You give people too much credit.
Case in point:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Gears 5 - 15 Ways It's Different From Gears of War 4
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
You give people too much credit.
Case in point:
I recently replayed Gears 4 and it wasnt as bad as people remember it. Its a very solid competent (albeit safe) Gears game. Def prefered the OG trilogy though. Looking forward to Gears 5.
Good. In Gears 4 those parts just made the campaign feel more like a training mode for the multiplayer rather than an action adventure. Still thought it was a fun blast overall though, with some standout pieces (Marcus's greenhouse lol) but at the same time it felt like with another year it could have gone from good to incredible. Still amazing what they achieved in such a tight development schedule though. I hope they've put the extra time to good use this time around.
Yup, people love their hyperbole. Gears 4 was intended to be safe.
What we got was a pretty safe "night in the woods" story (as Theorry put it) that introduced the new cast while respecting the roots of the franchise. It was basically the Gears equivalent to The Force Awakens, which also had its fair share of critique for being too safe but was still a pretty good movie.
I'll take Coalition taking it safe with Gears 4 over what we got with 343i and Halo 4.
Um no the campaign in Gears 4 was just boring. None of the new cast is interesting or funny in the least unlike the original characters.
The gameplay is the same, similar same type of set pieces, the enemies are basically the same. I just replayed the Gears 4 campaign last week, the difference between that and the originals isn't really there?
I enjoyed Gears 4, but I imagine part of it was due to only playing it after 5 was announced. The entire story felt like a prologue to Gears 5.
Currently playing Gears 4 for the first time to hype myself for this.
Really rough start if you ask me, the repeat robot encounters in rather mundane backdrops throughout act 1 was a turn off. The game is improving in later chapters at least, but mostly it looks fantastic on my pc and controls fluidly.
If Gears 5 is more of that, I'll jump in.
Really rough start if you ask me, the repeat robot encounters in rather mundane backdrops throughout act 1 was a turn off. The game is improving in later chapters at least, but mostly it looks fantastic on my pc and controls fluidly.
If Gears 5 is more of that, I'll jump in.
It was decent, wouldn't say great at all especially the first 3 chapters. It's easily the weakest mainline campaign and I'm hoping 5 is a big step up.
the package of gears 4 was okay but had a fair bit of issues especially related to cards and all the packs. I also felt the season pass was really bad and a waste of money.
Its equivalent to what 343 did with halo 4. It wasn't terrible but surely wasn't up to previous gears campaigns.
To be fair, each previous mainline campaign was bloody excellent, but yeah, I agree with you. It was ok, and well worth a play through before 5. It starts off so slow.
Gears 2 had the best campaign imo. Gears 4 ? Nah, it was serviceable at best. First few chapters were dull, then it picked up slightly, and boom.....it ended, like develpment time ran out or something.
Gears 5 is looking fantastic from what was shown. Looks to be a huge step-up, and I find Kait far more interesting than JD.
Gears 5 is looking fantastic from what was shown. Looks to be a huge step-up, and I find Kait far more interesting than JD.
I felt the same but I'm not the biggest Gears fan, never was. I will still play Gears 5 though
Tbf (and this is disheartening to say) the season pass issue you mention is way to common in the industry and not just specific to Gears 4
I don't agree actually there have been only a few season passes that are not worth it but there are a ton that have been worth it.
I just recently replayed the Gears 4 campaign in co-op and played through as Kait the whole game. It really got me hyped for 5. 4 wasn't the strongest campaign overall, but it is such a fun time. The combat is so much smoother and more refined than the earlier games and as such had the most enjoyable combat game play of the series so far. The Gears 5 alpha felt even further refined, so it should be really great.
I'm playing through it now. It's a lot of fun, even if JD is a completely uninteresting character.
No, Halo 4 was terrible. Gears 4, while certainly not stellar campaign-wise, doesn't deserve to be compared to that crap.
I enjoyed it also. But with a Halo or Gear thread, the sky is always falling...
Yes, please. Steve Jablonsky's Gears 2 OST was perfect for Gears. Gears 4 didn't have any seriousness to it imo. Didn't help that the main characters and settings were much less bleaker and serious compared to the OG trilogy.
There are some similarities in how Gears 4 and Halo 4 both did some heavy lifting in introducing new lore and enemy types, but as far as staying true to gameplay design principles and mechanics, Coalition was a much more faithful to the core continuation of the franchise and a better game for it, imo.
JD has grown on me through multiple play-throughs, but yeah, he definitely took getting used to.
I liked him a lot better towards the final chapters and it's nice to see him evolve a bit so far in Gears 5. I'm very curious what happens to him. I got a bad feeling because we've only seen JD gameplay footage using his pre-arm injury skin. Presumably the injury happens during the event that causes the rift between him and the others we saw in the first trailer last year. It's probably going to happen shortly after the prologue mission where we first meet Fahz because JD still has his arm at that time..
Last edited:
Changes seem really minor. Good for those that are still fans I guess, but not the overhaul/re-imagining this series needs.
His arm gets injured?There are some similarities in how Gears 4 and Halo 4 both did some heavy lifting in introducing new lore and enemy types, but as far as staying true to gameplay design principles and mechanics, Coalition was a much more faithful to the core continuation of the franchise and a better game for it, imo.
JD has grown on me through multiple play-throughs, but yeah, he definitely took getting used to.
I liked him a lot better towards the final chapters and it's nice to see him evolve a bit so far in Gears 5. I'm very curious what happens to him. I got a bad feeling because we've only seen JD gameplay footage using his pre-arm injury skin. Presumably the injury happens during the event causes the rift between him and the others. It's probably going to happen shortly after the prologue mission where we first meet Fahz.
No it's a completely accurate comparison, halo 4 and gears 4 are close and both are good games. I do have much more faith in the collition compared to 343. So it gives me hope for gears 5.
Thanks to the ROADS TO GEARS 5 campaign, I'm replaying the campaign with a friend after 2 years of playing the game at release date
Overall, the game is fun, but the story is boring (except the ending) My biggest gripe is that I feel that they introduce lots of characters and moments that are never truly explained within the game, so after a while you don't really get the motivations of the characters, is kinda the force awakens when there is supposedly a new menace, but you never quite get why is there at all.
Also, today I tried to play for a third the campaign with a friend, but decided to drop after the first act, since I found it dull
Overall, the game is fun, but the story is boring (except the ending) My biggest gripe is that I feel that they introduce lots of characters and moments that are never truly explained within the game, so after a while you don't really get the motivations of the characters, is kinda the force awakens when there is supposedly a new menace, but you never quite get why is there at all.
Also, today I tried to play for a third the campaign with a friend, but decided to drop after the first act, since I found it dull
Cool I see it different but definetly one of those things where value will be in the eyes of the beholder
Nothing wrong with disagreeing, like you said we see it differently.
OP
OP
That has also not much to do with rushed or a indication that i was rushed.
Me and my wife have completed every Gears game through coop. Gears 4 is the only one that we had to take repeat breaks on cause it was simply boring at most parts. The forced horde sections felt extremely lackluster and the robots were to us simply not fun to fight whatsoever. With that said I wouldn't say it was terrible or even worse than other games we played through but it's definitely a low spot for us when we rank it among the other Gears campaigns.
I don't mind the soundtrack, as long as it doesn't have Megadeth again.
Quick correction: it's not native 4K. It's temporal reconstruction.
Probably won't have Steam achievements as a result.
OP
OP
Gear's 4 campaign was good (not great):
-New art direction and color palette is a big improvement IMO
-It has some good-looking setpieces and the horde sections are a good change of pace
-Environments are beautiful and there's a lot of different places compared to the the old games
Considering that it was developed by a new studio, comparing it to Gears 1 seems fair, and 4 was a good fresh start. I agree that it doesn't feel as good as Gears 2/3, but we had enough of the old characters and grey/yellow/brown areas. Gears 5 needs to bring lots of new things to the table though, the studio has already developed a remake and a new entry so they should be ready to show what they are capable of.
-New art direction and color palette is a big improvement IMO
-It has some good-looking setpieces and the horde sections are a good change of pace
-Environments are beautiful and there's a lot of different places compared to the the old games
Considering that it was developed by a new studio, comparing it to Gears 1 seems fair, and 4 was a good fresh start. I agree that it doesn't feel as good as Gears 2/3, but we had enough of the old characters and grey/yellow/brown areas. Gears 5 needs to bring lots of new things to the table though, the studio has already developed a remake and a new entry so they should be ready to show what they are capable of.
Assuming that Steam has all the same achievements, I can't really see why they'd need to show you that you unlocked both an Xbox and Steam achievement. I think the PC page for the game says something like 'most Xbox achievements', so the Steam release may not even have every Xbox achievement (which I can't exactly see why they'd do that).
yea no. Gears 4 was so sub par no one even talks about it, compliments or insults unless prompted. That ending was Rage-tier bad, as well the entire story. Felt like it was random gameplay beats strung together with them remembering at the end 'oh yea story and cutscenes'. That ending was literally so abrupt the screen goes black 0.1 seconds after Kait finished her sentence.
The ending's not amazing, but it's a good cliffhanger for fans of the series. In that way, I can't say it's anywhere near Rage's caliber of bad abrupt ending. For fans, you look at that symbol, recognize it, and realize the implication of Kait's grandmother owning a locust medallion. It's not perfect, but considering how great the buildup was to the final battle (even if the boss is piss-easy), I was fine with the game ending on a note like that. Gears 5 focusing more on Kait was a good move.
I mean, I didn't forget it reviewed well. But man I was so completely unentertained that I still haven't even finished it. I genuinely just couldn't bring myself to keep playing. Got probably 3/5 I think. I was just. so. bored. Never had that experience with 1, 2, 3, or heck even Judgement. Idk why, but the completely plastic, xbox-commercial-with-super-identifiable-with-mid-twenties-young-adults type characters did not help at all. Earlier gears games were dumb, b movie, over the top silly, awesome action that took itself seriously. They knew what they were and they were proud of it. Gears 4 feels embarrassed to be gears, never, ever setting tonal consistency, one moment serious, the next moment just literal clever funny Twitter exchanges. Not to mention abysmal pacing, with so much shit taking WAY. TOO. LONG. to happen and other good moments being super short. It has so much bloat to it. It takes so long for anything in the story to happen EVER. Rarely can I even think of encounters. I can literally remember like, four out of what I played. Gears 1, which I'm not even the hugest fan of cuz I think it's wonky and hasn't aged well, as a bunch of different encounters I could name right off. Same with Gears 2 and 3 which are both excellently paced in terms of action and story.
Unless you just completely, utterly, do not care about story in these games, and just completely ignore it, and some how get through all the fucking "Deebee" (see man this bullshit; fucking "deebees" man) robot sections which suck ass because they are just not fun to fight, then yeah unless you can ignore like, all of that, then genuinely I can't tell how someone would enthusiastically like Gears 4.
I'm not even alone. I see "bland" thrown around when discussed Gears 4 and it's the perfect word to describe it. It's so sterile. I can't understand why someone would genuinely like the game.
See above. I fucking LOVED gears 2 and 3. Hell I didn't mind judgement. 3's DLC campaign was even good. Time hasn't been kind to 1 imo, but it's still an enjoyable experience, some wonky checkpoints aside.
This is a bit silly. Lots of games/movies/etc. get high reviews at the time and then much later on are pretty much universally "meh"d upon. Take Bioshock Infinite as the classic example. While some still like the game, in general, most opinion of the game is far, far, far below the dozens upon dozens of 10/10s it got. It was kind of stupid.
There are so many things that can factor into a game getting good scores. It all depends on what people judge against. Was it, hey this would have been great if Epic and Cliffy had made it? idk we don't know because that's not how it was reviewed. Instead, it was reviewed as "Can these developers make a gears game? Oh they did? Sweet good job." But here in this thread people are comparing it, without exception, to the games before. In my opinion, sure, for a new studio making their first game taking on a mega successful franchise, they did a-ok. But at the same time...it really does not hold up well and I don't think reviews would have been as kind to it if Epic had been the ones to make it.
Plus, review scores don't equal consensus. There are plenty of instances where reviewers kinda panned a game, but the community loved it, and vice versa. You're just not really allowing for any of this nuance in what you're saying. Just saying "well it got an 84 so it was a good game so lol you're being hyperbolic" is just utterly silly.
This is kind of funny when you recall Halo 4 also absolutely intended and succeeded in being pretty safe. They wanted to follow up to Reach, and pretty much did that while also trying to add the books in. They did a horrible job, but that's kind of the point. Just because you "intend on being safe" doesn't absolve you of criticism for making a boring, bland, unfun game.
This is literally not true. I'm actually astonished. What?
Deebees so unrelentingly dull and awful and boring to fight. It's literally not the same enemies. "Basically the same" my actual ass.
OP
OP
Yeah the robots and the tower defense gameplay just wasn't Gears, imo. Fortunately it picked up halfway through with the swarm. In the end I thought it was a good campaign.
Funny how things can be so different, I jumped in late on Halo and thought Halo 4 was better than Halo 1-3 which just felt old and dated.
