Gears Of War 3 Changing Things Up To Stay Out Of Rut

Gotta give the Gears of War series credit. We're three games in, and designer Cliff Bleszinski still believes in keeping things fresh.

Each successive title in the cover-based third-person shooter has offered its own fresh new take. With Gears of War 2, it was the dynamic cover "meatshield" feature in which players could use enemies as a shield. Or in Gears of War 3, the enemies can mutate — not to mention the game is less brown! Another addition is bringing female "pencil pusher" Anya into combat.

For Bleszinski and his team, she is more of a James Cameron heroine — think a buff Linda Hamilton — than a Jerry Bruckheimer feminine — think a Megan Fox. Gears, Bleszinski contests, is "equal opportunity", so expect Anya to be thrown into combat with the same vigor that the male protagonists are. (Or, the same way James Cameron would!)

A movie version of Gears of War is in the works. The movie seems to be in limbo at the moment, and Bleszinski describes the project as "touch and go". Confident in the producers that are backing the film version, the developers are moving ahead with the picture and seeing what will happen.

A possible movie on the horizon. A series of novels. Comic books. A Gears narrative has emerged — an entire universe. According to Bleszinski, some on the team have had their heads explode over trying to keep everything straight, but don't expect the team to become slaves to Gears of War minutia. According to Bleszinski, "It's drowning in your own fiction." Mixing it up is important and has been a fundamental part of the series from the beginning.

But, so many other game franchises eventually become insular, attempting to please the core fan base, but largely impenetrable to those outside it. Continually keeping things fresh in the inevitable Gears of War sequels could very well prevent that from happening. Or not.


    Ah seriously, what they're doing in Gears 3 should have been done in Gears 2. Maybe not all the features, but the amount they're adding should have equalled to Gears 2.

    Meat-shield was not enough to save Gears 2 from the mess it ended up becoming. Gears 2 for me, was a less-criticised MW2. The single player was rubbish but the multiplayer made up for that (even if it did suffer a lot of what Gears 1 did with all the bugs and glitches they took forever to fix)

    I'm not having high hopes for Gears 3 and i'm not planning on buying it upon release. Hiring or playing a mates copy will make the decision for me. It is a great series & all though.

      Heh. I feel the same way about Gears 2 but for the opposite reasons. I felt the campaign was reasonably strong (a lot more so than Gears 1). Its hard to be fresh when most battles involve getting in cover then just holding the enemies back long enough to kill them, but they included a lot of big scale stuff like the mortars, flight sequences, etc which broke that up nicely.

      The multiplayer on the other hand was dead for me the day I brought it. I liked it but they over complicated the game play and it was glitchy to the point where it was flat out broken. Coupled with the fact I never once got into an Australian hosted game I just had no desire to play it (especially not every night like we used to with Gears 1).
      With Gears 1 being notorious for making low latency players almost invincible against high latency players you'd think they'd put a little thought into regional filtering on matchmaking, but no they just said it was our problem not theirs.

      I probably will buy it at launch, but only if I'm not playing anything else at the time. Great series but Gears 2 multiplayer just didn't leave me wanting more like Gears 1 did.

      ...How can you say the campaign in GoW 2 was rubbish?!? Compared to the first game it was a masterpiece. It looked gorgeous, the missions were fun and above all on the higher difficulties they were genuinly challenging...although I will admit the final boss fight was pretty lame. If GoW 3 has as many improvments as GoW 2 did then it will be phenominal. People just like to hate these days, it's getting old.

    Gamespot had a nice stage demo showing a bit of the single-player and a nice viewing of the new Beast mode for multiplayer. The singleplayer is awesome primarily due to usign 4 players. And it's not 4 copies of Marcus Fenix, but 4 independent characters, who each have their own skills and storylines etc. On top of that, it's got a great new look to it - is far more polished, and looks to be upping the ante in actions and etc. For instance, you can jump over a cover on top of an enemy, temporarily knocking him over. You then give him a grenade to the neck, and kick him into the path of additional enemies. That's pretty cool. And then Beast mode is bringing gamers the opportunity to fight as Locust for the first time. Kind of a reverse Horde mode for multiplayer. And Horde mode is coming back as well.

    In total, it looks like Gears 3 is upping the ante in all the right places and will be an awesome game.

    Im looking forward to see what theyve done with Horde mode, dont really care about the vs multiplayer or single player.

    Is that second paragraph being sarcastic? Seriously, I'm a fan of Brian's articles, but considering the ability to take an enemy hostage as shaking a game up is taking it a bit too far. It's an added feature, quite a minor one at that. It isn't necessary to play, and not really advised even.

    Shaking things up would be swapping it to first person, or putting in 4 player co-op, or putting in stealth elements. Those are some game changing additions. Not something you'd have to read the manual to notice.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now