EA Says Gears Of War Has “Zero Innovation”
November 10th, 2006 by Darren Stevens in Offbeat, Rumor, Software, Xbox360
Gears of War has certainly lived up to the hype, but it’s still not good enough to deserve credit from EA. EA Montreal manager Alain Tascan says about the game,
“What is Gears of War? I mean Gears of War brings nothing in terms of innovation to the shooter… Like, zero.
“Only two very brave UK-based journalists said, ‘You know what, Gears of War is a great game but it’s like what Quake was a few years ago.”
“Why are people loving it so much? It’s like added production value, incredible cutscenes and the best ever graphics ever. I’m sure it’s going to be a great success, I can’t wait to play it, but let’s face that graphics are still number one,”
Comments like these coming from EA, the most unoriginal game developer and publisher ever, are really stretching the meaning of the word “irony”. Try and think how many EA games released in the past, say 2 years, that are original? I can only think of Black, which was, all things considered, “just another shooter”.
Read (Voodoo3D)
Tags: Offbeat, Rumor, Software, Xbox360
November 10th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
im sorry Ea can suck my fucking nut i love my bf2 and bf2142 which they fucked up.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:14 am
EA is just a bunch of jealous bitches who everyone can clealy see doesn’t belong in the business of making “interactive entertainment”. Man I have so much to say about this so hang on:
To be fair I said this first @BU (Beyond Unreal):
“Forget about the idiots at EA … we know about them. The real issue is how genuine those reviews are … and while there are few people who have been and continue to be as into Gears/360 as me (around here anyway) I had a great deal of difficulty swallowing all the 10s and 95% plus scores as well to be very honest. Especially the 10’s … as we all know there is NO game ever that deserves a 10. That is just a goal and especially when everyone is saying that the story is not as Epic as it could have been (yes we know more will be revealed in Gears 2 but still it is thin HERE) so that is a tenth or so off right there. Then couple that with the fact the SP campaign is relatively brief and that some points. And there are bugs as well.
The other problem with handing out 10s is that there are other games coming out (Lost Planet) that look just as good and have more innovation so will that game also get a 10? How many potential 10s are we looking at? So really those reviews are just not worth crap because they are very disingenous … the reviews that are worth a damn review this game more honestly and are willing to shave a few points where things are not perfect. So I am while I am very comfortable with the overall avg score of 94.1
http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages4/928234.asp
Those first 7 reviews that are all 10s are garbage … and the last ones that only give the game 80% are BS as well and totally biased and unobjective (and no this is not a case of they are entitled to their opinion when they are so CLEARLY incorrect). Everyone can tell that this game is no less than a 90% game … period. So is it perfect NO. NO. and NO. But is it DAMN good … AMAZING even … yes without a doubt and worthy of someone buying a 360 just for this game (knowing though that Lost Planet, Halo 3, Mass Effect, and Too Human among others are just around the corner).”
But then I had to take some swipes at EA … I couldn’t just let this pass by:
“I don’t accept 10’s as being a viable score to give something in relation to something else or because it is near perfect (especially when in the review you are really complaining about something as they pretty much all did). For me and I can only speak for myself a 10 means 10 period … I expect a flawless game with an incredibly rich story and let’s face it some real dialogue to go with that. But a 9.7-9.9 is near perfect and that is acceptable at least it shows this game has a couple of issues … obviously with a 9.7 that doesn’t mean it is bad or severely detracts from Gameplay it just means it is NOT perfect … forget the innovating part … For me there is enough in terms of the genre we are talking about …. could there have been more … possibly … but at what costs is the issue.
The honest truth is we’ll see how important innovation really is with the sales of the Wii, not initially because everyone will get it … but in say two years. If it is still selling strongly and gaining momentum then we’ll know Major innovation really does mean something to the masses. But I can’t see that happening … I believe that in the end the visual experience you get from true HD games with multi-core technology powering it will prove too much for the innovation of the Wii … especially after seeing and playing Gears, F.E.A.R., Oblivion not to mention what is coming in the next 18-24 months. That said I sincerely wish the Wii the best of luck but never being able to run games of Gears caliber puts it at a disadvantage immediately imo.
Now I hate EA but I will say this … they did publish one really cool and very original shooter that had a couple of neat little innovations (nothing big though): Stranger’s Wrath … now that was/is a very cool and entertaining game … I just hate that it’s published by EA.
Edit: Also … what was so innovative about Black? Does anyone remember how much EA tried to hype that game. Talk about having a lame story and pretty much using the same existing conventions. But no one is talking about that less than stellar game. don’t get me wrong though … it was a fun shooter for what it was but it wouldn’t get more than a 7.3 from me. ZERO innovation and current gen AI that wasn’t really better than any other shooter on hard. I’ll stop now before I can’t stop bringing up EA’s games that failed. Madden 06 and 07 for the 360 … and they just cancelled the PS/3 version of Live 07 … man they really need to focus 100% of their attention on getting their own house in order.”
That’s it … but you folks can see why I have always detested EA and have had ZERO respect for them in the last 5 years.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:17 am
Then I explained why I thought that Gears was indeed innovative:
“Can I please add that the very presentation of this game and the immersiveness it provides a player with … from the amazing camera angles, the PAN zooms to see somewhat important items, almost complete absence of loading times between levels, the smoothness of the character’s motions, the realism of the characters themselves, the complete absence of a HUD in such a way that it is 100% natural and it’s absence is in no way detrimental, to the audio work itself … come together in such a way as to form an innovative experience in depth of immersion. IMHO there is No game presently on the market that is more immersive than this one in such a realistic fashion as to almost seem as if you are really there. Even the layout of available weapons and ammo in the levels is extremely real and convincing … combined with the Haloesque health recharge and zero need for armor all combines to push immersive gaming to another level.
So while the individual parts may not seem all that innovative (and some aren’t … the HUD thing has been done (but not as well imo), streaming for absence of loading screens in games, non reliance on health packs and armor pickup, intelligent weapon and ammo placement on the levels) when they are combined together they truly do provide for a level of immersion and entertainment that one would be hard pressed to say is not innovative. That saying ‘the SUM is greater than its parts’ definitely applies here. At least that’s my story and I’m sticking with it. Did I mention the amazing lighting and almost inhuman texturing this game brings to the table … simply astonishing to see visuals of this caliber on ANY console. And it only gets better from here on out.
November 12th, 2006 at 7:21 am
Note: Keep the language as clean as possible and respect others. Unconstructive comments, personal insults and general misbehaviour will be removed.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Sorry … I think the only ones we were disrespecting was EA … I thought they were fair game for whatever was said about them. So Sorry.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Black>GoW I’d rather play rehashes of Madden for the rest of my life than touch GoW again.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
You must be kidding … right? Black is in NO way better than GoW … in many ways it is sooo much worse it is laughable. But hey if that is how you really then so be it.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:10 am
GoW is a great game. The visuals are amazing, the AI is smart, the weapons are !freakin’ awesome!, the enemies concept is amazing, the game is challenging (except on casual), the co-op is a cool feature, and the chainsaw is beautiful. I don’t know about you, but I think this game one of the most engrossing and visually appealing games I have ever played.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Well I don’t agree with a thing you said … but since you are so convinced and you like the game so much I will just leave it at that. I have given more than enough examples as to why this game is not one I care for one iota and I see no sense in repeating myself. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and their own tastes. As long as you feel you are getting your money’s worth that is fine.
Others know exactly how I feel and why I feel the way I feel. And I will say I don’t agree at all that the AI is smarter … as I have said the enemies health is so ramped on on hardcore and insane that playing solo with suicidal AI teammates is a nightmare because they get cut down and the puny weapons you have can’t stop them as easily so the illusion is created that they are somehow smarter … and yes I have played on it each setting no co-op. But as I said the point is you like it and since it is your money and time spent that is all that matters for you. I don’t get into debates anymore with people who like this game as it is pointless. Look around if you care to and you can find all the examples I give as to why this is NOT a great game in my opinion. Other than that I have nothing more to say on the topic.
Oh and by the way no one would ever argue about the presentation … we all know it looks great … as it should … to me that is no big deal at all considering I saw it over two years ago. Actually to be honest I was expecting a little bit more in the visuals dept since this does come from the people who actually created the UE3.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:31 am
But hey I did question all those BS reviews (I still do actually) and I did say the true pull of the game for me was the immersive nature of it. I would have to humbly admit that if you can get past all the faults it is still one of the most immersive games around. Wow is this game causing me some major conflicts. Grrrr … I just can’t wait until Lost Planet, Stranglehold, Bioshock, and Mass Effect come out.