EA exec criticises Gears of War for lack of innovation

I agree with his opinion. A solid game that does nothing to push boundaries deserves a 9.0 at best. Gears of War doesn't push anything except graphics; though I think some of the gameplay tweaks should have been implemented in other third person games long ago; ducking behind cover, shooting from a covered position, etc. Just stuff generally abused by NPCs to make the game seem harder.

I haven't played the game yet, so I might change my mind, but so far I think reviewers have been consumed by the hype. This always seems to occur at the beginning of a new generation, so I'm hardly suprised.

RE4 is a hard one to assign a number to. The graphics were amazing, the story was gripping, and gameplay issues of previous games in the series were fixed. Under used gameplay mechanics such as the use of cutscene interaction, helped the player feel more involved with the game. Mini games dotted throughout broke up an otherwise linear experience. The additional gameplay modes, and additional content to experience after the story was completed sustained interest long after finish. Not to mention the eclectic mix of enemies and bosses. Oh sorry, you were saying something?

Like I said, I haven't played the game, nor have I read the reviews people are referring to. I was just commenting on that score, if Alain Tascan's views are justified, seems inappropriate. I was agreeing with his opinion of games that don't push the envelope, shouldn't get such high scores; it just seems some reviewers are constantly raising the attainable scores, more freely giving out high scores.

I don't know why you feel entitled to react to my opinion, on an opinion. But you are entitled to your opinion. I agree there needs to be more awesome gaming experiences, and GOW definitely looks set to be one of them. But is it a better game than Half-Life 2?

Edit: Wow, I haven't had this many quotes for one post in a while! The above was intended as a response to Beepos.

Anyway, DancesInUnderwear, to me a solid game should be anything from 7.0-9.0; the lower end might have some issues that should have been resolved but nonetheless a fun experience, where as the upper end would be exceptionally well realised. An outstanding title would be from 8.0-10.0; the lower end representing an excellent game experience with unique/under-used mechanics albeit poorly realised, whereas the upper end would be innovative in almost every way, that really pushes forward the games industry, and makes uncharted territory viable.

Mario 64 would be an example of this; 3D games of and around that period handled the mechanics of moving around in 3D in an incredibly poor manner by today's standards (looks at Tomb Raider). Not only did Mario 64 innovate with camera control, and movement; it introduced a seamless act based game full of unique worlds and innovative design, that really brought the necessity of the change from 2D-3D.

On the other hand GOW seems to highlight the change for HD with the incredible level of detail, but does so only on a graphical level (as far as I can see, having not played it). It doesn't seem to add anything more to the experience, as far as gameplay is concerned, so is it really a necessity? Apart from that it really does nothing new, but does things exceptionally well. But since I can't attest to whether it's the sum of it's parts yet, I'd rather reserve judgement.

GroovySamurai, Perfect Dark Zero made the cover system needlessly complex, unintuitive, and seemed quite useless. It doesn't detract from my point that the cover system is a gameplay mechanic has rarely been utilised by anyone other than the CPU, and as you highlighted; rarely to the same standard as shown by GOW.

As for what else they could have done? I haven't played it, but so far people seem to think the story is just an excuse for the gamplay. There's a lot of games like this, and while there's nothing wrong with it; they could have broken the mold by attaching an involving story. Anyway I'd have to play the game to think up more ideas. I still think there are a lot of mechanics being glossed over that the game has utilised, which depending on how well they are implemented, might justify the scores it's been getting. Not to mention the AI, which is supposed to be awesome, that alone could easily justify a 9.6.

At any rate, this is looking to be a must have title, no matter how you look at it.