Gears of War has 'zero innovation', says EA exec

[Zeus]

An EA executive has slammed the highly received Gears of War for Xbox 360, believing it has no innovation and has been way overrated by the gaming media. He drawn reference to a scenario whereby you a see a nice girl at a bar, and if she's smart enough - that equals the gameplay, but GOW is lacking this, so it's just another blonde bimbo :)?

<center><img src="http://www.maxconsole.net/content_img/blondebar.jpg"></center></a>


He then used the comparison of a nice looking girl you might see in a bar and go up and talk to, "And if she's smart enough, that's the gameplay.

"I'm not talking about my tastes, I'm just saying, when you go to metacritic and you see a 96 for Gears of War, then you read the critics saying, 'Okay, storyline - there's none, gameplay is not innovative...' Then I say, why did they give this 96? They were blown away by the high quality of the graphics... Myself, I prefer something more creative," Tascan concluded.


News Source: <A href="http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=69805" target="_blank">Eurogamer</a>

[{{909}}]

this is a joke right?

an EA exec is slagging off another company for lack on innovation? kettle...black!

[Evolution]

An EA executive has slammed the highly received Gears of War for Xbox 360, believing it has no innovation and has been way overrated by the gaming media. He drawn reference to a scenario whereby you a see a nice girl at a bar, and if she's smart enough - that equals the gameplay, but GOW is lacking this, so it's just another blonde bimbo :)?

<center><img src="http://www.maxconsole.net/content_img/blondebar.jpg"></center></a>



News Source: <A href="http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=69805" target="_blank">Eurogamer</a>

EA talking about innovation?

What are we on....? The 13th or 14th year of Madden, Golf, NHL, FIFA and NBA on every format known to man. Lets not forget generic FPS nonsense like the MOH series and the yearly double dose of driving games from EA that is Burnout and NFS

If that is not an example of the pot calling the kettle black then I dont know what is :eek:

Maybe one day EA might take a look in the mirror, when criticizing any company for a lack of innovation.

[Trashcat]

Look whos talking the scum of the industry he got nothing on the guys from Epic yet he dares to open his shithole FU and **** your battlefield2142, **** your every sports game that has been the same crap since 1998, **** your NFS Carbon developed somewhere in 2002, **** your 1001 sims addon, every franchise you touch turns into crap, RIP battlefield we hardly knew you. If you would receive a punch in the face for every game with 0 innovation EA published you would have been DEAD.

[whackawookie]

this is hilarious, ea the company who hasn't had an original game in god knows how long is commenting on a game that is new. this just goes to show just how in bed they are with sony, there coming down on a game that isnt in any competition with a single game in there library just because its exclusive on the 360. Anybody for a riveting game of madden 2010 with the same game engine with a different roster and added features like design your own footbal

[hitman43]

I like this pretty girl:)!

[Zilluss]

I begin to see the similarities between Sony and EA :D

[henkp]

well, i wouldn't have a problem with trying this "blonde bimbo" out, so i'll give GOW a try too :D

[wigsplitta]

Well, I have to admit that EA has put some good games out like the Sims and Medal of Honor. EA seems to stick to franchises and recreate the same games over and over and over again. Their latest game Need for Speed Carbon is a big piece of crap. The game is outright horrible. You would think since it's the 15th Need for Speed title the game would be atleast immaculate in the graphics arena but I'm sure the PS2 can render better graphics. I don't even want to get started with the actual gameplay. The guy has a right to his opinion and my opinion is that he needs to worry about his own company. You know, maybe hire a whole new development team.

[sabata dark]

What he really means is gears of war doesnt have any microtransactions.

"WHAT not charging For Extra ammo or unlocking levels!! thats So Last gen!"

Note to EA. Making us pay for stuff thats free in the ps2 and xbox 1 games IS NOT INNOVATION!!!

[wigsplitta]

:D That and also the fact that it shut down servers for sprots games that people still want to play online. You have to upgrade now. There's also The insane amount of expansions for the Sims. EA just loves to leave a customer broke. I'm sure there will be an add on for GOW soon enough. Maps, weapons, etc. Everyone is in on this trend it seems.

[Z80]

The guy obviously didn't play the game, or if he did he's just a moron. Gears of War does have a storyline, the gameplay is solid and different from the traditional plain FPS. And like everyone has said, it's EA. EA is the undisputed king of shovelware.

[SLAYERPSP]

its kind funny coming from a company who hasnt had a new idea in years.how many fucking madden games have they made each seems to be worse then the next. they buy up all the rights to stuff so they have the only game out so if you want to play pga golf or nascar or nfl with real players you have to buy there crap.ea has to be one of the worst companys out there nothing new nothing. ea makes almost no games anyways they contract most of there stuff out to differnt companys anyways. boycott the lame ass company i havent bought anything from ea since they dissed the dreamcast burn in hell ea you are more of a problem then a help in the gaming world

[swisstony123]

Despite "the pot calling the kettle black" bit is this game a major leap forward in fps games!?!? It looks amazing don't get me wrong but i don't see a whole lotta innovation as far as gameplay goes!? I'm saying this as a person who has been looking forward to this game for months but now feels abit unsure?!

EDIT just wanted to add not because of what EA say's!:rolleyes:

[GHOSTIVVI]

**** EA tell me which other company makes a game on 360 xbox and ps2 and charges you for cheats on 360 version but not ps2 and xbox version?? and they got alot of room to talk why dont u guys take more than a week to make a fucking game and then port it to all the consoles, TRY TO ACTUALLY WORK FOR MONEY **** U EA

[Ichinisan]

Despite "the pot calling the kettle black" bit is this game a major leap forward in fps games!?!? It looks amazing don't get me wrong but i don't see a whole lotta innovation as far as gameplay goes!? I'm saying this as a person who has been looking forward to this game for months but now feels abit unsure?!

EDIT just wanted to add not because of what EA say's!:rolleyes:
GoW is not an FPS game.

[babb_z]

Why is there a picture of my Mum on the front page?

[daps83777]

though ea is who said this, i can't really disagree with them on this one. they found stuff implemented in other games and tried to execute it better, with mixed results in my opinion. what was innovative about gow? even the hide behind cover has been done before.

[crono]

whahahahahhaahh

EA and talking about innovation.

Every game they make is the same and any othet game they buy(like burnout)they **** it so up,that its only working whit bug's,like your car falling trough the road.

Whahahahah EA is good in telling jokes tough!!!!!

[wigsplitta]

though ea is who said this, i can't really disagree with them on this one. they found stuff implemented in other games and tried to execute it better, with mixed results in my opinion. what was innovative about gow? even the hide behind cover has been done before.
Well, what's innovative about it is the fact that Epic created this thing called the Unreal engine. So, they used the Unreal Engine 3 to make their own unique game. If they threw a bunch of crap into the game and you could actually say they copied it then this statement would hold true. If you've seen it before but it's a little different atleast there is an attempt to be original. You could say Saints Row is not original for being similar to GTA but just from the tweaking they did I can tell I'm playing a different game. I haven't played the GOW yet but I can tell you that they didn't just copy other games. I'm sure you can find similarities in every FPS, RPG, RTS, MMORPG you play from now on. As long as I don't feel like I'm playing the same game over and over again then they are doing their jobs right.

I'm playing COD 3 now and I know it's similar to 2 but they made tweaks here and there so I'm loving the game so far.

[SteveNZ]

I begin to see the similarities between Sony and EA :D

Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing :)

EA's got dodgy business practices and write mostly irritating games, I try not to touch any of their products and comments from them like this don't help.

[*_JXS_*]

first SONY talks sh*t about nintendo ds and the 360 being overpowerd by ps3 now EA is talking sh*t too?!?!?:eek: hahaha .. NBA LIVE 2007 Is horrific and was dominated by nba 2k7... nfs is getting corny already stealing the idea from fast and furious... they destroyed the idea of marvel nemesis by making it wack...now they want to smack talk about gow?!? the only credit i give EA is Fight Night round 3..but even that game has wackness in it... People need to stop talking less garbage and focus on the things they do because it only leads to failure, thats why microsoft is sitting back laughing at these ghouls talking nonsense while they stay shut and take their generation of xbox to victory! I now can say EA SuX along with SONY!! Microsoft and Nintendo all the way babay!!

[daps83777]

Well, what's innovative about it is the fact that Epic created this thing called the Unreal engine. So, they used the Unreal Engine 3 to make their own unique game. If they threw a bunch of crap into the game and you could actually say they copied it then this statement would hold true. If you've seen it before but it's a little different atleast there is an attempt to be original. You could say Saints Row is not original for being similar to GTA but just from the tweaking they did I can tell I'm playing a different game. I haven't played the GOW yet but I can tell you that they didn't just copy other games. I'm sure you can find similarities in every FPS, RPG, RTS, MMORPG you play from now on. As long as I don't feel like I'm playing the same game over and over again then they are doing their jobs right.

I'm playing COD 3 now and I know it's similar to 2 but they made tweaks here and there so I'm loving the game so far.

making a new engine doesn't mean something is innovative, neither does making tweaks to make the same thing better. innovative is doing something new. like the wii, it is innovative, they are trying to change the way video games are marketed and played. same with the ds. what gears of war does is not innovative, that doesn't mean it is not a good game, maybe worth a high 7 or an 8, but it isn't all that innovative. just because it is ea making this remark doesn't make it untrue, when it comes to ea, i don't like them, i think video games would be better off without them, but i still agree with there statement on this game, it isn't innovative.

[bigbilly50]

I thought the 'active reloading' in G.O.W was fairly innovative...

[wigsplitta]

making a new engine doesn't mean something is innovative, neither does making tweaks to make the same thing better. innovative is doing something new. like the wii, it is innovative, they are trying to change the way video games are marketed and played. same with the ds. what gears of war does is not innovative, that doesn't mean it is not a good game, maybe worth a high 7 or an 8, but it isn't all that innovative. just because it is ea making this remark doesn't make it untrue, when it comes to ea, i don't like them, i think video games would be better off without them, but i still agree with there statement on this game, it isn't innovative.

I'm sorry that Epic developing their own engine and making a game from that engine doesn't suit your definition of innovative. If it has the best graphics seen on a console to date (like people are saying) then it meets the actual definition of innovative because it's something that people haven't seen before. I respect your opinion but you're one of the few who thinks GOW is all hype. I will find out and if I agree I will let you know.

[WalkingTiger]

What he really means is gears of war doesnt have any microtransactions.

"WHAT not charging For Extra ammo or unlocking levels!! thats So Last gen!"

Note to EA. Making us pay for stuff thats free in the ps2 and xbox 1 games IS NOT INNOVATION!!!

LOL:)

I just don't get it, even if the title doesn't do anything "innovative" (What do you define as innovative, exactly???), I don't see where EA has room to talk about anyone doing anything revolutionary... Their games have been largely the same titles, with different rosters and slightly new features, which hardly classifies as innovation...

Heh, mabye they indeed do consider all of their piecemeal Microtransactions innovative! :)

~WalkingTiger

[swisstony123]

GoW is not an FPS game.

Ok small mistake! 3rd person tactical shooter!

[The Bat]

Gears of War released a few days ago, but I didn't have a chance to pick it up until today. The person directly ahead of me was also buying a copy, as was the person directly ahead of them. And which games box did I see the person behind me plop on the counter? Yep, same one.

How many games will EA be releasing over the next two months? At least a dozen over all platforms, right? And how many of them will fail to sell even half as well, and how few (if any) will draw comparable praise? It would appear that Epic succeeded in scaring Sony into a panic.

[Vintage]

I cannot believe EA said that, well i can because its money grabbing power mad EA. Most of there games are crap that come out or if they are good get worse the year later.

Because gears of war go high rating and carbo got just plain bad then they are going to say that, like kids, its not fair mummy :D

[Tehtriggerman]

That story made me throw up in my mouth.

[moepmoep]

a good game doesn't need to be innovative!

a good game needs:

*a solid design
design flaws or weird design decisions usually kill the gaming experience.

*Atmosphere
even the best design fails when the game cannot bound the player to the display. he must actually be sucked into the game world and forget everything else.

*playability
it must be easy to control but still give a lot of possibilities.
a too complex game usually scares the casual player away, but giving only a few things to do bores the casual player.

*known features
if a feature is good: copy and try to improve it, as long as it fits in your gamedesign. Without improvements of known things there is no evolution and also most of the players are accustomed to specific things. this lets them getting into the game much easier.

*uniqueness
the look and feel must be unique. as soon as the player thinks hes playing another gametitle or your prequel he usually stops playing.
it must be one of a kind

*variety
dont let them find a key 5 times in a row within 5 minutes.


nowdays good Graphics
i personally don't care and even would play a 2d game if the above points apply. but the usual 1337 r0x0r kiddie whihc is nowdays the casual player require good graphics, or else your game wont sell.


I played gears of war.
for me personally all above points apply, and can say it IS a good game.
there where only a few games within the last years that actually bound me to the screen for more then 1 hour till i threw it away, and gears of war is definately one of them.

most EA titles doesn't even fulfill 50% of these points.

[Sepioth]

Why is there a picture of my Mum on the front page?

HAHA .. that was a good one .. hehe

Maybe one day EA might take a look in the mirror, when criticizing any company for a lack of innovation.

Mirrors, or any reflective surface (thats why they use sporks in there cafateria) is not allowed on EA property.

[daps83777]

a good game doesn't need to be innovative!

a good game needs:

*a solid design
design flaws or weird design decisions usually kill the gaming experience.

*Atmosphere
even the best design fails when the game cannot bound the player to the display. he must actually be sucked into the game world and forget everything else.

*playability
it must be easy to control but still give a lot of possibilities.
a too complex game usually scares the casual player away, but giving only a few things to do bores the casual player.

*known features
if a feature is good: copy and try to improve it, as long as it fits in your gamedesign. Without improvements of known things there is no evolution and also most of the players are accustomed to specific things. this lets them getting into the game much easier.

*uniqueness
the look and feel must be unique. as soon as the player thinks hes playing another gametitle or your prequel he usually stops playing.
it must be one of a kind

*variety
dont let them find a key 5 times in a row within 5 minutes.


nowdays good Graphics
i personally don't care and even would play a 2d game if the above points apply. but the usual 1337 r0x0r kiddie whihc is nowdays the casual player require good graphics, or else your game wont sell.


I played gears of war.
for me personally all above points apply, and can say it IS a good game.
there where only a few games within the last years that actually bound me to the screen for more then 1 hour till i threw it away, and gears of war is definately one of them.

most EA titles doesn't even fulfill 50% of these points.

i agree with most of your post. though i do feel gow has more flaws then you have pointed out. the camera, the hiding behind cover because you have the a button pushed down to run but you take cover instead.

my main problem is if they are going to raise the price of games on the next gen consoles then i expect more content. 7-8 hrs for $60 isn't not a good deal regarless of how fun a game is. sure you can say there is multiplayer, and xbox live, but i don't play consoles games, and if i was i wouldn't do it on xbox because you have to pay for xbox live. not every 360 owner plays on live.

but like you said it is a good game, i agree with that. there are alot of good games out there. for some people that play this game on live i'm sure it probably deserves a higher score. but this is not a great game, it is a good game, thats why it doesn't deserve the 9 or 10 scores it has been receiving, maybe 7 or 8's.

[Scorpion3]

i agree with most of your post. though i do feel gow has more flaws then you have pointed out. the camera, the hiding behind cover because you have the a button pushed down to run but you take cover instead.

my main problem is if they are going to raise the price of games on the next gen consoles then i expect more content. 7-8 hrs for $60 isn't not a good deal regarless of how fun a game is. sure you can say there is multiplayer, and xbox live, but i don't play consoles games, and if i was i wouldn't do it on xbox because you have to pay for xbox live. not every 360 owner plays on live.

but like you said it is a good game, i agree with that. there are alot of good games out there. for some people that play this game on live i'm sure it probably deserves a higher score. but this is not a great game, it is a good game, thats why it doesn't deserve the 9 or 10 scores it has been receiving, maybe 7 or 8's.

Um...dude, the Camera is standard Over-The-Shoulder and the Run thing is supposed to happen because it allows you to run from one cover to the next without getting shot. And when you're playing it on Hardcore or higher, you need it. But of course if you mean just pressing A is supposed to Run not take cover, then you haven't played the Tut, Holding A runs to cover, Pressing A makes you take cover.

You don't like the raise of Media prices huh? God I hope you don't buy a PS3 then. rofl. I think we all know that's going to be a lot more then 9 bucks in a price range. That was to be expected though, when you look at Cartridge costs to CD costs, to DVD Costs you can see a price increase, not because they cost more, just because the more **** you can pack into them. I say the game, since it's the first true next gen game to NOT screw up any 360s, and runs almost flawlessly (I noticed clipping at one time), it deserves a 9.1 in by books, and that's just for the single player game. And sure, I understand not everyone can use Live, I didn't used to be able to but it DOES have Local Multiplayer all the same.

[moepmoep]

it DOES have Local Multiplayer all the same.

yeah, splitscreen is fun :P

the controls are good, as Scorpion3 said already... the running is designed to get to a new cover spot and not to run through the maps completely :P

i havent noticed anything on the camera too, neither clipping errors....

the only flaws i noticed yet where that some of the parallax maps where not streamed fast enough... but only on props and models, mainly when you skip a cutscene.
and some weird physics like corpses falling into a TOTALLY wrong direction.

[daps83777]

Um...dude, the Camera is standard Over-The-Shoulder and the Run thing is supposed to happen because it allows you to run from one cover to the next without getting shot. And when you're playing it on Hardcore or higher, you need it. But of course if you mean just pressing A is supposed to Run not take cover, then you haven't played the Tut, Holding A runs to cover, Pressing A makes you take cover.

You don't like the raise of Media prices huh? God I hope you don't buy a PS3 then. rofl. I think we all know that's going to be a lot more then 9 bucks in a price range. That was to be expected though, when you look at Cartridge costs to CD costs, to DVD Costs you can see a price increase, not because they cost more, just because the more **** you can pack into them. I say the game, since it's the first true next gen game to NOT screw up any 360s, and runs almost flawlessly (I noticed clipping at one time), it deserves a 9.1 in by books, and that's just for the single player game. And sure, I understand not everyone can use Live, I didn't used to be able to but it DOES have Local Multiplayer all the same.

at times though there are times when you go behind a cover when you want to run to a different cover, it can be a pain sometimes. i can't see giving even a fun game an 9 or a 10 if it is short, 7hr single player is really on the short side.

[Rockman_Joey]

I like this pretty girl:)!

Me too, but anyways EA aint exactly innovative themselves so they can talk. What happened to Little Big Adventure, I heard that was made by EA and was really good.

They should bring back Road Rash and make it like the graphic standards and the speed of the bikes like on Burnout or something like that.

[bavelb]

7hr single player is really on the short side.

I just spent 7 hrs in multiplayer on mondaynight alone. On tuesday I had one of my best gaming evenings of the last year when I got into a group of guys that got along well both socially as in tactics.

I'm only in act 2 of the campaign, because multiplay (either fragging or coop) is just so damn fun.

I agree that 7 hrs for single player isn't a lot, and the single player lacks most of the tactics and sheer adrenalin of the multiplay. But the multiplay has me just as excited as when the first UT came out, and that hasnt happened since...well, the first UT (in fact I find it even better in gameplay due to the 3rd person view, which makes it much more tactical).

I just hope some extra maps and gamemodes will become available in the foreseeable future. The 9/10 is really with multiplay in mind and after a few nights of fragging, I can agree to it.

EA really has no clue what its talkign about. Innovation is a word thats erased out of employees dictionaries there it seems. And while innovation can be very good, some if not most of the best and most popular games out there are refined gameprinciples more then innovative (WoW, COD, most RTS'es, Halo2 and now Gow, hell even Legend of Zelda is more of the same ole same ole but I can't WAIT to play that)

[crono]

Finished the game today,its as short(or long) as any other fps,like fear, prey,condemend or the call of duty serie,medal of honor.Its also longer then other games like RE(witch you can finish in 3 hours)not to mention metriod,doom,duke nukem ect.

Its not a RPG guy's

[daps83777]

I just spent 7 hrs in multiplayer on mondaynight alone. On tuesday I had one of my best gaming evenings of the last year when I got into a group of guys that got along well both socially as in tactics.

I'm only in act 2 of the campaign, because multiplay (either fragging or coop) is just so damn fun.

I agree that 7 hrs for single player isn't a lot, and the single player lacks most of the tactics and sheer adrenalin of the multiplay. But the multiplay has me just as excited as when the first UT came out, and that hasnt happened since...well, the first UT (in fact I find it even better in gameplay due to the 3rd person view, which makes it much more tactical).

I just hope some extra maps and gamemodes will become available in the foreseeable future. The 9/10 is really with multiplay in mind and after a few nights of fragging, I can agree to it.

EA really has no clue what its talkign about. Innovation is a word thats erased out of employees dictionaries there it seems. And while innovation can be very good, some if not most of the best and most popular games out there are refined gameprinciples more then innovative (WoW, COD, most RTS'es, Halo2 and now Gow, hell even Legend of Zelda is more of the same ole same ole but I can't WAIT to play that)

my problem with giving a game score so high on a game that has good multiplayer, especially on the 360 is that playing the game online is not free. xbox live costs money, i will never subscribe to xbox live, and alot of people won't, if xbox live was free than i wouldn't have as big of a problem. so if you take into consideration the price of xbox live, how much is the game costing you to play after you already droppped the $60 or more for it?

[aic007]

Even without the multiplayer its worth it, both price and scores. The game is great, plain and simple. games like RE and MGS have no online component and can be completed in a few hours. Does that make them crappy games?

Trying to put an hour total to a games worth is pointless and is not a fair way to judge a game. Rez cost me 40 bucks when it came out and it only takes prob an hour to beat the game. The game is amazing and I would gladly pay that price again for something that was done so well.

[daps83777]

Even without the multiplayer its worth it, both price and scores. The game is great, plain and simple. games like RE and MGS have no online component and can be completed in a few hours. Does that make them crappy games?

Trying to put an hour total to a games worth is pointless and is not a fair way to judge a game. Rez cost me 40 bucks when it came out and it only takes prob an hour to beat the game. The game is amazing and I would gladly pay that price again for something that was done so well.

well you are a different gamer than most, i have seen so many games get bashed in magazines or online review sites for being short, well unless its a game on an ms system. yeah mgs isn't 100hrs our anything, but it is longer than the 7 hrs in gears of war. 7hrs is really short. i want alot of content when i buy a game. i could care less about the graphics as long as the game was fun and had alot of content. but it seems these things are going down the drain and all that matters to a large extent is eye candy.

i am not really an online gamer though, and i will never pay for a service like live that i think should be provided for free. thats why the online gaming i participate in is on the pc. sure can gow be fun? sure but it isn't all that innovative and it has alot of flaws. it can still be fun. i think advent rising was an amazing game despite its flaws, it can happen, i wouldn't pay $60 for that game, but it is one of the better xbox games despite its glitches. i think with game prices going up the games content should increase as well, i don't want to pay more for less.

looks like this game may be coming to the pc,

http://pc.ign.com/articles/746/746486p1.html