Gears of War Xbox 360

User Score
8.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 2301 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. 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
  2. JohnS.
    Jan 19, 2007
    1
    I enjoyed this game quite a lot..........for 5 hours. I don't mind short games when they are extremely complete and introduce brand new things to a genre, but this game just felt like a really well done remake of past games. All the really cool features, have been done before, just not tied together so well. Graphics are nice, but it's sad to see that they couldnt run theI enjoyed this game quite a lot..........for 5 hours. I don't mind short games when they are extremely complete and introduce brand new things to a genre, but this game just felt like a really well done remake of past games. All the really cool features, have been done before, just not tied together so well. Graphics are nice, but it's sad to see that they couldnt run the Unreal 3 engine at its max, the demo's I've seen of the engine rendering other things on PC is amazing. Framerate is very poor when camera pans around in story sequences.

    Good game, not great, I recomend renting it, but not buying it. I would normally give it a 7, but because of the overhype, and the insane fanboys spreading false info, I give it a 1.
    Expand
  3. dudeXIII
    Nov 9, 2006
    10
    Bob J. is a Halo fanboy because of his rediculously low score that he gave for this game.

    People gave high scores for RE4. This game has the same camera style like RE4, and nearly the same gameplay (this game's a bit more "free" compared to RE4 for obvious reasons). P.S. Halo was definitely overrated. I can't stand to play that crap of a game. And before you say that I suck
    Bob J. is a Halo fanboy because of his rediculously low score that he gave for this game.

    People gave high scores for RE4. This game has the same camera style like RE4, and nearly the same gameplay (this game's a bit more "free" compared to RE4 for obvious reasons).

    P.S. Halo was definitely overrated. I can't stand to play that crap of a game. And before you say that I suck @ Halo(2): I was on the Top 5 on DM rankings.
    Expand
  4. JackieB
    Jan 4, 2009
    4
    My problem with this series is that it's a basic mod for Unreal Tournament 2004. The Cogs look identical to the Human race in UT2k4 and after playing it on the PC, I can say that 'ts almost exactly the same. Aside from being third person, having a cover mechanic, and not being able to jump. I can say that Epic games has pulled a fast one and slapped a mod onto an older game and My problem with this series is that it's a basic mod for Unreal Tournament 2004. The Cogs look identical to the Human race in UT2k4 and after playing it on the PC, I can say that 'ts almost exactly the same. Aside from being third person, having a cover mechanic, and not being able to jump. I can say that Epic games has pulled a fast one and slapped a mod onto an older game and made millions. The only reason this game isn't getting a 1 is because the blood and gore in it are really good. Otherwise, it's hide, shoot, hide, shoot, watch scene, walk a little, hide, shoot, hide, shoot, hide, shoot, move a little, etc etc there are some enjoyable dialogues.. but honestly.. you guys just modded UT 2004 and called it Gears of War. Please. Have a little more creativity. Expand
  5. StorageBox
    Jun 14, 2007
    4
    I didn
  6. Dec 5, 2010
    4
    I'm not quite sure where the appeal for this game is. I've played up to a certain point, and have not seen many redeeming qualities. The story is... mediocre, sound is okay, music is fine, gameplay mechanics work well enough, but at the end, I really don't care about any of these characters. There's no incentive for me to keep playing, really. In a way, it got boring fighting the same sortI'm not quite sure where the appeal for this game is. I've played up to a certain point, and have not seen many redeeming qualities. The story is... mediocre, sound is okay, music is fine, gameplay mechanics work well enough, but at the end, I really don't care about any of these characters. There's no incentive for me to keep playing, really. In a way, it got boring fighting the same sort of enemies over and over, with a little variation every now and then with 'bosses'. -- The graphics, in its time, must have been pretty good, but does no one realise that graphics will always get worse over time? Praising a game for its amazing visuals while ignoring its faults is akin to people being famous for being famous. Something more lasting: a new, innovative graphical technique, or an interesting use of an old one (like Left 4 Dead's film techniques), an amazing story (Final Fantasy Tactics, lots of RPG's), those sort of things make a game that will be remembered as a good game for a long time to come. -- This game isn't really even worth it's money right now. let alone five years from now because it just isn't that fun. Expand
  7. MarcStaal
    Jan 4, 2007
    0
    it is unbelievable how some sicko's out there put a random chainsaw on a gun, just for the purpose of seeing blood squirt everywhere.......my son, who is 6 years of age, went to his friends house where he watched this boy's brother play the game......my son came home with the friend, and starting to pretend to chainsaw each other..they were yelling and screaming, and also sworeit is unbelievable how some sicko's out there put a random chainsaw on a gun, just for the purpose of seeing blood squirt everywhere.......my son, who is 6 years of age, went to his friends house where he watched this boy's brother play the game......my son came home with the friend, and starting to pretend to chainsaw each other..they were yelling and screaming, and also swore lots......my son said "Sup B**ches" to his friend...this is absolutely insane..........who the heck puts that dumb chainsaw in the game....this person must have just got out of jail....UNBELIEVABLE......but overall great game with great graphics Expand
  8. MasterChief
    Dec 14, 2009
    0
    This game is nothing compared to the adrenaline fueled graphics bomb we all know as Halo 3. Halo 3 is the only thing on the 360, if you want games like this, buy a Wii. Cause Wii is great for these casual games.
  9. 70bucksWasted
    Nov 8, 2006
    1
    70 bucks down the drain. I finished the game in 5 hours and since I don't have online it's practically worthless to me now. it was fun while it lasted but not challenging and waaaaaay too short. The shortest game I've ever played in my life. Bloody EB won't give me my cash back eitehr, only trade in.... sigh
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. GuyWithGoodTaste
    May 10, 2008
    3
    This is one of the worst games I have ever played. It really says a lot about the state of the games industry when THIS game gets high marks. Repetitive, short, and just generally soul crushing. It's only redeeming aspect is the graphics, which aren't all that dazzling when they make the transition from screen shot to actual game. Gears of War is the very definition of This is one of the worst games I have ever played. It really says a lot about the state of the games industry when THIS game gets high marks. Repetitive, short, and just generally soul crushing. It's only redeeming aspect is the graphics, which aren't all that dazzling when they make the transition from screen shot to actual game. Gears of War is the very definition of mediocrity. Avoid at all costs. It's not even worth it if it's free. Expand
  13. 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
  14. BobJ.
    Nov 8, 2006
    3
    This game has been so overhyped that reviewers feel compelled to give it a good score. Excellent texturing, solid presentation. Poor, repetitive desgin with little innovation. If you are expecting a classic you will be disappointed. It is as formulaic as they come.
  15. Exosus
    Dec 2, 2007
    4
    IT works. It lacks any major glitches. Beyond that, there is nothing to recommend this game. It is boring, repetitive, formulaic, and above all else mundane. It is the quintessential second-rate shooter, embodying all that is and can be wrong with the FPS genre. The online is boring to the point of unplayability, the offline held together simply by polish. They did what they set out to IT works. It lacks any major glitches. Beyond that, there is nothing to recommend this game. It is boring, repetitive, formulaic, and above all else mundane. It is the quintessential second-rate shooter, embodying all that is and can be wrong with the FPS genre. The online is boring to the point of unplayability, the offline held together simply by polish. They did what they set out to do, they made what they set out to make. They just forgot to make sure that goal was . . . you know . . . good. Expand
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. NickC.
    Feb 24, 2007
    3
    Kinda interesting, for the first few acts 1,2. Later it get boring and boring. And then you get to fight the final boss which is so easy. Then you play multiplayer and then it gets boring because there are 3 game modes. I gave it a 3 because the graphics and the characters and co-op. But in theory GoW sucks as a team-based shooter.
  19. SteveF.
    Mar 19, 2007
    4
    Sure, it looks and sounds great, but that's only skin deep. The core cover mechanic is repetitive, cumbersome and unoriginal (you're basically playing Killswitch 2), the plot is terrible and the AI seems lobotomised. Mulitplayer is fairly fun for a while but dragged down by glitches, limited modes and the same repetition of that cover mechanic.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. ColinG.
    Jul 8, 2007
    3
    I could not agree more with Storage Box and Jacob B. I'm glad the truth is finally starting to come out about this sad excuse for a game. This is definitely the most over-rated game I have ever played. Graphics=10/10. Gameplay=2/10. The level design is unbelievably repetitive, the A.I. is probably the worst I have ever seen and the dialogue could have been written by a five-year-old. I could not agree more with Storage Box and Jacob B. I'm glad the truth is finally starting to come out about this sad excuse for a game. This is definitely the most over-rated game I have ever played. Graphics=10/10. Gameplay=2/10. The level design is unbelievably repetitive, the A.I. is probably the worst I have ever seen and the dialogue could have been written by a five-year-old. If ever you needed definitive proof that graphics don't make a game then this is it. At least there's half decent multiplayer on XBOX live but this doesn't make up for the abysmal single player campaign. Half the budget for this 'blockbuster' must have gone into bribing reviewers to give good scores. Well, Microsoft - you can't get to me! I was fooled into buying the first game but don't expect me to buy any more Gears games - I suspect that there'll be at least one or two others following my example. P.S. I don't own a PS3, I love my 360 - I was just hugely disappointed by the poor quality of this game. Expand
  24. CamJ.
    Sep 14, 2007
    3
    I hate this game, on single player they force you to listen to stupid dialogs that you cant skip and they put it after a checkpoint so you have to hear it over again every time you die as punishment, like this game has a story anyway online its worse, the maps are stupid simple designed an its nothing but lag and noobs that either chainsaw you or just knock you in the head, the guns are I hate this game, on single player they force you to listen to stupid dialogs that you cant skip and they put it after a checkpoint so you have to hear it over again every time you die as punishment, like this game has a story anyway online its worse, the maps are stupid simple designed an its nothing but lag and noobs that either chainsaw you or just knock you in the head, the guns are useless dont bother shooting anyone, just run up to them either knock them in the head or stick a frag on them, this game is so over hyped. Expand
  25. NevilleS.
    Jan 30, 2008
    0
    This is one of those "am I playing the same game?" moments. Controls are clunky and cumbersome and unintuitive. The "training" session to get you into the game is appalling. The "multifunction" cover button never does what you want or expect - endless rolling around on the floor when you want to mantle or hide. Graphics are so greyed out and poorly defined that you can't tell team This is one of those "am I playing the same game?" moments. Controls are clunky and cumbersome and unintuitive. The "training" session to get you into the game is appalling. The "multifunction" cover button never does what you want or expect - endless rolling around on the floor when you want to mantle or hide. Graphics are so greyed out and poorly defined that you can't tell team members from foes. Plot, bad-guys, voices and weapons so cliched they may as well not exist - oh look it's THE HORDE ffs! Oh look - the baddies all look like they are from Alien. Oh look - there's a cute chick giving you instructions in your ear! Maybe the PC version is better - but having to come out of cover, twiddle endlessly with the stick to get an aim while getting shot up is DULL DULL DULL Did absolutely nothing to suck me in or make me want to play further than level one. What the hell am I missing? Expand
  26. 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.
  27. JeffB.
    Feb 6, 2008
    1
    Two big reasons I was turned off to this game: 1)The grayed out screen had me shooting my own guys as often as the enemy because I couldn't tell them apart. 2)The most important part of the game is HIDING. What fun is a game where HIDING is the most important skill to learn? I am trying to have FUN, not learning how to duck and cover. I know that some of this needs to be involved, Two big reasons I was turned off to this game: 1)The grayed out screen had me shooting my own guys as often as the enemy because I couldn't tell them apart. 2)The most important part of the game is HIDING. What fun is a game where HIDING is the most important skill to learn? I am trying to have FUN, not learning how to duck and cover. I know that some of this needs to be involved, but this much? Very frustrating to play a game where most of it involves taking cover, and then accidentally shooting your own guys(when the cumbersome aiming allows you to actually hit anything at all). Amazed at how highly rated this game is when I see how good the other games receiving similar ratings are. And I have heard it is short too, although I will never find out myself. Glad I got it used - if I return it fast I can get decent store credit. Expand
  28. GuyGamer
    Nov 20, 2006
    10
    Great game, what can i say. Ppl giving 5 to this are sony/nintendo fanboys or gow haters. Do you REALLY think this deserver 5? You know 5 means that it sucks? Does it suck? No it doesnt. You think its 8 but you give it 5 because youre so stupid.
  29. HuevosBuey
    Dec 20, 2006
    4
    "whats more bad ass run up chainsaw a guy in half back up in cover frag them shot gun there face off if there close and still think its hard very orriganal" WTF does that mean??? The story mode is pretty decent, but you will finish it the day you buy it. The online play is utter crap, with the exception of the online co-op (which is the only reason I am giving this game a 4). The graphics "whats more bad ass run up chainsaw a guy in half back up in cover frag them shot gun there face off if there close and still think its hard very orriganal" WTF does that mean??? The story mode is pretty decent, but you will finish it the day you buy it. The online play is utter crap, with the exception of the online co-op (which is the only reason I am giving this game a 4). The graphics are indeed great, but so what? It takes more than graphics to make a great game. RENT this game before you buy it and form your own opinion. RENT! Expand
  30. 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
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.