Pilot A King Raven or Something Smaller

In previous Gears games, we’ve been able to drive, ride, and pilot different vehicles in levels dedicated to them–a Junker, an Assault Derrick, a Centaur, a Reaver, a Brumak, a Silverback, a truck, a submarine, Mules, mechs, and a skiff. However, we never really had the chance to pilot a King Raven. The closest players ever came to piloting one, or I should say riding one instead, is a Multiplayer Map in Judgement.

If The Coalition decided to continue with the open world aspect for Gears 6, they could dedicate a level or an Act where you get to pilot a King Raven or something smaller and similar to one from place to place. I was thinking it could be similar to the New Alexandria mission in Halo: Reach. However, instead of a city, the level or Act could be set in an archipelago or a very mountainous area with tall pillars of stone where COG outposts and Swarm Hives could be located. Players can battle Snatchers, Carriers, Swarmaks, Kestrels, Guardians, Sentinels, Flocks, and maybe introduce an new Swarm variant that flies.


I feel like vehicles in Gears have always felt a little bit focused on a gimmick. With exception to the Silverback, more of a mech suit and the Assault Derrick was essentially a moving platform.

If Gears 6 continues the pseudo open world approach I’d rather see a smaller, desner “open world,” almost akin to Resident Evil or a BR map. All on foot but open to explore and find things, unlocking new areas and abilities with your missions finely woven into the dense landscape. Either a city like Ephyra or something similar, maybe treat it like the Arkham games where as the story continues you see this world evolve and become more and more ■■■■■■ up as time goes on.

TL;DR I think open world to the extent of Gears 5 or with vehicles wouldn’t work in Gears without some major overhauls.

1 Like

I’ve never felt that vehicle combat (outside of the silverback) has really lent itself well to Gears of War. The style of play just doesn’t compliment it. Take the other MS IP Halo for example. Vehicle combat works well in Halo because regardless if it’s campaign or multiplayer, those maps/levels are designed for vehicle combat.

In campaign the level design gives players interesting encounters and fights. Open areas with terrain that leads to players having multiple options to progress. Do I take a warthog with a few marines and attack the scarab? Or do I grab a more nimble vehicle like the mongoose? Or extra firepower in the form of a scorpion tank? You have moments where you could ramp off a hill onto a scarab to take it out. Or give a marine a power weapon and have them jump on the back of your mongoose.

Point being is that Gears of War doesn’t have this variety/level design in its vehicle segments. Most of the time it’s very on the rails following a set path. And even in Gears 5 with its “open world”, the skiff is just a glorified loading screen with no enemies to fight until you get to a waypoint where you have to get out anyways. It was just put in so they’d be able to advertise “open world” segments. Halo isn’t open world either. But the individual levels are open enough to where you can choose how you want to proceed even if that choice is to not use a vehicle at all. You’re very rarely forced into using a vehicle in halo (at least the bungie ones). Whereas in Gears, you’re forced down a straight path practically invincible.

Take this clip from Halo 3 for example (Timestamped). The game nudges/suggests you to use the hornets. But it doesn’t force you. The game basically says “Hey we’ve provided the encounter, we’ve provided the tools, but it’s up to you which tools you want to use and in what way you wish to use them”. Gears just doesn’t provide this gameplay vehicle wise.

Halo’s bread and butter is the open and exploratory sandbox that rewards creativity whereas Gears’ gameplay rewards sticking to a path and using a combination of weapons and environments to take out enemies without getting hit, versus Chief with his great shield and mobility.

For Gears to expand it’d need new ways to interact with the world. Not “dynamic” environment mechanics but something for the player to control. Jack/the Hivebuster abilities are on the right track but don’t do a lot. This is why a gun like the Dropshot is more engaging than the Boomshot, because other than point and shoot, the Dropshot has this meta mechanic where you have to time the drop of the payload.

Gnasher has wallbouncing to keep with the fire rate, Lancer has a direct fire with a good melee ability. Tri Shot and Claw are powerful in bursts but just holding them like the Mulcher isn’t as powerful, incentivising a play style that requires timed bursts.

Guns that don’t work to this. the Enforcer, Talon, Markza, Overkill–to me these guns are kinda worthless because they either do something another gun already does but worse or there’s just no reason to pick them up because something else does it better. No incentive like ammo to go for them. In MP there’s an argument if some are arbitrarily more powerful, but never once have I used any of these in PvE or the Campaign unless I have literally no other choice.

Edit to bring it back to the OP’s point; I think for a vehicle to work it’d have to either be a dynamic tool, say if you wanted Centaurs or something large you could;

  1. Have a lead role to the vehicle. Say like in Gears 2 after reaching Landown and you go on foot for the Derrick. Could be attached to a larger vehicle, ordering it around. Or say in the way Titanfall 2’s levels are designed, have the option to hop in and out of a tank or so, but with specific moments where you’re forced to separate and adapt to working together at a distance.
  2. Have something like an Armadillo turned into a mobile home, where you can get the same effect as the skiff in an open world but with greater mobile-hub potential, rather than holding just two guns. Along with a little bit of combat capability, like say it can only ram. So if you don’t get out the only choice you’d have would be to run down all the troops around you.
  3. Use any Locust “vehicles,” most of the mounts we saw in the OG and anything the Swarm could adopt are inherently made to be aggressive and support attacking, which would work better than a mindless skiff mission. Kinda like the end of Gears 2 with the Reavers but less on rails.

I just don’t think vehicle gameplay works well in gears. At least not with the iterations that have been tried. It’s a 3rd person cover shooter first and foremost. On rails vehicle segments are just really boring to me. A major overhaul would be necessary to make vehicle usage in gears enjoyable.

1 Like

A Far Cry solution

Are you being paid or something?

1 Like

No, I think he’s just bored.


Still… I can’t fly… :sweat_smile:

1 Like

No, I think I’m just bored.

Or too much bull testicles and drink… :woozy_face:

1 Like

Because it’s never integrated into infantry combat.

If the Skiff in Gears 5 could crash and flip, and the environments it navigated were full of enemy patrols and ambushes and snipers, it would’ve gone over much better. But that was for some reason low priority work, or went unconsidered.

Imagine if the Skiff faced similar levels of resistance to the Centaur level in Gears 2… But you could dismount and use the Skiff for cover if you wanted. Imagine being chased by enemy airforces, blanketed by mortar fires, and having to divert into a storm just to escape or flank.


Ayee I feel validated.

1 Like

Yeah, that’s what I’ve come to know as a “Jingles Landing”.

Where does it come from? From a YouTuber known as The Mighty Jingles known to be ‘old and crap’(by his own admission), and his ability to crash vehicles in absurdly impossible ways.

Case in point, that one time he managed to get not one, but two boats(or more) stuck in the same spot in a Ghost Recon game. The video in question :

1 Like

I want all of this so badly. A major offensive with enemy artillery and lots of vehicles is crucial for Gears 6 to feel as good or better than Gears 2. And player direction for at least one of those vehicles, but integration with infantry combat, is necessary for Gears of War to survive in the current world.

Gears has to capture the new public perception of what war feels like. That’s what made the original trilogy so successful. Gears 5 had part of the right recipe for a new public perception of war.

1 Like

I just don’t see TC taking gears in this direction. Vehicle combat/large scale battles have never really been a focus for Gears of War. I understand you want a revamped way of implementing vehicles but I believe it’s too large a change to focus time and effort on. Gears has always shined with its bread and butter. Close quarters, cover based combat. Having a more open world with vehicles and large scale battles takes away from that.

Sure, you have the assault derrick segment from gears of war 2. That segment has a sense of grand scale combat, but if you pay attention to that segment it’s all on rails and the illusion of large scale combat is kind of broken. It’s more akin to being a guest at disneyland as opposed to being an active particpant in a large scale battle. I’m by no means saying that I wouldn’t like TC to make vehicles in gears of war more interesting and viable gameplay wise, but it doesn’t seem like something they would or should be focusing on.

Well, you think I’m calling for longer-ranged combat and a focus solely on vehicles. But what I’m actually calling for is more infantry combat, with vehicles as cover and transport platforms.

The illusion of large scale is more important than actually simulating massive battles.

And the way TC should capture the new public perception of warfare is by focusing on the core gameplay above all else. Cut anything that hampers the core gameplay, until the core gameplay feels and plays like the “new war” that gamers know. That means more weapon control, an improved cover system that remains simple but allows more impressive jukes, dives, and slides, and a CQB system (I believe Gears 4 and 5 gave us a CQB system that’s close to perfect, but too cluttered).

To explain my thought process so there are no assumptions:

More weapon control: the wider public now knows that the use of firearms is a martial art. This is doubly true for Gears, which has bayonets, special executions, and multiple modes of gunfire per gun (blindfire, hipfire, ADS, pop-shots, etc.). The average gamer now knows you can’t just walk through a doorway and start firing, you have to “pie the corner” and enter with good footwork, while maneuvering your weapon to avoid entangling with an obstruction or an enemy (if only so you don’t shoot through their model and miss). So, at the bare minimum Gears 6 needs a 180 quick-turn function by clicking the stick, like in The Last of Us, Red Dead Redemption 2, and other post-Gears games. It also means that guns should interact with the environment instead of phasing through them. That kind of interaction actually counter-intuitively helps players avoid shooting their own cover, and it makes fire and maneuver more engaging.

Improved cover system: after Gears 2, “chest high walls” have become a common joke. They’ll always have their place in Gears, but Gears has a much-needed stealth system now… And many types of “cover” are just concealment. That means we should have the ability to use cover-like functionality with more types of environmental objects, such as hedges, arched rooflines, slumping piles of rubble, or mountain ridgelines. At bare minimum, we need to be able to decide whether to mantle over cover or roll over cover, so we determine where our head is when crossing over. And while wallbouncing can be fun, it’s an artifact of a janky, half-baked animation system, and it drives away most of the people who would play Gears multiplayer, in favor of a tiny cadre of veterans… Gears 6 should give characters actual weight and momentum, so Gears and Locust aren’t roller-skating and inverting themselves to pull an instant 180 every hundredth of a second. Sliding into cover doesn’t need to change, but we need a refined, intuitive version of the “momentum system” introduced by TC… Otherwise, the rollerskating physics-breaking nonsense will continue to stymy Gears’ playerbase.

CQB system: hit ‘B’ to smack with gun, or hold ‘B’ to carve with bayonet types. Yes, it’s that simple. However, a normal melee should have a well-defined tiny range. Being hit should disrupt your gun but allow you to keep moving, like a fighter, so meleeing in a gnasher fight becomes a skill-tool (like a parry) instead of a cheap kill. It should take a minimum of three melee hits to Down a player, so the purpose of melee should be to disrupt your enemy’s aim and reset, or to try and score a knife fight for style points. That way meleeing in a gnasher fight becomes a tool of skillful gun-fu, not a cheap kill.

Keep the ‘B’ for Counter system in Gears 4 and 5, but apply it to these melees… So if someone tries to swing their elbow/gun at you, but you’re facing them and act fast enough, you can perform one of the already-existing counter animations. Now there’s a risk/reward dichotomy to melees, and someone who melees predictably will get John Wick’d. To summarize: melee stuns the upper body, but the legs keep working, so try and melee the other guy’s gun. Bayonets (Lancer, Retro, Torque, Claw) can be deflected by a perfectly-aimed and perfectly-timed melee, but if you don’t kill them with your next shot (or ■■■■ at high speed) the bayonet will re-engage you and kill you before you can melee a second time.

Knife kill animations should be reworked so they use cover better, if only by allowing us to take knife kills as meatshields. One of my favorite parts of Gears 4 and 5 is executing a perfect yank or vault-kick, and using my victim as a living shield while my knife works them over… But then I’m left exposed and I can’t grab them as an actual meatshield???

(the yank itself should work around corners, not just over the top of cover)

If TC implemented something like the above, and found a way to make movement feel weighty, but with skill-based agility… While also revamping the Swarm to be a more engaging, fully-fleshed-out military force… I think Gears 6 could revolutionize shooters in the same way Gears 1 did.

But, all of this is Armchair Game design and wishful thinking. TC is under a lot of pressure to conform and appease, under tight time constraints and budget restrictions.

1 Like

Gonna be honest. Didnt read the whole comment. Just the first few sentences. Never said that’s all you wanted. What I said was I don’t think TC would go in that direction with gears at any capacity.

Then we agree, because

1 Like

Still just bored… :sweat_smile:

1 Like