Gears of War multiplayer breakdown
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Oct 26th 2006 at 5:50PM }
IGN scored the scoop on Gears of War multiplayer, and we cut the fluff, breaking it down like this:
Modes:
- War Zone - 4-on-4 team deathmatch; no respawns
- Resurrection - 4-on-4 team deathmatch; downed players will revive after 30 seconds, unless finished off by opponents
- Execution - "Kill the Leader"; highest-ranked player on the team is the leader and can pick up weapons supporting players can't use
- Canals
- Clocktower
- Escalation - series of terraces; one team starts at the top, the other at the bottom; bottom team aided by sniper pick-up
- Gridlock - narrow street with bombed out cars for cover (playable at E3)
- Fuel Depot - warehouse bases; cargo crates for cover
- Mansion - "haunted house"; destructible cover; choke points: courtyard and foyer
- Mausoleum - circular; a series of rings, the outer being a graveyard; design lends itself to match draws
- Roof Tops
- Tyro Station - watch out for the bullet train
- War Machine
- Health system - as you take damage, the Gears' skull will begin to appear on-screen; once it's all there, one more shot, and then light's out
- Magnum - high-powered pistol
- Hammer of Dawn - satellite laser strike
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Spilt_Milk @ Oct 26th 2006 5:55PM
Isn't the entire single player game playable with a friend in coop?
Vince @ Oct 26th 2006 5:57PM
This will disappoint a few frag lords.
Surely this game is supposed to have online modes and maps that make you weep, not cry.
Kamal007 @ Oct 26th 2006 5:57PM
yes, the single player is. Online as well. There seems to be alot of stuff here to keep me going for a while, i cant wait:D
Lone Starr @ Oct 26th 2006 5:58PM
Tyro Station = Cairo Station? Subtle reference?
Sanchinos @ Oct 26th 2006 5:59PM
Spilt_Milk: Yes it is. In fact, you can pop in the game, select "single player" then choose whether or not to open up the game to co-op (public or friends only). Then you can play along in your single player game with your AI buddy "Dom" when out of the blue your buddy joins the game and automatically assumes control of Dom. Think of the "push start to join" setup of old school arcade games, except this time it's over LIVE. Pretty sweet...
Optimus Prime @ Oct 26th 2006 5:59PM
I am underwhelmed. They are probably saving the good stuff and making you buy them; MS just giving you more choices.
BIGGEN @ Oct 26th 2006 6:05PM
"I am underwhelmed."
big surprise there. so do you like any games? you bitch about every single game. i feel sorry for you.
anyway, it does sound like alot to keep us busy. can't wait to check out the mausoleum.
Optimus Prime @ Oct 26th 2006 6:14PM
BIGGEN
Keep telling yourself that Gears will change your life... while you're at it, you can suck my big black c*ck.
MaX PL @ Oct 26th 2006 6:18PM
haha, this optimus asshole will get gears day one and enojoy it.
dont listen to his arguements, its not his fault he's ...
Ethan @ Oct 26th 2006 6:19PM
Wait. so this game has 8 player online, with tiny-ass maps, and only a few limited game modes, and it is supposed to be the game to usher in the next gen 360 online. I'm sorry, but I dont see this beating out a game that has 40 players online with gigantic maps, and tons of multiplayer modes. This round goes to Resistance.
Ethan @ Oct 26th 2006 6:33PM
by the way Optimus Prime,
can I suck your dick too?
Nate @ Oct 26th 2006 6:36PM
Ethan,
What are these "rounds" you speak of? And where can I see this "fight"?
Comparing two games that aren't even similar is just lame....and besides your argument of more = better just makes you sound childish. I mean, with a whole different take on multiplayer (and doing something fresh) Gears can't possibly be an amazing game because it doesn't have enough maps or modes? Right....
Resistance looks good too....but I'm just saying. Your argument of why it's gonna be better is pretty weak....especially because no one here has even played it yet.
Nerdtacular @ Oct 26th 2006 6:36PM
I played a lot of multiplayer last night at the Hollywood party. The level design is tight. It's one of those games that feels like it is lacking depth at first, but the tactile, visceral gameplay is hella fun. It will have people coming back for more over and over again.
The maps are simple, but there are so many paths behind cover that you can take. There should be lots of different strategies for multiplayer.
While other shooters may offer up big maps and loads of players...GOW offers up a totally fresh, fun experience that you simply cannot find in any other game ever.
Try it, you'll like it. Stop overanalyzing the details and get your hands on the thing first.
jason cubs bear bulls rule 4life @ Oct 26th 2006 6:36PM
#10 2 totally different games for online resistance is 40 cuz its not pop and shoot game its run and shoot and 2 different theme both look good though
Nerdtacular @ Oct 26th 2006 6:37PM
Nate - I've played it. And I agree with your points.
Ethan @ Oct 26th 2006 6:44PM
Dude, BIGGEN, I know you want to be me, but get your own life and stop posting under my name.
Ethan @ Oct 26th 2006 6:47PM
Oh, and for those guys saying it is good with less people because it is new and fresh, I had enough of that "new "fresh" stuff when the first online games came out with only 8 people.
chimp o death @ Oct 26th 2006 6:54PM
10. Wait. so this game has 8 player online, with tiny-ass maps, and only a few limited game modes, and it is supposed to be the game to usher in the next gen 360 online. I'm sorry, but I dont see this beating out a game that has 40 players online with gigantic maps, and tons of multiplayer modes. This round goes to Resistance.
1)I eagerly await the day I can see how smooth the 40 player matches run online. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but promises are one thing and delivery is another. Experience with Live, in actual online situations, has tons of performance variables. Are you going to need the world's fastest connection to actually play or host a 40 player match? If Insomniac can deliver, it's definatewly a feather in the PS3's cap.
2)Believe it or not, the game was DESIGNED to run-four on-four. Large teams quickly turns into a frag-fest. I enjoy a good frag-fest, but also enjoy a different type of gameplay. Splinter Cell:DA uses a three-on-three game to great effect. Rainbow Six:Vegas will also support smaller teams. Call of Duty 3 will support large teams on both systems, as will (I suspect) Halo 3. One may argue that the developers will claim small teams by design to cover up the fact that they can't deliver larger teams, but that's pure speculation. If the gameplay works, I for one won't knock it. If the next big Microsoft FPS that seems like it should have larger teams doesn't, I'll complain then.
sgt manji @ Oct 26th 2006 6:53PM
Ethan, by looking at your URL in your name, you are easily a Sony fanboy ..
Mr Paul James @ Oct 26th 2006 6:59PM
Wow Ethan strikes another 360 post down. What a surprise...
Oh by the way, I'm still waiting for a decent reply to the post I made that completly coutered yours.. You know the one that makes you look like the moron you are.
This game needs 8 players, it's more tactical than Resistance, which is basically a run and gun. Two teams of 20 just wouldn't work, the communication would just be mental. I personally can't wait for this, the game looks and sounds amazing. Just hope that it lives up to the hype (and from the sounds of it, it does).
P.S. Ethan, piss off (once again)
Pedro Van Faulk @ Oct 26th 2006 7:32PM
A lesson to sony fanboys:
Bigger is not better. Better is better.
40 people doesn't make resistance better. Especially if it is being done on Sony's ghetto service.
How many matches will truly have 40 players? How many maps will support them? All of them? Then you are going to have some crowded ass maps. Or how about a few huge maps...but wait, you don't have vehicles in Multiplayer so you'll be walking around alot. See my point? How long before Resistance is clogged with Lag and cheaters? How many gametypes actually use 40 player online to it's fullest? Does the game effectively tunr into Battlefront...without vehicles?
With gears we know we'll be getting great online. Because nearly every person who has played it has said how it lives up to the hype. even the guys form 1up liked it, and they are the biggets sony cheerleaders this side of PS3 fanboy.
Ethan @ Oct 26th 2006 7:00PM
yes, but you see chimp o death, Resistance will have both. If you want a frag-fest, you can have a 40 player frag-fest on a huge map. If you want a small match, I think the interview video with Ted Price said that it can go down to 8 player games, and they will have scaled down maps. So Resistance has the variety for the every-man. Oh, and Insomniac tests this game every thursday or friday during lunch, where they have all of their employees get on, and they play resistance, and it is said to run perfectly smooth.
Petrie @ Oct 26th 2006 7:03PM
Am I the only one who prefers a smaller group in my online games? Halo 2 was just great online unless you did the matches with huge teams where no one would actually work together and it was near impossible to get a group together regularly to play. Resistance with 40 players huh? I won't be holding my breath on that one going over well, and I plan to buy a PS3 myself.
Ethan @ Oct 26th 2006 7:03PM
Mr Paul James (if that is your real name). I cant seem to remember what post your are talking about, maybe a link would help. and refer to the above post to answer your other question.
Mr Paul James @ Oct 26th 2006 7:04PM
So Resistance has the variety for the every-man. Oh, and Insomniac tests this game every thursday or friday during lunch, where they have all of their employees get on, and they play resistance, and it is said to run perfectly smooth.
Yeah that's realistic over the internet. Moron. Any game can be played on a LAN lag free. Try playing 40 people from different positions around the WORLD. Not just an office.
Jesus, you really are dumb, makes sense you're a Sony fanboy.
maylon @ Oct 26th 2006 7:10PM
How did the title "Gears of War multiplayer breakdown" turn into an argument whether Resistance is a better game? To be honest, Resistance looks to me like COD2 with aliens. Boring.
Ethan @ Oct 26th 2006 7:10PM
woah, lay off Mr Paul James. Dont get so mad, I dont care if you are on you're period. They do play over the internet, there are other people around the world to play with, even now. There office is much to big to have it be LAN. Oh, and, Where is that link again?
number40one @ Oct 26th 2006 7:13PM
Zounds! "Hammer of Dawn?!" I know... probably very similar to calling in air support in other titles, but still...
All of the sudden, buying a 360 doesn't seem like such a silly proposition...
meddow @ Oct 26th 2006 7:15PM
Resistance does not use P2P like Xbox, it runs on sony servers, the lead game designer spoke about this on the 1up podcast this week, so it will run 40 players with out a problem, much like PC games have been doing for years and years
maylon @ Oct 26th 2006 7:17PM
23. Am I the only one who prefers a smaller group in my online games? Halo 2 was just great online unless you did the matches with huge teams where no one would actually work together and it was near impossible to get a group together regularly to play. Resistance with 40 players huh? I won't be holding my breath on that one going over well, and I plan to buy a PS3 myself.
I totally agree on smaller teams, until they come up with a mechanic that literally forces people to work as a team, games like Battlefield:1942 will be utter chaos.
Lefty @ Oct 26th 2006 7:18PM
maylon
like i stated in tiehr gears threads everytime gears of war or r:fom is mentioned it turns into a ps3 vs xbox 360 situation.
ethan
while ur playing r:fom i will be playing gears of war for my tactical needs and huxley for my 5000 per server battle game. yes thats right huxley will support 5000 players per server(its a mmo with a constanbt war being raged by 4 races)
halo will support 4 players
black hawk down on xbox supported 32
and from my halo days as others have mentioned in a agme where u want tatical communication and team work more than 4v4 gets mad crazy, anyone remebr big lag battle in halo and all the arguing and people running off not protectiong the flag or bomb spot?
its not about how many it supports its about what it does with those people it has in the game and Gears does 4v4 really well with fast paced high energy battles. thats all that matters
DiscoGodfather @ Oct 26th 2006 7:17PM
I think 4v4 looks pretty damned interesting. Games can fly off the handle if the maps get too big or too many players get involved. If people want be part of a small army of people, they should go play Halo or Battlefield or something.
I'd definitely prefer a tight, well-executed 4v4 experience than some sloppy free-for-all rushed out of the gate. I'm looking at you, SOCOM III.
The idea of playing Resistance with my friends sounds fun. The notion of playing with 39 screaming lunatics and wigger teenagers all doing whatever they want sounds lame.
PrismSub7 @ Oct 26th 2006 7:18PM
@24, no, when developing for the xbox(360) you will get a tool which emulates a typical online game (lag, packet loss and random disconnections) you can test a 360 on a LAN.
IcebergSlim3000 @ Oct 26th 2006 7:20PM
Every time something is posted on Joystiq about Gears of War it always turns into some childish console wars debate. Its not even worth reading Gears news on this site since the mods dont seem to care who posts comments and what they say.
Some of you really need to grow up and appreciate the fact that any competition is a good thing whether you like the competing game or not. I'll pass on anything
Gears related that surfaces on Joystiq. Id like my news without all the blantant childish fanboyism which seems to be very rampant on this blog.
Deadpool @ Oct 26th 2006 7:19PM
Ethan
I think you are missing the point everyone is trying to make here, that gears multiplayer was designed as a squad based tactical shooter, rather than a run & gun frag fest. I think you are comparing apples & oranges here. By designing it to be small from the ground up, they are trying to achieve a different(not better or worse) experience.
Personally I think that both games are going to be excellent, both are developed by talented teams, and both have access to next-gen hardware.
I look forward to playing resistance sometime in 08 when I can hopefully snag a PS3 for a decent price, as a 360 will be my next major purchase(as soon as the first price drop hits, hopefully in a GOW bundle).
Logan @ Oct 26th 2006 7:20PM
Only three multiplayer modes? I'm a little disappointed by that.
Petrie @ Oct 26th 2006 7:22PM
@Ethan
Woah, lay off Mr. Paul James. Dont get so mad, I DON'T care if you are on YOUR period. They do play over the internet, there are other people around the world to play with, even now. THEIR office is much TOO big to have it be A LAN. Oh, and Where is that link again?
I TOOK THE LIBERTY OF FIXING YOUR MISTAKES IN GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION, WHICH FOR THE RECORD WERE IN THE DOUBLE-DIGITS. IF YOU WANT PEOPLE TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY, WRITE COHERENTLY.
Sorry, an occasional error is totally acceptable, but to butcher the language so badly and expect anyone to take you seriously is just incomprehensible.
Lefty @ Oct 26th 2006 7:24PM
my post it shoudl say halo 3 will support 64 players. 32v32
TB @ Oct 26th 2006 8:29PM
It was designed for 4 vs 4. I dont see the big deal. Being idiot number 27 out of 39 other people doenst sound like that fun. Just a big mass of confusion. This is designed around teamwork and communication, not run and gun every man for himself.
Josh @ Oct 26th 2006 7:27PM
I thought you guys knew Ethan was a Sony fanboy/troll. Remember, logic doesn't work on that type.
It's best to just ignore his comments and keep the discussion going. Since when is 8 player multiplayer considered the lamest thing ever? Halo 2 had 16, and in every big team battle there was little or no sense of teamwork. Pretty much every playtime that was 4 on 4 had that perfect feel given the size of the maps. Any more and it loses that feeling of intimacy.
I'm sure it's not a code limitation. Hypothetically the 360 and PS3 can do absurd amounts of connections. I think it's just more realistic for the basic person's network connection plus the way the game has been designed. For that I think, I think boasting PS3's magical massive multiplayer prowess is an utter waste if the software doesn't even warrant it.
jason cubs bear bulls rule 4life @ Oct 26th 2006 7:33PM
even if the 40 player multiplayer for resistance runs smoothly(hard to beleve) it will be so confusing with allt the players voices in your head
Deadpool @ Oct 26th 2006 7:35PM
40
I would like to think they will do somekind of squad based privileges, ie only have to listen to 4 other people, and squad leaders can also talk to other squad leaders...Otherwise you are 100% right, it will be a nightmare
Lefty @ Oct 26th 2006 7:39PM
jason cubs bear bulls rule
what voices. hardly any one will have a head set lol.
on anotrher note the ign article joystiq linked to was a awsome read and they state they should have the final build for review next week. canlt wait to hear what they think of the final build and what they think of the full single player game
they stated the promotion build last night was from xo6 and not the final build. many tweaks have been done from testing. just some info for you guys who did not click the read link
Ethan @ Oct 26th 2006 7:43PM
Wow, I'm so sorry petrie, I'm trying to watch the gamespot on the spot live broadcast right now where they have a ps3 in the office, live. But if you want to talk about grammar, your whole second paragraph is wrong, since you only capitalize the first letter of every sentence.
jojo29 @ Oct 26th 2006 7:46PM
"How did the title "Gears of War multiplayer breakdown" turn into an argument whether Resistance is a better game? To be honest, Resistance looks to me like COD2 with aliens. Boring."
And GOW looks like a spruced up Kill.Switch?!
Come on people, let just enjoy the games, GoW looks like it will give me ( My bro owns a 360 ) the 6-8 hours of fun it has ( if it actually takes you the 10-12hours??
jason cubs bear bulls rule 4life @ Oct 26th 2006 7:50PM
#42 lefty i am saying that ethan was saying resistance having 40 players is better than having 8 and that if gears of war is all 360 can do he believes resistance is better for online and that it can run smoothly. i said that it would be crazy and to fast and if they have voice chat it would be crazy.
Petrie @ Oct 26th 2006 7:50PM
"Wow, I'm so sorry petrie, I'm trying to watch the gamespot on the spot live broadcast right now where they have a ps3 in the office, live."
Is it live?
Ethan @ Oct 26th 2006 7:52PM
yes, idiot, I said live twice, now they have a wii in the office, cant talk.
DannyOB @ Oct 26th 2006 8:04PM
If you 'can't talk', then why were you feverishly pressing the refresh button of your browser to see who had responded to your constant flamebait?
BIGGEN @ Oct 26th 2006 8:14PM
awww, optimus, did i strike a nerve? LOL you know what the good thing is about you? you make the rest of us feel good that we aren't you. oh, where did you read that i said GoW will "change my life?" i love it when you get all angry and forceful. such a lil bitch. LOL