UT3 and Gears of war

Tachyon74

Member
Mar 14, 2006
37
0
0
So I ordered UT3 since i found a decent price on it. I do hear good things about Gears, and I've seen it on 360 (looks pretty fun). I just can't get used to console shooters though. I haven't had a chance to play much UT3 yet, but I'm wondering if its gonna be a waste of money to get both. Is Gears single and multi unique enough for it to be fun as well, or is it pretty similar to what i've already got in UT?
 

Skunkwourk

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2004
4,662
1
81
I enjoyed the Gears of War single player campaign, I don't think its as great as everyone says, but its a decent game. If you do end up buying it I'd recommend playing with a Gamepad. In terms of online I haven't tried the multiplayer, but from the other threads on this game, I get the impression there aren't many people playing online.
 

EvilComputer92

Golden Member
Aug 25, 2004
1,316
0
0
In UT3, the campaign sucks while in GoW the multiplayer sucks. Gears' campaign is very good however, while UT3 is an excellent multiplayer game.

Both are very different actually, so it's not a waste to get both.
 

Dacalo

Diamond Member
Mar 31, 2000
8,780
2
76
Personally I found Gears of War boring. I just stopped playing about 2 hours in. I found Lost Planet more fun. It looks pretty though.
 

Randum

Platinum Member
Jan 28, 2004
2,473
0
76
Totally different games, visually look similar though.

Fast twitch FPS action = UT3
Third person shooter = GOW

I played GOW on the 360, heard it was sub par port to the PC, I know it ran kind of crappy when I tried it, could be the rig I would imagine but the controls feel a bit ackward..

unreal 3 i do own and do enjoy. wish they had stats tracking....

EDIT: unreal single player is basically a sequence of bot matches more or less
and regardless of what people say, the GOW single player is nothing amazing but its there, and its not horrible but not great.
 

Piuc2020

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2005
1,716
0
0
I have both and while they are very different, Gears of War is just a mediocre game, graphics are horrible (it's UE3 so they are fine technically but everything is brown, gray or black and none of the locales are interesting), control is mediocre (aiming is the only thing that works out fine) and overall the game lacks charm and depth, it's all about mindlessly shooting locusts which isn't even fun because you have to shoot a locust a gazillion times before it even starts to bleed, there is no sense that your guns are something more than pea shooters with fancy sound effects. Plus I don't have to tell you it doesn't even run that well plus you get that horrible Microsoft Live gaming thing which makes it look like a console game, ugh, one of the worst purchases I've made this year.

Unreal Tournament 3 on the other hand is pretty fun, pretty similar to the past games but it just feels right, to be based in the same engine it's pretty different than GoW, the weapons feel AWESOME and the graphics are actually pretty colorful, fitting and interesting and technically better than GoW, well what can I tell you, it's good ol UT with some new paint and some refinements overall.

But that's just me, some people actually LOVED GoW and some people think UT3 is mediocre (apparently a lot of them since it isn't selling so well).
 

ja1484

Platinum Member
Dec 31, 2007
2,438
2
0
I found UT3 boring.

Gears is a good game, very much worth buying. It would've been amazing pre-Half-Life 2, but the HL2 games seriously ramped up the cinematic factor in modern titles. I haven't really done anything with the multiplayer on it though - it doesn't seem to me to be the kind of game that would lend itself to that well at all.
 

Mandin62

Member
Mar 24, 2007
157
0
0
gears is fun single player. ut3 is ut. the war mode and vehicles are fun and ad a battlefield feel but still remains ut. get both they dont cross over or seem at all similar other then looks, which is to be expected since they use the same engine.
 

n7

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2004
21,303
3
81
They might use the same engine, but they aren't at all the same game.

Gears you get for single player.
UT3 you get for multiplayer.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
30,271
7,713
136
Originally posted by: n7
They might use the same engine, but they aren't at all the same game.

Gears you get for single player.
UT3 you get for multiplayer.
in a nutshell.

i really enjoyed gears' SP :)
 

Tachyon74

Member
Mar 14, 2006
37
0
0
Originally posted by: Uber
Gears also requires you to find cover ("Stop and Pop"), rather than the superfast Run and Gun of UT3.
Yea, I had heard that. Might make it worth picking up. Maybe I'll snag a used copy or something :-D
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,540
16
0
UT3 is going to get the most of the support, extra content, improvements, patches, and lots of mods. Gears will get very little other than what comes in the box.
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,558
605
126
I got neither and went COD4. :)

Actually, I did get GOW for the 360, but the all-in-one "action" button made the game too arcadish IMO. Played UT3 demo, and if the retail game is any close to the demo I pass. UT2004 FTW.
 

Tachyon74

Member
Mar 14, 2006
37
0
0
Originally posted by: Oyeve
I got neither and went COD4. :)

Actually, I did get GOW for the 360, but the all-in-one "action" button made the game too arcadish IMO. Played UT3 demo, and if the retail game is any close to the demo I pass. UT2004 FTW.
Heh well i already have UT3 but I should get COD4 too :-D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY