Hypocrisy of TC's design philosophy

I just read an article with Rod Fergusson and started thinking about the principals Gears 5 was designed on. First off an note worthy they refer to Gears 5 as a cover based shooter. Now gears has always utilized cover but Its allure was always a CQC (Close Quarter Combat). When I hear the words “Cover based shooter” I think of Tom Clancy games which cover is necessary and the only defense you have available. Tom Clancy games do that well and CQC is a very bad idea as it means a death sentence and dosent support the movement necessary for such play. I like Tom Clancy games but as far as I am concerned they already exist. But let’s say for the sake of it that is where they wanted to bring the game (boring and uninspired btw). Cover in this game is useless I get shot around cover, I get vaulted over with prompts which locks me in a kill animation and of course shot through cover. Then there is times I shoot from cover so slowly and hit dead on but it does nothing and I am blown to smithereens or I do some weird loop around shot that hits the floor so it’s safe to say the cover system in gears is awful and is only useful for getting out of fire for the moment.

They seemed to want to push the long range game which explains a lot in way of design. However we have an arsenal which they have claimed one weapon shouldn’t be what the game is revolved around and sure, that is fair however why does it take so long to swap weapons. It makes using other weapons null and void since the reaction time to swap weapons, position and shoot take too long before the gap is closed and you get a gnasher in the face. So given that scenario that encourages one weapon usage or you must play at range. A tactic I used for a long time is gears was a pistol if you needed quick shots however taking out the pistol takes a long as pulling out a lancer and that is a problem.

TC has implemented delays in actions to make the game “fair” but all that does is punish players who like the fast play and make the game slow and clunky.

Gnasher has been neutered and ranges on it are largely inconsistent. I can be in an engagement hit a few shots, roll away and I am downed by one shot from farther away. This also seems to be the case of long range is prefered.

So I guess my question is if TC wanted to change what made them unique in a sea of shooter why would they by design make other systems not in line with the end goal. It seems like they originally designed the lancer with its ridiculous damage to keep people slow and a large deterrent to moving forward. This created stalemates in every single game as everyone sat in cover not moving. Once they nerfed damage on the lancer it was clearly abundant that was how they intended for this game to be played as everything else is not polished at all.

Gnasher is inconsistent and I feel that with the movement update the point of origination of a shot lags behind. Many time I am shot 100% yet the gnasher is off to the side in no way that pellet pattern should hit meanwhile a aimed shot will.give me a wold percentage from 10-30% which is insane. It could be attributed to lag as this game suffers from heavy latency issues but again it shows that slow movements are rewarded which I think was by design.

To wrap up because this has been long but how do you make a cover base shooter which such inconsistencies and cover that isnt really helpful and think that will be successful? The design from top to bottom is atrocious which is why I have a feeling that Gears 5 is a lost cause.


I hope this next update helps somewhat, because I cant play this game in its current state. I actually like the way the game plays when it plays right. It is just so rare that this game is totally frustrating. I cant shoot anyone with pings over 80ms. My bullets go right through them. Combine that with the worst matchmaking i have seen in my life and you have Gears 5.


True and I agree I just find it interesting that so many issues are popping up as a result of changes made to the game. I feel that thier sole intention from the beginning was to change the way the game played and so many systems are deeply ingrained in supporting this. As they change things other things pop up and it’s because they didnt want gears to be the game we love yet thier systems were never set up to support the type of game they wanted to make so it’s just baffling. It makes me worry that no amount of updates are going to fix this pr atleast any time soon because it seems from the bottom up they had this system in mind for play and it was not implemented in a good way to begin with.

I think you are right, initially they wanted this game to be mostly lancer/rifle play, but the backlash was so bad that they are trying to bring the Gnasher back and they are having major troubles because its basically an overhaul to the initial game design.

1 Like

correct man … I’ve seen lots of people referring Gears a as a COVER BASED SHOOTER… which is not, the cover mechanics doesnt work… its more a CQC ( Close Quarter Combat) in either case.

Yup they claimed its the fastest Gears yet… however for me its the slowest man .

and the maps as well man… to little maps man… im so bored that I bought " RAD RODGERS " GAME , since I’m tired of being the same f***ng place always.

it’s not successfull. if it was it would be like DOOM ETERNAL which the game hasn’t even been released and right now its a success…

I’m afraid so man… im having more fun here doing performance art in this forum than playing Gears 5 go figure man.


When they announced rod taking the lead for tc I knew we’d be in for him trying yo change gears to hid vision and NOT what anyone else wanted.
The dude who helped invent the g2 auto lock two piece (and abused it while laughing at gnasher players for being scrubs), helped the retro and sawn of exist, hell I bet he had a hand in stopping power , was never going to have good ideas or know what direction to take the franchise.

To be fair he was upfront about this and said he was planning on betraying the fans to a certain extent. But I dont think anyone understands how set he is on making this game his.

Well he made it his and soon he will be the only person playing it.


Link to article please?

1 Like

Whenever a Developer creates a game for themselves eventually they are the only ones left to play the game alone…

what is going to hurt the game its that next Gears game everyone will have second though into buying it as long as THE COALITION its involved.


I forgot to check if there’s an alternate control scheme more in line with Gears 4’s control scheme, but I suppose maybe adding it in a title update would make things somewhat better.

The article wasnt really in regard to the topic but it kind of made me think of the direction of this game it was mainly talking about single player but if you want to give it a read here it is


Its clear that Versus was an afterthought. Tech test two weeks before the game goes Gold. The tech test was a nightmare for a game that close to launch. Then the Versus launches with minimal modes, minimal maps, broken ranking system, etc. The Versus 4 months after launch is still technically a Beta.


Let me fixed it out for you man " THE WHOLE GAME is still technically a Beta " .



I can appreciate attention to single player and what they did on that front but you are right. Multiplayer seemed rushed and just put in there because those were expected of a gears title. I also wonder if the slowed down combat was in regard to “accessibility” more so than casual players. Which I get because everyone should be able to enjoy games but they didnt need to neuter the entire experience to achieve that end goal. Competitive playlists should remain competitive and unranked should have factored in all those things in regard for accessibility.

Not the best clip ever but you dont get games like this in 5. I missed when the gnasher actually worked and you could actually fight people and not take down 1 and then die right after if it was more than 1 and the gnasher actually worked.


1 Like

One key aspect of Gears of War is cover. It’s not a ‘run and gun’ game; it’s what I like to call ‘stop and pop’. It’s a grittier, more realistic battlefield where you must take cover in order to survive.


I don’t think developers know how much a bad game affects their franchise. Usually if you make a game and it does well the 2nd one tends to sell a lot of copies because people liked the previous. However if the 2nd game is bad people are going to hold off pre ordering the 3rd.
An example would be the resident evil games.
The 4th game came out they changed the gameplay but in that case it was for the better. Instead of fixed camera angles the camera was behind the person’s shoulder. Allowing you to look around in 3rd person view and actually aim at the zombies instead of in their direction. This was a change but it improved the gameplay so people pretty much enjoyed it.
The 5th game was the same game play but they added coop which made it fun for my brother and I. The game was becoming more shooter based but it still had some horror which is what it was built on.
The 6th game came out and they changed the game so much from it’s horror aspect that not many people liked it. It went from a survival horror game to a left4dead zombie shooter. It sold plenty of copies but it was not well praised.
The 7th game they decided to go back to their horror roots. The game play was first person view. Single player. Ammo was scarce so it wasn’t “You see something shoot it!” The game was well received but it didn’t sell as many copies as re6. Why? Because re5 was good at least. People played re6 and didn’t like it so when re7 came out they didn’t pre order mindlessly like the publisher would hope.
Another example is devil may cry. First one did well. 2nd game they had a whole different team and it just wasn’t very good. 3rd game they brought back the original team and it did well. No matter how well dmc does these days fans still look back at 2 and be like “That’s a stain that won’t wash out”
Gears 6 could be amazing but people who were upset with gears 5 are going to look back at this game and be like “I think i’ll wait to see how this game turns out before I buy it”

1 Like

This is actually one thing I blame on the community rather than TC itself.

We wanted a weaker lancer, we wanted a faster movement. We have that. Now we have a mis-match of styles.

People complain TC don’t listen to us, and then they listen to us, and we get this.

I saw an interview with him (written) how he talked about Gears 5 having to manage the “betrayal” (HIS word) of fans, in the name of expanding the player base.

Well, they definitely accomplished that, right? We were definitely betrayed…

But did the other half of that plan also work out? Did they expand the player base significantly?

Personally, the best I can hope for, for me, is that Gears 5 will be like SW: BF 2 - after an incredible backlash, 2 years after release, the game is pretty awesome…

I dont know if you meant me and are taking what I am saying out of context. I agree with the changes they are making which is too slow but progress none the less I am glad they sped things up a hair. My point was more so making a “cover based shooter” where cover has never been good enough to qualify as a cover based shooter. Cover serves the purpose of evading fire for the moment but tactically using cover in this game is a death sentence as people can vault over and shots wildly land where they are not suppose to. I never use cover because of the randomness of it. That was more my point. It’s not a cover shooter and never has been gameplay wise. That’s where it is hypocritical in my eyes.

1 Like

I have many faults with this game, but one thing i have noticed since its beginning is Crouch. In cover you can crouch and shoot, out of cover you can not crouch. I think this game needs a crouch option. You get it in cover, why not out of cover.