What are your thoughts on the video game Gears of War, which released for Microsoft Windows on the Personal Computer platform on the date of June 11, 2007 (which is before December 2007)

Personally I really love the overall atmosphere and edge to the game, even if the level design hasn't held up very well, and there is a lack of weapon and enemy variety.

What's wrong with you mate

Why do you want us to discuss non-/vr/ stuff so badly? I know /v/ is a complete cesspool, but there are other places where you can freely chat about modern gaming

I wish more games had badass bosses like this where they really feel like a FINAL BOSS.

I love the achievements

>>11852038 (OP)
This and Halo 3 were my retro gaming childhood

says windows but it plays like console popamole
odd

>>11852038 (OP)
I actually really liked GoW when it released, even though it got a dudebro following at the time. I thought it was a fresh take in the FPS/TPS genre with a strong focus on spectacle.

However, I also mark it as the beginning of the end because of how popular it became which wound up influencing a lot of games that came after. While Halo was the original console runaway success in FPS and slowed down the genre significantly and Half-Life released with a focus on a narrative over levels designed for straight action, Gears was built around slower paced combat disguised by a jerky camera and detailed animations but lacked a lot of depth in the actual gameplay.

At the time, I really wanted an FPS/TPS that focused on highly tactical combat in a war setting, something like Rainbow 6's methodical gameplay but drawing from a game like Company of Heroes which had a very strong focus on combined arms and planning. Gears got me excited initially because I thought it had potential to go in that direction as the series progressed, but it very much doubled down on very visceral squad based combat in an arena setting.

>>11852038 (OP)
Gears of War was initially released on the 360 in 2006, therefore it is not retro.

This game really shines on insane

>>11852038 (OP)
I have a lot of fond memories of it. That era of multiplayer was special. What I liked most about Gears 1 was how it had horror elements to it that unfortunately were abandoned as the series went on.

Oh and thanks for making a unique thread OP. Don't let the trannies and autists here try to shame you about how this game isn't "retro" even though it fits their bullshit criteria. I'd much rather see threads like this then yet another shit CRT thread or another "I never knew x game was so great why was I lied to?" thread that reads like it's straight out of reddit.

>>11852047
>modern gaming
This shit is almost two decades old gramps. It's as old as Super Mario Bros. was when it came out.

Beat it on hardest. The controls in this game are utter ass. Trying to move around out of cover is super unintuitive and clunky. Took forever to beat the cheap ass final boss thanks to the bad controls. And how do they mess up something as simple as throwing grenades? Also whats with the gothic setting, I thought this game is supposed to be about stopping an alien invasion not taking a stroll through Downton Abbey. So this is what people were raving about in 2006? Gears of war more like tears of war. Halo more like gaylo

i remember people grinding for the 10,000 kills achievement online or whatever it was. then later they released horde mode and it became easy to get kek

>>11852378
Horde mode wasn't added to the series until 2, which had its own version of that achievement but with 100k kills across every mode instead.

>>11852038 (OP)
>What are your thoughts on the video game Gears of War, which released for Microsoft Windows on the Personal Computer platform on the date of June 11, 2007 (which is before December 2007)
The big thought is that way more people played it on the 360 and will be speaking about their experience under the guise of that PC release. Otherwise fun chunky gunplay that Epic would become known for, a pretty boring campaign format that was fun with a friend, and a much better sequel.

>>11852326
You're a big fat fuck in like 200 lbs of armor, it's meant to be clunky. Also the atmosphere in 1 is peak, nothing else out there like it.

Raam fucking sucks, but once you know how to deal with him, he's not too bad.

>>11852397
>and a much better sequel.
Casual campaignshitter who played the game all of two times identified. Literally nobody who poopsocked Gears 1 multiplayer thinks this. Gears 2 was a fucking disgrace.

This was the first game I ever played at a high refresh rate on PC. Was ready to dismiss 120hz as a gimmick but after seeing it in action I became a true believer.
That said the game kinda sucked

>>11852038 (OP)
>(which is before December 2007)

what did he mean with this?

>>11852038 (OP)
I love the game. I love the lore, characters, world, and so far I enjoy the games. Judgement isn’t my cup of tea. I’m up to Gears 4 now and at the end of Chapter 3. Gears is a great series and beats the graphics and action of most retro games!

>>11852497
Intentionally acknowledging the game is out of place here but technically allowed for discussion. Like Crysis.

>>11852497
>>Retro gaming means platforms launched in 2001 and earlier, and official game titles for those platforms released no later than December 2007
It’s to use the “PC as a platform” loophole to talk about every multiplat-with-PC game as if it were “retro”. You can talk about Gears, CoD4, Bioshock and the Orange Box but apparently not any console exclusive, the DS, or PSP.

>>11852185
It doesn't matter. It's insanely far removed from the design philosophy and market environment that governed game development prior to and during the 6th console generation. Gigantic AAA third person action games like Gears of War are fundamentally not retro games. The cutoff is 6th generation, and even some games during that period were beginning to transition.

>>11852047
It's trolling.

>>11852069
Halo 3 is actually retro because it came out before December 2007 and there is a PC port that runs on Windows XP (the so-called Rainbow Serpent build)

>>11852038 (OP)
>Microsoft Windows on the Personal Computer platform

Not how this works. A platform is the sum of its parts, which is why everywhere online the FDS, 32X, Sega CD, etc are listed as seperate platforms. The Famicom is a different platform from the Famicom+FDS with different limitations.

Applying this definition to computers means that you have to taken into account every piece of hardware required to run the game on a computer. Which is why if you had posted the entire box cover and not just the front you would have seen "minimum specs requirements" that list every single part required.

Now this is also why the term "platform" doesn't really apply to computers because nearly every individual PC is a different "platform" by that definition. But that doesn't mean you can loosen the definition of the word for that reason, and anyone that isn't a drooling retard or a troll understands that what they meant with the rules of this board was "hardware cut off 2001 / software cut off 2007".

tl;dr GoW requires a GPU from 2004. Not retro.

>>11852590
Gears of War isn't a gigantic AAA game. It's like a dozen frat bros just dicking around in unreal engine

>>11852685
>"hardware cut off 2001 / software cut off 2007".

Which is also the only way the rules make sense because otherwise you're allowing talks of stuff that runs on 2007 hardware for computers but not for consoles, even though computers were already more advanced to begin with.
So what's going to happen itt, people are allowed to talk about the PC verison of the game and are getting a b& and their posts deleted if they so much as mention the console version? Of course not, because that's retarded and that's not what the rules wanted.

>>11852185
No, it isn't

>>11852735
>No, it isn't
In 2006, SMB was 19 years old.
And 2006 was...19 years ago!

>>11852738
europoor release dates don't count

I really wish /vr/ would include DS and PSP. It's wild Gears of War can be considered retro when a portable ps1 and N64 can't.

>>11852747
Yes let's just drop the masks and call ps4 and xboner retro too, because it's never enough and this board should be retro games in name only

>>11852590
of 4re is retro - gears is retro

>>11852047
They want to replace actual retro gaming discussions with their "ITS MY CHILDHOOD ITS THE REAL RETRO GAMES NOT YOURS YOU BOOMERS" bullshit
it's nothing but a ploy to bring /v/ faggotry onto this board, allowing 6th gen was a warning, allowing 7th gen is gonna be disastrous

>>11852774
you sound like you gay, though. Real shit, you sound like a faggot and you like dick.

>>11852776
erm, I'm a transbian, tyvm

The only reason for the Dec. 2007 cutoff is because the last GBA game was released in November and zoomer tranny mods desperately needed an excuse to talk about their GBAslop shovelware wii ports. So those are allowed while late-era PS2 games are arbitrarily not allowed

>>11852038 (OP)
I have to admit something. I couldn't play it. It was too scary for me. I was twelve at the time.

>>11852761
Nice strawman bro

>>11852689
>a dozen frat bros dicking around
>https://www.mobygames.com/game/31065/gears-of-war/
>267 developers, 43 thanks
More like a dozen times twenty.

>>11852645
Wait what really? Was this build ever released or leaked online?

>>11853009
Yeah, it got leaked on /v/ two years before it came to Steam: https://arch.b4k.dev/v/thread/433896127/#433902370

>>11853021
>>11853009
https://arch.b4k.dev/v/thread/434450563/#434451964 Found a link that still works

I’ll ask again since no one answered in the deleted thread. How bad was Games for Windows Live back when it was active? Did it actually bother a lot of people? And what was the point of it in the first place?

>>11853081
It was pretty shit but also overhated.
It had a big advantage over Steam: it supported 100% offline profiles

>>11852061
Pain in the ass on the hardest difficulty. Had to coop it to take him down and it took us like 3-4 hours straight of attempts but my basketball frat boy friend wanted to beat it like his life depended on it. Good times.

>>11852326
Did u even play the fucking game? It’s a different world where an entire species had been dormant underneath the surface and only reappeared when civilization was already more advanced then ours.

>>11853081
Only encountered it in DoW 2 and Kane and Lynch and in both it didn't stop me from playing pirated versions. But I do remember the hate it got

Even if 7th gen is becoming a distant memory of mine, it still has no place here because it still was the true beginning of modern gaming. HD, standardized online, matchmaking multiplayer, dubious DLC practices, overemphasis on realism.
t.97 zoomer

>>11853116
Who's talking about 7th gen? This thread is about Gears of War for PC, playable on windows XP, a retro platform.

>>11852685
Nah, it's like a mapper for an NES game, or an add-on for a console.

Each GPU and CPU is not its entirely own platform, the platform is still PC. Or more specifically Windows XP, which released in 2001.

>>11852747
We can only fucking hope that this year, marking the 20th anniversary, is the year 7th gen is added. If 20 years isn't retro then what is? Topics have become very stale here, with the same threads. I wouldn't even mind a split for 3rd-5th gen, and then 6th+7th gen, assuming there is enough posters. Frankly /v/ is just garbage for discussion, so the more you can discuss here, the better

>>11853131
GoW is a DirectX 9.0c (which first came out in 2004, and is also the API of the 360) game, which makes it 7th gen.

Did anyone else ever find the complaints about GFWL hugely overblown? The only problem I ever had with it was slow updates.

>>11852061
i remember there was an exploit to get this guy stuck in place on the train

Gears is part of the magical era of co-op games
Small but legitimate reasons when replaying it to actually switch character was always fun and despite it being so linear the gunplay, active reloading, and the actual levels themselves were so fun
It's been well over a decade plus since i played it with my buddy and i truly think we're both long overdue for another run, we played it more than once on the hardest difficulty but i'll be damned if i don't look forward to doing the night sections all over again
If anything, I would say 2 ran on for a little too long but that's non-/vr/ so I'll save my piece on it.
I loved one.

>>11853116
That's the most interesting part of the 2007 cutoff date for me. It had a lot of releases I really liked where things just started to get weird and downhill shortly after: You had Valve still working on the HL2 episodes as well as new things like Portal, classic TF2 well before hats, modern Call of Duty that still had leaning and wasn't strung by matchmaking, Mass Effect before Bioware's founders starting to dip...I'm sure others will come to mind.
>>11853143
I'll be looking forward to all the Dark Souls 1 vs 2 discussion happening all over again.

>>11853157
Not even an exploit really, half the time he got stuck, other times he would get stuck, unstuck, stuck, unstuck. Very rarely did he ever actually work as "intended"

>>11853150
Direct X is not a platform, retard

>>11853143
>or an add-on for a console.
No one calls a 32x game a Genesis game.

>>11853167
Most people at the time did. Zoomers don't because rom sites divide them up so they think it was a totally standalone thing.

>>11853165
It is absolutely a part of the platform.
Without it you could not run the game.
You could time travel and bring a copy of GoW back to 2001 but you would have absolutely no way play it.

>>11853170
lol no
stop projecting, zoomie

>>11853171
Same for an online game that released in 2005... which would still be retro per /vr/ rules

The platform is Windows XP.

>>11853175
XP is an OS, just a part of a whole platform consisting of the computer, the gpu, etc.
It's different from something like the PS2, which encompasses all of that.

No one would call the PS2 BIOS the "platform"

>>11853186
By your logic running games on a slim PS2 isn't /vr/

>>11853197
Running a retro game on a newer device is still /vr/, there's a whole general about.

It would only not be /vr/ if it's a game that doesn't run on the original PS2.

>>11853165
>>11853186
The oldest graphics cards that support DirectX9 came out after 2001. By THAT logic, 2001 hardware cannot play a whole slew of PC games discussed on /vr/.

>>11853205
Well luckily GoW runs on Windows XP, a retro platform released in 2001.

>>11853209
What game?
Any DirectX 9.0C is game is not retro.

GoW's first and primary platform is the 360. It couldn't be more blatantly a 7th gen game. I don't know why you bother with all those retarded mental gymnastics.

>>11853186
Nobody considers the fucking GPU the platform release date. The rule exists for DS and PSP so half the library isn't retro while the other half is.

PC is considered one platform, and even if you wanted to be pedantic, XP and the games that run on it, so all PC games up to 2007 are retro.

A game that had online infrastructure built after 2001 or a game played on a PS2 slim is still retro, because those are revisions to an existing platform, not a new platform released after 2001.

Hell, homebrew from current day is still allowed, many of which are only playable on an emulator

>>11853197
All those infamous games that only run on a slim...
Stop being retarded on purpose.

>>11853143
So /v/ is shit but you want more /v/tards to feel at home by allowing modern games? Logical.

> Topics have become very stale here, with the same threads.
By /v/ tier shitposters, which you want to welcome more of.

Every single 7th gen game on /vr/ is either someone like OP who just wants to shit up the board on purpose, as evidenced by his "Look it's allowed and RETRO because I'm retarded in the way I interprate the rules!", or a phoneposting tourist that doesn't read the rules, check the catalog, and bump his thread after less than 5 mins. In other words, 7th gen = shitposting.

>enter thread to discuss the game
>its that same schizo saying ackshually PC isn't a platform

>>11853227
>Nobody considers the fucking GPU the platform release date.

The rules clearly mean "2001 hardware cut-off" and everyone understands that, you're just "pretending to be retarded" and trying to bend the definition of words only in order to shitpost.

>>11853227
Yeah dude let me just play my VGA game on my PC with CGA graphics.
They're the same platform after all since it's DOS.

>>11853229
Why do you keep bumping the thread if you don’t want it talked about. Just ignore it.

OS is always the platform with PC, stop trying to redefine words because certain games make you cry.

>>11853237
That would also mean any games that require hardware or peripherals or revisions after 2001 are not retro.

Eyetoy? Not retro
Guitar Hero with the guitar? Not retro
Any retro game played on a 4k OLED? Not retro
Any retro game played on an emulator from after 2001? Not retro
Any PS2 or Xbox online game released after 2001? Not retro

Do you see how fucking stupid your logic is?

PC is the platform

>>11853171
So what I can discuss Stalker SoC because it had directX 8 mode but came out 3 months before GoW 1? What is this retard logic.

>>11853248
I don't need a 4k OLED display to play Doom.
But I do need a DirectX 9.0c compatible graphics card to play GoW

>>11853253
Can I run it on an actual PC that was available in 2001?
If yes, it's retro.
If no, it's not retro.
Very simple.

>>11853248
>Any PS2 or Xbox online game released after 2001? Not retro
You don't need the 2002 network adaptor to play PS2 games online lol...THPS3 came out before the network adaptor even launched, and people played online with a USB>ethernet adaptor.

>>11853258
Too bad thats not what the rule says but you keep playing the mod

>thread is still up
The future of this board is bleak.

>>11853248
None of those things you mentionned define a platform, they're peripherals which in most cases you mentionned aren't even required to run the games. Buying a newer gamepad doesn't change the platform.

>PC is the platform

Ah yes because the rules totally intended for /vr/ to allow discussion of the *PC* version of Gears of War while at the same time disallowing discussion of the *console* versions. Yep, that's exactly what the rules wanted.

>Do you see how fucking stupid your logic is?

>>11853281
Thread about games likes these (Crysis, CoD4, etc.) get routinely deleted by the mods, newfriend. So they seem to agree with me.

>>11853285
Or maybe because they devolve into shitposting and backseat moderating. Keep it up I guess.

>>11852038 (OP)
I played gears way back in the day with my dad and remember it being fairly fun but we had far more enjoyment out of Army of Two. I never touched any of the sequels so maybe they are better or worse but Gears 1 was the end of Epic as I knew them. 6/10, 7/10 with coop.

>>11853291
Or maybe you're just an obvious fag who wants to talk about a shitty 360 game and got a jewboner when you saw a possible legal loophole.

>>11853263
The online infrastructure for the game wasn't there prior to 2001

The rule says platforms, meaning entire new console/handheld launches. A 2004 GPU is not a platform launch. Which is why hardware revisions, online revisions, homebrew, emulator updates, peripherals, etc. are all allowed, just not entirely new platform launches like DS or PSP

>b-b-but PS2 slim games can play on OG PS2
And yet... you can still discuss the PS2 slim, GBA SP, GBA Micro ACTUAL HARDWARE AND CONSOLES here, NOT just in context of games playable on them

>>11853237
Arcade games released after 2001 are allowed despite using hardware from after 2001.

The rule is talking about unique paltform launches, not revisions, hardware or otherwise, to existing platforms.

>>11853302
a next-gen GPU is not a hardware revision nor a peripheral
it is part of the platform that makes GoW's obvious 7th gen graphics possible

>>11853302
>The online infrastructure for the game wasn't there prior to 2001
Good thing 2001 is covered by the board rules.

>>11853297
OP posted a PC release, the only person mentioning the 360 is you.

Why do threads like this grab attention so quickly? What's the explanation?

>>11853323
Yeah, simply for the loophole.
I bet the didn't even PC version.

Same thing happens in CoD4 threads, they post the PC version and then keeping talking about Xbox Live shit.

>>11852038 (OP)
Why does Gears of War get credited with ruining shooters with cover mechanics, when you spend most battles running around in danger? Winback came out way before Gears and is a textbook cover shooter.

You have always been allowed to post about PS2 slim, GBA SP, GBA Micro, etc. and talk about the actual HARDWARE themselves that released after 2001.

The reason being is they are upgrades/revisions/modifications to existing, original hardware.

Even something as abstract and nebulous as "Arcade" because they are on newer hardware still within that same broad category of "Arcade" games, despite the hardware configuration being totally different and unique to prior PCBs.

Same rules apply for PC. Discussion is allowed for ALL games on the broad "PC" platform released up until Dec. 2007 no matter how much you bitch and moan about it.

>>11853331
tendies, it's always tendies

>>11852776
This rude about a game I beat when I was in high school. Seek Christ

>>11853314
No they don't, "arcade" as a whole isn't a platform. That's like saying "consoles" are a platform, or "computers" (or "PCs") are a platform. Might as well say the latest PS5 release is on the PlayStation platform, itself released in 1994. Arcade games are like computers, by the definition of the word almost each individual arcade game is on its own platform (there are exceptions) and NOBODY has ever talked about "the arcade platform".

Plus I've never seen a thread about an arcade game from 2006 and if there really has been one or two it's only for the same reason as why this thread is still up.

I'm really sorry that the mods used such as big and complicated word like "platform", they really overestimated the userbase.

>>11853386
The mods probably wanted to just write everything up to 6th gen. Then worried about autists arguing about what exactly 6th gen is, so they put in definition of it instead.
And now autists are arguing about what exactly a single word in their definition means.

>>11853386
>Plus I've never seen a thread about an arcade game from 2006 and if there really has been one or two it's only for the same reason as why this thread is still up.
It doesn't matter if it's an arcade game from 2006, as an arcade game from 2002 is still after 2001, and people talk about early 2000s arcade games all the time here with no issue, same as talking about GBA SP or GBA Micro or PS2 Slim hardware.

>No they don't, "arcade" as a whole isn't a platform
Yes, it is, per the rules and standards of this board.

>That's like saying "consoles" are a platform
No, it's not, per the rules and standards of this board.

Individual console releases (but not revisions) are platforms, in a way that PC doesn't have an equivalent. If you were to try to create an equivalent, it would still be allowed because the OS is the platform, and the hardware is merely the revision.

>>11853283
the entire retro gaming discussion's future is gonna be bleak
this thread is a sign

>>11852038 (OP)
Gears 2 is technically not retro, but Gears 2 shits all over Gears 1 its not even funny. Gears 2 is a genuinely great game, it still looks great with the Series X enhancements too. Gears 3 is a disappointing turd though

>>11852185
SMB to Gears of War is a universe of difference. GOW to 2025 games? Barely anything has changed.

>>11853404
when someone asks what platform a game is for and the response refers to hardware, does that confuse you?

Why am I not allowed to talk about Perfect Dark Zero? It came out in 2005 it's retro

Man, when i was a kid, the games before my time were things like Pong and stuff from the 70s. I can't imagine how grim it must be for gears of war to be considered retro to someone.

>>11854073
>when i was a kid
>mentions pong and nothing else
screams zoom larp

>>11853081
It prevented you from playing the games in many cases due to the horribly buggy login system.
One of the worst pieces of shit I've ever used, far worse than SecuROM. So bad I almost gave up on playing some games that would turn out to be favorites.

>>11854089
Yes, when I was kid, pong systems were the defacto default old game. Point is that it actually felt like a primitive early point of the medium and i had newer games of significant leaps to compare it to.

What the fuck, Gears of War is a retro game?

>>11854071
It didn't release on a retro platform, a game from around that time, Black, did though so is Ok to discuss here :)

>>11854178
Fair enough, but for someone posting on an old game enthusiast website you could have specified a Pong console that you personally used, we had an Odyssey pong console for example. Was the memory too expensive?

ANYA

>>11854265
CONTROL, PLEASE ADVISE

>>11854204
Gears of War is retro now

Gears of War is based, Halo 2 Vista is based as fuck too. I enjoyed both on my Core 2 Quad Q6660 machine running Windows Vista Home Edition. I bet most of you fucking Indian motherfuckers where eating back in 2007 coping with a chipped PS1.

>>11852038 (OP)
Needs more bunny rabbits

>>11853335
Who the fuck are you, stop pretending you're a mod

>Discussion is allowed for ALL games on the broad "PC" platform released up until Dec. 2007 no matter how much you bitch and moan about it.

So we're allowed to discuss Gears of War on "PC" but not Gears of War on "console". So what faux Mr. Moderator, are you going to monitor the thread and b& everyone who mentions playing the game on console? And then all the people making threads about other X360 games and "wtf why did you delete my thread! This other thread is talking about a 7th gen game too! So now I'll spam the board with dick pictures to show you how gay mods are because I'm a 20 years old retard!"

For the real mods: literally all you need to do is change the word "platform" in the rules by "hardware", which means exactly the same thing, was precisely the intent of the rules in the first place, and shuts up all the retards who think "a 486 can run Gears of War because that's "the PC platform" ! No actually, Windows XP is the platform so that means that if I install XP on a Pentium III with no GPU and 1 GB of RAM I'm allowed to talk about games that require hardware from 2005! As a result we are free to talk about XBOX360 Xbox Live here since this game was a multiplat!"

>>11855042
Explaining basic rules to you is not the same as pretending to be a mod. Face it, 6th and some 7th gen games are considered retro here now and there’s nothing you can do about it. Nothing. Time for you to move on and stop crying. Find a new home.

>>11855073
Now you're finally being honest.

This thread has never ever been about honest discussion of Gears of Wars, but a thinly veiled attempt at trying to find what you think are "loop holes" in order to change the rules little by little.

>>11855085
No, dumbfuck, it's to discuss a beloved game that fits the retro criteria of the board and pedantic retards like you have to go off on a tangent and shit your diaper about it. Shut the fuck up already

>>11855104
No PC gamer gives a shit about GoW it's only an iconic title on the 360.

The 7th gen is precisely when "Retro Gaming" became a thing. Of course it always existed, there always were re-release collections of old games and people playing older games, but those things were super niche.
During the 7th gen, with the advant of "platforms" like the Virtual Console, is precisely when retro gaming became what it is and what we know it to be today. 8-16 bit games selling millions of copies on the Virtual Console, emerging Youtube channels on old games, the collectors market exploding, new games made in the style of old like Mega Man 9 etc all things that justified the existance of retro gaming forums like this one, that appeared during the 7th gen.
And all that was "retro gaming" as opposed to "modern gaming", meaning the 7th gen.
This is why it will never make no sense to bundle the 7th gen with older ones, retro gaming as we know it was always from the start in opposition with it.

That's of course without mentionning all the modern gaming tropes that started during the 7th gen that are still true today, because the 7th gen was precisely when technological advancement started to stall. Like the always online for everything, achievements, HD resolutions, etc Now watch as Mr "Gears of War is retro" is going to pretend that "Actually you could play Phantasy Star Online on Dreamcast and Resident Evil Outbreak online on PS2 (except in Europe!) so that's totally the exact same thing as the always online for everything of today. P.S: I watched Stranger Things so I know that kids in the 80's communicated with talkie-walkies which is exactly like smartphones today, boomers can't fool me".

IT'S

Really good SP and underrated MP. The problem is that it follows a lot of COD design principles rather than Halo's approach to game design. It ends up having a lot of COD problems, but it never gets annoying to play. But the true Gears experience is in MP

>>11853081
It's worth remembering that it was competing with Steam during the height of Valve fanboyism. It worked fine.

Wow would you look at that, wanna-be mod got scrubbed

>>11852416
>You're a big fat fuck in like 200 lbs of armor
imagine the smell? how do they take a shit?

>>11855341
>The problem is that it follows a lot of COD design principles rather than Halo's approach to game design.
Gears is absolutely fucking nothing like CoD outside of both having regenerating health (which can be said of plenty of games from the era). What are you smoking?

>>11853081
I liked it, despite being in an unsupported country, I could create an account just fine saying I was actually from Spain. My biggest gripe is that it died around the same year I got actually decent Internet, so I couldn't play BioShock 2 multiplayer in there without a lot of ping. Never tried Xbox Live on PC, never will. Fuck Microsoft for losing my Games for Windows Marketplace keys, tho.

>>11853081
It was a pain in the ass for people who actually paid money for the games. For pirates it was honestly kind of kino because in some titles (most notably GTA4) it let you play MP on pirated copies. It also was fairly easy to bypass.

>>11852038 (OP)
I actually liked this when it came out, it was one of the games of the year. I remember when the PC version came out there wasn't such a big hype, same with Halo 2 on PC.
The game was essentially a promotion for Unreal Engine 3.
It probably feels like a generic TPS now.

>>11856000
Nah it holds up very well still

>>11856000
when was the last time a game like this even released? it probably feels quite fresh compared to modern releases

>>11852326
Thanks, Chad Warden

>>11856010
>>11856019
It was the first X360 game that I played. It felt amazing at the time of release. I forgot but I may even wanted a X360 just for GoW.
Tons of 7th gen FPS/TPS games annoyed me later on, because they tried to do the same thing.

It was a little gray and brown but the gameplay was exciting. I watched my dad play it on his Xbox 360, how does the PC version compare graphics wise? Is it identical or is it like Halo where some changes were made when porting it?

>>11856262
>how does the PC version compare graphics wise
Textures are higher res but otherwwise it's about the same

>>11856262
It's mostly the same content wise, has slightly better graphics and can run at 60fps. Even supports gamepad with rumble and all. There's also an extra multiplayer mode and a few maps, but the multiplayer has been completely dead for years, while you can still find nightly matches on the 360 with ease. It has an extra campaign chapter too, but it kind of sucks.

Looking forward to this and I don’t care what negative shit you have to say

I think it's a really good shooter. It had potential to be one of the best multiplayer shooters of all time, but it has two flaws holding it back: netcode and weapon accuracy. The netcode has absolutely no lag compensation whatsoever. You have to fully lead your shots based on your ping, and your movement also glitches out and fucks up if you aren't hosting. If you are the host, it's basically like having God mode, since you don't have to do any leading and can have perfectly fluid movement.
Jumping on and off of cover to battle people close up with shotguns is a lot of fun. The thing people seem to care the most about, though, is the sniping. Everyone and their mother wanted to make a sniper rifle headshot montage back in the day. And while I love sniping in shooters in general, and I think Gears of War sniping is very satisfying, it's ruined by something few people seem to even realize for some reason: the sniper rifle is a luck box. In order to accurately fire it, you have to keep it aimed fully down sights, while using the scope, for around 1 full second. In that period of time, you're either dead or you're not going to be able to find anyone to actually shoot at. Some other guy who decided not to wait to fire is just going to shoot the sniper rifle, hope that it got lucky and killed you, then duck behind cover. He's also never going to peek you while you're aiming down the sights with the sniper rifle. One single change to that weapon (making it instantly fully accurate as soon as you aim down sights with it) would make it feel much more satisfying to use rather than a tool only for people who are willing to rely completely on luck or who are willing to genuinely stand still in one spot waiting for someone to peek out like it's Counter-Strike.
That fix plus an actual netcode rework would see me genuinely logging on regularly to play it. I loved to play it back in the day when it was new, and I still would if they could fix those problems.

Why is a thread about a 360 port still up?
Did the mod leave after the hack?

>>11853331
WinBack is not a playable game in 2025 it’s got that n65 jank

>>11857268
6th and some 7th gen games are retro now and there’s nothing you can do about it. Your wanna-be mod posts will be scrubbed by the real mods as it already happened in this thread.

>>11857327
There have been no mods active here for a while, just random jannies who can't even ban you.

>>11857331
Then the jannies will scrub your wanna-be mod posts. 6th and some 7th gen is retro, period.

>>11857336
Who cares what retarded jannies do?

>>11857341
Anyone who cares about people who volunteer to pick up trash like you claiming a 20 year old game isn't retro enough.

>>11857343
Why are you so obsessed about talking about a 360 game on /vr/? You already have /v/ for that.

>>11857347
This is the first time I've talked about this PC game here. Why are you so obsessed with policing a forum when you're not even a janny or mod?

>>11857350
I'm just wondering why you're so obsessed about talking about a 360 port in the most inappropriate board possible when you have so many other options.

>>11857353
Geez I just wanted to talk about a 2007 video game on a video game forum made for 2007 and below video games. You don't have to keep crying about it.

>>11857356
>a 2007 video game
Like countless 360 games?

>>11857357
No, the 360 is a platform launched after 2001.

>>11852038 (OP)
although it's skirts on not retro my thoughts on gears as a series are...
>best campaign = gears 1
>best horde = gears 2
>best multiplayer = gears 3 but i never really thought gears multiplayer was that great to begin with outside of bot matches.
...i haven't played the newer ones but i heard judgement sucked while 4 & 5 were decent but nobody really talks about them otherwise but overall i think they're good couch co-op shooters.

FYI don't play it for the story because unless you feel like reading a bunch of books none of it is really told in the games but the games will assume you've read the books when they start shoving in book characters or do random time jumps between games.

>>11852418
NTA but i don't really find gears's multiplayer amazing. it's a tactical shooter that nobody wants to play like a tactical shooter. gears 2 at least has bot play and a better horde mode (gears 3 horde mode is really boring with all the tower defense shit)

>>11857239
this and the oblivion remaster just reaffirms my belief that most of the salt about current microsoft games is less about the games themselves and more that they're not on playstation.

>>11857362
Then why talk about a 360 game that was later ported to PC?

>>11857364
It's a PC game regardless of if it was ported or not. There is no stipulation in the rules about if something was "ported"

>>11857362
Just look at this post; >>11857363
And how it talks about 360 exclusives.

Are you still going to use "I'm just talking about a PC game" excuse?

>>11857347
OP clearly stated he is talking about a PC game.

>>11857268
It's pretty obvious that the moderation has been in shambles since after the attack and shitposters like OP are abusing that.
Even if we're pretending that PC games that require post 2001 hardware are allowed, which makes no sense and not how the rules worked before, OP openly admitted that this was just an excuse and the thread is all about trying to force 7th gen discussion on /vr/.

And even if we pretend that PC games until dec 2007 that require post 2001 hardware are allowed, half of the posts ITT are talking about the Xbox 360 and / or games that came out after 2007. Which is precisely why the rules don't and never worked that way.

>>11857374
He's talking about a 360 port that was only ever popular on the 360.
So you will only get people like >>11857363 talking about the 360.

>>11857371
>Are you still going to use "I'm just talking about a PC game" excuse?
No. That post needs to be deleted by a janny or mod as soon as possible.

>>11857375
>OP openly admitted that this was just an excuse and the thread is all about trying to force 7th gen discussion on /vr/.
That never happened and you might be schizophrenic.

>>11857376
Seems like you got reading comprehension issues fren
> released for Microsoft Windows on the Personal Computer platform on the date of June 11, 2007 (which is before December 2007)
Clearly states so in the OP.

>>11857384
>>11857327
>>11857336

>>11857387
Neither of those posts are openly admitting that it is an excuse to talk about or force 7th gen, and more importantly neither of those posts are by OP.
https://www.nami.org/about-mental-illness/mental-health-conditions/schizophrenia/

>>11857393
He's defending the OP pretty hard for him not to be the OP.

>>11857397
You're acting pretty schizophrenic to not be schizophrenic.

>>11852038 (OP)
I always thought it was pretty homo.

>>11857376
>>11857371
not OP & NTA but seriously dude just apply for a job as a mod or jannie. it's not that hard. nobody is going to respect this backseat modding you're trying to do and it will only embolden the actual mods & jannies to spite you.

>>11857416
I'm just pointing out that this is a blatant 360 thread. Why does that bother you so much?

>>11857424
I doubt anyone is really bothered. They’re just having a laugh at you for trying to be a janny and failing so hard. Like that guy said you could probably just apply if you wanted to though.

>>11857442
Autistic discussion about moderation are your idea of having a laugh?

>>11857424
Off topic spamming and flooding is against the rules also but you seem to be focused on a board rule that isn’t even being violated

>>11857468
How is talking about the thread subject off topic?

>>11857471
Yea the sudden surge in posts is all perfectly on topic of "What are your thoughts on the video game Gears of War"

>>11857486
And my thoughts are that it's a 360 port and not retro. Perfectly on-topic unlike your sperging about the ethics of back-seat moderation.

>>11857490
Except that it is retro since again OP even put it in his post for dimwits like you
>June 11, 2007 (which is before December 2007)
as well as jannie/mod wiping your posts should have made it clear that its retro

>>11857447
Seeing you bawl your eyes out about a 2007 PC game and accuse everyone of being the same person is funny, but most of us would rather just talk about the game than have you ruin the entire thread for no reason trying to be a janny. Take a break from the internet for a night mate

>>11857502
Then why are you engaging me in some stupid discussion coping around the fact that it's a 360 port instead of talking about the game?

>>11857509
Why are you replying to him and more importantly, bumping a thread that seems to spite you so much?

>>11857515
I don't mind bumping a thread with autistic discussion about video game classifications, that's a /vr/ staple.

>>11857509
Why can’t you comprehend that it doesn’t matter if it was a port?

>>11857502

>>11857538
Why do you think it doesn't matter?
It's primarily a 360 game, it was so extremely unpopular on PC that they never even bothered to port the sequels to PC even though the underlying engine is already ported to PC, so it is extremely likely that everyone talking about here played it on the 360.
Seems like that matters on a board that was created to have some peace from 7th gen zoomies.

>>11857543
Nothing you can do about it. It's retro.

>>11857548
You're not answering my question.

>>11857553
Refer to the rules >>11702620 and search for ports

>>11857556
I didn't ask you to rule lawyer. I'm not interested in your back-seat moderation.
I'm interested why YOU personally think it doesn't matter.

>>11857562
You're sking why I don't think a game that doesn't break the rules is allowed and claiming I'm trying to moderate?

>>11857570
Again, I'm not interested what you think break the rules.
I'm interested why you personally think it doesn't matter that a game is just an unimportant port of an iconic 360 game in a board that generally has disdain for the 360 - regardless of whatever the current rules are.

>>11857575
It was developed on PC originally, the 360 version came out followed by the PC release. And no one has disdain for the 360 - except you.

>>11857575
>unimportant port of an iconic 360 game
[citation needed]

>>11857576
No, it wasn't. A PC version was never announced before the 360 release.
Also you're still not answering my question.

>>11857614
So they developed it on a 360 using a gamepad?
To answer your question it doesn't matter if it was a port because that's not a rule of this board that you're trying to moderate.

>>11852080
>However, I also mark it as the beginning of the end because of how popular it became which wound up influencing a lot of games that came after
I don't get this type of thinking. Why blame one game?
>Gears got me excited initially because I thought it had potential to go in that direction as the series progressed
Like this, why is it suddenly this one game's responsibility to fulfill your expectations? Any game could have taken inspiration from GoW and made a more tactical game out of it.

It's not [this] or [that] game's fault that some imaginary game hasn't come out.

>>11857502
>but most of us would rather just talk about the game than have you ruin the entire thread for no reason trying to be a janny. Take a break from the internet for a night mate

Says the guy who's only doing all this as an attempt to change the rules.

>>11857664
If gaming (and history in general) is made up of eras separated by changes in thought and methodology, these eras are loosely separated by major events. For gaming, that's game releases in practice, even though the line of thought would actually begin forming before that--it's simply that game releases are the public side of that which is witnessed by people at large.

This line is fuzzy and inexact, specifically in gaming because the thought process developed prior to a game's release and likely went through small iterations as it became reality. We can't expressly say, "This is the exact date where we changed from one era to another in gaming," with any accuracy because of the previous statement, but we can agree that a change has occurred.

To use an example, we can say that gaming in the 1980s was different than gaming in the 2000s. We might ask, "In what ways?", and, "When did this change occur exactly?", but we can't really say something like, "In 1996 with the release of Crash Bandicoot, platformer games have irrevocably changed from one concept to another." Maybe that game was a contributing factor to it, maybe it wasn't. Acknowledging it as a piece of the puzzle that caused a shift in a genre is something that can only be argued by using supporting evidence and public opinion. There's nothing empirical you can point to to say that it caused any changes at all.

In the same way, I personally mention Gears of War as a major turning point in video game history although I don't posit that it was the only factor that caused the switch. Just that it was a) widely popular, and b) created demand for more games of its type, and c) more games with similar design principles were released after it, possibly to meet this demand. I am not resentful of it anymore than I'm resentful of the French Revolution changing western politics, it simply happened.

>he's back
just stop dude, no one here wants to litigate the rules with you

>>11857751
Further, regarding the existence of some imaginary game that I would like to play, it is mostly an observation drawn from the primordial soup of video game development. It is accurate to say each one of played video games for different reasons, some because they like twitch movement, some for stories, some for the cerebral engagement, etc. At any moment in time, we are all wanting to see more in gaming of the things we enjoy and less of what we don't. My line of thinking is no different.

Sometimes, public opinion and the market doesn't align with the things we want. That is why we sit on the retro game board instead of playing newer releases, because the trajectory of gaming has gone in a way we've found less satisfying than playing older releases. Perhaps we don't mind modern gaming even, but we still feel the need to segregate modern and retro games into different categories by traits we can't easily define, hence the argumentation in this thread by the board attempting to use a very concrete definition of retro gaming.

>>11857269
What about the PS2 version?

Oh wow autosaged