How is this game scoring lower? I don't understand it. Thought they did a good job with the remaster.

Well every Gears feel a bit different in a way not always better but that depends on what you prefer. i really loved the dark atmosphere and the horror in the first one. Also always so surprising to see many hints in story that you only understand in the later games like 'no tips about your wife'.  Doesn't get mentioned in the game anymore but it certainly does in the sequels.  Also don't forget you get the PC exclusive game segments that really adds more to the game.

I just miss all those aweseome characters that are not in the first one like Tai/Dizzy/Sam/playble Anya etc.

Good score but this is a fucking shame, we are in a generation where all the remasters are scored the same or higher, look Journey, GTAV, The last of US, etc etc

And when a REAL remake of a classic comes with real effort put on it and real value for your money, they scored it lower. The videogame journalism is sometimes a very bad joke.

^^No. Last of Us and GTAV scored higher because they were improved from a position of being just one year old. This game is nearly a decade old, not sure what people are struggling with here, you can only polish a game that old to a certain extent.

That sounds respectable for the game. Time to get back in the fray tomorrow!

Gamespot lol.

The remasters for stuff like TLOU and GTA5 were inherently better versions of games that released recently, so them scoring similarly to their original version is somewhat unsurprising. People can spend all day arguing about the direct value of remasters, but if the game is objectively the same or better than something recently reviewed, and reviewers take the time to score it again, then it doing well is logical. Gears, while definitely a significant technical jump, is ultimately still relying on 10~ year old mechanics in a genre that has come a very long way in that time.  If Sony were to do a similar independent remake of Uncharted 1, I'd expect similar results.

Onviously there are still a lot of reviews to come in, but it scoring anywhere in the 80 to 90 range seems logical to me. More than graphics would be needed to put it on par with the original. The standards for 3rd person shooters have grown for many.

(Sorry about any typos, I'm bored of correcting my iPads spell check, lol..)

Mid 80's is great but I expect it to creep up to 86/87 when more reviews come in.

I initially agreed with all of this. But when you think about it Journey, GTA V and TLOU were released in 2013/2012 so a remastered version is going to score the same because the game hasn't given time to age etc. 

But GOW was out 10 years ago meaning that the game doesn't shine as much as it did back then, and some may look back and think "that wasn't as great.." 84 is still a high and great meta but it makes sense that older games that get remastered/remade would score lower than their originals years ago.

Celador an Zekkyou, can you give me an example where cover based 3rd person shooter has come a long way in 10 years? Gameplay and mechanics of GoW are still very unique you know. Have you played the original recently? A number of people still rate it higher than later gears and for a reason. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it.