• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Cliff Bleszinski Believes New Games Lack “Heart” In Comparison

IbizaPocholo

NeoGAFs Kent Brockman

Cliff Bleszinski, lead designer and game director of the original Gears of War trilogy, recently appeared in the IGN Unfiltered podcast to promote his new book, and he candidly expressed some criticism he had of the series' newer titles. Bleszinski was far from unkind, stating "[Gears of War] 4 and 5 were really, really good," but he added that, despite liking them, he "didn't feel some of the heart" that was present in the first three games.

Bleszinski didn't elaborate too much, but he did point to one specific design choice he had a particular problem with. To keep it light on spoilers, Bleszinski explained how one of the newer titles had the player decide the fate of certain characters towards the end of the game, to which his reaction was "Dude, really?!" He adamantly pointed to the narrative decisions made by him and his team, who committed to the deaths of their characters, making them part of the set narrative canon, not allowing players to have any agency in their outcome.

It's clear he believes having the player choose which character lives or dies isn't the best way to go, at least when it comes to this particular series, stating that the devs have "painted themselves into a corner narratively," by doing this. Indeed, other games with varying endings have had such issues, in which their sequels have to somehow adjust to the two or more separate branching paths the players had available to them.

Often, games either have to choose which of the two was the canon ending and continue that story or make both endings relatively inconsequential in order to realign the narrative. Either situation basically makes the player's choice at the end of the first game lose all of its importance.

Bleszinski also touches on why the Gears of War franchise was sold off after the original trilogy. The first three games in the series are well-known Xbox exclusives, but the IP was actually owned by the developers, Epic Games, which sold it off to Microsoft later in 2014. "Epic had to keep the coffers full," said Bleszinski. He believes that after his and other Gears of War developers' departure, the company "didn't really know what to do with the franchise," and preferred to sell it in order to focus on other ventures.

 

RoboFu

One of the green rats
I agree…. Talking just about stories and plots It’s a lot like blockbuster movies. It’s a sequence of static “ emotions “ no layers, No subtle sub plots, or character depth.
 
Season 5 What GIF by Sony Pictures Television
 

I Master l

Banned
The stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance

He is getting close to the last stage
 
Last edited:

Wildebeest

Member
People joke, but Lawbreakers wasn't actually bad. It wasn't Battlefield 2042, it just didn't convince a player base to stop playing battle royales.
 

Killer8

Gold Member
It's slightly odd that he focused on the narrative flaws in the new Gears games, when a lot of people don't really care that much about the story. It's serviceable as the lube to keep the cogs turning, but it's not what people turn up for.

He's not far off when he says the new games lack 'heart', but it's for numerous other reasons - like a general lack of attention to detail, and not being brave enough to commit to the over-the-top edgy aesthetic the series is built on. When I think of Gears 4 and 5, I think of them as the PG-13 versions of the original trilogy. Like a metal band that sold out and got soft.
 

jaysius

Banned
Calling Gears 4 really really good is a bit generous but 5 was great and didn't lack any "heart"
5 was stinking shit and if it wasn't for my GamePass sub I wouldn't look twice at 6.

2 was pretty awesome, some great character moments some good times, 3 was OK too, after that it turned to shit.

The reason 2 and 3 seemed good was probably the state of gaming at the time, no real expectations for real character emotions and all that.
 

sendit

Member

Cliff Bleszinski, lead designer and game director of the original Gears of War trilogy, recently appeared in the IGN Unfiltered podcast to promote his new book, and he candidly expressed some criticism he had of the series' newer titles. Bleszinski was far from unkind, stating "[Gears of War] 4 and 5 were really, really good," but he added that, despite liking them, he "didn't feel some of the heart" that was present in the first three games.

Bleszinski didn't elaborate too much, but he did point to one specific design choice he had a particular problem with. To keep it light on spoilers, Bleszinski explained how one of the newer titles had the player decide the fate of certain characters towards the end of the game, to which his reaction was "Dude, really?!" He adamantly pointed to the narrative decisions made by him and his team, who committed to the deaths of their characters, making them part of the set narrative canon, not allowing players to have any agency in their outcome.

It's clear he believes having the player choose which character lives or dies isn't the best way to go, at least when it comes to this particular series, stating that the devs have "painted themselves into a corner narratively," by doing this. Indeed, other games with varying endings have had such issues, in which their sequels have to somehow adjust to the two or more separate branching paths the players had available to them.

Often, games either have to choose which of the two was the canon ending and continue that story or make both endings relatively inconsequential in order to realign the narrative. Either situation basically makes the player's choice at the end of the first game lose all of its importance.

Bleszinski also touches on why the Gears of War franchise was sold off after the original trilogy. The first three games in the series are well-known Xbox exclusives, but the IP was actually owned by the developers, Epic Games, which sold it off to Microsoft later in 2014. "Epic had to keep the coffers full," said Bleszinski. He believes that after his and other Gears of War developers' departure, the company "didn't really know what to do with the franchise," and preferred to sell it in order to focus on other ventures.
He is most likely talking about Cyberpunk. What I got from that article is that he wants only linear games. No player choice. Player choice bad. Bad story telling. Cop out. Cliff good.
 
Last edited:
5 was stinking shit and if it wasn't for my GamePass sub I wouldn't look twice at 6.

2 was pretty awesome, some great character moments some good times, 3 was OK too, after that it turned to shit.

The reason 2 and 3 seemed good was probably the state of gaming at the time, no real expectations for real character emotions and all that.
Nahhhh 5 redeemed the franchise for me I'm ready for more but after 4 I was definitely reluctant to touch 5 especially after the terrible marketing leading up to it plus, it looks absolutely stunning on Series X and Hive Busters was awesome too I consider that part of 5. I agree the OG trilogy is still better.
 
He's obviously not playing the same games I am, there's plenty of people making plenty of games full of character and soul. He's just mad because he hasn't been one of them in over a decade since the dudebros left him behind.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Anyone got that magazine cover that labeled Cliffy (and a few others) as the superstars of video game development ?
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Yea, if only Gears 4 and 5 had the heart and soul of Lawbreakers and Radical Heights.
Lawbreakers. lol. Cliff probably thinks new games lack gravity too. I had to google what even Radical Heights is.

His wiki shows he's done nothing notable since Gears 3 11 years ago, when in his early years he was helping churn out games annually.

Video games[edit]​

 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
Sometimes you just get older and don't identify with games the same way. It's ok Cliffy. You might just be growing up.
 

Arachnid

Member
Cliffy B and David Jaffe need to grab a beer and reminisce about the times people cared about the shit they said
Which was never lmao. Only notable content dude has behind him is Gears, but I constantly see articles about him. I love Gears, but seriously, STFU
 
Last edited:

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
Gears 4 and 5 are terrible and the trilogy is amazing. But it’s an exception. Not a rule
 

lmimmfn

Member
Cliffy B as he used to like calling himself is an idiot, sold out to console only, dissed PC, tried to develop an online game(largely requiring PC) and failed, idiot
 

fatmarco

Member
This one?

31301911_2603652276442136_2448787891715833856_n.jpg

It is funny how Cliffy B was the only one to actually live up to that billing. His credits post Unreal Tournament 1 were genuinely great.

Actually Alex Garden too to be fair had a good run, although he left Relic fairly early into the 2000s and did mostly nothing after it.
 
Last edited:

Markio128

Gold Member
I guess it’s easy to dismiss the things that guys like Cliff B and David J say, but they were the original creators of two of the biggest IPs of all time. The only reason why we get so many sequels and remakes nowadays is because there are so few of these kind of creative minds in the industry. I shake my head every time a so called gamer slags off Druckmann.
 

Mr Reasonable

Completely Unreasonable
He’s out here trying to sell a book. That’s like the last stage of being washed up. Nobody will give him money to make a game.

I reckon Cliffy is a millionaire who could get a job making games for other people tomorrow - but I also think he wouldn't throw in a life of doing whatever he wants whenever he wants unless it was something that he thought was grand enough, and or well paid enough, and it's entirely possible that job doesn't exist.

I wouldn't call him washed up though.
 
Last edited:

CherryFalls

Banned
Top Bottom