What's weird is how so many of those games are super cliche. Like, God of War, right? Pretty standard current-gen Dark Souls control scheme, pretty typical current-gen map, pretty typical rainbow loot system (white/green/blue/purple/orange/etc), pretty typical three-tier skill system, and so on and so forth. Mechanically, there's not a lot of excellence there. But then you have reviewers going "wow it's a contiguous camera, a single shot game, no one's ever done this before" like Dead Space 2 didn't do that all the way back in 2011. That was the most critically acclaimed video game of 2017 and literally nothing it was doing was new, it was just very pretty and very self-serious. It played okay, I guess? But you had people acting like the single-shot thing was some Huge Achievement.
But if you actually go look at what most of those people said about it, it's like "wow, it did this thing, that's really new." They just kinda parroted the marketing about how it was a cool idea.
It certainly feels like a game being self-important and pretending to do something new is a big deal. Those gamescom awards were so weird. There was that horror game, Gylt, that was pretending that a horror game about guilt had never been done before (Silent Hill 2 exists, folks, and the theme is pretty common in horror movies, like The Ritual on Netflix), or Hideo Kojima basically standing on stage claiming he invented sidequests. There were a couple others where people seemed to be taking tried and true concepts and pretending they were some remarkable leap forward and it was just odd.
But people buy that.
So we're seeing these Gears reviews where people seem to be going "is this new? no? if it's not new, it's bad." That's weird. It's a weird standard.
Is it excellent at what it does? That's all that matters.
This is AMERICAWhat's wrong? You don't put food on your family? How do you expect them to eat?!
It is a 3rd person cover shooter - IMO, there is really only so much it can do and change and still maintain the base gameplay formula which people enjoy so much already.What? Stagnation, which is what the "It's Gears" comments are getting at, is a perfectly valid criticism, and it's not exclusive to Gears either. It's especially weird this is brought up because we are talking about a game that is reviewing very well.
Agree with you on this aspect.It was clearly a bait/troll post so giving it attention doesn't help at all. That's worse than people focusing on Gamespot genuinely giving the game a 7.
Yikes this quote killed my hype:
"Gears of War 5 isn't a bad game, it's just the worst game in the series (I quite liked Judgement). It promised to bring new ideas to the series, and it does, but to the detriment of the game as a whole with how poorly designed they all are. The open-world levels are empty and boring, the story is lackluster after a great first act, and the new Escape mode is a fleeting distraction at best. Gears of War needs changes, but not like this."
It's funny how 5 of the 90+ scores are from Xbox sites propping the score up.
it could also degrade if MP is bad and lag/server issuesMultiplayer should be adding more than that considering it's what keeps the game alive past month 1
Good to see the review take in all aspects of what Gears offers. YEs, its multiplayer AND single player
Why is it funny that XBox fans would enjoy playing Gears?It's funny how 5 of the 90+ scores are from Xbox sites propping the score up.
So something like Gears 5 is doing? I mean, "open ended" is really not true, anyway, for UC4. It was still point to point in the end.
So something like Gears 5 is doing? At least what I could see in the footage.as well as gameplay tweaks that changed up environmental and combat mobility
Not really sure about that but then again, gunplay was hardly ever an issue with Gears anyways.
....and?It's funny how 5 of the 90+ scores are from Xbox sites propping the score up.
If the particular reviewer doesn't play multiplayer then they shouldn't review Gears, it's massively important to the Gears franchise.I think the reality is that a lot of people simply aren't particularly into Gears MP. If you don't really enjoy something, you tend to not put as much time I to it, especially MP modes which don't have the same narrative or environmental reward as campaigns.
Wronglmao the IGN video opens up with a statement about how you remember you love these characters after the recap, oh yeah, i love generic dude #2 and grizzly veteran guy #4. the characters in gears suck, always have.
It is a 3rd person cover shooter - IMO, there is really only so much it can do and change and still maintain the base gameplay formula which people enjoy so much already.
I happen to like that gameplay loop, I really do not think zoning in and trying to make that gameplay loop the best it can be (as Gears 5 does a very good job at) is stagnation.
I do not think every game series needs to reinvent itself to have a numbered sequel come out. Some series? Sure why not.
Yea, it's definitely a well-done review, and they touch on every aspect of the game.Good to see the review take in all aspects of what Gears offers. YEs, its multiplayer AND single player
That gets a side eye alone.
Yikes this quote killed my hype:
"Gears of War 5 isn't a bad game, it's just the worst game in the series (I quite liked Judgement). It promised to bring new ideas to the series, and it does, but to the detriment of the game as a whole with how poorly designed they all are. The open-world levels are empty and boring, the story is lackluster after a great first act, and the new Escape mode is a fleeting distraction at best. Gears of War needs changes, but not like this."
This only happens on Xbox side of gaming, of course. Right? :)It's funny how 5 of the 90+ scores are from Xbox sites propping the score up.
Yet you are in a review thread, crying about a completely different game getting better reviews.Pretty much this.
I don't trust reviewers one bit. And after the MGSV fiasco, Damn. That game didn't deserve a 10 nor a 8.
Finished GOW when it came out and my brother couldn't finish it. Beside the graphics I didn't get what the fuss was about.
I buy games because I like them, not because someone else's like or dislike them.
So something like Gears 5 is doing? I mean, "open ended" is really not true, anyway, for UC4. It was still point to point in the end.
So something like Gears 5 is doing? At least what I could see in the footage.
Not really sure about that but then again, gunplay was hardly ever an issue with Gears anyways.
i did to so what?
I don't think it's true at all that they would need to revamp the MP. Why would it force their hand to do that? And what if they did? Why is that a sacred untouchable thing? I don't get your train of thought at all here. And yeah, it's always better to play the game to judge for ourselves, but that's not an option at the moment. The reception can be disappointing in and of itself. It sure is disappointing to me! I wanted this to make an impact. I thought the marketing campaign was very lackluster, and knowing Gears 4 didn't sell quite well enough last time, I was rooting for them to learn from the mistakes on that one and make a big impact with this. After low-key marketing and buzz, the previews seemed to reverse the steam and I was excited. Reviews are like a cold shower, even if it's true that the game might still be great. I just don't think these reviews will help it much.
Lag sure, but define bad. Does a reviewer find it bad if they are not good at it?
You're wrong about that. MGSV deserved a 9.I don't trust reviewers one bit. And after the MGSV fiasco, Damn. That game didn't deserve a 10 nor a 8.
And to absolutely no surprise, this thread is already an embarrassment. Console warring everywhere. Calling it a flop. Since when was a game rated in the 80s a flop? Maybe play the game for yourself before calling it a flop. It's like all people do in today's world is read reviews and call it without ever bothering to actually experience it for themselves.
I mean this kinda is a standout title. Each company seem to have certain strengths and weakness and MS is definitely the strongest FPS/Multiplayer platform holder. I know there's nothing like Gears on other platforms. I think you are just putting too much stock into that 15 perfect scores every critic praising it day one thing. Gears's meat is it's MP, so realistically a classic Gears title is 5-8 million ppl playing it online in 6 months because its that fun to play, that's not a day one critical darling story. (See Destiny)It's not bad, but it's definitely disappointing. Microsoft's first party stable really needs a standout title. And given the chances at it are few and far between (or have been over the last few years given limited AAA releases), it's particularly disappointing when another one fails to meet that standard. It's also particularly disappointing because Sony and Nintendo's first party efforts have been on a hot streak, and have fairly consistently reached higher standards. People like me just want to see Gears or Halo achieve something on the level of GOW 2018 or Zelda BOTW, basically. Does it need to? I guess not, but it sure would be rad.
games don't get 10/10 just for being fun Atm, critics like to be surprised, shocked, moved etc...I think storytelling is just what's popular everything comes in waves. And for the person you were replying to, I'm going to assume you haven't played God of War. Critics constantly mentioned that outside of the axe feeling so good to throw, it's all borrowed/familiar mechanics, it's the sum of its parts that makes it stand out.
Yes, but according to the reviews Gears 5 has done it far less successfully. The open ended stuff that is.
this actually happens with a lot of their first party titles. top scores on metacritic for SoD2 and Sea of Thieves are from xbox sites. but whatever no big deal. I'm sure it's the same story with PS and Ninty. Gears 5 is gonna be a good time.It's funny how 5 of the 90+ scores are from Xbox sites propping the score up.
No point in talking to u if your just going to ignore my points, goodbye.
Multiplayer reviews always seemed pointless to me, everyone's experiences will be so varied and different i am not sure how their opinion would be relevant to me not to mention you have to wait till after the games out to actually knows how it runs online
i did to so what?
Yet you are in a review thread, crying about a completely different game getting better reviews.
There's also the matter of doing it later, years after many other series have already followed the same path. Lessened impact, and all that. Even a minor series like The Evil Within moved in the same direction.Yes, but according to the reviews Gears 5 has done it far less successfully. The open ended stuff that is.
And of course only... well, let's leave it at that. This thread is about Gears 5 and not a battle ground to defend other 1P games from different companies - they have their own threads.Yes, but according to the reviews Gears 5 has done it far less successfully. The open ended stuff that is.
Just doing something different obviously isn't automatically enough to garner better scores in and of itself, those changes still have to be well implemented and enjoyable, adding to the overall experience.
Uncharted did it successfully? Those parts of 4 and LL were mediocre at best and really added nothing to the experience. They must really suck in Gears 5 if that's the case.
I know you're prone to bad opinions, but God of War isn't just some Soulsborne copy in gameplay design, and the camera was only one feature out of countless things that was praised. For a start, the biggest praise was for the core gameplay, which is just super polished and fun. It might be more grounded in its combat similar to say Soulsborne, instead of being closer to DmC or Bayonetta, but it still has a lot more superfluous elements what with all the Runes, use of Atreus's magic etc, that the Soulsborne games lack.
Add to that, perhaps its most unique idea and design contribution, the single thing that was also commended the most in reviews, was the Axe itself, which was not only insanely satisfying to use, but lent itself to all these unique and interesting ways in which it was interwoven in both puzzles and combat, due to its retractable nature.
That's not even getting into the quality of the level design or delivery of its narrative and characters.
Ultimately, I think you're being immensely reductive in your analysis and should probably actually read some more reviews of the game to get a better idea of why it was lauded and revered.