They are selling an engine. Game design is not in their job description. Just like Epic. However I don't quite get why Gears of War is unanimously loved and Ryse is not. They both do very much the same thing.
Short campaign: Check
Great Visuals: Check
Repetitive enemy types and fights: Check
Stop and go arena gameplay: Check
Very linear: Check
Forgettable story: Check
QTEs without impact: Check (Reload in Gears)
Horde multiplayer: Check
´
It is Gears of Rome.
While not a big fan of Gears, this is another attempt to try to equate a game that looks to be rather shit to another game widely recognized as a (future, at least) classic by trying to draw strained, reaching comparisons that break down at the slightest inspection.
Let's see.
Short campaign: Okay, fair enough.
Repetitive enemy types and fights: Nope. I mean, yep, Gears 1 can be seen as somewhat repetitive by comparison to some of the later games in the same style, but -- for one thing -- it introduced a cover-based gameplay system that was (to most players) new at the time and thus was enjoyable based on the novelty alone. Ryse's gameplay is practically Golden Axe-old. Not the same thing. Furthermore, even if Gears' level design was fairly repetitive (courtyard after courtyard), the gun mechanics and tactical options were consistently fun and engaging, at least when compared to everything I saw in that Sessler review.
Stop and go arena gameplay: Yes, they both have that. So?
Very linear: Yes, that describes most campaigns. Being linear is not necessarily a bad thing.
Forgettable story: Yes, true.
QTEs without impact: This is extremely strained. Active Reload was a tiny mini-game. These QTEs are clearly a big part of this game.
Horde multiplayer: Yes. So? Gears also had vs. multiplayer... this doesn't... so?
