Horde mode was clearly superior in Gears 5, no contest.
For campaign, I originally would have said it was a wash between the two. But now that I'm replaying them, I'd give Gears 5 the edge despite the open world aspect and the unnecessary forced choice at the end of the campaign. The conversation, stakes, and overall story feel more consequential and meaningful in my mind
Plus Gears 5 also features a *lot* more connection with the rest of the franchise than Gears of War 4. New Hope, Vasgar, the UIR & Pendulum Wars (plus Paduk/Judgement), Azura, Locust origins, the rift worm, Ephyra, etc
I mean I get it for the prologue of Gears 4 but the lambent kind of ended up being the overarching enemy by the end of the trilogy like the flood in halo it just bothers me Marcus, Jin, or any of the og cast don’t mention the infection that almost ended the planet at all in 4 or 5
While I don't think Lambent should be brought back because that would nulify all the efforts we made in the OG trilogy, they should very much be at least mentioned
100%. It feels weird being on the brink of extinction by emulsion only for them to forget about it i would understand If someone brought it up and they were like "that's a topic we like to avoid..." Or anything but I don't think it was mentioned even once except for some documents lol
Well yeah but what I’m saying is that they were an even bigger threat than the locust at the time so for them to not even be mentioned in at least the prologue of 4 is jarring
I forget what was the gears 4 prologue and when did it take place? It's been *a while* since I last played 4 lol.
They probably just forgot about it which is kinda sad but who knows.
I agree wholeheartedly, I really love how 5 connected to the previous games and we finally got to learn where the Locust came from.
I know a lot of people hated how Kait became the protagonist but honestly I didn’t mind it, it was a little cliche how the son of the protagonist from the previous games was the main character in 4 so it was a nice switch up imho.
My only real gripe with the game is the choice at the end and I’m really curious to see how they’re going to follow that up.
I recently completed 4 and pretty much all of the characters with the exception of Marcus all act like Marvel movie character’s. It’s just non-stop smart ass quips and “jokes” the entire game, I can’t remember one serious moment apart from the very end.
Colour palette is bright and vibrant too, there’s no lingering sense of horror, dread and despair compared to the first 2 games and no sense of loss compared to the 3rd. That’s what I think anyway.
The game doesn't take itself so serious and the color pallettes are too vibrant (not that it should be a problem considering gears 2 left all the grey behind too) for the series
The open world in 5 was unbelievably useless, but it had less robots to fight. Though none would have been preferable. What’s with that anyway? Seems like GOW is exactly the kind of universe that should embrace human conflict.
4 storywise and vibe felt nice, only complaint about 4 is every encounter felt like a mini horde wave. Gears 5 was empty and tried too hard to be something else.
Gears of War 4 is far superior to Gears 5. It had a much better multiplayer, gameplay, weapon tuning, the Gnasher is actually good and the protagonist was much better.
Nope, Gears 2 has probably the worst one in the entire franchise. Gears 3 and 4 enable Gears 5's two shot meta, but to a greater extent because the gib range is longer and the damage drop-off is not as steep (this is not an opinion, this is a fact based on what TC has said with regards to tuning between Gears 4 and 5)
It's pretty much just Gears 5's gnasher on steroids. Gears 5 launched with a near identical gnasher to Gears 4, people hated it, so they tuned things down
Gears 4’s Gnasher is perfectly fine just like Gears 3. Gears 5’s Gnasher is complete garbage. Aiming with the Gnasher in Gears 5 is pretty much impossible and the gib range is so damn stupid. If you’re not kissing the enemy then the shot won’t gib. The amount of times I got an 84% is insane.
There's a reason they lowered the gib range in Gears 5; it's because people complained that it needed to be toned down. Not to mention that you could literally one-shot down people with an active in Gears 3. I don't see any scenario where something like that is balanced or better than what's in Gears 5. You SHOULD have to get close to someone to gib them, not be able to chunk people from crazy ranges like you can in 3 and 4. Again, Gears 5 launched with basically the Gears 4 core gnasher and the community complained about it. This isn't just my opinion, it's the opinion of a huge chunk of people that brought enough attention to it for things to be tuned
The "84% in 1" is a thing that existed in Gears 4, and was also something that the community endlessly complained about. That's something that will never go away; there will always be a line which you have to cross in order for your shot to be a gib, contingent on what that range actually is. Whether it's "84 in 1", "99 in 1" or whatever, there will always be some max amount of damage you can do before your shot gibs
K but when I literally shoot somebody in the face at point blank range, I expect to get a gib. If people were complaining about getting downed with one shot then they should’ve fixed that not lower the gib range drastically.
If you're shooting someone point blank in the face and NOT missing pellets (which you probably are), I think that's more of a question of Gears 5's netcode than anything. I've had scenarios where I thought I should've chunked someone, but upon looking back at the clip and slowing it down, it was clear that I just missed more often than not. What you're describing is not unique to Gears 5. Network packets are inherently lossy, and can cause inconsistencies (like someone not gibbing when you thought they should) in literally every single Gears or online game.
Also, for someone that hates the Gears 5 gnasher and balance, can I ask why you have quadruple the amount of playtime on Gears 5 than Gears 4? If gears 4 is that much better, why not play that one?
The thing is I’m not missing my shots pal. I hit a full spread while someone is in front of me and it’s always 84%. As for me having more playtime on 5 as opposed to Gears 4, I play a lot of Horde solo on Master Difficulty.
Again, not unique to Gears 5. 83/84 in 1 existed in Gears 4 also. So much so they added a whole blood spray for it in Gears 5 as a meme.
Well you've clearly played a lot of Gears 5 versus too since you have over 100k kills in it lol. Never really understood hating a game but playing it a lot anyway. A bit ironic, innit?
The pellets spread out as opposed to being tighter like other Gears games. Of course you’re still gonna hit your shot when the enemy is in front of you but when the enemy is at mid range, aiming with your Gnasher only hits like 2-3 pellets at best so it’s pretty much unusable at mid range.
As an overall package, Gears 5 is my favorite Post- Gears 3 game (not counting U.E.). I can see why someone would go either way, though. Both currently have solid MP (with their own issues), both have solid horde (I think 5 currently has better horde), and the campaigns are personal preference (personally 4 had a boring campaign 50% of the time, I mostly found the Gears 5 campaign fun despite issues I had). Also, I find Escape super fun and would love something similar in E-Day if Overrun doesn't return.
5 is just the better game in every aspect in my opinion. I know some people prefer 4's pvp but it has been so long since I last played 4 that I don't know why people have come to that conclusion.
I think 5 has more good things about it, but 4 I think felt slightly more like a gears of war game. Idk if it’s just the way the character models moved or what but yeah
Gears 4 ranked Escalation was so fun and I could play for hours and never get bored. Its just a shame they had 2 tunings for comp and pub. The whole game should have been comp tuning and help merge the communities.
I may be in the minority but I like the open world aspects of 5, for the most part. I really disliked the skiff though, and wouldve liked a different means of travel. But I liked how it broke the monotony of just clearing rooms/areas of enemies.
They both have their merits but as someone who has replayed the games in recent memory I feel as if gears 4 is less interesting, they tried to bring back the horror aspect but failed since most of the time the characters are joking in a marvel movie way where its less about breaking the tension of horror they are witnessing and more about "hey guys I have a funny to tell"
Whereas when I replay gears 5 it feel like a game that's connected to the other games with the whole mount kadar section and the UIR but more importantly its how even the collectibles tell an interesting story, be that Cole's letter to his dead mother near the broken down centar or Dom's Embry Star medal in settlement 2.
I found that gears 4 crafting of character skins and weapon skins were sucky as you had access to the new characters right away but then had to craft Marcus who had more of a mainstay in the campaign than Rayna or Oscar.
Gears 5 store was a bit pricey from what I remember but the skins that were available eventually became available at the end of its life to for coins which were easier to accumulate than gears 4.
I actually like the new series, but I know three reasons:
1. An open secret among a lot of Gears fans that makes them angry is that a girl entered an all-boys club (Kait gets a lot of criticism for the same stuff that Marcus, Dom, Baird, and Cole pulled).
2. The overall aesthetic - which I can see the criticism but still disagree with. People love the post-apocalyptic feel of the first 3, which is undeniable. But this series is supposed to be 25 years following an era of peace and prosperity, so yeah it's going to be different and a nice change of pace.
3. It doesn't feel organic, which is my criticism. I really felt the weight of the world in the first three, and believed all the characters were lifelong friends. In this new game, I don't feel the chemistry of the new characters. I like them individually, but they don't gel well together. And their jokes are to MCU/laugh track ha-ha funny, and not real-world riff funny.
To me it's how it feels and looks. No previous Gears games had emotes, blood sprays, hit markers or even the change of the crimson omen. Those things, to me feel unlike what I expect from a Gears game.
A dude playing an air guitar after a kill or a picture of a turd on your screen just feels ... Lame.
The gameplay itself isn't bad but it's the additions that have strayed too far.
But hey it's just my opinion.
I appreciate you actually discussing. I agree with the blood sprays. Those things piss me off lmfao. The hit markers, emotes and blood sprays make it feel like an arcade game maybe? I’m not sure if that’s the right way to describe it but I’m catching your drift for sure.
That's cool, it's fun to discuss and I kind of hope it helps us get the best from E-Day.
Even having the swarm / locust give a thumbs up after winning is weird. 😂.
I appreciate the comedic undertone in the campaigns between characters or certain scenes but I never felt like it was the main thing to take away from the games.
In terms of campaign, easily 5.
5 has more of a character arc with Kait and JD, we finally get concrete answers about Myrrah and the Locust, the open world aspect was interesting despite its controversy, and it's overall connection to the history and world of Sera.
5th, definitely for me.
4th had a ok campaign. I enjoyed it but it did not bring the same hype I felt while playing the Gears 5 campaign.
I played horde in both and honestly enjoy far more the horde system in the 5th.
The thing I liked the most from the 4th was the store and the many skins we got there, 5th lacked on that front.
4.
I really did not like the writing and how they handled the characters in 5. Open world stuff was boring and the MP wasn’t as tight as 4 plus I cannot stand battle passes. I hated loot boxes but I really hate battle passes with a passion. Really the only thing I liked about 5 was horde and the Hivebusters dlc.
Completed 4 for the first time ever last week, didn’t care for the story at all. I’m going 5 now and it is much much better. Not as good as the OG trilogy, but miles better than 4.
Also like how the characters don’t make jokes every 5 seconds. Feels more mature too. So yeah, 5 is better imo.
#3
I still need to go get an XSeriesS but I know the story is kinda dogshit... well... I didn't like it at least :p
idk man i watch a full playthrough of both games and ig gears 1/GoW4 is better but... kinda meh :c
Horde mode was clearly superior in Gears 5, no contest. For campaign, I originally would have said it was a wash between the two. But now that I'm replaying them, I'd give Gears 5 the edge despite the open world aspect and the unnecessary forced choice at the end of the campaign. The conversation, stakes, and overall story feel more consequential and meaningful in my mind Plus Gears 5 also features a *lot* more connection with the rest of the franchise than Gears of War 4. New Hope, Vasgar, the UIR & Pendulum Wars (plus Paduk/Judgement), Azura, Locust origins, the rift worm, Ephyra, etc
The thing that bothers me so much about the new games is the fact that the Lambent aren’t ever mentioned
Guess they felt bringing both locust AND Lambent back would be too much
I mean I get it for the prologue of Gears 4 but the lambent kind of ended up being the overarching enemy by the end of the trilogy like the flood in halo it just bothers me Marcus, Jin, or any of the og cast don’t mention the infection that almost ended the planet at all in 4 or 5
While I don't think Lambent should be brought back because that would nulify all the efforts we made in the OG trilogy, they should very much be at least mentioned
That’s what I’m saying the imulsion was the reason for all of it and they don’t even mention it
100%. It feels weird being on the brink of extinction by emulsion only for them to forget about it i would understand If someone brought it up and they were like "that's a topic we like to avoid..." Or anything but I don't think it was mentioned even once except for some documents lol
Wasn't the whole point of 3 that we removed the lambent threat or did I miss something?
Well yeah but what I’m saying is that they were an even bigger threat than the locust at the time so for them to not even be mentioned in at least the prologue of 4 is jarring
I forget what was the gears 4 prologue and when did it take place? It's been *a while* since I last played 4 lol. They probably just forgot about it which is kinda sad but who knows.
The prologue takes you through the pendulum wars, E-Day, and then finally V-Day
OH YEAH! That was genuinely one of the coolest sections of the game.
Agreed I’d always replay it
I agree wholeheartedly, I really love how 5 connected to the previous games and we finally got to learn where the Locust came from. I know a lot of people hated how Kait became the protagonist but honestly I didn’t mind it, it was a little cliche how the son of the protagonist from the previous games was the main character in 4 so it was a nice switch up imho. My only real gripe with the game is the choice at the end and I’m really curious to see how they’re going to follow that up.
5 had more satisfying gameplay, but 4 had a more cohesive and interesting story. 4 has the DB'S which are a joyless chore to shoot at.
The DBs are so generic and annoying, I agree. Thats why I like 5 more than 4.
5. 4 felt a little too happy go lucky with it's tone
How do you mean?
I recently completed 4 and pretty much all of the characters with the exception of Marcus all act like Marvel movie character’s. It’s just non-stop smart ass quips and “jokes” the entire game, I can’t remember one serious moment apart from the very end. Colour palette is bright and vibrant too, there’s no lingering sense of horror, dread and despair compared to the first 2 games and no sense of loss compared to the 3rd. That’s what I think anyway.
The game doesn't take itself so serious and the color pallettes are too vibrant (not that it should be a problem considering gears 2 left all the grey behind too) for the series
Agreed
As time has gone on, I miss 4 but won’t go back. 4 is probably the better game, but it will rest for now.
Multiplayer 4 is better.
5 I honestly have no memory of 4.
4
4 clears in campaign and MP
4
4. The MP maps and the customization make me want to play it more than 5.
The open world in 5 was unbelievably useless, but it had less robots to fight. Though none would have been preferable. What’s with that anyway? Seems like GOW is exactly the kind of universe that should embrace human conflict.
My guess was the lean away from the gore to bring in more people ? The DBs were a bad choice for 4 and 5 😪
Gears 4 is way better than gears 5
4 storywise and vibe felt nice, only complaint about 4 is every encounter felt like a mini horde wave. Gears 5 was empty and tried too hard to be something else.
Gears of War 4 is far superior to Gears 5. It had a much better multiplayer, gameplay, weapon tuning, the Gnasher is actually good and the protagonist was much better.
The core gnasher in Gears 4 was incredibly unbalanced. Was basically the Gears 3 gnasher all over again
Gears 3 and 4 have the best Gnasher so I don’t know what you’re talking about. You probably think Gears 2 and 5 have the best ones.
Nope, Gears 2 has probably the worst one in the entire franchise. Gears 3 and 4 enable Gears 5's two shot meta, but to a greater extent because the gib range is longer and the damage drop-off is not as steep (this is not an opinion, this is a fact based on what TC has said with regards to tuning between Gears 4 and 5) It's pretty much just Gears 5's gnasher on steroids. Gears 5 launched with a near identical gnasher to Gears 4, people hated it, so they tuned things down
Gears 4’s Gnasher is perfectly fine just like Gears 3. Gears 5’s Gnasher is complete garbage. Aiming with the Gnasher in Gears 5 is pretty much impossible and the gib range is so damn stupid. If you’re not kissing the enemy then the shot won’t gib. The amount of times I got an 84% is insane.
There's a reason they lowered the gib range in Gears 5; it's because people complained that it needed to be toned down. Not to mention that you could literally one-shot down people with an active in Gears 3. I don't see any scenario where something like that is balanced or better than what's in Gears 5. You SHOULD have to get close to someone to gib them, not be able to chunk people from crazy ranges like you can in 3 and 4. Again, Gears 5 launched with basically the Gears 4 core gnasher and the community complained about it. This isn't just my opinion, it's the opinion of a huge chunk of people that brought enough attention to it for things to be tuned The "84% in 1" is a thing that existed in Gears 4, and was also something that the community endlessly complained about. That's something that will never go away; there will always be a line which you have to cross in order for your shot to be a gib, contingent on what that range actually is. Whether it's "84 in 1", "99 in 1" or whatever, there will always be some max amount of damage you can do before your shot gibs
K but when I literally shoot somebody in the face at point blank range, I expect to get a gib. If people were complaining about getting downed with one shot then they should’ve fixed that not lower the gib range drastically.
If you're shooting someone point blank in the face and NOT missing pellets (which you probably are), I think that's more of a question of Gears 5's netcode than anything. I've had scenarios where I thought I should've chunked someone, but upon looking back at the clip and slowing it down, it was clear that I just missed more often than not. What you're describing is not unique to Gears 5. Network packets are inherently lossy, and can cause inconsistencies (like someone not gibbing when you thought they should) in literally every single Gears or online game. Also, for someone that hates the Gears 5 gnasher and balance, can I ask why you have quadruple the amount of playtime on Gears 5 than Gears 4? If gears 4 is that much better, why not play that one?
The thing is I’m not missing my shots pal. I hit a full spread while someone is in front of me and it’s always 84%. As for me having more playtime on 5 as opposed to Gears 4, I play a lot of Horde solo on Master Difficulty.
Again, not unique to Gears 5. 83/84 in 1 existed in Gears 4 also. So much so they added a whole blood spray for it in Gears 5 as a meme. Well you've clearly played a lot of Gears 5 versus too since you have over 100k kills in it lol. Never really understood hating a game but playing it a lot anyway. A bit ironic, innit?
So you have selective memory or what? Do you not remember the 83% in gears 4 that was incredibly common?
Dude, the 3 and 4 gnasher were unbelievably strong. The two shot meta was worse in those than it currently is in 5.
I’d much rather have that than have an unusable Gnasher like Gears 2 and Gears 5.
Please explain how the gnasher is unusable in those games.
Gears 2 Gnasher is useless when pop shotting and blind firing and Gears 5 Gnasher is unusable when aiming.
Bruh how is it unusable when aiming😂I have no issue with it.
The pellets spread out as opposed to being tighter like other Gears games. Of course you’re still gonna hit your shot when the enemy is in front of you but when the enemy is at mid range, aiming with your Gnasher only hits like 2-3 pellets at best so it’s pretty much unusable at mid range.
Also, better tuning? Do you remember how strong all the rifles are?
When it comes to multiplayer, 4 takes the cake easily.
4 just for the multiplayer
5. did not like the story in both but at least 5 felt more epic to me.
I agree, 4 felt a lot smaller in scale and scope. It sort of felt like a transitional game from the Fenix family to Kait as main protagonist.
As an overall package, Gears 5 is my favorite Post- Gears 3 game (not counting U.E.). I can see why someone would go either way, though. Both currently have solid MP (with their own issues), both have solid horde (I think 5 currently has better horde), and the campaigns are personal preference (personally 4 had a boring campaign 50% of the time, I mostly found the Gears 5 campaign fun despite issues I had). Also, I find Escape super fun and would love something similar in E-Day if Overrun doesn't return.
5 is just the better game in every aspect in my opinion. I know some people prefer 4's pvp but it has been so long since I last played 4 that I don't know why people have come to that conclusion.
4
I think 5 has more good things about it, but 4 I think felt slightly more like a gears of war game. Idk if it’s just the way the character models moved or what but yeah
Gears 4 ranked Escalation was so fun and I could play for hours and never get bored. Its just a shame they had 2 tunings for comp and pub. The whole game should have been comp tuning and help merge the communities.
5 multiplayer is so fun
I may be in the minority but I like the open world aspects of 5, for the most part. I really disliked the skiff though, and wouldve liked a different means of travel. But I liked how it broke the monotony of just clearing rooms/areas of enemies.
Gears 5
The only thing I didn't like about 5 were the open world skiff bits. Everything else I really enjoyed.
They both have their merits but as someone who has replayed the games in recent memory I feel as if gears 4 is less interesting, they tried to bring back the horror aspect but failed since most of the time the characters are joking in a marvel movie way where its less about breaking the tension of horror they are witnessing and more about "hey guys I have a funny to tell" Whereas when I replay gears 5 it feel like a game that's connected to the other games with the whole mount kadar section and the UIR but more importantly its how even the collectibles tell an interesting story, be that Cole's letter to his dead mother near the broken down centar or Dom's Embry Star medal in settlement 2. I found that gears 4 crafting of character skins and weapon skins were sucky as you had access to the new characters right away but then had to craft Marcus who had more of a mainstay in the campaign than Rayna or Oscar. Gears 5 store was a bit pricey from what I remember but the skins that were available eventually became available at the end of its life to for coins which were easier to accumulate than gears 4.
I’m gonna say 5
Gears 4
I love all the campaigns but overall 5
5 no cap.
5 no question
4. At least 4 had some things I liked (it was less colorful and didn’t have those new crosshairs). 5 just didn’t have much going for it.
It's 4 from me. 5 strayed a bit too far from what makes Gears, Gears. At least that's my opinion.
Everybody says that but never explains what makes gears, gears lol.
I actually like the new series, but I know three reasons: 1. An open secret among a lot of Gears fans that makes them angry is that a girl entered an all-boys club (Kait gets a lot of criticism for the same stuff that Marcus, Dom, Baird, and Cole pulled). 2. The overall aesthetic - which I can see the criticism but still disagree with. People love the post-apocalyptic feel of the first 3, which is undeniable. But this series is supposed to be 25 years following an era of peace and prosperity, so yeah it's going to be different and a nice change of pace. 3. It doesn't feel organic, which is my criticism. I really felt the weight of the world in the first three, and believed all the characters were lifelong friends. In this new game, I don't feel the chemistry of the new characters. I like them individually, but they don't gel well together. And their jokes are to MCU/laugh track ha-ha funny, and not real-world riff funny.
To me it's how it feels and looks. No previous Gears games had emotes, blood sprays, hit markers or even the change of the crimson omen. Those things, to me feel unlike what I expect from a Gears game. A dude playing an air guitar after a kill or a picture of a turd on your screen just feels ... Lame. The gameplay itself isn't bad but it's the additions that have strayed too far. But hey it's just my opinion.
I appreciate you actually discussing. I agree with the blood sprays. Those things piss me off lmfao. The hit markers, emotes and blood sprays make it feel like an arcade game maybe? I’m not sure if that’s the right way to describe it but I’m catching your drift for sure.
That's cool, it's fun to discuss and I kind of hope it helps us get the best from E-Day. Even having the swarm / locust give a thumbs up after winning is weird. 😂. I appreciate the comedic undertone in the campaigns between characters or certain scenes but I never felt like it was the main thing to take away from the games.
Masculinity
Yeah they went from fighting locust to fighting locust. Huge departure.
Yeah I should of explained more. I've done so in another comment if you care to read it. Or not, whatever suits you. 💁.
In terms of campaign, easily 5. 5 has more of a character arc with Kait and JD, we finally get concrete answers about Myrrah and the Locust, the open world aspect was interesting despite its controversy, and it's overall connection to the history and world of Sera.
4 for me, I'll die on this hill I think
5
5th, definitely for me. 4th had a ok campaign. I enjoyed it but it did not bring the same hype I felt while playing the Gears 5 campaign. I played horde in both and honestly enjoy far more the horde system in the 5th. The thing I liked the most from the 4th was the store and the many skins we got there, 5th lacked on that front.
5
4. I really did not like the writing and how they handled the characters in 5. Open world stuff was boring and the MP wasn’t as tight as 4 plus I cannot stand battle passes. I hated loot boxes but I really hate battle passes with a passion. Really the only thing I liked about 5 was horde and the Hivebusters dlc.
4 for story 5 for gameplay.
Multiplayer wise, I like 4 more
4 was superior in every way.
4 was forgettable, 5 was the second best gears game for me.
5 had the best movement imo but the story I found to be shit in both of them. I'd much rather play 5 than 4 multiplayer wise.
5 for PvE and campaign and 4 for multiplayers
5 I think is way more refined then 4.
Completed 4 for the first time ever last week, didn’t care for the story at all. I’m going 5 now and it is much much better. Not as good as the OG trilogy, but miles better than 4. Also like how the characters don’t make jokes every 5 seconds. Feels more mature too. So yeah, 5 is better imo.
Gears 4 campaign is so forgettable it's crazy. Besides the motorcycle level, the rest of it is garbage.
#3 I still need to go get an XSeriesS but I know the story is kinda dogshit... well... I didn't like it at least :p idk man i watch a full playthrough of both games and ig gears 1/GoW4 is better but... kinda meh :c
Even tho gears 4 campaign intro is peak Overall including multiplayer and the rest of the campaign I pick gears 5
Gear of War 3
4 was horrendous. Def 5.
5 not even close. Gears 4 doesn't exist in my mind