Graphically superior to many shooters but lacking what makes a classic one: depth, plot and replay value.
You know, when people say this game has good graphics I think they might just mean the animation is stellar. The graphics are very monotone; the same drab gray and blue permeates almost the entire game, so although they're reasonably well drawn theres little variety. I don't know how this game can get a 9 for them because whenever blood and guts fly they look like chunks. Blood tends to splatter and gush, doesn't it? It often looked like pieces of tomato pizza flying towards the screen, even when run in 720p on a midrange LCD HDTV. It bothered me even more when I was watching, not playing. As I say, the animation of the characters is great, very fluid as you'd expect, but I found the overall visuals pretty bland. The framerate was stable, but then it damn well should be on a game with this kind of budget. Graphics: 7/10
I was distinctly unimpressed with the dialogue of the soldiers, especially outside of cutscenes. I know they're supposed to be brawny meatheads but honestly, they didn't have to be so 'lowest common denominator' dumb. The sound of a chainsaw ripping through alien flesh is satisfying the first dozen times, but after then it loses the thrill somewhat. The gunfire and soundtrack are generic for a shooter of any kind. Nothing memorable. Sound: 7/10
I don't think the campaign lasts long enough. I didn't complete it but after only a dozen hours I was told by someone who completed it that I was pretty near the end. And that was my first play through, having made several costly mistakes. When I completed MGS3, it took me a month, about five or six hours a day, finding the best routes so I could go back and complete it without getting seen or killed so I could unlock some of the bonus items. THAT is what tactical shooters should offer. And as for the multi-player mode, well I don't go much on online gaming anyway because unless you're a hardcore player you're just going to be cannon fodder for those who've been religiously playing the game since the start. This one offers the standard features, nothing more, and as others have noticed it does suffer from lag and a few nasty glitches. Value: 4/10
Sometimes I'd rate games poorly as I have so far but then find that the gameplay made the experience greater than just graphical finesse and a kickass soundtrack. Sadly, this is not the case with Gears of War.
I've been finding out that as the visual and audio sides of technology increase, it seems easier to please gamers. A lot of people obviously don't look for depth, good scripting and replay value. They go for the superficial stuff, play the game once or twice and think it's God, then give it a glowing review and subsequently never play it again. Unlike, say, Final Fantasy 7 which is dated in terms of fidelity, but offers an engrossing plot, a witty script and classic battle sequences. There are other shooters that offer plots nearly as good as that particular RPG, but this sure as hell isn't one of them.
What's good about the gameplay is the control system is tight; everything falls under your fingers nicely on the controller. As someone who plays shooters mostly on the PC with the aiming benefit of a mouse, this impressed me. But that was all, and for a blockbuster game to have merely one standout feature, you're in trouble.
I didn't appreciate the endless 'duck, cover, kill then run' scenes. I thought making the things you hide behind mostly invulnerable at the standard difficultly (barring the odd grenade of course) was a mistake. There should have been more objects that were incredibly fragile. This way the player would feel safe hiding behind it, but upon being hit by enemy fire the object would disintegrate after only a few rounds which forces them to use their wits to get out of trouble. This would have broken up the repetition with an awesome level of shock value.
Then there were vehicle scenes and those could not hold a torch to Micro$oft's flagship XBOX game, and I'm not even a big fan of that particular trilogy! I guess seeing the failures in Gears of War made me realise that maybe I had taken these sorts of things for granted.
Gears of War doesn't really have a script. Or a plot. Or a point to the killing. There is practically no exposition of any kind to explain what's going on, not even informative banter between your team. I'm not the only gamer who likes there to be a greater point to the slaughter am I? Room after room of aliens to massacre with no good reason makes the game feel mindless, and in turn makes me feel mindless for indulging in it. There's nothing here that hasn't been done before and better. I also have to point out that it misses some basic tactical elements that any game of this kind should have. There was no real form of stealth here. Therefore for both Gameplay and Tilt, Gears gets 3/10.
Apart from excellent animation, a great control method (gotta love that reloading gimmick), and the occasional 'oh snap' moment, Gears gives me no reason to want to complete the story unless I was showing it to a friend. And even then, the co-op mode in other games offers a lot more variety and isn't as linear as this game is.
It you want superficial brilliance and an easy thrill as obviously so many of the reviewers here do, Gears is your game. For every improvement the game offers in terms of fidelity, it falls woefully behind in the things that make a game classic to me.
If you want a game where you get out what you put in and have to concentrate and play well for, consider the following shooters in no particular order, correct as of time of writing:
Halo 1-3
MGS 1 and 3
Ghost Recon
Call Of Duty 3 and 4
Rainbow Six Vegas 1 and 2.
Those games offer various levels of depth, but offer better gameplay and a coherant story, and in most cases aren't that far off the mark graphically set by Gears of War. It's a shame that two-thirds of the title are identical to one of my favourite games too (the first God Of War).