Gears 3 Sucks!

Masta Shef wrote:Go figure all of the little kids who can't even spell are alreading saying this is a great. I guess you're to blind to see he IS aiming, zooming in is how you aim in GOW. 2 Reticle bloom sucks in general, but Gears is suppossed to be an over the top, in-your-face kind of game setting aside any kind of "realism" that would slow the game down. The dreaded smoke grenade(concussion grenade) is making a comeback even though Epic had to take it out of Gears 2 because it was such a bad gameplay element.

Long story short they added a shitload of bad features to a game that they already "ruined". This is basically Gears 2 online with worse features. I was a Gears of War fan until Gears 2 came out and with Gears 3 it's easy to see why.

As for all the 10 year olds who think this will be good, go and play Gears 1(which came out when you were like 5 or 6) before you go wasting more of your parents money.

MagicMan1313 wrote:I didn't watch the whole video, but this guy is mad because he is probably the worst Gears player I have ever seen. He barley hard aims, and the rifle he is using for long range shots, is specifically made for close to mid range shooting. If you want an opinion on the beta, ask Fattyboy, he's been playing it for a few days and from what he tells me it is amazing.

Masta Shef wrote:lol at Mexican. Why don't you go get more mad over Minecraft

mboddz751 wrote:
nope you're wrong. nope you're wrong. nope you're wrong. NOPE YOU'RE WRONG. MY VILLAGE MY RULES. NOPE NOPE NOPE

P.S. Shall we talk about shitty forum games?

EDIT: unless this topic takes a more productive and civil approach it should be locked

Imo: The GoW franchise is a decent one if you're into that kind of thing. As for me, I played gears right after hoping off of my BF2 craze and immediately had problems with the series in general.

Story: A sci-fi (kind of) world in which nearly every piece of architecture apparently has to be the bulkiest and most blocky thing ever to portray the pure grittiness of Sera (although Gears 1 did give off a great sense of destroyed beauty). The ragtag squad that you play as a part of seems to stumble upon every deus ex machina solution there is to the threat and even more annoyingly seems to accomplish what they want almost single-handedly. Gears one was pretty good in terms of keeping the story flowing however Gears two went retarded quick. Whether it was the "suddenly humanity has this massive army to fight back with", or the stupid ass research facility side plot which did barely jack-all to progress the story (maybe further elaborated on in GoW 3). The only other thing that really nibbled at me was the fact that you end the second one NEARLY THE EXACT SAME WAY AS THE FIRST ONE (my face when ).

Multiplayer: Again this is based entirely of preference. I hated and loved the run and gun feel of the matches. However, I despised the fact that the majority of the game would roll around each other shotguns blazing in till the winner was left to be mowed down with a lancer. I feel as if the cover and running aspect of the game was done to promote squad work on the multiplayer matches but turned into a minor free for all as most of the game runs off in their own separate direction to shotty roll. In GoW 2 we saw some of the most pointless guns thrown into the game that were a joke to use in a match and others were just plain unfair. Now in GoW 3 I feel as if I'm seeing the same experience as 2 (maybe a bit more balanced), but with some new characters and a gun or two.

thats my two cents

Super Mega King wrote:^what mboddz said.

Discuss the video without the flaming and with a bit of civility or don't discuss it at all.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:^Kid totally ignores the two posts above him saying to be civil and decides to bash Shef anyway

NegativeHUNTER wrote:I'll be getting into the beta on the 25th so I'll post my review around that time