Sponsored By

I understand why its cool to cheer on your favorite game franchise, but when does the formula become stale? I look at the recent Gears Of War 3 hype as an example of how far the shooter franchise has come. Maybe I got it wrong and I should cheer too.

Isaiah Taylor, Blogger

April 19, 2010

4 Min Read

Caravaggio Couldn't Have Painted It Better

I know *Gears Of War redefined how co-op multiplayer games are played, but I'm still failing to see the interest in this trailer and the subsequent game [haven't we grown tired of this formula?]. Oh wait, Gears will finally add women to the  previously established man-meaty cast -- I mean, until now female characters have been the catalyst for a man's motivation in Gears [sorry Dom]. But I'm guessing future ads won't tout Gears Of War: Now With Vajayjay. This could be a great game. I actually hope the best for Gears Of War [who can be mad at a potentially fantastic gaming experience?], but I just don't see the interest in a game that has helped pave the way of the next statement...


"It plays great, but the story and characters are ridiculous."

See its different, when you make a low[er]-budget campy 50 Cent: Blood On The Sand game. Those are budget-brain cells being lost that you can cultivate playing a complex romp through Mass Effect or Fallout 3. Maybe pick up a mildly entertaining science fiction book. The great things that Cliff Blezinski has done for gaming has established him as a figure akin to that of a Michael Bay. Bay is the master of his flashy craft and I'm sure takes pride in putting the polish in the movies I have grown to hate with a large passion. Much like Bay, Blezinski's finished products stand as technological set pieces for the time, but ultimately become dated when assimilated with something more complex. Think about it, if more games started putting competent co-op experiences in their game, what does Gears have to fall back on?

Feels Like It Was Only Two Years Ago When We Last Seen Marcus Stroking His Gunsaw  

But this is popcorn gaming right? No one should take Gears more serious than the ad dollars put into this meat-cube machine with attachable guns. Maybe people like Leigh Alexander are wrong. [Don't tell her I said that] Maybe people like Tina Sanchez are right for being as excited for something they love to play. Let's just be excited for this big thing with the explosions. It passes the time until the cycle repeats itself. Battlefield, Call Of Duty, Halo and now Gears. I understand action-platformers are having a resurgence [Uncharted and God Of War says 'Hi, Isaiah'] and to a certain extent so did RPGs, but now its more than common to see ads for FPSs and sport games to run after the game's release. I can see that the one-dimensional characters make it easy for us gamers to put ourselves in their shoes. There is no attachment. You just hop in, explode a couple of brains and hope you unlock an achievement in the process. I get why people can get excited, but I don't understand the how. There is no surprise, the trailer follows suit with the previous formula of: 1 cup somber toned music + 4 cups of heroes in a seemingly inescapable situation, mix and serve. I get that Gears is a good game, I just don't get what makes it special.


I'm bellyaching, but I'm also confused. What does Gears mean to this current generation of gamer? Will franchises like those of the caliber of the [fill in the blank big budget FPS title] ever know their limits? Aside from having disgruntled engineers and artists pour years and years into a single 'type' of game will we ever see a day where popular games are treated like the television show Lost or BBC Television? Can game franchises have a clear-cut goal and story in mind and end it when they have achieved their critical and mass appeal peak?

*I have played Gears Of War 2 and liked it, but didn't see the point of another.?

via The Brog

Read more about:

Daily news, dev blogs, and stories from Game Developer straight to your inbox

You May Also Like