Talk:Gears of War/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

MegaDeth song

I have played the game several times and have never heard the Gears of War song by Megadeth, despite what I've read about the song being made for the game, does it actually appear in the game itself? Or just a tribute? 05:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's been some misconception of the song. The song Gears of War originally had a different name, but Dave Mustaine played GOW and changed the NAME of the song ONLY. The song has nothing to do with the game itself, it's just titicularly dedicated. 18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


There's a glaring inaccuracy under "Act 5" claiming that the lightmass bomb was never mentioned prior to this act. That is flat wrong as the colonel says "we now have the lightmass bomb" to the Lt. in the first act after the prison rescue. MartinDuffy 02:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you know that the $100 million USD factoid listed at the top of the page for the last month or so was actually unproven? The original source it had said nothing of the sort, but you'll see various gaming fansites using that information now that it has been on Wikipedia. I also recently found references that led to forums. People posting on discussion forums is no way to say that a majority of people are experiencing disc problems and the like, but that doesn't stop people from actually editing the article and putting that information in there, possibly to drive away sales or point out personal issues. I had all sorts of disc read errors with my early Xbox 360 models, and it took 3 replacements to get a good one that didn't create problems. </end rant> --Jecrell 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

According to [1], the 2 million mark of sales was made in 6 weeks, not 2 weeks, as stated. Could someone clarify this and confirm this and change it appropriately? --Nighthawkzx 15:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

At the multiplayer section, the write up on the co-op is seemingly inaccurate. To a person who has not played GOW, he/she will think that "If either player is downed while on these split paths, both characters will effectively die and co-op players will have to load the previous checkpoint.". This is inaccurate, as the surviving player does not die, per-se, but rather, he gets reverted to the checkpoint with whoever he was playing with.--Nighthawkzx 15:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Section

While I didn't put up the notice in the trivia section; it turns out that Wikipedia doesn't like trivia sections to begin with. Toss out the garbage and merge the important information with the rest of the article. --Jecrell 10:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I shortened down the trivia section a bit. I expect to be beaten with a stick for it, but there was a dead Digg URL that was used as the source of a lot of the material. Subsequently I had the trivia points with the dead Digg reference removed. It doesn't really mean they're bad references, but Trivia isn't important information to begin with, just interesting. Unimportant information that isn't cited probably doesn't belong here. --Jecrell 14:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The achievement trivia is constantly being removed and readded. I'd like some explanations on why this is such an important issue. Do these references need to be in the article at all? --Jecrell 05:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting. There's been wide interest in the media, and it's something multiple third-party sources have reported on. It's gotten much more attention than trivia such as John DiMaggio's unrelated voiceover work, Eric Nylund's involvement, Megadeth or even the connection and references to Terry Tate. It's sourced, it's true, and I see no reason for it to be deleted. Again, it's just worth noting. -- Viewdrix 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

While it's not an Achievement, on the first level you face the Kryll, when Anya tells you to "Head down the ally to your left", Dom remarks "It's Pitch Black out there!" and Marcus says "Huh..." This is a reference to the Kryll's similarity to the creatures in the movie Pitch Black.


Right, the trivia section is dead now; there's no reason to bring it back up again. So if anyone else working for the concreteness of this article sees it re-emerging I'd like the important bits merged with the article and the rest removed. Jecrell 13:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Gears currently holds the #14 spot on, with an average score of 95.0%, on their list of games with at least 20 reviews, which is their standard.

Lead Designer Cliff "CliffyB" Bleszinski cited Resident Evil 4's quick pacing and emphasis on "memorable moments" as a major influence on Gears of War in an interview with Game Informer, and promised the game would have the presentation of this game be cinematic in scope, and chaotic, destructible environments would be an important aspect of gameplay.

    • Well it was fun while it lasted. ;D --Jecrell 20:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Good joke, Jecrell. :-) Sensemaker 11:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Changed to #18 on Game Rankings --Jecrell 17:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Though they repeatedly call him a colonel the officer who talks to you after you escape the prison has stars for insignia which represents a general ranking in the U.S., a colonel's insignia is an eagle. Just a little thing that I noticed, I would have thought that the developers could keep the insignia straight.

This game takes place on a fictional planet similar to Earth. Their ranks could simply be different. For all we know the highest rank in their military is 4 Gears not 4 Stars.

The word "unanimous" should be removed from the reception section and should be replaced with "mostly". Unanimous would mean that every single critic in the world loved the game... which basically is impossible since I found a critic that didn't by easily searching google - [2] - as soon as this page is unprotected - I will remove it... No game should use the word unanimous unless you are talking about a specific population of critics and you are sure that each individual in that population completely agrees.emceepotential 16:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Hey, I updated the weapons section completely! Any tweaks, feel free to add anything you find in the game, Peace Basejumper123 04:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The weapons section seems to have disappeared (vandalism likely). I don't want to revert too far back, but let's not post huge GameFAQ-esque pages. If they are mentioned, brief descriptions with bullet points would work best. --Jecrell 17:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ya, im trying to find it, ill condense it, it was already just bullets Basejumper123 19:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Fixed, found it in history and placed it back up there, any thoughts just tell me @ Basejumper123 19:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You just reverted the huge GameFAQs-style game guide list back into the article. Please don't do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, sorry, i wrote it cause it was a mess before. Peace Basejumper123, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Alright, let's hammer this one out now. Most of the equipment in Gears of War isn't notable in themselves, being vamped up versions of existing ballistic-based weapons. However, I choose to note several weapons that are uncommon or unseen in other games of the same genre.

  • The Lancer assault rifle is the archetypal weapon of the game. The chainsaw bayonet has never been seen in a game or any other form of popular culture, and it was a heavily promoted item in game during development and extensively featured in trailers. As the most commonly used weapon in the game, I believe its mention is justified in this article.
  • The Torque Bow takes the traditional crossbow and gives it an explosive tip and the ability to penetrate surfaces, a feature not seen in most other games.
  • The Hammer of Dawn is a large-scale satellite based superweapon. Certain games feature a similar weapon, but not to the tactical scale of Gears of War, and additionally the weapon's limitations add depth to the game.

The rest of the weapons are, to my interpretation, pretty generic as far as weapons go (grenade launcher, sniper rifle, shotgun, etc.). I believe the above three weapons deserve mention for the following reasons:

  • The article does not convey the applications of the fictional advanced technology the setting possesses. A brief description of technologically innovative weapons would provide the readers with a better understanding of the technology of the fictional world of Sera and its practical application.
  • These weapons stand out from other first-person and third-person shooters in that they are either have not be used or their role has been greatly expanded through gameplay.
  • The inclusion of these three contains more significance than several other gameplay features that are included in the article. A list of game modes that are barely different from deathmatch and a shock-health system don't set the game apart as much as the fluid combat gameplay. As part of the combat side of the game, these weapons deserve mention and how they differ from other war games.
  • The section is not an extensive list of weapons. Three weapons that stand out is not a big deal is not a GameFAQs-style list.
  • If no weapons are to be mentioned, you might as well remove the whole Weapons section, as it only contains two general and ambiguous statements.
  • Other games feature (or used to feature) whole articles dedicated to weapons. Those that have been deleted have been reincorporated into their base articles as general statements with notable exceptions. As these three are, to my interpretation, notable exceptions to other games, they deserve the few lines they get.

Your turn. Why shouldn't they be included? --Scottie theNerd 06:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chainsaw bayonets have been done. They've even been done in first-person shooters before (the Chaos Marine enemies in Warhammer 40K: Fire Warrior). It's also just a gun with a bayonet. Crossbows with exploding bolts aren't new, either. Calling in tactical airborne strikes isn't new, either. (Ghost Recon 2 comes to mind.)

If you have to argue on the talk page to establish importance, you've failed to establish importance. Make the article speak for itself; explain how these weapons make GOW different or exemplify GOW's gameplay or artistic style, and back it up with references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the chainsaw bayonet is "just a bayonet", yet few first-person shooters actually feature bayonets in the first place, and Warhammer 40K: Fire Warrior only features it as an enemy weapon. Exploding crossbows aren't new, but exploding crossbows that can interact with a dynamic environment are (in GoW's case, providing a source of light to defeat a boss). An orbital laser satellite isn't an airstrike; many games allow "precision" missile strikes in pre-determined locations, but no FPS game give players a precision they can manually control over where and what to fire at (albeit in limited sections in GoW). The inherent problem with referencing game features is that manuals poorly document in-game abilities, and many game articles simply explain game features without reference to the manual or other sources, yet the information is often frightfully obvious the moment someone picks up the controller.
I am putting forward this discussion here as this is the purpose of the discussion page, and I'm sure you would rather discuss a contentious point here than to engage in an revert war. I have already attempted to show how these items exemplify GoW's gameplay and have been reverted, it is clear that I must clarify with you and other editors before I make another edit. --Scottie theNerd 07:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're planning to write this based on your personal experience with the game, that's pretty much the definition of original research, and I'd advise you to reconsider. The description of the taste and texture of various types of cheese isn't based on personal experience of the author in cheese, but in descriptions in the sources on which the article rests.

I wasn't criticizing your decision to take this to talk, but rather the fact that the text, as written, failed to establish importance. You say these differences from other games are noteworthy; I say you need to back up these assertions in some way other than "Well, I can't think of any games that have these features." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If we are to have a weapons section, I'd like it if we noted the more unique weapons with references as necessary. If that's not possible, I think it should just be summarized or merged with the gameplay section. --Jecrell 07:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In this case then, what would be a credible source to reference? The manual does provide the basics of the equipment, and the game itself is pretty clear on what they are used for. The only other source I can think of would be a professional game guide. It's not based on my experiences with the game; it's simply what the game contains but isn't specifically outlined in the manual. Apart from summarising it as part of the gameplay (which is feasible, but doesn't provide specific examples), how would you suggest citing sources for gameplay features that are not outlined in the manual or game news site? --Scottie theNerd 12:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, you did the right thing by mentioning the few specific weapons that can be considered unique to the Gears of War game. Previous variations of the weapons section mentioned every single weapon-type and provided too much detail while you singled out the unique weapons and mentioned that the other average kinds of weapons were already in the game. It could be all that is needed are article references that mention particularly how the Gears of War weapons differ from the average first person and tactical shooter titles we are all familiar with. Perhaps an IGN impressions article summarizing the experiences of using Gears specific weapons would suffice. --Jecrell 13:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I personaly think each weapon should be added as it is a feature of the game.While yes the shotgun and sniper rifle are typical, the Hammer, Lancer Rifle, and pistol are not. Someone should also add the Locust weapons as well like thier machine gun and such. Also I added to the section on weapons about how it is a similar to recent games where you can only hold so much.

--AllTeam november 30 2006

That's exactly what we don't want. We're avoiding mentioning weapons that are similar to standard equipment in most games; not every weapon is "featured" in the game, and we don't want a GameFAQs-style technical list. As I have outlined above, the three weapons I consider to be most notable are the Lancer, the Torque Bow and the Hammer of Dawn. The pistol is hardly unique: you have one weak rapid-fire pistol (like practically any other pistol in any other game) and a powerful Magnum-like pistol, which is also a common alternative. The Locust don't even have their own weapons other than the Troika gun (which is basically a dual-mounted minigun. I'm reverting your edit since your information is redundant and not an important technical detail and we are yet to establish the section's significance. --Scottie theNerd 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The manual establishes that such-and-such weapons are in the game. What you need are references to back up the claim that such-and-such weapons are unique or important. Reviews would seem to be the first place to look. EGM's Afterthoughts series is always good for an after-release perspective from a developer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The lancer itself as a weapon isn't notable nor is it's bayonet. The notability of the lancer is the fact that the bayonet uses a rag-doll physics engine. What that means is that based on how and where it is used, the environment and the "victim" are affected. After you kill an enemy with the chainsaw, the body can be moved post-mortem by running in to it. If you play the game and pay attention, the head is in two parts, like if you took string cheese and split it down to the middle. Also, the blood spray sticks to the walls and onto characters. In certain parts when you use it multiple times (this is especially noticiable in the wretches' sections) the blood drips off of the player and surrounding enemies. This is one of the first games to use the system for such purposes, and the chainsaw's use of rag-doll engines is not seen in any other game. 22:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Wasn't signed in, sorry...Kea vader 22:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The significance in that is in regard to the game's physics engine rather than the weapon. --Scottie theNerd 00:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the significance all together. The lancer is one of the first weapons in which the game's physics engine has been applied to. Normally, the rag doll physics engines have only been applied to the game in general (it first appeared in the original Ghost Recon). True, the chainsaw itself isn't new, but how the physics engine is applied to it is. The head stays in two parts after death and it reacts as such. The physics engine only applies to the other guns the same way as the engine always does in games. Shoot something, and it moves to react to the shot. But chainsaw it, and something totally new happens.Kea vader 04:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The game's physics are significantly different to other games. It can be demonstrated by the Lancer. The Lancer itself should not be the focus of a section. Additionally, other weapons also make use of dynamic ragdoll/model decal effects: the sniper rifle's headshot creates a blast pattern dependent on the point on the head at which it strikes, while explosive weapons tear character models apart based on blast location. These are all features of the game's physics, not the weapons. --Scottie theNerd 05:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, chainsaw bayonets have been seen on weapons held by characters in the Warhammer 40000 universe, specifically Chaos Terminators. I'll see if I can find an image link, but the 2nd edition of "Codex: Chaos" had images of miniatures with said bayonets, and that was published in 1996. It's hardly original. - DeadEye001 14:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about of a chainsaw bayonet in the context of a video game, not some random unit of a nerdy wargame.-- 02:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the lancer is notable because it is the iconic weapon of the series. It's the main weapon, the standard. 00:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Being the game's main weapon doesn't make it iconic nor does it make it notable in a real-life scale. --Scottie_theNerd 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing chunks of info in article

I found several spots in the article that looks like half of a sentence (or more) was just removed. I've cleaned up what I found and rewrote what I could recall from memory. Keep a good eye out for more spots. -th1rt3en 19:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the result of a sloppy copy-edit. --Scottie theNerd 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words on Cole Character

There was a sentence along the lines of "some critics say Cole is a token black character." I removed this because (a) it's a weasel sentence, (b) this is not a well-known or documented opinion and (c) the Cole character was clearly based on the existing Terry Tate character. KyuzoGator 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm glad you did. It sounds most distressing that some people consider one of this game's most unique personalities a 'token black character'. --Jecrell 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in the character section

Although I do not play Gears, I was reading and found this in the characters section "game, usama is gay Delta Squad" 04:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

edit: for some reason i was not logined

Ghostbearkhan 04:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


The gameplay sections seems to be ridden with some strange sentence structure. I don't know if its American English because i learn British English, but i have edited certain parts. If it seems not quite right, please edit accordingly.--Nighthawkzx 15:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs a more realistic camera angle when using cover

This is probably a minor issue, but the camera angle should shift to perhaps a 75-degree angle when your character takes cover. When you're hiding behind cover, there's no way you should have a clear view of what's in front of the cover you are hiding behind. Your line of sight should be somewhat parralel to the object you are leaning against, allowing you to partially see what's in front of the cover and what's behind the cover. Only when you pull the left trigger to pop out of cover should the camera angle shift to the panoramic view of what's in front. The biggest flaw of the current cover system is NOT the ability to see what's in front of the cover when in reality you shouldn't be able to, but the INABILITY TO SEE WHAT'S BEHIND THE COVER, when in reality you should have some sort of peripheral vision; in other words, the camera angle should provide A MORE APPROPRIATE BLIND SPOT when using cover. This just dawned on me when I was playing on Xbox live and was able to sneak up on someone while he was taking cover due to the inaccurate blind spot.Fighterforjc 21:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)— • contribs) 19:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Hi - I'm not sure what that has to do with improving the quality of the article? (but I do agree)--Charlesknight 21:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


How come there isn't anything on glitches or any gaming issues with the game?

Most common one is the mic issue. People join a game and can't hear other players. People try several things to fix it in-game, greatly interfering with the gameplay.

Then there are glitches on maps. One is at the Fuel Depot where on the hanger side you can get ontop of a crate, and can't get down from it. If playing execution, it is impossible to be killed by any of the standard weapons. AJFederation 09:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"If playing execution, it is impossible to be killed by any of the standard weapons." ... That's not a glitch, that's execution mode. There would be no difference between Warzone and Execution if "standard weapons" could kill. 01:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He meant that if you get on that crate, you can be downed, but you can't be executed because of Execution's rules. The only way to kill someone on that crate in Execution is Hammer of Dawn, Torque Bow, Sniper, possibly pistol headshots, or an amazingly well-thrown grenade. In Warzone, you can go on top of the crate, you can just die from being shot with the Assault Rifle. -- Viewdrix 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Bingo. Exactly that. Most objects that a player can jump on also allow them to get off. This particular crate does not allow that. As soon as one makes it up there they are stuck until the round is over. If there are no special weapons on the map, that player is invinceable. AJFederation 14:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The biggest concern expressed by almost every player I have crossed online is the communication trouble. It is inexplicable, and the attempts to remedy it interfere with the game. Some restart the match-up. Others restart their Xbox. Then there are few that actually disconnect their internet. The trouble is seen in all kinds of forms it is ridiculous to list them out. This is the only Xbox Live game that I know of that has such an issue. There is no mention of it here. Does there have to be an article posted online somewhere to include this information? Afterall, no player online can say they have never had this happen. AJFederation 14:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The recent patch resolved the issue so it's not worth mentioning now.

About the crate issue - it's not an issue. You can still kill a player with standard weapons as he's standing on the crate; all you have to do is down him 3 times. In Execution you must either be killed by a headshot, explosion, shotgun, execution style (close up shot/melee while you're down), curb stomp or being downed too many times.

Marcus Fenix

Did you know that John Di Maggio who supplies the voice for Marcus Fenix, also supplied the voice for the loveable robot Bender from Futurama.Gundam94 15:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes we know. --Scottie theNerd 16:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
i didn't i tihnk that is interesting :D it should be in the article (if it isnt already, havent read through it) Xboxandtrumpet 03:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I added a bit about John DiMaggio voicing Fenix. ~Robinson0201


Who removed the criticism section? Just because you're a fan of GoW, and you want to remove any trace of criticism, doesn't mean that there is no criticism. BTW, just in case someone starts getting angry at me, I am in fact a fan of Gears of War, but it annoys me that there are people who mess it all up. If you want to pretend that there are no people who don't like Gears of War, fine, but don't come and ruin this article. --Ras29 09:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Criticism section was on the 24th, but the section that is currently there is not relevant for this article. This is an article on Gears of War, therefore the criticism section should include information on what Gears of War has been criticized for. The current section has nothing to do with Gears of War, but instead relates to GameSpot's editorial staff and their decisions. As such, it should be removed. If editors find notable criticism of the game itself, they can add a criticism section back into the article with the information. --Rodzilla 06:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
the section in question, i.e. GoW winning Gamespot's game of the year instead of Zelda, cannot constitute criticism. it might at best an editorial or mathematical anomaly, but even so that is tenuous, because such awards are surely awarded with a fair amount of discretion. Chensiyuan 06:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Precisely, call it by some other name. Would call it 'trivia', but WP is not supposed to be a repository for trivia. Manderiko 06:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiplayer Gametype Misinformation

In the Execution gametype, you can kill a downed opponent with medium to long-range fire. To do so you must either pour a lot of fire from about medium range into your opponent or shoot them in the head.

Gore Ghoul 21:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not a particularly important detail to cover in this article. --Scottie theNerd 07:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I wrote it here because the Execution gametype is described inaccurately. Isn't the whole point of an encyclopedia to give accurate information? Gore Ghoul 19:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


I haven't played this game, but it would be great if someone could write something about the cooperative gameplay featured in the game at Cooperative gameplay#Online services. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-01-2 20:29

Nevermind, I see there's already some information in the article, I'll just use that. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-2 20:35

Spam Alert

Gears of War The Movie is a personal web page -- be on the lookout for it -- remove on sight. --Jecrell 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Link recomendation

Hi, I would like to suggest the following link as an external link - this site contais the story, and other details about GoW, in portuguese.

Thanks a lot!

Malegretti 12:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Usage of weasel words in "Future Developments" Section

This section needs a minor re-write to exclude the usage of weasel words. The "many players" statement in particular. Claims with no references have no place in wikipedia. Jmacns 19:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing weasel in it. But some idiot went through it and added citation needed. The citation is already there. If you can't bother to read the entire citation, then that's your problem. AJFederation 04:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
No need to be hotheaded over something so small. --Jecrell 10:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Weapons section missing?

This probably isn't too big of an issue, but i am feeling that there should be a section on gears of war weapons in this article somewhere, nothing too major, just thinking it should happen. Boomshot 7:59, 8 January 2007

Already covered - Gears of War features a small variety of weapons, following other first-person shooter weapons sets with assault rifles, shotguns, pistols and sniper rifles One of the most notable weapons is the game's signature firearm, the Lancer (an assault rifle with a chainsaw bayonet). Single player missions usually carry over weapons from previous missions, while multiplayer matches provide players with a smoke grenade, Lancer, Snub pistol, and Gnasher shotgun, while more powerful weapons such as explosive crossbows and grenade launchers can be found in strategic locations.

All the detail required for a general readers encyclopedia. --Charlesknight 13:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Doh, didn't see that there, my bad. Boomshot

Just highlighting this talk part to avoid a weapon section re-add. The only appropriate list of X based on the CVG project is for characters. --Masem 01:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


Someone want to explain why the citations section is MISSING? AJFederation 04:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A citation is needed as to where the dates, January 9th and January 10th, came from. --Jecrell 10:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Patch controversy applicable?

I'm tempted to write a bit under reception about the recent issue with the GoW patch, specifically focusing on the removal of the host names from Ranked matched, only because this has become a significant issue with MS' TrueSkill certification, and the like. Mind you, writing such a section in a neutral voice is absolutely necessary. However, I don't know how worthwhile it is, and put the question up for discussion before adding it. --Masem 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Has to have a source, or it's Original Research. I'd guess that if you looked hard enough, though, you could find an actual news article or report about fan objections. Or look for articles in which the removal of Host names was announced within the patch, and look at the negative comments people posted to the article (a feature on multiple sites such as Saying that reaction was negative to the specific change and using articles with negatively toned user comments as sources sounds like a reasonable solution. -- Viewdrix 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Why would these details be important to Wikipedians who are only interested in learning about the game itself? If a criticisms section is to be considered, it'd be based on harsh critic reception or a group of media personalities condemning the game over certain aspects, and not how the game 'doesn't show the host's name in ranked matches'. It also sounds like you're venting personal frustrations that would be better served on the Gears of War forums. Jecrell 10:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the title of the song used in the commercial, and the commercial itself, should be a section on here. Of recent videogame commercials, I think GOW's moved me the most, and I am not much of a gamer, and not an FPS guy at all. 05:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Anjohl

See WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you liked the commercial doesn't mean it deserves it's own section here. As far as commercials go, GOW's wasn't the most original. It's just a teaser with Mad World. --Scottie theNerd 06:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, thus any relevant information is applicable. That song has recieved massive exposure due to the commercial, and I guarentee the commerical is moving units bigtime, so at least it deserves to be there as a trivia205.251.228.10 18:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia does not contain "any relevant information", and Wikipedia too has guidelines you should read before pushing for inclusion of content. The impact of the advertisement has already been mentioned in the Mad World article; there is no need to include it here, especially as Wikipedia does not condone Trivia lists. Also, be aware that content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, so saying you can "guarantee" something is considered original research. --Scottie theNerd 02:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, What Happened to the Opening?

Its starts with a weird sentence, than goes into a paragraph about the gameplay (which sounds sort of praising) and a screenshot.--Mullon 03:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


The plot section is pretty long and it seems like it could be made into its own page. I would do it but I don't really know how and it might cause war so I'm just bringing it up here. Dan Guan 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the plot section is a tad overlong but making it into its own article isn't the solution. Maybe someone could refine the plot section? Grazi, RAmen, Demosthenes 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I did try to cut down the plot to the major elements (ignoring things like specific battles and so forth), and now it looks a lot more reasonable for a game article. --Masem 03:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot looks fine to me...


There are several broken sentances in this article. I would fix them, but they are broken in such a way as I do not know what the original author was meaning to say, and can only guess. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

'Re Emergence Day'

Around the net there has been a lot of speculation regarding December 24th and a possible Gears expansion pack. This is linked to this website:

The page has 'Re Emergence Day' as it's title, and features the date 12-24-06 clearly at the bottom. There is also a large concept art iomage present.

This can be combined with numerous text messages people have recieved. The whole thing is well detailed in this article.

Since this page is here to detail the Game in full, I feel that someone should add a small section into the article regarding this.


This has been reported as a hoax. Though Epic games is releasing an update soon as the articles update states. AllTeam 16:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


What is the point?

Of such Senseless vandalism?

And how can a game have homosexual tendencies?

  • It happens to most video game articles due the few people who don't like the game, or the people playing the game, or the people that made the game, or the people writing the articles. Vandalism will be common for this article, and it will get worse when the game's sequel is released. --Jecrell 15:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"This game was made by Zash(Zach),Keith,Dealer, And Hunter, they are the presidents of gears of wars and Xbox 360 they are also the maker of everything in gaming and almost anything you can think of.A word from us WHERE GOING TO POWN YOU..Dealer is a assasain maybe. IN the end of the game is where the people try to plant a bomb and blow up the place Spoilerdown the page more."

This looks like vandalism, can someone revert this? 13:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps putting this myspace link. Ban them or something. I changed it this time but This is at least the 2nd time. Superbowlbound 16:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Most likely someone already reverted it. --Scottie theNerd 22:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Protect this Article

This vandalism has got to stop, I request that any anon users be blocked from editing this article or something. TOO much vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC).


The story section of the article needs to show references. I've just played all of the game and very little of what is currently written in the story section is explained in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

The story is taken from the Destroyed Beauty artbook mentioned in the introduction of the article. --Scottie theNerd 12:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
We can put in the references to the pages in the Destroyed Beauty booklet; as not everyone knows where the information exists. --Jecrell 13:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


On 1/30/07 Someone has deleted the whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.heartless (talkcontribs)

Happens often, nothing to talk about. --Scottie theNerd 04:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has been vandalized again, within a few minutes of me reverting it. I suggest that it be placed under protection. Obi-Zahn Kenobi 22:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Extreme Vandalism

Can someone explain, as of February 11, why most of all the proper nouns and adjectives in this article have been replaced by a vulgar and unimaginative word called "DiDo"? I request a full page reversion please. I suggest a semi-protection as well. 01:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a registered user (check the history) that's added that. We've reverted that version, but semi-protection won't help against that since that only prevents non-registered users from changing the page. However, the user has been warned that repeated offenses will lead to being blocked. --Masem 01:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


I reverted the article twice already on the same day. I suggest a semi-protection.--Xavcam 00:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just put this article up on a request for semi-protection. --Masem 06:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Early signs of gear of war

There are also early signs of gear of war:

  • On one of the splashscreens of the early leaked techdemo of unreal 2, you see 2 Soldiers having the gear-logo on their helmets
  • You are also see these soldiers on the Unreal Engine 2 Demo at Game Developers Conference 2002
  • and on an old udn faceacting (actorx) page

Freyk 17:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

 Freyk 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Okay i will add this to the page

More Vandalism

The first three sentences of "Gameplay" are obvious vandalism. -- 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC) KeplerNiko

Fixed already. --Masem 19:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for putting my GOW wikia on the bottom of the page. Darthraul 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Darthraul

just add a bit of info

Superscript text at the end of the bit about cole being based on terrible terry tate or "triple t" no one mentioned "thrashball" which is mentioned in the game and also in the game it says that cole played thrashball proffesionally and thrashball is very similar to american football please someone add this


at the first act befor the fish in a barrel chapter carmine pick up a device which resembles the one that barid finds later. carmine tosses it down a hole and continues. i think this is it and barid found it later in the game.

This is rather obvious dont you think ? --Paul 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many of those items Carmine was carrying in the underground areas of the game - they're littered about every few areas or so. I believe they were called "GeoBots" or something similar, and the name suggests they are used to map the underground. Most likely with a single unit feeding a small bit of information about the area it's in that's then patched together with the rest of the bots. It's the same device, but most likely not the same one Carmine tossed down the hole.


Can we please have full protection on this article? For days iv seen many obvious vandalism.

Full protection is usually reserved for cases where there's editing wars and changes too often to keep up. The vandalism that happens with semi-protection can be warned and stopped against by banned repeat offenders.

--Masem 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Inside the Mind of Marcus Fenix / Story Expansion

There is a flash piece on called 'Inside the Mind of Marcus Fenix' that is loaded with lots of info and dialogue concerning the Gears of War story. I am trying to figure how to add this in. I have nearly the entire scripts down for each segment on there. They are called: What In the Hell Are They? - Safe, For How Long? - IF WE ONLY KNEW - FIGHT or DIE. So far I don't see a simply solution to adding them into the story. I may need to create a new page to the Gears of War article to add it, but I though I would get some thoughts as where it should properly be placed. I also believe that by adding this, there ought to be several other parts from the game manuals and guides, Destroyed Beauty, and some Epic Staff interviews added in. Of which should expand the story section to another article. Thoughts? AJFederation 09:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you hit the point though not the one you likely wanted: by including a lot of the extra information found from sources connected to but outside the game, you'll find so many things to add for a backstore to a video game that really doesn't belong, at least at the present time, in WP - it's more fancruft than useful encyclopedic information. I think there's nothing wrong with adding links mentioning that more story information can be found elsewhere, but unless it is absolutely critical to understanding the video game, I think it's better not to include the content on the main page. If GoW becomes a significant series, a single story page for it all may then be appropriate which can include this info, but presently, I'd refrain on adding it. --Masem 11:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reception section

A reception section should be made for the article, with references of course. For starters, this recent Yahoo! one could be sourced from.

Shrumster 11:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Queer opening

Gears of War is not the greatest game ever. It features unnecessary amounts of violence used to make children feel mature.

Doesn't the above sound like a perception, and definately not good for the opening line of the article?? SansSanity 09:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's vandalism. --Scottie_theNerd 09:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yea. If you see that yourself, please be bold (as suggested by WP) and remove the offending lines, no need to report every bit of vandalism in here, unless it's something rampant or the like. --Masem 13:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture Format

I went ahead and changed the picture format from 720p to 1080i HDTV. This is an honest mistake, most xbox 360 games are 720p. Just wanted to let you guys know ;) (1sttomars 16:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Merge from multiplayer/"Knowing the maps"

After seeing the GoW Multiplayer article that is being suggested as merging into this article, I've requested speedy deletion of it, and deleted the same material pulled in from that article into this one, basically because the information is not encyclopedic and more appropriate at GameFaqs, that "Wikipedia is not a guide game". --Masem 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree but I think if there already is an GoW multiplayer article then it should be put into this article. But you have a very good point. (1sttomars 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC))


We need to try and add achievements to the achievement section of the page...Grubish 19:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Grubish

First, FYI, new talk topics should always be at the bottom of the page (the little "+" in the tabs at the top automatically do this.
However, as to listing all the achievements, this is unnecessary, as it's game guide type material and there's other sites that cover this information. The present statement in the article on how achievements can be earn is sufficient for WP. --Masem 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Did we not have an awards section on this page at one point? --Masem 19:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I remeber there was once a review section at one point. Xavcam 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I dug an old reception version out from about a month ago, which had more reception and award information. --Masem 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The article cannot be editted at this time so do remember that that old reception section has changed EG gamerankings score changed and so Gears is NOT tied with Oblivion, it has dropped. 19:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Small stuff

I added onto the articles and erase crap that is not true.-- (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Gears Prequel

I found this article but I don't know where to put it and its late so even if I knew where I am tired atm.

Here it is:

I would very appreciate if someone did put it in for me. I'll do it myself but it will be a while before i get the chance to do it. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ 06:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Gears of War sequel/prequel

In the ARTICLE, it says they will make a prequel. It should be a sequel, because at the end of Gears of War 2, Marcus' dad sends a message which could spawn something new.--Flootures (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A prequel tells what happened before the first game, so yes, it's correct as it is. Crash Underride 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Wasn't this statement denied rapidly? I can swear I read somewhere that they weren't planning that far ahead. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reference that says so it will stay as it is.--(NGG) 12:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a magazine, so should I even bother in case some cretin comes along and vaporises it as 'unconfirmable.' (If I sound annoyed, it's because I've seen a few of those things happen recently for the strangest things.) --Thejadefalcon (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Found it.
Ten More Years of Gears?
At the New York ComicCon, Gears 2 writer Josh Ortega announced that we'll be seeing GoW for some time. "It's a ten-year plan. The Lancer is the new lightsabre," he stated. Epic Games boss Mark Rein issued a swift denial, saying it doesn't plan that far ahead.
That came from Xbox 360: The Official Xbox Magazine, Issue 45, April 2009, Page 14. Is that citation enough? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Movie info more added

I dont know how to do the refence line so i added it at the end of the article for someone to fix up. 22:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

The problem with this section is that it's whole-sale copied and pasted from the IGN website. I will not delete again to avoid an edit war, but I strongly encourage someone to paraphrase this or repeat my deletion. Until then, I'm tagging it with copyright marker. Jwoodger (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Never fear, I shall delete it. Edit wars are my speciality after this palaver (still ongoing). --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was going to leave it for a peer reviewer to remove; but a few minutes went by and I just couldn't let it stay - had to get rid of myself :) Jwoodger (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I can understand why. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Whomever keeps adding the IGN article into this article must understand that you cannot simply cut and paste it in: this violates copyright. Everytime I see this info posted, I check it against the IGN article and sure enough it's word for word. I will continue to undo it each time. If it's examined for good content, paraphrased and cited then it that would be gold! To everyone else watching this article, thanks for the support :) Jwoodger (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I hade a look at this article to see if I could paraphrase anything, but there's nothing of real use. It appears to be just an imaginative discussion of likes/dislikes from the director and writer. Jwoodger (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
And in vengeance, he/she vandalised my user page again. Ah, good times. :D --Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Technically, Gears of War is not owned by Microsoft Game Studios. I would appreciate it if someone would fix that.. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JUKEBOX12345 (talkcontribs) 17:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First, new sections go at the bottom. Secondly, why can't you fix it if it's as simple as swapping Microsoft for Epic Games? Thirdly, if it isn't that simple, some more information would be appreciated. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Second Request

Can I make a request that all text edits done by me be left alone for at least 24 hours so I can cross all of my t's and dot all of my I's before you delete anything. These edits are for a college project so I am jumping from computer to computer to try and finish. To get this done properly I need a chance to use my computer at home which has all of my stuff on it. Etad91 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you are doing this to do all these edits in a page in your own namespace (which you can create by, for example, going to User:Etad91\GearsTest and creating the page there), particularly if these edits are going to take some time to complete. You'll be able to access that user page at any location so it's a way of saving your work without disrupting the main article. When you're completed, you can then move the changes into here. --MASEM (t) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please understand

The Eurogamer source does not have fully accurate information and does not provide enough information to sustain the statement it is connected with. The source I replace it with provides more detail and more accurate information. It's also more professionally written. CrimeInvestigation&Patrol (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What don't you like about it? What part of the statement isn't supported by the Eurogamer source? Consensus is that Eurogamer is a useable, reliable source in general, so you need an actual, particular reason not to use it in this instance. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The Eurogamer source contains all the information to back up the claim in the article.
From WP: On January 27, 2014 Microsoft acquired all rights to the franchise from Epic Games. Canadian studio Black Tusk is developing the next Gears of War game for Xbox One.
From EG: ORIGINAL STORY: No new Gears of War games to be made by series creator Epic Games, it seems, as Microsoft Studios acquires all rights to the franchise and puts new Canadian studio Black Tusk in charge.
It meets the criteria for WP:RS and WP:EL. There's nothing wrong with it. The Gameplanet source is already in the article and being used in a different part of the same paragraph. Why not just keep both? The primary purpose of a source is not to add supplemental information, but rather to verify content. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The source is completely fine. ShawntheGod (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the series article is the primary topic over the first game in the series. Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Gears of War (series)Gears of War – Per WP:NCVGDAB point 5-1, there are four video games, along with several novels, so the primary name should give to the series article. CAS222222221 (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary since none of the other games in the series are simply titled Gears of War so we don't need to add 2006. For example, The Legend of Zelda series page is at The Legend of Zelda but the article for the first game only used (video game), not (1986 video game) since none of of the other games in the series are simply called The Legend of Zelda. The same applies to the first games in the Final Fantasy and Resident Evil series. In some case the year is included because another game in the franchise has the same name as the first game of the series (ie SimCity). Even The first Metroid games' article does not include the year even though the term could refere to both the series and the titular Aliens from the franchise. A similar example exists regarding the series Metal Gear and the first games' article not including the year either. In short I see no reaon to induce 2006 In the title since it does not reflect standard practice.- (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see that as necessary since other than the first game there is no other entry titled simply Gears of War and most if not all dab pages related to video game serries don't mention sequels that have different titles, I doubt that people looking for Gears of WR 2, 3, or Jusgement would type Gears of War on its own. based on that, unless there are pants to include other entries titled Gears of War in this proposed dab page I don't see it as necessary and therefore the proposed move is the best option.-- (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


I thought that maybe the way the lambent are put in the introduction might be spolierish of their role, that I think was revelaed only later into the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Spoilers are no different from any other content on Wikipedia. Lambent does not spoil anything. The casual reader will not even know what Lambent actually is until they read the setting section. You also encounter the lambent in the first Gears of War, during the opening of Act 3. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"Latest release" field

Now that Gears of War Ultimate Edition is available in North America, this would appear to be the latest release in the franchise. However, there seems to be some disagreement as the game is a remastered version of the first game in the series and not a totally new release, as next year's Gears of War 4 will be. However, as the game features new levels not present in the original Xbox 360 release, that wouldn't necessarily be true that it's just a remaster. What is the thought on this of the community? --McDoobAU93 14:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The template doc just says "The title of the most recent game in the series". It doesn't mention any requirement about it needing to be an original title so I assume it is okay to list Ultimate Edition. If anyone disagrees it should probably be brought up at Template talk:Infobox video game series so that the template doc can be updated to clarify whether remasters are included or not. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Reasonable fair to list it. If it was just a straight-up port/digital rerelease on Xbox one, that I would not include, but extra work has been put into this to make it a different title. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)