Gears 5 Review Thread

Splader

Member
Feb 12, 2018
1,482
Why is this seen as some kind of ‘gotcha’ Or contradiction? There were maybe ten points of interest on the map and all of them were similar points where you pass through a door/tunnel to a very traditional non-open gears style level to get a Jack upgrade reward in the end.

The presence of these icons does not mean the world isn’t empty and Jeff’s comment can still be valid. It makes the skiff parts into a needless hubworld, if anything. And again, Jeff is far from the only reviewer saying the open-world areas are not a big boon to the overall game.
And there are tens of other reviewers that are saying the exact opposite. Clearly it works for some and doesn't work for others.
 

BBQ_of_DOOM

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,372
One point higher would mean the same score as Spiderman. You know that's going to add another 40 pages into this thread.
Oh yeah. Page after page of “but Spider-Man was actually better than its score while we know, definitively, that Gears is not because [insert vague console warring rhetoric here].”
 

DarthWalden

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
2,317
I love Giant Bomb. I'm a subscriber (though I'm more particular to the East coast team). I think Jeff Gerstmann is awesome. I also think Jeff can be super particular about what he likes and this often results in him being blase about tonnes of games that I wind up enjoying and so I just don't find him reliable when he's somewhat aloof or negative about a game. Enjoyed watching the Quick Look for what it was, I just don't consider it a reliable indication of the game's quality.
This 100%. Let's remember Jeff also didn't bother to finish highly rated games like RDR2, God of War, or Uncharted 4.

Having said that Gears seems to be one of those games I figured he'd enjoy. I remember his Geara 4 review because he specifically echoed my praise and criticisms pretty much to a tee.
 

Governergrimm

Member
Jun 25, 2019
637
The timer constantly runs down, but you can get a skill upgrade that extends it a bit with every kill. So it's a race to try and get the kills you can and then get back to cover because you're leaving yourself in enemy territory fully exposed if you don't.

So it's not like this is something you can just do over and over again.
Context is important and that was lacking from the clip. So excited to play it tonight.
 

OneBadMutha

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,934
I love Giant Bomb. I'm a subscriber (though I'm more particular to the East coast team). I think Jeff Gerstmann is awesome. I also think Jeff can be super particular about what he likes and this often results in him being blase about tonnes of games that I wind up enjoying and so I just don't find him reliable when he's somewhat aloof or negative about a game. Enjoyed watching the Quick Look for what it was, I just don't consider it a reliable indication of the game's quality.
Same here. And Jeff is one of my favorite gaming media personalities out there. His opinions are fun to listen to but very unique to Jeff. He doesn’t even like Last of Us which is my #1 reason to own a PlayStation. I listen for entertainment more than info.
 

Deviousb33r

Member
Oct 31, 2017
191
California
they should do the R* approach, release multiplayer later so it doesn't conflate with the scores
I don't think it would really work. With RDR and GTA, you can get lost within the singleplayer portion for a while because there's so much to do. But you can complete a fairly linear game like Gears a lot faster. And like m23 said, a lot of folks play Gears for its multiplayer/horde modes.
 

Bradbatross

Member
Mar 17, 2018
4,430
Nice, the glowing reviews keep on coming in. I guess we're starting to get more since some reviewers are actually taking the time to review the full package lol.
 

Kyle Barrett

Member
Mar 5, 2018
74
Why do people struggle believing this is as good or better than Spiderman? I see them to be on exactly the same level really, both well-honed games that land the important parts perfectly. The high 90s and above are for things that push further and give people more than what they were expecting.

A high 80s game is a bloody winner.
 

Betty

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
8,726
Ahh I can't wait to play Horde mode tomorrow, it's been a lifetime since my last time playing it back in Gears 2.
 

Voodoopeople

Member
Oct 29, 2017
322
That Guardian review is why MC sucks. A glowing review, but because they literally only have 5 places to place their score, it's effectively got an 80 MC from them. Using 5 stars does not translate to MC at all. That said, a 5 star system is much better in other ways. 3 star films, for example, are still well worth seeing in many cases. Can you imagine people here trying to defend an equivalent 60 MC game?
 

cyrribrae

Member
Jan 21, 2019
859
That Guardian review is why MC sucks. A glowing review, but because they literally only have 5 places to place their score, it's effectively got an 80 MC from them. Using 5 stars does not translate to MC at all. That said, a 5 star system is much better in other ways. 3 star films, for example, are still well worth seeing in many cases. Can you imagine people here trying to defend an equivalent 60 MC game?
Yea. It's quite interesting. This is another reason why MC is especially not useful at the top of the scale. What's the difference between a 80 and a 90? Who knows, there's no way to tell XD. Scores don't really capture the intent in reviews, and because of various scales and math, averages just obscure them even further. That's compounded by all the people who are just moving away from scores in general. I wonder if it would have been more productive to just get a small brain trust of people from different outlets to anonymously score games on a consistent scale. And phrase it as "What would you like to see this game's overall consensus score end up at". A totally subjective question that isn't about "how good is this game" or "balance the merits blah blah". That way, we would get a score, but we'd also all know that it's BS in its own special way. That anonymity would go a long way IMO.
 

shaneo632

Member
Oct 29, 2017
12,094
Essex, UK
Feels like a 7.5 for me from what I've played so far. Fun but junky and familiar. Nothing particularly innovative or memorable but a fun blockbuster thrillride while you're playing it.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,921
The World
Yea. It's quite interesting. This is another reason why MC is especially not useful at the top of the scale. What's the difference between a 80 and a 90? Who knows, there's no way to tell XD. Scores don't really capture the intent in reviews, and because of various scales and math, averages just obscure them even further. That's compounded by all the people who are just moving away from scores in general. I wonder if it would have been more productive to just get a small brain trust of people from different outlets to anonymously score games on a consistent scale. And phrase it as "What would you like to see this game's overall consensus score end up at". A totally subjective question that isn't about "how good is this game" or "balance the merits blah blah". That way, we would get a score, but we'd also all know that it's BS in its own special way. That anonymity would go a long way IMO.
That's not a problem with MC though - the problem is with some people in gaming community that want to see winners and losers based on these MC scores.
 

Trup1aya

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,823
That Guardian review is why MC sucks. A glowing review, but because they literally only have 5 places to place their score, it's effectively got an 80 MC from them. Using 5 stars does not translate to MC at all. That said, a 5 star system is much better in other ways. 3 star films, for example, are still well worth seeing in many cases. Can you imagine people here trying to defend an equivalent 60 MC game?
It’s a general problem with trying to find a numerical average of people's opinion. It's inherently a little flawed. The only solution is for fans to stop caring so much about the average score. Just use reviews as a recommendation to play or not.
 

greektony

Member
Oct 27, 2017
38
Been paying koth for a few hours ago and this too me no longer feels like a gears game. I'm really disappointed. The game is too fast and doesn't have the feeling of heft and weight of previous titles which is what made gears, gears. I'm hoping something clicks soon but this is the first entry I'm really not enjoying. The shotgun is ridiculous as well. Hype completely deflated. Hopefully horde and the new mode escape are good as if they are it could be the first entry where I no longer player pvp
 

Mosse

Member
Oct 25, 2017
124
The MC score can help show what the general opinion reviewers have about a game in comparision to similar titles, like if there is something like a 10-20 points difference between a game and its predecesor. But the obssesion with the exact score and especially when its just a few points difference between titles is pointless since there’s so many variables like number of reviews, different scoring between reviewers, different reviewers for the same publication on different titles and such. And it’s all based on peoples subjective impression.
 

cyrribrae

Member
Jan 21, 2019
859
That's not a problem with MC though - the problem is with some people in gaming community that want to see winners and losers based on these MC scores.
Mm, sure, anything can be weaponized. But no, I would definitely argue that this is an inherent shortcoming of the MC format. There are several layers of problems. Who is the audience for MC? By design, it's trying to aggregate as many different perspectives as possible and homogenize them into one easily digestible figure. It's meant to be a quick and dirty benchmark for a casual audience that isn't necessarily going to dive into the reviews and read them. There's absolutely a market for that - most people aren't going to read 2 reviews on a game, let alone 50. Still, that's the reason why MC doesn't really concern itself very much with interpreting words and scales into something consistent. It doesn't really matter to them.

HOWEVER, the scale that they use implies that the process is much more precise than it actually is. It collates, but doesn't include reviews that don't score or use a different scale. It assigns a number out of 100 (even to scores that can't reasonably be interpreted that way), and implies and even encourages on the website and in marketing that a single point of difference is meaningful in some way. Is a game scoring 85 better than a game that scored 83? MC may not outright say that.. but they're not NOT saying that either. And they're happy to let people run away with that assumption and blast it all over the internet.

That's before we even get to the methodology of aggregation. MC is an average. I don't know if it's a weighted average (maybe that would be better), but regardless.. the math gets in the way at the top end. The people who really really love a game can't give it 120, there's an upper limit to the score. Therefore, people who think the game is bad OR EVEN just think it's decent but not great can have an outsize influence on the score the closer it gets to the top of the scale. High MC scores are fundamentally an indication of consensus. People like the game, and there weren't too many outliers. That's especially a problem for games that are divisive. If 1/3 of the audience LOVES a game, but 1/3 of people don't like it, does that mean this game is middling? Nope. It just means it appeals to a specific group of players, and not to everyone. But wait, isn't that true of EVERY game? Yes. It is. So why is that a problem?

Because video game reviewers are not the same as the general audience that MC is targetting. We've had this discussion before, so in brief, reviewers are a specific breed of people. They tend to be knowledgeable about games and history. They tend to have a decent grasp on trends and movements in the industry. They tend to play more games and more varied games than most people. They tend to be early adopters and be interested in seeing new things (partially because they remember and play more games). Importantly, they also have audiences - often audiences that are different from the wide net cast by MC. And.. why will a racing game almost certainly not win GOTY this year or next year or the year after that? Because it's not the kind of game that reviewers value in that way. DOES THAT MEAN REVIEWERS ARE BAD AND THEIR SCORES ARE MEANINGLESS? No, certainly not. The point is not that their reviews or scores are bad, merely that they don't fit into the system that is set up with MC.

In sum, yes, I think the MC concept is deeply inherently flawed in many ways, even though I think it does serve a legitimate purpose for people. Still, I would personally entirely rework the way the system is run. Rotten Tomatoes is often seen as an analogue for MC, but it's really not. It sums up the number of reviewers who would RECOMMEND a movie. I think that can be a fairly useful metric, because then we understand that the difference between 83% of reviewers recommending a game and 85% is fundamentally not important. And, of course, we haven't even touched the trend of reviewers moving away from scores entirely (and even reviews!). But, I agree, THAT issue is not on MC. Wow I wrote a lot. Sorry.