Louis Wu says this article is supposed to have three parts, so I guess this is the end. Weapons? Covered. Characters? Covered. NPC behaviors? Covered. Cover? Covered. What's left? Oh, right. Story.

Plot Holes You Could Drive A Warthog Through
Normally, when one is talking about plot holes, one is referring to elements of a work of fiction that cause the audience to lose suspension of disbelief: characters acting contrary to their nature, unlikely and unexpected events, strange conspiracies of circumstance and coincidence. Things that make you want to lean over to your neighbor and say, "that would never happen in real life".

Works of fiction in fantasy and science fiction universes have a lot of different ways to conceal those flaws: magical mysteries and high-tech mumbo jumbo. Wizards are people who can summon fireballs from thin air, and the Enterprise is a ship which, by very definition, travels faster than the speed of light. All that remains is for these fictional universes to remain self-consistent. Which they sometimes do.

Gears of War, though, has some plot holes. They're different kinds of holes. Most of the time, characters in Gears are fairly easy to understand, and act in accordance with our expectations. Since most of the time we expect them to be either kicking ass or taking names, we are not confounded when these things occur. So when something happens that does seem unexplained, it stands out. Some sharp readers already pointed out a few, but I'll try and start from the beginning.

The first time around, I talked a bit about Gears' level structure, its cinematics, and main characters. Now a bit more about some of its unique strengths and weaknesses, compared to Halo, including NPCs and weapons.

Released a full two years later and the first title in a wave of second-generation games for Microsoft's next-generation console, Halo 2 and Gears of War clearly have nothing in common, and nothing would be gained by trying to compare them. So why am I doing it? Because that's the nature of my illness. After having completed the game twice through now (still working on Act 5 on Insane) I feel compelled to write up some observations comparing the game I've spent the last two weeks playing to the game I've spent the last two years playing. Beware Gears spoilers!

I already made some remarks regarding Gears' all-things-to-all-soldiers cover system; how Frankie said it wasn't appropriate for Halo 3 (which it isn't) but wondering what Halo might have been like had it stayed a third-person game and used controls like Gears. Both games are still sci-fi shooters, though, which means they have a lot in common that has nothing to do with cover or controls. There are quite a few resemblances in a number of areas, but Gears also does a number of things right that Halo 2 didn't, and as much as I'm saying to myself now, "oh, Gears does this just like Halo" I can't help but wonder, by the end of this year, will I be asking "why doesn't Halo 3 do this like Gears did?"

---

UPDATE: Since I wrote this entry last week, it was announced that the new Halo 2 multiplayer maps will make some XBL playlists 360-only, since the maps are only being released for the 360. In defense, we've been told that most Halo 2 players are using 360s. However, Microsoft does not release breakdowns between the two consoles. Microsoft, I find it hard to believe that so many gamers have drifted away from XBL that there are more Halo 2 players using 360s on XBL than there are on the original console, given that there are three times as many original Xboxes. Players I know that have both prefer to use the original to play online because of the lag caused by emulation.

Is it really necessary to use Halo 2 maps to try and pressure more gamers onto the new platform? Is Halo 3 really so far away that you can't wait for that to draw gamers to the 360? Is two years really too long to support an online game?

If you want us to believe that original console owners really don't count, show us the numbers!

---

GhaleonB, via Louis Wu at HBO, points out that Microsoft has put out a nice press release (even attributed and with a dateline, thanks guys) touting the six million user milestone reached by Xbox Live.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love Xbox Live. While not an ardent online gamer, the service as a whole is well put togther and thought out: the integrated friends list and messaging, content downloads, gamerscore achievements; the works. The idea of separate friends lists for each game (Sony) and cryptic friend codes (Nintendo) really make me wonder what anybody else is thinking as far as online console gaming goes.

However, just because I've been a subscriber since Halo 2 launched doesn't mean I'm ready to drink whatever kool aid Microsoft is going to serve up regarding the service; and this press release is at least as interesting for what it doesn't say as for what it does say and the way it says it.