Gears of War: Ultimate Edition

[Neon Ignition]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-04-24-gears-of-war-remaster-set-for-xbox-one-report

So, there had been a rumour going around that MS had lined up a Gears of War collection for late this year of remasters by Black Tusk. This would be ahead of the new Gears next year much like the Halo Collection/Halo 5 scenario. The internet was happy.

However, later, Microsoft confirmed that no collection was in the works. Testers have now apparently confirmed that this is true... technically, as the remaster project is only for the first game.

I'd have happily taken a collection of HD updates of the first four games. For all it's online woes, Halo Collection is brilliant in terms of content and value, MS just fumbled at the line but concept is great.

Can't say I'm keen on potentially paying near full price just for Gears 1 again

[Dogg Thang]

Loved the first Gears of War so much. A polished version could be a treat for any new players. But I don't think I'd need to buy it again.

[Shozuki]

sods law, the only one I've played is the first. I'd be up for a collection to then play 2 and 3 though...

[112]

I've never had the opportunity to play these games, be a good time for me to finally see what all the fuss is about. I am looking forward to this.

112

[Colin]

This generation is turning in to such a piss take with all this 'remaster' nonsense.

[Asura]

I think unless they do quite a bit of work, this would disappoint people.

I've always seen Gears of War was a competent game that was held up largely by the visuals. The sequels (particularly 2) tightened it up tremendously with more varied weapons, better grenades, more interesting enemies and better level design. By far the biggest improvement in 2 was the consistency of the controls & aiming, which were enormously beneficial.

Thing is, Gears of War is a bit like (oddly) God of War, in that the original game was good; i.e. not massively "broken" in any specific way, and the sequel improvements were more like refinements. It means when you "remember" Gears of War today, you tend to remember how the most recent one felt and you retroactively apply that to the first one - so you remember it as better than it actually was. It's a very specific kind of rose-tints.

If they rework it to have the weapon/enemy/control gameplay of 2, then I can see it; otherwise I'm not sure.

[Dogg Thang]

Let it go down on official record that I would like to distance myself from the comments made by colleague above.

[Asura]

Let it go down on official record that I would like to distance myself from the comments made by colleague above.

Suit yourself I just remember going back to the first one after playing the second, and finding it somehow sluggish and limited. There was nothing wrong with it, it's a good game, it looked amazing, and it had some cool ideas (the interesting co-op mechanics and the berserker bits were a real high point for me) but I don't remember it as a classic. I enjoyed 2 a hell of a lot more.

Also worth saying I never got into the multiplayer. I was in the far-east and it was too laggy to play. Might be part of the reason I don't remember it as fondly as some people, for whom GoW1 was their first big multiplayer 360 game. I was playing Lost Planet and Chrome Hounds because they had active communities online in that part of the world.

[Dogg Thang]

I never got into multiplayer either so I can't comment on that. But single player, the first trumps the two others for me. I've played 2 and 3 twice and 1 three times and what the first one has for me that the other two don't quite have is a sense of real danger in the enemies. Oh, 2 and 3 get really tough in the higher difficulties but I was never ever as fearful of any of those enemies in quite the same way that I still cack myself when I hear BOOM in that first game. I found I end up playing the first one much more defensively and, for me, that led to me being more immersed because it's like I felt that danger.

I feel a bit more superhuman in 2 and 3 and it's more Michael Bay and that's fine and it's fun and I enjoy them but it doesn't quite have that edge that the first one has for me to this day.

The other thing about 2 and 3 is that I felt the stories and setting ran away a little. The first feels like it was set in a place that could exist. Whereas the underground in 2 felt like game levels and the architecture never really fit with the beings presented in the game. And it left story threads hanging and generally felt a little less satisfying from a narrative perspective.

For me, there is only one single area that the first compares unfavourably - the colour. I don't mind the muddy browns but many of the enemies blend in far too much with the surroundings and I find that can be frustrating. It bugs me to be killed by an enemy I can't see.

[nakamura]

I found the original to be wonderfully mediocre. Hugely disappointed when I played through most of it.

[Asura]

The other thing about 2 and 3 is that I felt the stories and setting ran away a little. The first feels like it was set in a place that could exist. Whereas the underground in 2 felt like game levels and the architecture never really fit with the beings presented in the game. And it left story threads hanging and generally felt a little less satisfying from a narrative perspective.

I think this is why our opinions differ so much. You get more out of the narrative and setting, whereas I didn't see it that way. The narrative didn't grab me at all, in any of 1/2, and almost never does - in any game.

I would always prefer somewhere that "feels like a game level" to somewhere that feels like a believable place, if I felt that was better for gameplay. I don't really even remember what the first two games where about (didn't play 3/4), even though I remember the gameplay and scenarios with a lot of detail (like I could probably sketch large sections of the game from memory, but I don't remember why I was there, who I was fighting or what I was fighting for).

[Dogg Thang]

Yep, that's a huge difference. For me, immersion is key and it's about how I feel as I play games and the setting is a huge part of that. In a game like this, I don't want to feel like I'm playing a game. I want to be in it. So yes, it sounds like we're just looking for different things and that would greatly affect our perception of any game.

[Mayhem]

I feel the same as Asura. The first game was good, but the sequels improved things massively in the areas that were needed, especially map variety, less reliance on shotguns, and host advantage. Multiplayer IS where it is, although the campaign is quite fun to play in general

[bash]

I would welcome a remaster, 2 wasn't as good level design wise compared to 1. Never played 3 and 4. The impact the first had on me was like 'Now we're next gen!' Proper blockbuster game for me and my mate, even spilt screen.

Wish it would come out on ps4 cos I ain't getting a PC or Xbone for it. In fact I'd rather buy an old 360 and play the first again I think . . . .

[EvilBoris]

meh.

I liked gears and I have good memories of playing it, but I'm in no rush to go back and play it again.