GeOW's value rating of 9 is bullcrap

I think the GameSpot rating of GeOW's "value" is pretty much bullcrap, since they emphasize single player way too much for most games (IMO multiplayer is far more important most of the time), but in GeOW's case it's like they forgot the single player lasted only a few hours.

Let's compare it to Halo2. The single player lasts around the same as GeOW's. There are different difficulties and co-op (yeah, no online but it was in 2004).

GeOW has 2 gametypes that are nearly identical (warzone/execution); assassination, which nobody plays, and territorries (annex). At launch it had 10 maps (pretty sure). In my opinion, Gears maps aren't special AT ALL. They are mostly symmetrical, and it seems in a lot of cases the designers put more effort into how they look instead of how they play. For people like me who really like online shooters, how a map looks isn't important as long as textures and minimal detail are existant.

Halo2 launched with maps that weren't all good but several that were very well designed (like lockout - lockout's awesome). It also had many more game modes (and the ability to create modes), a party system, and a multiplayer system that was way ahead of anything (still is too - kinda sad). All that for a 9 in value, the same score as GeOW's value rating, 2 years ago.

If Halo2 get's a 9 then GeOW get's a 5. People have been getting bored of its multiplayer since within a month or two of release.

I continue to think that people who say Gears of War is FAR better than Halo couldn't match up to the skill of "little kids" on Halo2 who they constantly complain about. Who cares what pitch their voice is in, long as they know how to play. Go play Gears of War and hold B the whole match; then quit when the host kills you with a shotgun from 15 feet away.

i think the game deserved its score, but personally i feel the game is a little bit overrated

the game got REALLY old for me in only about a month 

I think the GameSpot rating of GeOW's "value" is pretty much bullcrap, since they emphasize single player way too much for most games (IMO multiplayer is far more important most of the time), but in GeOW's case it's like they forgot the single player lasted only a few hours.

Let's compare it to Halo2. The single player lasts around the same as GeOW's. There are different difficulties and co-op (yeah, no online but it was in 2004).

GeOW has 2 gametypes that are nearly identical (warzone/execution); assassination, which nobody plays, and territorries (annex). At launch it had 10 maps (pretty sure). In my opinion, Gears maps aren't special AT ALL. They are mostly symmetrical, and it seems in a lot of cases the designers put more effort into how they look instead of how they play. For people like me who really like online shooters, how a map looks isn't important as long as textures and minimal detail are existant.

Halo2 launched with maps that weren't all good but several that were very well designed (like lockout - lockout's awesome). It also had many more game modes (and the ability to create modes), a party system, and a multiplayer system that was way ahead of anything (still is too - kinda sad). All that for a 9 in value, the same score as GeOW's value rating, 2 years ago.

If Halo2 get's a 9 then GeOW get's a 5. People have been getting bored of its multiplayer since within a month or two of release.

I continue to think that people who say Gears of War is FAR better than Halo couldn't match up to the skill of "little kids" on Halo2 who they constantly complain about. Who cares what pitch their voice is in, long as they know how to play. Go play Gears of War and hold B the whole match; then quit when the host kills you with a shotgun from 15 feet away.

PotatoSandWitch

You're absolutely right about the symetrical Gears of War maps, "butcha ain't gonna be hatin' on ma Gridlock, foo, or else!"

Although i agree that Gears of War recieved a value higher then it should, and is slightly overrated, it is still amazing.  It's been more then 4 months since i got gears, and i'm still playing it.  The added maps and game mode give new life to the game, keeping it from being stagnant, though i personally would still be playing it for some time even if they had not added these.

It's single player is far too short(i thought it was significantly shorther then HL2, but that's me), however the achievements give extra incentive to play through it multiple times(first on hardcore, then insane after you unlock it as well as playing coop as dom). 

As you said, at launch it had limited game modes which were not differentiated very well.  This also deters from the value of the game.  However, gears of war has addictive gameplay.  ANd that, combined with it's many great maps(i strongly disagree with your point on maps, almost every map provides a unique experience, and almost every map is well created) and the incentive to play through the single player multiple times is what gives it great value.  Not to mention, it's a mind blowing experience the first time through with its cinematic presentation, gorgeous visuals, and intense gameplay.. that adds to the value significantly.  I always understood value was not merely how many hours you will log into a game, but whether it was worth the cash being fronted.. thus, the unique and amazing experience gears gives increases its value.

 I would have given gears a value of 7 or 8 personally.  It's a killer app, and i wouldn't expect a killer app to ever have a value lower then a 7(or more precisely, i wouldn't expect a game that scores less then 7 in the "is it worht owning" depertment to be considered a killer app).

Its all a matter of opinion, I personally dont do much multi-player so I couldnt care about it exact opposite of you.  So for me and others like me the 9 makes sense.

Thanks for using paragraphs in your long rant but you havent swayed me.

it's interesting to see someone compare gears to halo....origannality at its best..:?

 and you take gamespots reviews seriusly?

Lockout is an awful map.-Sora

hahaha your funny 

i think the game deserved its score, but personally i feel the game is a little bit overrated

REforever101

Uh.... that doesn't make sense. 

dont forget all the 9+ ratings it got from users too.....

i love the game, and can see a few more months of play in it for me personally.

i disagreektm1255

Along with hundreds of credible review sites. 

maybe you could of argued that back in Nov. 06, but here in May 07, no one gives a crap.FlawlessSeasons

QFT... nonetheless, I agree that Gears was rated too high overall, except for the graphics and sound which I felt were both very impressive. I think that few people can argue with that. But if people have fun with it, then I don't care anyway. I liked the single player... don't care as much for the multiplayer but whatever. It's my money and I was as free to NOT spend it as to spend it. Assuming they live in the Western World (or much of the Eastern World), chances are the TC is free to do the same. 

I'd give Gears a 6 in value because the only time I touch it is when I have no friends on in RSV or a friend wants me to play with him.

The lack of gamemodes and gamebreaking glitches ruin the game and I honestly only play three or four of the maps.

graphics - 10

gameplay -8

sound - 10

value - 7

imo 

tilt - 9 

i disagreektm1255

Halo and Gears are both great games so just relax and let it go.

a review is someone's opinion, as is your own. you have no right to say right wheter it is right or wrong. butkis689

the reason i brought up Halo was to bring up another game (that everyone knew about) with the same value score that obviously has more value than GeOW. Yeah, you can play GeOW and have some fun for 3 or 4 months, but Halo2 remained extremely popular for a couple yeras. 

Complaining about chainsaw and host kills is just as bad as complaining about little kids beating you. Just because GeoW isn't your cup of tea doesn't mean that the value rating should be any lower, their opinion of the game was that it had good value, which i believe, and their opinion is the only one that matters when reviewing a game.evildoggey

You can't really "mute" stupid stuff in the game like massive host advantage and glitches. 

I got at least 80 hrs. of MP, 20 hrs of SP and a couple hours of Co-Op. That means I logged over 100 hrs. on the game in 2 months. I would have logged alot more if the updates and after x-mas gamers hadn't came along and ruined it. Putting 100 hrs. into any game I feel is worth a 10. jdknight21

If you play the right games, 100 hours is nothing. I'm absolutely sure if you add up the average hours people played Halo2 to GeOW in 10 years (when people have probably stopped playing) Halo2 will be far, far ahead of GeOW.

Halo and Gears are both great games so just relax and let it go.

capthavic

if theres no online coop there might as well not be any coop.

sure, it might not have the depth of halo2, but maybe halo 2 deserved a 10- value and gears deserves a 9.  cuz lets be honest, u can always find whatever game u wanna play on gears.

i thought the value was well deserved.  IMO, GeoW was THE game that emphasized not only what next-gen was about, but what the Xbox 360 strengths were.

1) online co-op:  you simply can't just write this off.  not only was it online, but it focused on teamwork throughout the game.  it wasn't like any shooter where co-op was just single player with another player by your side and more enemies.  the game was designed with co-op in mind.  one thing that comes to mind was when you are underground at the imulsion plant and you and dom are separated in two paths.  on insane, just chugging through the maps will get you a quick death.  but working together, you can safely cross through: your teammate can be taking full fire from the opponent with wretches jumping right at him, but you will have a clear shot at the Locust taking fire at him.  then when you are done helping him, it quickly switches around where he helps you.

2) 8 players online = easy communication on teamwork.  i have played games like H2, PDZ, GRAW, etc... but Gears is one of the few games where teamwork is definitely needed (R6V falls in this category too).  when you play virtually all games where one team is talking and the other isnt... the team who talks to one another is smashing the other team to the ground.  communicating is not just a big part of next-gen gaming... but it was a focal point of one of Xbox 360's strengths: getting involved with this gaming community.

3) graphics. yes... considering this a factor may be shallow... but it doesn't change the fact that prior to the X360... people were wondering how big of a step in graphics next-gen was.  GeoW was the game that had people gasp at how great it is.  not to mention that GeoW compares well to many games that are coming out in the Fall of THIS YEAR (not all of them, but quite a few). 

I've spent tons of hours playing the co-op and the multiplayer.  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean GS was wrong.  That is like saying, burnout is crap because I hate arcade racers.  This seems like a troll post to me.  Lots of people love the gears multiplayer, it is the #1 most played thing on Xbox live.  9 is a fair number because of the multiplayer plus, as I've said I've played through the co-op several times already.logicbombx

It wasnt only gamestop that gave the game great ratings.  GOW got 9s and 10s ACROSS the board.  You have to look HARD...i mean REALLY hard to find ONE site that gave the game below a 9.4 .   Go try to find one.  If you do, im sure its the only one you will find.  Im sick of these people who think its so cool to complain about GOW.  You dont like it?  Play something else!  The game got awesome reviews ALMOST UNANIMOUSLY from the ENTIRE PROFESSIONAL GAMING COMUNITY for a reason.  To all those people I say suck it up and move on with yor life.  You opinion will NEVER be so important to contradict the millions (yes millions, including people who play games for a living) of people who love this game.  Im sick of hearing it man I cant take it anymore. 

I have figured it out there are always haters and people that love to complain about every fantastic game. Really the only people that dont like the multiplayer is those who get there as#e# handed to them because they suck. i hate when i lose a match it sucks the fun right out of it but if your good at the game yah love it. this game has taken too much of my life away but i still keep comin back. this game has the best multiplayer ever bare nonebleedingbunny

^ well put, you guys that create threads just to bash gears have probably just been butt bashed in MP and come to GS crying about it and start bashing on GOW. Its so obvious that those of you who are crap at gears....dont play it. There's nothing not to love about GOW and if you cant see that then you have some serious gaming issues. Its not hard to figure out why its the most played game online, but there will always be people who troll it just because they can, and will.

Im not referring to those, who see that GOW just isnt their cup of tea, thats fine IMO. But why create a thread about how rubbish the GS review was etc, noone cares and neither does GS. You dont like = you dont play. quite simple.

For whoever said that GS's review is the most important....errrrr.....no. Just like anyone else it is just one persons take on it, and cannot be deemed as 'law'. I thank GS for finding out all the nitty gritty on games when they arrive, however the review and gameplay aspect should be taken with a pinch of salt.....you'd be better off seeing what the overall user review opinions were, as it would give you a better viewpoint on the game.

GOW has my utmost respect due to 2 reasons.....its a great game -duh, and also its the game that brought me back to 360 gaming, for a while i was dormant playing the 360 because there wasnt really anything that hooked me up. GOW WAS and STILL is the game that i come back to from day 1 of release......and thats pretty fantastic and a great achievement to Epic....coming from a hardcore gamer. I thank you Epic and await more great titles.

why is it that people who complain about those who complain about GeoW say that they automatically suck?  i like the game... a lot actually, but to say that there are no flaws in the game can be thought of as ridiculous as saying that the game sucks hard.