A Second Take: Why Gears of War Isn't Shit, But Close

A Second Take #1: Gears of War

This is the first segment in another feature that will likely, due to my inability to update on a regular basis, never see a second segment. But, if anything else, this will at least leave room for such a possibility.

Let me begin by saying this; I own Gears of War, I bought it of my own accord, around February of 2008, so I also likely paid full price. It was not a gift, nor was it spent using gift money. Simply put, I was looking for a new game, and noting the overwhelming consensus found in dozens of reviews that showered the game in praise: five stars here, 9.6 there, and a hearty "two thumbs up" all around. Unlike many titles, I had not followed the progression of the development of Gears. While it was the blockbuster "it" title for many Halo junkies holding over for volume three, for me, it was just a filler title altogether.

So, with this in mind, please note that I was not overly prepared to be a Gears fanatic. I didn't download all the trailers while feverishly salivating at the ingenious thought of adding chainsaws to conventional firearms...something that to Halo junkies was the equivalent of the particle accelerator, sliced bread, or Newton's laws of motion.

Like I said, this is "pure genius" to some people, the "second coming" possibly

Let this be said first and foremost about Gears of War that should irritate most individuals is that the single player campaign can easily be completed in around five or six hours by your average gamer, with experienced gamers reaching the credits in the three to four hour bracket. So, in a way, Epic was correct in noting that Gears was going to go places that no action game had gone before; an hourly completion time firmly in the single digits.

Now one might suggest that the "replay factor" in games is overly emphasized in the review process. While questioning this factor's role in the reviewing of games clearly merits a longer, in-depth analysis, allow me to say this; certain genres/series have expectations of how long titles falling into their respective categories should last. Action games usually fall between ten and twenty hours, though usually somewhere close to the median of fifteen. RPGs, in general, can go upwards of three digits, but most usually promise that it should take thirty to forty hours to finish a single completion of the game, supposing you aren't a perfectionist in your first play-through. Genres like "fighters" or "driving" generally don't have a robust campaign mode, and of course this is because of their dependency, as a genre, on multiplayer aspects.

So, to return to Gears, let me say that it neither hits the median or anywhere on the range of where an action game's campaign should last (and yes, the utilization of the mathematical terms in the first sentence of this paragraph are quite assuredly the extent of my math skills). Some will say this is relevant because Gears is meant to be valued primarily as a multiplayer game. While such could be debated, I think most of us could agree on this; certain genres are downright expected to have a "single player campaign" element that delivers at a minimum level of quality and length. Gears, falling into the action genre, clearly does not promote such.

For a while I wondered why he was so pissed off...then I realized how long the game was.

Gears of War is, for all intents and purposes, a glorified tech demo by Epic to showcase the Unreal Engine 3.0. It is meant to advertise its engine to other video game developers first, and sell copies, second. Now, let it be known that Epic is not the first to do such a thing. Back in 2001, Nintendo's Research and Development team put out Luigi's Mansion as a demonstration of the Gamecube's capabilities, specifically in regards to lighting and shadow effects. That game however scored firmly in the high sevens/low eights. Why did it not meet the same accolades that Gears recieved? 1. It lacked gruff space marines and 2. it didn't feature Mario, but instead his bastard brother.

After "completion time" my second "beef" with Gears is its downright lack of imagination/creativity in the creation of its IP. Mean-talkin' soldiers donned in weighty armor suits covered with skulls, fighting an alien species in a post-apocalyptic future. Thank God that doesn't sound eerily similar to something that rhymes with Starcraft or Halo, or if you allow for a mute protagonist, Half Life 2. We've seen broken down buildings and abandoned streets before with torn up roads and smashed cars.

Now, there's not much more I can say, because this is just an aesthetic judgment on my part. It offers nothing new, which with the lofty budget funding it, as well as the recently built engine to power it, it's a bit distressing. I couldn't help but feel that Epic would have some obligation to provide us with some earth-shattering example...but then I remembered how it used to sell its engine based upon the Unreal Tournament series. *groan* Before some of you lambast me for admitting that I will whole heartedly enjoy Fallout 3, let me say that I wouldn't impose the same obligations upon said series. For starters, the Fallout team did not just create an engine to showcase to others. In addition, they are merely working with the same scenario that they've used since the mid-90s when the first installment in the series came out, and are not presenting a new IP.

Ah, the Fallout series, proudly doing what Gears thinks is original for the past decade

I recognize that there are nuances between the two, from the alien invaders, to the moreso realistic setting of Fallout (in Washington DC) to the fact that we're comparing a solid action game, with an RPG/action hybrid (also conveniently known these days as the "American" RPG). But in terms of seeing the same setting in a supposedly new generation of games, accompanied by a new engine, I was hoping a "thought process retread" wasn't going to accompany it. Perhaps the best way of explaining this is the ever-present slogan of the Fallout series that "War...war never changes."

So, we've touched upon the unoriginal art design, despite the technical prowess clearly at their fingertips, as well as the fairly short campaign mode. Some would be inclined to point out just how amazing the cover-based combat system of Gears is. And while I won't disagree that there's a good amount of realism to be found in actually being able to take cover and blind fire, I will say that giving Gears the credit is entirely misplaced. Take a look at my Microsoft Paint diagram I've shoddily constructed: Yes, for those of you who can't read, and it's mostly my fault because I'm still new at this, cover-based combat was realized quite decently in Namco's 2003 release Kill Switch, it was somewhat honed by Gears, but to no significant extent, and is still being perfected in such titles as the recent Dark Sector. If you don't believe me, play Gears. Remember some of those expletive filled moments when you just could not get into/find cover? Much of that is gone in Dark Sector. If Epic's series had either started the gameplay system, or honed/perfected it to a great degree, we'd have something to talk about. But...in my opinion, we really don't.

To be honest, I could go on and on about the dreadful implications of Gears, especially the fact that it gave Halo junkies something to look forward to. Before certain people argue that it appears that I am advocating Microsoft to disassociate itself from what would appear to be a large bloc of the Xbox ownership, think about this: would you rather put out products that will be purchased by the hardcore gamers, probably at full price, on a monthly basis...or continue to collect Xbox Live fees from those only playing Gears and Halo online? Can one have the best of both worlds? I'm not entirely sure. The "Hardcore vs. Casual" argument that has been Nintendo's bane of the past year, may be knocking on Bill Gate's doorstep in no time. Of course, if it's Bill's doorstep, it will likely be shot dead by automated turrets or the three SWAT teams he keeps in his garage. Just thinking.

In summary, Gears is a great "first-impression" game. It looks great, plays decently, and has bearable voice acting. But, after enough exposure, it grinds down on you. You begin to realize you've played much more original titles with improved gameplay and dialogue that isn't littered with one-liners and slang, and a few hours in, seeing everything smouldering and in ruins isn't so entertaining anymore.

So workers of Gamestop, do not ask me if I'm pre-ordering Gears 2. At this point, I'd rather purchase some Nintendo shovelware. That's just how much I want nothing to do with it.