Like a boulet ;)

Good: Varied gameplay, interesting movement mechanics, solid gameplay, heavy reliance on your team. I'd say it has an interesting balance too -- but the demo doesn't really give you all of the abilities so that's sort of hard to comment on. It's probably a much different game with all of the races and abilities.

Bad: Animation is a little stiff and slow, character models are a mixed bag.

All in all, enough of a reason to at least rent the retail version. I'll probably hop on board when it's $40.

..what game did you play? I got like three hours of playtime (slight exaggeration) out of this demo. Don't listen to this man -- download it and decide for yourself. It's free.

What was so awful? This game has a slight learning curve.. is 20 minutes even enough to get an impression of the real game? I'm not sure.

Is it great? No.. but truly awful? No that's Area 51 and Hour of Victory :)

I must say though.. if these were impressions of a PC game my stance would probably be much different. What this game does offer that is compelling is being done better on the PC and for free to current Half Life 2 owners in Dystopia. Movement in Dystopia isn't as off the wall as Shadowrun, but an interesting custom load out system is there, complete with three classes and a ton of abilities.

So maybe I'm being a bit more forgiving of this because it is a console game.. and it's a pretty unique one. But I don't think the gameplay is really awful at all. It's actually nice to get a break from all of the run and gun action.. but if I wanted straight up tactical realism I'd play Rainbow Six instead.

Teleport + Shotty is truly brutal.

Wow.. have to disagree there. Gun play isn't the best I've seen in a console shooter, but it's still interesting.. teleporting is my favorite part of the game. Go figure.

It's still trash compared to a good mp game like, I dunno.. BF2. But on 360? There's really not that much to chose from yet. The only real alternatives for MP games right now are Gears of War and R6Vegas.. and sure they're both much better games.. but a lot of people are sorta burnt on that shit already.

Seriously though.. I'm not sure how you could gather all that from 20 minutes. But you can hate it, that's cool :)

On Gears of War...

I agree with Grift. It is (mechanically) an FPS well designed for gamepads.

One area where GOW was designed in a way to maximize the use of Gamepads while avoiding some of the Gamepad limitations is the game doesn't heavily rely on circle straifing. The impercision of analog thumbsticks is accented when you have multiple axi rotating independantly. Further, Gears does a nice job of using cover where you then are effectively using a single thumb stick for all aim in X/Y with no Z movement and no rotation(s).

This doesn't mean it doesn't work great with the PC, but it is an example where some of the negative aspects of a gamepad are neutralized, and the positives accented. And from there the gamepad does a great job at mapping keys intuitively.

Gears is mechanically a shooter, but the lack of twitchy FPS mechanics (percise/fast aim while moving in multiple planes) and emphasis on taking cover/stationary and then firing really de-emphasizes the biggest hurdles a gamepad has with the shooter genre.

UT is the exact opposite. Lots of straifing and jumping, VERY fast gameplay requiring fine movements and adjustments for percision aiming. Very little time for cover or stationary play.

Eh, I think a few of those games you've listed are pretty crappy.. so I'll have to disagree. Gears, Vegas, and Halo I'd put above this.. maybe GRAW too. I can't stand Call of Duty 3. I think it's pretty terrible.. but I never did get into MP in that game.

But whatever.. that's your opinion and I'm not tryin to change that.While I mostly agree with where you're going.. there is a certain amount of run and gun heritage in Gears of War. You can circle strafe with the lancer or shotty (and with the shotty, it's all about the hip shot). The only gun in Gears with relatively horrible movement is the sniper rifle.

Unlike Halo, where everything is purely run and gun.. except maybe the needler and plasma pistol :)

GOW isn't totally devoid of such, but comparing it to a twitchy FPS like Shadowrun, UT, Quake, etc where these are strong mechanics... oh, and your guy isn't a plodding, armor laden hero. The speed of other FPS makes GOW look like a snail at times.

Shadowrun is actually considerably less twitchy in some ways.. Halo would be a better comparison. Shadowrun actually penalizes your accuracy quite heavily for movement and stance, so I'm not sure it's fair to call that twitch gameplay.. but it does tend to devolve into a more run and gun style when things get crazy.

Still, the penalty for movement makes it hard to call run and gun or twitch gameplay.. there's also uber recoil on some of the weapons, and it if you don't account for how recoil punishes accuracy you can absolutely fire a weapon far too fast.. and you won't hit shit.

Moving back and forth between this and Halo is pretty odd really.. I noticed some things about the Halo 3 beta that I hadn't previously.. like a slightly clunky frame rate for one. It's not as perfectly smooth as I seem to remember it being when it came out a couple of weeks ago.. but that's probably because it's all I've been playing.

Another thing that makes Gears work so well is the variable look sensitivity. The fact that it significantly lowers your ability to turn while aiming makes aiming quite a bit easier, but it doesn't limit your ability to quickly respond to situations because when your weapon is at your hip you turn rather quickly. I also love the jump/dodge/cover mechanics in that game. It's all just very well done.. I hope they give the mp portion of the game next time in the sequel. Gears has loads of unfulfilled multiplayer potential, and that's saying a lot for a game that's already a great versus title.

I really thought the demo was kinda crap... It's too slow and the weapons don't do enough damage.... Also it's 2 bad you can only use 3 magic spells in those slots because sometimes u need one of the other ones and it's an hassle to change the spells....

Ok my 2p. I thought what they actually have in the game is really good. I think the guns/magic/tech balance is quite refined and does add a lot to the game and these are given appropiate context by the fiction. Whether it's the right use of license is debatable but it's certainly a legitimate one in my eyes. I'm sure had this been a success, there would be room for the Shadowrun RPG some so desperately crave.

The problem is it won't and that's largely because MS have sent it out to die and unfortunately it's another case of the potential here being under-fulfilled. The gameplay I feel FASA have pretty much gotten down. There just isn't enough content to back it up, especially at full price. The UI (in the demo at least) feels cheap and rushed. Graphics are pretty meh and like Grift says the character models scream for customisation. 9 maps and 3 game modes is about in line with what Gears MP had. Problem being Gears had a significant SP component with it!

I wonder if the botched idea of making it cross platform with Vista is what ruined a fairly decent idea. To spend 3 years in development and only ship what they have doesn't stand up well to the competition in my eyes. Perhaps it spent so long gimping the PC controls to work they didn't have time for much else, biting off more they could chew.

It's a shame because I think a Warhawk-esque solution would have done this game wonders. Sell on the Marketplace for a reduced price and augment with DLC. My friends would be in to this and it'd tide us over till Halo 3 but getting anyone to jump in at full price isn't likely to be do-able.

^ What Deft said.

It's ok, but no way will I buy it at full price a second hand job at best.