Recommended Posts

I didn't get to play very long last night since dinner and sleep got in the way. I only made it to Act 1: Chapter 4

(right after the grocery store level)

. I've been playing the game in 3D as well, and I have to admit it looks awesome. The extra depth really adds to the experience quite a bit. The only issue I've seen with 3D (that was the same issue in Black Ops) was that it's definitely "different" when you're shooting at enemies. The extra depth means it's not "flat" so you have to take that into account when firing, but even though they said the 3D was tacked on, it works really well. Can't wait to play more of the game later though. Seems like the weekend can't come fast enough.

Got my Epic Edition in a while ago, was verry impressed with the Build Quality of the Addins with exception of the Marcus Statue, feels to " Cheap ", the Statue for Halo Reach was a higher Quality then the Marcus. if you want i can put up more pics when i get home and can spread things out easier

the Case for the gamethough is awsome, its a Rubbery Felt Like Big Case that holds the COG Award, with the Game Case (Case has dog tag on front and clear except for the tag ) + Aditional stuff. seems verry sturdy. well together built ( except marcus statue )

-snip-

You put the Lancer wrong. It should be on its side. And do you have any idea how to make the paint glow at night?

I didn't get to play very long last night since dinner and sleep got in the way. I only made it to Act 1: Chapter 4

(right after the grocery store level)

. I've been playing the game in 3D as well, and I have to admit it looks awesome. The extra depth really adds to the experience quite a bit. The only issue I've seen with 3D (that was the same issue in Black Ops) was that it's definitely "different" when you're shooting at enemies. The extra depth means it's not "flat" so you have to take that into account when firing, but even though they said the 3D was tacked on, it works really well. Can't wait to play more of the game later though. Seems like the weekend can't come fast enough.

I thought the 3D was better than I expected it to be, but I wound up turning it off actually. I did enjoy the depth that you mention, but the obvious hit in the overall graphics and the AA was not worth it IMO. I just feel the game looks much, much better when 3D is disabled. Might check it out here and there a few more times, but I am not feeling as if it has to be in 3D.

Only got to the very beginning of Act II last night, playing CoOp with my friend, but so far so good. I can say just based on the Campaign I am not truly blown away as I thought I may be from all of the glowing reviews. Do not get me wrong, it is incredibly solid and really polished, but that is to be expected IMO when the game has been in development for 3 years and it is towards the end of the consoles life's cycle. I just expected more I guess, and it really is just the culmination of taking what was done in the previous games and improving on them. That is not a bad thing at all, but I think I may just be reaching a point I am getting a bit tired of all of the sequels and looking for something new. I fear I may feel the same way when playing Uncharted 3. As good as the game is, and as much fun that can be had, it is really hard not to have a feeling of been there done that at times.

You put the Lancer wrong. It should be on its side. And do you have any idea how to make the paint glow at night?

The paint is light sensitive, so put it under a light source and it glows in the dark,

As far as the Lancer, it doesnt fit any other way, the Leg gets in the way of the sight, have to break the lancer to get it to fit properly.... Another addition to the "feels cheap" catagory

I literally feel that the bust of my Halo Reach is miles better quality wise then the Marcus Bust

I thought the 3D was better than I expected it to be, but I wound up turning it off actually. I did enjoy the depth that you mention, but the obvious hit in the overall graphics and the AA was not worth it IMO. I just feel the game looks much, much better when 3D is disabled. Might check it out here and there a few more times, but I am not feeling as if it has to be in 3D.

Only got to the very beginning of Act II last night, playing CoOp with my friend, but so far so good. I can say just based on the Campaign I am not truly blown away as I thought I may be from all of the glowing reviews. Do not get me wrong, it is incredibly solid and really polished, but that is to be expected IMO when the game has been in development for 3 years and it is towards the end of the consoles life's cycle. I just expected more I guess, and it really is just the culmination of taking what was done in the previous games and improving on them. That is not a bad thing at all, but I think I may just be reaching a point I am getting a bit tired of all of the sequels and looking for something new. I fear I may feel the same way when playing Uncharted 3. As good as the game is, and as much fun that can be had, it is really hard not to have a feeling of been there done that at times.

I haven't tried playing it with the 3D off yet. One complaint I do have, other than the increased jaggies, is that because I have to wear the glasses, everything is darker than it should be, so I may try it with 3D off later, but for now, I'm enjoying it for the most part. As far as the game itself goes though, one thing is for sure, I don't like the lambent lol.

I can say just based on the Campaign I am not truly blown away as I thought I may be from all of the glowing reviews. Do not get me wrong, it is incredibly solid and really polished, but that is to be expected IMO when the game has been in development for 3 years and it is towards the end of the consoles life's cycle. I just expected more I guess, and it really is just the culmination of taking what was done in the previous games and improving on them. That is not a bad thing at all, but I think I may just be reaching a point I am getting a bit tired of all of the sequels and looking for something new. I fear I may feel the same way when playing Uncharted 3. As good as the game is, and as much fun that can be had, it is really hard not to have a feeling of been there done that at times.

I expected better as well. It just doesn't have a whole lot of variety or original ideas.

One of my main problems is the environments are completely different than what I'm used to in Gears games. There's really almost none of the cool urban decay kind of stuff that really gave the first two games a lot of atmosphere. And, so far, the levels really aren't very interesting -- it's the standard stuff you've come to expect in shooters (defend area, grab item, typical boss battle, etc). It just feels like a throwback to me more than it feels like an advancement. I felt like Gears of War 2's campaign actually advanced the series -- I can't say the same for Gears of War 3's campaign thus far (and, mind you, I'm only about halfway through it, so that can really change). Also: I felt like the story's been lacking thus far. I got much more of an emotional impact from the second game, and I also feel like it's striving so hard to be that Michael Bay-esque blockbuster, with lots of forced humor (instead of simply snide commentary every once and a while like the first two(.

I haven't played the multiplayer yet, but based on the beta I'm sure it will easily be the best of the Gears series and one of the best this console generation.

So, while it's early and my opinion could change, I'd say the singleplayer is an 8.5/10 and the multiplayer is a 10/10. Razor, me and two other people are going to continue work on the co-op campaign in a little less than an hour, so I'll probably update my opinion later in the day.

Edit: Also, off-topic, but Seriously 3.0 is the worst achievement ever, tied with the Quake 4 achievement for being the top-ranked player in the game. Whoever thought that was a good idea should be fired from Epic. Achievements should be difficult but doable -- not something that costs hundreds to thousands of hours of playtime.

I thought the 3D was better than I expected it to be, but I wound up turning it off actually. I did enjoy the depth that you mention, but the obvious hit in the overall graphics and the AA was not worth it IMO. I just feel the game looks much, much better when 3D is disabled. Might check it out here and there a few more times, but I am not feeling as if it has to be in 3D.

Only got to the very beginning of Act II last night, playing CoOp with my friend, but so far so good. I can say just based on the Campaign I am not truly blown away as I thought I may be from all of the glowing reviews. Do not get me wrong, it is incredibly solid and really polished, but that is to be expected IMO when the game has been in development for 3 years and it is towards the end of the consoles life's cycle. I just expected more I guess, and it really is just the culmination of taking what was done in the previous games and improving on them. That is not a bad thing at all, but I think I may just be reaching a point I am getting a bit tired of all of the sequels and looking for something new. I fear I may feel the same way when playing Uncharted 3. As good as the game is, and as much fun that can be had, it is really hard not to have a feeling of been there done that at times.

Even though really polished, the co-op campaign is still really glitchy/buggy. As host, I'm Marcus and sometimes when I shoot my weapon, it doesn't shoot. Or sometimes it shoots itself without me even touching the trigger. At first I thought Marcus was posessed. LOL. :laugh:

I haven't tried playing it with the 3D off yet. One complaint I do have, other than the increased jaggies, is that because I have to wear the glasses, everything is darker than it should be, so I may try it with 3D off later, but for now, I'm enjoying it for the most part. As far as the game itself goes though, one thing is for sure, I don't like the lambent lol.

Yeah, I suggest giving it a shot with no 3D. I started it in no 3D, then enabled it about an hour later, played for about 60-90 minutes in 3D, then took about 20-30 minutes of turning it on, turning it off, just to compare, and I really felt it just overall looked so much nicer without the 3D. Again though, I did enjoy the depth it provided, and I actually found it easier to shoot weapons with it enabled, but the sacrifice in graphics is pretty damn noticeable when you enable it, so ultimately I thought it was not worth the sacrifice. Once I beat the campaign, I am sure I will enable it again here and there just to enjoy it.

I expected better as well. It just doesn't have a whole lot of variety or original ideas.

One of my main problems is the environments are completely different than what I'm used to in Gears games. There's really almost none of the cool urban decay kind of stuff that really gave the first two games a lot of atmosphere. And, so far, the levels really aren't very interesting -- it's the standard stuff you've come to expect in shooters (defend area, grab item, typical boss battle, etc). It just feels like a throwback to me more than it feels like an advancement. I felt like Gears of War 2's campaign actually advanced the series -- I can't say the same for Gears of War 3's campaign thus far (and, mind you, I'm only about halfway through it, so that can really change). Also: I felt like the story's been lacking thus far. I got much more of an emotional impact from the second game, and I also feel like it's striving so hard to be that Michael Bay-esque blockbuster, with lots of forced humor (instead of simply snide commentary every once and a while like the first two(.

I haven't played the multiplayer yet, but based on the beta I'm sure it will easily be the best of the Gears series and one of the best this console generation.

So, while it's early and my opinion could change, I'd say the singleplayer is an 8.5/10 and the multiplayer is a 10/10. Razor, me and two other people are going to continue work on the co-op campaign in a little less than an hour, so I'll probably update my opinion later in the day.

Edit: Also, off-topic, but Seriously 3.0 is the worst achievement ever, tied with the Quake 4 achievement for being the top-ranked player in the game. Whoever thought that was a good idea should be fired from Epic. Achievements should be difficult but doable -- not something that costs hundreds to thousands of hours of playtime.

Yep I agree, the levels/environments, while definitely larger in size and scope and better looking visually, are pretty darn lackluster. And in my time playing it, I had at least two instances where the main objective was to turn some kind of switch to proceed out of the current environment. Definitely more throwback in approach and not an advancement.

I do need to stress, I am enjoying playing it, it is a damn fun time, and I also did play the MP Beta and I already know that will be good, and just based on all of the modes, etc. MP is where it is at I can easily say, but I also do not plan on playing all that much MP due to time limitations and other games coming out. So most of my experience will be, for better or for worse, based on my experience with the SP campaign.

Even though really polished, the co-op campaign is still really glitchy/buggy. As host, I'm Marcus and sometimes when I shoot my weapon, it doesn't shoot. Or sometimes it shoots itself without me even touching the trigger. At first I thought Marcus was posessed. LOL. :laugh:

Hmmm, cannot say I experienced anything like that at all, and I was host as well, Although most of my play time was just me and my one friend, we did have 4 people at one point, and people were coming in and out (without me even knowing at one point LOL) and I did not see any of what you are describing with the weird glitches, etc.. All I really encountered was the occasional everything freezes because everyone warps to a certain area all at once. So I actually was very, very impressed by how smooth it did run. With all that said, guaranteed now tonight I will see everything you mentioned plus more since I am sharing the fact I did not see none of it. :laugh:

Is it true they're charging $45 for all the weapon skins? Craziest DLC price I've ever heard of if true :blink:

Agreed, i was interested in the wep skins, saw the price, ill stick with my Infected Omen from the Epic Edition. So far other then the digital camos havent seen anything better

Anybody here bought "Season Pass". I'm interested if it's worth buying.

Someone could correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think you will see any benefits of the Season Pass right away, actually maybe a few weapon skin packs and animations or whatever it is, but I think the real purpose of the season pass is to secure ALL future DLC to be released at a set price with a 33% discount.

Someone could correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think you will see any benefits of the Season Pass right away, actually maybe a few weapon skin packs and animations or whatever it is, but I think the real purpose of the season pass is to secure ALL future DLC to be released at a set price with a 33% discount.

I got the season pass, and it only states map packs. So unlikly there will be anything other then map packs it goes toward. it already doesnt give me the wep skins that are avaliable now.

I got the season pass, and it only states map packs. So unlikly there will be anything other then map packs it goes toward. it already doesnt give me the wep skins that are avaliable now.

Thanks for the clarification. So it really is just future Map Packs and nothing else. IIRC it said for the release of 4 map packs to be exact.

Way I see it, at 33%, it is a good investment for those who plan on playing the game for the long haul as Ayepecks stated before.

I personally have no clue how long I will wind up playing the game, so although I was tempted as it is a good deal, I am going to pass myself. I just know my gaming habits, and I tend to go from game to game to get a new experience. About the only game I see me deviating from that pattern from is BF3.

Beat the game.

Dont really like that Dom died. I liked that character. Funny to see Carmine actually survive this one.

Good game none the less and.

Damn. Note to self. Do not read the forums on an iPad if I am currently playing the game. Totally saw the spoiler. :pinch:

I knew this too, just was not thinking. I kind of had already heard about this particular thing though, so was not a huge spoiler luckily.

Damn. Note to self. Do not read the forums on an iPad if I am currently playing the game. Totally saw the spoiler. :pinch:

I knew this too, just was not thinking. I kind of had already heard about this particular thing though, so was not a huge spoiler luckily.

I read it, hoping it wasn't something too big. Damn.

I read it, hoping it wasn't something too big. Damn.

Sorry man. It was not big for me as I had already read it somewhere else, well not the particulars, but the overall concept. But it is no doubt a pretty large spoiler.

I actually got to that part in the game tonight playing, so saw it first hand. Was handled pretty damn tastefully I thought/

The paint is light sensitive, so put it under a light source and it glows in the dark,

As far as the Lancer, it doesnt fit any other way, the Leg gets in the way of the sight, have to break the lancer to get it to fit properly.... Another addition to the "feels cheap" catagory

I literally feel that the bust of my Halo Reach is miles better quality wise then the Marcus Bust

Do you know how long the statue have to absorb light? Mine isn't lighting up. lol.

Ow, Ow, Ow, Ow. I spent yesterday evening in Horde mode, we got our asses handed on by the horde on wave 20 on Trashball. It is much more difficult. Salvaging is much more limited and there is just a truckload of locusts on the last waves.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • I grew up a Star Trek fan and never watched Star Wars movies. To this days I've not watched most Star Wras movies. As a result I rarely get these references, I have no idea what this post means. Given the popular reactions these get I have to accept I missed out.  
    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!