Casual Cogitations

Because.

I do not watch Gladiator because of the romance between Maximus and that girl whose name I forgot. I watch Gladiator because Maximus kicks ass, and that is enough for me.

I do not like Gears of War because of the complex relationships formed between characters. I like Gears of War because it kicks ass. I will happily discuss all of the nuances of this ass-kickery, but if you get no further than the introduction paragraph, know this: Gears of War is a video game that I like and if you disagree you are wrong.

Are those real?

Since I know that I am not the only person to look at 'screenshots' with absolute skepticism, we should probably start with graphics. And a far-fetched analogy. There is this one store I occasionally go to where the first question everybody inevitably asks me is "are you shopping for your girlfriend?" To which I inevitably respond, "no, I just like the feel of lace. Do you mind if I try these on?" In a similar, yet completely different way other people - people in different stores - ask, "does it really look that good?" The answer is simply yes. Gears of War looks awesome. It looks so good that I often do not even notice the graphics. Let me elaborate.

Though I love to watch Star Wars IV: A New Hope, I am constantly noticing the total lack of realism. The ships look like models, and the explosions look absurd. I'm not saying it's a bad movie. They did the best they could, but the lack of realism distracts from the intended experience.

Now we look at Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith. Say what you will about the script/plot/whiny Skywalker. Yes, they should have called him Whaa-nakin. But the special effects in that movie are so well done that they are often totally undetectable.

This brings us back to Gears. There are no blocky characters or blurry textures. All of the environments are highly detailed and elaborate. If I am looking at the scenery, it is not because I see mis-aligned textures or a crack in the geometry; it is because I am genuinely curious about the area I am exploring. The point: the graphics are so good that you hardly even notice them. And because the in-game graphics are so good, there is no reason to cut away to play a movie clip. All clips are rendered using the game engine, and none require load times as they smoothly connect the different portions of play.

More than just dashing good looks

The gameplay is familiar enough to be easy, but different enough to be fun. The analog sticks work the same as they have for every FPS and games like Kameo: Elements of Power. Epic Games was even kind enough to include the "Legacy" controller setup, in case you have not played a shooter since Goldeneye on the '64. The cover mechanism is extremely refined, which is good, since it comprises the majority of the gameplay. After about an hour of play, it is easy to thrust from one barrier to another in an effort to flank your opponents. Character movements and animations are fluid. The camera emphasizes the movements by shaking and tilting like in the Blair Witch Project - albeit in a good way. If you can imagine it once all those memories of induced vomiting subside.

The weapon set is also familiar but unique. The standard, trite arms are present: the machine gun, the shotgun, the sniper rifle, the rocket launcher, and the absolutely worthless pistol that I hate with the fire of a thousand suns. You know, the basics. There are also a few novelties, like the over-publicized chainsaw attack and the grenade which players can use as a melee weapon, thus bitch-slapping a time bomb onto someone's face. Both are nice, but neither is as gratifying as the Hammer of Dawn. The Hammer of Dawn is not a gun, but a targeting device. The real weapon is a satellite orbiting the planet. When the Hammer trigger is pulled, the small, hand-held device will point out a target to the satellite. And then (now pay attention) the skies will part and a pillar of fire will fall from the heavens and destroy thine enemies with a satisfying splatter of blood and body-bits.

Shh. Don't say a word. Just enjoy the mental picture for a moment. Fire pillar and body-bits.

Yeah. That's nice.

The story is certainly a story, and nobody will say that it is not a story. Certainly. The problem is that I completed the game and I have no idea what the story was about. Maybe something about monsters that lived below earth? I know that the main character is named Marcus, and that he wears a bandanna. I really was not paying attention to why I was fighting, I was all too excited about exploring the next area. One argument might be that a game this good does not need a good story; others would say that it is my fault for not paying attention, while still others will contest that your parents don't really love you. I don't know who is right, but I think that it is fair to point out that I never understood what the hell Halo was about either. I do know that the gameplay, the levels, and the encounters are enough to make me want to go back and play Gears again, and again, and again, but not again. Four repeats would be excessive.

But I actually have friends

First: no you don't. Second: the multiplayer is awesome.

With a single player component this good, a multiplayer component is almost unnecessary. Epic could have easily slipped in a half-baked CTF piece of Quake 4 sucks. Instead, they flawlessly integrated a co-op campaign mode and a brutally addicting team deathmatch. The co-op mode is drop in-drop out, which means that at any point while playing single player, you can invite a friend to join and take over one of your AI teammates. Then they can simply leave and the AI will resume control of the character. It is most easily described in a haiku:

I saw you playing
I joined; we played together
I stopped, you did not

The deathmatch is great. The maps are balanced and offer a variety of tactics and strategies. The gameplay forces you to work as a team, which I believe offers an all around better experience than a game where a lone gunman can win the game. No, you will find no Steven Seagals here. It is all Tom Hanks (Saving Private Ryan, with a few Gumps).

The only problem, and indeed my only real issue with the game as a whole, is the matchmaking system. Halo 2 has a phenomenal matchmaking system, and there is no reason that every other company should not have one at least as good. There is no shame in building upon a phenomenal system that everybody already loves. Let us do a comparison:

In Halo 2 I can log in, join a party of three friends, and the four of us will be randomly assigned four opponents on a random map. We play the game to completion, and then the process repeats. The key is the instant action.

In Gears of War I can host a game, invite my friends to join, and wait. I played for an hour and a half, and we only (finally) played 4-on-4 for the last 15 minutes. There is a word for this type of situation, and that word is "vexatious". Look it up.

Marcus Christ

In spite of these truly grievous inadequacies Gears of War remains the best new game I have played all year. The graphics are incredible (even in standard definition), and to call the gameplay addicting would be an understatement. This game is so great it may actually be crucified, so play it soon. If you have an Xbox 360 just go and buy it. Go.