Gaming Gears of War 3 Review

Does Gears of War 3 bring the series to a suitable close, or does it end with whisper?

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/xbox-360/2011/09/20/gears-of-war-3/1

 

A fair score, well done bit-tech. Now get ready to be called a hater by that arrogant pr*** cliffyb.

 

Why's there a bunch of blood-soaked machetes on the front of a machine gun turret?

 

Gears of Bore.

 

Because it appeals to the little kiddies and brings the coolness factor up to 11, forget practicality for this cr*p lol

 

Well done bit tech and calling it what it is lol

 

Actually surprised by the 75, the tone of the review was entirely positive (with caveats), but the score doesn't matter

actually played all the way up to the middle of Act 3 on Friday night (mate is manager at a games shop, result!) and it definitely starts slow, enough to make you think they've dropped the ball, but it soon gets good. Before we knew it we looked at the clock and it was half 4 in the morning. co-op all the way!

 

I was also curious about the 75% (i also think it was a little low considering the tone of the review).

However the main thing that i was wondering about was the line:

Firstly, Gears IMO is probably one of the best 3rd Person cover based franchises/shooters out there (i'm struggling to think of many others at the moment - Uncharted, Vanquish, Resident Evil 5). Although i won't be playing Gears 3 due to moving back to my PC, i wouldn't hesitate to recommend any Gears game to friends if they wanted a shooter on the 360.

My second point is similarly linked to the last part in the fact that it's on the 360. I'm still currently debating to myself whether or not i would want a review which compared it to other 360 games (in which case, i'd probably rate Gears quite highly) or to Games in general (in which case, it would probably be what this review states). Mainly since not that many people are willing to go and buy a console just for a specific game.

I don't think it's a far stretch to say that the majority of the readers of bit-tech are PC users/gamers and as such the "generic console tard crap" comments surface often to the point i feel as if it's fairly pointless reviewing console games to such an elitist community (PC gamers that is, not necessarily the bit-tech community).

 

It's that time of the year again, too many games coming out and not enough time to play them all.

 

I think the score's probably fair given the target auidence of Bit-Tech. It seems as is there's nothing wrong with Gears 3 per se, but it's not exactly doing anything new or engaging. Exactly half-way between average (50%) and perfect (100%) seems about right.

 

I'm looking forward to playing it, won't be getting it 'til after I get payed next though .

 

I'll definitely be picking it up at some point, need to finish Deus Ex HR first though.

 

I agree, but then given the target audience of bit-tech, is it worth reviewing anyways?

Firstly i think "engaging" is a rather subjective term.

Secondly i think that these day we're too hooked up on things that are "new" and "innovative".

It's rather hard these days to come up with something that hasn't done before.

Take Deus Ex: Human Revolution, that scored 90%, and not saying it doesn't deserve it, but all it really does is provide a modern refresh of the original game. It plays a lot off of nostalgia and being a very "solid game". Nothing it does i would have said was "new" and it even has those terrible boss fights and still-iffy gun play (although better than the original).

 

75 per cent is a positive score. We write with 50 per cent as an average, not 70 like most sites. By that standard, Gears of War 3 has scored well - just not well enough to earn a flat-out recommendation, because of those caveats you mention.

 

Mine came today but its a xmas prezie. Will give me time to play the others again

 

Gears of sludgy-as-hell control system

I would give any of the gears games 60% max due to the entire game being spoiled by the control system.
Yes, the storyline is hammy as hell, and I love that. The graphics at the time of the original were amazing. The MP could be fun with friends.

But the fact that wherever you go, it feels like you're controlling a drunk monkey ruins any love I have for this franchise.

 

I really like the GoW franchise but playing the first one again in a real long time (I originally played the first one on PC when it was first released) i had forgotten how dumb your fellow Cog members are sometimes. Its down to them i die so many times on certain sections. GoW 2 wasn't quite as bad if i remember right but i hope its better by 3.

 

surprised by the 75%. I havnt bought it yet but for someone that has been a heavy pc gamer and a console gamer - I figured it would have scored better.

I get the impression its better than the second from your review though, which also got a pasting last time it was reviewed on here.

To say it couldnt be recommended for newbies to the genre...I dont know if i agree with that because its quite easily accessible and easy to pick up.

Plus for those that havnt experienced this duck n cover system it would definately be refreshing and considering how they have refined the games since the first one I would actually say this can be picked up by most that are curious and into shooters.

Gears is reminiscent of a michael bay blockbuster in many ways;

Sure the storyline isnt great - but thats not why you go watch his movies though are they? You go for the all out action, the thrill of the ride, the explosions and the epic battles.

I think Gears will likely deliver on that front.

Im likely to get it many months from now due to being busy, possibly in January..so it will be interesting to see what its like.

 

I assumed the guns were Lancers that had been hastily bolted together to fire simultaneously. I very much doubt at that point that they had brand new Lancers fresh off the line.

Way to jump to conclusions to further your clear elitism.

 

I had one game of horde mode last night; there was something missing. Ah yes, the fear of failure, as a group of random players we coasted with little resistance to level 20+. When we did all finally die on some level in the 20's the game just respawned us back at the start of that level. After 2 hours we finally hit a wall at level 30, where players started leaving due to playing stamina rather than any actual punishment thro' failure. It's like playing a game where you have to roll a die, roll a 1 to 5 and you win. Roll a 6 and you get another go. :/