Epic Games talks about the possibility of Gears of War on PS3

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Toptube

Like it or not, the Halo series has been responsible for some of the major trends and innovations in general gaming as well as console gaming for the past 8 or so years. The reason why they might feel generic now is because everyone has aped their stuff.


*just to be clear, I'm not saying they are flawless games, or even great games. but they have changed the gaming landscape and the multiplayer IS mostly great.

What trends and innovations?

[SoCalTiger]

Originally Posted by Monkey

What trends?

Wasn't Halo one of the first major titles to limit the number of weapons you could carry? Prior to that games like Wolfenstein, Doom, etc you get all 10 weapon slots + all ammo.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by SoCalTiger

Wasn't Halo one of the first major titles to limit the number of weapons you could carry? Prior to that games like Wolfenstein, Doom, etc you get all 10 weapon slots + all ammo.

Rainbow Six did it well before Halo and Contra III Alie Wars did it on the SNES, I imagine there are more. Not that I'm a huge fan of it, some games it works well while some I wish didn't leave you with just two at a time like Resistance 2.

I don't really consider it being innovative though.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Having said what I have said thus far, I do find it a bit surprising that they would even talk about it at all.

Nevertheless, I will take a bet that Gears of War 3 will not EVER come to PS3 with anyone.

Never say never...

Microsoft don't own any part of the Gears franchise, they don't own any part of Epic Games and they don't own the underlying technology behind Gears to make a 'spiritual successor' should Gears become multi.

What they do have is shitloads of cash. I mean an absolute ton of it, and they are willing to throw it at third parties like Epic without wanting ownership rights in return unlike Sony or Nintendo require when they fund third party games.

If that cash stops coming (and it nearly did after Gears 2 tanked) you can be sure that Epic wouldn't hesitate to release it on PS3 and Steam.

Afaik, Gears 1-3, while exclusive to 360 now, have no clause about the future of their exclusivity. If they decided to publish it on PS3 via EA or somesuch, they could put Gears 1-3 on the console if they wanted. Not certain about that, but I think it is possible, and I think that is why Microsoft paid up for the next one after they heard that ME2 and 3 were going to be on PS3. It works rather like a subscription I think.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by SoCalTiger

Wasn't Halo one of the first major titles to limit the number of weapons you could carry? Prior to that games like Wolfenstein, Doom, etc you get all 10 weapon slots + all ammo.

GoldenEye on N64 only let you carry a single weapon at a time and the ammo was definitely limited...

[linkgx1]

..this would make me sell my 360!

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by Maximus

Never say never...

Microsoft don't own any part of the Gears franchise, they don't own any part of Epic Games and they don't own the underlying technology behind Gears to make a 'spiritual successor' should Gears become multi.

What they do have is shitloads of cash. I mean an absolute ton of it, and they are willing to throw it at third parties like Epic without wanting ownership rights in return unlike Sony or Nintendo require when they fund third party games.

If that cash stops coming (and it nearly did after Gears 2 tanked) you can be sure that Epic wouldn't hesitate to release it on PS3 and Steam.

Afaik, Gears 1-3, while exclusive to 360 now, have no clause about the future of their exclusivity. If they decided to publish it on PS3 via EA or somesuch, they could put Gears 1-3 on the console if they wanted. Not certain about that, but I think it is possible, and I think that is why Microsoft paid up for the next one after they heard that ME2 and 3 were going to be on PS3. It works rather like a subscription I think.

I would have never thought Banjo Kazooie would have went rouge...or Sonic for that matter. OR BANDICOOOOOOOOOT!

[Septimus Prime]

Halo was instrumental in having modern games map all the important functions to the damn shoulder buttons.

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by Toptube

Like it or not, the Halo series has been responsible for some of the major trends and innovations in general gaming as well as console gaming for the past 8 or so years. The reason why they might feel generic now is because everyone has aped their stuff.


*just to be clear, I'm not saying they are flawless games, or even great games. but they have changed the gaming landscape and the multiplayer IS mostly great.

What innovations exactly? I can guarantee you if GCN launched with a Goldeneye sequel we wouldn't be talking about Halo today. I love Reach. It's fun (super balanced). But Halo really doesn't do anything. It is only popular....'cause it caters to frat boys.

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by Septimus Prime

Halo was instrumental in having modern games map all the important functions to the damn shoulder buttons.

I have this problem in Reach. I get the granades and sheild lock confused at the WRONG times!

[kingofgrills]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Having said what I have said thus far, I do find it a bit surprising that they would even talk about it at all.

Nevertheless, I will take a bet that Gears of War 3 will not EVER come to PS3 with anyone.

Of course they would talk about it. Epic just put out this warning shot in the press to garner a higher exclusive fee from Micro$oft for the next chapter in Gears.

I hope Bulletstorm (another Epic IP) sells well on PS3. The better their results are on the console, the less likely they are to stay exclusive to Microsoft in the future.

We'll probably never see Gears on PS3 though. Never.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Rainbow Six did it well before Halo and Contra III Alie Wars did it on the SNES, I imagine there are more. Not that I'm a huge fan of it, some games it works well while some I wish didn't leave you with just two at a time like Resistance 2.

I don't really consider it being innovative though.

Discredit Halo all you want but the reason that it gets all the praise that it does is because it is the title that brought the modernized the FPS genre to consoles and proved that the FPS could be played well outside of the PC confines.

Before you start screaming Goldeneye, I said modern FPS.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by Maximus

If that cash stops coming (and it nearly did after Gears 2 tanked) you can be sure that Epic wouldn't hesitate to release it on PS3 and Steam.

With all due respect Maximus, I think the above statement about GeoW2 tanking is nothing but pure crap.

Gears of War 2 has sold over 5 millions copies. Only by Call of Duty standards would 5 million units sold EVER be considered tanking.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6209234....ewstop;title;7

Having said that given that the PS3 has made up almost all ground on the 360 sales, it may be too hard for Epic too ignore.

One scenario in which could see that MS could cut off exclusive money is that if MS has decided that they want to put all of their development dollars into the Kinect and based on what we have seen so far such a thing may not be that far fetched.

But please define the criteria for what leads you to make the statement about Gears of War 2 "tanking"

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

What innovations exactly? I can guarantee you if GCN launched with a Goldeneye sequel we wouldn't be talking about Halo today. I love Reach. It's fun (super balanced). But Halo really doesn't do anything. It is only popular....'cause it caters to frat boys.

Well it didn't. A Goldeneye sequel didn't happen and you can't hold that against Halo. There is no game that is more pointless than the what-if game.

Halo was the right game at the right time and it built the FPS genre on the foundation laid by Goldeneye.

[MerrickG]

Originally Posted by kingofgrills

I hope Bulletstorm (another Epic IP) sells well on PS3. The better their results are on the console, the less likely they are to stay exclusive to Microsoft in the future.

We'll probably never see Gears on PS3 though. Never.

everybody is playing killzone 3 in th ps3 right now so bulletstorm might be a casualty of having a release date on another well anticipated.

[Shin-Ra]

Originally Posted by Maximus

GoldenEye on N64 only let you carry a single weapon at a time and the ammo was definitely limited...

GoldenEye let you carry as many weapons as you could find. You had to cycle forward/back one by one but your collection never got too large as each level had a limited set; unless you used the all-weapons cheat! Perfect Dark was the same except Rare added the radial quick-select menu.

[Terjyn]

Bungie's own games prior to Halo had everything Halo is credited with.

It's much like Doom is credited instead of Wolfenstein-3D even though both were made by the same company.

Before you start screaming Goldeneye, I said modern FPS.

What a crock. I hereby declare that Halo is not "modern", therefore it doesn't count either. Has just as much validity as your claim.

*EDIT* BTW, I think Halo is a phenomenal game. I loved it. But not because it somehow drew a line in the sand between it and everything before it. It was just a damn good game.

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Well it didn't. A Goldeneye sequel didn't happen and you can't hold that against Halo. There is no game that is more pointless than the what-if game.

Halo was the right game at the right time and it built the FPS genre on the foundation laid by Goldeneye.

Pointless? The reason why it never took off because of Nintendo's descision to go with.....cartoon Link. And yes, you can say Halo was right place right time, but merely an evolution of the foundation before it. Just like the next great FPS will improve upon Halo. But what Halo merely did was incorporate multiplayer on a much higher scale. But this was nothing new to PC games...but for console games it was.

I'm not saying Halo is bad, as I love it. But what I'm saying is that I fail to call it the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[linkgx1]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Discredit Halo all you want but the reason that it gets all the praise that it does is because it is the title that brought the modernized the FPS genre to consoles and proved that the FPS could be played well outside of the PC confines.

Before you start screaming Goldeneye, I said modern FPS.

How is Goldeneye not modern? At the time, it was THE game? I think you are having a hindsight complex...

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by merrick97

Discredit Halo all you want but the reason that it gets all the praise that it does is because it is the title that brought the modernized the FPS genre to consoles and proved that the FPS could be played well outside of the PC confines.

Before you start screaming Goldeneye, I said modern FPS.

That is a ridiculous argument, basically you are saying any fps released at its time was modern then. FPS's were played well outside of the PC before Halo, you can't simply erase previous games and claim Halo did it first, well you can but you'd be completely false.

It has nothing to do with discrediting Halo, it simply doesn't deserve credit for being innovative on reasons that were simply already done on previous games. That actually goes against the definition of innovation