"Gears of War has Zero Innovation"

Mills wrote:

True.. "He just photographed mountains, and the wilderness, and trees and stuff like that."

Yeah, I've seen the screenshots and it looks like it would be repetitive and boring. I mean, how many times can you take a picture of a mountain?

But it's not like many people put his photographic prints in a large frame so everybody can see.

This thread about innovation is rather innovative...

93_confirmed wrote:

This thread about innovation is rather innovative...

Meta-humor. I can remember when that was new

I'm not talking about my tastes, I'm just saying, when you go to metacritic and you see a 96 for Gears of War, then you read the critics saying, 'Okay, storyline - there's none, gameplay is not innovative...' Then I say, why did they give this 96? They were blown away by the high quality of the graphics... Myself, I prefer something more creative.

Ah, I finally get it: he's saying this because Army of Two is gonna have crappy graphics!

I particularly love how the guy from EA goes on about how it's not innovative and calls it a Quake clone, then follows the statement up with, "I can't wait to play it."

I think what he is saying is he doesn't understand why the game is getting a 96% average score when it really brings nothing new to the table gameplay wise. Truthfully I kind of agree, I mean these same reviewers have been blasting Genji for PS3 for not bringing any "next-gen" gameplay with it's great graphics, yet give GOW a free pass in that department. It does seem a bit hypocritical.

I think a great game offers a nice balance of innovation and refinement of existing features. Gears of War cuts out all the excess and provides very focused cover and combat mechanic for small team multiplayer matches. I get the sense that a scalpel knife was applied to anything that diverted it from those goals and the game benefits from it.

dejanzie wrote:

Synthesising all the invented good into a cocktail of brilliant is the mark of the true genius.

This man puts it best.

Compare Gears of War to a more 'innovative' game, lets say 'The Ship' The ship has some interesting new mechanics worked into the standard FPS game that slow down the pace of play and turn it into a murder mystery type environment that challenges users to play smart rather than have twitchy skills. Is it an absolute riot to play? No. It was overly laggy, too much time is spent running around looking for ANY weapon and it really doesn't end up drawing players back, which is why GWJ 'The Ship' night died a very quick death.

I'd rather see a good idea done right than a great idea done wrong.

Gears has tweaked the FPS (Im not going to call it a 3PS, you may SEE your guy on screen but for the most part you go to a first person view to do fighting) to feel like a great action flick. It IS an absolute riot to play, and that's where the high scores come from. You don't even see the fantastic graphics after a minute. Its the gameplay that is the real beauty of the game.

Stric9 wrote:

Truthfully I kind of agree, I mean these same reviewers have been blasting Genji for PS3 for not bringing any "next-gen" gameplay with it's great graphics, yet give GOW a free pass in that department. It does seem a bit hypocritical.

No one who played it would say that

Stric9 wrote:
I particularly love how the guy from EA goes on about how it's not innovative and calls it a Quake clone, then follows the statement up with, "I can't wait to play it."

I think what he is saying is he doesn't understand why the game is getting a 96% average score when it really brings nothing new to the table gameplay wise. Truthfully I kind of agree, I mean these same reviewers have been blasting Genji for PS3 for not bringing any "next-gen" gameplay with it's great graphics, yet give GOW a free pass in that department. It does seem a bit hypocritical.

I have a feeling Genji is not the same caliber as Gears. As far as I know only a few reviewers have said Gears is not innovative.

Remember they also give 10 year old remakes of Final Fantasy games 90+ reviews when they bring zero improvements to the original game.

Honestly, innovation in a game is not a necessity....fun gameplay is. Some game types simply cannot be innovative anymore...with the existing controller hardware that is. For example, take any sports game. Lets use baseball, which consists of a pitch, a hit, a catch, and a throw. How innovative can you be with these four actions, using today's same controller? You can't anymore. It's already been done....many times. The same goes for shooters.

If the Wii had 360(or PS3) quality graphics, then it could revolutionize gameplay. Maybe next generation will come up with something even better....like a head motion tracker, two controller gloves and foot pedals.

I'm not surprised that an EA exec doesn't get the single most important rule in gaming:

Gameplay is King

Innovation is nice and all, but it's not the end-all-be-all of gaming. Unless it directly improves gameplay.

So EA is on their high horse about what makes a good game?

Dear EA: Your MOM has zero innovation.

No one who played it would say that

I own it been playing it for two days. It's a fun shooter, I don't really see where it's that much different then any other shooter though. There are times during the single player when your peaking out from your cover spot and waiting for one of three enemies to pop up from behind their cover that the game feels like a glorified game of whack-a-mole. Truthfully the game is fun it looks great but it really doesn't deserve anywhere near the scores that a game like Half Life got. If I were reviewing it i'd give it a solid 8-8.5.

Innovation in gaming these days usually occurs on the micro level, not macro. Clearly some games do come along and innovate on the macro level, but these are few, and what's more, we WANT these to be few (the last thing we want is to throw out years of convention and improvement and rewrite the book every single time)

Gears of War has a few nice micro "innovations", be it in a new idea, or a fresh, different implementation of an existing idea.

Active reload and the ability to jump in and out of co-op play are things I haven't seen from other games.

The way that the game handles running is different than I've seen from any other shooter. The crouch sprint where you lose fine control, and can't shoot, is an interesting game mechanic and I don't recall another game that did it quite the same way. It seems like a tiny thing, but any of us who have played multiplayer know it affects the gameplay.

The cover system, while not a brand new idea, is implemented in a way unlike any other game. It is MUCH more functional, for example, than GRAW (which of course doesn't even have the cover system in multiplayer)

Gears of War is the kind of "innovation" we want from most games: take something great, find ways to improve a few things, and add in a couple new sprinkles all your own.

Stric9 you tried multiplayer yet? That's where the Super Double Awsome with Cherries lies in this game.

Stylez wrote:

Stric9 you tried multiplayer yet? That's where the Super Double Awsome with Cherries lies in this game.

Isn't that the truth.

Stric9 you tried multiplayer yet? That's where the Super Double Awsome with Cherries lies in this game.

I've only tried 1vs1 via split screen so far. I don't own an X360 just borrowing my brothers and bought the game to check it out. I'm not sure if I want to re-up my live account just for this game, although I will say even 1vs1 the multiplayer is pretty fun.

*Legion* wrote:

Innovation in gaming these days usually occurs on the micro level, not macro. Clearly some games do come along and innovate on the macro level, but these are few, and what's more, we WANT these to be few (the last thing we want is to throw out years of convention and improvement and rewrite the book every single time)

Gears of War has a few nice micro "innovations", be it in a new idea, or a fresh, different implementation of an existing idea.

Active reload and the ability to jump in and out of co-op play are things I haven't seen from other games.

The way that the game handles running is different than I've seen from any other shooter. The crouch sprint where you lose fine control, and can't shoot, is an interesting game mechanic and I don't recall another game that did it quite the same way. It seems like a tiny thing, but any of us who have played multiplayer know it affects the gameplay.

The cover system, while not a brand new idea, is implemented in a way unlike any other game. It is MUCH more functional, for example, than GRAW (which of course doesn't even have the cover system in multiplayer)

Gears of War is the kind of "innovation" we want from most games: take something great, find ways to improve a few things, and add in a couple new sprinkles all your own.

I agree 100% with Legion, I think there is a certain amount of cynicism involved with throwing the baby out with the bathwater and saying Gears of War is "just another shooter" and nothing new. I don't know that ignoring nuance is the way to disarming the hype bomb.

*sniff* Is that envy I'm smelling?

Certis wrote:

I don't know that ignoring nuance is the way to disarming the hype bomb.

You talk so purty, I just want to love you with my chainsaw!

Rat Boy wrote:

*sniff* Is that envy I'm smelling?

Mixed with a dash of sour grapes.

Stric9 wrote:
Stric9 you tried multiplayer yet? That's where the Super Double Awsome with Cherries lies in this game.

I've only tried 1vs1 via split screen so far. I don't own an X360 just borrowing my brothers and bought the game to check it out. I'm not sure if I want to re-up my live account just for this game, although I will say even 1vs1 the multiplayer is pretty fun.

The game is even better with teammates. The maps are perfect for using flanking strategies. Plus, the ability to revive your teammate has a huge impact on the game.

First, once a guy is down, you do need to get over to him and finish him off, which can put you at risk. Second, if your teammate is down, you need to get to him, which puts you at risk.

there have been a few times when someone didnot finish someone of purposely, juast so they could surprise the sucker trying to revive the player. Once this morning, I ran over to revive a teammate, as I was coming up to him he starts screaming, "Get away!" Then wham, I'm being sliced in two. It was like out of a freaking movie.

People can claim it soesn't innovate, but there isn't another game that duplicates what Gears is doing. It deserves the high scores it is getting, easily. It may not be for some, but it does what it does damn well.

I agree 100% with Legion, I think there is a certain amount of cynicism involved with throwing the baby out with the bathwater and saying Gears of War is "just another shooter" and nothing new. I don't know that ignoring nuance is the way to disarming the hype bomb.

I don't want to argue and act like i'm not impressed with the game, because I am pretty happy with it. I'm just trying to say I can see where this guy is coming from. I think the enormous hype and fantastic visuals have inflated the review scores a little bit.

Now here is a question I hope someone can answer. If I get two 360s and two tv's and hook them via system link can I play 4 player matches?

The bigger things to me about this guy's comments are this:

A) There should not be anyone from EA bashing any other game about not being innovative. Whether the game is or not is really a footnote. His statement approaches Sony levels of hypocrisy.

B) At the time he released this statement he hadn't even played the game. He's making his judgements based on reviews and claims the reviews are essentially bogus based on...zero time with the game?

I'm starting to see why EA is going to hell with guys like this in charge of things.

Stric9 wrote:
Stric9 you tried multiplayer yet? That's where the Super Double Awsome with Cherries lies in this game.

I've only tried 1vs1 via split screen so far. I don't own an X360 just borrowing my brothers and bought the game to check it out. I'm not sure if I want to re-up my live account just for this game, although I will say even 1vs1 the multiplayer is pretty fun.

Boy, that is no way to experience the game. While the split screen is very pretty, the limited field of vision makes it feel like a completely different beast.

Now here is a question I hope someone can answer. If I get two 360s and two tv's and hook them via system link can I play 4 player matches?

Yes, the game supports both split screen and LAN system link play. But again, split-screen sucks.

Depends on how big and high def your screen is

It will never be as good, but it can be tolerable

polypusher wrote:

Depends on how big and high def your screen is :)

This big enough for you?

IMAGE(http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/2972/img8893tk0.jpg)

Now here is a question I hope someone can answer. If I get two 360s and two tv's and hook them via system link can I play 4 player matches?

Yes. Yes you can.

This big enough for you?

Rear projection? Phshaw