Played Gears of War Judgment and I don't understand the hate.

[Hsp_Kolo_HsP]

I finished Judgment last week and I have to ask...where is the hate coming from???

The only major criticism I have of it is that it breaks the timeline a bit because the characters have chainsaw lancers at a time when they shouldn't have existed .

Like the gameplay is different but still really good, it is mission based, it is more so a spin-off game more than anything, so I was not expecting the standard Gears affair and the challenges it throws at you can be sometimes boring but are a fun addition overall.

I have no experience with the multiplayer because I don't have online right now but the E-hole cover defense game mode is fun and interesting.

The only other criticisms I have of it is that you can't switch the controller layout which to me is fine, it is more accessible to newcomers from other shooter games, my biggest problem with it was that you can't have 3 weapons on you at once and again, it is a spin-off, so I like that they switched it up a little, I'm just not a fan of this particular change.

The last thing is that the dialogue can be "corny" but it is so rare I don't see it as a problem.

I genuinely do not get why people hate on this game so much, it's good.

 

[BrawlMan]

I dislike Gears in general, but I never got the hate either. It seems like a decent spin-off/prequel game. I did hear there were some bugs, and the game got rushed out. Not sure if those got patched eventually. I will give the game credit for adding more arcade aspects into the main campaign.

 

[Hsp_Kolo_HsP]

I dislike Gears in general, but I never got the hate either. It seems like a decent spin-off/prequel game. I did hear there were some bugs, and the game got rushed out. Not sure if those got patched eventually. I will give the game credit for adding more arcade aspects into the main campaign.

I'm curious, why don't you like gears?

 

[NekoSakuya]

gears judgement is not a bad game, in my opinion is a fun co-op experience, I guess that people where expecting a 4th gears game on 360, the lancer Mk2 fell a little out of place since it was develop later in the timeline, soo it could had been retro lancer only that had a lot of development issues acording to the lore

 

[BrawlMan]

I'm curious, why don't you like gears?

Several reasons:

1. I don't like color palette, outside of certain parts in the third game.
2. I don't like most cover shooters in general.
3. This isn't Gears's fault, but it paved the wave for so many imitators who either missed the point, or was just copying verbatim for the sake of it and over flooding the market with these. A whole console life cycle, and the genre did so little and didn't advance much in any capacity.
4. The world and lore didn't grab me much, and didn't find much to care about.
5. The games got repetitive for me. I will give the sequels credit for mixing it up, but the first game especially got me bored real fast.
6. Vanquish pretty much makes the Gear franchise and a majority of other cover shooters a complete joke. Bulletstorm to a lesser extent as well. Crysis 2 & 3 are somewhat different type of shooters and are FPS, but they got much better/unique enemy combat encounters and environmental interaction and verticality. Gears does have better bosses than the Crysis games though.

Time Stamped to more of my points here with Vanquish:

 

[Hsp_Kolo_HsP]

Several reasons:

1. I don't like color palette, outside of certain parts in the third game.
2. I don't like most cover shooters in general.
3. This isn't Gears's fault, but it paved the wave for so many imitators who either missed the point, or was just copying verbatim for the sake of it and over flooding the market with these. A whole console life cycle, and the genre did so little and didn't advance much in any capacity.
4. The world and lore didn't grab me much, and didn't find much to care about.
5. The games got repetitive for me. I will give the sequels credit for mixing it up, but the first game especially got me bored real fast.
6. Vanquish pretty much makes the Gear franchise and a majority of other cover shooters a complete joke. Bulletstorm to a lesser extent as well. Crysis 2 & 3 are somewhat different type of shooters and are FPS, but they got much better/unique enemy combat encounters and environmental interaction and verticality. Gears does have better bosses than the Crysis games though.

Time Stamped to more of my points here with Vanquish:

The only thing I have to disagree is that Vanquish didn't really make Gears obsolete, it's a different kind of cover shooter, I love Vanquish, but its speed just makes it a different type of game to Gears, not better but different.

To me it's like 2 games I like, Titanfall and Modern Warfare 3 (2011), Titanfall has similar features to MW3 but it's not better, it's just a different game.

 

[BrawlMan]

The only thing I have to disagree is that Vanquish didn't really make Gears obsolete, it's a different kind of cover shooter, I love Vanquish, but its speed just makes it a different type of game to Gears, not better but different.

Note how I said joke, and not obsolete. Though obsolete applies to almost all of those imitators out there. Yeah, they're different games, but I feel Vanquish, Bulletstorm, and some parts of Uncharted franchise really only pushed the genre any where forward. Gears did some stuff, but that definitely stopped by the time of 3.

o me it's like 2 games I like, Titanfall and Modern Warfare 3 (2011), Titanfall has similar features to MW3 but it's not better, it's just a different game.

Ironic, because Tintanfall 1 was touted as a spiritual successor to COD multiplayer. Too bad there was no single player content in the first game, nor any other bonus modes. MW3 at least has lengthy bonus modes that got packed in from the start, and added more with the DLC. Too bad you can't get the DLC anymore on XBLA at least, but a lot is already in the base game/disc.

 

[Hsp_Kolo_HsP]

Note how I said joke, and not obsolete. Though obsolete applies to almost all of those imitators out there. Yeah, they're different games, but I feel Vanquish, Bulletstorm, and some parts of Uncharted franchise really only pushed the genre any where forward. Gears did some stuff, but that definitely stopped by the time of 3.

Ironic, because Tintanfall 1 was touted as a spiritual successor to COD multiplayer. Too bad there was no single player content in the first game, nor any other bonus modes. MW3 at least has lengthy bonus modes that got packed in from the start, and added more with the DLC. Too bad you can't get the DLC anymore on XBLA at least, but a lot is already in the base game/disc.

Yeah I think Gears fell off after 3, in 3 the NPCs actually tried to get you out of cover.

To me at least cover shooters are not for everyone to make, it is very easy to make it the most boring thing ever, more cover shooters should embrace the mechanic of bullets eventually getting through any surface after enough time to keep players on their toes.

And sorry for misinterpreting the "joke" part, at least to me when "joke" is used in this context it most likely means obsolete.

I love Titanfall 1 and there is a fan revive for PC that comes with the DLCs which is nice.

 

[BrawlMan]

ore cover shooters should embrace the mechanic of bullets eventually getting through any surface after enough time to keep players on their toes.

That's part of the big why on the genre dying. Even games like Army of Two Trilogy has the agro system and destructible cover. darkSector has the glaive and a mix of melee and ranged enemies. Hayden does get upgrades. It is partially copying Resident Evil 4 as well. 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand was the most arcade like of these at the time, and went nuts with it with actual enemy variety and bullet time. Max Payne 3 has tons of destructible cover and environments. Wanted: Weapons of Fate has some destructible cover, and acts as proto-Vanquish of sorts. Though it's main flaw is that the game is a very obvious budget title made over two weekends. Yet they still charged it a full AAA price. If you can get that game for $15 or less, the game is worth it. You see I am really having to stretch here.

And sorry for misinterpreting the "joke" part, at least to me when "joke" is used in this context it most likely means obsolete.

No worries, and I've seen that interpretation of joke as well.

 

[iamthemilkman]

I like all of the Gears games except Judgment. Level design sucks, enemy encounters suck, etc. I expected a simplified version of Gears coming from the Painkiller devs but even I was disappointed.

 

[Hsp_Kolo_HsP]

I like all of the Gears games except Judgment. Level design sucks, enemy encounters suck, etc. I expected a simplified version of Gears coming from the Painkiller devs but even I was disappointed.

I don't really have a problem with the enemy encounters, I will agree that there are some parts that are too narrow and don't complement the cover system, but they are few and far between.

 

[MDGeistsfavMC5song]

yeah I dont get it either, I played it at launch and 100% it and had a blast, especially co op... i like the characters in its story a ton (Sofia, Loomis,Paduk etc) the new guns etc... the only real downside was trying to get all the achievements on insane difficulty thru that star system/ doing that harder version of missions to get more stars or whatever and in particular the final boss fight on insane that I had to do solo... that was pretty obnoxious and irritatingly difficult, and I generally did that on all games back then but that would really stuck out to me... I didnt play its mp that much, maybe thats where the hate came from... and I dont care, I much prefer Judgement to 4 and 5.. only newer GoW game i enjoyed was Tactics, but even that wasnt as good as 75% of the tactics games Ive played in my life... so, yeah, I think Judgement is over hated... maybe that multiplayer was just bad to people coming off of the excellent 3's online offerings

Post automatically merged: Apr 17, 2026

Several reasons:

1. I don't like color palette, outside of certain parts in the third game.
2. I don't like most cover shooters in general.
3. This isn't Gears's fault, but it paved the wave for so many imitators who either missed the point, or was just copying verbatim for the sake of it and over flooding the market with these. A whole console life cycle, and the genre did so little and didn't advance much in any capacity.
4. The world and lore didn't grab me much, and didn't find much to care about.
5. The games got repetitive for me. I will give the sequels credit for mixing it up, but the first game especially got me bored real fast.
6. Vanquish pretty much makes the Gear franchise and a majority of other cover shooters a complete joke. Bulletstorm to a lesser extent as well. Crysis 2 & 3 are somewhat different type of shooters and are FPS, but they got much better/unique enemy combat encounters and environmental interaction and verticality. Gears does have better bosses than the Crysis games though.

Time Stamped to more of my points here with Vanquish:

while I agree with 90% of your points, I still dont blame Gears of War for what others did, I just find it funny how a ton of people who crapped all over it at the time, later gushed all over Naughty Dog games that I felt had far worse combet, but thats an opinion thing I guess.. oh yeah but Vanquish rules.. getting all the achievements for that one was hard as hell at parts but super fun... Ive basically given up on achievement/ trophy hunting nowadays due to most of my gaming being on emulators, dont do retroachievements, (all though sometimes Ill get dragged back in like with recent Ys games or recently with Sword of the Vagrant)... also I did really like the backstory and characters of the first 3 plus Judgement GoW games but I feel all of that took a nose dive in 4 and 5 and I just havent gotten back into the series

 

[BrawlMan]

I just find it funny how a ton of people who crapped all over it at the time, later gushed all over Naughty Dog games that I felt had far worse combet, but thats an opinion thing I guess..

Gears does have better shooting than Uncharted, but it doesn't make Uncharted's shooting bad. I find shooting in the Uncharted games much more satisfying than nearly a majority of the cover shooters out there that copied Gears verbatim. Also, Uncharted has the benefit of mixing it up with their arenas and respective platforming. This is most noticeable in 4 with the improved stealth system, though UC2 is the peak of the franchise for me.

 

[MDGeistsfavMC5song]

Gears does have better shooting than Uncharted, but it doesn't make Uncharted's shooting bad. I find shooting in the Uncharted games much more satisfying than nearly a majority of the cover shooters out there that copied Gears verbatim. Also, Uncharted has the benefit of mixing it up with their arenas and respective platforming. This is most noticeable in 4 with the improved stealth system, though UC2 is the peak of the franchise for me.

yeah its fine, I cant disagree with you.. like I said, its probably just an opinion thing, like the fight between Winback and Killswitch fans over which is better combat wise.. Id think Killswitch simply for being on a 2 analog stick console but hey, some people got really good with single analog sticks back in the day, and its more of a hindsight thing.. bat bang on about Vanquish, you can do so many crazy things in that game that I think it kinda broke the minds of people who went into it for another simple cover shooter.. you can only play that way on easy and normal modes, cuz itll body you in harder difficulties if you dont engage with all of the mechanics...

 

[BrawlMan]

you can only play that way on easy and normal modes, cuz itll body you in harder difficulties if you dont engage with all of the mechanics...

Even on Normal mode, the game punishes for relying on cover too much. The Unknown Mini Boss has a grab move that can grab you out of cover and insta-kill you. I learned fast enough the game wants you to dodge and roll cancel/hop/wall bounce like a mad man. A sequel would have given Sam an actual health meter, separate from his AR meter. That way, it would have been similar to Halo 1 or Gungrave in terms of health management.

 

[MDGeistsfavMC5song]

oh yeah, that game teaches you to use it all and fully expects you to use them, which is fantastic... actually its funny that a similar thing happened to God Hand, where people gave it bad reviews and were just refusing to learn its mechanics and then just labeling a "simple" beat em up (a phrase I hate, reminds me of that eras hatred for anything remotely arcade like in design)... but even on normal ive seen new players just refusing to understand that and try to play it like GoW or something, and it will let you get pretty far into it playing like that, but you will not have a good time.. oh sorry for derailing this off of GoW Judgement... I think its fun in terms of combat, characters, world etc but I also think a lot of its hate was from people disappointed with its multiplayer offerings (which I never played much) coming off of 3, and since it did have differences that you had to get used to, most didnt and fled back to 3, which made the player pool on Judgement really small which made everything worse... but thats just a hindsight theory.. I dont know, maybe it just really wasnt as good..

 

[sandogma sandogma]

Gears of War at the time felt fresh and there's nothing wrong with cover based shooting gameplay oriented games KillSwitch walked so GoW could "roadie run".
I think the real issue is that it really hasn't evolved much since GoW and for whatever reason developers seem to be unaware that poor enemy AI does tend to make this type of gameplay feel more like "whack a mole" as the video states.

That said, I haven't played the most recent GoW games so maybe the formula has evolved, but my impression is that its more of the same. Which isn't a problem if you really enjoy that type of gameplay, but I think those types of games need to have good enemy AI in order to have the most fun. For example, clueless enemies running out of cover in the open for no reason, or being overly defensive and "turtling" in the same spot without ever moving hurt that type of gameplay, in my opinion.

 

[BrawlMan]

hat said, I haven't played the most recent GoW games so maybe the formula has evolved, but my impression is that its more of the same.

Other than having some open-ended levels in Gears 5, adding in some melee focused weapons, and enemies having legit health meters above their heads now, not much else was done to evolve the formula. There are two different ending in 5. This all you get, outside of multiplayer content. Which had mixed reception.

For example, clueless enemies running out of cover in the open for no reason, or being overly defensive and "turtling" in the same spot without ever moving hurt that type of gameplay, in my opinion.

Guess what? That was the main problem for the majority of the Gears clones throughout 7th generation.

 

[sandogma sandogma]

Guess what? That was the main problem for the majority of the Gears clones throughout 7th generation.

Lol oh yeah, saw it happen one too many times and it always killed the immersion for me.

 

[Graves Ruinwalker]

It was ... mediocre . The third game was the end of the actual series . The Prequel wasnt really necessary and the air was already out with GoW-franchise because we already know how it actually ended ( till the other GoW-sequels plopped into existence without being asked for ) .

I call it Mainplot-syndrome . This hapoens in movies and games often . The last movie that ended the main-plot , is the movie that ended the series . It was the same with the Halo franchise with the third main-game and the Marvel-movies with Endgame .

Either every movie or game entry have an own plot or the mainplot is akways the conflicts that will never resolve no matter how long the series goes ( WH40K for example ) .

 

[BrawlMan]

I call it Mainplot-syndrome . This hapoens in movies and games often . The last movie that ended the main-plot , is the movie that ended the series . It was the same with the Halo franchise with the third main-game and the Marvel-movies with Endgame .

It's funny you mention this, as the only game I can think of to pull this off 100% successfully is Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening. It's the best sequel prequel video game ever made. It nailed everything:

• Refined and advanced combat.
• Weapon Variety and enemy variety.
• Every character is written well and serves the story along with the action.
• The best boss in the action game franchise ever made.

The only recent example to get this right, but doesn't come close to DMC3, is Rushing Beat X of all games. The last game came out in 1995. RBX is a prequel which takes place after the first two games, but before Shura (Rushing Beat 3). The story mode is crammed with references and callbacks to the first two games, and even implies 64th Street: A Detective Story took place in the same universe, but in the 1930s.

RBX's story does have some neat twist that either add more context to the first two games (while there was story, it wasn't the main focus until Shura), or call forwards to plot lines/character arcs that will happen in Shura. Be it certain story events, or in the character epilogues, if you play and beat with whoever in story mode, and not free mode. Some epilogues have bittersweet ends, because the game assumes the player or long time fans know what's coming next. Though characters like Kahlua and Wendy Milan get unambiguous good endings, or implications of better things to come.