Joke of the Day. EA bashes GOW for lack of innovation

I believe what he was trying to say is that Army of Two will have worse graphics but a bunch of new ideas. This game is released in rather near future (March 07), so we'll verify his words soon.:D
 
Of course they do. Gears is actually pretty innovative. I think it's funny to second guess all the review scores since that's the feeling these reviewers got when they played the game. A lot of people who don't have X360's seem to love bashing GoW. Apparently so do people who don't have anything innovative slated for release this season. Sounds like sour grapes more than anything else.
 
groper said:
Surely the addition of a gravity gun count as innovative ?
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's jus the addition of a new weapon, gears brings innovation to the actual gameplay mechanics, something that is very rare, and is usually not done right.

Take the cover system alone, the way they nailed that is just perfect. It automatically detects which piece of cover you want to run to, and if you want to run past it it gets that too. It's damn near seamless, and it feels so good.

Gears changes 3rd person gameplay and it will porobably be copied for the next five years, obviously it's innovative.
It's basically GRAW on steroids, polished to the max, with WAY better controls, I didn't hear anyone bashing GRAW for lack of innovation so this is pretty silly.

I don't think this game is a 10, but a 9-9.5 is right on the mark.
 
At the end of the day, wheather Gears is inovative or not it does'nt change the FACT that its a very high quality game.
 
DJ12 said:
If the idea had already been done, someone doing it better doesn't mean it's innovative.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to your opinion, but if it's not done right it doesn't have an impact on the genre, and it gets forgotten as a footnote.

If it's done right it will influence shooters for the next 5 years, GOW will do that.

It's pointless getting intoa debate about what "is" innovation, virtually all innovation is derived from observing, copying and improving on something else.
 
DJ12 said:
If the idea had already been done, someone doing it better doesn't mean it's innovative.
Click to expand...

Does it matter, especially if they did it better. So you think that a game that has a new feature but is badly implemented should get a higher score because the came up with this idea, rather than the game that takes that idea and implements much better and evolves it?...
 
It does matter yes, when people such as yourself are claiming it to be innovative (ie a new idea) when clearly it is not.

Lets see what you've got to say about games released for the other console when they take idea's from other games and mearly improve on them. I'm sure it will be copy this, copy that, where is the innovation. :LOL:
 
I was really looking forward to playing Gears. I was thinking finally this is a game that will make me buy an XBox 360. I got to play it on thursday, but I dunno, it was a good game, graphically very pleasing to the eyes, but it didn't completely "wow" me, even though I really wanted it to "wow" me. Perhaps I got too much into the hype and then when I finally got to play it, I just got the feeling it was gonna be better than what I was playing.

That sounds really arrogant, but I'm trying to be honest. It made me feel like I was playing a 3rd person version of Quake 4, which is another game that didn't really do it for me either. The controls seemed a bit clunky, and felt like they were originally designed for a keyboard, and then converted to a controller later on.

Perhaps I set my expectations too high, maybe I'll think about buying it if or when it comes out on PC, but to me as a console game it just didn't sit right with me. I think if I had time to sit down and play the whole game I'd give it an 8-8.5/10 overall. The high reviews really made me wanna go out and buy it and an Xbox 360, but I personally believe reviewers were too generous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't see anyone claiming that this game is innovative. Then again why does it need to be? Isn't it good enough to see it's a good game and it should be scored based on that? So what if people mention the flaws, they have nothing else to complain about imo because the game is that good. What bothers me are all the people that have yet to play the game and are either railing on it or complaining about lack of innovation.

innovation really is taking an existing idea and implementing it in a more usable or enjoyable way. There's really aren't any NEW ideas anymore. Even still making something innovative doesn't make it good. people need to stop compartmentalizing games and take them as the entire package.

1. Is the combat fun and challenging? yes.
2. Are the graphics good? yes.
3. Is it entertaining? yes.
4. Is it a video game and not an academy award winning movie/novel? yes!

The game is good enough for the majority of people to out weigh the few flaws it has.

To be honest, this EA guy has admitted to not playing the game. He should be agreeing with some review when he hasn't tried the thing. I've never been a fan of Euro gamer at all anyway, so i take their opinion and toss it into the trash with every game they review. I've heard of horror stories of stuff Euro gamer did in the past with some developers games. So what if two European reviewers thought it was only worthy of an 8. Omigod the sky is falling! no, wait... it's not.
 
Andy said:
I was really looking forward to playing Gears. I was thinking finally this is a game that will make me buy an XBox 360. I got to play it on thursday, but I dunno, it was a good game, graphically very pleasing to the eyes, but it didn't completely "wow" me, even though I really wanted it to "wow" me. Perhaps I got too much into the hype and then when I finally got to play it, I just got the feeling it was gonna be better than what I was playing.

That sounds really arrogant, but I'm trying to be honest. It made me feel like I was playing a 3rd person version of Quake 4, which is another game that didn't really do it for me either. The controls seemed a bit clunky, and felt like they were originally designed for a keyboard, and then converted to a controller later on.

Perhaps I set my expectations too high, maybe I'll think about buying it if or when it comes out on PC, but to me as a console game it just didn't sit right with me. I think if I had time to sit down and play the whole game I'd give it an 8-8.5/10 overall. The high reviews really made me wanna go out and buy it and an Xbox 360, but I personally believe reviewers were too generous.
Click to expand...

That's respectable. how far did you get into the game, or rather how long did you play?

I find the game gets better the more you play. Also playing co'op is a blast if you haven't tried it. I've yet to try online death matches yet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunately I wasnt at my friends house for very long so I only got to play it for about an hour or so. I got to play much less of Tony Hawk Project 8 and about 30 minutes of COD3. I quite liked COD3, I might get it for PC.
 
Gears may not be innovative in that people seem to say it borrows heavily from kill switch? But how many people really played kill.switch? And how good was kill.switch cover system relative to gears? How many other games had cover before kill.switch? hell i can play a Namco first person shooter in the arcade and press the pedal and "duck" too. They get the innovation stamp then because instead of fighting straight up ala HotD i got to duck now... using a foot pedal... I used to "duck" while playing "Elevator Action" too...

Platons post is spot on... of all the games listed by fearsomepirate I only played a few (doom, HL, RE4, MGS 1&2) of those I only really found MGS1, Doom and RE4 to be innovative. MGS1 and RE4 because they used their controllers in a innovative fashion and RE4 added that over the shoulder view which it will be credited with forever and Doom because it was a genre-spawner.... for many years before Doom, the king of "first person shooters" was actually Dungeon Master by FTL games... so Doom just made that more maniacal and stepped it up in terms of speed and control... Torment i didnt play, OoT I didnt play (though I found WW very fun and innovative) and Shadow/ICo I havent played though I'd like to...

God of War took ShenMue's QTE and turned it into a game... with lots more action than ShenMue ever offered so which was more innovative? Tomb raider was a new breed of of third person action shooter but not the first but the best of its kind...

The most innovative thing about gears is that there is no jump... once i played it... it made a lot of sense... Dive yeah, hop over obstacles yeah, jump? hmmm why?
 
Andy said:
I was really looking forward to playing Gears. I was thinking finally this is a game that will make me buy an XBox 360. I got to play it on thursday, but I dunno, it was a good game, graphically very pleasing to the eyes, but it didn't completely "wow" me, even though I really wanted it to "wow" me. Perhaps I got too much into the hype and then when I finally got to play it, I just got the feeling it was gonna be better than what I was playing.
Click to expand...

I had the same feeling at first. It's hard with a game with this much hype, not to let you down on some level, it's harder to just take the game for what it is because you expect so much.

At first I was liking it but it wasn't completely blowing me away, by the end of act 2 I was really starting to get into it, and by act 3 I'm just completely hooked.

p.s. Is it wierd that I keep hoping the Halo music will kick in??? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top