I'd link it, but couldn't find it using my phone. Gears' graphics are likely the most overrated of all time. You'd hear it all the time back then, but in a side by side comparison, the color pallet was severely lacking, the textures were poor quality, etc. It may look amazing through the lenses of fanboyism and nostalgia, but in reality, it was good looking for a 360 game at the time, but not the best looking console game and certainly no "powerhouse". At best you could try arguing they look about the same, but again, you're no powerhouse if you're the same. The only thing Gears was a powerhouse in was sales.
@ EeJLP Stop. Just stop. Gears revolutionized the cover based shooter. The lighting in Gears was amazing and the graphics overall were top notch. Resistance was a pig with lipstick.
this site should be bomb. I'm saying what is the writer expecting from a remaster. he gave gear a 9, while he was working for gamespot. now 2/5 for being the same wtf. this game is a 4/5
Reviews are trending down for Gears HD recently, i wonder why? They were stronger early on. If the campaign runs at a paltry 30 frames per second then why do many ads and quick descriptions say "remastered in 1080p 60fps"? That is manipulative.
Because the multiplayer is still 1080p/60