Gears 5 Review Thread

Complicated

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,439
If there is no level of objectivity then an aggregate, like Metacritic, is actually useless. Yet look how popular they are. So I’d argue most people are looking for an objective evaluation in a review. And if you aren’t, I doubt you’re even looking at an aggregate; you probably have a few review sources that you trust or just make your own opinion.
Are there actually still people who think review scores and aggregates are useful? I can't imagine that given how nonsensical every review thread is, and people in threads like these must be the most engaged with the aggregator sites. I think most people just enjoy it because its an easy way to shitpost or argue about games you have no interest in without doing the work of engaging with the actual criticism being offered by reviews much less the game itself.
 

pswii60

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,597
UK
Yeah it really sucks that they had to review the version of the game that has all the issues that us players had to suffer with. C'mon now.
The online issues are temporary, so sure as long as they update their scores when everything is smooth sailing again.

Although that then ties in with a point I've made before about how games these days - especially service games - continue to evolve whilst reviews don't. GT Sport and Sea of Thieves reviews for example, are completely and utterly irrelevant today as neither game is recognisable compared to its launch state.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,519
Seem like pretty good reviews to me. What’s wrong with an 8.5 for tomb raider and an 8 for gears?
Gears 5 is simply better. And it’s not even close. And I say this as someone who loves the new Tomb Raider games.
Even the user scores on metacritic show the gap with SotTR sitting at 7.3 and Gears 5 sitting at 8.8.
 

PepsimanVsJoe

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,582
Although that then ties in with a point I've made before about how games these days - especially service games - continue to evolve whilst reviews don't. GT Sport and Sea of Thieves reviews for example, are completely and utterly irrelevant today as neither game is recognisable compared to its launch state.
Unfortunately, reviewers can't wait 2 or 3 years for a game to become good.
They also shouldn't be expected to continually update old reviews, especially when they're already buried in work.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,519
I was thinking about it, but most people wouldn't agree with my scores. I gave recore and crackdown a 9. I have messed up tastes.
Secondary opinions are great for this very reason, then you'd cover the diverse opinions that no doubt is out there. The only problem with odd review scores is that they really stand out if there is only that one opinion from a whole media outlet. What if the reviewer for whatever reason don't like the genre/IP/design/controls? Then you'll see a surprisingly low score that nobody understands and the whole outlet will get dragged down and fans would hate on them etc.
But if you have several opinions you could have one reviewer giving the game 10/10 and a secondary opinion giving it 8/10 and it would make perfect sense. I understand why it isn't common, you'd have to have multiple review codes or post the review later than the rest. But it would no doubt be better, especially if you put a fan of an IP as one reviewer and someone who has barely touched the IP as a secondary opinion, then you'll cover the whole spectrum, or at least more of it.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,519
Unfortunately, reviewers can't wait 2 or 3 years for a game to become good.
They also shouldn't be expected to continually update old reviews, especially when they're already buried in work.
Sometimes it is really needed though. No Man's Sky, the launch was a mess, and it sits at 71 on metacritic with 4.7 as user score on PS4. I still liked it at launch but I absolutely understood the complaints. Today it's a whole other game and it's rapidly climbing my best game of all time list, today I wouldn't be even a tiny bit embarassed to give the PC version at least 9/10.
 

Fezan

Member
Oct 26, 2017
688
Why are we making issue with EA reviews. They gave a game 8 which is good score and explained their reasons. This it's as close to average as ign score is but people seem to happy with that
 

P40L0

Member
Jun 12, 2018
984
Italy
It's crazy how a game can improve so much over its predecessor and being almost universally praised in comparison to it, yet barely getting a point above in the metacritic score.
Giving so much importance to double digit numbers is A LOT crazier.

The game is just superior in every aspect to the prequel, it's probably the best entry in the series both from a gameplay, story and fun factors and it's a technical marvel on par of what Gears 1 was for its launch time.

Neglecting that or even a purchase for 5 decimal points lesser compared to expectations is pure cancer, and that's why, with some exceptions, I don't want to be part of these discussions anymore...

(Don't get me wrong, I'm not referring to you in particular!)
 

PepsimanVsJoe

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,582
Sometimes it is really needed though. No Man's Sky, the launch was a mess, and it sits at 71 on metacritic with 4.7 as user score on PS4. I still liked it at launch but I absolutely understood the complaints. Today it's a whole other game and it's rapidly climbing my best game of all time list, today I wouldn't be even a tiny bit embarassed to give the PC version at least 9/10.
That's fine and I'm glad they were able to right the ship. However, unless Hello Games is pulling a Bethesda and denying workers a bonus over that 71, I fail to see the injustice here.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,519
That's fine and I'm glad they were able to right the ship. However, unless Hello Games is pulling a Bethesda and denying workers a bonus over that 71, I fail to see the injustice here.
NMS is unique but you have to think about the purpose of a review, to help consumers choose where to spend their money. It’s not all that helpful if a review is too focused on dropping the score because of launch issues if that gets fixed before the masses even jump in, so personally I absolutely think updated reviews should be a norm.

As with Gears, the server issues for example was never a problem for me even at launch just because I’m in a less populated timezone. Others could barely even play the game and saves were lost etc.
How do you give a game like that a fair rating without updating the score?
 

Git

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,391
Been watching some video reviews and the visual fidelity is incredible, also 3 player splitscreen - if I were reviewing it that would have added a bit to the score. First Gears game that's really piqued my interest.
 

PepsimanVsJoe

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,582
NMS is unique but you have to think about the purpose of a review, to help consumers choose where to spend their money. It’s not all that helpful if a review is too focused on dropping the score because of launch issues if that gets fixed before the masses even jump in, so personally I absolutely think updated reviews should be a norm.
How the heck am I going to review new games if I'm too busy re-reviewing last year's titles?
Seriously, all this says to me is don't review GaaS products. Otherwise I'll on the hook for every single update. If I wanted to play the same games all the time, I'd become a streamer. At least then maybe I could make a few bucks.
 

melodiousmowl

Member
Jan 14, 2018
2,222
CT
How the heck am I going to review new games if I'm too busy re-reviewing last year's titles?
Seriously, all this says to me is don't review GaaS products. Otherwise I'll on the hook for every single update. If I wanted to play the same games all the time, I'd become a streamer. At least then maybe I could make a few bucks.
Hell, even non-GaaS titles get completely transformed over the years. I was just playing a round of Dead Cells, and the game is like 90% different than when it launched, and way better. Games like re-core that were super blah became great.

It's just the reality: games, good or bad at launch, are getting patches and content either paid or free for years and its not going to stop - and I think it behooves reviewers to fit updates into the workflow.
 

Trup1aya

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,767
Hell, even non-GaaS titles get completely transformed over the years. I was just playing a round of Dead Cells, and the game is like 90% different than when it launched, and way better. Games like re-core that were super blah became great.

It's just the reality: games, good or bad at launch, are getting patches and content either paid or free for years and its not going to stop - and I think it behooves reviewers to fit updates into the workflow.
I think we'll just have to accept a lack of updates as an inherent deficiency in the review process.

New games are coming out all the time. And it makes the most business sense for Reviewers to review these new games, so that's where they'll devote their time and effort.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,519
How the heck am I going to review new games if I'm too busy re-reviewing last year's titles?
Seriously, all this says to me is don't review GaaS products. Otherwise I'll on the hook for every single update. If I wanted to play the same games all the time, I'd become a streamer. At least then maybe I could make a few bucks.
A full re-review isn’t needed. Just be serious about things, if you’re nitpicking and drop the score at launch because of something that is likely to get patched out then I think it’s only fair to update the score and remove the ”drop” later. Otherwise your review will only be helpful for people that was there day 1 and everyone else could just ignore everything you said.

Personally I wouldn’t drop a score because of things I know from experience is just launch issues, if it was an important thing I would wait a bit and talk to the devs and ask if they’re patching the game, then post the review a bit later or post the review day 1 and write about the issues and post the score later.

Review bombing day 1 is not serious, that’s what you have user scores for.

Although, the best thing would obviously be if the alpha-beta-preview-launch-review chain of events actually worked and games didn’t launch at semi-broken states.

But with post-launch updates and GaaS becoming more popular we need to adapt to it and understand that launch day is just yet another day in a game’s existence. For critics gaming is essentially entering the TV show world where you have to review the start of a new season every year and even new episodes, nobody care what you thought about season 1 episode 1 a year later.
 

PepsimanVsJoe

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,582
But with post-launch updates and GaaS becoming more popular we need to adapt to it and understand that launch day is just yet another day in a game’s existence. For critics gaming is essentially entering the TV show world where you have to review the start of a new season every year and even new episodes, nobody care what you thought about season 1 episode 1 a year later.
For the average reviewer, the reality is that they have hundreds of games to cover and zero free time.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm getting trolled and ya'll just hate critics.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,519
Sometimes I wonder if I'm getting trolled and ya'll just hate critics.
Maybe we need more critics instead of less up to date coverage on each game?

This generation we’ve seen several games where the reviews are basically worthless today, essentially only useful in the sense that it pushed devs to do post-launch work, they’re not in any way useful if you want help deciding if you should buy them or not.

How do you plan to review games when GaaS becomes the norm?
 

PepsimanVsJoe

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,582
Maybe we need more critics instead of less up to date coverage on each game?
Most critics aren't even getting paid. Maybe we should work on that before trying to drag more in.

Fredrik said:
How do you plan to review games when GaaS becomes the norm?
That's easy.
I won't.

Aside from the occasional Nintendo release, I've all but erased AAA games from my review schedule. I didn't become a video game critic so I could jump through more hoops than the Westminster Kennel Club. There's no culture in GaaS. It's all just a meaningless grind. At this point, I'd rather focus my attention on the many games that don't even receive MC ratings. It's certainly a more fulfilling experience than whatever the fuck you're suggesting.

Anyway, I'm out of here. Ya'll have fun watching numbers move up or down.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
9,219
Who the hell even looks at critic reviews for multiplayer games anyway? Only time you can get an accurate gauge of whether it's good or not is after the community has a solid few months with it. Only thing you can really tell pre release if it's really obviously broken or has no content.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,519
That's easy.
I won't.

Aside from the occasional Nintendo release, I've all but erased AAA games from my review schedule. I didn't become a video game critic so I could jump through more hoops than the Westminster Kennel Club. There's no culture in GaaS. It's all just a meaningless grind.
It’s the future though, I don’t think you can escape the GaaS problems you talk about, it’s already here and not just on the multiplayer games with all games getting post-launch updates and season passes etc. The day 1 reviews are sometimes inaccurate within just days after the launch.

But don’t overthink it, just write your review as usual, talk about the core gameplay and story and what not, score it, and if there is a meaningful update you can update the score. Done. It’s no different than keep talking about a game and it’s changes on this board, you can even post your own comments you make here in the updated reviews if you don’t have the time to write them down again. Any update is better than just leaving it at the day 1 version which few actually get to play.

I just think we need to adapt to the current way the game industry works. As of right now we’re essentially rating and talking (and fighting) about how polished and optimized the games were at launch day.
That doesn’t help the consumer much. :/


It’s great that you’re focusing on smaller games though, you’re doing a very important thing there. Even just shifting to review the PC, Switch or Xbox version instead of the usual PS version is great.
 

Saint-14

Member
Nov 2, 2017
12,334
I just think we need to adapt to the current way the game industry works. As of right now we’re essentially rating and talking (and fighting) about how polished and optimized the games were at launch day.
That doesn’t help the consumer much. :/
What? Of course it does, reviews are for launch period, anything else beyond that comes from word of mouth, nobody looks at MC of a 3 year old game to decide if it’s worth it or not.
 

Golvellius

Member
Dec 3, 2017
991
I just think we need to adapt to the current way the game industry works. As of right now we’re essentially rating and talking (and fighting) about how polished and optimized the games were at launch day.
That doesn’t help the consumer much. :/
If Game Pass becomes more widespread, the consumer doesn't need any purchase guidance anymore because they can easily try and see for themselves without additional cost. At that point MS should stop giving out review keys (as I already suggested earlier in this thread). Critics who want to give an unfair score at least had to buy the game or subscribe to Game Pass themselves then and didn't get it for free.
 

Budi

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,458
Finland
I thought the Gears 5 review was a little..short? They mostly summed up things in the game and mentioned some technical issues. Was hoping to hear their review of the story a bit more. Oh well.

8 is fair.
Bradley Ellis likes to keep his reviews rather succinct compared to other Allies, usually they're around 5 and 6 minutes. His longest one is Sekiro with bit under 9 minutes and it's an outlier for sure. I think he's also relatively new to writing review scripts, didn't start until EZA was formed. Him being new to writing is in no way an implication of his opinion of the game being wrong. Just want to say that so nobody thinks I'm trying to discredit him.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,519
What? Of course it does, reviews are for launch period, anything else beyond that comes from word of mouth, nobody looks at MC of a 3 year old game to decide if it’s worth it or not.
Nobody? Literally everyone I know checks metacritic before a purchase unless they already know that it's good. Same thing with imdb for movies.

If Game Pass becomes more widespread, the consumer doesn't need any purchase guidance anymore because they can easily try and see for themselves without additional cost. At that point MS should stop giving out review keys (as I already suggested earlier in this thread). Critics who want to give an unfair score at least had to buy the game or subscribe to Game Pass themselves then and didn't get it for free.
Critics who want to give an unfair score will still find a way to do that. But I agree, Game Pass is almost like the demos and trial versions we got two gens ago, but with the full games. I love that. No reviews besides user feedback seems risky though, Gears 5 is doing crazy good work for Game Pass as a whole, every game on the service will gain from this success, but would that be the case without the high review scores? I'm not so sure.
 

Servbot24

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
19,614
What? Of course it does, reviews are for launch period, anything else beyond that comes from word of mouth, nobody looks at MC of a 3 year old game to decide if it’s worth it or not.
People definitely do that. Even though there are people like us who buy games day 1, there are toooooons of people who don't buy consoles til several years after they're released and then try to find the best games to play. People who are able to buy games for $60 at release are usually just the enthusiast well-payed adults.

I think in an ideal world, every review score would be constantly updated to reflect the current state of the game. However that is obviously not realistic, so publishers have to deal with the launch state of the game most likely being the permanent score. Sadly that hurts consumers, but it's just not realistic for reviewers to update scores.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,519
I think in an ideal world, every review score would be constantly updated to reflect the current state of the game. However that is obviously not realistic, so publishers have to deal with the launch state of the game most likely being the permanent score. Sadly that hurts consumers, but it's just not realistic for reviewers to update scores.
I think the industry as a whole needs to rethink how they're doing the previews and reviews. Like I said before pretty much all games have post-launch updates and season passes today, to rush out as a critic and try beating everyone else and post the first worldwide review on day 1 with no intention of updating the review is doing not only the game a diservice but also the consumers and the gaming industry as a whole. Almost nobody will play that version so why rush out and report on it?

Publishers simply needs to invest in better quality checks and arrange preview events earlier so the devs can fix the obvious faults before the game launches. Reviews shouldn't be used to report on a buggy day 1 version or to review bomb it in hope that it'll get devs to fix something 6 months later. That's what beta testing is for.
 

nib95

Member
Oct 28, 2017
11,305
People definitely do that. Even though there are people like us who buy games day 1, there are toooooons of people who don't buy consoles til several years after they're released and then try to find the best games to play. People who are able to buy games for $60 at release are usually just the enthusiast well-payed adults.

I think in an ideal world, every review score would be constantly updated to reflect the current state of the game. However that is obviously not realistic, so publishers have to deal with the launch state of the game most likely being the permanent score. Sadly that hurts consumers, but it's just not realistic for reviewers to update scores.
To be fair, if any game is charging $60 at launch, and also intends to feature microtransactions at some point, judging the game for what is there on day one is completely fair.

GaaS is not, and should not be an excuse for devs to release half baked and content light games, especially when charging full price. That's why I think it's good that games like Sea of Thieves and Gran Turismo Sport got berated for a lack of content at launch. At the end of the day, if you want better reviews, delay your game until the content is comprehensive enough to justify full price on day one, not day question mark.

Obviously this doesn't apply to Gears 5, which is a very content rich game that imo fully justifies its $60 price tag or Game Pass subscription.
 

spookyghost

Member
Oct 28, 2017
997
I can't play this for a month or so and am trying to stay as spoiler free as possible but I have a question:

Is there much to do in the hub world or is it more of an interactive level select screen?
 

Milk

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,266
I can't play this for a month or so and am trying to stay as spoiler free as possible but I have a question:

Is there much to do in the hub world or is it more of an interactive level select screen?
There’s a fair number of side objectives (basically little quests) to do in the open world levels.
 

BrickArts295

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,742
Sometimes it is really needed though. No Man's Sky, the launch was a mess, and it sits at 71 on metacritic with 4.7 as user score on PS4. I still liked it at launch but I absolutely understood the complaints. Today it's a whole other game and it's rapidly climbing my best game of all time list, today I wouldn't be even a tiny bit embarassed to give the PC version at least 9/10.
To be fair, NMS got 2 chances to be re-reviewed with the XB1 port (77 MC) and the Beyond Expansion (83 MC).
 

TheYanger

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,142
Sounds good, cheers!
Not sure why anyone would tell you that. It's basically a level select screen, the 'side' objectives are super clearly marked levels, basically. Some are very short, some are pretty chunky, but they're still just bespoke missions essentially. There's like map markers in the entire game. Nothing to actually search and find or anything.

It's an overworld, not an open world.
 

Firima

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,607
Sounds good, cheers!
There are also
Relic Weapons strewn about, which are altered versions of existing weapons with different attributes. Go hunt them down, there's great stuff to be found (Longshot with superior ammo economy in Act 2, for example) and make sure to NOT GET RID OF THEM IF YOU LIKE THEM.
 
Last edited:

kinjx11

Banned
Jan 24, 2019
299
finally beat the campaign , 10/10 this is by far the best most intense campaign in 2019

now the graphics are also on another level for a UE4 game , just pure joy to watch with HDR on

graphics setting that i turn down a little and gain more fps are vol.fog and tessellation , they don't make a difference above HIGH option
 

FFWarrior005

Alt account
Banned
Jul 13, 2019
534
Maybe we need more critics instead of less up to date coverage on each game?

This generation we’ve seen several games where the reviews are basically worthless today, essentially only useful in the sense that it pushed devs to do post-launch work, they’re not in any way useful if you want help deciding if you should buy them or not.

How do you plan to review games when GaaS becomes the norm?
Probably a good thing you aren't a reviewer like some of us. I can tell you if GaaS become the norm I won't be reviewing them as I've all but about gotten tired of those kinds of games already.
 

Betty

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
8,653
Playing through Gears 4 on co-op, and it's jaw dropping at times on the X, can't wait to see how 5 looks in the campaign.