[Acert93]

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/25993.html

5 new SP levels, more MP content, a map editor. Definately seems like the best version of Gears!

[borowki]

Any word on whether it's going to be Vista only?

[D3v0ur3r]

Any word on if its going to offer the option of true first person view?

[AlStrong]

It will be Vista and XP - this also means it will be the first to have Windows Live on XP.

The closest you will get to first person in Gears of War is the sights aiming or zooming in with the sniper rifle.

[kyleb]

Originally Posted by D3v0ur3r

Any word on if its going to offer the option of true first person view?

You mean like so when you take cover with your back to a ledge you'd be looking away from whatever you are taking cover from, and when you summersault you'd see your view spin down and then up and over itself? I can't imagine trying to play Gears like that.

[AlStrong]

F.E.A.R. already pushed the bounds of that sort of view with the ladder climbing.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

It will be Vista and XP - this also means it will be the first to have Windows Live on XP.

Will PC vs Xbox matches be possible online then? (I'M GUNNING FOR YOU WAVEY!!!!)

[AlStrong]

lol Unfortunately no... Cliff said that they weren't going to spend time making it work; they just wanted to get it out this November. What's more important (IMHO) is that we all still get online co-op mode.

[D3v0ur3r]

Originally Posted by kyleb

You mean like so when you take cover with your back to a ledge you'd be looking away from whatfrom whatever you are taking cover from, and when you summersault you'd see your view spin down and then up and over itself? I can't imagine trying to play Gears like that.

Just because you see an animation doesn't mean your view has to be a replication of the animation.

Case in point Quake 3. I believe a lot of the people would see a backflip animation on many human models while a player was jumping & moving backwards. But I would never get that view of the world spinning even though people see me doing it.

Your cover part wouldn't be any different then basically most any other FPS game taking cover. Rainbow 6 Vegas had a great FPS & cover system & its the same engine. Personally I never liked the GoW style of mixed 1st/3rd view. So a option to go mostly 1st person would be an incentive to me buying the PC version knowing very well I never liked the 360 version.

[SugarCoat]

Originally Posted by D3v0ur3r

Rainbow 6 Vegas had a great FPS & cover system & its the same engine.

no its not.

[kyleb]

When the view doesn't follow the animation, surely that is less of a true first person view though, rather more a faked one. As for the cover system in Vegas, did that even work in first person? I only played the demos, but I recall the cover system switching to a third person view very much like Gears. I don't see how such a cover system could work for first person, especially all flipping between various points of cover in Gears would be particularly awkward with the disembodied first person view you suggested.

[D3v0ur3r]

I didn't suggest anything. I asked if there was any word on a 1st person option. If it has to use a 3rd person view for cover than the R6V option wasn't bad (imo) if its a must. But over all I would prefer a standard FPS view. If its not an option fine, I won't be getting it. No reason to argue.

& to SugarCoat. If GoW is a U3 engine game then correct me if I am wrong but so is R6V if I recall.

[kyleb]

Originally Posted by D3v0ur3r

I didn't suggest anything.

Then who was posting with your login when that example of a Quake 3 style view was presented?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by AlStrong

lol Unfortunately no... Cliff said that they weren't going to spend time making it work; they just wanted to get it out this November. What's more important (IMHO) is that we all still get online co-op mode.

You can remove that "IMHO". Anyone that doesn't care for co-op is a pussy.

My question is what will I use to play it: mouse/keyb or Xbox 360 controller. Having a 1st person view would make this decision far easier.

[D3v0ur3r]

To Kyleb

Jesus Christ. I was making a point that just because you see an animation in game doesn't mean the animation has to be presented in the players view when doing the animation that others would see you doing. You seem to be the one suggesting that when the animation does something in game that it has to be identical to the players view.

You were the one who said "and when you summersault you'd see your view spin down and then up and over itself?". My answer was it doesn't have to do that & I gave you a god damn example of it which happens in Quake 3.

[Richard]

Hey guys, let's take a breather. If you want to argue who's right take it up with PMs.

[kyleb]

I don't understand why anyone ever thought co-op might be cut, there is no reason to ditch the feature when the game has already been built to support it. As for controls, the game was definitely built for the controller, but I'm curious to see how they have addapted it to support the KB/M.

[Scott_Arm]

Originally Posted by kyleb

I don't understand why anyone ever thought co-op might be cut, there is no reason to ditch the feature when the game has already been built to support it. As for controls, the game was definitely built for the controller, but I'm curious to see how they have addapted it to support the KB/M.

My understanding is they added more recoil to the weapons to balance out the quicker and more precise aim.

[woundingchaney]

I would really like to revisit the game amongst the pc arena, but Im just not sure if I can validate purchasing a year old game with additional content when there are so many stellar title due to hit this year.


I may very well go ahead and purchase it to run through a bit later.


None the less its a great game and its good to see it make its way to the pc.

[Unknown Soldier]

We're told that the minimum system requirements are a 2GHz AMD or a 2.4GHz Intel single-core processor, 1GB of RAM, and an Nvidia 6600 or ATI X700 video card.

Gears of Wars will ship with support for Games for Windows - Live, the PC version of Microsoft's excellent Xbox Live service. However, it will not require Windows Vista to run. To maximize the potential install base for the game, Gears of War will run on both Windows XP and Windows Vista. The game won't feature cross-platform online play, so you won't be able to battle Xbox 360 players. On the plus side, though, you won't have to subscribe to Games for Windows - Live, because PC-to-PC multiplayer is free on the service. And because it supports Games for Windows - Live, Gears of War will feature a whole new set of 1,000 achievement points that you can amass.

Read more at Source: GameSpot

[AlStrong]

Originally Posted by kyleb

I don't understand why anyone ever thought co-op might be cut, there is no reason to ditch the feature when the game has already been built to support it.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that.

As for controls, the game was definitely built for the controller, but I'm curious to see how they have addapted it to support the KB/M.

Originally Posted by Richard

You can remove that "IMHO". Anyone that doesn't care for co-op is a pussy.

I didn't want to assume.

My question is what will I use to play it: mouse/keyb or Xbox 360 controller. Having a 1st person view would make this decision far easier.

It's a pretty fair question given that the game is almost exclusively on a single plane (from the player's point of view). There aren't very many instances in the campaign where you really have to aim up or down a lot.

Sure there are plenty of stairs and ramps, but even then, they aren't steep, and you're not really fighting on significantly different elevations. The only places I can think that are that have a stark elevation difference are the end of one of the early levels where you get the two turrets and you're high above the enemy, during that big battle at the end of Act 2, on the stairs leading up to the mansion, and also within the mansion when you defend it from the locust . Those weren't even hard parts of the game either!

In multiplayer, it should be the mouse that wins long range battles. Even with the sniper rifle handicap, you should be able to aim at enemy heads much more easily and take them down more quickly using any of the other weapons (the human or locust assault rifles). I guess it would depend if they've added a bit of random motion to those weapons too.

IME, I think you lose a lot of the "Gears" experience if you don't have that rumble feedback with the 360 controller. It's not crucial, but I mean it's not a proper chainsaw gorefest without that ridiunkulous rumbling!

[Cartoon Corpse]

this is one of those frenetic action shooters isn't it? no time to screw around? (ie finish map, move on to next level). at least that's what it looked like on G4: xplay. i may have even read that.

infinite respawns? no quicksave?

[AlStrong]

There are quite a few moments where you'll wish it was non-stop action. (There are points where Marcus is speaking to someone over some invisible MIC and you are forced to walk slowly). It really is just "stop and pop" firefighting requiring one to seek cover and then aim at people.

In multiplayer it's more frantic though, usually ending in something disgusting.

In co-op, if your pal goes down, you have to go over to his kneeling body and revive him. He doesn't die until he explodes or is continually shot while down. In multiplayer, the typical game does not have infinite respawn. The matches are setup as team vs team, the winners killing the entire enemy team. I think if time runs out, the team with the most players wins. There's the king of the hill or annex mode which does feature infinite respawns though.

No idea on quicksave. The game uses numerous and intelligently placed checkpoints (usually after a battle), so it shouldn't be that much of an issue. The Acts are broken up into chapters as well, so you should be able to get to the "good" parts easily from there.

[Richard]

Damnit AlStrong, you're making me all giddy now. I've only played GoW once at a xbox stand for 5 mins and I really liked it. Is the game short? I read comments it was a 10 hour game, what do you say? Hopefully the 5 new maps will extend it a bit.

[AlStrong]

hehe

If the game options are exactly the same, players can choose to start on normal or hardcore. After you complete the campaign, you unlock Nightmare. Hardcore is a pretty good starting place for the experienced, but you really do have to start watching the COG symbol that appears on your screen as you get hit. You don't want to see the COG in its entirety.

It really comes down to getting head shots with the sniper rifle, using your grenades effectively to take out the emergence holes and having a bit of patience while your COG health meter disappears.

On co-op, my buddy and I finished normal in about 7 hours, including the cut-scenes, on the 360. It's the fact that your buddy is generally a whole lot smarter than the friendly A.I. and does more damage that makes it short. On hardcore single player, 8-9 hours sounds about right to me. There are a couple sections in there that get really frustrating especially on the harder settings, and it's not for the lack of aiming precision either. In some cases, co-op is even more frustrating because some parts separate the two players entirely , requiring that neither of you get downed.

Nightmare is really just that at times... I think if you ever doubted the robustness of the checkpoint system, playing on Nightmare should put that particular fear to rest... for the most part. It would be too easy if you could save after every kill you made, wouldn't it?