Quick Look: Gears of War: Judgment

Judge not, Vinny, lest ye be judged by Jeff's sawed-off shotgun.

Drew Scanlon on Google+
Embed
Play
Please use a flash or html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to Giant Bomb's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Giant Bomb Review

282 Comments

Gears of War: Judgment Review

3
  • X360

Judgment's campaign twists the Gears formula in some interesting ways, but the rest of the package feels pretty thin for a full-priced retail product.

You'll see a lot of human-on-human chainsaw fights--most of the competitive multiplayer doesn't have any Locust characters.

Gears of War 3 provided a relatively satisfying conclusion to the trilogy, wrapping up the events well and giving Marcus Fenix and his crew a much-needed chance to sit down. So it makes sense that another Gears of War game would be set as a prequel. Rather than taking the obvious route and showing you why Fenix needed to be broken out of jail to open the first game, the focus is put on the side characters, Baird and Cole. Don't take that to mean that Gears of War: Judgment has a deep, engaging story that makes you look upon the whole franchise in a brand-new way or anything, but there's just enough exposition there to keep things moving and just enough of a gameplay tweak to make you wish they had made these changes two games ago. It's a fun but feature-light shooter for people who already enjoy the basic style of Gears of War. Nothing more, nothing less.

The bulk of the story is told in flashback, as the four soldiers of Kilo Squad find themselves as defendants in a hastily-assembled trial. Their testimony runs throughout the game--they tell the story, you run from point to point, chainsawing and shooting Locust enemies all the while. There are no surprises along the way, either. Kilo Squad sets out to take down a big bad guy in the area and, by the end of the game, they'll have completed their task. You'll also unlock a second campaign called Aftermath, which is set during the events of Gears of War 3. In Aftermath, you'll take Baird and Cole back into an area from the Judgment campaign as they search for a boat to help with the final assault on Azura. Throughout both campaigns, the characters seem a little subdued when compared to the proper Gears trilogy. There are fewer "woo!" moments out of Cole and less machine fixing and complaining out of Baird.

That Aftermath campaign is missing the thing that actually makes Judgment cool in the first place. At the start of every section, you'll find a Gears of War logo glowing on a wall. If you run up to it and hit X, you'll be given the option to "declassify" some additional details. These act as modifiers for the gameplay that force you to play Gears of War in different ways. Sometimes you'll have to start a section with very little ammo. Other times you'll be forced to use less-than-ideal weapons for the entire section. Sometimes you'll get time limits, and sometimes you'll encounter dust or gas that makes it hard to see and aim throughout the entire area. It keeps you on your toes and gives you a reason to change up your style and stop chainsawing your way through everything that gets in your way. Each section also has a set of three stars to earn, and enabling the declassified option makes it easier to earn all three of those stars. The tradeoff is that the entire game is broken up into very tight, defined sections, which makes the whole thing feel a little artificial. You're practically given a Left 4 Dead-style safe room between every single combat section, packed with guns, ammo, and the declassification icon. It gives the game a herky-jerky feel that can be a little off-putting.

The class-based nature of OverRun lets engineers plant turrets and scouts toss auto-tagging grenades.

Most of the enemies are guys that you've seen before, from bloodmounts to lambent versions of various creatures, and you'll fight them with the same basic arsenal. There are a few new weapons, like the Marksa, a semi-automatic rifle with a good scope that makes for a lighter, friendlier gun in medium-range sniping situations. The biggest gameplay change is a control change that makes weapon-switching more like Halo or Call of Duty. Instead of using the D-pad to switch between four different weapons, you can now hold two, and tapping the Y button swaps between them. Grenades are now dedicated to the left bumper, rather than being something you have to select before you can use. This change may come down to personal preference, but playing Gears this way makes me wish it was like this all along. Grenades become a lot more useful when you can just toss one out at will instead of having to stop shooting just to switch over to your grenades. It's a nice change that some people will probably hate.

The multiplayer end of Gears Judgment offers a few modes, with the two new ideas based around the same concept. OverRun pits attacking Locust players against defending humans, like a melding of the co-op-only Beast and Horde modes of the past into one competitive mode. It's a fine mode that makes you wonder why it took the developers this long to get here, since all the pieces for this were in place for Gears 3. Survival mode replaces Horde mode, and it's little more than a single-team, co-op-only version of OverRun, with the AI taking up the Locust faction. Both modes are class-based on both sides of the action, so humans can choose a Soldier role, which lets them dispense ammo to teammates, a Medic role that can toss healing grenades, and two others. Locust players use a class-based system similar to Beast mode in Gears 3, with personal points unlocking the ability to spawn as more extreme enemies. OverRun is cool... but Survival isn't as good as Horde mode was in the last game.

The members of Kilo Squad.

In addition to those, you can play the campaigns cooperatively or play Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, or Domination games. The game is still packed with ribbons and medals to earn as you play, and as you level up your character you'll earn prize boxes that randomly give you character or weapon skins. Like Gears 3, the game is also packed full of purchasable skins, and these are marked in such a way that makes it look like you'll never be able to unlock a buyable skin via the game's prize boxes. Also on the microtransaction front is the ability to straight-up buy double XP bonuses that last for a set number of matches. What, no soda or chip company wanted to kick down and print codes on their packages? Players that purchase the Season Pass DLC pre-order get access to a "VIP" matchmaking option that includes all of that DLC and generates more XP than the standard matchmaking option. It's... a bit much, especially because the game only ships with four maps for OverRun/Survival and four for TDM and the other competitive modes. The multiplayer side of Judgment just feels thin.

Despite my feelings that Baird is the most extraneous character in the Gears universe and a general feeling after Gears 3 that I was probably done with this franchise, Judgment is still a good time. It doesn't let its story get in the way of its action, and the declassified modifiers had me playing Gears in ways that I normally wouldn't, making for a more interesting challenge than the typical difficulty settings offer. But the lack of maps just sucks every last bit of life out of the multiplayer, regardless of its new modes.

Jeff Gerstmann on Google+
291 Comments
Posted by squidraid

It's pretty disappointing to see the comments on a Giant Bomb review degrade into rating bashing this bad. I thought we were better than this.

Posted by rahulricky

Sounds worth a rental I suppose, I'd like to see what Tom BIssell has done for the story.

On an unrelated note can I say I'm a bit disappointed that layouts for GB haven't really changed since the move to the new site. I was expecting them to be fancier and easier on the eye, but nope, nothing.

Posted by MildMolasses

Cynicism is a great quality in a game reviewer and it's baffling to me to suggest otherwise. I want someone to be harsh on a game because I want to know everything that is -wrong- with the game and decide whether to buy it after the Pros and Cons have been weighed. People are putting WAY too much stock into the rating system without actually reading the points in the review that actually matter.

This exactly why I look for the reviews on the lower end of the scale. I want to know what issues people are finding with a game and weigh that against my personal tastes. With this game, for example, the negatives seem to relate to MP and a lack of Horde. As I am one of those rare single-player-only types, I'm not bothered by this, and the changes to the single player sound interesting. Thus, the lower end review benefits me the most

Posted by Zevvion

Wait there's only 4 maps? I thought the whole point of this thing was the multiplayer(at least that's the impression I got from all of the trailers and such) and they only have 4 maps? That's kind of a bummer if you were looking forward to this.

It's not just that.

As far as I understand it the dedicated servers that Gears 3 had, are now being used for Judgement solely. That means Gears 3 doesn't run on dedicated servers anymore which was a huge bonus.

Essentially, you're trading in a great multiplayer experience in Gears 3 in for a multiplayer component short on content in Judgement. You can continue playing Gears 3 without dedicated servers, but allot of people don't like that.

Posted by bushpusherr

@squidraid: As the site grows, so too the undesirables.

If you seriously have any doubts about Jeff's integrity (I think you're an idiot), then just wait until the bombcast where he'll certainly elaborate on his experience.

Also, if you disagree with the staff's reviews, that's perfectly ok, because they designed the Giant Bomb experience expressly so that you could evaluate a review based on what you know about the reviewer. If you think Jeff is too cynical, then great, you know how to interpret his reviews for yourself. But stop fucking bitching about it.

Posted by MordeaniisChaos

@iamjohn said:
@colourful_hippie said:

@mordeaniischaos: You are operating under the presumption that Gears of War Judgment would have earned a five-star review otherwise. Jeff repeatedly iterates that he found the story kind of bland and that the constant attempt to sell you DLC and microtransactions is frustrating. Especially due to the lack of content in the multiplayer, but the point is made before the number of launch maps are mentioned.

If the game felt content-complete, I still believe it only would have earned four stars. But the multiplayer portion feels especially thin, so three.

Also, scores are less important than one's actual feelings on a game, so.

This is what I think too.

Seriously this. Did these people who think that the lack of maps is the only thing making this a three-star game read the same review as me? Everything Jeff has written sounds like a four would have been generous.

I'm going to respond to all of the above pretty quickly: I never said I thought it read like a 5 star review other than that, I just got the feeling it was what everyone in the comments was sort of under the impression that the maps were the only reason that the game was getting knocked down.

Edited by MordeaniisChaos

@gasparnolasco:

Actually, because of how assets are generated this generation, not much is going to change all that much. Things are already created with more polygons and more pixels than you end up seeing in the final game, either because it's easier to start big and compress down or because of the nature of the pipeline to create content. For example, the reason a character looks so much more complex than he actually is is because of normal mapping, which is created from a high poly model that is baked into normal maps for a low poly realtime model. And texture work is pretty easy to scale up. And the architectures are very familiar next generation. So all in all, the cost of making games isn't really going to skyrocket like everyone's convinced.

And yes, there are a few very obvious next gen games announced. Most of the games at that PS4 event weren't Call of Duty/Killzone type games though. There were a number of riskier, more interesting titles being shown off. None of them were tiny, but that's not really what I'm saying.

This pattern has been repeated over the generations, it's one thing you can usually count on. And already, we are seeing games that are clearly more than just clones of the popular shooters. That's just a few announcements for one of the two consoles coming. And not all of the announcements we'll see for that platform.

Posted by Colourful_Hippie

@mordeaniischaos: Nah, that's silly. My guess is that the poor selection of maps is what's keeping the game at a 3 instead of a 4.

Edited by Dallas_Raines

Positive review = YOU GUYS ARE PAID OFF BY THE EVIL CORPORATIONS

Bad Review = YOU GUYS ARE JUST PISSING ON THE GAME FOR PAGE VIEWS, IT'S WEIRD, THOUGH, THAT YOU WOULD DO THAT TO THE COMPANIES THAT PAY YOU OFF REGULARLY!

Fuck the internet.

Edited by Mr_Skeleton

Why would anyone think that making a game around the most hated character in the franchise it a good idea..

Posted by Mezmero

Gears 3 was a game I meant to own after playing it but just ended up renting it. This campaign sounds kind of bland and taking out Horde mode seems like a mistake. Yet another shining example that this generation has gone on too long. Thanks for the great review.

Edited by MordeaniisChaos

@mordeaniischaos: Nah, that's silly. My guess is that the poor selection of maps is what's keeping the game at a 3 instead of a 4.

huh, that doesn't show as a quote. Also, yeah, I do. I don't think it's what's getting it a 3 instead of a 5. Which is not a 4. That's the difference.

Posted by ez123

Why would anyone think that making a game around the most hated character in the franchise it a good idea..

Exactly. No one thinks that's a good idea. That's why Epic made a game around a well-liked character that was missing in large portions of Gears 3.

Edited by TigusVidiks

kinda expected this. Not gonna try it for now, maybe later when the price drops. Never really liked Baird, and a Gears with small, more contained maps will likely seem awkward.

Edited by Sikboy1029

Just remember Jeff wasn't the biggest fan of the series. I imagine if you liked the past games you'll still enjoy this one.

Edited by cloudnineboya

@sooty: god your an idiot sometimes.

Online
Edited by tayls

This series really needs to be over.

Edited by CptBedlam

I wish GB would use actual ingame screenshots as opposed to PR-provided bullshots for their reviews. Those really don't tell me a lot about how the game actually looks.

Posted by DerekDanahy

Really liked the review Jeff.

Posted by honkyjesus

Microsoft first party development. The home of Lococycle.

They couldn't even get Epic to helm this one, and MS still wanted it.

Posted by deerokus

@sikboy1029: He gave both previous games 5/5, didn't he? Doesn't sound like someone who wasn't a fan.

Posted by expensiveham

Disgusting that there is no People Can Fly logo on the box.

Posted by ptc

I wish Giantbomb had a policy of not considering price when doing a review. It makes it hard to interpret overall review scores after the initial release date. By the time I get around to buying/playing most games, they're significantly reduced from their original price, so that's not a factor for me.

Posted by bkbroiler

This is actually a pretty positive review. He just says it's light on content and nothing new, really. I can totally see that warranting 3 stars.

Edited by gogosox82

@zevvion said:

@gogosox82 said:

Wait there's only 4 maps? I thought the whole point of this thing was the multiplayer(at least that's the impression I got from all of the trailers and such) and they only have 4 maps? That's kind of a bummer if you were looking forward to this.

It's not just that.

As far as I understand it the dedicated servers that Gears 3 had, are now being used for Judgement solely. That means Gears 3 doesn't run on dedicated servers anymore which was a huge bonus.

Essentially, you're trading in a great multiplayer experience in Gears 3 in for a multiplayer component short on content in Judgement. You can continue playing Gears 3 without dedicated servers, but allot of people don't like that.

Wow gears had dedicated servers? I'm not a big gears fans (but try to follow the news surrounding it) but that's pretty messed up if your big into playing gears and don't wanna buy judgement. Your basically stuck playing gears3 in an inferior way and its being supplanted by an inferior product.

Posted by fiberpay

@xeirus said:

@fiberpay said:

Yea figured this would get 3 stars. I don't really trust Jeff to review this game he bashes on the "dude bro" stuff way to much. Also, just for comparison Simcity got 3 stars lol, gtfo.

Simcity was reviewed by Alex, so what the fuck is your point again?

Have you even played Simcity? It's a joke of a game with enough lies and baggage to warrant a 1 star review.

Also, maybe Jeff bashes on the "dude bro" stuff because that shit is dumb as hell and not entertaining?

Opinions, go figure.

That's my point, Simcity is a joke and yet it gets the same score as a perfectly competent game.

You should take your own advise, opinion's go figure, just because you and Jeff think they are "dumb as hell and not entertaining" does not mean that they are. Opinion huh. My point is Jeff hates on them so why would I trust his review, not that Jeff should like dude bro shooters.

Edited by fiberpay

@nights said:

@fiberpay said:

Yea figured this would get 3 stars. I don't really trust Jeff to review this game he bashes on the "dude bro" stuff way to much. Also, just for comparison Simcity got 3 stars lol, gtfo.

Uh, except for the fact that he reviewed Gears of War 2 and 3 and gave them both five stars. But hey, let's bash Jeff...

I'm not bashing him, I just don't trust his review of a game like this because how much he bashes on dude bro stuff. Also he had to give those other games high scores because they got high scores from everyone else. Also, this got the same score as a game that did not fucking work(simcity) lol.

Edited by iAmJohn

@fiberpay said:

@xeirus said:

@fiberpay said:

Yea figured this would get 3 stars. I don't really trust Jeff to review this game he bashes on the "dude bro" stuff way to much. Also, just for comparison Simcity got 3 stars lol, gtfo.

Simcity was reviewed by Alex, so what the fuck is your point again?

Have you even played Simcity? It's a joke of a game with enough lies and baggage to warrant a 1 star review.

Also, maybe Jeff bashes on the "dude bro" stuff because that shit is dumb as hell and not entertaining?

Opinions, go figure.

That's my point, Simcity is a joke and yet it gets the same score as a perfectly competent game.

You should take your own advise, opinion's go figure, just because you and Jeff think they are "dumb as hell and not entertaining" does not mean that they are. Opinion huh. My point is Jeff hates on them so why would I trust his review, not that Jeff should like dude bro shooters.

Ignoring the stupid comparison to SimCity that is both meaningless and irrelevant, you've still yet to justify how Jeff is unfair to or has it in for "'dude bro' stuff" (what a meaningless term, by the way) when history (and the myriad 4/5 star ratings for previous Gears, Call of Duties and practically any of the game people accuse of being dudebro) proves otherwise.

Edited by MeatSim

It seems kinda crazy that they skimped on the multiplayer/co-op considering it's a big part of why Gears is so popular.

Posted by MisterCrow

So if the most Gears you played was 1 and a super tiny bit of 2, would you recommend 3 or Judgement?

Posted by MiniPato

@fiberpay said:

@nights said:

@fiberpay said:

Yea figured this would get 3 stars. I don't really trust Jeff to review this game he bashes on the "dude bro" stuff way to much. Also, just for comparison Simcity got 3 stars lol, gtfo.

Uh, except for the fact that he reviewed Gears of War 2 and 3 and gave them both five stars. But hey, let's bash Jeff...

I'm not bashing him, I just don't trust his review of a game like this because how much he bashes on dude bro stuff. Also he had to give those other games high scores because they got high scores from everyone else. Also, this got the same score as a game that did not fucking work(simcity) lol.

Except that his main complain ISN'T the dudebro stuff, but the lack of maps and horde mode in multiplayer.

Edited by GERALTITUDE

Sound like this is a pretty alright game for peeps who like Gears of War, too bad the multiplayer is so thin, probably for sake of DLC (gross). 4 maps... is... not very many.

Posted by Lockeyness

@fiberpay said:

@nights said:

@fiberpay said:

Yea figured this would get 3 stars. I don't really trust Jeff to review this game he bashes on the "dude bro" stuff way to much. Also, just for comparison Simcity got 3 stars lol, gtfo.

Uh, except for the fact that he reviewed Gears of War 2 and 3 and gave them both five stars. But hey, let's bash Jeff...

I'm not bashing him, I just don't trust his review of a game like this because how much he bashes on dude bro stuff. Also he had to give those other games high scores because they got high scores from everyone else. Also, this got the same score as a game that did not fucking work(simcity) lol.

You're missing the point. He's a Gears fan. He gave those other two games five stars because he felt they deserved five stars. He gave this game three stars because he felt it didn't stand up to the previous entries. Clearly he's all about some of this dude bro stuff. Saying that he gave the game a similar score to other review sites is just grasping at straws, just like comparing this review of a third-person shooter to his review of a city building simulation. Don't be ridiculous.

Edited by GaspoweR

@minipato said:

@fiberpay said:

@nights said:

@fiberpay said:

Yea figured this would get 3 stars. I don't really trust Jeff to review this game he bashes on the "dude bro" stuff way to much. Also, just for comparison Simcity got 3 stars lol, gtfo.

Uh, except for the fact that he reviewed Gears of War 2 and 3 and gave them both five stars. But hey, let's bash Jeff...

I'm not bashing him, I just don't trust his review of a game like this because how much he bashes on dude bro stuff. Also he had to give those other games high scores because they got high scores from everyone else. Also, this got the same score as a game that did not fucking work(simcity) lol.

Except that his main complain ISN'T the dudebro stuff, but the lack of maps and horde mode in multiplayer.

As @minipato pointed out, Jeff didn't even give the game that score because of some anti-dudbro bias but compared to the previous game (Gears 3), this game didn't even provide as much content wholesale because on the MP side it's lacking a variety of maps and all. If he did have that bias, he probably would have scored all the other Gears games the same way and he never once mentioned the dudebro mentality being something of detracting point in all of the reviews. Also as an anecdote, despite the review I'll probably still get this game at some point, just like when I bought Dead Space 3 and Crysis 3, which are games that got 3 stars from GB as well.

Edited by Lind_L_Taylor

I sort of stopped after Gears 1, when Gears 2 failed to be worthwhile.

Posted by Epsilon82

Pretty much what I expected to hear; honestly, I think we're just pushing up against the edges of generationally-rooted sequel fatigue or whatever they called it last year. Both this and God of War: Ascension just seem like last-second cash grabs before the new consoles reshuffle the deck, so to speak, and even if the games were really good, that's a big burden to overcome at this point. $60 for yet another game in a well-entrenched series that doesn't bring much new to the table is getting harder and harder to swallow, especially since there are so many fresh experiences that can be had for a song now unless you've somehow managed to keep up with all of the releases over the last few years.

I don't think it's a coincidence that I've started to get a lot more budget-conscious about my gaming spending while basically adding dozens of highly regarded new games to an already hugely "oppressive" backlog over the last few years.

I might pick this up at some point, but only if I can find it for around $10-15 or so. Even then, it just doesn't seem like something I find remotely urgent to play.

Edited by Willtron

Ugh. Gears fanboys. Jeff said he really liked the campaign, but the lackluster multiplayer made for an average game. And the story was completely forgettable. He is very "anti-dudebro", but he loved Gears 3. So it's not like he's against Gears. Christ. He wasn't overly-cynical. He proved his points in the review.

It's like God of War: just unnecessary, and further proof that the generation has gone on too long.

It was a completely average game. It wasn't bad. It was average.Fucking deal with it. Christ.

Seriously, comparing this game's review to OTHER games, reviewed by other reviewers? Fucking dumb. Compare it to other Jeff reviews if you think Jeff has an inherent bias, or compare it to, you know, other Gears reviews. And Alex wrote about his SimCity review. It works now. And the review relates to a game that works--which is completely average even without server issues. Design decisions get in SimCity's way, just like design decisions got in Gears' ways. Shit multiplayer in Gears vs. forced multiplayer in SimCity.

Edited by Red12b

@fiberpay said:

@xeirus said:

@fiberpay said:

Yea figured this would get 3 stars. I don't really trust Jeff to review this game he bashes on the "dude bro" stuff way to much. Also, just for comparison Simcity got 3 stars lol, gtfo.

Simcity was reviewed by Alex, so what the fuck is your point again?

Have you even played Simcity? It's a joke of a game with enough lies and baggage to warrant a 1 star review.

Also, maybe Jeff bashes on the "dude bro" stuff because that shit is dumb as hell and not entertaining?

Opinions, go figure.

That's my point, Simcity is a joke and yet it gets the same score as a perfectly competent game.

You should take your own advise, opinion's go figure, just because you and Jeff think they are "dumb as hell and not entertaining" does not mean that they are. Opinion huh. My point is Jeff hates on them so why would I trust his review, not that Jeff should like dude bro shooters.

how old are you?

for reference...

Edited by Toug

To be fair, I mostly only ever played on 2-3 maps in previous games.

But then, I only played Horde mode, so the point is kind of moot.

Posted by YOUNGLINK

No "Candy Mode" No sale.

Posted by fiberpay

@red12b said:

@fiberpay said:

@xeirus said:

@fiberpay said:

Yea figured this would get 3 stars. I don't really trust Jeff to review this game he bashes on the "dude bro" stuff way to much. Also, just for comparison Simcity got 3 stars lol, gtfo.

Simcity was reviewed by Alex, so what the fuck is your point again?

Have you even played Simcity? It's a joke of a game with enough lies and baggage to warrant a 1 star review.

Also, maybe Jeff bashes on the "dude bro" stuff because that shit is dumb as hell and not entertaining?

Opinions, go figure.

That's my point, Simcity is a joke and yet it gets the same score as a perfectly competent game.

You should take your own advise, opinion's go figure, just because you and Jeff think they are "dumb as hell and not entertaining" does not mean that they are. Opinion huh. My point is Jeff hates on them so why would I trust his review, not that Jeff should like dude bro shooters.

how old are you?

for reference...

Age has nothing to do with an opinion. Just because one person thinks something is dumb does not make it FACT.

Posted by fiberpay

@fiberpay said:

@nights said:

@fiberpay said:

Yea figured this would get 3 stars. I don't really trust Jeff to review this game he bashes on the "dude bro" stuff way to much. Also, just for comparison Simcity got 3 stars lol, gtfo.

Uh, except for the fact that he reviewed Gears of War 2 and 3 and gave them both five stars. But hey, let's bash Jeff...

I'm not bashing him, I just don't trust his review of a game like this because how much he bashes on dude bro stuff. Also he had to give those other games high scores because they got high scores from everyone else. Also, this got the same score as a game that did not fucking work(simcity) lol.

You're missing the point. He's a Gears fan. He gave those other two games five stars because he felt they deserved five stars. He gave this game three stars because he felt it didn't stand up to the previous entries. Clearly he's all about some of this dude bro stuff. Saying that he gave the game a similar score to other review sites is just grasping at straws, just like comparing this review of a third-person shooter to his review of a city building simulation. Don't be ridiculous.

They gave Simcity 3 stars, a game I bought and could not fucking play it! They gave GOW:J 3 stars a game that they payed just fine except it only has 4 maps? lol ok thanks Giantbomb.

Posted by Wes899

@fiberpay said:

@lockeyness said:

@fiberpay said:

@nights said:

@fiberpay said:

Yea figured this would get 3 stars. I don't really trust Jeff to review this game he bashes on the "dude bro" stuff way to much. Also, just for comparison Simcity got 3 stars lol, gtfo.

Uh, except for the fact that he reviewed Gears of War 2 and 3 and gave them both five stars. But hey, let's bash Jeff...

I'm not bashing him, I just don't trust his review of a game like this because how much he bashes on dude bro stuff. Also he had to give those other games high scores because they got high scores from everyone else. Also, this got the same score as a game that did not fucking work(simcity) lol.

You're missing the point. He's a Gears fan. He gave those other two games five stars because he felt they deserved five stars. He gave this game three stars because he felt it didn't stand up to the previous entries. Clearly he's all about some of this dude bro stuff. Saying that he gave the game a similar score to other review sites is just grasping at straws, just like comparing this review of a third-person shooter to his review of a city building simulation. Don't be ridiculous.

They gave Simcity 3 stars, a game I bought and could not fucking play it! They gave GOW:J 3 stars a game that they payed just fine except it only has 4 maps? lol ok thanks Giantbomb.

There is no "They". Both games were reviewed by separate individuals.

Edited by Winsord

I made it through about four levels in Gears 3 before I got bored of it and never touched it again. Seems kind of lackluster even for people who really love the Gears series, so definitely not something for me.

Edited by omdata

@dallas_raines said:

Positive review = YOU GUYS ARE PAID OFF BY THE EVIL CORPORATIONS

Bad Review = YOU GUYS ARE JUST PISSING ON THE GAME FOR PAGE VIEWS, IT'S WEIRD, THOUGH, THAT YOU WOULD DO THAT TO THE COMPANIES THAT PAY YOU OFF REGULARLY!

Fuck the internet.

Nicely put.

Also, I like Baird.

Posted by Lockeyness

@omdata said:

Also, I like Baird.

You're a bad person.

Posted by Lockeyness

@fiberpay said:

@wes899: I used they because the games were reviewed by two different people. If I said Jeff then it would be wrong, but I used They referring to the site as a whole. Please do not comment again and waste my time because you can't comprehend things.

Oh, you.

Posted by Livingitlarge224

Man, all the people complaining about this review are dicks. Luckily, there are some people commenting that are decent rational people, but overall, it is not a positive experience. I give this comment section 2 out of 5 stars :(