Never had this issue myself, but I don't listen to AIkillbot wrote:I've just given up on this after about 4 hours of play. I cannot believe that something as bad as this either got through the QA process or (perhaps worse) managed to garner significant critical acclaim.
What's wrong with it? Let me make a list:
1. Your squadmates AI is knackered. They run around getting themselves injured and (worst of all) getting in the way of your shots. They also offer contradictory instructions like telling you to flank an opponent even when there's no cover where they're telling you to go so it's basically a suicide mission.
No. Gears is meant to be a tough game, none of this few bullet down crap. The game is also very easy, I found it easy anyway. Maybe you should have played Dark Void first then played Gears - you'd love Gears. The colours, I again didn't have this issue, and I like that enemies blend in in a distance; it heightened my experience and how much i paid attention.killbot wrote:2. The colour pallete means that from a distance the enemies are indistinguishable from your team-mates, a problem I can't believe wasn't picked up in playtesting. They also take a ridiculous number of hits before they go down, meaning fighting a group larger than two seems to take an age. One of the first enemy types you come across is manning a machine gun turret which means they can kill you in a couple of seconds if you pop your head over the parapet, while themselves remaining behind a barrier so you can't hit them. Fighting these guys ends up as a lengthy game of peek-a-boo that's no fun at all.
Should there be a radar?killbot wrote:3. The checkpoints are ridiculous. Sometimes it checkpoints every few seconds, sometimes you have to get through several really hard bits before it saves. It took me ages to get through one battle only to be killed by a lone grub who wandered up behind me (there's no radar so I couldn't see him coming) and being sent right back to the start.
checkpoints are used in games to help counter difficult areas, they might be out here and there, but they can also be logic based; for example sometimes a checkpoint can only be triggered if there are no enemies looking at you etc or within a area of you, so if you're running through an area, this could be why.
I liked the controls, I admit there are more buttons to know that your standard platformer, but I don't have a problem with them. I never have had an issue with snapping to walls when running though..killbot wrote:4. The controls are terrible. Having the same button for 'run' and 'snap to cover' is ludicrous - every time you're running, your character is automatically trying to snap to every wall you get within six feet of because he thinks that's what you want him to do. This often results in death because there's always something shooting at you.
Somepeople like to shoot; that what this game is for. Get your friends online, ramp up the difficulty and have a blast. I think the story is okay to be honest, better than most shooters.killbot wrote:5. The storyline is boring and the characters are all unlikeable idiots. Also the game is insane
ly repetitive - I was expecting some puzzle sections or something but no, it's just 'cover, shoot, cover shoot'.
I think for £1 you got a bargain, I can't think of many games like Gears which is as polished that can be picked up for £1. You make a good point though, why did 360 game prices plummet? so few have held their value. That future rarities thread does talk about that. I did get into a debate with hydrox(?) about Nintendo games and value not so long back, but I am picking up first party Nintendo games on wii and ds for sub £5 now, so I don't think Nintendo are immune to this either.killbot wrote:I paid 99p for the game and £2 for GoW2 (a game that will likely stay on my shelf unplayed forever, since I have no desire to play it but there's no point trading it either in given its absurdly low value) and I still feel like I was ripped off. So will anyone stand up and defend this wretched piece of crap?