Gears of War (Xbox 360, 2006)

This has to be the hardest game I've ever had to review. And not for the typical reasons. On one hand everything was executed with near perfection. Amazing graphics, serious sound, solid single and multiplayer gameplay. And Yet, I can't help but feel like there could have been more to it on the multiplayer end. I know it sounds odd and even a little selfish considering what we get, but I can explain more later (or atleast I'll try). What Epic Games accomplished was sheer genius. The game that sits in my 360 is the best thing I've played in a long time.

The single player campaign was fantastic if not a bit vague. This is nothing new when you consider Halo 2. The story wasn't very deep or fleshed out as it could have been. Perhaps it was saved for the sequel, who knows. What I do know is that from the very beginning things were left at your best guess. A fictional Earth like world known as Sera was invaded by a subterranean race dubbed the Locust. While their actions were very clear, their motive(s) are not. The Serans couldn't handle their attacks so they sacrificed their world at the sake of leaving it to the spoils of the new invaders. (I still can't see how a group of rag-tag soldiers could change the tide of what the whole world could not. But it's forgiveable considering the grandeur of the game.)

Sounds like a great set-up, but unfortunately that's all it was. Hold on! That's not necessarily a bad thing. The rest was pure action from beginning to end, Non stop. Although this game is better fit for a full screen of your own, it's easy to get into a split screen co-op game with something 32" or better. I myself have played 6+ hours with my brother-in-law and a friend on a 53" Projection on co-op. It was beyond awesome. After all those hours, a deep plot was the furthest thing from our minds. What helped make all that fun happen was the many ways to bring your opponents down. You can do the normal thing and just shoot your opponent dead, or you can do just enough damage to render him helpless on the ground for something more serious. This is the fun part. After they're on the ground gasping for air, you can opt for 1 of 4 methods of execution. You can simply shoot to kill, "curb Stomp" (Ever seen American History X? Yeah like that.), Chain saw or do a melee attack. Oh the chain saw, I almost forgot! Yeah, that's the real kicker of this game, the staple if you will. There's this rifle called the "Lancer" which has a saw at the end instead of a bayonette. I'm surprised no one has thought of it sooner.

Alright, lets back up a bit. I did mention there could be more to this game. And despite my accolades thus far, I still stand by what I said. All the story elements aside, it's the multiplayer that needed some extra TLC when it came to the content. That's not to say the multiplayer isn't great, because it is. But the 3 modes offered aren't really all that different from each other. There's Warzone, Execution and Assassination. Warzone is a straight forward team deathmatch (the better of the 3). Execution requires either a sniper head shot or an up close kill everytime. Meaning you can't shoot and kill a guy while he's down (not very realistic and just gives less advanced players more chances). Assassination has both teams vying to kill the other teams leader first. Who ever makes the kill becomes the next leader. I would have liked to see more modes of play. Something like "Attack/Defend" or even "Capture Points".