Mike Capps Upset About Lower Gears PC Scores

LOL at the comments in this thread. I won't even touch this topic .. much . I bet though most of you have not played BOTH versions to completion. I have ... all I can say is the 360 version runs smoother and you don't have any sort of freezes and BSOD and the typical litany of PC issues when it comes to gaming. On my great system the game runs okay but it is not as smooth as the 360 version. Lots of people experienced this and many still cannot get the game to run on their PC. Whereas ANYONE with a 360 can play the game. So to me it is pretty simple why they got low scores. But please folks argue about what PC games are great and how this shooter is crap or whatnot ... yeah that is what Mike Capps is talking about ... you aren't off on another topic at all. Not at all. LOL.

Oh and to those of you who don't like Gears ... tough. You lose on this one. The market has spoken and nearly 5 million copies sold says Gears is a winner ... period. You don't like it fine, play another game. But many of us are waiting with tons of enthusiasm for Gears 2 and yes we will be enjoying what looks to be the best shooter to date (if you are not into realistic present time or WWII based shooters at least ... I even think this one will surpass Halo 3 and Dark Sector both of which I enjoyed more) ... even over MGS4 (which is crap imo ... I don't even like the graphics tbh) on my 360. Hopefully it comes to PC with extra content in time but if not oh well. After the last foray I don't think they are in that much of hurry to port Gears 2. Frankly his whining about the lower scores is offensive to me. Here he is rolling in the dough being put into his pocket by millions of gamers and he sounds all ticked off because they didn't do as good a job as they could have with making it work smoother on certain PC platforms.

It really bugs me when ONE person out of millions says they can run something fine of their PC ... so what ... that is not the point ... many PCs can't run the game and yet you still have people who will cling to this argument. And usually its a PC gamer so they know that in PC gaming just one difference in a component can mean the difference between a game playing or not. And again let me repeat ALL 360 owners can play Gears 360. So it would seem if there is a significant portion of your installed base that cannot play the game on a certain platform the ratings for the game on that platform are going to take a hit. Don't bitch. Instead make the game run as smooth as UT2K4 or even Bioshock for the vast majority of your PC users ... if you can't do that then don't expect stellar reviews.

Anyway people really are going nuts for Gears 2 and I may have to as well ...

http://kotaku.com/5034614/get-your-gears-of-war-2-lancers#viewcomments

How sweet would it be to have that and also the Gold Lancer available for use in game ... yeah I guess I better get my $150 ready as well.

Feh, this is just getting silly guys, we're going in circles and nobody is ever going to convince the other, nomatter how much we argue.
I'll just adress this and end it here:

elmuerte said:

why GoW is less of a game for PC.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would argue that, at all, because it's exactly the same game with some extra's glued on.

But is it as competitive on the PC market as it was when it was launched on the Xbox? would as many PC players like it as Console players did, or is there less of a market for this sort of game on this platform? has a whole year between the two dated it? and should a much delayed PC version that had quite a few nasty bugs, and didn't work all that well with the PC's primary means of control, really score the same as the Xbox game that ran just fine a year earlier?

Just ponder that..

Its less of a market when a lot of people cannot even successfully run or install the game on their PC yet any person with a working 360 (any SKU) can go get the game and can be 99.9% certain it will run without any problems. I don't understand why that logic is so hard for people to wrap their heads around. The game itself though, especially with the added chapter was very good for people who could run it. I would stack it up against any other PC shooter around ... especially the R6V games (Two was really poor imho), and I think it looked every bit as good as Crysis and CoD4 using its own art style (then again I am a sucker for well done UE3 graphics).

The lesson of this thread is simple; nomatter how much you try to argue, your opinions will never be facts for everybody. That, and releasing a port a year after your hit game hits the shelves is never going to attract the same amount of attention, unless you add some radical changes.

Mister_Prophet said:

The lesson of this thread is simple; nomatter how much you try to argue, your opinions will never be facts for everybody. That, and releasing a port a year after your hit game hits the shelves is never going to attract the same amount of attention, unless you add some radical changes.

Click to expand...

Battling a Brumak and nearly three hours of new gameplay that is really good and features some excellent level design would have worked just fine ... but the honest truth is that Epic should have handled the port themselves and not handed it off to People Can Fly. That really was their biggest mistake imo.

I should have known this was going to be a post where the ppl who disliked the game were going to whine.
Bad for you. The game is fine, it has been proved by the sales.
The question here is the difference on the score from the 360 version to the pc version.

some of you are saying the game had less score on pc because the pc versio was buggy?

i found no review about the pc version who pointed this.

When the reviewers were discussing the pc version, it was a version that was running ok on their pc´s with no issues, so they give the score to the game itself.

Still, i dont understand why a game on one platform has an A+, and same game on another has a C.
If they give the A+ to the 360 version because the hype, they were i***ts

Anuban said:

The market has spoken and nearly 5 million copies sold says Gears is a winner ... period.

Click to expand...

Just because the majority chose something over another doesn't make it a right choice (democracy). The same thing goes for everything else in this god damn world - religion, fashion etc. The number of people, who like/do/follow something doesn't mean a thing. Go tell a muslim that his god is Jesus Christ, because the majority of the human population is christian.

-=WolverinE=- said:

Just because the majority chose something over another doesn't make it a right choice (democracy). The same thing goes for everything else in this god damn world - religion, fashion etc. The number of people, who like/do/follow something doesn't mean a thing. Go tell a muslim that his god is Jesus Christ, because the majority of the human population is christian.

Click to expand...

Who's talking about the right choice? I am simply saying you cannot logically argue numbers when the figures are in the millions. For you to suggest that over 5 million gamers have poor taste in gaming is very egotistical ... that is just your opinion. And while they are also opinions ... when 5 million opinions pretty much match and make a company millions of dollars and guarantee sequels, comics, movies, etc. you can argue against it all you like but its success has already been proven. And folks are still buying and playing the game. So I definitely stand by what I said when it comes to this particular product.

Some people never learn and just don't get it. Anyway I'm out of this thread ... I don't want to end up saying something I will regret.

Anuban said:

Who's talking about the right choice? I am simply saying you cannot logically argue numbers when the figures are in the millions. For you to suggest that over 5 million gamers have poor taste in gaming is very egotistical ... that is just your opinion. And while they are also opinions ... when 5 million opinions pretty much match and make a company millions of dollars and guarantee sequels, comics, movies, etc. you can argue against it all you like but its success has already been proven. And folks are still buying and playing the game. So I definitely stand by what I said when it comes to this particular product.

Click to expand...

I never said if it's wrong or right choice or that the people, who bought it have poor taste in gaming. I said that the number of people doesn't matter, because for every religious person, his religion is the best and since the numbers are greater in christianity, that means it's the best (selling) religion out there. According to your theory of "numbers" and how you can't logically argue with them, every other belief is inferior.

I don't mind people believing anything or buying anything, because that's their choice, but to declare a game that sold many copies the best shooter of all time is just preposterous. There are tons of underrated games that were better than many of the biggest titles out there, regardless of the genre. But since this thread is going downhill from here, I'm going to stop posting in it. Peace.

Anuban said:

Oh and to those of you who don't like Gears ... tough. You lose on this one. The market has spoken and nearly 5 million copies sold says Gears is a winner ... period.

Click to expand...

Oh, well, then I guess Halo and Counter-Strike are better games than UT.... No.

To those that think Gears was truly a good enough game to survive on the PC, let's look at why it succeeded on Xbox but not PC. Its life-cycle was exactly like every other Xbox game aside from Halo. They played it for maybe six months, and then abandoned it (exactly as I had predicted). This is because it is a gimmicky sort of game. It has tons of fluidity, atmosphere, and viscerality in its combat, but no semblance of balance or even challenge, if you know what to do. I'm not bashing those who like this game, it's just how most console games work.

This, however, is not enough to survive the onslaught of competition on PC. Sure, all the above qualities are good, and will certainly help a game's scores and reputation, but only if it already has a firm foundation of gameplay, balance, etc. Things just work differently here.

r1esG0 said:

The game is fine, it has been proved by the sales.

Click to expand...

What a load of bollocks.
Would you say the same about some ****ty soap opera that gets millions of viewers? It's popular, so the writing and acting must be great, right?
How about music? Think fitty cent is the shiznit? No? Well he must be, because he sells a lot of records.

Anuban said:

even over MGS4 (which is crap imo ... I don't even like the graphics tbh)

Click to expand...

But according to the rules laid out by you and r1esG0, it can't be crap, because it sold well.

Grobut said:

If the game has propper movement, then yes, absolutely, you need features like leaning, different stances, and a good control over your speed, basically any tactical shooter worthy of the title has thease things, and it's catching on in other games too, games like Far-Cry and Stalker used more refined movement like this, even though they can hardly be called tactical shooters.

A movement system like that would be harder to pull off on a controller though, there's only X amount of buttons, and you woulden't want to waste too many of them on the same thing, so a cover system does make sense here, as you go into a different mode of control when covering, you can make better use of what's there, but on the PC? it just takes away some freedom of play i feel.

Click to expand...

systems with so many buttons to push never get used or become part of the game in the way that GoW managed to do.
It's not about how many buttons there are available.
It's about making sure that you don't make things needlessly complicated by becoming a control-freak.

In Stalker I would rather expose myself completely than try to move pixel by pixel just so that I could peek around a corner and shoot if there is a threat. Usually it either results me accidentally exposing myself completely (and thus losing the benifit of cover) or I can't shoot because the bullets keep hitting the corner ...
I haven't seen a single pc-game that got it right and the ones that did ... were effectively trying to do what GoW did.

GoW's system makes the entire effort practically zero and this allows the player to do what he is supposed to be doing (eliminating the threats and enjoying the story/game).
// ---

The low reviews probably also is the result of how the entire review-structure is done in many magazines/sites.
Either the same reviewer is doing it again ... and he has become so accustomed to the console-version that any flaws are magnified and the story has become too familliar.
As a result they aren't likely to give it the same high scores that the game got at the initial release.

-=WolverinE=- said:

I never said if it's wrong or right choice or that the people, who bought it have poor taste in gaming. I said that the number of people doesn't matter, because for every religious person, his religion is the best and since the numbers are greater in christianity, that means it's the best (selling) religion out there. According to your theory of "numbers" and how you can't logically argue with them, every other belief is inferior.

I don't mind people believing anything or buying anything, because that's their choice, but to declare a game that sold many copies the best shooter of all time is just preposterous. There are tons of underrated games that were better than many of the biggest titles out there, regardless of the genre. But since this thread is going downhill from here, I'm going to stop posting in it. Peace.

Click to expand...

Dude what are you reading? Who declared it the best shooter of all time? Not me (Now I do speculate that Gears 2 has the potential to be the best sci-fi shooter to date). I said it was a great game and it was a winning title and I don't care about your religious comparison ... it doesn't fit here. We are talking about capitalism and people making choices with their money and in the market 5 million gamers don't buy bad games ... that is just not how it works. Sorry if your opinion does not match the vast majority but that can be said about any game.

The general consensus and what is accepted though by logical people is that if a product succeeds in the market it is deemed a success. If a product greatly exceeds even traditional successful models (i.e. breaks the mold) it is considered a great success and a winner. Its that simple ... this is not argument ... this is the way the real world works. So a typical successful game that is viewed positively by the market and the majority of the gamers involved in that genre is now around 500,000 to 1M copies. For a company to do 4-8 times that amount cannot be argued that it is a great success and no one could successfully/rationally argue it is a broken games or even bad game (yes of course people have their opinion but the market rules and when we are talking about business opinions do NOT trump raw data).

Super-Moose said:

What a load of bollocks.
Would you say the same about some ****ty soap opera that gets millions of viewers? It's popular, so the writing and acting must be great, right?
How about music? Think fitty cent is the shiznit? No? Well he must be, because he sells a lot of records.

But according to the rules laid out by you and r1esG0, it can't be crap, because it sold well.

Click to expand...

Right I did say in my Opinion which as I just stated in real terms does not matter when it comes to what the Market has declared is a good game. I can live with it because I will always have my own opinion and will not be punished for doing so. So you fail at trying to make me look hypocritical.

And yes fifty cents is good and is popular according to the markets and the money he has generated. To say otherwise is ludicrous even if you don't personally like him. I don't like a lot of very successful and popular musicians and that is my opinion but the overwhelming opinion is the opposite and so people like Mariah Carey are great and fantastic because yes millions of folks have SPENT MONEY and given the market share/sales over other musicians and shown that yes this person is very good at what they do. Its like any vote or competition ... you may not agree with who Miss America is but she has been chosen by the majority (or people who are trusted by the viewers and supporters obviously) and so like it or not you have to accept this is how she is thought of in real terms.

Same with anything else in which there is a voting like process occuring and everytime we spend our money on one thing vs another of the same type we are casting a vote. Last I checked there were more than enough "votes" cast to say 50 cents is a good rapper (though I actually do not like him at all) and that Gears of War is a great game. Sorry if you don't agree but instead of arguing with or debating me take it up with reality.