Mark Rein says second-gen GoW on 360 looks better than first-gen PS3 titles
Epic's Mark Rein put on his publicity cap, started voicing strong opinions, and dropped a naughty word at London's game developer conference today. While speaking about his company's highly anticipated Gears of War for the Xbox 360 he said, "Sony says the next generation starts when they say so - bullsh!t (or as the British might say, bollocks!)!" He also stated that the second-generation Xbox 360 title will look better than PS3 launch titles. Plausible, but sure to stir up the fanboy bees nest while garnering calculated publicity.Mark-ditty got specific, however, on expected play time for Gears. He estimates a 12.5 hour completion (contrary to the previously stated 10 hours) and also promised some surprises for the game, also known as cliffhangers. To be fair, the game (we played at E3) has got ... well, game. So keep droppin' dem bombs, Mr. Rein.
Listen to what else Mark has to say:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
SonyBlowsGoats @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:39PM
Yup. And I'm sure GoW will look better than second and third-gen PS3 titles as well!
HA!
Anonymouse Rep @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:40PM
Would that be 12.5 hours for someone who's good at a shooter, or about 25 - 30 for someone like me?
Martin @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:40PM
I heard that the new system, The Outside World, kicks the pants off of any graphics that PS3 or 360 can put together.
Joe A. @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:41PM
Wow, talk about fanboy bait. Here comes the PS3 fanboys calling Mark Rein's words BS and the 360 Fanboys with their Playstation 2.5 remarks.
nizzy1115 @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:43PM
xbox 360 > PS3
kayzai @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:45PM
12.5 hrs?
How much is this tech demo going to cost. then?
This was the game that was going to sell the X360 to me!!!
Oh well, I'll keep waiting for a black wii. (Don't even go there!)
PS3 is simply too expensive at a toy.
vidGuy @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:48PM
Well duh. But the real question is how will second generation PS3 games stack up against second generation 360 games?
How's 12.5 hours for a shooter? Maybe I'm too used to RPGS and Adventure games lasting 40 - 60 hours...
aZn_1080p @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:48PM
Sorry, but games like Resistance, RR7, white knight story, etc already look way better than GOW, and have better multiplayer as well. You would think for a company that is only good at one thing, eye candy, that the game would look more impressive. Its truly laughable to guys like 'Cliffy B' held up as some sort of game design gods when there is no evidence of that whatsoever...
Not to mention, the sony games don't have the 'generic shooter' feel and the pathetic 'football player on roids' vs 'generic alien' design. I know Epic just rips off Warhammer 40k for all their character design, but you would think they could get more original over time, instead of more and more derivative.
omg @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:48PM
God I hate most of the commenters on Joystiq. Rarely do you see such a bunch of retards come together in one place.
OMG 360 IS ROX! OMG 360 > PS3!!11 NO PS3 IS TEH WIN!! WII IS TEH BEST.
Heres a tip GO FUCKING DIE! Nobody cares wtf you think STFU.
phranctoast @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:50PM
yeah..i guess..until ut2007 comes out.
phranctoast @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:52PM
oh yeah. forgot to mention this. Epic has already gone and said that they are a lot better off learning the ps3 then they were at the same time with the 360. That means that Epic themselves could make better games on the ps3 right now then on the 360.
GlitchCog @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:54PM
Surprises aren't cliffhangers. A cliffhanger is when you leave the story for a while in a hightened state of suspense, not when you're shocked at an outcome.
? X ? O @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:54PM
Once people start seeing actual gameplay on the PS3, they are going to be so disappointed. I predict Sony fanboys will be saying, "Once the developers figure out how to unlock the PS3's TRUE power, the games will be better." Unfortunately, they'll be saying that for five years.
phranctoast @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:55PM
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/07/26/rein-reckons-ps3-in-a-better-place-for-launch-than-360/
LaughingTarget @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:55PM
Categorized and filed under the "No Duh" heading. The PS3 isn't a giant leap and bound above the 360 like the Xbox was over the PS2, so of course a system that has had a year head start will look better.
glitched @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:56PM
GoW = God of War Not gears of war.
Gears of war is just Gears for short.
Usedtabe @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:57PM
Sorry Azn_1080p, but none of those games furing actual gameplay look better than GOW. Plus, I thought white knight was only a trailer?
I may eventually have a PS3(after price drops), but I have a 360 now, and I'm very happy with my purchase. Unfortunately, The PS3 is doing nothing new to justify $100-$200 more than my 360(my opinion). But, I will say this, comparing GOW to launch games isn't exactly fair, but don't be a fanboi and try and claim PS3 launch games look better than 360 second-gen, because you're just lying. They may one day, but not now
VampireHunter Z @ Oct 3rd 2006 1:58PM
aZn_1080p is probably the biggest Sony fanboy known to man. This is coming from the guys who created the Unreal Engine. I would give him some credit for his knowledge about graphics. And they are working with PS3 hardware too so he can make a valid comparison.
Usedtabe @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:00PM
Whoops *featuring
RolexDPracer @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:02PM
Ha, Ha.
AceMilo @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:03PM
@azn Resistance is basically a rip off of halo / gow, no one cares about ridge racer anymore (generic gameplay and no where near as fun or realistic as pgr or forza), and wtf is white night? Seriously tho, gow is looking to be the game of the year. And resistance has better online?! HA! They claim they can get 40 ppl in a game but I'd like to see that happen in the real world on the internet not just on lans without major lag.
FimShady @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:04PM
@13- Prove it.
At 12.5 hours, Xbox 360 is already hitting the DVD9 storage cap. Great looking games, really freaking short.
foobob @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:04PM
my mom used to say i was the most beautiful boy she've ever witnessed. ah! mom's love...
LaughingTarget @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:06PM
AceMilo -
White Knight actually looks pretty good. Large, open ended RPG ala Oblivion with some fancy effects. It is actually looking very good and may turn out to be a good purchase...once the PS3 price goes down. Doesn't matter who you are, getting ANY console at launch is stupid. Learned my lesson after getting burned with the 360, PS2, and Xbox.
Nate @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:07PM
@ kayzai,
What's wrong with 12.5 hours? For a 3rd person action shooter like this that is perfect. This isn't an RPG. You think most people wouldn't get bored if this game was over 20 hours for the campaign? The thrill can only last so long. The game has multiplayer and co-op as well, so I'm sure that's where most people will get their fix when they finish the campaign. The game is looking amazing....and saying that a campaign length of 12.5 hours isn't enough is insane.
ChronoZaga @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:07PM
I love the PS3 fanboy stating that the PS3 is superior even though none of us has seen one "in the wild." And saying that GOW has a generic feel...when it isn't even released yet. You kids get me.
Why does it matter which is "TEH UBER PWER PWNING SYSTEM!" Gears of War looks fun, just like many Playstation 3, Wii and Xbox360 games yet to be released look fun. OF COURSE the guy is going to claim his game is the best.
This should be about having fun, not picking a side and degrading all others. Grow up just a little.
footlong! @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:07PM
vidGuy,
you can't possilby believe it will be a fair comparison between 2nd gen ps3 games and 2nd gen 360 games. you could then try and compare 2nd gen 360 games to 2nd gen 64 games. that'd be stupid though. the 360 may have been released a year earlier but you have to compare present games with present games. otherwise, i could argue that sony had 2 more years to make the ps3 than microsoft did the 360. be reasonable folks.
jarod @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:09PM
in my opinion, i dont agree with rein. id say theyre pretty much dead even in graphics. i have much more faith in microsoft's console tho.
i, and everyone i know considers the ps3 as it is, a total joke, and a concrete block on top of sony's coffin. im so sad they chose to force blu-ray down our throats. if there was no blu-ray, wed have millions of much, much cheaper ps3's this holiday, and much better loading times. (2x blu-ray = slug. sleeping slug.) i have no idea why they would risk their best brand name to promote a proprietary format, when they have not had one single successful one yet, AND going up against a better-selling more well-recieved format like HD-DVD.
i wish it wasnt so, i would love to play resistance and lair, but by the time i get a playstation 3 set up and purchased with all the needed accessories, its gonna be damn near a grand. too bad. i wouldve been right there on launch day to pick one up.
wii60 ftw. unfortunately.
and dual shock 2.0, oh im sorry, SIXAXIS, is total crap. i hated the ps2 controller.
JimmyHACK @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:11PM
it looks good yes, but compares pretty equally with resistance ps3 graphically (neither are anywhere close to photorealistic)..... the more vids that come out show polish on gears, and yes it looks good, but it's not some OMG wow its the best thing ever....
Eric Von Shpeel @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:12PM
is this the same Microsoft idiot who declared that Sony wouldnt be able to have 1080p games this year, despite them having many available at launch? Or are they employing more idiots?
CooperHawkes @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:13PM
Fimshady said:
At 12.5 hours, Xbox 360 is already hitting the DVD9 storage cap. Great looking games, really freaking short.
Umm.. that's not true. If you're infering this from the 7.2GB "LEAK", that wasn't Gears, it was a joke. No one knows the final size of the disc yet.
Mark Rein is slowly becoming the US version of Kuturagi and Hairi, always putting his foot in his damn mouth.
DefineReality @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:15PM
Okay.
Chances are, when I post this, it'll be number fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen. Or ten thousand. The rabid fanboys will respond to this fast.
To clear the air about myself: Playstation (The original white block, not the later sexy version), Xbox (The original (ie. only) black block), and Xbox 360 (With that weird concave "breath" design). That's what I've owned in the past and what I presently own. Obviously, by my own admission, I'm pro-Microsoft so anything I've got to say may as well be written off the instant it's typed.
Stay with me here...
Do I care if 2nd Gen 360 titles look better than 1st Gen PS3 titles? Hell yes! Makes me feel good about my purchase. What will I do if PS3 2nd Gen titles look better than 3rd Gen 360 titles? I'll probably reassess my standings.
Why did I not buy a PS2? Because at that point in my life (Early-twenties), I wasn't stable enough to devote time to the wonderfulness that is games. That and as my original Playstation reached the end of its life, I had a slightly sour taste in my mouth since I had to turn the thing upside down or put a book on its lid just to load a disc with those weird blue colored CDs. Those annoyed the living hell out of me.
Why did I get an Xbox? Sony Fanboys, take a look at PS2 games and XBox games. There's a difference in graphical power. Maybe not in the selection of games, but a definite difference in graphical power between those two systems. If you can't see it, go to the optometrist. He'll hook you up so you can.
Yes. Yes. I know. PS2 has a /huge/ library of games. I know this. I admit it. It's one of the regrets of never owning a PS2. However, I'm a professional adult now and things like family, outdoor activities, etc. take priority over my game playing. The relatively meager offerings of the XBox were enough to sedate me when I had the time to actually sit down and play for a little bit.
Why did I get an XBox 360? Confident in my first MS purchase, I jumped (Probably too early) into the "Next Generation of Gaming" and got one. At first, I wasn't happy with the purchase. Not enough games at launch that interested me (Keep in mind that I'm an /adult/ now) for my precious free time. As Summer '06 came around and left, I found myself with quite a few more games available and a few that even 'addicted' me.
I, like almost every 360 owner, eagerly await Assassin's Creed, Gears of War, and Halo 3. I frothe at the mouth waiting for them.
But what happens if the PS3 /is/ better. Given Sony's track record as of late to produce anything substantial by way of actual gameplay of a finished game (Fishy considering it's almost launch day, eh?) and their track record with the PS2 pre-launch, I'm finding it hard to believe. But if the PS3 /is/ better, I have to then weigh another small fact of gaming goodness out:
Cross-platform games. Soooo many games this generation are going to be cross-platform that I honestly believe that with rising production costs (not to be confused with production values), both versions of the games will be essentially the same graphically. Hence, why buy a PS3 at all if it is indeed the superior console?
Also, this whole sixaxis controller gig? I don't know about you, but when I'm playing a tense game, I shift around alot. I go from the edge of my seat to the back of my seat, to my feet. The controller never remains still. What'll happen to my in-game self when I make those moves? Does it forgive me for that?
Remember I said I was an adult? I don't have time for the Final Fantasy franchise, the Metal Gear Solid franchise...Okay. Truth be told, I haven't /finished/ a video game in /ages/. No time. Plain and simple truth of it. I play them casually out of necessity and stop playing them when something better comes along.
So, those are my negatives against PS3. The obviously solution would be to buy all three new systems and proclaim that 'I can afford it' like so many of you on here evidently can. Yeah. I probably could afford all three quite easily. Probably in one huge purchase if needed. But guess what? Adult, remember? I've got bills, cars, family, pets, real life, furniture, etc. My life doesn't revolve around video games. They're just another facet of it.
So...If you're getting all three, thank your mommy and daddy for the money, the well paying job (Which oddly gives you enough time to enjoy all three consoles) or good for you for having drastically different priorities than the rest of the world.
My ultimate choice of console goodness? I'll wait til the consoles actually launch. I wont listen to the PR or look at the specs (How many of you guys out there have a Cell-based PC? Anyone...Anyone?) and proclaim early victory for either of the three giants.
If Nintendo fails: MS and Sony owners will have something to rejoice for. Their games will be available for the masses for the other two systems (ala Sega)!
If PS3 fails: It'll be tough for Sony to comeback from such a beatdown. But with its rabid fanbase, it also will be highly unlikely that it'll fail at all. You know what they say about certain types of people in large groups...
If 360 fails: This is the most likely of all three. If 360 fails, Microsoft shrugs it off and builds another consoles with lessons learned. One things for sure, if they stay on par with Sony, it's only good news for them. New fans, new loyalists, new franchises.
It'll be interesting to watch. Just please wait til the damn things launch, people. It's hard a hell logging into Joystiq to listen to your moronic declarations of anyone's superiority.
Wreckhart @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:16PM
Comparing first gen titles and second gen titles = comparing apples and oranges, what an idiot.
Open mouth insert foot, mmmmm second gen foot is better than first.
GoW another shooter for the FPS360 big deal.
Cant we all just get along we both get Guitar Hero.
Enigma @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:17PM
Me thinks Mr. Rein is playing devil's advocate with these 2 game machines.
SickNic @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:20PM
aZn_1080p,
I didn't realize you already played those games. I was under the impression that they weren't out yet. Silly me...
However, I still have yet to see a PS3 game that looks as good as gears of war, and I'm just as excited for the PS3 as i am for any other console I've purchased.
BMWM3P @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:21PM
It's not like he's going to say, it looks worse. He's hyping up his game what do you expect him to say. About this time next year when the PS3 surpasses the 360 in sales his comments are going to a hell of a lot different. Also, he is very wrong some of the PS3 launch games look better than gow already.
Fenris @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:22PM
phranctoast,
actually if you read that what you linked, it talks about how when the 360 was coming out they had not had much time with the dev kits, and that comparitevly developers have had more time with the ps3 kits in relation to release.
Reading comprehension is a harsh mistress.
Mark does seem to talk out of his a$$ quite a bit, I have to admit that the ps3 release titles are looking good, but I think that part of that is due to the delay from a spring release. Even if the release was probably only going to be Japan, the developers for all of the "release" window games recieved a 6 month bonus on development time.
Lefty @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:22PM
no shooter is ever more than 10-15 hrs. halo took me 9-10 hrs halo 2 close to that. call of duty 2 big red one on xbox took me 8 hrs and call of duty 2 on the 360 toook me 10 hrs and the veteran has taken me awhile to play. if u wnat a longer game turn up the difficulty duh its a shootwer. Oblivion gave me 50 hrs so it shows game length is no indication of disc size. just so u know
now how bout some new gears of war multi player video. here ya go enjoy
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/255874/brand_new_gears_of_war_multiplayer_footage_x06/
broseph @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:23PM
In other news:
WE LANDED ON THE MOON!
Gustomucho @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:23PM
Just look at Fatal Inertia on PS3.. it looks like crap. So much for "next-gen" game..
tomatoma @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:23PM
I can't believe it! Someone wrote another article in the comments section... @_@.
sgt manji @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:24PM
Gears looks better than Resistance FFS why can't anybody see that?
And 1st gen PS3 titles are in the same Boat as 2nd gen 360 titles. The titles have had the same amount of development time, it's not like you could get only get 360 dev kits and then a year later get a ps3 dev kit. BULLSHIT. But right Gears looks better than all the ps3 supposed launch games. I'm talking about Gears not all the other games..
bm @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:26PM
azn: what, so you're saying Ridge Racer, Resistance or White Knight do NOT look like anything we've ever seen? *snicker*
Sorry, but while White Knight looks pretty good, you know what? I was way more impressed by that new Valkyrie Profile game on the PS2. Even if it didn't have as many polygoons, the art direction blew me away which I can't really say of White Knight. RR7 just looks unimpressive altogether, and for Resistance I'd put up many of the same "arguments" you're using to bash on Gears of War.
Of course the most important thing in all this is Sony still insisting on calling their console "the REAL nextgen" or saying "the next gen doesn't start without us" or such dumb shit. And then saying it would sell the first 5 million at $600 even if it had no games.
Lefty @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:27PM
once again killer multi-player video of gears. stop talking and watch lol
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/255874/brand_new_gears_of_war_multiplayer_footage_x06/
MosquitoControl @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:28PM
How the hell are kids here, that haven't even seen a PS3 first-hand, saying which has better graphics and which has better multiplayer?
MARK REIN IS A MORON BUT HE'S PLAYED BOTH SYSTEMS!
And this shouldn't surprise anyone. The 360 and the PS3 are comparably powered! The PS3 is better powered, but it isn't by much. Devs are more familiar with the 360, and these games won't be kicked out as prematurely as PS3 launch games, so this makes perfect sense.
Idiots like AZN_1080p trying to spin this are just that - idiots. This is a common sense declaration. Anyone arguing it, or claiming games we know next to nothing about are better, is just mindless sheeple.
Cage @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:29PM
"Well duh. But the real question is how will second generation PS3 games stack up against second generation 360 games?
How's 12.5 hours for a shooter? Maybe I'm too used to RPGS and Adventure games lasting 40 - 60 hours..."
Wouldnt 360 games be on to their THIRD generation by then? Who would care about the 2nd gen then? Thats one of the dumbest arguments people have made. Each CURRENT generation of games are compared to each others CURRENT.
Did they include the hours people will play online as well? I still havent finished (or even came close to finishing) Halo 2 but its still my most played game.
Martin @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:30PM
msg 3 was around 15 hours, so 12.5 for gears is that bad and better than most games these day.
Franky Digital @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:31PM
"God I hate most of the commenters on Joystiq. Rarely do you see such a bunch of retards come together in one place.
OMG 360 IS ROX! OMG 360 > PS3!!11 NO PS3 IS TEH WIN!! WII IS TEH BEST.
Heres a tip GO FUCKING DIE! Nobody cares wtf you think STFU."
www.gamefaqs.com
dish @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:31PM
@ 8
"Sorry, but games like Resistance, RR7, white knight story, etc already look way better than GOW, and have better multiplayer as well."
have acually played these games? NO! have you played GoW? NO!
and just for the record Resistance looks like sh*t compared to GoW.
Pip @ Oct 3rd 2006 2:32PM
Gears is the first game that i've seen that actually looked like an actual movie being played out. Beyond Toy Story, and beyond FF The Movie graphics. The gameplay movie thats floating around is just mind blowing.