Top
170°

Gears of War 3: Major Nelson talks to CliffyB, shows awesome Gameplay Footage

Microsofts Major Nelson talks to Epic's Cliff Bleszinski and shows some great new gameplay footage of Gears of War 3.

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.com
The story is too old to be commented.
DontShoot-Me-Bro2460d ago ShowReplies(1)
thief2460d ago (Edited 2460d ago )

Its funny how comments change from meaningless words such as "great, spectacular, memorable, kick-ass" for Gears 3 to "generic, brings nothing new, does not advance the genre, lacking, only near-perfect" for KZ3

Its pretty simple.
Score sections: graphics, AI, lack of bugs/clitches, gameplay, story, content, innovation.

The reason reviewers wouldnt do that is because it would bring out the bias (GT5 scored lower for longevity/content than Forza and at par for graphics by IGN for instance)
For instance, KZ2 beats Gears 2 hands down in the first three sections (graphics, AI, lack of bugs) and is on par on the remaining, yet gets scored lower.

zootang2459d ago (Edited 2459d ago )

Very true, we need standards in game reviews for it to be taken seriously as a medium.

@Below

Have they always been that way? I just don't think it helps the gaming industry when a serious adult is looking at buying a game and the only options he has is opinions of influenced journalists rather than stats and features.

STK0262459d ago

But, both music and movie reviews are highly subjective and for the most part don't really have any standards, yet they are both seen as serious mediums.

Active Reload2459d ago (Edited 2459d ago )

Blog it! I'm serious, GTFO! Nobody cares about your emotions about your favorite games being picked on, especially since this isn't an article about your favorite games. You will never see me go into an article about a game I don't give a sh*t about, just to talk sh*t about it, that's pathetic!

guigsy2459d ago

Your comment is so hypocritical. So the media is biased and you're completely impartial? I personally think Gears 2 was a way better game than Killzone 2, so it's your opinion against mine.

thief2459d ago (Edited 2459d ago )

"I personally think Gears 2 was a way better game than Killzone 2"
yes, but You aren’t paid to give your opinions. Otherwise I would expect you to base your “opinion” on objective standards, not empty words

As I said, I have objective, defensible reasons for saying KZ2 was better. It had better graphics, better enemy AI, and much more stable, with equally poor story, and equally good gameplay. I havent seen anyone disagree with what I said, yet Gears 2 gets scored higher.
If you,as a reviewer, say Gears 2 was better because its “kickass” or “memorable” you should be fired.

guigsy2459d ago

Yeah but people don't review games solely against other games, them score them on their own merits. Why would you compare a first-person shooter with a third-person shooter anyway? At least compare it with a game of the same genre like Halo.

If you think the ENTIRETY of the media is biased then start an internet campaign or something, the rest of us are too busy enjoying our games.

otherZinc2459d ago (Edited 2459d ago )

@thief,

If a company pays you for reviews...you need to be friggin fired! "Said" company is wasting their money. You can have your opinions, fact is the consumer will let you know whats good at retail & online activity for hardcore games.

Graphics on both were great, Killzone 2 a little better, but Gears 2 had some remarkable levels & terrain that Killzone 2 dint have. If anyone disagrees with that, they didn't play Gears 2.

Also, Gears 2 brought you campaign & online co-op, what did Killzone 2 bring? Gears 2 has Horde Mode, what did Killzone 2 bring?

Look at that in your reviews & review games on what they bring to the table not only graphics. Also, Killzone 3 still doesn't have online co-op, its 2011! When are you reviewers going to command more from these developers?

The_Ultimate_Guy2459d ago (Edited 2459d ago )

@ thief

I agree with Otherzinc. Killzone 2 had the "wow" factor with it's visuals and nothing more. I enjoyed the multiplayer but I would say it was a slight step back from being "generic" as CoD is a "generic" franchise. But at least CoD is bringing new things to the table in regards to gameplay modes, nukes, bomb drops, remote control cars etc. the gameplay may be the same, but new things are added to improve gameplay and give you a new experience.

Now I am not sure why we are comparing a TPS to a FPS...technically not fair, but since they are shooters I guess we can make some comparisons. Gears 2 really did bring some great online modes in multiplayer, co-op, and stepped up the story from Gears 1. Both games are great for what they bring to an over saturated genre, but you have to look at what titles are bringing MORE and pushing the genre to new boundaries which Killzone 2 didn't bring other than visuals and what Killzone 3 is currently bring which is once again visuals minus the "wow" factor.

Aarix2459d ago

@thief Coming from someone whos played both games. In general, I've had much more fun with the campaign. IMO Killzone felt like a HD futuristic COD. The Graphics on Gears are amazing (eve thought killzone looks better) Gears had an amazing story while killzone was meh. If you like KZ better fine. But GTFO cause theres no ps3 or killzone here.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2459d ago
Show all comments (20)