Gears of War Xbox 360

User Score
8.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2351 Ratings

User score distribution:
Buy On

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. TonyB.
    Nov 12, 2006
    7
    I think that everybody loves this game only because its the first real next generation game. Sure the graphics and sound are simply amazing I must agree but its the same thing over and over again kill the locust blow up there emergence holes move on its the same thing as any other 3rd person shooter. Another problem is absolutely nothing is destructable. I shot a glass pot and it left a I think that everybody loves this game only because its the first real next generation game. Sure the graphics and sound are simply amazing I must agree but its the same thing over and over again kill the locust blow up there emergence holes move on its the same thing as any other 3rd person shooter. Another problem is absolutely nothing is destructable. I shot a glass pot and it left a bullet hole like I shot a wall it didn't even go through it unless the weapon of the future are extrmemly weak I think we have a problem housten. They spent all that time making the game look good and windows and pots can't break rawr. Expand
  2. Sep 29, 2010
    7
    Dark, bleak and hopeless, Gears of War is the perfect example of an apocalyptic world. It completely captures the feel of an apocalyptic world, in atmosphere, story telling and visual style. The level design is great and all and the feel of the game is spot on, the gameplay is just an average third person shooter. It is tactical but it has a limited variety, making it repetitive andDark, bleak and hopeless, Gears of War is the perfect example of an apocalyptic world. It completely captures the feel of an apocalyptic world, in atmosphere, story telling and visual style. The level design is great and all and the feel of the game is spot on, the gameplay is just an average third person shooter. It is tactical but it has a limited variety, making it repetitive and un-replayable even in higher difficulties though it does add a bit of challenge. Overall, its just a typical shooter game. Nothing special. Expand
  3. Jan 19, 2015
    7
    This game starts off slow and boring and then gets very fun!

    PROS
    -Nice Graphics
    -Fun Guns
    -Nice Graphics

    CONS
    -Slow story
    -levels too long

    Worth checking out for sure!
  4. Sep 7, 2011
    6
    I played this game in 2010, So I'm very late to the GOW party.
    The graphics where very nice and had some moments of awe!
    The characters are flat and boring, consisting of hey lets go here and shoot this mentality.
    Story was paper thin...
    The game started and then it felt like it ended with out anything happening in terms of story progression.
    GOW is a fast pace action movie that you control...
  5. Aug 3, 2011
    6
    Gears of War may have violence and 'badass' weapons but its small in substance and lame in the big scheme of things. The intention of its creators was to obviously make exactly what Gears is but that does not make it good. Any memories this game may create wont last and it is only original to the ignorant console crowd. Gears of War's story is pointless asides from the sensation ofGears of War may have violence and 'badass' weapons but its small in substance and lame in the big scheme of things. The intention of its creators was to obviously make exactly what Gears is but that does not make it good. Any memories this game may create wont last and it is only original to the ignorant console crowd. Gears of War's story is pointless asides from the sensation of violence, it lacks originality, the script is a joke and is immaturely predictable. There maybe some fun to be had with some of its gameplay but there are plenty of other better games out there that have both substance and are 'fun'. In the end the Gears series is just another game for the uncritically minded and sits on the big fat pile of games with crap stories and a missed opportunity. Expand
  6. Jon
    Jun 10, 2009
    6
    Gears of War might be just a little hyped from the critics. Don't get me wrong, it's a good game but I don't think it's anywhere close to games such as Halo 3 and CoD4. The single player is top notch, excellent presentation and graphics. I do get a bit frustrated with the "brisk jog" (as some of my friends joke). If you're running and you by chance bump into a Gears of War might be just a little hyped from the critics. Don't get me wrong, it's a good game but I don't think it's anywhere close to games such as Halo 3 and CoD4. The single player is top notch, excellent presentation and graphics. I do get a bit frustrated with the "brisk jog" (as some of my friends joke). If you're running and you by chance bump into a barrier, you will take cover behind it. This can be extremely annoying during fights with berserkers and the like. Sadly, where it is good in single player, it utterly fails in multiplayer. (Several WTF moments, expect to want to fling your controller into the T.V.) Multiplayer is garbage; stay away from it. Other than that, a good game but not deserving of the 94 avg. Expand
  7. EricS.
    Nov 19, 2006
    5
    It's obvious that people are reviewing this game based purely on graphics, because they really are the only thing that sets Gears of War apart from countless other shooters. Granted, technically Gears is an amazing achievement, perhaps the best looking game ever made. The shooting is adequate, but really just boils down to ducking behind blocks and coming up to take a few shot. It's obvious that people are reviewing this game based purely on graphics, because they really are the only thing that sets Gears of War apart from countless other shooters. Granted, technically Gears is an amazing achievement, perhaps the best looking game ever made. The shooting is adequate, but really just boils down to ducking behind blocks and coming up to take a few shot. Rinse, repeat. Where Gears of War really faulters is in its creativity. With their high levels of detail, the enemies give the illusion of being well designed. However, what you really have is some standard looking aliens rendered a lot better. The same can be said for the weapons. The particle effects look amazing, but this is seriously one of the least inspired inventories I've ever seen in a game. The one original weapon (which is quite spectacular, if not particularly deep) is almost never useable. The environments are the only exception to the rule. They are what make the game feel epic even if it is just the same shallow, yet surprisingly satisfying shooting mechanics over and over again. Un-originality aside, what really ruins Gears of War is its embarrassing excuse for a story line and dialogue. How can Video Games be respected the general public when its high-profile releases sound like they're written by... well, programmers. If you care at all about dialogue, voice acting and a coherent plot, then just turn off the sound. It's funny that in the Making of DVD, the designers talk about immersion, yet its hard to become immersed a game where the characters you're meant to sympathize with sound like badly-written teenagers in a straight to TV movie. If I could give the developers one piece of advice, it would be to hire a scriptwriter. What's the point in spending so much time crafting a visual masterpiece and not making some effort to create memorable characters and situations? Perhaps if the single-player had lasted more than 5 hours (another disappointment, as so many people have been looking forward to this game for so long) then these flaws could have been overlooked, but if I'm going to spend 70 dollars on a 5 hour game, then it better have a hell of an impact. Despite my rant, Gears of War is by no means a bad game. It's just not the masterpiece that the reviewers claim. But at this point, the game industry is young, and can't yet distinguish between an all-around classic that contributes something new and a visually stunning (not mention over-hyped) game that steals surface concepts from better games to give the illusion of having depth. Expand
  8. NateB.
    Nov 10, 2006
    6
    A very very mediocre title that was way too overhyped. Like everyone else, I thought this would be the best game ever. Turns out, its just a pretty average 3rd person shooter. Kind of reminds me of black. There aren't enough explosions, the gore looks like its cel shaded or something, the wepaons are pretty lame (the chainsaw is cool except the buttons are so unresponsive you usually A very very mediocre title that was way too overhyped. Like everyone else, I thought this would be the best game ever. Turns out, its just a pretty average 3rd person shooter. Kind of reminds me of black. There aren't enough explosions, the gore looks like its cel shaded or something, the wepaons are pretty lame (the chainsaw is cool except the buttons are so unresponsive you usually die because your guy won't attack when you try to) and there is a serious drought mental challenges since everything is way too straight foward and on rails. Use cover, shoot, cover, repeat. I think that everyone is over looking this game's flaws simply because it really is a beautiful game. To say though that this game belongs in the same class as Halo 2, RE4 or Metroid Prime is an insult to those games. Just rent this game (and if you're playing co-op, be prepared to block off a lot of time because it won't save your game until you beat a chapter, maybe a couple hours long. What idiot made it so you can't save at individual checkpoints? At least divide up the levels or something) Expand
  9. Andyman
    Feb 16, 2007
    6
    Here we have yet another great example of a developer focusing 95% of its resources on visuals and the remaining 5% on gameplay, and it's painfully obvious when playing Gears of War. It definitely is pretty to look at, but its annoying combination of frustrating and dull gameplay sucks the interest right out of you. The really sad part is that the insane amount of hype for this game Here we have yet another great example of a developer focusing 95% of its resources on visuals and the remaining 5% on gameplay, and it's painfully obvious when playing Gears of War. It definitely is pretty to look at, but its annoying combination of frustrating and dull gameplay sucks the interest right out of you. The really sad part is that the insane amount of hype for this game has apparently duped 95% of the population into believing it's actually a good game, when it's barely an average one. Expand
  10. AndrewG.
    Feb 2, 2007
    6
    The graphics are truly astounding - easily the best I've ever seen in a video game. But the game is kind of boring to be honest. I had a lot of fun chainsawing enemies, but otherwise the gameplay is ho-hum.
  11. LeeG.
    Apr 4, 2007
    5
    Am I the only person who saw the advert for this game when he runs into a dark building to be confronted by a giant monster in the pitch black and started firing with his buddies. It sold the game for me that scene looked fantastic. However I never once experienced such a great looking scene in the game, totally disappointed, the game just seems to get repetitive, and I was absolutely Am I the only person who saw the advert for this game when he runs into a dark building to be confronted by a giant monster in the pitch black and started firing with his buddies. It sold the game for me that scene looked fantastic. However I never once experienced such a great looking scene in the game, totally disappointed, the game just seems to get repetitive, and I was absolutely shocked when it ended, just thought that cant be it thats halve a game surely!! however I rated it 5 because the game does have its moments. Expand
  12. LarryT.
    May 18, 2007
    5
    Only one word to describe this game...disappointing. Graphics are outstanding, a lot of the game physics and controls are oustanding, but jeezey petes the game mechanics are dull and repetitive. With all the time they spent working on the graphics, you'd think there would be some more variety in the enemies and in the weapons. What really killed the fun factor for me in this game was Only one word to describe this game...disappointing. Graphics are outstanding, a lot of the game physics and controls are oustanding, but jeezey petes the game mechanics are dull and repetitive. With all the time they spent working on the graphics, you'd think there would be some more variety in the enemies and in the weapons. What really killed the fun factor for me in this game was the whole ducking and aiming thing. Novel, yes. Fun, no. It's repetitive and frustrating. You seem to aim and shoot at an enemy's general direction and hope they fall. There isn't the skill and variation in usefulness in the weapons either. The same gun is good for the whole game. Expand
  13. TomF.
    Jul 20, 2007
    6
    Mick T, if only the people who liked the game rated it, it wouldn't really be a balanced review. Eh? Anyway, This game is overrated to the extreme. The Cover mechanic (the main thing about the game) is wonky, and there is no depth to the story. The weaponry is admittedly fun, though, especially the torque bow. The graphics are gritty and extremely detailed. The multiplayer is decent. Mick T, if only the people who liked the game rated it, it wouldn't really be a balanced review. Eh? Anyway, This game is overrated to the extreme. The Cover mechanic (the main thing about the game) is wonky, and there is no depth to the story. The weaponry is admittedly fun, though, especially the torque bow. The graphics are gritty and extremely detailed. The multiplayer is decent. It's definitely not the greatest playing game in the world, but it theoretically gets the job done,if you like slow and tedious gameplay. Often times, however, matches resort to shotgun-offs. All in all, This is a decent game that isn't worth the hype. Expand
  14. JohnD.
    Jan 7, 2008
    6
    Dull, textureless, predictable. Graphics a symphony in grubby browns, sound tinny, gameplay based on a cover system which appears innovative for around five minutes but has nothing deeper to offer. Nothing too much wrong with it, but it's a very long way from the kind of quality you might expect given the reviews.
  15. GregD.
    Nov 10, 2007
    6
    I was hoping for something different from the usual shooter nonsense when I began this game, but I did not find it. The first act of GOW is interesting. The enemy AI is smart and aggressive; squad mates handle themselves well, thus freeing you up to perform flanking manoeuvres; and the action is quick and bloody. But from then on it becomes a typically monotonous and disappointing FPS I was hoping for something different from the usual shooter nonsense when I began this game, but I did not find it. The first act of GOW is interesting. The enemy AI is smart and aggressive; squad mates handle themselves well, thus freeing you up to perform flanking manoeuvres; and the action is quick and bloody. But from then on it becomes a typically monotonous and disappointing FPS because of bland graphics and boring maps (vaguely reminiscent of NAMCO's Sniper Elite), cliched characters and dialog, and silly weapons (torquebow and bolo-grenades) and boss battles. It is these boss battles that make GOW no different from the average Shooter. If they had been left out, the game could have flowed smoothly from beginning to end and been made interesting and enjoyable enough to replay; it will quickly collect dust on my shelf. Also, active reloading is an annoying gimmick and the duck and cover system --- clearly borrowed from NAMCO's Kill.Switch --- has a few bugs in it that can frustrate even the best of players. The only thing that really keeps one going in this game are the achievement points and searching for COG Tags, but that is not enough to justify the $60 price tag. So, rent it, borrow it, or buy it used, and use your money to buy the truly great games: Halo 3, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4. Expand
  16. JasonL.
    Nov 7, 2007
    6
    The campaign is good, I mean the story is uninspiring and the dialogue is just stupid but the gameplay it's self is very satisfying. The reason I score this low is that the campaign is pretty short and the multiplayer is one of the most broken things I have ever seen. I don't even know where to begin on how screwed up the physics are in multiplayer. Anyone reading this be warned The campaign is good, I mean the story is uninspiring and the dialogue is just stupid but the gameplay it's self is very satisfying. The reason I score this low is that the campaign is pretty short and the multiplayer is one of the most broken things I have ever seen. I don't even know where to begin on how screwed up the physics are in multiplayer. Anyone reading this be warned that the multiplayer will frustrate you. Expand
  17. Serge
    Jul 25, 2007
    6
    Certainly an overrated game. The biggest disappointment was the multiplayer. Max of 4 players per team. No classes. Everyone has same weapons. Cramped maps. Graphics - gray, gray, on top of more gray.
  18. Alasdair
    Aug 23, 2007
    6
    Great game mechanics and graphics. crap story, characters etc. all a bit dumb.
  19. JohnB.
    Sep 23, 2007
    6
    Single player - great, as long as you play it on Hardcore and then Insane. though replayabaility is limited as you are confined to fighting in tunnels and going from A to B. Co-op - this is perhaps where the longevity lies. Multiplayer - i hated it. thought it was unbalanced with poor quality maps and the bleeding out/no respawn (pre-updates/DLC) was a huge flaw. the coding did not help Single player - great, as long as you play it on Hardcore and then Insane. though replayabaility is limited as you are confined to fighting in tunnels and going from A to B. Co-op - this is perhaps where the longevity lies. Multiplayer - i hated it. thought it was unbalanced with poor quality maps and the bleeding out/no respawn (pre-updates/DLC) was a huge flaw. the coding did not help to alleviate latency, and on many ocassions there was horrific lag. if you don't have Live, then this is a fantastic game for a single player, but if you do, and want to make sure you get as much out of the game as possible, i would suggest something like R6: Vegas or the reigning champ of Halo 2. Expand
  20. JB
    Oct 12, 2008
    6
    This game has good visual display and satisfying animations and gore etc. - but i find it vastly inferior in it supposed strength - its "innovative" cover system and game play mechanics... The game is way to clunky, slow and generally unsatisfying - with the exception of the chainsaw, I will take COD4 over this any day.
  21. WilliamJ.
    Jul 12, 2008
    6
    Gears of war is a good game, but is, from its core flawed. The gameplay is basic but changes in the short 7 hour campaign to become varyed, such as riding a vehicle or sniping enemys out. This isn't a deep game and continues to give a basic story, half explaining the full story, and then ending on a cliff hanger. It has texture pop-in, and plenty of bugs. The online is ok, but it Gears of war is a good game, but is, from its core flawed. The gameplay is basic but changes in the short 7 hour campaign to become varyed, such as riding a vehicle or sniping enemys out. This isn't a deep game and continues to give a basic story, half explaining the full story, and then ending on a cliff hanger. It has texture pop-in, and plenty of bugs. The online is ok, but it will only appeal to some becuase of the 1 life per round structure, its also a bit repetitive and has no reward system like cod 4s. The graphics are very depressing and grey. It looks to similar to UT:3, and has clearly taken huge amounts of ideas from the series.The technical side of this game is great, but is showcased in ways that try to show a limit of the hardware, instead of say Viva Pianata that has hugely origiunal charecters and artwork, all not meant to look real. All in all i hate this game but appreciate the unreal engine behind it all. Expand
  22. MiguelR.
    Jul 22, 2008
    7
    Bad single player, horrible plot, stupid characters, and an uninspired universe. The puzzles are terrible and the scripted moments suck. The shooting is the only redeeming aspect.
  23. Apr 22, 2011
    6
    Gears of War is a good game with fantastic action set-pieces and an almost creepy setting, with a human colonised world being destroyed by a ground-dwelling species known as the Locust. The voice acting is great, the graphics, for its time, were spectacular, if a little drab, and the story is solid. The multi-player aspect, I never really got into, as I was always outclassed andGears of War is a good game with fantastic action set-pieces and an almost creepy setting, with a human colonised world being destroyed by a ground-dwelling species known as the Locust. The voice acting is great, the graphics, for its time, were spectacular, if a little drab, and the story is solid. The multi-player aspect, I never really got into, as I was always outclassed and obliterated by other players. The ability to do co-op campaign takes this game from a 3/5 to a 3.5/5, and defeating the final boss with my mate on the hardest difficulty setting is easily my biggest achievement in gaming so far. Expand
  24. Oct 13, 2012
    6
    GOW by no means is a bad game but is very very overrated i just can't find the masterpiece that everybody sees, the story is boring the game play is very repetitive the characters are plain, the only good thing are the graphics for a 2006 game off course.
  25. Nov 19, 2013
    7
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player) Gameplay (2/2) Visuals/Story (1/2) (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is
    Single Player/Multi Player (2/2)

    (If the single player is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no multplayer) (If the multiplayer is better than the multiplayer, review this section as if it had no single player)

    Gameplay (2/2)

    Visuals/Story (1/2)

    (If the visuals are better than the story, review this section as if it had no story) (If the story is better than the visuals, review this section as if the visuals didn’t matter)

    Accessibility/Longevity (2/2)

    (Review this section only on Accessibility if the game has no longevity) (Review this section only on longevity if the game isn’t accessible)

    Pricing (0/2)

    Wildcard (0)

    This is a guideline for how to properly review games. Many reviewers like to get a “feel” for a game, and arbitrarily give a game a score that they believe it deserves. This results in wildly different scores between different reviewers, and vastly different scores between similar games. This guideline addresses these problems and scores games fairly and consistently. This guideline also gives scores that are usually similar to the metacritic score.

    The review score is based out of 10 points. There are no “half” or 0.5 increments. It is impossible to have a score above 10 or below 0. The review score will change as the game gets new dlc, drops in price, or if more secrets are found through the game increasing its appeal.

    The scoring is split into 6 sections. The first five sections can add a possible 2 points to the final score. The first 5 sections are Single Player/Multi Player, Gameplay, Visuals/Story, Accessibility/Longevity, and Pricing.

    Notice that 3 of these sections have two parts. These particular sections will be scored based on the stronger part of the game of the two. For example, if a game has a lousy single player campaign, but an excellent multiplayer component, that section will be based solely on the multiplayer as if the single player did not exist. This allows games to be based on their own merits, as many unnecessary features are shoehorned into video games by publishers to reach a “feature quota”. Games that excel in both areas of a section don’t receive should be noted in the written review, but cannot increase the score past 2 in that section. However, it can be taken into account in the final section

    The final section can add 1, add 0, or subtract 1 to the final score. This final section is the “wildcard” section. This section is for how the reviewer “feels” about the game, but limits this only to this section, rather than the entire 10 point review. This section can include any positive or negative point that was not covered in the previous 5 sections.
    Expand
  26. Aug 14, 2015
    5
    Blood, guts and beyond the human refuse, no heart, with solid controls and game-play mechanics alongside a dark and suiting artistic style. The thing that fails to accompany all this is a good narrative to which to follow upon. Making you believe the only suitable use of this game is a stress relief simulator for children with ADHD
  27. Apr 14, 2016
    7
    Gears of War is a military science fiction third-person shooter video game developed by Epic Games and published by Microsoft

    + Fun Gameplay
    + Good Cover Mechanics
    - Bad Story
    - Stupid Characters
    - Repetitive
  28. BenK.
    Nov 13, 2006
    7
    Its a solid shooter that is really marred by crappy AI and linear level design. The texture detail is pretty amazing though and the environments are really great to look at. Its unfortunate that the gameplay cannot live up to the standard set by the visuals.
  29. OverRated
    Nov 10, 2006
    7
    This game is sorely over-rated. It is the same thing over and over (hide shoot throw grenade in hole.) They mix it up a bit by stayin out of darkness. (yeah thats it) the Chainsaw is worthless because if you try running to use it your dead. You do get to use it but its not that great. The graphics are good and story is good. Its a good game don't get me wrong its just over rated. It This game is sorely over-rated. It is the same thing over and over (hide shoot throw grenade in hole.) They mix it up a bit by stayin out of darkness. (yeah thats it) the Chainsaw is worthless because if you try running to use it your dead. You do get to use it but its not that great. The graphics are good and story is good. Its a good game don't get me wrong its just over rated. It is seriously not the best game. only 8 people online and A short campaign its a mediocre game with great graphics thats it. Expand
  30. SteveG.
    Nov 9, 2006
    7
    I have to admit, I fell into all the Hype about this game as well, and it has left me a bit disappointed and $60 poorer. The Graphics are very, very, very good and the sound effects are just the same. The Graphics/Artwork are what I would expect to see from a well produced comic book with "Dark" overtones. The Controls are more than ok, but not great. The maps to me are not as large as I I have to admit, I fell into all the Hype about this game as well, and it has left me a bit disappointed and $60 poorer. The Graphics are very, very, very good and the sound effects are just the same. The Graphics/Artwork are what I would expect to see from a well produced comic book with "Dark" overtones. The Controls are more than ok, but not great. The maps to me are not as large as I expected them to be. To me this game is very reminiscent to KillZone for the PS2, but with better graphics. The real downfall to this game is the Very Limited number of players while playing Online (that is of course you can get online because of the connection problems!). The Online maps are Small compared to the largeness of the Caricatures and scenery. Maybe that's why they only allow a Total of 8 players. 4 on each team. So, you run around wildly while blasting away at your opponent. Hmmm Not much fun after about 15 minutes of that. So kids, that's why I rated this game as I did. I have to say, I wished I didn't open the game so I could take it back to where I bought it. Yours Truly xSkullnBonesx Expand
Metascore
94

Universal acclaim - based on 88 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 88 out of 88
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 88
  3. Negative: 0 out of 88
  1. 90
    The hallmark of Gears' weapon design is the balance of powerful tools with critical, exploitable weaknesses, and it's executed with real finesse.
  2. 100
    Each stage is memorable...They all combine for an unforgettable adventure through 36 hectic, desperate hours of a group of soldiers' lives...A visual and visceral masterpiece.
  3. If you're a graphics whore, you absolutely, positively need to pick this game up. To say that Gears of War features "next-gen graphics" is a gross understatement. It's got the most impressive graphics ever seen in a video game, and the stellar art direction only makes it more beautiful.