Gears of War Review

Reaching for perfection is a funny thing. By aiming for a high mark of quality, you ensure that your end product is as good as you can possibly make it. The reality is, of course, that perfection is unattainable. Every work of art, be it book, painting, movie, or videogame, is going to be flawed in some way; this is the reality of being human, after all. Gears of War, on that note, is far from perfect. The much-hyped and highly anticipated Xbox 360 shooter from Epic suffers from some truly terrible AI, a brief single-player campaign, and some unfortunately rough storytelling. Just the same, the flaws in this particular gem make the whole gleam that much brighter. Gears may just be the best game to be released on the 360 this year, and deserves the attention of anyone who enjoys holding a controller. Read on for my impressions of CliffyB's masterpiece, spots and all.

• Title: Gears of War
• Publisher: Microsoft Game Studios
• Developer: Epic Systems
• System: Xbox 360

You pretty much know what you're getting into just by looking at Gears of War's box art. Four tough-looking hombres stare back at you from the cover, wearing heavy armor and wielding badass weaponry. Series protagonist Marcus Fenix doesn't wield a gun-sword, like some other videogame heroes. No, his gun has a chainsaw right there on the end. That level of subtlety should convey something, and really says all you need to know about the world Marcus lives in. To a greater or lesser extent, that chainsaw gun is all the exposition you'll get in Gears, and that's a shame. The game's plot centers around Marcus and the three other members of delta squad, as they make their way across the blasted remains of the planet Sera. Sera was once a beautiful jewel of human civilization, a fact you can reflect on as you traverse its now hulled and ruined corpse. The aliens came from below, not from above, with armies of creatures bursting up from below to threaten humanity. In response our species leveled our own weapons against Sera's cities, denying the invaders an easy win.

When we pick up the story, Marcus is just being retrieved from rotting in a jail cell by his long time friend Dom. He was imprisoned for some unknown transgression (we're told nothing more than 'cowardice'), but what with the war on everyone has gotten a 'get out of jail free' card. Dom and Marcus flee the jailhouse, and hook back up with members of the tough-as-nails members of the 'Gears'. The squad Marcus hooks up with is on a mission: take the fight to the enemy. They do so, again and again, in some incredibly varied and rich locales. Act 1's broken city-scape turns deadly at night in Act 2, and is followed in Act 3 by a haunting factory and mining complex. The only real dissapointment is the somehow more brief Act 5, which takes place very quickly on a speeding train. The story that follows those acts raises far more questions than it does answers, with a sequel obviously in mind at the game's conclusion. What's surprising is that, even with this bare-bones story and somewhat stereotypical heroes on screen, Gears of War is actually a fairly grippy tale. A combination of looks, cinematography, and genuinely likable characters accomplishes what less technically advanced titles have failed to do; for once, shiny tech actually does somewhat compensate for weak storytelling.

The likable characters are probably the weightiest of those three elements. As much as George Lucas would like you to believe otherwise, a good camera angle won't make a boring character interesting. Aside from some swear-laiden and utterly predictable dialogue, they've almost always got some interesting commentary on a given situation. Strong vocal performances give you a clear sense of who these guys are. While we don't get to know any of them well, we are given at least some sense of what they did before the war. As much as your average nerd may dislike a ropy-armed ex-football player on principle, it's hard to feel that way for long when he jokingly refers to himself as 'The Cole Train' ... and then proceeds to pepper the next ten hours or so of gameplay with references to his nickname. It's all weirdly endearing, and Epic's ability to make you care about these guys is a big selling point for future chapters in the series.

What's not endearing is how profoundly and utterly stupid these likable fellows are during actual gameplay. It is almost impossible to get across how totally unhelpful your AI assistants are during most of the game. The game's unique and highly enjoyable 'cover' system makes for high survivability in firefights. This trait is almost entirely negated if you take cover on the side facing your assailants. By the same token, mindlessly mantling back and forth over a wall while people shoot at you is not helpful. Wandering aimlessly back the way you've come while skittering horrors assail the human player is not helpful. Running straight into the fire-line of a blazing mounted weapon so that you can engage in melee combat with a grunt ... well, it's a wonder you make it to the end of the game with any AI helpers at all.

Why this aspect of gameplay was so grossly overlooked is beyond me, but most others easily surpass it in terms of polish. The 'stop and pop' playstyle suggested by the cover system works wonderfully, for example. Touted as the main attraction for the game, it's effortless to move from one area of cover to the next. Pulling the left trigger raises you up out of concealment, allowing you to lay into your opponents and quickly disappear to safety. You can no-look fire from cover as well, affording you almost complete safety. Not only is it thematically appropriate for the war on Sera, but the system almost requires some degree of forethought. Questions like "Where do I go from here?" "How can I flank him?" reveals a level of tactical depth not usually seen in console FPS titles.

In fact, most other elements of the game allow a level of tactics that has been sorely missing from the genre. The reload mini-game was questioned as a waste of time by several people I've spoken to, but extended play shows the damage boost and time savings you get from playing accurately to make a huge difference. Essentially, when you hit the reload button a slider moves along a horizontal bar. If you hit the button again in a small window along the bar, you'll reload faster. Hit it in the exact right spot, and your reloaded bullets do extra damage. In tight situations, this extra damage can mean the difference between taking on several enemies at once (almost always a losing proposition in this game), and going one-on-one. It's a small element in the overall gameplay, but a good example of how the designers have managed to make the game more thought-intensive without being clumsy.

The game's multiplayer modes allow these strategic elements to come to the fore. I've had the most experience with co-op mode, which is available both in split-screen and via Xbox Live. As the enemy AI suffers none of the abject stupidity your squad mates are cursed with, pitting yourself and another human against the might of the Locust is an incredibly satisfying experience. Flanking enemy groups, planning out routes through a given map, and discussing which weapons to use in a given encounter makes the final piece of the puzzle fall into place. Co-op multiplayer over Xbox Live in hardcore mode may just be the finest experience the Xbox 360 has to offer. It's challenging, seamless, and deeply engaging. This is the best way to play Gears of War, and has to be tried at least once by everyone who owns the disc.

More combative multiplayer is something of a mixed bag. It's quite a bit of fun ... when you can get a good group together. The problem is that, unlike the extremely robust multiplayer system offered by Halo 2, Gears of War has an almost primitive matchmaking system. Consistent teams are not allowed by the current setup. There are also currently only three gameplay types, meaning that you're going to be playing a lot of team vs. team deathmatch and not much else. Given the game's overwhelming reception there are sure to be improvements and additions to the multiplayer component, and despite the lack of variety Gears' multiplayer is already very popular. Last week Gears finally dethroned Halo 2 as the most-played title via Xbox Live. Just the same, it's frustrating that what could have been another slam-dunk element of the game is so comparatively weak.

The game's biggest slam-dunk, of course, is its graphical presentation. The beauty Gears of War offers has been endlessly discussed, and can be seen in the screenshots included here. Suffice it to say that everything you've heard about the game's beauty is spot-on. Gears looks perfect. It's even more breathtaking to behold while in motion, and Epic very kindly allows you the opportunity to stop and smell the roses every once in a while. Pre-launch fears that the entire game would be a never-ending slog through greys and browns were unfounded. The game offers a differing palette of colors and effects from act to act, with the rain-soaked and subterranean portions of a factory in Act III probably getting my vote for most vivid locale. Even if you're not a console shooter fan, or hate Microsoft, or despise videogames, the visual feat that is Gears of War is just not possible to dismiss. This game is the first title I've seen to really deliver on the promise of 'next gen' graphics, and I can only hope more titles like it mark the rest of the 360's run.

So, again, we're back to the concept of perfection. The synthetic beauty on display in Gears of War is as close to perfect we've yet seen from this no-longer-next generation of consoles. With elements like innovative movement controls, subtle tactical elements, and an extraordinarily gripping co-op offering, it's hard to fault outlets that have given this game a 10 out of 10. Just the same, it's impossible to overlook the controller-tossing frustration of the AI or the lack of modernity in the game's multiplayer component. If you haven't bought the game yet, probably the best thing you can do is find out if you have a friend that already has it. If you do, you've got the recipe in place for co-op, which is the way this game really should be played. And, after all, there are sequels on the way. If nothing else, Gears of War makes you feel confident in owning a 360, and hopeful for the future of the system.

Best game of the Year?!

Didn't Oblivion come out this year?

Re:Best game of the Year?!

I'm not a Zonk hater or anything (though I don't exactly like his tendency towards anti-SONY marketing; but if he likes to look like a MS puppet, he is free to), buut this review abstract really reaches for some new low.

So, the game is full of flaws, yet a masterpiece? Masterpiece, eh? He keeps using that word. I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

So... it realy sucks, but its the best 360 game?

"The much-hyped and highly anticipated Xbox 360 shooter from Epic suffers from some truly terrible AI, a brief single-player campaign, and some unfortunately rough storytelling. Just the same, the flaws in this particular gem make the whole gleam that much brighter. Gears may just be the best game to be released on the 360 this year,"

Sounds like a bad game (not saying it is) yet its the best game on he 360. Dosn't this just say that the platform has few good games?

Re:So... it realy sucks, but its the best 360 game

and Twilight Princess is YAZ (yet another Zelda).

oops there goes my karma

Re:So... it realy sucks, but its the best 360 game

You gotta give him props to admit that his favorite game is a "princess" game... ;)

Greys and Browns

Pre-launch fears that the entire game would be a never-ending slog through greys and browns were unfounded. The game offers a differing palette of colors and effects from act to act

OK, I believe you, but the three screenshots you chose to attach to this review look like a bunch of greys and browns. I look forward to seeing the game myself.

Huh?

How does one play a game enough to give a review and not know that you're Delta squad FINDING Alpha squad in the game?

Plus, I'd swear I read nearly the identical review somewhere else...

If it is perfection you want...

... just wait until Duke Nukem Forever is released!

The AI really isn't that bad, Zonk.

Wow, spending most of the review focusing on supposedly crappy AI and crappy plot, only to barely mention graphics and the end and some multiplayer action as being great. Personally, I think Gears of War is awesome. The AI really isn't as bad as Zonk makes it seem. The folks on your side duck and cover and flank left or right, and the enemies do, too. On occasion they do pop up for too long, or run for different cover, and go down. If the AI were absolutely "perfect", you could simply hide the whole game and let the bots kill everything for you. Instead, you find yourself running to save them during a firefight. Multiplayer is a blast, too. Co-op is seemless, almost no lag, and deathmatch is the same. This game really shines.

Really?

I thought that the AI in this game was more than terrible... I was impressed by the amount of interaction and co-operation by the AI. At one point, my buddy and I were being pinned down by four AI, and could not get out without being owned, because they were cross-firing and pinning us down. IMHO the AI was one of the strongest points of the game.

Gears of MOAR???

I don't have an XBox 360, but the people I know who do all bought this game they have all finished it (multiple times). I hear that there are some new maps for it coming soon, but the game seems kind of short, with little replay value.

Anyone care to correct me on that?

hmm

it's hard to fault outlets that have given this game a 10 out of 10.

I disagree. The game can be finished in under 6 hours, and that's on your first time through. It's a very linear game as well, so it's not like you're just powering through, skipping a bunch of stuff. I'll admit that what's there, is amazing fun, but it's just WAY too short to get a 10 out of 10. As for the multiplayer, I believe having only those 3 modes or whatever works well just because in GoW it's so fun to kill people. That's what a lot of FPSs (or shooter games I guess, since GoW isn't a FPS) seem to be missing lately, is that there's nothing unique in the way you can murder your opponent. Gears of War manages to make it a ton of fun in the different ways you can obliterate the opposite team. All the while keeping it fair/balanced.

Spot on review.

The visuals are, indeed, stunning. The only things that don't look practically raytraced are splashing liquids - and, unfortunately, the contrast between the blood spray graphics and the rest of the game make the blood spray stand out as disappointing. That being said, I'm unaware of any other title that does such particle effects better. One other caveat, it has some of the "shininess" to it that is characteristic of the UT enginge (IMHO), and which will certainly be familiar to JRPG fans.

At the same time, the allied AI is mind-bogglingly bad. Perhaps this can be offset by issuing squad commands; that's a game mechanic I haven't really exploited at all. But watching Dom race from off screen behind you into your rifle fire to go hand-to-hand with a Grub is a singularly frustrating experience, right up there with following Isabela in Dead Rising.

The story itself isn't real thoroughly developed (it falls short of Halo, and certainly of HL), but the exposition of the setting is fantastic. You really get the grittiness of the world, the futility of the war, and the deep-seated cynicism of the soldiers who have managed to survive this long. It does the best job I've seen since FreeSpace 1 of putting you on the losing side of a war.

Unfortunately, it does suffer from what all console FPSes that I've played suffer from: pretty much complete linearity. It's not that I look to the FPS genre for massive environments to free-form explore, but it doesn't even bother having significant alternate and/or dead-end paths. You miss out on the worry of deciding which way to go, trying to figure out which way is the way into the level, and which way is the way to the powerup. Again, though, that's hardly unique to this game (or even limited entirely to consoles - it's just that the only FPSes I've seen that don't have you on rails are on the PC).

Collecting the COG tags seems a tacked-on afterthought; the game isn't exploration-oriented enough for me to find it entertaining to try to track them all down.

It's worth noting that this is also the only FPS I actually wouldn't rather play with a KB+M setup - but then, I'm not one of the KB+M jihadists that are running around, either. Rather than trying to replicate the KB+M interface on the console as so many shooters do (and always lose in the translation), the game is designed from the ground up with the controller in mind.

But the game does what it does very, very well - in my opinion, this is, without a doubt, the high-water mark for campaign-mode FPS titles on the console, and rivals some of the best campaign-mode FPS titles on the PC (with the caveat that I haven't played Resistance: Fall of Man). If you have any interest at all in single player/co-op FPSes on a console, you're doing yourself a grave disservice if you don't play this game. By the same token, of course, if you have no interest whatsoever in that style of game (if you only play FPSes for multiplayer, for example, or if you don't like the FPS genre at all), then there's nothing here to interest you.

Multiplayer Weakness

The multiplayer is seriously flawed. It gives constant "connection to host lost" errors, and you can't have 2 people on the same xbox on live without 2 live accounts (who the hell does that). The games are very short as well, and there aren't a lot of game modes! I really hope they release something on the marketplace that will give more multiplayer options, it must be doable and for once it would be worth it. Having said that, the game is amazing and the maps are incredible. Lets just tone down the damned chainsaw and make the shotgun a little more effective and we'd be rocking!

My Dislikes of the Game

There aren't many dislikes to this game. The big one is that this game is too short. Also the enemies shotgun range seems to be longer than when I use the shotgun. There are scenerios that don't playout well or aren't as exciting as they could be.

First example is when Marcus and Dom need to retrieve a vehicle. Well I never thought that once we got the car that we would drive it. To my surprise you do drive it. The vehile looks tight and drives pretty well, but the game play just blows and feels out of place. It does break up the game play a bit, but when you play it the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th time, it becomes a hurdle to get back to gunning.

The 2nd example is when you go underground and have to find the carts to get to another section. Well the cart scenerio could have been exciting and fun, but it was boring and you rarely have to get up from your cart to do anything. This should have involved high speed chases and shooting Locust who chase you in other carts. Co-op could have been great on this scene, but like I said it was boring.

Other than that I rate this game great. I'm currently playing through on INSANE using DOM on Co-Op to unlock my achievements. I would recommend getting it or going over to a friends house who has it.

Misread

Wow, reading the third word incorrectly really changes the entire context of the article:

Reaching for protection is a funny thing. By aiming for a high mark of quality, you ensure that your end product is as good as you can possibly make it. The reality is, of course, that perfection is unattainable. Every work of art, be it book, painting, movie, or videogame, is going to be flawed in some way; this is the reality of being human, after all.

I've always respected Slashdot's uncanny ability to overanalyze, but about putting on a condom?? Oh, and too funny that it's on a gaming article.

So console gamers are knuckle-draggers, huh?

The much-hyped and highly anticipated Xbox 360 shooter from Epic suffers from some truly terrible AI... and deserves the attention of anyone who enjoys holding a controller.

So, you're saying console gamers are too stupid or too slow to notice when a crappy AI is charge, right?

Great commercial/trailer, so-so game

The commercial [youtube.com] was what really got me interested in the game. It had a cinematic feel to it, full of grittiness and sadness, and superb graphics. "Mad World" really added to the atmosphere.

The game is a letdown compared to the commercial. Not enough backstory, and the gameplay is mediocre. The stupidity of the chain-saw bayonet is beyond words.

Gears Of War

Some of this criticism is overblown. As far as the AI goes, it's about right. The point isn't to sit back and let the computer beat itself for you. The AI characters are like refs. They outcome of the game should not depend on them. Could use a little more help on insane difficulty, but thats what co-op and friends are for. This is the best shooter I've ever played. So much so that I was actually dissapointed when I went back to Halo, GRAW, and Battlefield after a week or so of GOW. I go back to other games and I find myself looking for cover and actually trying to preserve my digital life in a deathmatch. There is a waist high obstacle that I stand behind only to find myself being pelted in the face becase I can't use cover. The seamless use of cover in Gears of War has ruined other shooters for me. They nailed it. As far as the characters/story are concerned, they are a bit underdeveloped. They give you enough to know these guys are bad ass. Too much more story and they'll want to make a crappy movie out of it anyway. The game is a bit short, but intense. I saw someone mentioned 6 hours... not at any average gamer skill level, and not without a strategy guide handy, IMO. Co-op on Hardcore took about 11 hours. Act 4 accounted for most of that. I'd say 9.5/10 Points off for not allowing guests on Live without two accounts on one machine, and restricted Live play. Although the modes are good, only 8 players and they could have thrown in the classic death match as an unranked option.

Perfection has been reached!

Reaching for perfection is a funny thing. By aiming for a high mark of quality, you ensure that your end product is as good as you can possibly make it. The reality is, of course, that perfection is unattainable. Every work of art, be it book, painting, movie, or videogame, is going to be flawed in some way; this is the reality of being human, after all.

Except, of course, for this perfect exposition into the nature of reality and perfection! I copied and pasted your text right into my Master's Thesis, and I got an A++!

I liked it.

I finished the game just about an hour ago, and I liked it. It is true that the AI is stupid at times. But it only bothered me a few times. One time was when a lot of enemies were rushing into the room and the AI guy was just standing there taking hits.

But the only thing that bothered me is that I think the game was too short, and I made a effort not to rush through it. The games are so expensive that I feel that I should have gotten more out of it, also because the multi player can be fun, but think that it will be boring after a while.

A good thing is that it does not have wait for the game to load, unless you die and have to restart. By the sound of the drive I figure it must be some sort of dynamic loading?

Of course you have to be able to stand the noise of the DVD drive which drowns out the fans completely. Imagine the sound of the cheapest DVD drive you can find, running at full speed all the time you are playing. But this is not the games fault.

This is a rental.

I bought the game, and thought it was awesome. But the length of the game was just far too short for the $60. They cheered how this game only cost $1 million to make instead of 10 million. Now you know why, because they didn't bother putting any content into the game. I would have rather they had spent $10 million and given us 20 hours of solid game play and a functioning multiplayer.

Dont get me wrong, the game was awesome. But in the end it seemed like a $60 tech demo, rather than a game. The multiplayer Versus is just too buggy and limited to even bother with. If they ever add in Capture The Flag and up it to 40 or so players, then I might pick it up. But 4 vs 4 straight DM is just lame. The Co-Op should have also allowed up to 4 players as well. It was hard to play this game with all your friends wanting you to join in. Only two at a time stunk.

Basically, I played through the campaign twice over the weekend it came out and haven't touched it since. It should have been a rental.

Resident Evil 4 is better than Gears og War IMO

I had great fun with Gears of War. But I felt Resident Evil 4 was much better. Resident Evil 4 didn't even let you relax @ cutscenes. Resident Evil 4 had more challenging boss figts and at least a complete story(which sucked, but didnt leave you with annoying questions). If I compare those two games I would say RE4 is a bit better and more fun.

Can we rename these "zonk's bitch sessions"?

Seriously everyone seems to love it, but Zonk has problems with it... ok. But he's faulting stuff that people love. I find it odd when this is one of the first games to beat Halo 2 in popularity and he doesn't like the multiplayer? Well apparently people do like it? Faulting the AI and all and then giving one paragraph to the fact that this has Co-op, and not just a tacked on one but one of the finest co-op sessions yet?

Personally I found the characters to be lacking, and the story to be abysmal but that's because me and my bud were laughing our asses off making fun of them because we where hanging out together online. We were saying stuff like "He said What? what a loser". The simple fact this is the perfect game not because of the sum of the parts but because of the sum to each player. I don't know many people who like any type of shooter who doesn't enjoy this one. It might not have brilliant AI for partners, but the enemies are so intellegent you're in trouble on hard core, and the co-op gameplay give an experience over live not found in many places. If you two are hard core gamers, insane will challenge you, if you're good gamers you'll enjoy casual and struggle through hard core. But the challenges the game presents will keep you riveted.

But then again Zonk is the editor so his opinions are what matters here I guess, lets keep fileting this game even if he's one of the few people who find faults with it.

When I read this

Series protagonist Marcus Fenix doesn't wield a gun-sword, like some other videogame heroes. No, his gun has a chainsaw right there on the end. That level of subtlety should convey something, and really says all you need to know about the world Marcus lives in.(emphasis mine)

the first thing that came to mind was William Shatner on Saturday Night Live: "GET A LIFE, will you people?"

cliff b. is my hero

because of his contributions to ut99 ut2k3 ut2k4 and now his very own masterpiece gears of war(hes leader designer of gears of war)

Is everybody hankering to exist in such a world..?

Seriously?

What are we programming ourselves for with this kind of media?

If your focus determines your reality, then it pays to take care in where you point your eyes, heart and mind.

--Which is not to say that all lessons aren't valuable, but chainsaws on guns? Sheesh. Sounds like a nasty time to me. At least you wouldn't have to spend much time alive in such a world.

-FL

The real question

Thr real question is: if Gears of War didn't have such pretty graphics -- i.e. it looked like, say, Quake 3 -- would **anyone** be gushing over this game? Would anyone care?

I dare say no. It's really not that special except for the graphics. I dare say that is why a lot of games are getting such high marks -- because it's a semi-decent game wrapped up in shiny graphics, and people see it being a lot better than it really is.

It's not that GoW isn't *bad*, exactly, it's just not all that people say it is.

Got it last week

I got that game last week, it is simply fantastic. The graphics make Oblivion look mundane by comparison. The fighting is much different, you can't just charge ahead guns ablaze, that will get you killed in seconds. You are basically hiding behind a chunk of concrete, pop up, draw fire to see where the hell they are shooting from, then hope you can pop up and shoot the guy before he shoots you. Or just shoot blind. You are always keeping an eye on your ammo, since you don't know when you are going to run into an ammo point. There's no health bar, if you can see the logo of the game in red it means you are dead.

The only thing I don't like is that there is no easy level. I am from the wuss demographic
(really crappy eye to hand coordination plus over use of caffeine is not a good combo for gaming), as a norm "easy" mode is usually hard enough to challenge me. GoW starts with two levels: hard as hell, and pretty much impossible. If you beat it in pretty much impossible, you unlock a third one that is even harder and I can't even visualize.

Some of the reviews accuse it of being too linear, but let's be honest: there's so much going on that most people won't even notice that. Plus that's my main complaint about the Halo 2 single user campaign, most of the time I don't know where the hell I am expected to go to.

Another thing I don't like is I am spoiled by Oblivion to carry around a ton of crap. In GoW I am limited to two kinds of rifle, one handgun and 4 grenades tops. This is for a character that looks like a frickin football player. This forces you actually think, instead of blindly swapping out weapons because the one you found is cooler.

So far I am getting a lot of bang for my buck, I am close to finishing the game for the first time, and I am tempted to try it again in "pretty much impossible" just to see how far I can go. And I have not even tried it online, that should be a blast.

Most Annoying Bug

Is the voicechat bug in versus. If you join a game in progress you will often experience some combination of not being able to hear your team, them not being able to hear you, or only being able to hear people between games.

Hopefully they patch this soon, it's really aggravating.

This guy does not understand what happens...

So I really do not think the author has fully understood what happens at the end of the 30 day grace period. And as usual the majority of the anti-ms types of slashdot have blindly agreed with any anti-MS sentiments voiced. At the end of the grace activation period (30 days) Windows Vista goes into 'reduced' functionality mode. Microsoft do not encrypt data, they do not delete data, they do not prevent you from getting to that data to off load it. What happens is that Windows Vista runs the default browser (yes even if its Firefox it runs it) that will allow you to connect to the activation site via the web, or any other web site if it comes to that, or present instructions on how to activate via the telephone. After one hour the logged on user is logged off. The user can immediately log back on. Users are presented with reminders about activation as the grace period expires, with increasing frequency until, they activate or elect to not. The purpose of Activation is not to be able to deny you access to data but to deny people who pirate closed source software a revenue stream. Have a look at the following two URLs for more detail. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/plan /faq.mspx#EYPAC [microsoft.com] http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004970 [computerworld.com]

Re:Fuck Epic

stop crying. this game rocks.

Re:Which XBox 360....

It will run on any XBOX and you only need the hard drive to save your progress

Re:Which XBox 360....

360 games will never require a hard drive or an HDTV, though dead rising fucked up with the text on SDTV.

Re:Which XBox 360....

Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?

Xbox 360 games run on any Xbox 360. I mean, duh.

Re:Which XBox 360....

Wrong. XBox360's that were smashed with a hammer will not run this game. Also, if you keep your 360 underwater, it will not run. The game will also certainly not run if the system's unplugged.

Re:Which XBox 360....

Which just goes to show you that Microsoft is out of touch with its crazy hammer-wielding, scuba-diving customer base.

Re:Which XBox 360....

All games run on the core system in standard def. Microsoft just gives you options with the 360, none of which are required: HDTV, camera, wireless, HD-DVD, hard drive, Live, etc.

Re:Which XBox 360....

The only thing you lose for not having the hard drive is saving, but for that you just get a memory card. It will play on a standard TV like all 360 games, but of course looks best in high def.

Listing "specs" for a console review is kind of pointless.

Re:Fuck Epic

How do you have good technology when you have a terrible developer?

Re:Which XBox 360....

I love it when a review doesn't bother to mention the system specs. Will this run on a basic Core System, do you need a hard drive or a high resolution screen?

all games will run on the core system. they're the same exact system except for the fact that the core system lacks the harddrive and wireless controller (and the rev. A packages came with a remote). The harddrive is really a convenience for unlimited save-game space instead of needing those stupid memory cards. Although the full experience of the 360 platform is really injured if you don't have a harddrive. you can't download demos and I'm not sure where anything else (themes, icon packs, etc) would get stored.

but, aside from original Xbox games, I don't think any game requires a harddrive. at least, to my knowledge, none do.

the high-res screen isn't really a *requirement*. it's really more of a convenience, but this game looks incredible even on a standard TV. There's not really much small type on the screen that really makes a HDTV a necessity.

Re:Which XBox 360....

You're right. What brand of TV will it work on? Does it need to be 110 or 220 volt? I only have a wired controller? Is that ok? I have a flaming hot rod faceplate. Will it go faster? My 360 and computer are in the same room, will they get along or should I separate them?

Re:Which XBox 360....

Far as I understand it, no Xbox 360 game requires either a hard drive or an HD display.

Re:Which XBox 360....

Ummm... except there is nothing complicated about. The game will play on any 360 console. No, the real answer is the op is utterly confused for no reason. Likely a confused PC gamer who is used to looking for specs.

Re:Which XBox 360....

I love it when a review doesn't bother to mention the system specs. Will this run on a basic Core System, do you need a hard drive or a high resolution screen?

Funny now, but let's see what happens when Halo 3 comes out...

P.S. It's 60Hz only in PAL territories

Re:Fuck Epic

Speak for yourself, i found UT99, Unreal 1, and Ut2004 to be some of the best multiplayer FPS of all time

UT99 is still played more on the LAN at every college in the area than any other game

Re:Fuck Epic

UT99 is still played more on the LAN at every college in the area than any other game

I assume by UT99 you mean the original Unreal Tournament? I can see why it's still played, that game was fun.

In UT, the characters you control are fast, agile, and reasonably tough. And man oh man you could jump. By contrast, the controls of UT2003/04 (and even Q3A to a lesser extent) may be more realistic, but seem slow and boggy.

Combine with wide, varying maps and creative weapon design, and you've got a hit. I used to run a UT server for some friends back in the day. It was always fun to play with the Relics mod, and we had a few custom mods (Last Team Standing gametype was so much fun).

Re:Which XBox 360....

To all of the above replies:

*whoosh*

Re:Which XBox 360....

Unless there's some sarcasm I can't detect in your comment, I've just got to let you know that the game will run on any 360. The OP probably doesn't own a 360... or isn't paying attention. No game for the 360 can require a HDD for play.

Re:Which XBox 360....

No, they haven't.

The GP is just a moron.

Re:This is a great review

I have no idea what Zonk's problem is. I own the game. I'm not a fanboy - I had always thought GoW was going to suck. I was _immensely_ surprised when the excellent reviews came in.

The friendly AI isn't that bad. It's not great, mind you, but calling it "some of the worst ever seen" is just _not true_. Your team mates get killed a little too often, but they do a reasonably good job of killing the enemy, too.

The humor isn't stale. There are many funny lines in the game. The story isn't as bad as Zonk makes it out to be - apparently he's easily-distracted and illiterate. I mean, it's not an RPG, but it keeps you going.

The reloading mechanism (calling it a mini-game sounds wrong) adds _tremendously_ to the title. It creates a tense, spur-of-the-moment decision on whether the risk of blowing the reload is worth the reward. And, trust me, you'll blow it sometimes. The fact that it's "not realistic" is totally irrelevant - I mean, is that any worse than the friggin' Locust Horde emerging from underground?

This game is fantastic. Best ever? Maybe not. But it'll stand pretty nicely in the top 20 console games of all time right now. If you own a 360 and like third-person shooters at all, it's a must-buy.

Re:This is a great review

No. Reading the review has only told you that Zonk thinks that the story is weak, humor stale, AI == Bad, etc. Unless you are the same person, wouldn't you agree that it's best to try things out yourself?

The only thing you can do while reloading your weapon to do more damage is to chamber a more powerful (or explosive...) round.

That's because you don't have a gun from this funky future post-apocalyptic game. Magic? Scifi? Whatever, it works and it's fun.

For me to poop on

Sorry, the subject just fit with yours

nice abuse of moderation!

A troll is when you say something you don't believe in order to elicit a desired response. Offtopic is when something is, you know, off topic. Which this is not. It's a response to the interview.

At least no one has yet used overrated, which as we all know is simply what cowards do to avoid metamoderation.

Sketch is the style

They did the whole sketch-lloking graphics on purpose though - the atmosphere and story in the game seem pretty good, though I've read that GOW graphics are better looking overall than R:FOM.

I also like in R:FOM how you can target breathing tubes and the like on enemies, about time all those complicated looking protrusions aliens are fond of wearing on suits were malleable.

And of course 40 player online support with clans and such supported is not too shabby...

Re:Perfection

I think that the concept of perfection has no meaning in the context of something subjective like how good a videogame is, or quality of art.

Re:Which XBox 360....

It hasn't actually happened. The parent poster just has no idea what he's talking about. No game requires either console... every 360 game will work on every 360... The reviewer didn't address it b/c it's a baseless and uninformed question, that no reviewer would ever think to address. "Oh, BTW, this 360 game works on the 360. It does not, however, work on a PS3 or your microwave oven".

Re:Perfection

...Take a look at http://www.jwwaterhouse.com/ [jwwaterhouse.com] [jwwaterhouse.com] and tell me that at least one of these canvases are not perfect...

OK. At least one of them isn't perfect. They're all good if you're a fan of simulating the aged and dirty look of unrestored classics, but even with limited formal training in art critique I can spot problems - especially regarding proportions and positioning of limbs or extremeties. He also has occasional issues with perspective.

Re:Fuck Epic

HAHA, 'Fuck Epic', when I read this I thought of a porno based off of LoTR. >8|... I need to get out more...

Re:Fuck Epic

Unreal 2: XMP

Finest multi player game ever made.

One of these days I must get around to playing UT:XMP (U2:XMP is, sadly, dead, remade for Unreal Tourney though)

J1M

Re:Which XBox 360....

By 2050, you'll have to have a CS degree to play Pac-Man.

I can't wait, I'm sick of all these unqualified Pac-Man players always gobbling the power pellets first.