Support NeoGAF

[Drizzlehell]

Now, to answer the possible question that one may ask, which is what do these franchises have to do with each other, there are a number of parallels between them. Both are a flagship Microsoft IPs that peaked on Xbox 360, both were cherished for their engaging story campaigns and robust multiplayer components. Both received two follow ups that formed a coherent trilogy storyline, and after that Microsoft attempted to expand both franchises into a number of spin-off titles. The trajectory of both IPs slightly deviates here because Bungie stayed on for a couple more years and created two more successful games, and we also got a half-decent RTS, while Gears kinda stumbled around with a spin-off that was developed by a studio that previously supported Epic on developing previous installments and ports.

But then they aligned again when Microsoft announced that they're gonna set up new development studios, both of which will be dedicated franchise developers and got christened with names related to their respective franchise's lore.

But the difference here is that The Coalition managed to produce one respectable and one very successful follow-up and a spin-off tactical strategy, while 343 Industries started with a pretty mediocre game and things only got progressively worse from there. Honestly, I think the only redeemable thing they ever did was porting The Master Chief Collection to PC and not making it into such a colossal fuck up that was the console version of MCC. But other than that, the list of mistakes and embarrassments that they've committed it staggering. And the single most frequent excuse that comes out of their mouths is that they're under a lot of pressure from the fans of such a huge hyped up franchise.

Well, in that case maybe they should have a real talk with The Coalition and take some notes while they're at it. Maybe they're gonna learn how to steer a legacy franchise in the right direction for once.

Worth pointing out that a huge portion of what I just said is just me connecting the dots based on common knowledge about the games and their development and release history. I don't claim to know a lot about what goes on behind the scenes. Feel free to correct me on anything as long as you're not gonna seethe like a raging fanboy.

 

[Nydius]

But the difference here is that The Coalition managed to produce one respectable and one very successful follow-up and a spin-off tactical strategy

Did they though?

Putting aside Gears: Judgement, Gears 4 and Gears 5 are the lowest rated mainline Gears entries. Gears 1-3 were all regularly rated in the 9s by critics and users alike, 4 and 5 were in the 8s by critics and 7s by users. By comparison, Gears 4 and 5 are rated about the same as Halo 4 and 5, respectively.

Speaking only for myself, I really didn't care much for Gears 4 or 5 and 5 didn't capture my interest at all until Hivebusters came out. Gears feels just as dated and tired as Halo. I used to be a massive fan of both but now they feel like relics of an earlier age. There's no doubt 343 has cocked things up worse than The Coalition, but neither franchise has aged well. I've long since reached the opinion that Gears should have ended with 3, and Halo should have ended with Reach. Everything that's come after has been lacking, at best.

I don't think 343 needs to take any notes from The Coalition because they've both put out mediocre content.

 

[brian0057]

Wait, it did?
I was under the impression that everything after 3 was shit.

 

[Thirty7ven]

It didn’t though. Gears 4 and Gears 5 are very mediocre.

Expectations for Gears and Halo are completely different.

 

[Varteras]

Did they though?

Putting aside Gears: Judgement, Gears 4 and Gears 5 are the lowest rated mainline Gears entries. Gears 1-3 were all regularly rated in the 9s by critics and users alike, 4 and 5 were in the 8s by critics and 7s by users. By comparison, Gears 4 and 5 are rated about the same as Halo 4 and 5, respectively.

Speaking only for myself, I really didn't care much for Gears 4 or 5 and 5 didn't capture my interest at all until Hivebusters came out. Gears feels just as dated and tired as Halo. I used to be a massive fan of both but now they feel like relics of an earlier age. There's no doubt 343 has cocked things up worse than The Coalition, but neither franchise has aged well. I've long since reached the opinion that Gears should have ended with 3, and Halo should have ended with Reach. Everything that's come after has been lacking, at best.

I don't think 343 needs to take any notes from The Coalition because they've both put out mediocre content.

Have to agree here. I was a huge Halo fan and really into Gears. With Gears, after number 3, I was done. It ran its course with me and I no longer enjoyed the constant cover shooting and general gameplay loop. I never played 5 but I did play 4 for awhile. It felt like a slog to me. Like I was forcing myself to play. It didn't help that I found none of the new characters interesting or entertaining at all.

Halo largely became the same for me after 4. It just didn't draw me in. I didn't like the direction they took the story and the gameplay just wasn't exciting me. I played too many other games over the years that made me realize that Halo just isn't that good anymore. I've said before, I think Halo needs its God of War moment. A true formula shakeup. It could totally revitalize it. Or it could kill it faster. But honestly, if it's declining the way it is, what do you have to lose?

Yeah. I don't think either studio should use the other as an example. They both run declining IP that neither of them have been able to take back to the glory days.

 

[Hayabusa83]

New Gears has found it footing? Gears 4 and 5 were largely forgettable while the original trilogy defined the Xbox 360.

 

[PaddyOCanager]

I've only played Gears 1-3 and have been under the impression the rest were underwhelming/average at best. I've played the 343i Halos and they are not good.

So from my perspective neither have found their footing.

 

[Gone]

Because The Coalition or however you spell their name are good.

 

[TheGodfather07]

I wouldn't say it found its footing. None of the gears games after the og trilogy are anywhere near as good. For me anyway. Im sure others will disagree.

 

[Kilau]

The lastet Halo was this forum’s GOTY.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Did they though?

Putting aside Gears: Judgement, Gears 4 and Gears 5 are the lowest rated mainline Gears entries. Gears 1-3 were all regularly rated in the 9s by critics and users alike, 4 and 5 were in the 8s by critics and 7s by users. By comparison, Gears 4 and 5 are rated about the same as Halo 4 and 5, respectively.

Speaking only for myself, I really didn't care much for Gears 4 or 5 and 5 didn't capture my interest at all until Hivebusters came out. Gears feels just as dated and tired as Halo. I used to be a massive fan of both but now they feel like relics of an earlier age. There's no doubt 343 has cocked things up worse than The Coalition, but neither franchise has aged well. I've long since reached the opinion that Gears should have ended with 3, and Halo should have ended with Reach. Everything that's come after has been lacking, at best.

I don't think 343 needs to take any notes from The Coalition because they've both put out mediocre content.

That's what I mean. Maybe Gears doesn't get the kind of audience that it was getting in its heyday but as far as I can tell, both games launched to fairly positive reception, they sold well, and didn't have any noteworthy issues, either technical or with its multiplayer.

But with Halo, every single release since Halo 4 has been met with harsh criticism for the direction in which they took the story, poorly balanced combat, completely busted multiplayer, tons of bugs and connectivity issues, and overall just a conga line of bad decisions. Even Infinite, despite finally having decent combat, is well known for its bad story and poorly managed multiplayer, not to mention constant behind-the-scenes drama that doesn't spell anything good for the future of the IP.

Don't really wanna argue if either of them is as successful as it used to be because I think we can all agree that both franchises are kinda yesterday's news, but I just wonder what made one company more successful at continuing their franchise from the other.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Did they though?

Putting aside Gears: Judgement, Gears 4 and Gears 5 are the lowest rated mainline Gears entries. Gears 1-3 were all regularly rated in the 9s by critics and users alike, 4 and 5 were in the 8s by critics and 7s by users. By comparison, Gears 4 and 5 are rated about the same as Halo 4 and 5, respectively.

Speaking only for myself, I really didn't care much for Gears 4 or 5 and 5 didn't capture my interest at all until Hivebusters came out. Gears feels just as dated and tired as Halo. I used to be a massive fan of both but now they feel like relics of an earlier age. There's no doubt 343 has cocked things up worse than The Coalition, but neither franchise has aged well. I've long since reached the opinion that Gears should have ended with 3, and Halo should have ended with Reach. Everything that's come after has been lacking, at best.

I don't think 343 needs to take any notes from The Coalition because they've both put out mediocre content.

The difference is at least The Coalition TRIED with Gears 4 and 5 and put out a competent product. I don't like a lot of the fine details, writing, and staleness of Gears but compared to Infinite they not only have a TON more content in both single and multiplayer, they're more technically impressive, and there's some VARIETY to Gears environments compared to the empty shell that was Infinites open world

 

[Dr. Claus]

Gears 4/5 and Judgment are still mediocre games. They just aren't god awful trash like Halo 4, 5, and Infinite.

This is entirely due to having a decent pipeline of development.

 

[Spaceman292]

The new gears games are pretty dull and made a lot less impact than the earlier ones

 

[Kvally]

Gears 5 is great, especially Hivebusters. Gears 4 is a dumpster fire. Never played Judgement.

 

[Codes 208]

Wait, it did?
I was under the impression that everything after 3 was shit.

Comparatively, yes.

Who the hell would consider gears 4 or 5 better than 2 or 3?
I mean seriously, gears 5’s MP was broken trash for months (hivebusters was fun though, ill give it that) and gears 4 had us fight DB’s for like 2/3 of the campaign and MP was just a watered down gears 3

 

[Kvally]

Who the hell would consider gears 5 better than 3?

 

[Mossybrew]

Yeah I dunno, I couldn't even tell you when the last Gears game was, my impression is the games have definitely faded and lost fans since the glory days. On the other hand I heard a lot about the last Halo game, and I don't even own a current Xbox, but it was still a big part of the gaming conversation when it came out.

 

[ungalo]

The last Gears were just here to show that Xbox still had a big third person game that looks good and functioned more or less normally, literally, they are useless otherwise. It didn't receive the same backlash as Halo because it wasn't as much of a mess but also because people stopped caring about it. Even Gears Tactics was more interesting.

At least Halo Infinite hyped people when the multiplayer launched and the gameplay was good.

 

[IDKFA]

Everything after Gears 3 has been dire.

The series is in desperate need of a full refresh. I'm taking first person, open world, Battlefield style destruction, complete with a mature x-rated story, A-list voice actors and vehicle combat.

That sort of refresh. Instead, The Coalition have played it safe and Gears has become stale.

 

[Nydius]

Yeah. I don't think either studio should use the other as an example. They both run declining IP that neither of them have been able to take back to the glory days.

Indeed. As much as I loathe to use Metacritic as a benchmark, it's really one of the few things we have. To compare, Gears 1-3 and Halo 1-3 and Halo Reach were all awarded "Metacritic Must Play" awards, while none of the 343i Halos or Coalition Gears games have received similar honors.

The difference is at least The Coalition TRIED with Gears 4 and 5 and put out a competent product.

What is the obsession with "competent product"? Halo 4, 5 and Infinite have around the same critical scores as Gears 4 and 5. Halo 4 and 5 have around the same user scores as Gears 4 and 5. They were all "competent products", just mediocre compared to their former installments under Bungie and Epic respectively.

The Coalition "TRIED"? Tried what? You're implying 343i didn't try to do new things when Halo 5's existance and Infinite's attempt at an open world (albeit a poor one) says otherwise.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

Both franchises have gotten worse not better, Gears 3 was the last really good one IMO but the last two have easily been the worst in the series with Gears 5 being the absolute worst. The change to a female lead didn't do anything to make things better, she's boring and hard to root for and she feels the same to play as every other character in the series. I think that's a franchise that needs to go away for a while, that or get a major overhaul and become larger in scope and speed up the gameplay, get rid of bullet sponge enemies and the constant need for cover.

I know game pass hurt its sales but Gears 5 only charted in the top 20 for one month, it was number 7 in its first month then out of the top 20 its second month so clearly it's not a franchise people get that excited over anymore.

 

[Hobbygaming]

I enjoyed Gears 5 but Gears of War 4 was full and forgettable imo

I even liked Judgment more than Gears of War 4. Judgment had the cool idea of giving you a campaign from everyone's own perspective

 

[Fatmanp]

I really enjoyed 4 and 5 but i do think the series needs an evolution and to decouple itself from multiplayer. The MP is very niche and i believe the gameplay remains largely unchanged so that it can ship with a traditional mp.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

Everything after Gears 3 has been dire.

The series is in desperate need of a full refresh. I'm taking first person, open world, Battlefield style destruction, complete with a mature x-rated story, A-list voice actors and vehicle combat.

That sort of refresh. Instead, The Coalition have played it safe and Gears has become stale.

I'd go for everything there other than first person, having a game that really feels like a war going on vs constant strike team missions would be a nice change.

 

[Hobbygaming]

I think a big part of why people didn't like Gears of War 4 was the new enemies

The Locust were just so much better than the Swarm and the DeeBee robots

 

[SCB3]

Wait, it did?
I was under the impression that everything after 3 was shit.

Not shit but Mediocre

Tactics and 5 was decent but nothing beats the original 3 imo

 

[SEGA_2012]

The Coalition is one of the best gaming studios of the industry. This is the reason.

 

[Kvally]

Indeed. As much as I loathe to use Metacritic as a benchmark, it's really one of the few things we have. To compare, Gears 1-3 and Halo 1-3 and Halo Reach were all awarded "Metacritic Must Play" awards, while none of the 343i Halos or Coalition Gears games have received similar honors.



What is the obsession with "competent product"? Halo 4, 5 and Infinite have around the same critical scores as Gears 4 and 5. Halo 4 and 5 have around the same user scores as Gears 4 and 5. They were all "competent products", just mediocre compared to their former installments under Bungie and Epic respectively.

For me, I go by my personal experience. We have to remember that Halo 3 ODST was a dumpster fire and the worst scoring Halo ever, which was made by Bungie, not 343. I also thought Halo Reach was a dumpster fire even though MC has it as highly rated. Halo 1, 2 and 3 were better than Halo 4 and Halo 5. At least at the time. I have played them again numerous times via the Halo MCC, and they really haven't aged well, even with remastering.

My personal experience with Gears is that Gears 1 and 2 were awesome, Gears 3 and 4 were meh, and Gears 5 was really good.

 

[The Alien]

Gears, a series I love and still play, is a far cry from their glory days. However, I do think Gears is in a better spot than Halo at the moment.

The Coalition are wizaeds wity the Unreal engine - continuing the Gears legacy as a console graphics showcase.

Also, Gear's stories are pretty simple and straightforward. Halo's are quite convoluted.
As a result, I feel it helps The Coalition to focus on what matters: gameplay. Gameplay on Gears has improved entry after entry. From movement to game modes, etc. If rumors are to be believed, the next evolution for Gears will change things up when 6 is released.

One other advantage for Geara is that, at this point, it's almost a niche game (which may not result in more sales, but does make it somewhat unique). Halo on the other hand is tossed in with all other FPS games that get lost every time a COD title is released.

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

The difference is at least The Coalition TRIED with Gears 4 and 5 and put out a competent product. I don't like a lot of the fine details, writing, and staleness of Gears but compared to Infinite they not only have a TON more content in both single and multiplayer, they're more technically impressive, and there's some VARIETY to Gears environments compared to the empty shell that was Infinites open world

Also- Infinite forced crossplay and has a shittu skill based matchmaking system. Imagine taking a beloved console game and not giving console players the default option on input based matchmaking! Did Gears 5? Not sure but I think this is an absolute sin for a developer to force on their customers.

343 is a woke, arrogant studio with serious management deficiencies and has shown pure disdain for their fans.
Example-if you have an xb1x you cant even enjoy Halo 1 and 2 campaigns in the MCC because they introduced a severe stuttering bug 2 years ago and never fixed it despite loyal customers begging them. Nope! 343 would rather make you buy a Series X while they're too busy floundering away on Infinite and giving preference once again to the PC with fixes to MCC even though xb1x owners paid just as much $ for it (and it used to actually run decently-insanity).

MICROSOFT and Phil deserve just as much blame as 343 for letting Halo fall into such a black hole. Microsoft is probably solely responsible for the Crossplay and decision to make Halo a "free to play" service thanks to their misplaced desire to have higher player populations at the expense of an actual good experience for their loyal fans, which has had devastating consequences.

I really think that what's happened to Halo is the biggest travesty in gaming for an established beloved franchise.

 

[Kvally]

Also- Infinite forced crossplay and has a shittu skill based matchmaking system. Imagine taking a beloved console game and not giving console players the default option on input based matchmaking! Did Gears 5? Not sure but I think this is an absolute sin for a developer to force on their customers.

343 is a woke, arrogant studio with serious management deficiencies and has shown pure disdain for their fans.
Example-if you have an xb1x you cant even enjoy Halo 1 and 2 campaigns in the MCC because they introduced a severe stuttering bug 2 years ago and never fixed it despite loyal customers begging them. Nope! 343 would rather make you buy a Series X while they're too busy floundering away on Infinite and giving preference once again to the PC with fixes to MCC even though xb1x owners paid just as much $ for it (and it used to actually run decently-insanity).

MICROSOFT and Phil deserve just as much blame as 343 for letting Halo fall into such a black hole. Microsoft is probably solely responsible for the Crossplay and decision to make Halo a "free to play" service thanks to their misplaced desire to have higher player populations at the expense of an actual good experience for their loyal fans, which has had devastating consequences.

I really think that what's happened to Halo is the biggest travesty in gaming for an established beloved franchise.

I think 343 did a great job with the Halo Infinite campaign. Multiplayer however, they dropped the ball massively. No content = no players.

 

[Dazraell]

While I think Coalition made a better job with Gears than 343 with Halo after original devs left, new Gears entries still felt just okay in comparison to original trilogy

That being said, I have to give credits where credits are due as Hivebusters dlc campaign, at least in my opinion, was one of the best things that happened to this franchinse in a while

 

[Roufianos]

Sorry, but whoever designed that shitty open world section in Gears 5 where you're driving around making Marvel jokes has no clue what made the original trilogy so special.

Loved 4's multiplayer though.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I wouldn’t say Gears found its footing. It’s a boring slog.

I’d argue the Halo games have been better.

 

[Nydius]

I really think that what's happened to Halo is the biggest travesty in gaming for an established beloved franchise.

I genuinely agree with you on this but OP's assertion is that one is a dumpster fire while the other isn't.
Yet, by the metrics available to us for comparison, they're equal in the eyes of critics and players.

Either they've both found their footing or they're both dumpster fires.

 

[Roberts]

Not sure about that myself:

HI>Hivebusters>Gears 5>Halo 4>Halo 5>Gears 4. This is for SP. Other than HI and G5 Horde, I have barely played MP for any of these.

 

[kuncol02]

I've only played Gears 1-3 and have been under the impression the rest were underwhelming/average at best. I've played the 343i Halos and they are not good.

So from my perspective neither have found their footing.

Fifth is better Gears that GoW3. And DLC is even better.

 

[Fbh]

Not to sound like a hater but I think Gears isn't as big or popular as it used to be either.

Overall I think Gears has had a pretty tame evolution which worked in its favor. It has introduced new mechanics but I still get a "more of the same" vibe from it which isn't necesarily bad. Also The Coalition are great with their tech, Gears 4 and 5 were significant technical showcases for Xbox (and PC too with how well they run on modest hardware).

343 has tried some larger ideas with Halo but I think the results haven't been great. I honestly have no idea how they fucked up the story so badly, and at this point the entire F2P GAAS experiment of HI has been a shit show.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Because 343 sucks

 

[rofif]

Gears of war never found it's footing. 4 was mid and 5 was terrible.
The games are a shadow of what original trilogy was.
I would pay for gears 1-2-3 on pc though. No ultimate gears1 with terrible brumak level

 

[Codes 208]

Because 343 sucks

343 and coalition both suck. Both franchises are just shells of their former selves.

 

[Drizzlehell]

I genuinely agree with you on this but OP's assertion is that one is a dumpster fire while the other isn't.
Yet, by the metrics available to us for comparison, they're equal in the eyes of critics and players.

Either they've both found their footing or they're both dumpster fires.

Nah, I'd argue that people feel stronger nostalgia for Halo and really want it to be good so they'll latch on to anything that's vaguely positive about these games. Gears has to put in more work to impress these days, even though they're objectively more solid and more faithful to what the series is about.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Yeah I dunno, I couldn't even tell you when the last Gears game was, my impression is the games have definitely faded and lost fans since the glory days. On the other hand I heard a lot about the last Halo game, and I don't even own a current Xbox, but it was still a big part of the gaming conversation when it came out.

Too bad that a lot of those conversations aren't very positive. That just means that the community is still somewhat passionate about it (unlike Gears which everyone pretty much gave up on), but the games themselves are just trash.

Not to sound like a hater but I think Gears isn't as big or popular as it used to be either.

Overall I think Gears has had a pretty tame evolution which worked in its favor. It has introduced new mechanics but I still get a "more of the same" vibe from it which isn't necesarily bad. Also The Coalition are great with their tech, Gears 4 and 5 were significant technical showcases for Xbox (and PC too with how well they run on modest hardware).

343 has tried some larger ideas with Halo but I think the results haven't been great. I honestly have no idea how they fucked up the story so badly, and at this point the entire F2P GAAS experiment of HI has been a shit show.

Yeah, I'm not arguing which one is more popular because it's clear that Halo has a bigger following. It's more about who's better at helming the franchise and in my opinion The Coalition has done a far better job so far.

 

[Henry Panic]

Because there were 343 incompetencies that Halo had to deal with, that Gears avoided.

 

[Pelao]

Gears of War 4 and 5 are big steps down compared to Epic Games' original trilogy, though, and I say this as someone who has replayed this entire franchise in co-op a bunch of times with friends and relatives.
That said, AT LEAST it's not as bad as Halo.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

Y'all are tripping, gears 5 horde was fucking great, gears 3 horde was only slightly better because of the large diversity of enemies thanks to being able to pull from the entire trilogy; played gears 5 horde to death.

 

[jshaver488]

Gears 5 and hivebusters is fantastic.

Lol at the cope here “worst rated” “muh mediocre games”. Yea well it’s in the top 5% games ever released in terms of reviews.

 

[MadPanda]

Halo Infinite is still popular, it's amazing to play and they're doing good stuff with it lately. Their biggest problem is that they're not staffed for a big live service game by today's standards so they're not producing content as fast as fans and themselves would like to.

Gears 5 on the other hand came and went without any hype. Hardly anyone cares for that game. They even put out amazing dlc for it and put it on gamepass but barely anyone played it because people don't care.

They need to ditch that clunky movement which is required for the shotgun meta on mp and innovate beyond going semi open world and they could ignite interest again. As it is right now, they're just wasting resources and one of the most talented unreal engine developers on mediocre games. They need to do something like Sony Sancta Monica did with gow franchise which was also stagnant.

If they continue the same path, we'll have amazing looking gears 6 which will be forgotten in 3-6 months.

Thanks God Microsoft bought all those studios so they don't depend of halo and gears anymore.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Eh, originals are generally better than sequels. Gears 5 was super well crafted but ultimately boring. Halo Infinite was not well craft and is getting there but the modes and maps are pretty shit really. There in lies the rub.

Once those sorts of games are established I'm more invested in campaign and PvE stuff than PvP long term. Arena gets old and the matchmaking systems all go to shit resulting in horrible experiences that get worse the longer the title stays alive. Bungie took Destiny 1 & 2 the direction 343 should have taken Halo campaigns/modes. Respawn took Apex Legends the direction 343 should have taken Halo Infinite multiplayer. At least Gears stayed pretty true to itself, especially with the Hivebusters DLC, which is a lot more than I can say about Halo Infinite's cancelled plans for a 10 year game and fucking zero for campaign expansions.

Also quality assurance was a massive repeated problem for 343. The studio should have been gutted after MCC fiasco and Halo 5 failings and rebuilt well before Infinite's release. Clueless leadership at 343 destroyed Halo. Coalition has solid leadership.

Another point most of these live games run into is matchmaking issues of SBMM, smurfing, cheating, quitting, skill gaps based on exploits, meta upkeep, XIM/Cronus cheats etc. Honestly it's a job and a stacked squad but even then it's not really super fun winning most of the time. The games are skewed the longer the PvP is around, it's true for Gears or Halo or Apex or COD etc. A small percentage of players dominate the matchmaking pools and cheat systems to dunk on the masses, developers and platforms enjoy players with 10 accounts or more but the game and wider appeal suffers greatly. Arena for console with smattering of PC crossplay really doesn't cut it anymore for player retention. Battle Royale games offer more than just spawn and kill; abilities, looting and emergent gameplay have overtaken the predictability of arena based games.