Epic looks to Gears fans for input on the sequel

They need to add...

- There were fucking bosses in that game????

Seriously Gears is the laughing stock of games when it comes to boss battles.

Um....you do realize that Halo1 never technicly had a boss battle and it was a great shooters. I tend to think you're just flame baiting. What Gears did was integrate the boss battles into the story line so it felt natural. I don't know what your definition of a boss battle is but I think to the rest of us Gears did a great job. Also how is fighting the enemy general not a boss battle. Or how about the Brumac(sp? i think that's the name of it) in the PC version? Seriously in a shooter a boss battle is usually a powerful enemy/enemy commander. By making the game flow into each boss battle in the way they did, it felt like a boss battle while not screaming it in a way that would break the level of immersion in the game world.

Personally I loved the "Berserker" fight. Running from that thing and getting it outside to blow it up was fun.

I think in a day where we have boss battles that consist of shooting starbits (aka candy) at something to slow it down and butt-stomping it three times to win makes the Gears boss fights look and feel pretty awesome.

Isn't the point for it to be fun? That's why it works for Mario I guess.

Not flame bait, I'm genuinly upset at games for their complete and utter lack of boss battles. Halo was upsetting because of it and as was Gears. If you are going to have a Boss battle atleast make it challenging, interesting or have some sort of trick to beating it that requires more thought than "shoot more bullets at it". The "boss battles" in gears looked intense when they came up but were an utter disappointment and with all the leading up to the battles I walked away without any satisfaction.

I did love Gears of War but coming from Epic it felt like a casual horror 3rd person shooter and the overly-easy campaign didn't help much. Still a great game to chat with buddies while idly pumping muppets full of lead.

And yes the game was fun, just after the first play through you realize how lacking it was in challenge. It was much like bioshock in the sense that it was more atmosphere than depth or challenge. But Gears is certainly still the better game.

@Anticrawl: There was a 'trick' to every boss battle, Beserkers had to be outside so you could use the Hammer (and the last one on the train you had to get it onto one particular carriage), The Corpser had to be driven back onto the platform and then the supports had to be shot, Raam had to have the Kryll driven off him first or get him in the light.

But that's just my 2 pennies worth!

Wait anticrawl, how did you beat the Berserkers and Corpser by just "shooting more bullets into them"?

I guess with Raam you could accidentally get the Kryll off if all you did was keep shooting, but I'm genuinely beffudled as to how you beat the Berserkers without making them smash down the doors to get outside or run off the end of the train, and how you beat the Corpser without blowing the supports. Is there some kind of built-in trick where if you shoot them eleventy billion times the game decides that you're never going to figure out the (supposedly non-existant) "trick" to beating them and just kills them off for you?

Lol! "Easy to make ranked games with friends"? Don't you mean "Easy for clans to boost"?

bay buh? If you actually sound that out, it doesn't really make any sense. I think you meant "bay bee" or "bay bay". ;)

Bay-beh sounds much better.

Funny so many people replied to this comment; I meant to put it in the other gears post about the "train gun" comic, and screwed up. I was going to re-post, maybe even work on my phonetic spelling, but then I realized just how much time I'd already wasted. And now, here I am, writing an even longer comment explaining everything.

Not for a year and a quarter old game!

I don't know if you watched Titanic, but the ship sinks.

:oO

Nooooooo!

I agree, something about that made it addictive. Halo, COD4, R6V all had them. It's kind of like a game within the game.

I've made a few (5) comments/questions about this today. Typically they will give a reason for it being late! I'll take my crack in MP3 form, thanks.

It "should" be out tonight sometime.

w00t! Thanks for the update!

Yeah thanks for the update Dustin. =)

ok that's two.

You pretty much ruined tomorrow's 12pm post! :P

Gee, I *wonder* if the popularity of a game that is well known for a having a short and shallow single player campaign but was the most played multiplayer game for a year running and still sits in the top 5 a full year and a half later could have SOMETHING to do with how much fun the multiplayer is. Maybe, just maybe, that might be a pertinent issue.

In all seriousness though, if this twisted path of impossible to follow notions "baffles" you, maybe you should try wearing that helmet you were talking about yourself.

Personally, I still play Gears MP with buddies online 10-15 hours/week a year and a half after I bought the game. It recreates the old college dormroom experience better than any game out there. The single player was a fun romp-through the first couple weeks that I got it, but I have no delusions that the game was so popular because of that campaign (although the co-op was fairly revolutionary for its time on consoles, and it still does it better with its join anywhere at anytime functionality than most other games that were released a full year later do).

And when the core gameplay is as fun as it is (I don't care about your personal anecdote of you not thinking it is, because most people love it), you can get away with a shallow (or rather non-existant) story with little depth. A game like Bioshock was the opposite and it takes far less flack. The core FPS gameplay was rather weak by FPS standards, but it could get away with it because of its great, engaging story and depth. Gears takes the opposite approach and is still fun to run through, but the real winner is the multiplayer.