GRAW 2 producer: don't play Gears for more than ten minutes
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Dec 18th 2006 at 9:00AM }
Because only the first ten minutes are awesome. In a recent interview with CVG, the content producer for Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2 details some of the enhancements slated for the sequel, but not without taking a few shots at fellow, erm, shooter, Gears of War. Though Olivier Dauba admits that Gears is "a very good game" and "is raising the bar this Christmas," he believes the experience grows stale after ten minutes. After all, who can really stand more than ten minutes of awesomeness at a time?"We're designing our game as a more long-term experience. In my opinion if you play ten minutes of Gears of War it's an absolutely awesome ten minutes, but if you play 20 minutes it doesn't bring anything new. They've made something perfect for ten minutes but we try to go beyond that and making something that lasts for quite a few hours." Mr. Dauba then notes that it's "a different game maybe but in my opinion we're aiming for something deeper and wider with a bigger scope," ultimately saying nothing.
Whether or not you agree with that evaluation of Gears of War shouldn't distract you from what the interview's really about: In GRAW 2, passing helicopters will make the smoke go all swirly.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Fred T @ Dec 18th 2006 9:07AM
At least GRAW was good and they have a leg to stand on.. as opposed to those EA comments (lack of innovation etc).
Regula Oblique @ Dec 18th 2006 9:10AM
I think he has a point as far as the online multiplayer goes, gears single player was good but I hated the multiplayer. Since GRAW launched almost a year ago that has been my most played 360 game which then I beat gears, played some rainbow 6 and now Im getting back into GRAW yet again. So I can see his point exactly as he said it.
Daolohua @ Dec 18th 2006 9:16AM
Haha. How ironic. I finally picked up GRAW and played for about 10 minutes before playing Gears again.
They're both good games in their own way. Pot shots are unnecessary.
hooha @ Dec 18th 2006 9:27AM
You know I have them both (as many do) and gotta say Ghost was a much more enduring and fun and challenging game. Took me weeks to finish it, and I loved every minute of it (even when i was hating it ;) Gears on the other hand is also a great game, but cranked it out in a weekend, and it became more about just getting it done than really loving all the nuances of it. Great game, but it was bubble gum compared to GRAW. Looking forward to GRAW 2. Keep it up, Ubi!
Jason @ Dec 18th 2006 9:42AM
i have to agree with ubi's comments - gears is fun but they definately focused on basics. there's no vehicles, the environments don't change a whole lot and the core gameplay is pretty repetitive.
It was a great concept but it does grow stale fairly quickly. 10 minutes is a bit harsh but 10 weeks is more than enough time to play this game and never have the want or need to do so again.
Marlos Hill @ Dec 18th 2006 9:37AM
i agree with #4... i sort of do agree with the producer from Ubisoft. It is amazing playing GoW ... then after a while you just get into getting through it...
Im anxious for GRAW 2... GRAW is basically what sealed the deal for me to buy an XBOX 360
Jarvis Slacks @ Dec 18th 2006 9:38AM
That might be the most r-tarded statement I've heard since yesterday. I played Gears of War three hours yesterday and I could have played more. And GRAW? Rainbow Six Vegas? I think the reverse is the truth here , and that Ubisoft is starting to feel a challenger to the shooting range for the first time.
Regula Oblique @ Dec 18th 2006 9:46AM
I felt the same way to Jarvis when I played Gears but after you beat it on all three difficulties there's really nothing much more to the game, first the solo campaign is short and multiplayer is lacking, GRAW had a great solo campaign, though short too it was still longer than gears, and after I beat it I played multiplayer for months on in and still am.
slickhead @ Dec 18th 2006 9:52AM
Of Course !Olivier Dauba must be right and the 2 million 360 owners making Gears the first game to topple H2 from the leaderboards must be wrong.
Its a good thing us gamers have designers like Ubisoft to tell us what we need to like.Maybe if I could find a match on GRAW without paying Ubi's microtransaction extortion I would remember all the flaws in Graws multiplayer .But I'd rather play a game of GRIT.
Gimbal @ Dec 18th 2006 9:53AM
Is everyone convinced that we all have attention deficit disorder and can't possibly enjoy a game for more than 10 minutes without constant change?
I don't mind veriety, and clearing out a hot LZ from the helicopter would have been a nice diversion at some point in the game, but Gears has a very solid core gameplay loop that works from long range to melee.
The first GRAW was great too, dispite my extreme distaste of the HUD and monstrous yellow targeting reticle. I wish they would employ the RB6:Vegas cover system in GRAW 2, because that worked better than the 'A' button for everything in Gears.
And if you want GRAW 2 to be better than Gears of War, there better be co-op in the campaign this time.
Art Guy @ Dec 18th 2006 9:53AM
I found Gears to be much more enjoyable, both online and off. I felt like I was forcing my way through GRAW, while I played GoW start to finish through several times, and haven't gotten bored one bit. Gears online is the most fun I've had since DOOM2, co-op is amazing, and the multiplayer fits my style perfectly. Gears is tied with Oblivion for "Best of the Year" for me.
I always find it slightly amusing when people comment when they clearly haven't played a game (looking at you JASON).
Falcon @ Dec 18th 2006 9:54AM
@ Jason:
Not trying to flame here, but have you actually played Gears of War? First, there are vehicles (only one, but it still counts). Second, the environments are quite varied: from a city environment to a rainy forest to an underground lava-filled cavern, to a moving train. And finally, I think you could argue that any game's CORE gameplay is fairly repetitive. If you are trying to contrast, GRAW has no vehicles, all its levels are in the desert or in the city, and its core gameplay is also quite repetitive. They're both good games, but make sure you have valid points to make when you critique a game.
Tuxy79 @ Dec 18th 2006 5:16PM
He's right...GoW was awesome when I first played it the night it released. I haven't played it since. Repeitive game play killed my interest. I don't care how good it looks it's been months since I've fired it up. They speant so much time perfecting the look they ignored the other bits. Just another boring FPS. I don't play mutliplayer either so.
Pete C @ Dec 18th 2006 9:56AM
That's weird, because I wasn't blown away by Gears until at least an hour into the game...then I loved it.
Mess @ Dec 18th 2006 5:20PM
I've recently finished writing a review for Gears of War, and I've played many hours of GRAW as well. Having played both quite a bit, I can say that I feel they're two different kinds of games, (although a similar genre) indirectly being aimed at two different kinds of gamers.
I'd have to say I love the realism of GRAW, and I love the fantasy of Gears of War.
But I do agree, the experience is about 10 minutes long, replayed over and over again. This being said, take into consideration that I've given Gears of War a 9.75 before anyone might flame me.
No, I'm not guru of games. I'm just trying to look at this as much as I can without any bias.
How else can anyone expect developers to treat such titles such as Gears of War? Titles where so much money is funded into forcing "fans" to like the titles before even being released? How can you expect them to sit there and fondle themselves?
It's the fanboys that wont give GRAW 2 a shot because Gears "is so amazing", and it's the real gamers who will despite Gears "being so amazing."
Fester @ Dec 18th 2006 10:17AM
Gears got better for me the more I played it, the first ten minutes were "meh" then after that it opened up, the gameplay became known (and good) and each time playing through just looks and feels better than the last (and that includes multiplayer which is very replayable).
Not saying GRAW isn't good either but it didn't capture me with it's gameplay the way Gears did. I don't notice Epic putting down other developers games either, perhaps because they are not insecure due to having a killer-app on their hands! :) GG EPIC!
ZenGaijin @ Dec 18th 2006 10:19AM
"Well the world don't move to the beat of just one drum, what might be right for you, may not be right for some....."
I Like Gears because its a step down from the over serious strategy games such as GRAW. Its the same reason that I like NBA Street over NBA2K its more when it doesn't take itself so seriously....at least to me.
Never mind that GRAWs control scheme and multiplayer are nothing to be picked up easily.
Those 10 mintues of gameplay might loop in Gears but thats compaired to the 0 mintues of fun I'd have playing GRAW.
I do remember the Bungie saying they looped 30 seconds of fun into an entire game, and Halo is the beast it is now.
JET @ Dec 18th 2006 10:19AM
With my gaming time being so limited these days, I skipped Gears of War to focus on Resistance instead. While the character models in Gears look amazing, the incredibly bland environments (doesn't ANYTHING move? Not even the water moves!) kept me from truly enjoying it. Plus, I'll take 40 player multiplayer over 8 player multiplayer any day.
Aside from the annoying night vision level, I found GRAW to be very enjoyable and am looking forward to GRAW 2.
JET
deserteaglexix @ Dec 18th 2006 10:19AM
Please, Dauba fix the scoped weapons in single player for GRAW 2. In the first game the game would get choppy and the framerate would falter at the very moment pinpoint precision was needed.
Zeddicus @ Dec 18th 2006 10:22AM
What Gears has going for it is the co-op experience. GRAW's co-op mode was a joke. I've played many hours of Gears in co-op and there's nothing else like it.
Brian J. Bouton @ Dec 18th 2006 10:30AM
This is a ridiculous argument. Who would ever go to a store and consider an either/or purchase betweeen GRAW and GOW? They aren't even remotely the same game since GOW is a tactical squad shooter and GRAW is a run and gun game. Why does everything in gaming, and in life, have to be a matter of which is better? Can't we live in a world where we own both GRAW and GOW and love them both? The UBISOFT statements are also unnecessary considering that GRAW came out some time ago and the game is played out with people looking for something new. And by the time GRAW2 comes out, everyone will be burned out on GOW. Tempest in a teacup, indeed.
maylon @ Dec 20th 2006 6:04PM
Well, I find comparing the 2 games rather stupid. GRAW is more based on real life, whereas Gears is Sci-Fi. I find the latter more entertaining storywise, and have played through Gears several times, whereas I put down GRAW after about 3 hours. I don't want to put in A game and see what I find on CNN every Goddamned day. If I wanted to fight for real I would have enlisted.
baby sea tuna @ Dec 18th 2006 10:44AM
@#20:
What are you talking about? GRAW is totally a tactical shooter. Just try running and gunning Halo style through that game. You won't last long enough to decide whether or not it passes Ubi's 10-minute-test.
baby sea tuna @ Dec 18th 2006 11:00AM
...that said, I thoroughly enjoyed both games (and by thoroughly I mean going through both campaigns in their entirety) and I firmly believe that both games (and their sequels) can co-exist peacefully.
Brian J. Bouton @ Dec 18th 2006 10:55AM
#22 Are you serious? GOW a tactical shooter? Even the creator of it said that's a joke. Look at the interview on XBoxlive.com to see his comments. Did you really have to use tactics to beat the game?
Lefty @ Dec 18th 2006 11:01AM
jet
u should playt gears of war. enviroments bland? nothing moves? well u really have no clue. the enviroments are sick and if u have not played it u really missed out
and i play it 8 hrs plus a day and own rainbow six, graw, and call of duty 3.
Lefty
waywatcher @ Dec 18th 2006 11:20AM
Sort of a weak and not very well thought out comment on this guy's part.
Gears does show most what it has to offer in terms of game mechanics withing the first level. it does hold back a few oh neat moments but for the most part it puts it out there. I dont think that really makes it less of a game or a bad game like this guy seems to imply.
Super Mario Brothers offered nothing new beyond run, jump and mushrooms. Should we have stopped playing that after 5 minutes?
I enjoyed the heck out of Graw, but what did it really bring to the table after the tutorial? More levels using the mechanics I learned to navigate them, Same as Mario, same as Gears, same as nearly every other game released.
There are games that do give you new mechanics as you go. Zelda, Metroid, Ratchet and Klank come to mind. You gain new power ups or items that allow you to play in ways you could not before. Making new things accesable and so on. Graw isnt on that list.
Dux @ Dec 18th 2006 11:24AM
Screw this guy! Gears of War gets better everytime I play it!
Orangecoke @ Dec 18th 2006 11:23AM
I can't really get behind the 10 minute thing - my friend and I played the campaign co-op over Xbox Live and loved every minute of it. We couldn't wait to play each night. It's the most fun I've had gaming in a long time. With the campaign finished, I've been playing an hour or two of VS multiplayer every day and I'm still enjoying it immensely - a patch to fix up a few lingering issues will make it even better.
I finished both GRAW and Gears - GRAW was also an awesome game, but I gotta give the highest props to Gears because they really nailed the fun factor.
Wes @ Dec 18th 2006 11:40AM
GoW bends GRAW over and beats its ass up and down. This guy is an idiot.
JS Beckerist @ Dec 18th 2006 12:38PM
I have both, my opinions:
Single Player: GoW whoops GRAW hands down. GRAW was fun, but the weapon selection is annoying (one level starts you off with a sniper rifle AT NIGHT in alley ways! incredibly hard to beat as you have to no-scope blindly like crazy...) GoW is always moving, cool variation in weapons (hammer of dawn is really fun) with cool enemies (the berzerker freaked me out the first time I played her!)
Multiplayer: Even tie, for different reasons. GRAW is slower paced, you can afford to die more than in GoW BUT the levels are much bigger so the games last longer. The weapons for multiplayer are way better in GoW, and the use of the A button for movement is much nicer in GoW, but GRAW has a TON more options and a few more levels... The interface for GRAW is much nicer, and you can have a lot more people in a room.
All in all I'm excited for GRAW 2. Though...in the end...I'm much more excited for Halo 3.....
LordMinogue @ Dec 18th 2006 12:00PM
I played the Ghost Recon Demo, it was OK.
Compare that to the HOLY S**T moments my freind and I were having every 20 minutes through Gears.
-Arguments over who's turn it is to revive Carmine
-First time on the Hammer/Sniper/Boomshot/CHAINSAW
-Playing with the rain effects at the mine
-The house-of-horrors style inside of the mine
-The driving segment
-First time with every boss
-The drunk guy who mocks Jak
-The KRILL
Multiplayer is as "repetitive" as Team Slayer is in Halo 2, so no dice there.
NeverEnder @ Dec 18th 2006 12:06PM
I played Gears of War much the same way that I watch movies. I played it all the way through maybe 5 times with different friends that didn't have a 360. We split screened it, and I think I can do it again. I remember spectacular moments under fire in beautifully detailed and "moving" environments.
Same can be said for Graw, except they didn't allow campaign co-op, which is still a lingering issue with me. I also take issue with some things ubisoft always does, like having noticable differences between multiplayer and single player gameplay. It's the same in every Tom Clancy game. Apparently the developers don't have phones to each other, because every time I find a feature cool in single player it's missing from multiplayer.
daxiang12 @ Dec 18th 2006 12:12PM
GRAW is boring to me. Gears of war is fun.
Come to think of it, I just realized that I never like one single game from UbiSoft. Yeah they have great games like Splinter Cell but unfortunately I hate stealth games.
And Gears of War is not only fun for 10 minutes. Saying there is nothing new after 10 minutes is stupid. Seriously what are you expecting in a thrid person shooter? Flying, fishing?
Spartacus @ Dec 18th 2006 12:50PM
It's all a matter of taste.
For me, I made it through about 1/2 of GRAW before getting both bored and frustrated with it. It was too tedious to be fun for extended amounts of time. I eventually sold it.
Gears on the other hand was pure fun from the beginning to the end- 3 times through. It took about 30 minutes to get into it, then it was a blast. Epic made an enjoyable shooter that focused less of reality and more on letting the player be a bad @$$. That's why I game rather than join the army- because in a game I can be a 340lb stud with a lancer rather than a 165lb wimp who can't take a direct hit from a pea shooter. If you enjoy the "realism" factor, great, but I think the sales of Gears speak for themselves.
DanMacMan @ Dec 18th 2006 1:30PM
I tend to agree with Dauba. Yes GoW is graphically superior to any game on the market to date, however the gameplay is not so strong. I had a hard time following the storyline and there was no flow to the game from one stage to the next. Overall, I have been relatively disappointed with GoW.
Haroludo @ Dec 18th 2006 1:34PM
Personally, GRAW was the first team based game I could stand, and grow to love. Before GRAW, every Tom Clancy game was tedious and I found it to be boring. GRAW was a breath of fresh air and gave me a new respect for squad based combat. I *LOVED* the single player.
The multiplayer however, was poor compared to Counter Strike; a game much older. I mean I had spent many enjoyable hours ducking and covering behind objects, only to have my enjoyment sucked out of me by GRAW's multiplayer. I realised: "So that's what they meant by gameplay experience may change during onine play."
Gears of War's single player experience is brief, but enjoyable. It leaves the player's wanting more. The defining moment is that great gameplay translates perfectly to the multiplayer experience. I will most definitely purchase GRAW 2 for it's single player mode and only hope that multiplayer can match it's own great single player experience.
Towers @ Dec 18th 2006 2:03PM
I won't lie. I bought into the hype for Gears of War. I lined up for my copy of the Collector's Edition at Gamestop on Emergence Day. I played it for two days straight, single player, co-op and multi-player. I beat it at the three difficulty levels. I haven't played it since. Why? It's a damned fun game initially. Then it becomes clear just how stupid GeoW is. The gameplay IS repetitive. There's ZERO reason for you to approach the game with any sort of intelligence. And don't expect any sort intelligence from the game itself either. Whatever challenge exists in the game comes from how fast you die when a bullet hits you not from being outmanuvered by the enemy. Better take cover!!! What else is there?? Oh wait.....NOTHING. Oh, and to the people who are saying that there is a vehicle stage in the game, yeah there is but it's also the most stupid stage in the whole game. Drive OR Fire? Really? One or the other? What the fuck is that about? I get that there are people out there that don't want to think when they're playing or who don't like complicated control schemes so I guess this game's perfect for you. Honestly though, I don't care if 2 million copies have sold it's still an overrated game not worthy of the high scores bestowed upon it by what passes for 'media' in console gaming. Kudos to GRAW 2's producer for saying outloud what a good number of us have been thinking for awhile. I look forward to the next GRAW with great anticipation. And lastly, thank goodness for Ubisoft! Without R6V this holiday season I wouldn't have shit to play on the 360 right now. Well except for Viva Pinata.
ill trooper @ Dec 18th 2006 2:12PM
Comparing 'Gears of War' and GRAW would not be my first comparison - I tend to compare Rainbow 6:Vegas with Gears of War, as they both use the next new trend™ of the 'cover system... Gears was fun, but I think they need to issue forth a global law making all 'cover systems' be like Ubi's Rainbow 6:Vegas from now on - SO much more intuitive than Gears of War with it's single button for 'sticky' cover and running. We all know how many times we tried to run to a new position against Raam and ended up sticking to a crate only to get killed...
I think Ubi needs to take a good look at what makes their own Rainbow 6:Vegas so much easier to play than GRAW - the cover system is superior, throwing a grenade is easier, overall it's the way to go for them.
Ben @ Dec 18th 2006 2:18PM
I haven't beaten GoW yet (too busy playing the Wii), but I will admit that from where I sit well through Act 4 it is getting a bit boring. I really enjoyed playing through GRAW's single player game, but I don't think it's a flawless and Ubi seems to believe it is either. There are too many instances of unclear paths and enemies hiding in cheap ass places, and God if the AI for the NPCs on escort missions isn't improved in GRAW 2 then I won't touch it (Mr. President, I'm going to go clear out those snipers on the rooftop, why don't you run out right in my line of fire so that you get shot or blown up or some shit?). I think that from a raw fun factor standpoint, the online play of GoW is more fun, but it needs a lot more options, because it's skin and bones right now. I think though what it really comes down to though is that both of those franchises should try to be more like Twilight Princess.
Nick @ Dec 18th 2006 2:25PM
I think it boils down to what Greg Costikyan has said in 'his death to the games industry' manifesto. A game has only two weeks to gain enough sales momentum to succeed. The 'amazaing' ten minutes of revolution inherent in GOW is well deserved as no other game is nearly as viceral and gritty. Most movies don't get as picturesque as running does in Gears. That being said, if you see the same shot over and over in a single movie you may pan the director for lack of vision. In a game we usually let that issue slide since our perspective is based on targeting whatever is targeting us. So yes, the ten mintues of amazement wear off in Gears but only because you have to get into the business of killing lest you get killed.
Still, I do agree that in terms of tilt Gears offered very little. Past some of the wow moments there was nothign to really market the game. Sure, some of the weapons were new. Sure it was dang pretty. But I want just a bit more for a game that nets close to a 10 across the internet. I want other developers to fall back into their chairs and wonder why they never did 'that' amazing thing in their game. To me, that hasn't happened in next gen consoling. To me, every shooter we've got thus far has had the 'new' (and I say that liberally) concept of cover before you shoot or team based play or a fancy new way of tossing grenades. I say new with the hopes that you pick up on my sarcasm (which is impossible to write). I read through all the comments and no one really explains what this elusive aspect of Gears is that makes it so special. Seriously. Where is it? Hello? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
biohazard13 @ Dec 18th 2006 2:41PM
@40
GoW is a great game and deserving of the many very high reviews for no other reason than the perfect implementation of 2 player co-op.
Split screen with a friend at your house or live/network co-op, they are well integrated into the campaign. I can't think any other console game at this time has managed the seamless pop-in/drop-out of a friend in the campaign; but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been annoyed about the lack of these features in previous games.
GRAW2 can be a great game, but for me the bar has been raised in the co-op respect by GoW, and if similar functionality isn't present, that experience will not measure up, and that is what defines a great game: one that raises the bar for games that follow.
hyperion @ Dec 18th 2006 5:29PM
How many perfect scores did GRAW get?
VampireHunter Z @ Dec 18th 2006 5:34PM
How can anyone say this? Unless he is good enough to run into the Berserker in the first 10 minutes he has no point. I also find playing at night in Gears to have a different feel than the day parts. There is also nothing like holding down the mansion in the early part of the game.
GRAW was a good game but I've traditionally not like military games. They just don't appeal to me. The best part of GRAW was the helicopter portions where I get to spray the machine gun. The night levels were not fun since I had to completely rely on the HUD to see enemies. Don't get me wrong it's a good game but I don't think I'll be buying GRAW 2.
Anthony @ Dec 18th 2006 10:09PM
I didn't get the chance to read all of the comments above, but from my opinion both games are great in the own ways.
Gears- It is a truely amazing game in visuals and gameplay, but it lacks the option of choice. Everything in gears is standard, and in which you have the same guns, and the same strategies to choose from each time or similar. The maps are generally small and symmetrical. Online play lacks the customization of many of the newer titles and has a relatively small amount of players max. It does have a general ease of getting into multiplayer games and lack of real strategy like combat, meaning anyone can easily pick up on blowing people away with shottys or tagging people with grenades which attracts a lot of new players, making it more popular in essence. It will be interesting to see what Gears 2 improves and may potentially beat out or catch up with the GRAW Series, but as now, its just not cutting it.
GRAW- This, is also an amazing game in many ways, You can tell its far move involved then gears yet doesn't focus mainly on visuals, which gears kind of does. It gives the options of hundreds of combo's of weaponry and endless strategies to choose from. Its maps are huge and still visually pleasing, which out being unbalanced. It also gives the option to restrict weaponry in many forms and even components of the game like drones and perspective viewing(1st/3rd). In many ways it is better then gears, yet it lacks the simplicity of gears and therefor loses a large base of user. If GRAW can progress at a steady speed in its series, then it can go head on head with Gears and may out do gears, as of now, it does, but many factors of the game make it not new user friendly, which is it downfall, since many new players cant jump right into the fight without being destroyed :/ Hopefully they can improve this
Vegas- Similar to comments about GRAW, yet not cutting it. It lacks the WOW factor in my opinion and is more of a game you have to get use to the like from the start, still a great game but since Black Arrow, RBS3 has lost its title in the shooter status.
nick peterson @ Dec 19th 2006 10:35AM
This is largely similar to arguments years back about differences between games like unreal tournament and quake 3. I would argue that GOW focused more on a doing a few things perfectly rather than doing a bunch of things fairly well. The active reloading, cover system, and coop single player are all done pretty flawlessly. Plus the recovering system is something I wish more games would adopt as it promotes team play even among strangers. Games like GRAW seemed to do a good few things well, but nothing with the excellence to really make it groundbreaking. I think people know what I mean when something just feels right, like the gravity gun in hl2 (you know you got a big stupid grin on your face when you used it for the first time.)