The Negative Gears of War 2 Review
An admission before we begin: I never actually finished the first Gears of War having ejected the DVD after two or so hours of dying then retrying on the last level. However, I absolutely loved the game and still think of it as one of the most important releases of the last five years and not only for giving the world proper tactical combat. Ideed, with its revolutionary cover system Gears of War's gunfights made everything else feel stale. It's a surprise to me then that I'm actually sitting here writing what is to be one of the very few negative reviews its sequel is going to get.
Be ready to jump over plenty of bonnets (and walls, boulders, tables...)
But here's the cold hard truth: the game made me feel underwhelmed, even disappointed. What actually pushed me to write this is that I've been struggling with as to why I disliked it so much because, let's face it, in essence this is a surefire hit with more of the same but better, bigger and (somewhat clumsily) deeper. On top of it all, the press has unanimously graced it with glowing reviews. So let's set aside the good first. The combat is still solid and remains essentially untouched from the first outing. The levels are still intensely beautiful, much of the game happens in and under the city of Jacinto, majestic, crumbling, intricate and often awe-inspiring. The detail is truly astonishing at times. Mostly though, it is actually better than the first game, in every way. Better paced, the story makes (a little) more sense and multiplayer is now more than an afterthought. Logic would dictate that since I liked the first game and this is better, I should like this better. But the fact is I don't. And it isn't the blues you often get after completing a game... No, the unease settled in early and didn't let go until the last big, fat, lazy finale. I simply didn't find this game fun and here are a few of the reasons why...
I hate it when owners dress up their pets.
Firstly, how can a game set in such immense scenery feel so constricted? Battles are restricted to small chunks of levels at a time, with a very limited amount of enemies appearing in a way that feels more like an 80s shoot'em-up than a next gen game. You walk past a door, it closes behind you. You cross a bridge, it collapses. You never, ever lose the feeling that you're stuck to rails. Half-Life 2 was essentially linear but it made you forget it. This, on the other hand, feels like a collection of micro levels and you never feel in control. Maybe the novelty of the first game's combat masked that now glaring problem. Secondly, forget the vehicular sections, they all suck and I would be surprised if anyone truly enjoyed them. If you can't build in vehicles into gameplay don't bother. Like in th first game, stepping into a vehicle just feels like another, inferior game. Controls are clumsy, levels are frustrating and they just look off. The engine is obviously capable of handling everything on foot, but the second it has wheels everything falls apart. Some fun flying sections, but once again, nothing that exciting. I remember making sure to forget about the vehicles in the first game becaus I enjoyed the rest of it so much so thank you Epic for reminding us how dire it was and how much worse it could be made. Thirdly, fighting is repetitive. OK, we get that covering behind walls is this game's big draw but there's too much cutting and pasting going on here. A crumbling sreet? One car on the left, one car on the right, placed parallel to incoming forces in the distance. An underground cave? On boulder on the left, one on the right, perfectly aligned to the incoming forces. An enemy palace? You get the point. While Epic have tried to spice it up with some different situations (fighting from large moving tanks most notably) it's all pretty samey and by the end of it you're not really enjoying it but simply going through the motions. Lastly, it lost me. As far as experiences go, even disappointing games like Assassin's Creed manage to leave an impression, a sense of wonder. It's a crime that a game that looks as good as Gears of War 2 should be so devoid of soul. Portal, a game that had one weapon, a few identically textured rooms and a computer generated voice took you on a trip that was burned into your brain forever. Call of Duty 4 grabbed you by nuts and dragged you through war in all its gory detail. Halo 3 made you feel like a hero caught in a struggle that truly felt hopeless at times. Gears of War 2 does none of that to me. I never got sucked in enough to truly get involved with the story or its characters. Maybe it was the constant little things that obviously pointed to what the developers were trying to do. Maybe it was the constant feeling that everything ws a set piece waiting to be switched on. It felt like a ride at a fun fair, one that is essentially exciting but also one that you've ridden before. And that could all be fine if the game was essentially only trying to be a succession of gunfights very much like brilliant Black. But it had to try harder and incorporate a convoluted story that I still haven't made sense of (and frankly don't really care to). The biggest crime however was putting some entirely out-of-place drama in the middle of all the big, dumb action. One scene in particular could have actually been very effective in a different setting. In the middle of all of what was going on however it felt uncomfortable, like someone saying something depressingly serious on a night when everyone else has been sharing jokes. Pointless and as an attempt at being more intelligent as successful as a pro-wrestler putting on a pair of glasses for an interview. To top it all of, the final fight for the survival of mankind has no sense of scale, confined to skirmishes between the handful of Delta Squad marines and clusters of enemies which never really exceed a dozen (unless you're in vehicle that can easily dispatch larger numbers coincidentally.) Add to that the relatively dumb AI, overactive ragdoll effects and hammy acting and how are you expected to take all of this seriously? To be fair it kept to the formula, it's selling well and getting good reviews, so what do I know? I can only imagine that the third instalment will be more of the same (but bigger, better, deeper) which makes my decision to not look forward to it so very easy. Alexoid Score: 6/10
Be ready to jump over plenty of bonnets (and walls, boulders, tables...)
But here's the cold hard truth: the game made me feel underwhelmed, even disappointed. What actually pushed me to write this is that I've been struggling with as to why I disliked it so much because, let's face it, in essence this is a surefire hit with more of the same but better, bigger and (somewhat clumsily) deeper. On top of it all, the press has unanimously graced it with glowing reviews. So let's set aside the good first. The combat is still solid and remains essentially untouched from the first outing. The levels are still intensely beautiful, much of the game happens in and under the city of Jacinto, majestic, crumbling, intricate and often awe-inspiring. The detail is truly astonishing at times. Mostly though, it is actually better than the first game, in every way. Better paced, the story makes (a little) more sense and multiplayer is now more than an afterthought. Logic would dictate that since I liked the first game and this is better, I should like this better. But the fact is I don't. And it isn't the blues you often get after completing a game... No, the unease settled in early and didn't let go until the last big, fat, lazy finale. I simply didn't find this game fun and here are a few of the reasons why...
I hate it when owners dress up their pets.
Firstly, how can a game set in such immense scenery feel so constricted? Battles are restricted to small chunks of levels at a time, with a very limited amount of enemies appearing in a way that feels more like an 80s shoot'em-up than a next gen game. You walk past a door, it closes behind you. You cross a bridge, it collapses. You never, ever lose the feeling that you're stuck to rails. Half-Life 2 was essentially linear but it made you forget it. This, on the other hand, feels like a collection of micro levels and you never feel in control. Maybe the novelty of the first game's combat masked that now glaring problem. Secondly, forget the vehicular sections, they all suck and I would be surprised if anyone truly enjoyed them. If you can't build in vehicles into gameplay don't bother. Like in th first game, stepping into a vehicle just feels like another, inferior game. Controls are clumsy, levels are frustrating and they just look off. The engine is obviously capable of handling everything on foot, but the second it has wheels everything falls apart. Some fun flying sections, but once again, nothing that exciting. I remember making sure to forget about the vehicles in the first game becaus I enjoyed the rest of it so much so thank you Epic for reminding us how dire it was and how much worse it could be made. Thirdly, fighting is repetitive. OK, we get that covering behind walls is this game's big draw but there's too much cutting and pasting going on here. A crumbling sreet? One car on the left, one car on the right, placed parallel to incoming forces in the distance. An underground cave? On boulder on the left, one on the right, perfectly aligned to the incoming forces. An enemy palace? You get the point. While Epic have tried to spice it up with some different situations (fighting from large moving tanks most notably) it's all pretty samey and by the end of it you're not really enjoying it but simply going through the motions. Lastly, it lost me. As far as experiences go, even disappointing games like Assassin's Creed manage to leave an impression, a sense of wonder. It's a crime that a game that looks as good as Gears of War 2 should be so devoid of soul. Portal, a game that had one weapon, a few identically textured rooms and a computer generated voice took you on a trip that was burned into your brain forever. Call of Duty 4 grabbed you by nuts and dragged you through war in all its gory detail. Halo 3 made you feel like a hero caught in a struggle that truly felt hopeless at times. Gears of War 2 does none of that to me. I never got sucked in enough to truly get involved with the story or its characters. Maybe it was the constant little things that obviously pointed to what the developers were trying to do. Maybe it was the constant feeling that everything ws a set piece waiting to be switched on. It felt like a ride at a fun fair, one that is essentially exciting but also one that you've ridden before. And that could all be fine if the game was essentially only trying to be a succession of gunfights very much like brilliant Black. But it had to try harder and incorporate a convoluted story that I still haven't made sense of (and frankly don't really care to). The biggest crime however was putting some entirely out-of-place drama in the middle of all the big, dumb action. One scene in particular could have actually been very effective in a different setting. In the middle of all of what was going on however it felt uncomfortable, like someone saying something depressingly serious on a night when everyone else has been sharing jokes. Pointless and as an attempt at being more intelligent as successful as a pro-wrestler putting on a pair of glasses for an interview. To top it all of, the final fight for the survival of mankind has no sense of scale, confined to skirmishes between the handful of Delta Squad marines and clusters of enemies which never really exceed a dozen (unless you're in vehicle that can easily dispatch larger numbers coincidentally.) Add to that the relatively dumb AI, overactive ragdoll effects and hammy acting and how are you expected to take all of this seriously? To be fair it kept to the formula, it's selling well and getting good reviews, so what do I know? I can only imagine that the third instalment will be more of the same (but bigger, better, deeper) which makes my decision to not look forward to it so very easy. Alexoid Score: 6/10
