bit-gamer.net

Gears of War 3 Review

Comments 1 to 25 of 28

Reply
alexandros1313 20th September 2011, 11:51 Quote
A fair score, well done bit-tech. Now get ready to be called a hater by that arrogant pr*** cliffyb.
Th3Maverick 20th September 2011, 12:12 Quote
Why's there a bunch of blood-soaked machetes on the front of a machine gun turret?
uz1_l0v3r 20th September 2011, 12:16 Quote
Gears of Bore.
Skidd 20th September 2011, 12:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Th3Maverick
Why's there a bunch of blood-soaked machetes on the front of a machine gun turret?

Because it appeals to the little kiddies and brings the coolness factor up to 11, forget practicality for this cr*p lol
Skidd 20th September 2011, 12:21 Quote
Well done bit tech and calling it what it is lol
mjm25 20th September 2011, 12:37 Quote
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!
vdbswong 20th September 2011, 13:01 Quote
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:
Quote:
and it's tough to give a flat-out recommendation to those few who have never experienced Gears of War before.

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).
GravitySmacked 20th September 2011, 13:14 Quote
It's that time of the year again, too many games coming out and not enough time to play them all.
Bauul 20th September 2011, 13:17 Quote
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.
Blademrk 20th September 2011, 13:21 Quote
I'm looking forward to playing it, won't be getting it 'til after I get payed next though :(.
GravitySmacked 20th September 2011, 13:28 Quote
I'll definitely be picking it up at some point, need to finish Deus Ex HR first though.
vdbswong 20th September 2011, 13:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
I think the score's probably fair given the target auidence of Bit-Tech.

I agree, but then given the target audience of bit-tech, is it worth reviewing anyways?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bauul
It seems as is there's nothing wrong with Gears 3 per se, but it's not exactly doing anything new or engaging.

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).
CardJoe 20th September 2011, 13:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjm25
Actually surprised by the 75, the tone of the review was entirely positive (with caveats), but the score doesn't matter ;)

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.
Podge4 20th September 2011, 17:50 Quote
Mine came today but its a xmas prezie. Will give me time to play the others again
thom804 20th September 2011, 18:29 Quote
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.
Podge4 20th September 2011, 18:52 Quote
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.
Solidus 20th September 2011, 19:39 Quote
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.
Skiddywinks 21st September 2011, 02:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Th3Maverick
Why's there a bunch of blood-soaked machetes on the front of a machine gun turret?

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Th3Maverick
Why's there a bunch of blood-soaked machetes on the front of a machine gun turret?

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

Way to jump to conclusions to further your clear elitism.
Tsung 21st September 2011, 08:41 Quote
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. :/
BentAnat 21st September 2011, 08:56 Quote
I am _SO_ getting this adn F1 2011 as soon as they hit the shelves.

While I have yet to experience another game that LAGGED (like - network lag) on the same console in split-screen co-op mode (thanks, GOW2), this looks to bring a close to GOW as a trilogy, and looks o be exactly what the doctor ordered for my gaming needs right now.
2bdetermine 21st September 2011, 19:39 Quote
These same guys ruined the PC UT series so screw this! Can't wait 'til next week BF 3 beta.
veato 21st September 2011, 20:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidd
Because it appeals to the little kiddies and brings the coolness factor up to 11, forget practicality for this cr*p lol

As someone else rightly pointed out the turret is made from reclaimed lancer rifles. Good going on making yourself sound like an elitist PC idiot though.
Skiddywinks 22nd September 2011, 02:53 Quote
I have a question for you Joe; have they fixed the atrocious host-side hit detection? I only played a couple of hours of both the first games online because of this. Shotguns were just a joke, unless you were host, in which case it became the opposite kind of joke. Lancers were useless on running targets (especially after playing the campaign so extensively), and pretty much everything relying on reaction times was severely skewed in the favour of the host. And this was in the best case scenarios where there was actually no lag and the game was really quite playable otherwise.

I remember hearing about them fixing it for number 2, but that didn't quite work out. So have they full on ditched it now in favour of a better method, or have they actually fixed it, or is it still there?
Anneon 22nd September 2011, 13:12 Quote
'ho well, each to their own and all that.
tom_hargreaves 22nd September 2011, 14:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiddywinks
I have a question for you Joe; have they fixed the atrocious host-side hit detection? I only played a couple of hours of both the first games online because of this. Shotguns were just a joke, unless you were host, in which case it became the opposite kind of joke. Lancers were useless on running targets (especially after playing the campaign so extensively), and pretty much everything relying on reaction times was severely skewed in the favour of the host. And this was in the best case scenarios where there was actually no lag and the game was really quite playable otherwise.

I remember hearing about them fixing it for number 2, but that didn't quite work out. So have they full on ditched it now in favour of a better method, or have they actually fixed it, or is it still there?

Hi Skiddywinks,

I've had two nights playing the Multiplayer now, and having been very frustrated by the first two games' MP I can tell you it's not the case. The game uses dedicated servers so there's no lag issue or host advantage. The lancer has also been improved IMO, making it easier to kill people with it.

I'm really enjoying it, which is a plus because I assumed the MP would be no good after the first two games (I agree with you that Gears 2 MP was no good). It feels like the BETA has made a whole load of difference to the outcome of the final product.

The graphics are nice, it's very smooth (seems like a rock solid 30fps like the first two games), and it generally just feels like more of the same but really polished. You should give it a try.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums