85 is where I thought it'd settle. Pretty good for Gears 5 and a nice springboard to try new things in the next Gears. There's still time to give us an survival horror Gears spinoff. I'll buy ten!
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Gears 5 Review Thread
- Thread starter NovumVeritas
- Start date
85 is where I thought it'd settle. Pretty good for Gears 5 and a nice springboard to try new things in the next Gears. There's still time to give us an survival horror Gears spinoff. I'll buy ten!
Holy shit, Spider-Man was an 87? It was my game of the year last year (above God of War and AC:Odyssey). It was also one of my favorite games of this entire generation.
I mean, kudos to the Coalition for managing to find ways to make the Gears formula from over ten years ago still play well enough but the game was always going to be held back by the fact its core loop is still the same loop from 2006. Gears 5 was never going to be a "masterpiece". Nice to see that for those who still love Gears for what it is that this is a great Gears game though with some solid evolution.
I'm kind of desperate to see the series do something almost completely new, personally. I can't see Microsoft ever being willing to risk that core Gears multiplayer fanbase though.
I'm kind of desperate to see the series do something almost completely new, personally. I can't see Microsoft ever being willing to risk that core Gears multiplayer fanbase though.
Says the person who makes up things about other posters view points.
I still think the point stands - if you want to know about the multiplayer you should go straight to the community for feedback. Not a reviewer who spends 10 hours with it at launch.
'Gears 5 left my belly nice and fat, and keen for the next course.'
Hah, more reviews should be done in terms of food. It's appealing to me.
Hah, more reviews should be done in terms of food. It's appealing to me.
This is interesting because I certainly have enjoyed games in the 80s BUT it is true that in this age and during a period of time with so many releases, that a game that does get 90+ is probably a surer bet than one that doesn't achieve that. Games are expensive and it's understandable to be wary of games that don't get the very high scores. Basically if it's in the 80s you can probably wait for a sale whereas 90+ might be a can't miss scenario. This doesn't account for hardcore fans of the franchise though as they will get it anyway.
I'm not talking about anything lol. You're the one coming in here talking about UC4 for no fucking reason.
Days Gone got really bad reviews and I ended up loving it, I have no doubt it'll be the same for Gears 5 which is getting good reviews so far.
But the actual gameplay is god-tier, that's the difference.
And I liked having an open world that wasn't just flooded with checklists and pointless collectibles.
MGSV deserved it's scores.
But the actual gameplay is god-tier, that's the difference.
And I liked having an open world that wasn't just flooded with checklists and pointless collectibles.
MGSV deserved it's scores.
Geoff is looking for a new best friend.
Glad he's enjoying it. Really hope I dig it too, not long to find out. My 2080ti is ready and waiting.
Played through Gears 4, completed some of the road to 5 challenges, and did all of the challenges in the Gears 5 alpha so I can't wait for Friday.
Don't understand the thought that reinventing the formula would alienate the player base because of the MP component.... By this logic fighting games would be identical in their series iterations....
Jesus man, the point is they're reviewing the entire game there. They aren't saying a SP only review, this is their full review and it doesn't mention 2/3 of the game. It's ridiculous and indefensible. Would you take a CoD review seriously that doesn't say campaign only and then proceeds to completely ignore the entire MP side of things?
Doesn't account for Gamepass, irrespective of 'tired' or not. Average Gamer who says they wouldn't try Gears 5 on GamePass is, chances are, lying, or would never have bought it anyway.
Seems to be about where I expected. A solid follow-up but doesn't reinvent the genre or push storytelling in games forward.
It's kinda lame imagining the swarm are just standing there chillin on ice, like they are just waiting to be submerged
I literally answered your question in the very post you're quoting. Please if you can try to actually read and understand people's posts before responding to them. Unless of course you don't know what franchise or gameplay fatigue is, in which case I'll try to break it down in more layman's terms.
Essentially, many people get tired of or bored of the same old thing, so studios and developers often switch things up in more notable ways (such as the examples I gave in my post you responded to), especially if it's a sequel to a franchise that has been around for a while thus has more familiarity or fatigue. Studios/devs do this in order to give gamers more fresh and hopefully fun experiences that ideally don't seem too repetitive, samey or similar to experiences they've had in the past.
Well duh. I said Xbox's first party, not Xbox One's. Xbox's first party revival will be centered on Scarlett. We've known this for years.
That's brutal. I'm gonna need to pay you a visit to say hello to my Gnasher
The same is true of literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of games/series. Good design and longevity isnt predicated on the core loop alone.
Depends. On MC probably 30% and on Opencritic 50%
Gears 4 got in total 100 reviews.
This is lame and childish and fanboyish but still can't stop laughing. Shame on you, shame on me.
EDIT: 85 is absolutely a good score. I'm sure fans won't be disappointed.
Last edited:
It is a lack of understanding of how the game is designed to work.
You hear nonsense like there needs to be a change to the move, stop and shoot mechanic, a change to movement. Why would a game that is designed as a cover based shooter change its core gameplay loop? When you ask what changes people want and how they think it would expand on the game, most won't bother articulating.
You are right, sometimes people simply need to move on to something else. I will watch a few friends play turn based RPG's; they are not my cup of tea, so I never even bother talking about the gameplay on these. I will be there for the story though.
Less than half. Many of those remaining will probably be weighted less in the Metacritic rankings though (quite why one person's opinion is weighted more than another on there is beyond me though).
Just to keep things in perspective Spiderman had 87 MC, 84-85 is still a great AAA game. Review scales have changed.
lol
85 is on the low end of what I expected, was thinking a high 80's. Good score though, can't wait to play it
Control had about 140 reviews in open critic. Gears 5 has 47 reviews right now.
So percentage-wise it still has a ways to go.
Yeah, Spider-Man is a great example of how meaningless review scores are.
