Gears of War 3 Delayed until Fall 2011

Originally slated for an April release, Microsoft announced last Friday that it planned to push Gears of War 3 to Fall of 2011.  Well, that just sucks.  Although I’m not trying to wait 10 years for a game like this, one does have to keep in mind that the “It’ll be ready when it’s ready” philosophy of say, Blizzard, certainly results in quality products.  Lead Gears Designer Cliffy B reminded us all via Twitter what happens if you take the bun out of the oven before it’s fully cooked.

That’s good advice, and Peter Moore of EA Sports definitely smells what you’re cooking.  Hopefully they just need 5 extra months to figure out an absurdly elaborate death for Clayton Carmine.

Except Microsoft basically said the delay has nothing to do with the game’s development, and everything to do with their sales strategy.

“Gears of War 3 promises to be the biggest entertainment launch of 2011,” the Microsoft statement reads. “The teams at Microsoft Game Studios and Epic Games have done great work thus far readying the title for release in the Spring of 2011. However, we’ve elected to move the launch of Gears of War 3 until Fall 2011 to make it the marquee title for the holiday season.”

If it is indeed purely about marketing, there are a couple of things that could be at play here. Epic’s other big game, Bulletstorm, is set to knock us off our feet on Feb. 22, 2011. Maybe they wanted to give that a bit more breathing room.

Kotaku

Definitely possible, especially when you consider what was in the next tweet after Cliff broke the news and promised a “silver lining”: Bulletstorm’s box art.

Follow Cliff Bleszinski, Design Director at Epic Games, on Twitter @therealcliffyb.

Waaa! British are Pussifying Us Too

What’s it like drinking tea while riding on a high horse? It must be especially difficult if you’re also retarded, but don’t take my word for it! Ask British defence secretary Liam Fox, who is calling for a ban on the popular war game Medal of Honor, errr Medal of HonoUr, because its multiplayer mode makes one team the Taliban [BBC video interview].

[British defence secretary] Fox is of course pissed that the game’s multiplayer mode allows one side to fight as Taliban insurgents against ‘Mericans – sorry, coalition forces. Many in this noncontroversy have gone out of their way to take offense (sigh,offence) but Fox gets special commendation. He’s assuming that because one of the multiplayer maps is set within Helmland province, where U.K. forces are based, this explicitly means the game’s killing British troops.

“I am disgusted and angry. It’s hard to believe any citizen of our country would wish to buy such a thoroughly un-British game,” the man who is not the network said. “I would urge retailers to show their support for our armed forces and ban this tasteless product.”

Kotaku

JEBUS, man way to make us look like a bunch of ninnies.  That kinda shit may fly in England, but over here that’s how you wind up fishing your tea out of Boston Harbor, bro.  And has anybody heard of the 1st Amendment over there? To be fair, I can’t single out England, it’s no better over here.  Everywhere you turn there’s someone calling for a ban on something.  Like maybe we should just legislate our way to harmony?  Ban everything that isn’t cotton candy and double rainbows? Isht don’t sink so.  It’s like no one ever read those books that they made everyone read.  Are they not making them read the same ones these days?  Maybe Fahrenheit 451 is banned now, in which case I’m all out of answers.  My head is just spinning like a top.  Bottom line: we’re pussifying ourselves enough over here in the States, we don’t need your help on this one.

Oh, and by the way.  There aren’t even any British forces in the damn game, so stay the hell out of my free market.

BBC via Kotaku