Resistance 2

[Antan]

Im not a tech head Arwin but if thats the explination, so be it! hehe.

[AntShaw]

Yes, I <3 the creativity behind R2 Co-op. Although there is room for improvement (just because this is the first of its kind), I think it's a strong start.

AntShaw tried to get me into a game but I didn't see his message early enough. How's your game coming along, AntShaw ?

Fantastically fun. I'm not ready to give my full write up yet for SP and MP, but I will say this (besides Rock Band 2) has taken the most of my time as of late.

One of my buddies who comes over frequently always wanted to play split screen co-op. At first we were very disappointed it wasn't like R1, but once we found we could play online together, we 'got it.' The class/leveling is fun and you can get a great team sometimes and rip through.

I am going to hold off on commenting further for now, so I can have a longer winded post for everyone to tear apart! :)

[patsu]

Argh, I should have seen your invite earlier last time.

I used to shy away from MP gaming with "strangers", but I had lot's of fun hunting aliens with like-minded gamers in Resistance.

I may be stucked with Valkyria for sometime (It's really really good !), but drop me an XMB message if you see me online next time. I'll try to pull myself away from Gallia and join you guys for a few runs. ^_^ (Don't wait for me, but I'll hop into R2 as long as I'm not in one of those hour long battles).

EDIT: I especially like the rare moments when I was the last man standing. Had to wait for others to revive (or "snipe" from far) before re-engaging the Chimeras to prevent a game-over.

[tuna]

I am a FPS newbie (only played R1 before) and I really like the R2 co-op. Even if you are crap like me you can still play a pretty good medic which makes you feel like an important part of the team. But I played to much today, now my hand hurts....

See you online tomorrow!! (I am tuna74 at PSN...)

[AntShaw]

I don't fully get the missions in the co-op. You start at with only being able to create a game using Chicago. The only way to be able to create a new game with the other levels is to complete the missions on previous levels. But, each time I play the map, the missions seem to change? On various maps depending on if I joined someone elses game. Whats the rhyme and reason behind it? I looked in the manual, didn't see anything about it, and it didn't seem that 'obvious?'

I've been bouncing around all the classes depending on the need of the group. Which has proven to be rewarding.

My one main major gripe, is communication. I have a level 9 medic, 9 soldier and 4 Spec Ops, so I have played through quite a few games, and I have yet to be on a team that everyone had a mic. A majority of the time its less then 50%.

LUCKILY, if you have a team of experienced players, you don't really need to communicate to be successful. Whether or not you want to consider that a flaw in the gameplay, I don't know. That has been the shining light I guess with most people not having any mics.

Is there some way to keep a team together and keep playing? Do I have to add them in my allies list?

[patsu]

I don't fully get the missions in the co-op. You start at with only being able to create a game using Chicago. The only way to be able to create a new game with the other levels is to complete the missions on previous levels. But, each time I play the map, the missions seem to change? On various maps depending on if I joined someone elses game. Whats the rhyme and reason behind it? I looked in the manual, didn't see anything about it, and it didn't seem that 'obvious?'


I think it's just for variety and perhaps also depend on the players in your team.


I've been bouncing around all the classes depending on the need of the group. Which has proven to be rewarding.

My one main major gripe, is communication. I have a level 9 medic, 9 soldier and 4 Spec Ops, so I have played through quite a few games, and I have yet to be on a team that everyone had a mic. A majority of the time its less then 50%.

LUCKILY, if you have a team of experienced players, you don't really need to communicate to be successful. Whether or not you want to consider that a flaw in the gameplay, I don't know. That has been the shining light I guess with most people not having any mics.


I find that as long as an experienced guy has a mic, the rest will generally follow his instructions.


Is there some way to keep a team together and keep playing?

Not that I know of. You can try to form a clan with them. This is a frequently asked question. I am pretty sure Insomniac knows about the request. Hopefully they get around to implement it (i.e., without signing them explicitly as your party).

[AntShaw]

In regards to the maps and missions, there has to be something specific to it. I forget what the 2nd level you unlock is, maybe Orick, but I just unlocked that one, and can now create games with that map. But I can only create Chicago and Orick. Now looking at the next couple of maps I'm close to unlocking them (i.e. 7/10 missions complete.)

I know for a fact that there aren't 10 missions available each time I play, and most of the time you only get 5-6 missions per play. So what exactly is the determining factor? Is it random? There has to be some reason behind it.

And it's unfortunate about maintaining a team. It's near impossible to try and get those players to join a new game, especially if they aren't mic'ed.

With that said....I'm still playing...and looking forward to getting home from work to play some more!

What resolution does the game drop down to when you play split screen co-op?

[patsu]

Might want to post those questions on the Resistance official forum. Jstevenson is probably the best person to answer them.

[AntShaw]

Might want to post those questions on the Resistance official forum. Jstevenson is probably the best person to answer them.

Aye...I try to keep my forum visits to other sites to a minimum (you know, I only have SO much free time at work ;)), but alas I agree this may warrant me going somewhere else.

[AntShaw]

So...

Assuming you create all the games you play, you begin in the map of Chicago. Chicago has a total of 10 possible missions you can play, although the missions are usually repetitive involving battling in the different areas of the city, the alleys, the reconstruction, the subway, the park, and the museum. After the completion of at least 5 successful tours of duty in the city, and recovering 5 pieces of 'Gray Tech' you may advance to the city of Orick. This play style is similar throughout all the maps, the only thing differing is the number of completed mission necessary to advance in most cases.

http://resistance2forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=70

Some good basic info that I haven't been able to find anywhere all in one place. Thanks for the heads up Patsu!

[betan]

I wouldn't want to continue playing different maps with same 7 people to be honest, unless we are all buddies wasting time. Part of the replay value comes from randomness of the squad.

As for the mics, I have to say I encountered more kids with mics in R2 than R1 already, which makes me worry a little. I rather prefer the kids don't have mikes at all, yes I'm an agist. Fortunately adult/kid ratio is still very high.

If things go similar to R1, more serious players, possibly because of clans, will get mics, and in the end there will be lots of mature people to chat with.

As I said it before though, the only mic you need in coop is the one you have, in case you are playing in an all-noob squad.

[RenegadeRocks]

Just recieved the game in courier :D !Though I wouldn't be able to play till January (away from PS3) I got so excited I Put on Rammstein's "Feuer frei(Bang Bang!)" and Metallica's - "All Nightmare Long(Hunt you down without Mercy !!)" on my phone and had a walk in the park with my earphones on full blast for half an hour, imagining myself killing Chimera with my Carbine :D !

The only thing I can do is stare at the box and read the manual and I say, I am dissappointed with both. The Manual is so pathetic , the R1 manual was better, even the First KIlzzone on PS2 had a better and more interesting manual :evil: ! Looks like Insomniac had to rush with everything this time or some talented artist has left Insomniac.

Anyways , can't wait for January, I am salivating over the Sp campaign and Co-op ! Though people might be over with co-op by the time I come in :(!

[AntShaw]

So, if you go into the allies screen, you can add any of your 'friends' to your current party and you can maintain party integrity.

If anyone is looking to play, go ahead and add me (AntShaw)

[Spyroviper]

I rentedthis game over the weekend and completed it. As with the first game, I wasn't really impressed by it. Its mainly down to the niggly small details that spoil things for me such as very poor trees/bushes in areas.. I actually saw branches hovering in mid air instead of being part of the tree model. Very poor blood pools (looks like spilt ketchup) and unable to shoot through grating on bridges/fences.


Gameplay elements were better though such as the aiming and general level design. But not enough small details to make me 'oooaaahhh' at the game.

[Mize]

I just started Gears 2 after finishing R2 a few weeks ago and I must say that, so far, I vastly prefer R2. Gears 2 is just more of Gears 1 so far. I prefer cover-and-shoot games in general, but R2 was just more engrossing from the beginning...we'll see as I get more into Gears 2 if that holds. No R2 multiplayer yet as I loaned it out to a friend for the single player.

[JPT]

I finished SP during the weekend and it was worth the money for that alone. Some places I got the same feeling I had with Gears 1, ie that they basically run out of ideas/time and basically just chucked in 1 extra titan etc. I can not remember that I had this feeling when I played R1, but then again I finished R1 so that I knew the story before R2 came out.

As for immersion, it had me hooked and for those that say the story is weak, well I don't expect epic stuff anyway and it was good enough for me. It at least made me want to continue to the end, lots of games doesn't do that for me.

Now CO-OP is the bomb, but I suck, at least it lets me live longer and get some kills, which I never will be able to in competitive :)

[Cheezdoodles]

Just recieved the game in courier :D !Though I wouldn't be able to play till January (away from PS3)

May i ask why you ordered the game upon release when it will be cheaper in january when you have the ability to play the game?

[BoardBonobo]

I just started Gears 2 after finishing R2 a few weeks ago and I must say that, so far, I vastly prefer R2. Gears 2 is just more of Gears 1 so far. I prefer cover-and-shoot games in general, but R2 was just more engrossing from the beginning...we'll see as I get more into Gears 2 if that holds. No R2 multiplayer yet as I loaned it out to a friend for the single player.

That was exactly how I felt. Though I did it the other way around, finished GoW2 first and then did R2. Some sections of GoW2 felt like something new and improved, but overall it was just like an addon rather than something new.

With R2 I was expecting the experience to more bland than it was, I admit I rather missed the narrative but the additional effort required to intel to flesh out the story was fun. The online is pretty engrossing but I haven't really had chance to delve in yet. I started as a Medic and instantly had people demand I heal them! Besides which I've just bought a Wii with Wii Fit and a steering wheel for Mario Kart and am now hanging up my serious gamer gloves to join the casuals...lol!

[patsu]

I just started Gears 2 after finishing R2 a few weeks ago and I must say that, so far, I vastly prefer R2. Gears 2 is just more of Gears 1 so far. I prefer cover-and-shoot games in general, but R2 was just more engrossing from the beginning...we'll see as I get more into Gears 2 if that holds. No R2 multiplayer yet as I loaned it out to a friend for the single player.

If Insomniac continues to invest in the 8P Co-op, I think they will be able to grow a sizable fanbase. It's really very unique (albeit not perfect)

[Cornsnake]

The single player is very good, but I'm still missing the old health system and weapon wheel at every turn. The old health system was a lot more forging but still fair. Because you cared for every piece of the health bar, you were a lot more careful and had to plan your moves better. And weapon wheel would have made the game feel a lot less linear, nor would you run out of ammo and struggling to find some in a fire fight. Experimenting with the different weapon and strategies was the best thing about Rfom. I do like the ending, R3 will have a lot of explaining to do.

The co-op is excellent. It's intense with chimera's coming from every direction, forcing the team to work together, or they'll fail.

The competitive mode is.... well I loved Rfom online, playing clanwar was some of the best times I've had playing games, and R2 competitive is IMO plain and simple crap. All of the guns are dumbed down, and require no skill to use. The berserks completely throw the gameplay off balance, because you can now expect to be one shot killed by either the Laark or Pulse rifle once every minute. There is absolutely no sense of accomplishment, and no way to have a decent battle of skill between players. Now you die because the other player used a berserk, or shot you from behind, or you were outnumbered. And you always find yourself caring the wrong weapon for the situation. But all is not lost, Insomniac is working on what they call a big patch, bigger then the day one patch. They haven't said what it'll do or when it's going to be released, but hopefully it brings a lot of changes. After all the negative feedback they received from both beta's and now that the game is released, hopefully they have taken it to heart and improve the game with it.

[Mize]

I should have also said that, up until R2, Gears1 was probably my favorite console FPS to date. I don't know why I was expecting more from Gears2, but I guess I was.

[Kittonwy]

The single player is very good, but I'm still missing the old health system and weapon wheel at every turn. The old health system was a lot more forging but still fair. Because you cared for every piece of the health bar, you were a lot more careful and had to plan your moves better. And weapon wheel would have made the game feel a lot less linear, nor would you run out of ammo and struggling to find some in a fire fight. Experimenting with the different weapon and strategies was the best thing about Rfom. I do like the ending, R3 will have a lot of explaining to do.

The co-op is excellent. It's intense with chimera's coming from every direction, forcing the team to work together, or they'll fail.

The competitive mode is.... well I loved Rfom online, playing clanwar was some of the best times I've had playing games, and R2 competitive is IMO plain and simple crap. All of the guns are dumbed down, and require no skill to use. The berserks completely throw the gameplay off balance, because you can now expect to be one shot killed by either the Laark or Pulse rifle once every minute. There is absolutely no sense of accomplishment, and no way to have a decent battle of skill between players. Now you die because the other player used a berserk, or shot you from behind, or you were outnumbered. And you always find yourself caring the wrong weapon for the situation. But all is not lost, Insomniac is working on what they call a big patch, bigger then the day one patch. They haven't said what it'll do or when it's going to be released, but hopefully it brings a lot of changes. After all the negative feedback they received from both beta's and now that the game is released, hopefully they have taken it to heart and improve the game with it.

To make each kill satisfying is a substantial undertaking in terms of balancing EVERYTHING, from damage to movement to turning. I think the berserk really presents a MAJOR challenge to damaging tuning because it's so overwhelming, there are a lot of good ideas in R2 MP, but they needed time to tune.

[betan]

The competitive mode is.... well I loved Rfom online, playing clanwar was some of the best times I've had playing games, and R2 competitive is IMO plain and simple crap. All of the guns are dumbed down, and require no skill to use. The berserks completely throw the gameplay off balance, because you can now expect to be one shot killed by either the Laark or Pulse rifle once every minute.

Like hell you can. Laark (and Snake Eyes) are highest level berserks, and competitive mode is currently populated with noobs. I don't remember dying by Laark more than 10 times after 35 hours of competitive play. (Of course I remember wrong, according to my stats it's around 20 which only goes to show that you die slightly more often when you are a lowly private.) Still this is no where near as bad as R1 where Laark was a noob weapon and plenty around. Frankly some of you seem to be just making excuses, instead of sense. I miss the R1 Laark in R2 campaign, but Laark is much more balanced the way it is in R2 than it was in R1.

That said, I think it's totally OK to hate R2 TDM as it's a personal opinion. It's also understandable that an R1 veteran may not like berserks. But I personally love them. They are fair, accessible and adds a lot of strategy to the game although masses currently don't understand them.

Laark for example is one of the most selfish berserks, even more so than iron heart and it isn't very wise to pick it in most situations when your team is loosing.

There is absolutely no sense of accomplishment, and no way to have a decent battle of skill between players.

I cannot comment about what you feel, but no way to have a decent battle skill? Really? How did you figure that one out? I would agree for example in R1 beating a bunch of noobs single handedly was easier with decent knowledge of maps and this game is clearly more beginner friendly. But skill requirement is pretty much same, better guy survives.

Now you die because the other player used a berserk, or shot you from behind, or you were outnumbered.

Again this happened more in R1, but you wouldn't know if you always played in large clan parties.
Increased number of players of R2 has some disadvantages (along with advantages). More chaotic gameplay is one of them, but in R2 at least, single round matches (at the cost of asymmetric team setup) implies way less quitters, more balanced games.

And you always find yourself caring the wrong weapon for the situation.

I'm sure that will be less of a problem once you play more than two hours. ;)
What R2 does clearly better than R1 or any other game, is that the game forces you to use a large variety of (currently pretty well balanced) weapons. And since most weapons are really good and fun I welcome that.

The possible problem I have is that almost all maps are very large and open. As a result, while marksman is not best weapon by any means, it's the best weapon to start the match to check whether you need something else, depending on what others on both sides are using.


But all is not lost, Insomniac is working on what they call a big patch, bigger then the day one patch. They haven't said what it'll do or when it's going to be released, but hopefully it brings a lot of changes. After all the negative feedback they received from both beta's and now that the game is released, hopefully they have taken it to heart and improve the game with it.
They cannot change the game to R1 at this point. At best they can add a new game mode which is somewhat similar to R1 ala classic mode of CoD4.

To be honest, I sincerely hope they won't gimp R2 to satisfy you people. Of course I would like to see improvements in many areas, but guys who are vocal about the complaints haven't really played the damn game enough to know any better.

[Phil]

I completed the game on R2. It's a mixed bag. For some reason, I really enjoyed SP in RFOM and now compared to R2, I feel it was a more solid experience. This whole "more, bigger better" didn't quite give me the fun I was hoping for. Adding to that, what little story is in the game is more or less lost in the way it's presented. I get the whole Hale thing, but all of which happens, begs the question "why". And after that, you just don't get the sense of "the big picture" on the whole invasion, the stategies to defeating them and the importance of the towers. You just basically move from one battle to the next without question why or what exactly you're doing there.

The gameplay is a major step down IMO. Something just doesn't feel right. The game might be smooth enough, but aiming is a pain. What I want is higher sensitivity on small movements and less on faster movements. I'm not sure if RFOM cover this, but I never had problems with aiming in that game. Maybe I've been playing too much of CoD5 and just can't go back to playing a FPS at 30 fps...

What IMO ruins the game the most though has to be the 2 weapon limitation. I don't get it why they had to go this way. It gives you less freedom in gameplay and you can't play with the weapon you feel most confortable with. This practically broke the game for me. What a pitty.

The best part about the game are the visuals and environments. I liked the scary moments (walking through the dark alleys of San Fransisco I think) and some of the Boss fights are great. That's certainly a step up from RFOM.

All in all, I'm not sure if I'd buy the game again, if had the chance to go back. It's a solid game, just not the one I was looking forward to.

[AntShaw]

I can't stop playing this game in 8 player co-op mode. The gameplay is tight and rewarding.

There are some glaring holes. First some people just don't know how to play their class. Even seeing them be high ranking and not fulfilling team duties.

The odd placement of some Titans where they have no mobility and are sitting ducks.

The attack of the flotaing grims. I don't even think any of their legs move in the co-op mode. While jarring, it isn't a game breaker for sure.

The Allies menu has proven to be very helpful. It's needed to at least keep some type of team integrity. Or when I just want to play with some of my friends. It help eases some of the pain of trying to get started in games.

I now have met 4-5 solid players to add as friends. I like facing the challenge of going through the levels with that type of team size.

I mean they WILL have to add some more co-op maps right? I'm sure we will have to pay, but they will HAVE to add more levels. If not, this mode has no lasting appeal at all.

Having tons of fun with this. I have the most fun being a medic. I like it when I am the only one on the team. Makes for lots of pressure to keep the team alive, while getting lots and lots of XP!

PS - I have stopped playing the SP game. That has proven to be boring when compared to the 8 player co-op. I am at the Marauder battle in SP. I'd like to finish, but I had been already starting to get a little bored with the SP before I got hooked on 8 player. But, I'm sure once I start getting bored with all the maps (I only have 2 missions at Bracknell and 2 at Holar Tower,) I will most likely move back into the SP.

Also I notice a drastic difference in enemy AI between SP and MP. Did they do that for balance purposes? In MP they never use the same tactics like they do in SP, and they are very very VERY predictable.

[Cornsnake]

I have played for over 2 hours of competitive, and also in the beta. I've been desperately trying to find anything I like about it, hoping to find something as good as Rfom has, because ever since our clan stopped playing clanwars on Rfom, there hasn't been a single game that comes close to what Rfom offered. If R2 can't be that game, then it's a huge disappointment IMO.

None of the guns are as fun to use as Rfom's Carbine. They are all dumbed down, and provide nowhere near as much options. The new Carbine is missing it's range and accuracy, making a decent Carbine battle impossible. Making headshot does very little extra damage, and you'll likely mis more often due to the lack of accuracy. Same for the Bullseye. Tags are almost useless because when you are close enough for them to hit, you might as well not use them. The Auger's shield is far to large and offers protection even from grenades and another Auger. Both the Marksmen and Fareye have a ridiculous auto aim that can even track a moving target. The new and old are both noobguns, but at least the old one had a more interesting alt. fire. The Bellock and Shotgun are only effective at short rage, so it makes a poor choice as a primary weapon because of the many open maps. The 2 weapon limit really hurts these 2. All of them are more accessible, but also a lot more boring to use.

I know whatever changes they make, it won't make everyone happy, but I also know what I would like. Also Rfom didn't start out as good as was, it was patched and got improved upon, which made it into the game many like to remember it as. Around the time Cod4 was released, a new patch completely ruined it again by having the Laark and the 40mm respawn so fast. That makes me wonder what's going to happen to R2.

[tha_con]

I have played for over 2 hours of competitive, and also in the beta. I've been desperately trying to find anything I like about it, hoping to find something as good as Rfom has, because ever since our clan stopped playing clanwars on Rfom, there hasn't been a single game that comes close to what Rfom offered. If R2 can't be that game, then it's a huge disappointment IMO.

None of the guns are as fun to use as Rfom's Carbine. They are all dumbed down, and provide nowhere near as much options. The new Carbine is missing it's range and accuracy, making a decent Carbine battle impossible. Making headshot does very little extra damage, and you'll likely mis more often due to the lack of accuracy. Same for the Bullseye. Tags are almost useless because when you are close enough for them to hit, you might as well not use them. The Auger's shield is far to large and offers protection even from grenades and another Auger. Both the Marksmen and Fareye have a ridiculous auto aim that can even track a moving target. The new and old are both noobguns, but at least the old one had a more interesting alt. fire. The Bellock and Shotgun are only effective at short rage, so it makes a poor choice as a primary weapon because of the many open maps. The 2 weapon limit really hurts these 2. All of them are more accessible, but also a lot more boring to use.

I know whatever changes they make, it won't make everyone happy, but I also know what I would like. Also Rfom didn't start out as good as was, it was patched and got improved upon, which made it into the game many like to remember it as. Around the time Cod4 was released, a new patch completely ruined it again by having the Laark and the 40mm respawn so fast. That makes me wonder what's going to happen to R2.

:)

[lifts thread ban]

Unfortunately I think you'll remain disappointed, as far more people enjoy the game, compared to those who do not. While you may think these weapons are too noob friendly, I say that still should not close the gap if you are a very good player. In fact, the only glaring flaw I see with R2 is the Pulse Cannon / Laark berserk. They should be removed entirely, IMO.

While the Marksman may have some serious Autio-aim, it's accuracy is wildly unpredictable. Killing enemies from long range can take 3 bursts, or it can take 5. If you're a decent sniper, you can take out a marksman in seconds.

The Bellock is insanely useful for folks who love to "wedge" with their clans, and basically breaks that terrible tactic far more than grenades did. You can launch 2 alt fires into a group and take a great deal of their health away, then lay into them with primary fire, or have another team mate work his weapon.

The tag is not ineffective, it simply is not broken. Tags are still extremely useful, they just require more accuracy and better opportunities. The bullseye is, like the marksman, unpredictable for accuracy, a tag ensures 100% accuracy (unless the bullets strike an object). They work wonders when you're chasing someone who doesn't know you're there, or killing a sniper from behind from a decent distance. They ensure a quick and easy kill.

The shotgun, yes, is only good in close quarters. I have to ask though...who really expects a shotgun to be accurate or effective at a great distance? I mean, what game has a shotgun that works at anything but close range? Not Gears, Not Halo, not KZ2, not CoD4. Just curious.

The Carbine was changed because of the introduction of the Marksman. Why have 2 long range rifles, one with a significantly faster rate of fire, with similar accuracy? It makes no sense. That would be far more ridiculous than what we have now. You also have to consider that the game has changed with certain fundementals being overhauled / reworked.

Personally, I think the Carbine has it's place on certain maps, like inside the Iceland structures, the subway in Chicago, even in the Lumber yard in Orick. It has it's place.

Basically, you play each map and gametype differently, where as R1 was basically a sprint to snag up as many weapons as you can, secure those spawn points, and kill the opposition (or take your entire team to their node after stocking up on ammo).

I find this far far more satisfying.

[replace thread ban]

[Cornsnake]

I'm not sure what the majority is at the moment, but that doesn't really matter. It's up to Insomniac to decide how much or how little they change, or if they find some kind of compromise. The past performance suggests things can change, so we'll just have to wait and see.

I'm still going to play competitive though, as I really want to get back to playing clanwars, but the other games ATM are even less to my liking. So maybe I can still find something I like about R2 competitive, even if it's just because I'm playing with friends. I'll probably be cursing it a lot more when playing. But I suspect even the one's in our clan that like R2 competitive (that's not many) will abandon it as soon as another online FPS come along because R2 is simply lacking in gamemodes to play clanwars in.

The point about the shotgun wasn't that they should change it, but that the 2 weapon limit makes it a poor choice as a primary weapon on the many open levels. If you could carry all the weapon it would still be nice to have. I know you can pick it up as the secondary weapon, but who's going to bring one to an open level.

[Cheezdoodles]

Unfortunately I think you'll remain disappointed, as far more people enjoy the game, compared to those who do not.

Based on what?

[tha_con]

The point about the shotgun wasn't that they should change it, but that the 2 weapon limit makes it a poor choice as a primary weapon on the many open levels. If you could carry all the weapon it would still be nice to have. I know you can pick it up as the secondary weapon, but who's going to bring one to an open level.

That's the beauty of the competitive mode. You don't bring it to an open level, you bring it to certain levels. It keeps the game fresh, IMO, unlike R1, where you were constantly rinse/repeating your strats on each map to suit the game mode. You run your ass off to the weapon spawn points, get in a fire fight along the way, load up on ammo, and proceed. In this, there is far more strategy to your play style, picking the shotgun in Orick can be devestating, but picking it in the Subway can be very very useful. It also enforces team work. You move in pairs, one with a shotgun, one with a Carbine / Marksman. Now you're a long range / short range team moving together.

If you just look at Solo performance, yes, the shotgun can be somewhat useless on some maps, but even then, is still useful on others.

Ostepop - based on my experience with other players online? I'm sorry, but the SMALL number of folks on message boards and clan wars do not represent the minority. Sure, the R1 vets may leave, but you better believe the new players who are introduced to this game will start popping up on Clanwars, etc. It's not like there is a finite number of people who purchased the game in which we can judge it's longevity, etc.

I've been running into 30 and 40 player games very often recently, with the occsional 60. Rarely do I hear people talking about how bad the game sucks and how much they hate it. Hell, I think in two games with 30 people each, I ran into more people who enjoyed it than I read about here and on GAF combined. I think that's proof enough.

[Cornsnake]

That's the beauty of the competitive mode. You don't bring it to an open level, you bring it to certain levels. It keeps the game fresh, IMO, unlike R1, where you were constantly rinse/repeating your strats on each map to suit the game mode. You run your ass off to the weapon spawn points, get in a fire fight along the way, load up on ammo, and proceed. In this, there is far more strategy to your play style, picking the shotgun in Orick can be devestating, but picking it in the Subway can be very very useful. It also enforces team work. You move in pairs, one with a shotgun, one with a Carbine / Marksman. Now you're a long range / short range team moving together.

If you just look at Solo performance, yes, the shotgun can be somewhat useless on some maps, but even then, is still useful on others.

I still feel Rfom's weapons and their alt. fire modes brought more diversity then R2 has now. The weapons spawns I don't mis, but I find having manually switch weapons as bothersome, and you'll still need to go over dead bodies for ammo.

It's true that R2 forces more teamwork, but I find respawn point make that difficult. You often respawn very close to the fight, in which cases you die quickly, or far away from you squad. Sticking together is made more difficult that way, and it's easy yo lose track of each other on the giant maps. And of course if you play with random strangers, all teamwork gets throw out the window. We're still trying to get a decent number of people to join our R2 clan, we still haven't filled up a squad of 5 once. There just isn't much interest in R2 from our older members. All of which own Rfom, and have played clanwars on it for a considerable amount of time, still hold it in very high regard.

[betan]

I have played for over 2 hours of competitive, and also in the beta.

I was talking based on your stats, which may very well be wrong indeed.

None of the guns are as fun to use as Rfom's Carbine.
They are all dumbed down, and provide nowhere near as much options.

Not true.

The new Carbine is missing it's range and accuracy, making a decent Carbine battle impossible.

Most of the best players I know in R2 uses Carbine. It's also possibly the most overpowered weapon thanks to 40z being plenty. Of course it's not the mandatory human weapon any more, so don't expect a lot of Carbine battles any time soon.

Ignoring the 40z issue, I currently like the current Carbine way more than the old one, though I almost never start with it because of the frag issue. It's definitely more powerful, has decent range especially with ironsight. Despite the complaints about ironsight, it's not gimped like in R1, it's fast and maybe more importantly you can move fast while using, also doesn't disorient.


Making headshot does very little extra damage, and you'll likely mis more often due to the lack of accuracy. Same for the Bullseye. Tags are almost useless because when you are close enough for them to hit, you might as well not use them.

Weren't you one of the carbine guys who hated tagging in R1? That should be good news for you.
I personally miss tagging a lot. But there is a trick in R2, basically you can run and tag because tag autoaim increases with speed (somewhat similar to R1 in that regard but still more difficult overall).
When you pull it off, it's by far the most fun run and gun game ever. You continuously run like Mirrors Edge, making your position known to the enemy and start circling around them, cat and mouse style. You get a lot of kills (and berserks) along with a lot of deaths if there are multiple enemies. Even so you can get pretty good k/d though not as good as a sneaky approach.

The Auger's shield is far to large and offers protection even from grenades and another Auger.

I think Auger shield should not protect against another Auger, but minor issue since shields aren't plenty unlike R1. Round and directional shields are welcome.

Both the Marksmen and Fareye have a ridiculous auto aim that can even track a moving target.

Yet for some reason people generally suck at using those.

The new and old are both noobguns, but at least the old one had a more interesting alt. fire.

new and old what? The remaining weapon I can think is Laark which had much better alt fire but was totally unfair in competitive mode.

The Bellock and Shotgun are only effective at short rage, so it makes a poor choice as a primary weapon because of the many open maps.

I cannot really comment on those. Never liked shotgun even when it was overpowered in R1.
However Bellock and its altfire are pretty good for bottleneck battles that are very common in R2.

The 2 weapon limit really hurts these 2. All of them are more accessible, but also a lot more boring to use.

Maybe. I almost never use shotgun, and rarely start with Bellock, so that makes sense I guess.

[Cornsnake]

I was talking based on your stats, which may very well be wrong indeed.

Not true.

Most of the best players I know in R2 uses Carbine. It's also possibly the most overpowered weapon thanks to 40z being plenty. Of course it's not the mandatory human weapon any more, so don't expect a lot of Carbine battles any time soon.

Ignoring the 40z issue, I currently like the current Carbine way more than the old one, though I almost never start with it because of the frag issue. It's definitely more powerful, has decent range especially with ironsight. Despite the complaints about ironsight, it's not gimped like in R1, it's fast and maybe more importantly you can move fast while using, also doesn't disorient.


Weren't you one of the carbine guys who hated tagging in R1? That should be good news for you.
I personally miss tagging a lot. But there is a trick in R2, basically you can run and tag because tag autoaim increases with speed (somewhat similar to R1 in that regard but still more difficult overall).
When you pull it off, it's by far the most fun run and gun game ever. You continuously run like Mirrors Edge, making your position known to the enemy and start circling around them, cat and mouse style. You get a lot of kills (and berserks) along with a lot of deaths if there are multiple enemies. Even so you can get pretty good k/d though not as good as a sneaky approach.

I think Auger shield should not protect against another Auger, but minor issue since shields aren't plenty unlike R1. Round and directional shields are welcome.

Yet for some reason people generally suck at using those.

new and old what? The remaining weapon I can think is Laark which had much better alt fire but was totally unfair in competitive mode.

I cannot really comment on those. Never liked shotgun even when it was overpowered in R1.
However Bellock and its altfire are pretty good for bottleneck battles that are very common in R2.

Maybe. I almost never use shotgun, and rarely start with Bellock, so that makes sense I guess.

R2 has a problem with stat tracking, giving you occasionally too much or to little of something. I have a medal for killing 10 Marauders, without killing a single one. And I've been playing R2 at a friend house, also keeping me from all the XP you get from beating the SP once.

It's true I didn't like tagging, but it was great for taking down laggers.

The Carbine is more powerful, but that is only because all weapons are. I'm surprised they still give you so 40mm grenades, it was also complaint in Rfom. I still like the Carbine to be incredibly accurate over long range. It was my favourite weapon in Rfom.

Place all 4 shields of the old Auger together, and it's about the size of the new one. But the old one you had to place more carefully, you could easily walk around them, forcing the player to stop placing them or he won't be able to return fire. Or just throw a grenade through the shields. All and all provided a lot more options for the player using it, and the one fighting against it.

That would indeed be the Laark. It hate it both games.

[Phil]

I've been running into 30 and 40 player games very often recently, with the occsional 60. Rarely do I hear people talking about how bad the game sucks and how much they hate it. Hell, I think in two games with 30 people each, I ran into more people who enjoyed it than I read about here and on GAF combined. I think that's proof enough.

That's because everyone who disliked the direction R2 took over RFOM either played the beta and didn't buy the full game, or bought the game, completed it, played competitive for a few hours and ditched it for the similar but better, more solid, CoD5. At least I have and I can't see myself playing R2 much, which is a real shame, given my hundreds of hours I spent on RFOM going from n00b to mastering the gameplay, the weapons and the levels. The level of satisfaction is just not around anymore. And yes, I've played more than enough of the beta and the full game to know this - it's not as if I'm sucking at R2. It's just not fun and as rewarding anymore.

In that sense, I have to agree with Cornsnake. In comparison to RFROM, most weapons are seriously dumbed down. The weapons might feel stronger too, but in the end, I think it's rather the player being weaker and being quicker dead, making the difference between weapons less important and thus, the overall learning curve smaller.

It is certainly more accessible, but with that, a whole lot less rewarding (and fun to those that take time to master it).

[AntShaw]

With each of the Phil's and Cornsnakes, there are the AntShaws. I owned R1. Didn't care for it much, didn't like the multiplayer aspect and got bored with the SP. I did get into the R2 beta, didn't like the competitive, and didn't play much of the co-op.

Since, I have also bought R2, and almost beat the SP, and play co-op incessantly. I like the controls of this one better, I like the reduced health, I don't need the wheel of weapons. Most situations only call for 1-2 weapons anyhow.

It is what it is. To me, a fun game.

[JPT]

It is certainly more accessible, but with that, a whole lot less rewarding (and fun to those that take time to master it).

Then it comes down to, who does Sony/Insomniac make most off, ie who should they please :D

For instance competitive mode, there must be a line when its not worth running the servers any ie cost vs inital profit on the game and dlc. Online certainly adds to the number of sold copies, but if you run the servers indefinitely then it surly turn into a loss?

[betan]

The Carbine is more powerful, but that is only because all weapons are. I'm surprised they still give you so 40mm grenades, it was also complaint in Rfom.

In case of R2, it feels like if you have a lot of carbines in your team, the enemy will get more 40z with their kills. For example, since human beginners start with carbine by default, you are bound to be 40ed a lot in a beginner heavy team, when the other side knows what they are doing that is.

I still like the Carbine to be incredibly accurate over long range. It was my favourite weapon in Rfom.

I couldn't tell. :)
Seriously though, Carbine was fun and all but it wasn't the all purpose weapon someone else was making it to be here. It had bullet lag (unlike the new one), so stuff like carbine sniping only worked on stationary enemy via headshots and that is still at a much smaller distance than Marksman or obviously Far Eye kills at.
Again, while it's understandable some people misses R1 Carbine, it can and should never have the same relative importance in a "start with whatever weapon you like" system where situational rock-paper-scissor balance is much more important.

That said, I wonder whether it would be OK for you guys if Carbine had the same accuracy and lag as in R1, or maybe same accuracy but reduced bullet damage with distance instead of lag?
Whatever the case, it has to be weaker than bullseye at close range and marksman at medium.

Place all 4 shields of the old Auger together, and it's about the size of the new one. But the old one you had to place more carefully, you could easily walk around them, forcing the player to stop placing them or he won't be able to return fire. Or just throw a grenade through the shields. All and all provided a lot more options for the player using it, and the one fighting against it.

I liked the old shield, even if I don't use Auger to fire, I often used its shield to setup defense, especially a life saver against Laark. The new shield like Wraith shield however is more teamwork friendly in addition to making defense much easier since you can fire trough with other weapons from your side.
To be honest, I haven't had much problems on the other side of the shield either. There doesn't seem to be many Auger masters yet so it hasn't been as issue. If the shield is far away I simply ignore it, if it's close enough I run through.

Anyway, I really like the new TDM with all the problems that haven't been voiced here. In R1 the most satisfying moments were not the individual kills but turning the tides with simple team based strategies like taking the wall, top floor, 40mm house etc.
While map specific strategies won't be as prominent, I already had great "down but not out" moments thanks to stuff like teamplay berserks (specifically ring of life and prototype ammo). Even seemingly unimportant things like switching from Marksman to Bullseye (or vice versa) can be a strategic decision for the better, especially if you are the only one in your team who's killing people.

Unfortunately I'm not very optimistic about the future of R2 competitive. Looking at here for example, there are only two guys who like it and seemingly for different reasons, which is significantly less than number of people who liked R1 competitive (5?:twisted:).
What's worse is that current R2 players, even all star clans, don't seem to play the game cooperatively besides occasional voice chat regarding enemy positions. It's still everyone for him/herself mentality.
Thus I worry this gem will not get the appreciation it deserves.

Phil or anyone else who has the game but haven't played TDM yet, can you please check your online ranking with 0 experience.
Last week I checked with my non-gaming (purchase only) account and it was around 247k which is pretty decent I guess.

[Cheezdoodles]

Ostepop - based on my experience with other players online? I'm sorry, but the SMALL number of folks on message boards and clan wars do not represent the minority. Sure, the R1 vets may leave, but you better believe the new players who are introduced to this game will start popping up on Clanwars, etc. It's not like there is a finite number of people who purchased the game in which we can judge it's longevity, etc.

I've been running into 30 and 40 player games very often recently, with the occsional 60. Rarely do I hear people talking about how bad the game sucks and how much they hate it. Hell, I think in two games with 30 people each, I ran into more people who enjoyed it than I read about here and on GAF combined. I think that's proof enough.

Lol.

You cannot possibly say that the vast majority is enjoying R2 more than R1, based on that!

First of all, player who dont like the game have probably allready moved on, player who hate the game, are also very unlikely to keep playing the game.

You have NO way of saying if people like R2 more than R1, all you have is some aneqotal evidence based on some matches (its fairly obvious that people who continue to play a game like it), unless there is some drastically higher % of people playing the game in relation to how the game sold compared to the first title, you cannot possibly make that statement!!

[DJ12]

Theres bound to be thousands of trophy whores (It's not an insult, I'm one too) that are playing online even if they don't like it. I cannot stand GTA 4 online, it's possibly the worst online game that I have ever played, but I find myself logging on every night trying to get trophies.

[Cheezdoodles]

Theres bound to be thousands of trophy whores (It's not an insult, I'm one too) that are playing online even if they don't like it. I cannot stand GTA 4 online, it's possibly the worst online game that I have ever played, but I find myself logging on every night trying to get trophies.

Still, making the statement that R2 is generally more liked than R1 is ridiculous based on how many people talk it down\say they hate it in a couple of matches.

[DrJay24]

I'm glad we have folks to come into threads, parse words and start arguments and in no way have anything to say about the game.

[Cornsnake]

More accuracy, and less damage, same range would probably be the way to go to make it more to the liking of fans of Carbine battles, while keeping it balanced with the other weapons.

Insomniac has really made some strange choices regarding competitive. The option for 1 shot kills in unranked games is gone for example. I didn't like them, but many players did, you would think that it's a simple thing to provide. And with all the changes they made, they must have known it wouldn't be to the liking of some of their old fans. With that in mind they could have looked at gamemodes that are more interesting for their old fans. Clanwars we're very popular on Rfom, and very well supported with excellent party options, and gamemodes to play. Now there is only TDM and CC, and no communications between squads. I feel competitive has suffered the most from Insomniac's choice to create a big single player, co-op, and competitive. And trying to re-invent everything. There are still a lot of bugs in it that were already known during the beta, and the new myres. site that is supposed be accessible ingame still isn't ready.

Every forum or gamesite I visit, is completely divided on the issue of wether R2 competitive is an improvement or not. I haven't seen a single place where everyone is completely for or against the changes. It is very difficult to see what the majority is, and lets not forget it's not a matter of for and against, there is also some disagreement about the smaller details. Everyone can make their own opinion about it after all.

[tha_con]

I think what you have to keep in mind is that forums are no where near the majority of players. You may visit 10 different forums, and out of those 10 forums, you may run into 500 people who own the game, and of that 500, 250 may hate the game.

That is still not representative of the total installed user base. I know a lot of folks hated the Campaign for CoD4, but to the average joe six pack consumer, it was fantastic.

Just saying, it's always best to absolutely ignore forum comments when talking about majority / minority.

[tha_con]

Lol.

You cannot possibly say that the vast majority is enjoying R2 more than R1, based on that!

First of all, player who dont like the game have probably allready moved on, player who hate the game, are also very unlikely to keep playing the game.

You have NO way of saying if people like R2 more than R1, all you have is some aneqotal evidence based on some matches (its fairly obvious that people who continue to play a game like it), unless there is some drastically higher % of people playing the game in relation to how the game sold compared to the first title, you cannot possibly make that statement!!

Please at least read and understand what I write, instead of looking for instances in which you can troll my posts.

I said the majority of people who are playing R2 enjoy it, as opposed to those who do not.

An example would be 500 people enjoy R2, 250 people do not. The majority of those 750 people enjoy the game.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[Cheezdoodles]

I dont look for instances to troll your post, i simply misread your post. Sorry

[Phil]

Then it comes down to, who does Sony/Insomniac make most off, ie who should they please :D

The people that buy games like ToyStory, Superman (maybe not these games in specific, but you get the idea) and other sub par branded games that despite the lacking quality, sell millions and are at top of the chart with lacking quality and good marketing behind them?

And having said that, we still don't know what the majority is. Ignoring the target group that made you, is a risky move if you ask me. Despite the AntShaws outthere, Resistance was quite a success despite it being a new and unknown factor. While Insomniac might be a well known studio, people buy games/names, not devhouses/publishers.

[RenegadeRocks]

May i ask why you ordered the game upon release when it will be cheaper in january when you have the ability to play the game?

Man proposes, God disposes !:sad:

[Shifty Geezer]

The people that buy games like ToyStory, Superman (maybe not these games in specific, but you get the idea) and other sub par branded games that despite the lacking quality, sell millions and are at top of the chart with lacking quality and good marketing behind them?Case in point, Ben10 sold millions apparently, way more than LBP. And the critic-panned 'Little Britain' game hammered Okami in sales.

[betan]

And having said that, we still don't know what the majority is. Ignoring the target group that made you, is a risky move if you ask me.

Yet the group that made R1 ignored the game once CoD4 was released.
At least now matchmaking works painlessly.

[patsu]

Mike Acton is asking for feedback here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=346575

[tha_con]

Mike Acton is asking for feedback here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=346575

Such a huge mistake to ask NeoGAF for advice. A forum full of heathens and attention whores.

[Phil]

...but it probably covers the casual market better than any other forum outthere?

(eventhough, I don't care much for the casual market is interested in...)

[Cheezdoodles]

Huh? Neogaf doesn't cover the casual market better than any other forum, none of these forums cover casual markets to any significant degree.

NeoGAF posters are a slight improvement over GameFAQs (only on NeoGAF trolls are a tad more clever to avoid bans), still it has nothing to do with casual markets. If you want casual market coverage you have to go outside of forums or use completely different forums that are non gaming related at all (but have gaming forums. For example, forum boards for big newspapers probably are more "casual" than your normal gaming forums, but still they are far from representative of the casual market)

[obonicus]

Huh? Neogaf doesn't cover the casual market better than any other forum, none of these forums cover casual markets to any significant degree.

NeoGAF posters are a slight improvement over GameFAQs (only on NeoGAF trolls are a tad more clever to avoid bans), still it has nothing to do with casual markets. If you want casual market coverage you have to go outside of forums or use completely different forums that are non gaming related at all (but have gaming forums. For example, forum boards for big newspapers probably are more "casual" than your normal gaming forums, but still they are far from representative of the casual market)

What they play may be a better option for the actual casual market, but it's probably still a pretty self-selecting sample.

[AntShaw]

I wonder when they will uncap the hard limit of Level 30 in co-op. It will have to come soon right?

[Cornsnake]

I wonder when they will uncap the hard limit of Level 30 in co-op. It will have to come soon right?

Why would they do that, there is nothing to be unlocked after level 30.

[AntShaw]

As it stands now, there isn't. I have come across many a player who have 2 classes maxed and close to the third. With no additional missions, and no increase in level cap, the co-op would get might tedious at that point.

Which is nearing for players, and some already.

[Cornsnake]

That true, but takes quite a while to max out all 3 classes. I haven't maxed out a single one, but I'm guessing it could take up to 80 hours to max out all 3. And you could probably still try to get that 300 missions completed without dying. I doubt the average player is going to spend that long playing it. So for them it might be nice to be able to max out a single class sooner.

I would be nice to be able to continue after level 30 though. Even if it just unlocks more secondary weapons. DLC for the co-op would be nice too. Having to replay the same levels over and over again is probably the first reason why it gets tedious.

[Kittonwy]

Mike Acton is asking for feedback here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=346575

I've already told them what needed to be improved ever since the beta and reiterated it many times since, why are they asking about it AFTER the game has been released? They KNEW they needed to do some sort of HDR-hack and self-shadowing and more consistant shadowing of environment and objects they didn't do it, the tech art either didn't pull their weight or simply didn't have the time (I suspect the latter might be the case). You DON'T try to do stop and pop when you design maps more suited for run and gun, after dwelling on the tuning issue for the past few months it finally hit me that the gameplay style they're trying to force on the players wasn't the problem, it's just the kind of maps they're designing aren't conducive to the style because they're still far too open and the damage simply wasn't tuned to be high enough to make stop and pop fun. The game has problems in terms of engine, tech art AND game design/tuning, all they did was dismissed people who made suggestions claiming they wanted R2 to be like R1, they just didn't get it so I'm not sure why they're asking people now.

[patsu]

You should have posted in that thread (I did it a couple of days ago :))
Perhaps they are ready to listen now.

I am waiting for R2 patches. I believe someone from Insomniac hinted that they are working on it.

[SonComet]

Such a huge mistake to ask NeoGAF for advice. A forum full of heathens and attention whores.

Some people actually had some pretty good ideas for improving the game. Anyone with a bit of intelligence can filter out the crap. And you'll get many more ideas with the higher population on that board than you would here. I'm glad they are asking the community for help, cause they clearly need some in a few important areas IMHO.

[tha_con]

I've already told them what needed to be improved ever since the beta and reiterated it many times since, why are they asking about it AFTER the game has been released? They KNEW they needed to do some sort of HDR-hack and self-shadowing and more consistant shadowing of environment and objects they didn't do it, the tech art either didn't pull their weight or simply didn't have the time (I suspect the latter might be the case). You DON'T try to do stop and pop when you design maps more suited for run and gun, after dwelling on the tuning issue for the past few months it finally hit me that the gameplay style they're trying to force on the players wasn't the problem, it's just the kind of maps they're designing aren't conducive to the style because they're still far too open and the damage simply wasn't tuned to be high enough to make stop and pop fun. The game has problems in terms of engine, tech art AND game design/tuning, all they did was dismissed people who made suggestions claiming they wanted R2 to be like R1, they just didn't get it so I'm not sure why they're asking people now.

HDR and Self Shadowing were the least of their damn worries.

The reason they dismissed most suggestions was because people were simply tossing shit out of their ass complaining because it wasn't R1, and used that and ONLY that to back their bogus ass claims, instead of trying to suggest how to make Resistance 2 better.

What Insomniac got during the Private beta and Open Beta were a bunch of snot nosed jerks who were suggesting how to make the game R1, not how to improve R2. I was there for both of them, read the forums avidly during both of the betas, and I'm pretty sure I watched everyone suggest how to make the game R1, not how to improve it, which is why they were pretty much ignored.

I'm not saying they didn't have good input, but when your feedback starts with "this game isn't Resistance, the grenades suck, I hate the aiming, bring back run and gun!" you're not going to be taken seriously. Making suggestions on how to tweak the gameplay in R2, as opposed to bringing back mechanics from R1, would have garnered much more attention.

Also, asking them to redesign map structure or gameplay that late in the game (during a multiplayer beta) is really freaking ridiculous, especially if you think those suggestions are going to be implemented in such a short time period. You really have to be high and mighty to think your input is more important than everyone else's, and you should be taken that seriously so far as to delay the game. Honestly, the best suggestions anyone could have made for R2 is to delay it, quite frankly the extra months could have shut a lot of folks up with their minuscule complaints.

Mind you, Resistance 1 didn't even break the top 10 on NPD during November or December, when it released. In December, there were nearly 600K PS3s, and the lowest selling title in the top 10 was 365K.

Resistance 2 at least managed to break into the top ten, even if it's around 300K, it's still doing better at this point than Resistance 1 did. Insomniac isn't asking for your help so you can say I told you so, they're asking for your input for future titles, NOT RESISTANCE 2.

Again, he's asking for future projects, where they can move forward from games that have already been released. How you conclude that this is about Resistance 2 is beyond me.

[Carl B]

but when your feedback starts with "this game isn't Resistance, the grenades suck, I hate the aiming, bring back run and gun!" you're not going to be taken seriously.

Maybe they should have been taken seriously.

If they weren't taking that very pointed and direct commentary seriously seriously, what was being taken seriously?

It's supposed to be fun - if a certain implementation is less fun, you change the implementation, not try to cram the fun into a stylistic change you've already set your mind to. It's doing the fan/consumer base a disservice to pursue that direction to the exclusion of the calls to the contrary.

That's certainly my opinion, and whatever the sales figures between R1 and R2, I have a feeling that R2 would be selling better if it was more true to the original in gameplay feel. If nothing else, it would have the avid vocal and viral support of its core fan base earning mindshare on the net, and mindshare/word-of-mouth can mean a ton.

[obonicus]

Maybe they should have been taken seriously.

If they weren't taking that very pointed and direct commentary seriously seriously, what was being taken seriously?

It's supposed to be fun - if a certain implementation is less fun, you change the implementation, not try to cram the fun into a stylistic change you've already set your mind to. It's doing the fan/consumer base a disservice to pursue that direction to the exclusion of the calls to the contrary.

That's certainly my opinion, and whatever the sales figures between R1 and R2, I have a feeling that R2 would be selling better if it was more true to the original in gameplay feel. If nothing else, it would have the avid vocal and viral support of its core fan base earning mindshare on the net, and mindshare/word-of-mouth can mean a ton.

They probably would have been able to count on those people once reviewers started taking shots at the game (and not for 'not R1' reasons). As it is, what you have is R1 fans feeling vindicated by the lukewarm reception.

[Carl B]

As it is, what you have is R1 fans feeling vindicated by the lukewarm reception.

I don't think vindicated is the word at all.

[Kittonwy]

They probably would have been able to count on those people once reviewers started taking shots at the game (and not for 'not R1' reasons). As it is, what you have is R1 fans feeling vindicated by the lukewarm reception.

I don't feel vindicated at all, just disappointed at the opportunity in R2 becoming that blockbuster holiday season FPS being lost.

[Kittonwy]

HDR and Self Shadowing were the least of their damn worries.

The reason they dismissed most suggestions was because people were simply tossing shit out of their ass complaining because it wasn't R1, and used that and ONLY that to back their bogus ass claims, instead of trying to suggest how to make Resistance 2 better.

What Insomniac got during the Private beta and Open Beta were a bunch of snot nosed jerks who were suggesting how to make the game R1, not how to improve R2. I was there for both of them, read the forums avidly during both of the betas, and I'm pretty sure I watched everyone suggest how to make the game R1, not how to improve it, which is why they were pretty much ignored.

I'm not saying they didn't have good input, but when your feedback starts with "this game isn't Resistance, the grenades suck, I hate the aiming, bring back run and gun!" you're not going to be taken seriously. Making suggestions on how to tweak the gameplay in R2, as opposed to bringing back mechanics from R1, would have garnered much more attention.

Also, asking them to redesign map structure or gameplay that late in the game (during a multiplayer beta) is really freaking ridiculous, especially if you think those suggestions are going to be implemented in such a short time period. You really have to be high and mighty to think your input is more important than everyone else's, and you should be taken that seriously so far as to delay the game. Honestly, the best suggestions anyone could have made for R2 is to delay it, quite frankly the extra months could have shut a lot of folks up with their minuscule complaints.

Mind you, Resistance 1 didn't even break the top 10 on NPD during November or December, when it released. In December, there were nearly 600K PS3s, and the lowest selling title in the top 10 was 365K.

Resistance 2 at least managed to break into the top ten, even if it's around 300K, it's still doing better at this point than Resistance 1 did. Insomniac isn't asking for your help so you can say I told you so, they're asking for your input for future titles, NOT RESISTANCE 2.

Again, he's asking for future projects, where they can move forward from games that have already been released. How you conclude that this is about Resistance 2 is beyond me.

The point people were making was THEY LIKED R1 BETTER and R1 worked great. Most people in the betas were disappointed with the game mechanics in R1 being replaced with something that DOES NOT WORK, it's not like those of us who dislike how R2 plays can't play anything that doesn't play like R1, which is clearly not the case.

R2 has a much bigger userbase to play with than R1, the problem is instead of adding new players onto an existing group of avid R1 players, you're losing the avid R1 players in favor of attracting new players.

Why even put people in private betas if you're not taking their inputs seriously?

The people in the private AND public betas were more than specific in highlighting what didn't work, things like the AWFUL idea of using a reticle for IRONSIGHTS could have been fixed. If you're designing maps with a more wide-open design, then don't do stop-and-pop, because it won't work well, and it doesn't in the final product. If you can't change the map design to make sure the MP plays well, guess what the only option is? Make the controls less stop and pop. If you're doing stop and pop then you HAVE to raise the damage per shot which was something they did NOT do.

Still not sure how you actually thought the complaints about the grenades shouldn't be taken seriously, they were so bad that it felt like throwing balloons, and the grenades still don't have a good feel.

HDR + self-shadowing IS a serious concern for their games, FOUR games this gen and they still can't achieve comparable lighting and shadowing to the best-looking games out there, and lighting and shadowing makes a huge difference in the looks of games.

The problem was that when they ran the betas, and even after the game released they were still fishing for compliments instead of really focusing on what didn't work and what didn't look good.

[Kittonwy]

Maybe they should have been taken seriously.

If they weren't taking that very pointed and direct commentary seriously seriously, what was being taken seriously?

It's supposed to be fun - if a certain implementation is less fun, you change the implementation, not try to cram the fun into a stylistic change you've already set your mind to. It's doing the fan/consumer base a disservice to pursue that direction to the exclusion of the calls to the contrary.

That's certainly my opinion, and whatever the sales figures between R1 and R2, I have a feeling that R2 would be selling better if it was more true to the original in gameplay feel. If nothing else, it would have the avid vocal and viral support of its core fan base earning mindshare on the net, and mindshare/word-of-mouth can mean a ton.

The whole problem with the beta was that A LOT OF PEOPLE were saying it wasn't as fun, and of course people were going to bring R1 into the conversation because many were avid R1 players, and as soon as that happened they just kind of shut off and all kinds of constructive criticisms were dismissed as "wanting the game to be just like R1".

There were a lot of good suggestions but there was basically NOTHING that they would be able to change or willing to change. They kept saying the graphics would look better in the final game but it really wasn't the case at least in anyway substantial, and the controls, if they were going to design the maps a certain way, then the gameplay has to match the map designs or else gameplay wouldn't feel right, it doesn't take a game designer to realize it and point it out. Some of us were asking for IMPROVEMENTS on R1 like being able to just vault over waist-high railings, a lot of things just didn't happen.

But what Mike Acton asked was what could be done with their engine, which seems infinitely OBVIOUSLY because they're still SO behind on their lighting and shadowing tech, and I still don't get the idea that having a busy-looking skybox is as important as actual PLAYABLE geometry. And people are still asking for better AI.

[Carl B]

I should mention that my own issues with the game are entirely related to the gameplay direction R1 to R2, and not graphically at all. Indeed I will laud their aural achievements while I'm here. I understand that you've got your shadowing/HDR theme that is clearly very important to you Kittonwy, but for me it's the gameplay as the primary offender.

When R1 came out, firstly all the launch reviewers at the time didn't even really review based on the MP at all, so it wasn't an integral part of what was "known" about the game at launch. But as anyone that tried it (and became addicted to it) would tell anyone that would listen, it was arguably the best FPS MP out across all the consoles. I know that was my own personal view. And I think to the arguments tha_con and others make about "the direction the majority want," I would say that just because people stopped playing R1 MP (eventually... because it went strong well over a year), it wasn't because they still didn't love it, but because they wanted to try something new.

It's like bands and CD's. Say you have a band and their CD is your 'favorite.' You're not going to listen to it forever, even if you still hold it fondly in your heart - new CDs are always coming out. But I think it's fair to say that when the band puts out a follow-on album, the existing fans are a little off put if it seems the band has completely changed their sound. Which is to say, that cessation of playing R1 online did not equate at all to a decrease in the anticipation of similar gameplay in the upcoming R2.

[patsu]

Despite my whinings, I actually don't mind Insomniac having their own ideas. Something refreshing like R2 Co-op wouldn't have come out from us out of the blue.

I hope Insomniac invests more resources in that direction. And as much as I like the Co-op, my rudest complains in the beta forum was actually on the Co-op (I b*tched about falling asleep in Co-op closed beta). It tells me that they listened to all the feedback and improved (where possible).


As for the competitive games, I honestly think that they ran out of time. I saw improvements throughout the betas, just not quick enough (e.g., The match-matching was whacky at launch). I don't think they can change to R1 style gameplay in 2 months, even if they wanted to.


The SP campaign was not tested by the larger public (for obvious reason), so I don't think we can fault Insomniac for not listening. They reserve the right to experiment with newer game play (and I fully support that notion). I just wish they'd given themselves more time to tie everything together. Just adjusting the health bar would have improved the difficulty balance quite a bit.


But now they may be able to make more changes. So just give them your collected thoughts.

[betan]

I cannot believe some people are complaining about graphics. Please go investigate Plantation and tell us again how game needs self shadowing and HDR. And it's a multiplayer map for God's sake. It's certainly not worst looking than any other SP game I have seen this year.

As for gameplay, I think Insomniac can safely ignore the kids who cannot even defend their own ideas. And stuff like "It's not fun" does not count as an idea in my book.

Not that the game is perfect, far from it. I'd like to see a lot of changes even in MP. But for me it's still the best multiplayer (shooter) experience since R1, by far. Also improves on the first game in so many areas. Amount of ignorance is just sad.

[JPT]

I wonder, would R2 have been better received if there was no R:FoM before it?

Personally I think R:FoM SP was more fun than R2 SP, not saying R2 SP was bad or anything. But my gut tells me that I enjoyed SP more on R:FoM. And its not pure nostalgia,since I completed R:FoM this summer, so that I would know the back story better when R2 was released.

R2 MP vs R:FoM MP, ie competitive, I have no clue, I got about 2 mins with R:FoM and 10 mins with R2 MP during the beta.

R2 Co-Op is a winner for me, mainly because it gives you the fun of MP, without being trashed by everybody and his dog due to have reaction times of a 120 year old after to much women,drinking and dancing ;) So its very noob friendly I guess.

Overall, my perception is R2 > R:FoM.

[Shifty Geezer]

Am I right in thinking this is Insomniac's second ever shooter, or third with Disruptor? Perhaps a real problem here is they aren't good shooter developers?! Perhaps their ideas of what makes a good shooter don't tally with the people who buy shooters on the whole, and as a result they've had to develop with a sort of copy-cat approach trying to understand the FPS from other games, instead of creating from their own hearts a title that rings true from their own love of the genre?

Maybe it's a genre they should steer clear of, because there's so much competition from some very seasoned developers who are better are giving the genre fans what they want? We don't need another shooter IP. Then again, maybe their struggling to understand what this generation does want, seeing titles like RnC and Spyro not selling so well these days?

[djskribbles]

I don't think that's it at all. I'm a huge FPS fan and R1 and R2 are among the best FPS I've played. Most people complaining about R2 seem to not like it because it's far different than R1. I think most agree that R1 was a good all around shooter.

[Cornsnake]

They are good making shooters, they just got their priorities mixed up. After CoD4 they tried to bring over some of it's best elements to Resistance. But these 2 are about as far apart as you can get in shooters, and they don't work well together. It's like mixing GT's realistic gameplay with Ridge Racers arcade gameplay. They should have chosen one way or the other. And if it's sales their after, I think they would have been better off being CoD WaW's opposite, then it's competitor.

[betan]

Yeah, CoD4 influence on R2 coop clearly sucks. Bad, bad Insomniac.

On a more serious note, two weapon system and full health regen are the worst things that happened to Resistance SP (though they work great for MP, especially objective stuff). They may very well be a poor attempt for coolness or simply cheap design. Still SP gives way more Half-Life 2 vibe than CoD4, if anything.
MP however, is a totally different beast.

As for being poorly received by gamers, that may very well be true. However R1 had a lot of haters at the time, people just don't seem to remember. More importantly I'm pretty sure a sequel to R1 that would satisfy all fans would be much less successful. I think the biggest threat to R2's continues popularity is Killzone 2, not CoD5.

ps: Cornsnake, that Spartan guy in your clan is a lagger.

[Carl B]

More importantly I'm pretty sure a sequel to R1 that would satisfy all fans would be much less successful.

I don't agree with that at all. If even the people saying they love the game qualify those statements in the context of the original title, how in the world would being more like the original be a negative? You could have added a co-op mode to the MP options, left deathmatch frenetic, and paced the SP more like in R1 and frankly... if it seems the case that both the R2 lovers and those critical of R2 would prefer that title, how could the sales be anything but better?

[betan]

I don't agree with that at all. If even the people saying they love the game qualify those statements in the context of the original title, how in the world would being more like the original be a negative? You could have added a co-op mode to the MP options, left deathmatch frenetic, and paced the SP more like in R1 and frankly... if it seems the case that both the R2 lovers and those critical of R2 would prefer that title, how could the sales be anything but better?

Are you implying R2 lovers only love the game because of coop?
Anyway, my argument is simply based on what I painfully witnessed, what happened to R1, R1 DLCs, and R1 matchmaking. It's clear to me that most R1 players weren't playing the game because they preferred the gameplay to the likes of CoD.

[Carl B]

Are you implying R2 lovers only love the game because of coop?

Not what I'm implying, but I am saying that co-op seems to be the one thing everyone can agree on being a good addition. R2 lovers love the game as a whole for all its aspects, but I see enough guarded admission to preference for aspects of the first to believe that whatever the debate on the forums, they might have preferred what the 'instigators' were hoping for as well in terms of SP campaign feel.

Anyway, my argument is simply based on what I painfully witnessed, what happened to R1, R1 DLCs, and R1 matchmaking. It's clear to me that most R1 players weren't playing the game because they preferred the gameplay to the likes of CoD.

But like I said earlier, it's like bands and CDs... I mean no game can maintain its audience indefinitely (except WoW), people want to try new things. It's not because they're any less fond of what they were playing up until then.

R1 MP in my opinion is legendary in quality and the respect it held amongst its fans... it's on the order of the original Quake deathmatch in terms of its 'purity,' and frankly, just enjoyable as hell. But I stopped playing it too when Warhawk came out, not because it was any less awesome, but just because I wanted to try Warhawk. So that was my game for the next couple of months. And I guess for some/most, that shift occurred at CoD.

Still with R2 I think/bet that a lot of those that drifted to CoD and/or other games were ready to come back and have the next couple of months be about R2 in an 'echoes of R1' sort of way. That the MP design seemed to have chased the players to where they had gone rather than wait for them to come back to an old friend I think was a mistake.

I mean these are just opinions and who can know what would have been better, worse, or whatever else. Above all I do respect the place of the artist (Insomniac) to put out a game that reflects their own choices/will and to do so in a way that ignores the noise of the Internet if they choose to, even if it results in a game different than that some were expecting. But, it's just that it did result in a game different than some were expecting.

[Cornsnake]

Yeah, CoD4 influence on R2 coop clearly sucks. Bad, bad Insomniac.

On a more serious note, two weapon system and full health regen are the worst things that happened to Resistance SP (though they work great for MP, especially objective stuff). They may very well be a poor attempt for coolness or simply cheap design. Still SP gives way more Half-Life 2 vibe than CoD4, if anything.
MP however, is a totally different beast.

As for being poorly received by gamers, that may very well be true. However R1 had a lot of haters at the time, people just don't seem to remember. More importantly I'm pretty sure a sequel to R1 that would satisfy all fans would be much less successful. I think the biggest threat to R2's continues popularity is Killzone 2, not CoD5.

ps: Cornsnake, that Spartan guy in your clan is a lagger.

Off topic.

I'm afraid that might be true. I played some custom games again him and thought the same thing. But I don't think he's doing deliberately. It's either his slow internet connection, or a bug in the game. I've seen more laggers, but it's never because the servers can't handle the amount of players. It's usually just a single player that's is very hard to kill, or can kill you faster then should be possible.

On topic.

That 2 weapon limit in the SP is really killing the replay value for me. In Rfom you could try different weapons and tactics in different situations. But in R2 you'd better exchange your weapon which the one that is strangely laying along your path, because the next part is going to be very difficult without it.

[patsu]

Yeah, R2 competitive is alright now.

Played with the clan once, I actually enjoyed it more than I expected. I thought it's more arcady than R1. Basically, I ran all over the map picking people off using the gunsight view (mostly). Most of the time, these people were distracted by other players.

In R1, I find myself going solo more often, and fighting was more intense/standalone (probably due to the levels I tried). I also use grenades more in R1, often leaving behind one just before I die :). In R2, because my hands are kinda locked due to the gunsight view, it's harder to engineer other moves. I don't switch weapons in R2 too (even though there's one sidearm).

In a sense, I find R1 easier to pick up (Just point and shoot !) but harder to master (Extremely fast pace, difficult to deal with skillful, well-equipped players). I find R2 slightly more awkward to pick up (gun sight view, need to choose weapons, need to understand berserk mode and abilities) but more friendly moving forward (and less depth in weapon strategy). However, these feelings may be due to the fact that I have not played R2 competitive a lot.

I had to confront nasty tactics people employed in R1 (e.g., Auger + Shotgun tag team, holed up sniper team in some high location, fast weapon switchers, Auger spamming in closed rooms, one-shot Flamethrower/Arc charger/40mm dudes, etc.). I treat them more as a puzzle (How do I take them out using my available weapons ?). In R2, I haven't played enough to know people's styles yet. The ones I played against seem to just shoot freestyle. Every time I logged on to try competitive, I get sidetracked by Co-op :lol: (Too lazy to learn the berserk stuff too).

* Do you use secondary fire more in R2 ? Or do you rely on the special abilities ?

* Have you fought someone one-to-one (undisturbed by a third person ?). Do you prefer one-to-one fight in R1 or R2 ?

[Kittonwy]

I wonder, would R2 have been better received if there was no R:FoM before it?

Personally I think R:FoM SP was more fun than R2 SP, not saying R2 SP was bad or anything. But my gut tells me that I enjoyed SP more on R:FoM. And its not pure nostalgia,since I completed R:FoM this summer, so that I would know the back story better when R2 was released.

R2 MP vs R:FoM MP, ie competitive, I have no clue, I got about 2 mins with R:FoM and 10 mins with R2 MP during the beta.

R2 Co-Op is a winner for me, mainly because it gives you the fun of MP, without being trashed by everybody and his dog due to have reaction times of a 120 year old after to much women,drinking and dancing ;) So its very noob friendly I guess.

Overall, my perception is R2 > R:FoM.

The problem is not RFOM before R2, it's R2 trying to attempt stop-and-pop without 1) designing the maps around it and 2) tuning the damage to make stop and pop effective. The maps in R2 are RUN-AND-GUN MAPS, most of them are WIDE-OPEN.

Graphics-wise it's just lacking good lighting/shadowing and cohesiveness. I have the art book and the art concepts were actually really good, they just didn't realize the concepts at all.

[Kittonwy]

Yeah, CoD4 influence on R2 coop clearly sucks. Bad, bad Insomniac.

On a more serious note, two weapon system and full health regen are the worst things that happened to Resistance SP (though they work great for MP, especially objective stuff). They may very well be a poor attempt for coolness or simply cheap design. Still SP gives way more Half-Life 2 vibe than CoD4, if anything.
MP however, is a totally different beast.

As for being poorly received by gamers, that may very well be true. However R1 had a lot of haters at the time, people just don't seem to remember. More importantly I'm pretty sure a sequel to R1 that would satisfy all fans would be much less successful. I think the biggest threat to R2's continues popularity is Killzone 2, not CoD5.

ps: Cornsnake, that Spartan guy in your clan is a lagger.

When you have a two weapon system you need to make sure the player feels empowered with their primary weapon with the handgun still making the player feels safe enough, which is far from the case. NONE of the weapons feels good as primary, ALL of them feels inadequate in some way or form, there's NEVER a comfort zone, partly because the maps are simply too wide-open for what they're trying to do, without the safety provided by ample secondary fire. Shotguns are NOT fearsome close-ranged weapons, carbine doesn't have adequate range, snipers are completely vulnerable because now they don't have a good secondary weapon to protect themselves, the marksman is an unnecessary tweener weapon which serves to marginalize the sniper rifle and causes the carbine to have a more useless range, weapons like the splicer, bellock, wraith and auger are basically pointless. The maps themselves simply don't have enough structure, you want to set the snipers up at various points, you want to provide enough cover for the shorter ranged weapons to work through, you want to create enough close-quartered situations for close-ranged weapons to dominate, when your levels are so open, it just kind of kills tactical possibilities.

[patsu]

Graphics-wise it's just lacking good lighting/shadowing and cohesiveness. I have the art book and the art concepts were actually really good, they just didn't realize the concepts at all.

Kittonwy, are these the concept arts you refer to ?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9944073&postcount=1

If so, they are indeed beautifully rendered but compared to MGS4, KZ2, LBP, DMC, HellBoy I & II (the movies), Pan's Labyrinth (movie), I think they are lacking in imagination, personality and "sexiness". If they want to start from scratch, might as well expect something higher internally. What gave the R1 monsters personality was their in-game (AI) behaviour. I was never really attracted to the Resistance concept art (I don't hate them either).



I do agree that there were too many lost opportunities in R2 SP.

In R1, the monsters seemed to have deeper behaviour (Hybrids flank more effectively, menial will hug, bite and sometimes carry explosives, Stalkers will stomp all over the place in a level full of hiding places and debris, Titans will move more freely, etc.).

I feel that in R2, I am forced to keep my distance because my health bar is artificially made too short, I don't have many powerful weapons to take the hordes on. In effect, compared to R1, I was gimped to make the game fun (The enemies in R2 are mostly one-trick and so "far" from me that they lost most of their personality). Together with the fragmented stories, the R2 handicap gave me the feeling that something is missing throughout the game. Even though I enjoyed the game, I felt somewhat constipated.

I believe because of that safety distance the player kept between himself and the monsters, the enemies were designed to charge repeatedly (or some say indefinitely) to make things eventful. It could have been more interesting if I am right in the thick of these battles like in R1. R2 SP has a few of these but mostly you have to fight strictly behind cover. The Chameleons should not be a one-hit killer, I should be allowed to duke it out with him for a longer period... like in Co-op.


That said, I think the hilltop R2 Co-op fight far surpassed the best R1 level. It's the only place I felt threatened in shooters against the computer (like playing in an alien movie where all your comrades were murdered. It's "Game Over" if I died too). Amongst all the R1 and R2 monsters, the Hybrids (Augerer and regular foot soldiers) in R2 remain formidable. They are determined, vicious and extremely mobile -- given the right level design.

Overall, the R2 experience covers a wide range. If they can tighten the experience, I have no doubt that R2 > R1. And I disagree with Kittonwy's criticisms on HDR, shadowing and what not (Seriously).

[scificube]

When you have a two weapon system you need to make sure the player feels empowered with their primary weapon with the handgun still making the player feels safe enough, which is far from the case. NONE of the weapons feels good as primary, ALL of them feels inadequate in some way or form, there's NEVER a comfort zone, partly because the maps are simply too wide-open for what they're trying to do, without the safety provided by ample secondary fire. Shotguns are NOT fearsome close-ranged weapons, carbine doesn't have adequate range, snipers are completely vulnerable because now they don't have a good secondary weapon to protect themselves, the marksman is an unnecessary tweener weapon which serves to marginalize the sniper rifle and causes the carbine to have a more useless range, weapons like the splicer, bellock, wraith and auger are basically pointless. The maps themselves simply don't have enough structure, you want to set the snipers up at various points, you want to provide enough cover for the shorter ranged weapons to work through, you want to create enough close-quartered situations for close-ranged weapons to dominate, when your levels are so open, it just kind of kills tactical possibilities.

I disagree with most of this.

The marksman is an excellent weapon. It has excellent range and an excellent alt fire. It doesn't make sense to criticize the weapon for working even if you consider that others do not.

I never felt vulnerable with a FarEye. I felt god like. The secondary fire on that weapon had me destroying enemies without fear of retribution due the slow motion effect. Also, I always had a short to mid-range weapon as my second weapon so if anything go too close it was all good. If I had a FarEye it meant the enemies were in serious trouble not the other way around...getting nicked by that weapon means death to them.

The Carbine is a midrange spray and pray sort of weapon much like the Bullseye. If there is a complaint about the carbine is that its alt fire has such limited and un-replinishable ammo. I really didn't use either of these weapons for any other reason that there was a constant ammo supply for them. There were more effective weapons on the battle field that I held on to once I acquired them.

There are plenty of levels where there is either cover all about or level geometry you can use to your advantage for stop and pop game-play so I don't get what you're saying there at all. (any car which has been previously blown up becomes indestructible cover) In all the "open" levels you have access to either a Marksman or a FarEye at all times so you really should be picking off enemies in the distance more often than not. The Marksman is actually very effective even in close range if you're good with head shots.The Marksman along with the Auger were my two primary weapons of choice in R2 and I play with them for the majority of the SP campaign.

The Rossmore never shows up much in indoor areas which where it would be most effective but IS available every time Grims make an appearance so that you can handle close quarters combat with ease.

The Splicer'ss alternate fire kills titans in ONE shot...that hardly makes it pointless not to mention anything else you alt-fire with it. This and the shotgun eats Grims for breakfast although I prefer to use my knife a lot to conserve ammo for tougher enemies.

The Bellock isn't featured enough or in the right situations to make a difference so I agree with it not being worth very much when you come across one.

The Auger is INCREDIBLY effective. It does better than average damage and can shield you in sticky situations. The Auger is basically a stealth sniper rifle in my opinion. Enemies can't see you behind walls especially if they are off in the distance. You can headshot them till your heart's content. A single clip with an Auger is worth 15-20 kills easy for me. The Auger is anything BUT pointless in my opinion. The Auger has always been an EXCELLENT weapon for me...its almost not fair I'm allowed to have it.

The Wraith is extremely effective in the latter levels. Switch on the shield - deal death - rinse repeat. It does exactly as it's advertised to do. Kill stuff dead and fast at that.

I stop and pop almost exclusively in R2. Running and gunning gets you mauled because you're often up against 10-20 Chimera of various types. I actually felt it necessary to stop, access, and kill over and over again because certain enemies are definitely more dangerous than others.

I have had a vastly different experience with R2 than you so I guess something must be up but given my experience with the game I can't agree with much you said there.

[Kittonwy]

I'm talking about MP competitive, I'm not even referring to SP at all.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v500/EvilTaru/Indifferent2.gif

[patsu]

I think Kittonwy may be talking about the guns in MP. They behave differently in SP.

In SP...

I use Auger to fight in the open. It's my weapon of choice in R2 (to play it like R1 :D) but the ammo is harder to find.

I love the Marksman and the pistol.

I use Wraith exclusively against the Ravager, Rossberg for the Grims and Chameleon.

I didn't know you can kill a Titan with a Splicer alt-fire.

I know you can cause serious damage to a group of Titans with Belllock alt-fire (because they stay put in the fire).

EDIT: Oops, too late.

[scificube]

I'm talking about MP competitive, I'm not even referring to SP at all.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v500/EvilTaru/Indifferent2.gif

Really...my apologies Kittonwy. No clue about MP as I've never played it :lol: I hope the weapons don't magically transform though.

[scificube]

I think Kittonwy may be talking about the guns in MP. They behave differently in SP.

In SP...

I use Auger to fight in the open. It's my weapon of choice in R2 (to play it like R1 :D) but the ammo is harder to find.

I love the Marksman and the pistol.

I use Wraith exclusively against the Ravager, Rossberg for the Grims and Chameleon.

I didn't know you can kill a Titan with a Splicer alt-fire.

I know you can cause serious damage to a group of Titans with Belllock alt-fire (because they stay put in the fire).

EDIT: Oops, too late.

Yep, my bad but thanks for the Bellock tip. I would have never found a use for it without you saying something...and my ignorance of the discussion at hand :oops:

[Kittonwy]

Kittonwy, are these the concept arts you refer to ?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9944073&postcount=1

If so, they are indeed beautifully rendered but compared to MGS4, KZ2, LBP, DMC, HellBoy I & II (the movies), Pan's Labyrinth (movie), I think they are lacking in imagination, personality and "sexiness". If they want to start from scratch, might as well expect something higher internally. What gave the R1 monsters personality was their in-game (AI) behaviour. I was never really attracted to the Resistance concept art (I don't hate them either).



I do agree that there were too many lost opportunities in R2 SP.

In R1, the monsters seemed to have deeper behaviour (Hybrids flank more effectively, menial will hug, bite and sometimes carry explosives, Stalkers will stomp all over the place in a level full of hiding places and debris, Titans will move more freely, etc.).

I feel that in R2, I am forced to keep my distance because my health bar is artificially made too short, I don't have many powerful weapons to take the hordes on. In effect, compared to R1, I was gimped to make the game fun (The enemies in R2 are mostly one-trick and so "far" from me that they lost most of their personality). Together with the fragmented stories, the R2 handicap gave me the feeling that something is missing throughout the game. Even though I enjoyed the game, I felt somewhat constipated.

I believe because of that safety distance the player kept between himself and the monsters, the enemies were designed to charge repeatedly (or some say indefinitely) to make things eventful. It could have been more interesting if I am right in the thick of these battles like in R1. R2 SP has a few of these but mostly you have to fight strictly behind cover. The Chameleons should not be a one-hit killer, I should be allowed to duke it out with him for a longer period.


That said, I think the hilltop R2 Co-op fight far surpassed the best R1 level. It's the only place I felt threatened in shooters (like playing in an alien movie where all your comrades were murdered. It's "Game Over" if I died too). Amongst all the R1 and R2 monsters, the Hybrids (Augerer and regular foot soldiers) in R2 remain formidable. They are determined, vicious and extremely mobile -- given the right level design.

Overall, the R2 experience covers a wide range. If they can tighten the experience, I have no doubt that R2 > R1. And I disagree with Kittonwy's criticisms on HDR, shadowing and what not (Seriously).

Yep AI is way too simplistic in SP, chameleons shouldn't have been a one-hit kill or a one-hit killer (1/3-1/2 damage would have been better, attack/turtle/repeat), movement should reduce the amount of camoflage and the chameleon should move from cover to cover to get close enough to the player. Titan and stalker fights were simply poorly designed, lazy even in terms of giving the player the ability to get creative and use cover. SP level design simply didn't provide a lot of flank or be flanked possibilities.

I felt the concept art compared to the final product was so much bigger and better, enemies like the goliath, leviathan, and the kraken in the final product were simply docile compared to their portrayal in the concept art.

I still maintain my stance on HDR+self-shadowin.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v500/EvilTaru/Indifferent2.gif

[tha_con]

Interestingly enough the folks who don't like the changes in mechanics from R1 to R2 somehow like KZ2, which is more similar to R2 than it is R1.

Crazy.

I guess it's okay for KZ2 to be what it is, but not okay for R2 to be what it is, even though the two are very similar baring some control differences and visuals.

Still, I think the feedback would have been better received if they would have been more than just comparisons to the first game. I think Insomniac was well aware that R1 didn't play like R2, that information they didn't need. What they needed was information and suggestions on how to improve R2. Almost no one talked level design or tweaks, they mostly complained about grenade throwing distance, running speed, or weapon damage compared to R1.

[Kittonwy]

Interestingly enough the folks who don't like the changes in mechanics from R1 to R2 somehow like KZ2, which is more similar to R2 than it is R1.

Crazy.

I guess it's okay for KZ2 to be what it is, but not okay for R2 to be what it is, even though the two are very similar baring some control differences and visuals.

Still, I think the feedback would have been better received if they would have been more than just comparisons to the first game. I think Insomniac was well aware that R1 didn't play like R2, that information they didn't need. What they needed was information and suggestions on how to improve R2. Almost no one talked level design or tweaks, they mostly complained about grenade throwing distance, running speed, or weapon damage compared to R1.

Not sure why bringing KZ2 into the discussion would actually help your defense. It's not about "not liking stop-and-pop", it's all about EXECUTION AND QUALITY, great gameplay is great gameplay, whether it's run-and-gun or more tactical, the original gaf clan is actually starting to enjoy SOCOM more (even DESPITE the ridiculously RETARDED online implementation), why? WAY better maps, WAY better gameplay mechanics, it's not about liking one play-style more than another.

In a great tactical shooter, the maps are WELL-DESIGNED for stop-and-pop with plenty of tight corridors and corners and plenty of cleverly-placed cover, controls, movement and aiming are WELL-DESIGNED for stop-and-pop, the weapons are WELL-TUNED in such a way that clever flanking, short bursts and careful aiming are REWARDED with quick kills, and the maps are designed to accommodate different weapons and play-styles, the KZ2 MP beta got ALL the fundamentals right, which is clearly NOT the case with R2.

In R2 it's not about weapon damage "compared to R1", it's about weapon damage not consistent with the play-style they're forcing onto the players. If you want people to go ironsight, then you need to increase the bullet damage and make kills quicker, because it's certainly not fun for players to circle-strafe with ironsights, but the maps are so open that often people are still running and gunning but with controls and aiming tuned that make running and gunning more awkward, flanking isn't as fun when it takes more shots to take out someone running in the open because of the way the maps are. Sure R2 tried to do some sort of stop-and-pop by forcing players to go into ironsights more but the problem was that they just didn't pull it off.

It's about getting things right whether it's map design, controls, aiming, movement, and R2 MP competitive got it wrong for the most part, it's as simple as that. And it's not like they can change the map designs now anyway, but it was clear people in the beta didn't like the map design in chicago, or orick, or SF in MP competitive, and it was clear IG were unwilling to change ANYTHING, the grenade throwing got marginally better only after OVERWHELMING OUTRAGE from the beta crowd, I'm not sure how you or anyone can honestly complain about criticisms on grenade throwing, because if we didn't speak up, you would still be stuck with grenades that throw like balloons.

[obonicus]

I swear you guys had this same argument when the game came out.

[woundingchaney]

For whatever reason I am repeatedly getting "network error" anytime I attempt to play an online match of any kind. This is a new problem and I do not have an issue connecting to PSN.

Any advice??

[Cornsnake]

For whatever reason I am repeatedly getting "network error" anytime I attempt to play an online match of any kind. This is a new problem and I do not have an issue connecting to PSN.

Any advice??

I had the same problem a few hours ago. It's probably something wrong with the R2 servers.

[patsu]

There were some network issues yesterday with Playstation Home and Trophy support even though PSN Sign-on was fine. Might be a PSN anomaly (Not sure).

I would try again later.

[betan]

But like I said earlier, it's like bands and CDs... I mean no game can maintain its audience indefinitely (except WoW), people want to try new things. It's not because they're any less fond of what they were playing up until then.

That may very well be true, but then again, why would they want to play more of the same when they clearly ignored awesome new maps?

R1 MP in my opinion is legendary in quality and the respect it held amongst its fans... it's on the order of the original Quake deathmatch in terms of its 'purity,' and frankly, just enjoyable as hell. But I stopped playing it too when Warhawk came out, not because it was any less awesome, but just because I wanted to try Warhawk. So that was my game for the next couple of months. And I guess for some/most, that shift occurred at CoD.

Still with R2 I think/bet that a lot of those that drifted to CoD and/or other games were ready to come back and have the next couple of months be about R2 in an 'echoes of R1' sort of way. That the MP design seemed to have chased the players to where they had gone rather than wait for them to come back to an old friend I think was a mistake.

I disagree here completely. First of all, R2 MP isn't chasing CoD in anyway. Second R1 was a fun as hell game but it didn't have the coolness factor of CoD4 and alike. I played both games a lot, and the number of "older" gamers I encountered in R1 (and R2) is significantly higher than CoD4, something which I attribute to maturity and better social environment.
In addition, considering how R1 was received among the media and gamers besides core fans, I'd say Insomniac just felt to change MP in a way they had fun as opposed to mirroring some other successful title. I'm sure no one there was expecting so much negativity and they were proud of what they did.


I mean these are just opinions and who can know what would have been better, worse, or whatever else. Above all I do respect the place of the artist (Insomniac) to put out a game that reflects their own choices/will and to do so in a way that ignores the noise of the Internet if they choose to, even if it results in a game different than that some were expecting. But, it's just that it did result in a game different than some were expecting.
I agree with pretty much everything here, but I don't think Insomniac, a company famous for their continued support, can really ignore the internet noise. They are in a very tough spot right now. I just hope they don't split the userbase further by trying the make old fans happy.

When you have a two weapon system you need to make sure the player feels empowered with their primary weapon with the handgun still making the player feels safe enough, which is far from the case. NONE of the weapons feels good as primary, ALL of them feels inadequate in some way or form, there's NEVER a comfort zone, partly because the maps are simply too wide-open for what they're trying to do, without the safety provided by ample secondary fire. Shotguns are NOT fearsome close-ranged weapons, carbine doesn't have adequate range, snipers are completely vulnerable because now they don't have a good secondary weapon to protect themselves, the marksman is an unnecessary tweener weapon which serves to marginalize the sniper rifle and causes the carbine to have a more useless range, weapons like the splicer, bellock, wraith and auger are basically pointless. The maps themselves simply don't have enough structure, you want to set the snipers up at various points, you want to provide enough cover for the shorter ranged weapons to work through, you want to create enough close-quartered situations for close-ranged weapons to dominate, when your levels are so open, it just kind of kills tactical possibilities.
I'm quite puzzled by how you played R1 and R2. Rossmore in R1 was a fricking overpowered gun until Arc Charger took it place. New one is still powerful, but requires more skill. New Auger is clearly easier to use than the old one especially in the open. Wraith is the ultimate camping gun, is like the mirror opposite of a run-and-gun weapon, frankly my nightmare when I'm running around with bullseye. I'm glad they added it. The default alt weapon, magnum is full of awesomeness. It can take almost any weapon within its range. Plus you can set traps when cornered. Splicers is another creative and useful gun currently underappreciated.

All weapons feel inadequate in some way or form? Yes it's called balancing. Despite what you think you know, the weapons in R1 weren't any different in that respect except for Laark.

If you guys complained about how powerful all the new guns are I could understand. For example, it's very easy to two-shut snipe someone in the game thanks to almost non-existing reload times on Far Eye. 40mm is plenty. Even when you are flanked even by a newcomer, almost all weapons kill you before you can react unless you have a protective berserk ready. Instead you talk about comfort and stuff? :) I mean, if you don't feel comfortable with any weapon ever, I think it may be the time to start looking for the source of that problem somewhere else. Maybe it's the HDR.

Maps don't have enough structure? Again, no idea what you are talking about. Most maps are huge, pretty complex, much more so than the ones in R1, have plenty squad sniping spots. What they don't have is the weapon respawn points.

[betan]

For whatever reason I am repeatedly getting "network error" anytime I attempt to play an online match of any kind. This is a new problem and I do not have an issue connecting to PSN.

Any advice??

R2 servers crashes when demand is higher. From what I experienced, it generally doesn't take more than a couple of minutes to recover though.

[Kittonwy]

I agree with pretty much everything here, but I don't think Insomniac, a company famous for their continued support, can really ignore the internet noise. They are in a very tough spot right now. I just hope they don't split the userbase further by trying the make old fans happy.

I doubt they CAN split the userbase further, they've pretty much pissed off a significant chunk of the old fanbase and I doubt there's a point or a way for them to try to get back the old fans that are already gone, what they have to worry about is losing the new people they managed to lure in from some other popular shooters, because I doubt they'll keep playing R2 for two years like the old fans did with R1.


I'm quite puzzled by how you played R1 and R2. Rossmore in R1 was a fricking overpowered gun until Arc Charger took it place. New one is still powerful, but requires more skill. New Auger is clearly easier to use than the old one especially in the open. Wraith is the ultimate camping gun, is like the mirror opposite of a run-and-gun weapon, frankly my nightmare when I'm running around with bullseye. I'm glad they added it. The default alt weapon, magnum is full of awesomeness. It can take almost any weapon within its range. Plus you can set traps when cornered. Splicers is another creative and useful gun currently underappreciated.

I played R1 and R2 like any other normal human being, not sure how YOU played R1 and R2, maybe you just haven't played something better, but I have.

People always complain about the shotty or the arc charger when they're on the receiving end. Rossmore was deadly at close-range in R1, that's what the point of a shotgun is, but then in R1 there are more close-quartered situations and if you're wielding a shotgun you can play in a way that doesn't expose you as much, not the case in maps like chicago and orick in R2, even the subway map got some seriously long corridors with not enough cover that are not so good for people with shotguns, and definitely not so good in orick. For its range the wraith is pretty underpowered and you can get completely WASTED against someone with a carbine. The splicer is completely useless on a map like orick. It's going to be a LONG time before they can even balance those new weapons to make them more viable.

All weapons feel inadequate in some way or form? Yes it's called balancing. Despite what you think you know, the weapons in R1 weren't any different in that respect except for Laark.

All weapons feeling inadequate in some way or form is NOT called balancing, it's called POOR balancing, there's just no comfort zone for the player, partly because of the way the weapons are tuned, and partly because of the way the maps are designed, with a set of weapons the player should have an awareness of what you can do with what you have and still feel empowered. The difference in R1 is that if you're a player using a carbine or a bullseye, you can get away with using the weapon of your choice because the map designs provided enough routes and cover for the player, but in R2, not so much if we look at maps like SF or Chicago or Orick, if one is wielding a splicer, it's really not so advantageous. The bullseye is completely neutered and useless for all intents and purposes.

If you guys complained about how powerful all the new guns are I could understand. For example, it's very easy to two-shut snipe someone in the game thanks to almost non-existing reload times on Far Eye. 40mm is plenty. Even when you are flanked even by a newcomer, almost all weapons kill you before you can react unless you have a protective berserk ready. Instead you talk about comfort and stuff? :) I mean, if you don't feel comfortable with any weapon ever, I think it may be the time to start looking for the source of that problem somewhere else. Maybe it's the HDR.

The comfort level is NOT THERE AT ALL and I'm not the only player who feels that way, most of my clan do, even with success with the carbine it never felt right. 40mm is NOT plenty, and flanking does NOT result in a quick kill, while I don't like the idea of "stealing kills", I can often get easy kills that way. If you want to discuss THE LACK OF HDR and all the other visual flaws of R2, we can do that too.

Maps don't have enough structure? Again, no idea what you are talking about. Most maps are huge, pretty complex, much more so than the ones in R1, have plenty squad sniping spots. What they don't have is the weapon respawn points.

Maps like Orick and Chicago are all over the place, the maps being "huge and pretty complex" does NOT mean there's structure in them, maps need to have landmarks that are easily called out so people can co-ordinate, they're not good maps, they weren't during the beta and they still aren't good maps now. Who cares if there are weapon respawn points or not as long as you can somehow make sure there's some sort of balance? It's a gameplay design, some games do, other games don't, and not having spawn points actually HURT R2 because now you can have half a dozen guys sniping in one spot across the map and you can't regulate it anymore unlike R1 where you can have three guys camping and the other people would kind of move on.

[Carl B]

I agree with pretty much everything here, but I don't think Insomniac, a company famous for their continued support, can really ignore the internet noise. They are in a very tough spot right now. I just hope they don't split the userbase further by trying the make old fans happy.

I very much agree here, and even wishing that R2 had been a little closer to my own tastes, it doesn't serve anyone any good now for Insomniac to whip back to that in R3 and leave the new R2 fans in the lurch. Man it's a tough place to be in going into R3 development, that's for sure... development that I certainly do hope is on the docket.

I mean above all frankly, the story of Resistance - this trippy sci-fi WWII alternative world is just too awesome. It hooked me like few other games have. Honestly I think they didn't play up the story/campaign details enough in the SP this go around, but that's neither here nor there right now. Just basically, I want to see where this story goes.

I spent some time after my last post in this thread today outside the ivory tower of B3D reading some R2 feelings/thoughts on some other forums, and certainly it is a riven environment. But there certainly are appreciable numbers of folk that prefer R2, that fundamentally prefer this style of MP competitive (granted I think it should've stayed R1 style if only for filling that niche on consoles), and who truly do find the game epic in scope and scale via the presentation... and are to an extent awed. And I won't speak to my differences with those opinions, but will say that they exist in large enough number that I can see at least where Insomniac has a sort of bittersweet vindication in their choices - they just probably didn't expect such a backlash from another segment of the user base, or even if recognized couldn't shift the gears at a point when November 08 was set in stone.

[patsu]

There was some rumbling about possible R1 game mode near R2 launch, but it is not a promise. It may not happen, but I am hoping it will. :(

[Cornsnake]

There was some rumbling about possible R1 game mode near R2 launch, but it is not a promise. It may not happen, but I am hoping it will. :(

That also came with a disclaimer that IF they do it, it would take a lot of time and work adding weapon spawns and rebalancing the weapons. And like Kittonwy said, many of maps in R2 are too open for some of the weapons to really shine. Maybe they should bring back some old favourites like busyard, and balance the weapons on that map in the way they were before the fast respawning of the Laark and 40 messed things up in R1. Or preferably remove these 2 altogether.

It's going to be interesting to see what Insomniac does about the situation. If they are going make an Old School mode, I hope they start out small, and listen to feedback on how to improve it. I wouldn't want them to commit to something big, and not have it work by the time their done.

Then again, if can't do it in time before the next big online FPS comes along, it might not matter. Most of the fans of an Old School mode will be gone anyway.

[Carl B]

I wouldn't want them to commit to something big, and not have it work by the time their done.

Then again, if can't do it in time before the next big online FPS comes along, it might not matter. Most of the fans of an Old School mode will be gone anyway.

So true. I honestly hope Insomniac doesn't devote resources to this, because it's just not as worth it as putting towards their regularly scheduled projects, and frankly I think it's got to be somewhat demoralizing to even be in this situation where such is even an option. It's not worth it, as it won't be appreciated even by the gamers asking for it if it arrives; they've already set themselves up mentally to be playing Killzone 2 in two months anyway, so best to focus on the future rather than linger on the present.

[Cornsnake]

Insomniac should longer be asking for feedback at this point, but rather communicate where they want to take the series. Now everyone is just going around in circles, trying to convince the rest that their opinion is how R2 should be. Everything that needed to be said has been said, so now it's up to Insomniac to decide what they want to do with it. And after they've made up their minds, then they can ask their fans on how want to see R2 be improved in the direction they have taken.

After all their excellent community support on Rfom, I find it very strange that they are so silent about R2. All they've said is there will be a big patch soon. And that was about a month ago.

[obonicus]

Insomniac should longer be asking for feedback at this point, but rather communicate where they want to take the series. Now everyone is just going around in circles, trying to convince the rest that their opinion is how R2 should be. Everything that needed to be said has been said, so now it's up to Insomniac to decide what they want to do with it. And after they've made up their minds, then they can ask their fans on how want to see R2 be improved in the direction they have taken.

After all their excellent community support on Rfom, I find it very strange that they are so silent about R2. All they've said is there will be a big patch soon. And that was about a month ago.

To be fair, they're asking for feedback on tech and art, not on game design.

[patsu]

After all their excellent community support on Rfom, I find it very strange that they are so silent about R2. All they've said is there will be a big patch soon. And that was about a month ago.

Insomniac added new game modes (e.g., Team Conversion, Assault, and Spectator mode) to RFOM about 3 months after US launch. Couple of patches were added over time to re-balance the weapons. 2 map-packs were released. Chimera-Chimera was taken out.

I don't necessarily think they have to put the weapon wheel back, but I believe they will try their best to improve the game -- unless there has been a change in strategy. If they decide to release patches, I would be surprised if they don't touch the weapons. The SP health bar is the one I am hoping they tweak.

[Cornsnake]

If remember correctly, they had a 10 man team for Rfom that made those patches and extra gamemodes and maps. I assume it will be the same for R2. How often have they tweaked the SP? I agree that a bigger health bar would be an improvement, but I doubt they are going to make changes to the SP at this point.

I think they'll put 2 round games back in because they are still working on balancing the teams after the first round. Weapons being the most important of a shooter will probably received continues attention. And then there is the long list bugs they still need to fix.

[betan]

I doubt they CAN split the userbase further, they've pretty much pissed off a significant chunk of the old fanbase and I doubt there's a point or a way for them to try to get back the old fans that are already gone, what they have to worry about is losing the new people they managed to lure in from some other popular shooters, because I doubt they'll keep playing R2 for two years like the old fans did with R1.

God knows who will be playing R2 in two months, but if the old fans are the people kept playing R1 after two years, but hate R2 now, I think it's fair to say Insomniac can safely ignore them, since that's not really splitting the userbase considering their size.

I played R1 and R2 like any other normal human being, not sure how YOU played R1 and R2, maybe you just haven't played something better, but I have.

Sure you have. ;) But that's besides the point. The discussion is about what they changed from R1 for the worse, not whether there are any better shooters in your world.

People always complain about the shotty or the arc charger when they're on the receiving end.

Does that make it OK? (note that I have ever complained about them ;) )

Rossmore was deadly at close-range in R1, that's what the point of a shotgun is, but then in R1 there are more close-quartered situations and if you're wielding a shotgun you can play in a way that doesn't expose you as much, not the case in maps like chicago and orick in R2, even the subway map got some seriously long corridors with not enough cover that are not so good for people with shotguns, and definitely not so good in orick.

That's getting ridiculous. How many maps in R1 are completely safe for shotgun? None. Have you not played Manchester, Summerset, Nottingham? Even relatively closed maps like Grimsby maps have large long corridors or open areas.
Who the hell would want a map where one weapon completely dominates any other?

For its range the wraith is pretty underpowered and you can get completely WASTED against someone with a carbine.

You can get completely wasted with any weapon against someone with wraith depending on the situation.

The splicer is completely useless on a map like orick.

Don't use it then. For the record there are many Orick maps (regions), and the one in the beta is the most open one. That said, I have seen people rule with splicer in that exact map.
I'm really curious whether you were also complaining because Far Eye was useless in all 8p maps besides Manchester in R1?

It's going to be a LONG time before they can even balance those new weapons to make them more viable.

I'm sorry but you either don't know, or don't care what balancing means.

All weapons feeling inadequate in some way or form is NOT called balancing, it's called POOR balancing,

Let's rephrase this. "Good balancing" implies all weapons feel adequate for all situations? Right? :)

there's just no comfort zone for the player,

There's just no comfort zone for the player who plays games based on HDR maybe.
Seriously, speak for your self.

partly because of the way the weapons are tuned, and partly because of the way the maps are designed, with a set of weapons the player should have an awareness of what you can do with what you have and still feel empowered. The difference in R1 is that if you're a player using a carbine or a bullseye, you can get away with using the weapon of your choice because the map designs provided enough routes and cover for the player, but in R2, not so much if we look at maps like SF or Chicago or Orick, if one is wielding a splicer, it's really not so advantageous. The bullseye is completely neutered and useless for all intents and purposes.
The comfort level is NOT THERE AT ALL and I'm not the only player who feels that way, most of my clan do,

I bet you all used Auger, Dragon, prepatch Arc Charger in R1 since they are full of comfort zones.
And bullseye is an awesome weapon for all maps if you are willing to run.

even with success with the carbine it never felt right. 40mm is NOT plenty,

40mm doesn't magically appear in your carbine. You need to find ammo boxes and this is why people with carbine are always racing over dead bodies. Sometimes you 40 an opponent, the game gives you another 40mm.

and flanking does NOT result in a quick kill, while I don't like the idea of "stealing kills", I can often get easy kills that way.

Sorry, I have nothing to say to that.

If you want to discuss THE LACK OF HDR and all the other visual flaws of R2, we can do that too.

No we cannot, for a couple of reasons. There is no game that does everything right graphically. And I can nitpick your favorite game way more than you. For example, R2 destroys vegetation and geometry of Uncharted. So what?

Also your obsession with HDR is a joke. Among all the visual shortcomings of R2, HDR is the least important one.

Maps like Orick and Chicago are all over the place, the maps being "huge and pretty complex" does NOT mean there's structure in them, maps need to have landmarks that are easily called out so people can co-ordinate, they're not good maps, they weren't during the beta and they still aren't good maps now.
Again they aren't any worse than R1 maps in terms of landmarks. Downtown Orick is actually way better since there are signs on the buildings.

I had enough of this tough. Maps are generally bigger and more open than R1, thus ranged weapons are favored more so than R1 especially with gimped tagging and carbine range.

If you want to criticize R1 to R2 MP changes logically, be my guest. If you cannot find any logic, just cite your personal preference and leave it at that, it's way better than what you are doing.


So true. I honestly hope Insomniac doesn't devote resources to this, because it's just not as worth it as putting towards their regularly scheduled projects, and frankly I think it's got to be somewhat demoralizing to even be in this situation where such is even an option. It's not worth it, as it won't be appreciated even by the gamers asking for it if it arrives; they've already set themselves up mentally to be playing Killzone 2 in two months anyway, so best to focus on the future rather than linger on the present.

Wise words as always.
I'm also with you on the story. While I'm not sure they picked the best way to present the story especially in case of R2, Resistance lore hooked me unlike any other. It somewhat sucks game raises many times more questions than it answers though. Still I'm pretty happy with the little details they revealed, and the general direction in the sequel.

[Arwin]

I'm still looking to play this game eventually, just haven't been in a hurry. There's too many FPS games out there and I'm going to space them evenly, and buy them on budget prices. Far Cry 2 got budget price first (payed 25 euros for that) so I bought that first. I might just buy Killzone 2 upon release, but only if some of my colleagues do the same, otherwise I might even wait with that one.

[woundingchaney]

I'm still looking to play this game eventually, just haven't been in a hurry. There's too many FPS games out there and I'm going to space them evenly, and buy them on budget prices. Far Cry 2 got budget price first (payed 25 euros for that) so I bought that first. I might just buy Killzone 2 upon release, but only if some of my colleagues do the same, otherwise I might even wait with that one.

Well you could resale your budget bought FC2 as it most likely isnt worth the money you paid for it and purchase Res.2. :)

JK

In some ways I agree that the onslaught of games leaves many titles either unpurchased or unappreciated as what they would of been if shelf competition wasnt so high and it may be better to lengthen out title/genre releases. Though with console gaming there is the tendency of "latest and greatest" and I find that I move from title to title considerably quicker and the online population diminishes considerably faster as well.

Anyways enjoy FC2 and despite Res.2's various letdowns I would consider it to be a worthwhile purchase for a PS3 owner even at standard retail cost (though I am American and Im not overly sure what a game would cost you comparably).

[Kittonwy]

God knows who will be playing R2 in two months, but if the old fans are the people kept playing R1 after two years, but hate R2 now, I think it's fair to say Insomniac can safely ignore them, since that's not really splitting the userbase considering their size.

Well let's see whether they'll have any kind of loyal fanbase now that the old fans are gone.

Sure you have. ;) But that's besides the point. The discussion is about what they changed from R1 for the worse, not whether there are any better shooters in your world.

There are better BETAS out there than R2, and oh they did change from R1 for the worse. The point is that it's not about the fact that they changed the gameplay, it's about changing the gameplay and ending up with something worse because you're trying to force a play-style that isn't consistent with the map design.

Does that make it OK? (note that I have ever complained about them ;) )

Sure, as long as a weapon with a longer range can trump the shotty from outside the shotty's range, it's all about effective range and how well-tuned they are and how the maps enable people with different weapons to still play with their favorite weapon, it's about making sure the players gets a clear sense of how far they can reach with their weapons of choice and figuring out the sweetspot.

That's getting ridiculous. How many maps in R1 are completely safe for shotgun? None. Have you not played Manchester, Summerset, Nottingham? Even relatively closed maps like Grimsby maps have large long corridors or open areas.
Who the hell would want a map where one weapon completely dominates any other?

The difference is that in R1 you start with a carbine or a bullseye, NOT a shotty, AND you can switch to another weapon given the situation, in R2 if your load-out is the shotty as a primary, you're STUCK with a shotty, and regardless, R1 maps are still way better in terms of giving short-range players enough cover to go from A to B, in the hangar even with snipers you CAN make your way across, in R2 on maps like orick and chicago it can be insanely bad for shorter-ranged weapons like the shotty or the splicer, except you cannot switch to a more appropriate weapon because of the two-weapon load-out. Being able to provide routes for short-range weapons does not make the shotty or any other weapon dominate, on the contrary, it PREVENTS one weapon from completely dominating the others by providing a sweetspot for every type of play style.

You can get completely wasted with any weapon against someone with wraith depending on the situation.

Given the wraith's short range AND its underpowerness compared to the carbine, it would be silly for a carbine user to ever lose out against a wraith user in a one-on-one situation without one side being blindsided by the other.

Don't use it then. For the record there are many Orick maps (regions), and the one in the beta is the most open one. That said, I have seen people rule with splicer in that exact map.

I'm sure you have, but successes with the splicer are relatively rare.

I'm really curious whether you were also complaining because Far Eye was useless in all 8p maps besides Manchester in R1?

Actually I find the fareye to be quite effective on most maps.

I'm sorry but you either don't know, or don't care what balancing means.

I'm sorry but I do know what balancing means and you probably don't.

Let's rephrase this. "Good balancing" implies all weapons feel adequate for all situations? Right? :)

Good balancing means all weapons feel empowered on the map, not in all areas but the maps would provide a way for a player with a particular play style to play effectively, meaning a particularly weapon won't feel completely shitty on a particular map, which isn't the case in R2.

There's just no comfort zone for the player who plays games based on HDR maybe.
Seriously, speak for your self.

I'm obviously not judging the gameplay by the lack of HDR, I'm merely judging the graphics based on the lack of HDR in terms of the poor lighting in R2.

I bet you all used Auger, Dragon, prepatch Arc Charger in R1 since they are full of comfort zones.
And bullseye is an awesome weapon for all maps if you are willing to run.

I don't have to use the auger dragon or the arc charger because I'm not spawned with any of them and no one is forced to load out with any of those weapons. The point of the bullseye is to tag and bag, and it's not an awesome weapon at all for any of the maps, it's main function in terms of tagging has been completely destroyed and it does not possess much range or accuracy compared to many of the other primary weapons.

40mm doesn't magically appear in your carbine. You need to find ammo boxes and this is why people with carbine are always racing over dead bodies. Sometimes you 40 an opponent, the game gives you another 40mm.

At this point the way R2 handles the 40mm is basically garbage.

Sorry, I have nothing to say to that.

Well I did make a great point.

No we cannot, for a couple of reasons. There is no game that does everything right graphically. And I can nitpick your favorite game way more than you. For example, R2 destroys vegetation and geometry of Uncharted. So what?

The problem with your statement is that it isn't remotely close to being true. First of all Uncharted as a 2007 game COMPLETELY DESTROYS R2 in terms of visuals. Secondly, Uncharted has more interactive vegetation and geometry that is more than just things in a skybox, no it's not an MP game, in terms of SP it's actually more wide-open and interactive in terms of levels than R2 which is ridiculously linear given how much they boasted about geometry. Yes, no game does everything right graphically, it's just that R2 did a lot of things wrong. Flat lighting, poor shadowing and weird-looking water are just some of them.

Also your obsession with HDR is a joke. Among all the visual shortcomings of R2, HDR is the least important one.

On the contrary, poor lighting/shadowing is one of R2's biggest flaws, it made a lot of things stick out like a sore thumb, good lighting and shadowing could have seriously pulled the scenes together.

Again they aren't any worse than R1 maps in terms of landmarks. Downtown Orick is actually way better since there are signs on the buildings.

Downtown orick is terrible in terms of landmarks and you're supposed to improve on things with a sequel.

I had enough of this tough. Maps are generally bigger and more open than R1, thus ranged weapons are favored more so than R1 especially with gimped tagging and carbine range.

So you ADMIT the tagging and carbine range are GIMPED? Good. And no, ranged weapons shouldn't be favored on a balanced map, so yeah, there's a balancing issue right there.

If you want to criticize R1 to R2 MP changes logically, be my guest. If you cannot find any logic, just cite your personal preference and leave it at that, it's way better than what you are doing.


I did, I find it strange that you're trying to defend the changes like they were supposed to be good, I don't mind the change in play-style if they made it work, but they didn't, stop-and-pop on open maps didn't work so well and I'm not sure HOW they can even begin to fix it.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v500/EvilTaru/Indifferent2.gif

[Kittonwy]

Insomniac added new game modes (e.g., Team Conversion, Assault, and Spectator mode) to RFOM about 3 months after US launch. Couple of patches were added over time to re-balance the weapons. 2 map-packs were released. Chimera-Chimera was taken out.

I don't necessarily think they have to put the weapon wheel back, but I believe they will try their best to improve the game -- unless there has been a change in strategy. If they decide to release patches, I would be surprised if they don't touch the weapons. The SP health bar is the one I am hoping they tweak.

I don't think it's even realistic to ask for the weapon-wheel back, I'm not sure how they can tweak things to make the weapons feel good again, both the carbine and the bullseye need massive tweaks.

[patsu]

I should replay R2 competitive again. I forgot how it's like after reading both of you going back and forth. @_@

Problem is I left the game at work.

I don't think it's even realistic to ask for the weapon-wheel back, I'm not sure how they can tweak things to make the weapons feel good again, both the carbine and the bullseye need massive tweaks.

Yeah, they will figure it out themselves. It's hard for me to gauge what they will do because Insomniac has personality and charm ^_^ (but it's a business afterall).

Hey betan, so do you use the gun sight view at all ? Even with Bulleyes ?

I find that I can kill people faster if I use that view, but I would like to play without it. What gun should I pick ?

I feel that the weapons behave differently between SP, MP and Co-op. My Co-op experience does not carry over.

[Kittonwy]

So true. I honestly hope Insomniac doesn't devote resources to this, because it's just not as worth it as putting towards their regularly scheduled projects, and frankly I think it's got to be somewhat demoralizing to even be in this situation where such is even an option. It's not worth it, as it won't be appreciated even by the gamers asking for it if it arrives; they've already set themselves up mentally to be playing Killzone 2 in two months anyway, so best to focus on the future rather than linger on the present.

They need to keep cranking out new trophies and maybe a couple of co-op maps to keep people grinding levels and hope that in two months the group they have playing the game now won't flock to that other game.

[Cornsnake]

I feel that the weapons behave differently between SP, MP and Co-op. My Co-op experience does not carry over.

They are very different between gamemodes, making switching between a little more difficult. But it probably needed to be done in order to get them balanced in every gamemode. The difference in grenade throwing I find a bit unnecessary. In SP and Co-op you can still throw them as far as you like, but not in competitive. IMO they should be able to be thrown as far, but have less splash damage.

[betan]

Well let's see whether they'll have any kind of loyal fanbase now that the old fans are gone.

I don't expect miracles. As of now it seems fine. KZ2 is the first test.

The difference is that in R1 you start with a carbine or a bullseye, NOT a shotty, AND you can switch to another weapon given the situation,

If you have the weapon.
Suppose you are playing Manchester 32 and the other guys took the wall side and some camping around tree side Far Eye. You cannot do anything at all and weapons you start with and have access to are useless.

in R2 if your load-out is the shotty as a primary, you're STUCK with a shotty, and regardless, R1 maps are still way better in terms of giving short-range players enough cover to go from A to B, in the hangar even with snipers you CAN make your way across, in R2 on maps like orick and chicago it can be insanely bad for shorter-ranged weapons like the shotty or the splicer, except you cannot switch to a more appropriate weapon because of the two-weapon load-out.

You can and that weapon is called Magnum. R2 provides enough safe passages given the range of Magnum. Not that every point is safe. There is no such weapon.

Being able to provide routes for short-range weapons does not make the shotty or any other weapon dominate, on the contrary, it PREVENTS one weapon from completely dominating the others by providing a sweetspot for every type of play style.

While all true, providing safe routes for weapons is different than being completely safe for a particular weapon. And since you were complaining about new Subway I don't see any relevance at all.

Given the wraith's short range AND its underpowerness compared to the carbine, it would be silly for a carbine user to ever lose out against a wraith user in a one-on-one situation without one side being blindsided by the other.
A Wraith master can take out Carbine master any day face-to-face one-on-one because Carbine doesn't spawn with 40mm, but Wraith starts with shield. Even if Carbine master has range or surprise advantage (since it takes time for Wraith to start firing), Wraith master can simply shield up and either retreat or get closer to melee or switch to magnum once the hp is back up full. There is nothing carbine master can do but run.

I'm sure you have, but successes with the splicer are relatively rare.

Yes it's, because the gun requires skill to use in the open, like Bullseye.

Actually I find the fareye to be quite effective on most maps.

I'm sure you do, especially since there is no Far Eye in Nottingham, Grimsby, Subway, Thames. It's only available for Manchester and Somerset among the 8p maps.

I'm sorry but I do know what balancing means and you probably don't.
Good balancing means all weapons feel empowered on the map, not in all areas but the maps would provide a way for a player with a particular play style to play effectively, meaning a particularly weapon won't feel completely shitty on a particular map, which isn't the case in R2.

There is no weapon that is completely shitty on any map. On the contrary each maps have parts where particular weapon has advantages and disadvantages, this is how it should be.
However as i said many times before, maps overall favors ranged weapons a little more so than others for TDM. That said, for Skirmish and Core Control, even in the same maps those weapons are useless more often than not. I know this is surprise to some but TDM is not the only mode in Resistance.

I'm obviously not judging the gameplay by the lack of HDR, I'm merely judging the graphics based on the lack of HDR in terms of the poor lighting in R2.

If you say so.

I don't have to use the auger dragon or the arc charger because I'm not spawned with any of them and no one is forced to load out with any of those weapons. The point of the bullseye is to tag and bag, and it's not an awesome weapon at all for any of the maps, it's main function in terms of tagging has been completely destroyed and it does not possess much range or accuracy compared to many of the other primary weapons.

I know you are an expert after playing a map during the beta and all, but let me try to explain this slowly. Bulleye tagging is almost free if you are running, at the cost of revealing your position (which happens when you shoot as well). Still it's one of the most fun weapons and I would prefer it to carbine or any other medium to short range weapon if there weren't so many 40z.

At this point the way R2 handles the 40mm is basically garbage.

Yes

Well I did make a great point.

What's great about not being able to kill anyone without help? I'm sorry I cannot think of any response that's not insulting at this point.
What's even funnier is that all your talk about R2 makes me wonder how much you understand the other BETAs you seem to like.

The problem with your statement is that it isn't remotely close to being true. First of all Uncharted as a 2007 game COMPLETELY DESTROYS R2 in terms of visuals.

Because you say so?

Secondly, Uncharted has more interactive vegetation and geometry that is more than just things in a skybox,

MGS3 had those interactive vegetation in form of triangle grass. Awesome.

no it's not an MP game, in terms of SP it's actually more wide-open and interactive in terms of levels than R2 which is ridiculously linear

unlike Uncharted. :)

given how much they boasted about geometry.

Who cares what they boasted about. The fact of the matter is even the MP maps destroy Uncharted in terms of geometry and vegetation. Please don't tell me they are linear as well.

Yes, no game does everything right graphically, it's just that R2 did a lot of things wrong. Flat lighting, poor shadowing and weird-looking water are just some of them.

Better than poor vegetation, poor geometry, flat water, one could say. ;)
I personally find R2 more impressive technically, but I hope you get my point. It's really irrelevant which game you and I think is better looking overall.

On the contrary, poor lighting/shadowing is one of R2's biggest flaws, it made a lot of things stick out like a sore thumb, good lighting and shadowing could have seriously pulled the scenes together.

_More_ dynamic shadowing, especially on destructible geometry could help, I agree, which happens to be unrelated to HDR.

Downtown orick is terrible in terms of landmarks and you're supposed to improve on things with a sequel.

I have a feeling you have no idea what downtown Orick is. Check for example Suburbs region also part of 60p Orick map.

So you ADMIT the tagging and carbine range are GIMPED? Good.

I have been saying that since the beta, not that carbine is any worse weapon.

And no, ranged weapons shouldn't be favored on a balanced map, so yeah, there's a balancing issue right there.

If there is, they had the same issue in R1, since there wasn't any balanced map by your understanding. Are you seriously arguing that all maps should "favor" all weapons equally?

I did, I find it strange that you're trying to defend the changes like they were supposed to be good,

What I find strange is you think I'm trying to defend anything. To be honest, I feel like I'm the only one criticizing the game, between some noise.

I don't mind the change in play-style if they made it work, but they didn't, stop-and-pop on open maps didn't work so well and I'm not sure HOW they can even begin to fix it.

Here's why you don't get the game. You think this is a stop-and-pop game. If you had slightest understanding you would know that the game punishes you for that, maybe even more so than R1. There is no stopping allowed besides possibly with invisibility berserk. Even with stuff like Ironheart, Ring of Life or turtle Wraith you have to keep moving constantly. It doesn't matter you are sniping, camping or defending.

Hey betan, so do you use the gun sight view at all ? Even with Bulleyes ?

Yes I do depending on the distance. Bullseye tagging is at its best without ironsight but ironsight improves range and accuracy significantly.

I find that I can kill people faster if I use that view, but I would like to play without it. What gun should I pick ?

If you don't want to use ironsight with carbine and bullseye you need to keep it close.
Bullock and Splicer don't have ironsight but I'm sure that's not what you are looking for.
I think it's difficult to completely avoid ironsight in R2, but that view is still as fast, or faster than most other games' over the hip view.

[Kittonwy]

I don't expect miracles. As of now it seems fine. KZ2 is the first test.

There won't be a second test.

If you have the weapon.
Suppose you are playing Manchester 32 and the other guys took the wall side and some camping around tree side Far Eye. You cannot do anything at all and weapons you start with and have access to are useless.

That's totally untrue and you know it.

You can and that weapon is called Magnum. R2 provides enough safe passages given the range of Magnum. Not that every point is safe. There is no such weapon.

You're seriously overrating the magnum and its range, the magnum is not so powerful that one can make it around a level, even with the secondary fire it's still very much a sidearm at best, which means the player might have a disadvantage with certain primary weapons.

While all true, providing safe routes for weapons is different than being completely safe for a particular weapon. And since you were complaining about new Subway I don't see any relevance at all.
A Wraith master can take out Carbine master any day face-to-face one-on-one because Carbine doesn't spawn with 40mm, but Wraith starts with shield. Even if Carbine master has range or surprise advantage (since it takes time for Wraith to start firing), Wraith master can simply shield up and either retreat or get closer to melee or switch to magnum once the hp is back up full. There is nothing carbine master can do but run.

A wraith cannot stand up to a carbine, yes you can shield up with a wraith, but then you wouldn't go toe to toe against a wraith with a shield up in the first place. The advantage the carbine has is not primarily range, it's damage/shot.

Yes it's, because the gun requires skill to use in the open, like Bullseye.

The bullseye is gimped to the point where it's useless in medium distance, no amount of skill can compensate for lack of accuracy.

I'm sure you do, especially since there is no Far Eye in Nottingham, Grimsby, Subway, Thames. It's only available for Manchester and Somerset among the 8p maps.

So? Those maps aren't suitable for sniping and thus they didn't put the fareye in there.

There is no weapon that is completely shitty on any map. On the contrary each maps have parts where particular weapon has advantages and disadvantages, this is how it should be.

The shotty is utter crap in orick.

However as i said many times before, maps overall favors ranged weapons a little more so than others for TDM. That said, for Skirmish and Core Control, even in the same maps those weapons are useless more often than not. I know this is surprise to some but TDM is not the only mode in Resistance.

NOT BALANCED. Frankly neither skirmish nor core control is all that great, not sure why they decided to go with those two.

If you say so.

Yep yep.

I know you are an expert after playing a map during the beta and all, but let me try to explain this slowly. Bulleye tagging is almost free if you are running, at the cost of revealing your position (which happens when you shoot as well). Still it's one of the most fun weapons and I would prefer it to carbine or any other medium to short range weapon if there weren't so many 40z.

Bullseye has limited tags now which undermines it even more, and is mainly a short-ranged weapon.

Yes

What's great about not being able to kill anyone without help? I'm sorry I cannot think of any response that's not insulting at this point.
What's even funnier is that all your talk about R2 makes me wonder how much you understand the other BETAs you seem to like.

Why do you even NEED help to kill someone?

Because you say so?

Yes?

MGS3 had those interactive vegetation in form of triangle grass. Awesome.

MGS3 is a PS2 game, why are you comparing R2 to a PS2 game?

unlike Uncharted. :)

In Uncharted the level is open enough that you can take different approaches and flank enemies, such as outside the church and inside the customs house as both are HUGE and have tons and tons of cover points to make it from one side of the map to another, far from the linearity in R2 SP levels.

Who cares what they boasted about. The fact of the matter is even the MP maps destroy Uncharted in terms of geometry and vegetation. Please don't tell me they are linear as well.

MP maps in R2 is obviously bigger because they're MP maps meant to house SIXTY PEOPLE, R2 SP levels can't touch those in Uncharted SP, not even close.

Better than poor vegetation, poor geometry, flat water, one could say. ;)
I personally find R2 more impressive technically, but I hope you get my point. It's really irrelevant which game you and I think is better looking overall.

Compared to what? The jello in R2 that for the most part doesn't even reflect properly? And how often do YOU spend swimming in R2 water versus Uncharted water that you HAVE TO swim AND drive a jetski on?

_More_ dynamic shadowing, especially on destructible geometry could help, I agree, which happens to be unrelated to HDR.

Poor lighting in general DOES relate to the lack of HDR or some type of tone-mapping, and points to the poor quality of the lighting in R2. And yes, dynamic shadowing is really lacking in R2. The problem is also not enough GAMEPLAY geometry, objects in the background really don't matter too much because you can't interact with them so there's no point in putting so much focus on them.

I have a feeling you have no idea what downtown Orick is. Check for example Suburbs region also part of 60p Orick map.

I have a feeling you have no idea what a landmark is.

I have been saying that since the beta, not that carbine is any worse weapon.

Ok then, the bullseye is garbage and the carbine is gimped, that much we can agree on.

If there is, they had the same issue in R1, since there wasn't any balanced map by your understanding. Are you seriously arguing that all maps should "favor" all weapons equally?

R1 is clearly different in that you do NOT spawn with any weapon, you spawn with the standard weapon, and the maps have to and are fair to bullseye/carbine in R1, R2 on the other hand needs to make sure someone who spawns with a fareye or a shotty feels the map is fair and is not which is unfortunate.

What I find strange is you think I'm trying to defend anything. To be honest, I feel like I'm the only one criticizing the game, between some noise.

Here's why you don't get the game. You think this is a stop-and-pop game. If you had slightest understanding you would know that the game punishes you for that, maybe even more so than R1. There is no stopping allowed besides possibly with invisibility berserk. Even with stuff like Ironheart, Ring of Life or turtle Wraith you have to keep moving constantly. It doesn't matter you are sniping, camping or defending.

The problem is that ironsighting is a STOP AND POP mechanic, the game punishes you for ironsighting because the maps are open but they would really cater more to R1-type aiming, worse yet the relatively low damage per bullet does not yield quick kills, so you end up with quite a bit of circle-strafing but WITH the awkward ironsighting, AND the game requires people to rely more on berserks. The problem is that the game needs to cater to skill first and foremost instead of berserks.

Yes I do depending on the distance. Bullseye tagging is at its best without ironsight but ironsight improves range and accuracy significantly.

Bullseye tagging is garbage even WITH ironsight.

If you don't want to use ironsight with carbine and bullseye you need to keep it close.

I don't know what your idea of close is, without ironsighting the effectiveness with both weapon is rather close-ranged and this is basically shotty range, compared to R1 where shooting from the hip is still possible at mid-medium range.

Bullock and Splicer don't have ironsight but I'm sure that's not what you are looking for.
I think it's difficult to completely avoid ironsight in R2, but that view is still as fast, or faster than most other games' over the hip view.

R2 ironsighting is really not fast at all, nor is it all that great in terms of providing additional precision. No, I'm not a big fan of either the splicer of the bullock.

[Neb]

Poor lighting in general DOES relate to the lack of HDR.

Not really, bloom can be good to and other methods. Look at Killzone 2, it doesn't have HDr (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1039398&postcount=88).

[Kittonwy]

Not really, bloom can be good to and other methods. Look at Killzone 2, it doesn't have HDr (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1039398&postcount=88).

I'm not stipulating the use of FP16 here, just some sort of approximation or hack/tone-mapping. Whatever lighting model + lens flare they have in Killzone 2 there's clearly enough range there between the really bright and the really dark, in a day map like Radec academy one can really tell it's bright and when a character goes into shadow which is something you can really tell, that is really lacking in R2, the maps look like dusk maps and the sun looks way too soft, I'm really not sure why they decided to go with such an art direction.

[_phil_]

Poor lighting in general DOES relate to the lack of HDR.

no,but in R2 it's more a problem of artists than tech.

[RenegadeRocks]

Just saw a gameplay vid of the SP. I think it was Awesome !
(Haven't played the game yet, though I own it since 28th nov :( )
Will be with my ps3 on the 10 or 11th, will get on it then :)

[tha_con]

So this thread is still:

R2 isn't R1
R2 doesn't look as good as (insert game)

Weaksauce. Thread still sucks. Strangely enough the community online is pretty strong, must have something to do with how terrible the game is I suppose.

[Kittonwy]

So this thread is still:

R2 isn't R1
R2 doesn't look as good as (insert game)

Weaksauce. Thread still sucks. Strangely enough the community online is pretty strong, must have something to do with how terrible the game is I suppose.

Well, let's put it that way, in addition to looks, R2 doesn't PLAY as well as (insert game), (insert game) isn't out until february, (insert game) MP beta is finished, and SOCOM Confrontation still has an online interface fit for SOCOM 1.

[Kittonwy]

no,but in R2 it's more a problem of artists than tech.

I just wonder how much time the artists have to work on the levels, it just doesn't make sense in the San Fran level where there are all those crates with no shadows whatsoever, does the game slow down too much so they removed them? Or did they not have enough man-power/man-hour to work on the levels to polish them up? Does the tech support higher quality lighting than showcased in the levels? Looking back when they showed the Chicago level with the Leviathan at E3, it just looked rough and unfinished even for something one would show at E3 when everybody was bringing their best duct-taped version of what they were working on.

[tha_con]

I just wonder how much time the artists have to work on the levels, it just doesn't make sense in the San Fran level where there are all those crates with no shadows whatsoever, does the game slow down too much so they removed them? Or did they not have enough man-power/man-hour to work on the levels to polish them up? Does the tech support higher quality lighting than showcased in the levels? Looking back when they showed the Chicago level with the Leviathan at E3, it just looked rough and unfinished even for something one would show at E3 when everybody was bringing their best duct-taped version of what they were working on.

Maybe it's because I've been to Insomniac Games, but when you're working with around 150 people in your studio, and pushing out a downloadable title (R&C: Q4B) Plus another huge huge project like R2 with SP, Co-Op, and Competitive MP...something just tells me that shadows on boxes aren't exactly your primary focus.

They wanted to get the game out. You may not understand it, and you my want it to look and play like (insert sequel to other game you probably didn't even care about when you played the first title), but they have deadlines they want to meet.

Frankly, I think they did a great job, lots of other people think they did a great job, they'll turn a profit, and at the end of the day, they'll have still done better than most developers ever dream of. It's really funny that what some may consider Insomniacs WORST effort is still better than a lot of other studios BEST.

But, as has been evident with the terrible terrible mistake of a thread on GAF, maybe they'll put more focus on worthless, meaningless, pointless HDR and shadows for crates, then all will be well in the world.

[Kittonwy]

Maybe it's because I've been to Insomniac Games, but when you're working with around 150 people in your studio, and pushing out a downloadable title (R&C: Q4B) Plus another huge huge project like R2 with SP, Co-Op, and Competitive MP...something just tells me that shadows on boxes aren't exactly your primary focus.

They wanted to get the game out. You may not understand it, and you my want it to look and play like (insert sequel to other game you probably didn't even care about when you played the first title), but they have deadlines they want to meet.

Frankly, I think they did a great job, lots of other people think they did a great job, they'll turn a profit, and at the end of the day, they'll have still done better than most developers ever dream of. It's really funny that what some may consider Insomniacs WORST effort is still better than a lot of other studios BEST.

But, as has been evident with the terrible terrible mistake of a thread on GAF, maybe they'll put more focus on worthless, meaningless, pointless HDR and shadows for crates, then all will be well in the world.

Maybe if I own shares in Insomniac Games maybe I would care about how many games get rushed out per year, it doesn't matter if many other developers are cranking out mediocre titles, what I DO care is Insomniac Games making truly AMAZING games, I wanted a better MP shooter than R1 from them but that didn't happen with R2, the modes ended up being a step backwards. They can run their business whichever way they want obviously, what I do care about are the games.

It's all about attention to details, or the lack thereof, which manifests itself when using ironsights and ending up still looking at a RETICLE, or when playing on rather open maps having to circle strafe while zooming because the damage/shot isn't high enough but shooting from the hip just isn't accurate at all at medium distance (if you want to do stop-and-pop, make stop-and-pop maps WITH the damage tuned up, if you want to do run-and-gun, have open maps with better hip-aiming, because right now it's definitely NOT at a sweetspot), or when playing the leviathan level expecting an epic boss battle but ending up with an extremely linear experience, or the other uninspired boss battles, having poor lighting and shadowing is just one of the problems with R2 that held it back from being a highly polished blockbuster title, the lack of polish can be seen everywhere. It's GREAT they managed to crank it out by November, unfortunately I don't really benefit from them getting a game out in a rush.

Maybe their primary focus should be on making a better playing AND looking game instead of just trying to get the game out to meet a deadline, not that I'm not all for hitting milestones but if they're serious about making the Resistance the number one shooter IP on the PS3, they need to do better because they've got some serious competition come february.

[Neb]

I just wonder how much time the artists have to work on the levels, it just doesn't make sense in the San Fran level where there are all those crates with no shadows whatsoever, does the game slow down too much so they removed them?

But is it that important?

I mean I have seen several of the latest Sony/GG released screenshots of KZ2 where shadows are not cast when it should from lightsource point on different parts.

[tha_con]

You know, if R2 had shadows on those crates and bricks, it would have got AT LEAST another half a point on meta-critic. We all know that's whats important right?

Afterall, kittonwy spent nearly two months of R2 media blitz talking strictly about shadows and HDR, and only post beta/release did he start nagging on gameplay (then picked up another shooter that's farily similar in play and loves it).

[Cornsnake]

Afterall, kittonwy spent nearly two months of R2 media blitz talking strictly about shadows and HDR, and only post beta/release did he start nagging on gameplay (then picked up another shooter that's farily similar in play and loves it).

Well I guess Kittonwy really cares for the Resistance franchise if he spends so much time talking about it. In the end we all just want the best for the Resistance franchise, it's just that we disagree on what the best is.

[betan]

That's totally untrue and you know it.

I meant Somerset not Manchester, which should have been obvious to someone who played R1 TDM regularly. There are many more examples of disadvantages of weapon pickups, but I guess it only make sense to people who knows R1.

You're seriously overrating the magnum and its range, the magnum is not so powerful that one can make it around a level, even with the secondary fire it's still very much a sidearm at best, which means the player might have a disadvantage with certain primary weapons.

Magnum is powerful enough to take out enemy (or enemies) with at most three shots. There aren't many primary weapons that can take magnum easily on its range.

A wraith cannot stand up to a carbine, yes you can shield up with a wraith, but then you wouldn't go toe to toe against a wraith with a shield up in the first place. The advantage the carbine has is not primarily range, it's damage/shot.

I want whatever you are smoking. Wraith does the most damage/unit time excluding headshots.

The bullseye is gimped to the point where it's useless in medium distance, no amount of skill can compensate for lack of accuracy.

Aren't you tired of this bs? Please stop talking about weapons you don't comprehend.
Or better yet, here is a resolution.
I challenge you to a duel for which you can pick the map AND weapons (which can be different for each of us) and I claim that with your current understanding of the game, you have no chance of beating me. Only rule is Bullock is out.

So? Those maps aren't suitable for sniping and thus they didn't put the fareye in there.

Obviously they are not, unlike someone else claimed earlier. There are maps in R2 which are not suitable for sniping either. Does it make it unbalanced because you have an option spawn with Far Eye?

The shotty is utter crap in orick.

There is no single Orick map. What part of this is difficult to understand?

NOT BALANCED. Frankly neither skirmish nor core control is all that great, not sure why they decided to go with those two.

Core control is great, it's way better than the CTF in R1. Skirmish is also great when teams are balanced and no one quits.

Bullseye has limited tags now which undermines it even more, and is mainly a short-ranged weapon.

See my resolution above.

Why do you even NEED help to kill someone?

That's a question about you, not the game.

MGS3 is a PS2 game, why are you comparing R2 to a PS2 game?

That PS2 game happens to have the same vegetation you are praising in Uncharted.

In Uncharted the level is open enough that you can take different approaches and flank enemies, such as outside the church and inside the customs house as both are HUGE and have tons and tons of cover points to make it from one side of the map to another, far from the linearity in R2 SP levels.
MP maps in R2 is obviously bigger because they're MP maps meant to house SIXTY PEOPLE, R2 SP levels can't touch those in Uncharted SP, not even close.

MP maps _are_ from campaign. The fact that you traverse them linearly in SP campaign doesn't make it any less impressive.

Compared to what? The jello in R2 that for the most part doesn't even reflect properly? And how often do YOU spend swimming in R2 water versus Uncharted water that you HAVE TO swim AND drive a jetski on?

Are you still talking about the flat Uncharted water, with 2d splash effects?
Yes I prefer that interactive jello in R2 that does reflect and deflect any day, thank you very much.

Poor lighting in general DOES relate to the lack of HDR or some type of tone-mapping, and points to the poor quality of the lighting in R2. And yes, dynamic shadowing is really lacking in R2. The problem is also not enough GAMEPLAY geometry, objects in the background really don't matter too much because you can't interact with them so there's no point in putting so much focus on them.

This is utter bs and you know it. ;)

I have a feeling you have no idea what a landmark is.

Ok then.

Ok then, the bullseye is garbage and the carbine is gimped, that much we can agree on.

Yes yes, we agree on the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. What?
Bullseye rocks, and carbine is the most overpowered gun in game.

R1 is clearly different in that you do NOT spawn with any weapon, you spawn with the standard weapon, and the maps have to and are fair to bullseye/carbine in R1,

Carbine had the range, yet was one of the weakest guns in R1. Not to mention people camping for Laark and 40mm.

R2 on the other hand needs to make sure someone who spawns with a fareye or a shotty feels the map is fair and is not which is unfortunate.

Why do you feel like you have to spawn with weapons that is not suitable for that map?
Is this really the best argument you got? Seriously?

The problem is that ironsighting is a STOP AND POP mechanic,

No it's not in case of R2. It wasn't in R1 either, which could use smooth and fast ironsight R2 has.

the game punishes you for ironsighting because the maps are open but they would really cater more to R1-type aiming,

BS

worse yet the relatively low damage per bullet does not yield quick kills,

Once again, no idea what you are talking about. Far Eye is a two-shot weapon without headshots (same as before), Marksman is a three-shot at most, so is Magnum. Carbine is definitely stronger than it was before, and kills much more quickly. In fact in R1 you had a bigger chance of surviving when flanked with Bullseye or Carbine. Now it's just too easy to kill.

so you end up with quite a bit of circle-strafing but WITH the awkward ironsighting,

Well at least you admit the game is not stop-and-pop.

AND the game requires people to rely more on berserks. The problem is that the game needs to cater to skill first and foremost instead of berserks.

I'm not sure you have any right to talk about skill.

Bullseye tagging is garbage even WITH ironsight.

How thick does one have to be not to understand this, but let me try again, tagging works best when you are running which is obviously without ironsight.
If you don't get this, you loose any right to talk about bullseye too.

I don't know what your idea of close is, without ironsighting the effectiveness with both weapon is rather close-ranged and this is basically shotty range, compared to R1 where shooting from the hip is still possible at mid-medium range.

With very little damage.

R2 ironsighting is really not fast at all, nor is it all that great in terms of providing additional precision. No, I'm not a big fan of either the splicer of the bullock.
Who was talking to you again?
Well I guess Kittonwy really cares for the Resistance franchise if he spends so much time talking about it. In the end we all just want the best for the Resistance franchise, it's just that we disagree on what the best is.
I personally find it more likely that he wants the worst for Resistance because he cares about another franchise.

[LordNerevar]

I've never played first Resistance (except the demo), but i did grab this one, because i liked the way it looked on the trailers, screenshots, and because i wanted to see how the 60 players per map multiplayer was implemented.
First of all, i must say i'm amazed on how fun the co op mode is.
I really, really like it, especially when everyone is doing what they're supposed to be doing. The game is super fun on those occasions.
Competative is excellent, though i wouldn't mind more gameplay modes in the skirmish.
Campaign is pretty solid, though it's quite linear.
I did, however, dislike the fact that the enemies quite often attack only the player, while completely ignoring the rest of the squad. Also, some of the boss fights were quite underwelming and too easy, especially the last one (i played on hard difficulty).
Cutscenes were excellent.
Regarding the graphics, i do think that the game should have better lighting and shadowing, but it's not that serious issue, as kittonwy is trying to make it.
I think the graphics, regarding the scale of the game and everything, are pretty solid.
Also, after playing numerous shooters which, basically, consist of gray and brown colors, i was quite amazed when i saw how colorful the Resistance 2 is.
Regarding the weapon balancing, i haven't found any weapon to be really, really, more powerful than everything else, though the marksman is quite devastating on some maps.

At the end, i would probably rate the game with 9 out of 10.
There are some things that need to be fixed, but i find the game to be very addicting (especially the co-op) and fun to play.

[patsu]

Now that I'm back at work, I played R2 competitive this evening for about 1-2 hours. Patched to 1.30 before I started.

The game has changed somewhat. I enjoyed it MUCH better this time round. I didn't play with the clan, so it's just me and the big bad world out there. I decided to pick my favorite R1 weapon: The Auger. It's pretty usable now compared to R1. Useful for defending nodes. Barely good enough to go toe to toe against Carbine and Bullseye, better if I strafe behind obstacles. I am going to see how far I can go with this rarely used weapon.

Even though I ended up with abyssal K/D ratio, I managed to rank in the middle of the pack sometimes (Just like my early R1 games). Still dislike the color choice, but the game is actually solidly fun now. I had forgotten how 20 vs 20 player fight feel ^_^

Will alternate between Co-op and Competitive from now on. Thanks Insomniac (!) for improving the game. Hopefully you find more incentives to keep at it.

[Kittonwy]

You know, if R2 had shadows on those crates and bricks, it would have got AT LEAST another half a point on meta-critic. We all know that's whats important right?

Afterall, kittonwy spent nearly two months of R2 media blitz talking strictly about shadows and HDR, and only post beta/release did he start nagging on gameplay (then picked up another shooter that's farily similar in play and loves it).

I also spent two years playing R1 night after night with my clan, supported the additional content, participated in both betas. Most of my clan are still FURIOUS about the lack of polish in R2, whether it's the three modes, the visuals or the sound. Like many others in the beta forum, I've made NUMEROUS criticisms in the beta forum regarding GAMEPLAY, otherwise players like yourself would still be stuck with a completely SHIT grenade. The lack of shadows is just one of many problems. Even now there are many criticisms on the myres forums to the point where they have to limit people to a single thread which now has 15 pages of complaints.

[Kittonwy]

I meant Somerset not Manchester, which should have been obvious to someone who played R1 TDM regularly. There are many more examples of disadvantages of weapon pickups, but I guess it only make sense to people who knows R1.

YOU said Manchester, don't blame me when YOU can't get the facts straight. Somerset is all about holding the high ground, a more skilled clan will always win by taking over the sniper spots, because they're MORE SKILLED, and not necessarily being the first ones reaching the sniper spots, if you're beaten by a better team, give them props.

Magnum is powerful enough to take out enemy (or enemies) with at most three shots. There aren't many primary weapons that can take magnum easily on its range.

The magnum doesn't have either the range to take on a marksman or the firing rate to take on a carbine/bullseye, at close range it's powerless against a shotty.

I want whatever you are smoking. Wraith does the most damage/unit time excluding headshots.

Carbine does more damage per shot and it doesn't need reving up.

Aren't you tired of this bs? Please stop talking about weapons you don't comprehend.

You should ask yourself this question instead.

Or better yet, here is a resolution.
I challenge you to a duel for which you can pick the map AND weapons (which can be different for each of us) and I claim that with your current understanding of the game, you have no chance of beating me. Only rule is Bullock is out.

I'm flattered that you want me to play with you but I'll have to decline on your generous offer as it doesn't benefit me in any way whatsoever.

Obviously they are not, unlike someone else claimed earlier. There are maps in R2 which are not suitable for sniping either. Does it make it unbalanced because you have an option spawn with Far Eye?

The maps in R1 which are not suitable for sniping do NOT have fareye spawns, the maps in R2 which are not suitable for sniping still allow people to spawn with the fareye. Yes it DOES make it unbalanced when you give people an option to spawn with a weapon that puts them at a disadvantage, that is EXACTLY why it's unbalanced.

There is no single Orick map. What part of this is difficult to understand?

Orick in general is too open for the shotty.

Core control is great, it's way better than the CTF in R1. Skirmish is also great when teams are balanced and no one quits.

First of all CTF in R1 is garbage, and by far the WORST obj mode in R1, my clan used to play obj ONLY if we have too many people to get CTF just so we can play meltdown/assault/breach instead, core control is even MORE GARBAGE than CTF, which was in itself a complete and utter MIRACLE that one can create a variation of CTF that is even MORE repulsive. People quit skirmish all the time, secondly skirmish doesn't work well because cross-squad communication is minimal at best, it never feels like 60p online.

See my resolution above.

I'm still unclear on how me beating you in a "duel" actually benefits me, or you for that matter.

That's a question about you, not the game.

Your question doesn't make any sense in that it's the game that increases the frequency of someone finishing off someone else's kills.

That PS2 game happens to have the same vegetation you are praising in Uncharted.

You're referring to the fact that the vegetation reacts to characters moving through it in MGS3 and Uncharted, but NOT R2? And that helps your argument how?

MP maps _are_ from campaign. The fact that you traverse them linearly in SP campaign doesn't make it any less impressive.

The fact that you traverse them in a completely linear way and they're sectioned off in a way that results in a bunch of narrow corridors which limits AI behaviour DOES make them much less impressive, especially in terms of gameplay.

Are you still talking about the flat Uncharted water, with 2d splash effects?
Yes I prefer that interactive jello in R2 that does reflect and deflect any day, thank you very much.

If you want to prefer jello for water, that's up to you.

This is utter bs and you know it. ;)

It's not bs that R2's lighting/shadowing needs work.



Yes yes, we agree on the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. What?
Bullseye rocks, and carbine is the most overpowered gun in game.

Neither of those statements are true.

Carbine had the range, yet was one of the weakest guns in R1. Not to mention people camping for Laark and 40mm.

Carbine was the best weapon in R1.

Why do you feel like you have to spawn with weapons that is not suitable for that map?
Is this really the best argument you got? Seriously?

I don't have to spawn with weapons that are not suitable for that map, the problem is the developer shouldn't make available for the maps weapons unless they're suitable, it's about balancing.

No it's not in case of R2. It wasn't in R1 either, which could use smooth and fast ironsight R2 has.

R1 does not cater to stop and pop, R2 however forces ironsights but the maps are still too open for stop and pop.

BS

Not bs, but truth.

Once again, no idea what you are talking about. Far Eye is a two-shot weapon without headshots (same as before), Marksman is a three-shot at most, so is Magnum. Carbine is definitely stronger than it was before, and kills much more quickly. In fact in R1 you had a bigger chance of surviving when flanked with Bullseye or Carbine. Now it's just too easy to kill.

Marksman is a three shot HEADSHOT kill, magnum is maybe a three-shot kill WITH secondary fire, and even then the fire-rate is slow and is completely vulnerable against another primary weapon, carbine has far shorter range than in R1 and far less accuracy. Not sure who you were playing against but with the bullseye if you're tagged from medium range in R1 you're deadmeat, now the tagging range is significantly shortened and carbine at medium range can trump the bullseye.

Well at least you admit the game is not stop-and-pop.

The weapon aiming promotes stop and pop, the maps are not conducive to it, hence the problem, they couldn't make up their minds whether they wanted a stop and pop game or a run and gun game, and decided to mix two different elements that don't mesh well.

I'm not sure you have any right to talk about skill.

I'm not sure you have any right to tell someone else they have no right to talk about skill.

How thick does one have to be not to understand this, but let me try again, tagging works best when you are running which is obviously without ironsight.
If you don't get this, you loose any right to talk about bullseye too.

Tagging is inaccurate, whether you prefer to run or not, the problem is the lack of range, not whether you want to run and tag versus someone else who might want to stop, zoom and tag, either way it's inferior to the tagging in R1 which was accurate enough to tag someone in mid-air and worked at medium range.

With very little damage.

Obviously you're getting your facts wrong.

Who was talking to you again?

Then don't reply.

I personally find it more likely that he wants the worst for Resistance because he cares about another franchise.

If I don't care about Resistance obviously I wouldn't be among the beta people who suggested changes to many of the problems in the beta, maybe those of us who have suggestions should have kept quiet so you would still be stuck with those marshmellow grenades. I want the series to play and look better and become a more dominant FPS franchise, you obviously don't, so WHO wants the worst for Resistance again?

[Kittonwy]

Now that I'm back at work, I played R2 competitive this evening for about 1-2 hours. Patched to 1.30 before I started.

The game has changed somewhat. I enjoyed it MUCH better this time round. I didn't play with the clan, so it's just me and the big bad world out there. I decided to pick my favorite R1 weapon: The Auger. It's pretty usable now compared to R1. Useful for defending nodes. Barely good enough to go toe to toe against Carbine and Bullseye, better if I strafe behind obstacles. I am going to see how far I can go with this rarely used weapon.

Even though I ended up with abyssal K/D ratio, I managed to rank in the middle of the pack sometimes (Just like my early R1 games). Still dislike the color choice, but the game is actually solidly fun now. I had forgotten how 20 vs 20 player fight feel ^_^

Will alternate between Co-op and Competitive from now on. Thanks Insomniac (!) for improving the game. Hopefully you find more incentives to keep at it.

Clan has moved on to SOCOM for the time being I think, I can't get efertlis or BigE to play R2 anymore, I would play if it's more than just Bob or Aeon. I wonder what the patch does though, maybe one day they'll tune it right so I will feel like playing, pretty tired of co-op.

[patsu]

I see. Queeq was in R2 the entire day though.

[Kittonwy]

I see. Queeq was in R2 the entire day though.

He could be playing single player, not sure, maybe he's going after his 10000 kills. SOCOM isn't out in Aussieland yet, but by the time it comes out so will KZ2.

[patsu]

Okay, he was there for co-op. Almost 100 hours now.

Betan, I heard some phone ringing but I don't know how to answer it. I suspected it was from you since I saw you online too.

EDIT: Kittonwy, I don't think 1.30 patch the gameplay. It's a bug fix patch. I think the earlier patches tuned it (I died a lot more in 1.0 or 1.1 due to weapon-related issues IMHO). Since I needed to retrain myself, I chose to focus/retry on Co-op; it's more interesting and less frustrating. Now the connection and game matching problems seem to have gone away too.

[Silent]

Is it weird to say that I personally have a much better time with R2 then R1. But then again I'm no hardcore fps gamers offline or online. This is the first game that I played more then 2 hours online !

[LordNerevar]

The magnum doesn't have either the range to take on a marksman or the firing rate to take on a carbine/bullseye, at close range it's powerless against a shotty.


Magnum is a secondary weapon. It isn't meant to be used as a primary weapon.
It's used only when you run out of bullets. So, instead of the reload procedure, you pull out the magnum and hit the enemy once or twice.
I made numerous kills with the magnum when both me and my enemy ran out of bullets.
Some people will try to meelee you when they run out of bullets, and that's just the perfect time to pull out a magnum.

[catisfit]

Is it weird to say that I personally have a much better time with R2 then R1. But then again I'm no hardcore fps gamers offline or online. This is the first game that I played more then 2 hours online !

No, I prefer R2 as well. We're just not part of the (very) vocal minority, it seems.

[patsu]

Now that I can feel the competitive mode and guns...

Online gameplay-wise, R1 is harsher (very fast) and simpler. R2 is more forgiving, has more variety and perks to hopefully keep you going. The guns are balanced differently according to their game needs. They are both solid, just different. R2 has a higher player cap, but I haven't played any game larger than 20 on each side yet.

Usability-wise, R2 is snappier in matching games. The UI is more tedious and confusing. To be fair, Sony's XMB game invite mechanism may have complicated the experience. R1 has a complete, standalone UI so the experience is tighter.

Visually, R1 is stylized (one-two color) and cleaner. R2 is richer but can be ugly due mainly to "strange" color combination IMHO. I find the character customization screen weird looking too.


SP-wise, R1 is an overall better experience than R2. Already posted about this so I won't repeat here.

For their DLC, I hope they refine co-op more. While it's very unlikely for them to tune the SP, I feel that they should do something about it (Probably wistful thinking).

[tha_con]

The magnum doesn't have either the range to take on a marksman or the firing rate to take on a carbine/bullseye, at close range it's powerless against a shotty.

You want a handgun to be effective against rifles and shotguns? Do you realize how UNBALANCED the Magnum would become in that case? Think about it.


The maps in R1 which are not suitable for sniping do NOT have fareye spawns, the maps in R2 which are not suitable for sniping still allow people to spawn with the fareye. Yes it DOES make it unbalanced when you give people an option to spawn with a weapon that puts them at a disadvantage, that is EXACTLY why it's unbalanced.

So options are bad. Got it. I mean, who is Insomniac to give players CHOICE to use a weapon that's not suited for a certain level, even if it's their favorite. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU INSOMNIAC, TAKE AWAY OUR CHOICES!!!


Orick in general is too open for the shotty.
Really? Because the Lumber Mill, housing area, and business district are all pretty close quarters with alleys, halls, and doorways. Seems pretty condusive to Shotgun play to me...hmmm...


First of all CTF in R1 is garbage, and by far the WORST obj mode in R1, my clan used to play obj ONLY if we have too many people to get CTF just so we can play meltdown/assault/breach instead, core control is even MORE GARBAGE than CTF, which was in itself a complete and utter MIRACLE that one can create a variation of CTF that is even MORE repulsive. People quit skirmish all the time, secondly skirmish doesn't work well because cross-squad communication is minimal at best, it never feels like 60p online.
Regardless of what you think, Core Control (and CTF) still require organization and team tactics. You can win matches with luck, but a team playing together flanking the enemy base and stealing the core / flag will always win out, just like Meltdown / Breach / Assault. Core control is way more tacticle than CTF because of the timer implementations, etc.


If you want to prefer jello for water, that's up to you.
If I preferred Jello for water, I'd go play Uncharted, which also had shitty water (OH!).


Carbine was the best weapon in R1.
As well as the least interesting. Go figure.


I don't have to spawn with weapons that are not suitable for that map, the problem is the developer shouldn't make available for the maps weapons unless they're suitable, it's about balancing.
Again, choice =/= bad. How in the HELL does that effect balance? If it's someones CHOICE to use a weapon that isn't effective on a certain map, that doesn't say anything about balance, it says everything about that players ability to chose. The subway in Chicago is designed for close quarters almost exclusively, focusing on weapons like the shotgun, and weapons with splash damage like the bellock and splicer. The Bullseye and Carbine also do well here in the hallways.

I have no idea how you think it's a balancing issue. If the player has the option to use weapons off the bat that are effective on a map, then the game is still balanced. Period.


R1 does not cater to stop and pop, R2 however forces ironsights but the maps are still too open for stop and pop.
I disagree. Strongly.


The weapon aiming promotes stop and pop, the maps are not conducive to it, hence the problem, they couldn't make up their minds whether they wanted a stop and pop game or a run and gun game, and decided to mix two different elements that don't mesh well.

It actually caters to both, neither is necessarily stronger than the other. I dont 'really see a problem. Though, you said you HATED stop and pop gameplay, but then gave praise to allah to another title that is stop and pop....


Tagging is inaccurate, whether you prefer to run or not, the problem is the lack of range, not whether you want to run and tag versus someone else who might want to stop, zoom and tag, either way it's inferior to the tagging in R1 which was accurate enough to tag someone in mid-air and worked at medium range.
Compared to the tagging in R1 that was terrible and could be done from the other side of the planet.


If I don't care about Resistance obviously I wouldn't be among the beta people who suggested changes to many of the problems in the beta, maybe those of us who have suggestions should have kept quiet so you would still be stuck with those marshmellow grenades. I want the series to play and look better and become a more dominant FPS franchise, you obviously don't, so WHO wants the worst for Resistance again?

Grenades were not a porblem, I wish they stayed the way they were, along with fall damage and the reduced speed.

[betan]

YOU said Manchester, don't blame me when YOU can't get the facts straight. Somerset is all about holding the high ground, a more skilled clan will always win by taking over the sniper spots, because they're MORE SKILLED, and not necessarily being the first ones reaching the sniper spots, if you're beaten by a better team, give them props.

This is related how exactly? You are playing with a party of 2 along with 14 privates. The other team is a party of 16 supreme commanders. They are not idiot and took the wall side. Now, should I be able to kick them out all by myself? They have Laark, 40z and Far Eyes. Skill my back.
At least in R2 you can start with you weapon of choice and do something about it even if your team looses miserably.


The magnum doesn't have either the range to take on a marksman or the firing rate to take on a carbine/bullseye, at close range it's powerless against a shotty.

All weapons are powerless against a shotty at close range. The skill is not letting the opponent set the distance.


Carbine does more damage per shot and it doesn't need reving up.

Why do we care about per shot again?

I'm flattered that you want me to play with you but I'll have to decline on your generous offer as it doesn't benefit me in any way whatsoever.
...
I'm still unclear on how me beating you in a "duel" actually benefits me, or you for that matter.

Since you have the skills, we will see if your theories about weapons and maps are true.

The maps in R1 which are not suitable for sniping do NOT have fareye spawns, the maps in R2 which are not suitable for sniping still allow people to spawn with the fareye. Yes it DOES make it unbalanced when you give people an option to spawn with a weapon that puts them at a disadvantage, that is EXACTLY why it's unbalanced.

So we want all maps to be same, fair to every gun equally with no variety and that's your understanding of balance. Right.

Orick in general is too open for the shotty.

we can test it ;)

First of all CTF in R1 is garbage, and by far the WORST obj mode in R1, my clan used to play obj ONLY if we have too many people to get CTF just so we can play meltdown/assault/breach instead, core control is even MORE GARBAGE than CTF, which was in itself a complete and utter MIRACLE that one can create a variation of CTF that is even MORE repulsive.

Don't care what your clan did. CTF in R1 was garbage because it didn't scale well.
CC in R2 is awesome but I guess you need to play it with people who knows what they are doing.

People quit skirmish all the time, secondly skirmish doesn't work well because cross-squad communication is minimal at best, it never feels like 60p online.

Why do you need cross-squad com when 99 out of 100 times you have different objectives?
And for the record, you can say whatever you want to other squads.

Your question doesn't make any sense in that it's the game that increases the frequency of someone finishing off someone else's kills.

Not being able to kill anyone by yourself has no relation to game allowing assists.

You're referring to the fact that the vegetation reacts to characters moving through it in MGS3 and Uncharted, but NOT R2? And that helps your argument how?
Sorry to disappoint you but having grass triangles with 1 sec response time for interaction is not exactly space tech.

The fact that you traverse them in a completely linear way and they're sectioned off in a way that results in a bunch of narrow corridors which limits AI behaviour DOES make them much less impressive, especially in terms of gameplay.

Yes, yes, let's try to change discussion to gameplay instead, since you have nothing else left to argue.

If you want to prefer jello for water, that's up to you.

Thanks for the permission

It's not bs that R2's lighting/shadowing needs work.

What's bs is shadowing has anything to do with HDR.



Neither of those statements are true.

This statement is not true. ;)

Carbine was the best weapon in R1.

It was the weakest weapon for all ranges.

I don't have to spawn with weapons that are not suitable for that map, the problem is the developer shouldn't make available for the maps weapons unless they're suitable, it's about balancing.

Are you listening to yourself? What's wrong about giving an option? Tell me, I'm dying to know.
I mean in R1 weapons were available in the maps that are not all safe for that weapon. For example you have the option to fight with FarEye inside the Manchester buildings. Does it make it wrong for R1 to provide that stupid option? Or should they had removed Far Eye altogether from Manchester maps? It looks like you are defending idiot rights or something. Either that, or you don't like HDR.


R1 does not cater to stop and pop, R2 however forces ironsights but the maps are still too open for stop and pop.

I agree. Don't stop and pop in R2. It's not that game.

Not bs, but truth.

Game punishes you for ironsighting is the truth? Total BS.
Game punishes you for stop-and-pop not ironsighting. Ironsigh in R2 is not the slow and low visibility thing you are accustomed to.

Marksman is a three shot HEADSHOT kill,

Marksman is a two shot headshot kill if all 6 bullets hit to the head.

magnum is maybe a three-shot kill WITH secondary fire,

Maybe? :)

and even then the fire-rate is slow and is completely vulnerable against another primary weapon,

We can test that you know.

carbine has far shorter range than in R1 and far less accuracy.

It does more damage with no lag.

Not sure who you were playing against but with the bullseye if you're tagged from medium range in R1 you're deadmeat, now the tagging range is significantly shortened and carbine at medium range can trump the bullseye.

Apparently it's not that simple looking at my weapon stats.

The weapon aiming promotes stop and pop, the maps are not conducive to it, hence the problem, they couldn't make up their minds whether they wanted a stop and pop game or a run and gun game, and decided to mix two different elements that don't mesh well.

There is no stop-and-pop in R2.

I'm not sure you have any right to tell someone else they have no right to talk about skill.

My bad, I thought you were the guy who couldn't get a kill by himself.

Tagging is inaccurate, whether you prefer to run or not,

I think you should have stopped right here.

the problem is the lack of range, not whether you want to run and tag versus someone else who might want to stop, zoom and tag, either way it's inferior to the tagging in R1 which was accurate enough to tag someone in mid-air and worked at medium range.

Tagging in R1 was way easier. It was also the source of most complaints especially since majority preferred Carbine.

Obviously you're getting your facts wrong.

Obviously

Then don't reply.

I wouldn't if I knew whether you were pretending that someone was talking to you, or simply replied without reading the post first.

If I don't care about Resistance obviously I wouldn't be among the beta people who suggested changes to many of the problems in the beta, maybe those of us who have suggestions should have kept quiet so you would still be stuck with those marshmellow grenades.

Wow, that has to be your proudest achievement in your life. Good for you.

I want the series to play and look better and become a more dominant FPS franchise, you obviously don't, so WHO wants the worst for Resistance again?
I think you can stop caring now. You cannot change the game at this point, you are certainly not helping anyone especially with this misinformation, bs about weapon balancing and maps, etc..

Above all, you are an arrogant kitty who cannot accept the fact that game can be different without being better or worse. You don't have to like every game, go drink milk or something.


I decided to pick my favorite R1 weapon: The Auger. It's pretty usable now compared to R1. Useful for defending nodes. Barely good enough to go toe to toe against Carbine and Bullseye, better if I strafe behind obstacles.
An auger with shield is a nightmare for attackers in Core Control.
It's also one of the safest guns out there. Can take on pretty much anything 1-on-1.
I find it not so pleasing for many-on-1 or 1-on-many. But its shield is always useful.


Usability-wise, R2 is snappier in matching games. The UI is more tedious and confusing. To be fair, Sony's XMB game invite mechanism may have complicated the experience. R1 has a complete, standalone UI so the experience is tighter.

Messaging should be back, at least they should provide a tab for recently played for checking stats and sending messages (even using OS dialogs). I can live with reading messages from XMB.
That said what I really like about the new UI is that you don't have to wait for the MP interface. All three modes launch from same interface.
The party system is also better in the way you can join parties any time you want and talk to the guys playing and letting them know. Party permission system is also welcome in getting rid of invite problems of the original. Squad limitation sucks though. I really really miss old squad channels.

While the current party system is a little buggy, overall I like the interface much better.

[Kittonwy]

Magnum is a secondary weapon. It isn't meant to be used as a primary weapon.
It's used only when you run out of bullets. So, instead of the reload procedure, you pull out the magnum and hit the enemy once or twice.
I made numerous kills with the magnum when both me and my enemy ran out of bullets.
Some people will try to meelee you when they run out of bullets, and that's just the perfect time to pull out a magnum.

LOL melee vs. magnum? Yeah I think the magnum is going to win that one.

[Kittonwy]

You want a handgun to be effective against rifles and shotguns? Do you realize how UNBALANCED the Magnum would become in that case? Think about it.

No I don't want a handgun to be effective against rifles and shotguns, Betan was the one who's touting how the magnum allows one to waltz around the level. What I do have a problem with is how some of the primary weapons are just lousy on two of the maps, like having a splicer or a shotty in orick or chicago, THAT's unbalanced.



So options are bad. Got it. I mean, who is Insomniac to give players CHOICE to use a weapon that's not suited for a certain level, even if it's their favorite. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU INSOMNIAC, TAKE AWAY OUR CHOICES!!!

You're not making a real argument here. Allowing a weapon that performs poorly on a map is a simply a bad decision.

Really? Because the Lumber Mill, housing area, and business district are all pretty close quarters with alleys, halls, and doorways. Seems pretty condusive to Shotgun play to me...hmmm...

Shotty range is too short to be effective other than some of the tight entry points, the problem isn't there isn't some tight quarters, it's not enough tight quarters while much of the orick level is wide open with a TON of sniper lanes that can be taken advantage of using the fareye or the marksman.

Regardless of what you think, Core Control (and CTF) still require organization and team tactics. You can win matches with luck, but a team playing together flanking the enemy base and stealing the core / flag will always win out, just like Meltdown / Breach / Assault. Core control is way more tacticle than CTF because of the timer implementations, etc.

Nobody here is arguing that core control doesn't employ tactics, it's just not as fun as meltdown/breach/assault, all three of those are superior modes to core control or CTF.

If I preferred Jello for water, I'd go play Uncharted, which also had shitty water (OH!).

That makes no sense since R2 has jello for water and not Uncharted which has way better water effects.

As well as the least interesting. Go figure.

It's the standard weapon, but it's effective.

Again, choice =/= bad. How in the HELL does that effect balance? If it's someones CHOICE to use a weapon that isn't effective on a certain map, that doesn't say anything about balance, it says everything about that players ability to chose. The subway in Chicago is designed for close quarters almost exclusively, focusing on weapons like the shotgun, and weapons with splash damage like the bellock and splicer. The Bullseye and Carbine also do well here in the hallways.

If you're going to provide a choice for the player to SPAWN with a certain weapon, design the map to allow that particular weapon to be competitive. If everybody spawns with one of two standard weapons that are both equally effective, and give people a choice of picking up optional weapons that perform well in certain situations, then it would likely be more balanced, the problem is you have weapons that are really awful on certain maps and you're allowing people to SPAWN with them as primary weapons, that I have a problem with.

I have no idea how you think it's a balancing issue. If the player has the option to use weapons off the bat that are effective on a map, then the game is still balanced. Period.

It's not balanced when you have players spawning with weapons that are not viable on certain maps because then the maps are not designed to allow people who have chosen to spawn with for example a splicer in chicago.


I disagree. Strongly.

That's fine. I'm not here to convince you.


It actually caters to both, neither is necessarily stronger than the other. I dont 'really see a problem. Though, you said you HATED stop and pop gameplay, but then gave praise to allah to another title that is stop and pop....

I do not hate stop and pop gameplay, I like it when it's EXECUTED WELL. I hate stop and pop gameplay shoehorned into open maps which is what R2 is doing, because it doesn't play well.

Wow. The "allah" comment was completely unnecessary. Whatever.

Compared to the tagging in R1 that was terrible and could be done from the other side of the planet.

Tagging in R1 is terrific, especially being able to tag someone in midair, while in midair. The bullseye in R2 is simply too inaccurate to be effective in terms of tag and bag.



Grenades were not a porblem, I wish they stayed the way they were, along with fall damage and the reduced speed.

So basically you want an even worse-playing game.

[Kittonwy]

This is related how exactly? You are playing with a party of 2 along with 14 privates. The other team is a party of 16 supreme commanders. They are not idiot and took the wall side. Now, should I be able to kick them out all by myself? They have Laark, 40z and Far Eyes. Skill my back.
At least in R2 you can start with you weapon of choice and do something about it even if your team looses miserably.

That's a difference in skill, obviously your team isn't up to snuff. Nobody expects you to kick them out all by yourself. Play with a bigger party of friends perhaps? I used to play R1 with 7 or 8 clan mates.

All weapons are powerless against a shotty at close range. The skill is not letting the opponent set the distance.

The problem is that you have to close in with the shotty and the maps are more often too open, giving longer range weapon users an opportunity to take you out before you can even get close. If the maps have more cover and fewer sniper lanes, it would be better balanced, keep in mind I LIKE using range weapons.

Why do we care about per shot again?

Because the carbine more often than not will quickly finish off a wraith player before he can rev up.

Since you have the skills, we will see if your theories about weapons and maps are true.

It doesn't matter, I have no interest in playing you, there's nothing in it for me.

So we want all maps to be same, fair to every gun equally with no variety and that's your understanding of balance. Right.

All maps do not have to be the same in order to be give a fair shot to each of the weapons, just have enough close quarters with cover strewn throughout the level and adequate sniper lanes, but they can be configured differently.

we can test it ;)

No need to test it when I know I'm right, you don't have to agree.

Don't care what your clan did. CTF in R1 was garbage because it didn't scale well.

Not sure if you're trying to get me to defend CTF in R1, which I dislike anyway, a completely putrid game mode.

CC in R2 is awesome but I guess you need to play it with people who knows what they are doing.

Even with people who know what they're doing, CC is more putrid than CTF in R1.

Why do you need cross-squad com when 99 out of 100 times you have different objectives?

Actually in R1, often when offense or defense need more support, people can break off from one squad and join another while the whole time stay in communication, it's a matter of better coordination instead of having squads isolated from each other, which essentials render moot the point of having 60 players on the map.

And for the record, you can say whatever you want to other squads.

The problem is not being to choose your squad and switch squads dynamically, the player is not in control of the big picture like in R1 where an awareness of which squad is doing what and being able to choose which node to attack/defend can dictate the outcome of the match.

Not being able to kill anyone by yourself has no relation to game allowing assists.

You're not really arguing the point.

Sorry to disappoint you but having grass triangles with 1 sec response time for interaction is not exactly space tech.

Space tech or not R2 doesn't have it, the other games do and it's something that adds to the immersion.

Yes, yes, let's try to change discussion to gameplay instead, since you have nothing else left to argue.

I've been discussing gameplay in addition to graphics.

Thanks for the permission

You're welcome.

What's bs is shadowing has anything to do with HDR.

Lighting and shadowing complements each other.

This statement is not true. ;)

My statement is true.

It was the weakest weapon for all ranges.

The carbine in R1 does more damage than the bullseye (but has a greater need for accuracy from the player), at medium range it trumps the shotty, plus with the 40mm being an instant kill, it's arguably the most versatile weapon in the game, the good thing about R1 was with the weapons there's a very nice rock-papers-scissors dynamics going on all the time, no weapon is absolutely the best or worst, one weapon can always trump another given different conditions.

Are you listening to yourself? What's wrong about giving an option? Tell me, I'm dying to know.

I mean in R1 weapons were available in the maps that are not all safe for that weapon. For example you have the option to fight with FarEye inside the Manchester buildings. Does it make it wrong for R1 to provide that stupid option? Or should they had removed Far Eye altogether from Manchester maps? It looks like you are defending idiot rights or something. Either that, or you don't like HDR.



Giving an option to SPAWN with a certain primary weapon should be accompanied by designing the map to allow that primary weapon to be effective.

You cannot SPAWN with the fareye in manchester in R1, you either spawn with a carbine or a bullseye in a ranked match, and manchester is equally fair to both carbine and bullseye, the fareye is an option through a weapon spawn but not a primary weapon that you are spawned with, not to mention in manchester you can be very effective with the fareye, or a shotty, or some of the other weapons that you don't spawn with.


I agree. Don't stop and pop in R2. It's not that game.

The weapons are not accurate enough shooting from the hip to not stop and pop via ironsights.

Game punishes you for ironsighting is the truth? Total BS.
Game punishes you for stop-and-pop not ironsighting. Ironsigh in R2 is not the slow and low visibility thing you are accustomed to.

The game FORCES the player to use ironsights because shooting from the hip isn't as accurate, the problem is turning while in ironsights is slow but the maps are more open and the damage per shot is still small enough which lends itself to more circle-strafing while in ironsights, which is awkward at best.

Marksman is a two shot headshot kill if all 6 bullets hit to the head.

You're contradicting yourself, if all 6 bullets hit the head then it's a 6 shot headshot kill.

Maybe? :)

Not sure what you're arguing against.

We can test that you know.

I don't need to.

It does more damage with no lag.

Whether that is true or not, it has nothing to do with the lack of range of the R2 carbine or the lower accuracy.

Apparently it's not that simple looking at my weapon stats.

Actually it is rather simple.

There is no stop-and-pop in R2.

Ironsighting is a stop-and-pop mechanic which is in R2 since moving while in ironsights is very slow.

My bad, I thought you were the guy who couldn't get a kill by himself.

?

I think you should have stopped right here.

Not sure what you're arguing here.

Tagging in R1 was way easier. It was also the source of most complaints especially since majority preferred Carbine.

Thus making the bullseye more effective, people hated getting tagged but that's exactly what the bullseye does when it's an effective weapon. People complained about getting sniped, 40ed and shottied but that's what the weapons do.

Obviously

I wouldn't if I knew whether you were pretending that someone was talking to you, or simply replied without reading the post first.

Wow, that has to be your proudest achievement in your life. Good for you.

I think you can stop caring now. You cannot change the game at this point, you are certainly not helping anyone especially with this misinformation, bs about weapon balancing and maps, etc..

Above all, you are an arrogant kitty who cannot accept the fact that game can be different without being better or worse. You don't have to like every game, go drink milk or something.


There's no point in debating if you can't keep it civil.

[tha_con]

Kittonwy, the sad thing is, R2 had gameplay that was condusive to stop and pop mechanics, and individuals like you ruined that during the private beta.

People wanted the accuracy differences when moving, stopped, and in cross hairs gone (which all together brought down the effectiveness of stop and pop). The wanted the game sped up, which further destroyed the ability to use stop and pop gameplay. They wanted no fall damage, more run and gun. They wanted grenades to have the Brett Farve effect again, tossing across half the screen.

Basically, all of the elements that were changed from the private beta (as requested by individuals like yourself) are what made the game what it is today. So you (and people like you) made your bed, now sleep in it.

Insomniac knew what they were doing in the private beta, and it was changed to cater to YOU, blame them, not Insomniac.

[Cornsnake]

Everyone should feel free to voicing their opinion about a game. It is up to Insomniac to decide what they want to do with that opinion. And honestly I can see them change the game again. Whether that is a change in the direction of Rfom, or more towards how it was during the beta, or fine tuning what they have now. And whatever they change, it will never be, or ever was, the best possible game for everyone. So I guess we can look forward to continue debating this issue for a while. Even though we already know we'll never agree, which is okay of course.

[tha_con]

Everyone should feel free to voicing their opinion about a game. It is up to Insomniac to decide what they want to do with that opinion. And honestly I can see them change the game again. Whether that is a change in the direction of Rfom, or more towards how it was during the beta, or fine tuning what they have now. And whatever they change, it will never be, or ever was, the best possible game for everyone. So I guess we can look forward to continue debating this issue for a while. Even though we already know we'll never agree, which is okay of course.

No game is ever the best possible game for everyone. I loved Bioshocks atmosphere and art, but thought the game itself was less than stellar.

Insomniacs key problem here was creating a product, and then listening to a small group of fans during the Private beta. I tried my best to be extremely vocal against the "This isn't Resistance" group, but it didn't work out. There were entirely too many people who wanted Rfom, which IMO was, and I apologize for using this word, stupid.

They ruined the great great game that the Private beta was. The Private beta was far more tuned. IMO, you should rarely change your gameplay mechanics. You tune, and tweak, but the general mechanics shoudl not change. Unfortunately those loud mouthed fans in the beta didn't understand that concept, and Insomniac fell victim to circumstance, they took the feedback (I think this was a mistake) and applied it. The end result is a game that isn't finely tuned and has gameplay mechanics that clash.

They could have avoided a lot of this, and I'm sure it will all get fixed in time, but I still think they did a great job with what they put out, and I enjoy it.

The mechanics that were changed (speed, accuracy, grenade throwing distance, fall damage, etc) are what changed the game. I feel that if these changes were not made, the game would be significantly better. Sure, it wouldn't be Resistance: Fall of Man, but when was it ever RFoM? It's always been R2, and should have always been treated as such, IMO.

[Kittonwy]

Kittonwy, the sad thing is, R2 had gameplay that was condusive to stop and pop mechanics, and individuals like you ruined that during the private beta.

People wanted the accuracy differences when moving, stopped, and in cross hairs gone (which all together brought down the effectiveness of stop and pop). The wanted the game sped up, which further destroyed the ability to use stop and pop gameplay. They wanted no fall damage, more run and gun. They wanted grenades to have the Brett Farve effect again, tossing across half the screen.

Basically, all of the elements that were changed from the private beta (as requested by individuals like yourself) are what made the game what it is today. So you (and people like you) made your bed, now sleep in it.

Insomniac knew what they were doing in the private beta, and it was changed to cater to YOU, blame them, not Insomniac.

R2 maps were never conducive to stop-and-pop, want to see stop-and-pop maps? Check out SOCOM, Killzone 2, Call of Duty 4, where corridors are more narrow, corners and rooms are generally more confined.

If you're doing stop-and-pop, regular moving speed would have to be slow, running speed just a tad quicker than what we have now, zoomed-turning would be slow, cross-hair doesn't need to be gone, but the weapon damage has to be upped. Right now the weapon damage isn't high enough for stop-and-pop. Also the problem is the way the maps are designed which are more often than not open rather than confined, which also take away from the stop and pop, as such, stop and pop doesn't work well in the maps but hip-shooting doesn't work either, making run-and-gun much less effective and very range-limited, resulting in a MP experience that is neither here nor there. The controls/aiming/weapon-tuning is not consistent with the map design.

Other than the grenades, very little was changed from the beta, Insomniac didn't listen for the most part to the beta-testers, the majority of which were not satisfied with the gameplay (in a thread where a poll was taken more than half of the people preferred R1 over the beta which should NEVER happen), the build we got was merely dismissed as an old build, to this day there are people on myres (myself not included) who are still dissatisfied with how the game plays, enough of them that they have a 15 page thread dedicated to just complaints.

I know you went to Insomniac and somehow feels they're now your friends but I've never been in a beta that was supposed to go smoothly to build hype where there was so much backlash.

To fix things without touching the maps one would have to change the way the reticle works for medium range weapons such as the carbine and the bullseye, making hip-shooting effective again at medium range and it would be a significant change that they would be unwilling to make. Right now I doubt it's enough to just tweak things and somehow the game would feel right.

Insomniac made the game, they're the ones who are in charge of balancing the gameplay, ultimately they are responsible for how well or not R2 plays. Personally I want the gameplay fixed so I can put my copy of R2 in and enjoy some MP competitive, and convince some of my clan mates to actually join in, because right now most of them don't want to.

[Kittonwy]

Everyone should feel free to voicing their opinion about a game. It is up to Insomniac to decide what they want to do with that opinion. And honestly I can see them change the game again. Whether that is a change in the direction of Rfom, or more towards how it was during the beta, or fine tuning what they have now. And whatever they change, it will never be, or ever was, the best possible game for everyone. So I guess we can look forward to continue debating this issue for a while. Even though we already know we'll never agree, which is okay of course.

I think the problem is that when you have a franchise, you're supposed to build on strong fan support, OF COURSE changes are going to be made, I think we all expected that, but never before have I seen changes that would result in gameplay that would piss off so many fans of the original. People wanted improvements, not just changes that didn't make the gameplay better, but instead made it more awkward.

I don't think people wanted a game that would please everyone, I think people just wanted a better game than what Insomniac put out. They ignored for the most part feedback from the beta and somehow tried to dismiss those who spoke out during the beta process when in one of the podcasts Brian hinted at how it's too bad the old fans didn't like some of the beta gameplay but they got new fans now so they no longer needed the old R1 fans who were unhappy.

Customer feedback is very important in ANY business, more often than not people will just walk away without saying a word and you would have zero idea what made them walk away and resulting in losing any future business from them.

[patsu]

An auger with shield is a nightmare for attackers in Core Control.
It's also one of the safest guns out there. Can take on pretty much anything 1-on-1.
I find it not so pleasing for many-on-1 or 1-on-many. But its shield is always useful.


Yeah... I use grenade and shield for 1-on-many fight. I am experimenting with the ammo perk. It seems that I can get grenade out of it ? How do I get more grenades in R2 competitive in general ?

EDIT: Also does Chimera automatically sees enemies behind obstacles if I wield an Auger (without the rage perk). I find that sometimes I can see the blocked enemies, sometimes I can't. How about human ?


Messaging should be back, at least they should provide a tab for recently played for checking stats and sending messages (even using OS dialogs). I can live with reading messages from XMB.


Yes, text chat should be back in ! Unless they want to count on Home integration (doubtful).


That said what I really like about the new UI is that you don't have to wait for the MP interface. All three modes launch from same interface.
The party system is also better in the way you can join parties any time you want and talk to the guys playing and letting them know. Party permission system is also welcome in getting rid of invite problems of the original. Squad limitation sucks though. I really really miss old squad channels.

While the current party system is a little buggy, overall I like the interface much better.

I wish it allows me to stay in one of the modes and keep playing more though. Right now, the system will send me back to the main menu and I have to keep tapping to the competitive option to start another game. In the old R1 menu, it will simply find the next game automatically which is very convenient.

That, and I still don't know how to accept invitations.



Kittonwy, the sad thing is, R2 had gameplay that was condusive to stop and pop mechanics, and individuals like you ruined that during the private beta.

People wanted the accuracy differences when moving, stopped, and in cross hairs gone (which all together brought down the effectiveness of stop and pop). The wanted the game sped up, which further destroyed the ability to use stop and pop gameplay. They wanted no fall damage, more run and gun. They wanted grenades to have the Brett Farve effect again, tossing across half the screen.

Basically, all of the elements that were changed from the private beta (as requested by individuals like yourself) are what made the game what it is today. So you (and people like you) made your bed, now sleep in it.

Insomniac knew what they were doing in the private beta, and it was changed to cater to YOU, blame them, not Insomniac.


Bah ! The R2 game right now is way way better than the closed beta, and better than the launch version.

The closed beta was unplayable near the beginning. I couldn't see the bullet path (e.g., sniper shot), could't see any grenade at all until I was killed by one. The San Francisco level was too dark or too glaring (depending on which direction I looked), the weapons were unbalanced.

It improved greatly over time.

I have never seen anyone play R2 closed or open beta in stop-n-pop fashion, granted I didn't play many. Wouldn't they die easily with increased grenade range and weapons like Bellock, Auger, and Fareye.

[Cheezdoodles]

R2 maps were never conducive to stop-and-pop, want to see stop-and-pop maps? Check out SOCOM, Killzone 2, Call of Duty 4, where corridors are more narrow, corners and rooms are generally more confined.
.
More narrow and confined areas are not supporting stop and pop maps. Stop and pop barely ever works vs a skilled player in any shooting game, but in close confined areas it certainly at its worse.

Over large distances stop and pop can work, in confined areas (short distances) its a 100% surefire way to die vs any skilled player in any shooting game.

[patsu]

I would be curious to see a 60 player stop-n-pop game. ^_^

EDIT: In Skirmish, we need to cover a good distance to our next objective. In Core Control, we need to run like mad.

EDIT 2: Kittonwy, I wouldn't worry about Socom vs R2. The latter has the best netcode I have ever seen. "Zero" lag regardless of how many players and computer enemies on screen. Socom has its own appeal as well.

[betan]

Yeah... I use grenade and shield for 1-on-many fight. I am experimenting with the ammo perk. It seems that I can get grenade out of it ? How do I get more grenades in R2 competitive in general ?

You pick up others' unused grenades from their ammo boxes. You normally get your own type of grenade even when dead guy has some different one. You can carry max of 2.
If you use proto ammo (or pick a proto ammo pack) from someone else you get all ammo you can carry for both weapons plus all types of grenades (One of each of the other two types). Proto ammo is a beast if you are a survivor. Otherwise berserk meter goes to 0 when you die unlike most other berserks. Pretty useless for sniping too.


EDIT: Also does Chimera automatically sees enemies behind obstacles if I wield an Auger (without the rage perk). I find that sometimes I can see the blocked enemies, sometimes I can't. How about human ?

No difference between human and chimera. You need to use L1 (zoom/aim/ironsight) to see behind the walls.


I wish it allows me to stay in one of the modes and keep playing more though. Right now, the system will send me back to the main menu and I have to keep tapping to the competitive option to start another game. In the old R1 menu, it will simply find the next game automatically which is very convenient.

Yep, I forgot about that. They need to bring searching from scoreboard back as well. It was really annoying initially but I got used to it since menus are pretty fast.

That, and I still don't know how to accept invitations.

Sent you a PSN message which made me notice it's indeed confusing.

Bah ! The R2 game right now is way way better than the closed beta, and better than the launch version.

I dont think they've changed any gameplay since the launch. There was a first minute patch of course, but that doesn't count.

The closed beta was unplayable near the beginning. I couldn't see the bullet path (e.g., sniper shot), could't see any grenade at all until I was killed by one.

Grenade issue still happens sometimes because of the lag. Despite the great netcode not everyone has enough bandwidth. That is more evident with split screeners and sometimes playing with people from other continents.

I have never seen anyone play R2 closed or open beta in stop-n-pop fashion, granted I didn't play many. Wouldn't they die easily with increased grenade range and weapons like Bellock, Auger, and Fareye.
If you are smart, there is no stopping in R2. Autoaim and hit detection for all weapons depend on target's moving speed.

[Cornsnake]

If someone uses the chimeran rage berserk in your team, every teammember close to that player will be able to see through walls. The same goes for the advansed radar berserk.

Invites are in the party options menu if I recall correctly.

[tha_con]

I think the problem is that when you have a franchise, you're supposed to build on strong fan support, OF COURSE changes are going to be made, I think we all expected that, but never before have I seen changes that would result in gameplay that would piss off so many fans of the original. People wanted improvements, not just changes that didn't make the gameplay better, but instead made it more awkward.

I don't think people wanted a game that would please everyone, I think people just wanted a better game than what Insomniac put out. They ignored for the most part feedback from the beta and somehow tried to dismiss those who spoke out during the beta process when in one of the podcasts Brian hinted at how it's too bad the old fans didn't like some of the beta gameplay but they got new fans now so they no longer needed the old R1 fans who were unhappy.

Customer feedback is very important in ANY business, more often than not people will just walk away without saying a word and you would have zero idea what made them walk away and resulting in losing any future business from them.


They ignored feedback? What the hell game were you playing?

Big changes from beta to final code:

Speed
Grenade throwing distance
Marksman reciol and ammo count
Open crosshairs (when moving)
Fall Damage
Splicer added to MP
aiming speed when in ironsights turned up
weapon accuracy when not in ironsights

That was from all the crycing that you guy's did, saying it wasn't R1.

Insomniac took mechanics from R1, and force fed them into R2. You and other folks like you made these problems with the mixed gameplay. I think it's high time you come to realize this.

R2 was considerably better during the Private beta (patsu, the problems you had were all bugs, not mechanics issues or gameplay designs).

Also, stop and pop is specifically designed for open maps. If you're CLOSE to someone you DO NOT AIM, you SPRAY because you are close enough that your accuracy doesn't really matter. I know it may seem crazy, but you tell me how you think this would pan out:

You're in a building clearing it out, and someone jumps out in the hallway. Are you going to aim at them, or just spray at them?

Here's a hint: I'm in the United States Army, we do Urban Ops training multiple times a year. You are trained to fire from the hip, there is no aiming, no ironsights.

Now, that may be apples to oranges, as "real life" isn't always applicable to videogames, however, basics of game design still play here. The "cone of accuracy" is still small enough in close quarters (you know, those narrow halls you talk about) that you don't have to aim.

I played a TON of CoD4, and *every time* you die at close range in a hallway, you can watch the killcam, they didn't use Ironsights. Because you SHOULDN'T. The stopping and aiming is there specifically to increase accuracy over long distances while slowly moving. Not while bum rushing halls or alleys.

I hate to say it man, but you are way off track here. R2 was fantastic during hte beta, the changes Insomniac made were for the community, if you're not happy with it, blame them and you not Insomniac. The mechanics in place before worked wonderfully for the type of game they had created.

I know you went to Insomniac and somehow feels they're now your friends but I've never been in a beta that was supposed to go smoothly to build hype where there was so much backlash.

I'm sorry, maybe you've forgotten who I am and why I was perma'banned from GAF. I have been an Insomniac "fanboy" long before I made the trip, long before I began posting on NeoGAF. Do you not remember my long drawn out 'scuffle' with Shawn Elliot ref: his opinion on R1? Or the hundreds of posts I made prior to any "personal" involvement with Insomniac Games during the Ratchet and Clank unvieling? Dude, I was THE "Bungie Fan" for Insomnaic Games. Long before I Won (by chance) a trip to visit their Studio. Why you have to even bring that up is beyond me, as it has absolutely no bearing or influence on what I think.

[patsu]

You pick up others' unused grenades from their ammo boxes. You normally get your own type of grenade even when dead guy has some different one. You can carry max of 2.
If you use proto ammo (or pick a proto ammo pack) from someone else you get all ammo you can carry for both weapons plus all types of grenades (One of each of the other two types). Proto ammo is a beast if you are a survivor. Otherwise berserk meter goes to 0 when you die unlike most other berserks. Pretty useless for sniping too.

Yes, I have changed my perk to invisibility. Much more useful for Core Control and Skirmish.


No difference between human and chimera. You need to use L1 (zoom/aim/ironsight) to see behind the walls.

If someone uses the chimeran rage berserk in your team, every teammember close to that player will be able to see through walls. The same goes for the advansed radar berserk.


Yes, press L1 to activate Auger's X-ray vision. That's the one I was looking for. The Chimeran Rage berserk allows team members to see through wall, but it's not very effective since they can't shoot through obstacles.


Yep, I forgot about that. They need to bring searching from scoreboard back as well. It was really annoying initially but I got used to it since menus are pretty fast.

Sent you a PSN message which made me notice it's indeed confusing.



Invites are in the party options menu if I recall correctly.

Yap ! The confusing part is the "Invitation" option looks like a header, not something I could click on.

I dont think they've changed any gameplay since the launch. There was a first minute patch of course, but that doesn't count.


I believe day 1 patch was 1.10. There was a 1.20 patch. Something felt different since 1.1. Perhaps some net bugs were fixed ? I could barely get any kills earlier on. Now it's still not as "precise" as R1, but it feels better.


Grenade issue still happens sometimes because of the lag. Despite the great netcode not everyone has enough bandwidth. That is more evident with split screeners and sometimes playing with people from other continents.


True ! But they hide the lag oh so well.


If you are smart, there is no stopping in R2. Autoaim and hit detection for all weapons depend on target's moving speed.

That's right. It's not worth it to stop-n-pop in R2. The new FarEye seems to reload faster. It's a wonderful weapon ! Carbine and Bulleye felt gimped from R1 in competitive play.

[tha_con]

That's right. It's not worth it to stop-n-pop in R2. The new FarEye seems to reload faster. It's a wonderful weapon ! Carbine and Bulleye felt gimped from R1 in competitive play.

It was worth it during the private beta, when accuracy was greatly increased when in Ironsights. However, people complained that they wanted that kind of accuracy "all the time" and absolutely destroyed the purpose of ironsights completely.

The private beta was very very great when it came to stop and pop (which is suited for open maps like Orick and parts of Chicago).

I really wish Insomniac would have stuck to their guns, but oh well. R1 accuracy was far too accurate, and the Bullseye was bullsh---you get the idea. Tagging someone from huge distances was absolutely ridiculous, and I'm so glad they toned down the tag accuracy and limited the count.

Also, you have to remember that there is a loadout system in this game, so making the Carbine what it was in R1 would remove almost all incentive to try out other weapons. The Carbine was the 'all purpose weapon" in R1, but for balance, if you're going to give everyone access to all weapons at all times, you need to tune and balance. I think the Carbine is fine where it is, for the type of game R2 is. If this Carbine were in R1, it wouldn't work, and if the Carbine from R1 was in R2, it wouldn't work, the balance would be blown off the charts.

[betan]

Yes, I have changed my perk to invisibility. Much more useful for Core Control and Skirmish.

Invisibility is great for some easy sniping as well.
I don't know if you have it yet, but Ring of Life is a damn good berserk when playing against normal players for all three modes. Not many people knows how to take down a guy in ring and most of the time all you have to do is avoiding grenades and dancing around.

I believe day 1 patch was 1.10. There was a 1.20 patch. Something felt different since 1.1. Perhaps some net bugs were fixed ? I could barely get any kills earlier on. Now it's still not as "precise" as R1, but it feels better.

What you experienced early on might have been related to the stress on the servers as well.

True ! But they hide the lag oh so well.

Indeed, which is what makes the game shine above others.

That's right. It's not worth it to stop-n-pop in R2. The new FarEye seems to reload faster. It's a wonderful weapon ! Carbine and Bulleye felt gimped from R1 in competitive play.
Bullseye tagging is gimped but the actually shooting is more accurate than what was in R1.
It's still my favorite weapon in R2 though.
Carbine however is by far the best assault weapon in Core Control.

[patsu]

stop-n-pop in R2

It's inevitable. R1 players will instinctively run and gun. If the run speed is slow, they will file it as a bug without question. If the weapons behave "worse" than in R1, they will complain. This is because during closed beta, quite a few areas needed polish. All the intended differences and real issues got jumbled together into one big blob.

New players may try to stop-n-pop, but with so many people running around I don't think it will be effective. People will spawn near your location, or run into you rather frequently. In the end, it would be like how a FarEye user plays R2 now but without one/two hit kills.



betan, I am surprised you find BullsEye more accurate in R2. I need to "spray fire" to kill faster (against a Carbine enemy).

[tha_con]

It's inevitable. R1 players will instinctively run and gun. If the run speed is slow, they will file it as a bug without question. If the weapons behave "worse" than in R1, they will complain. This is because during closed beta, quite a few areas needed polish. All the intended differences and real issues got jumbled together into one big blob.

New players may try to stop-n-pop, but with so many people running around I don't think it will be effective. People will spawn near your location, or run into you rather frequently. In the end, it would like how a FarEye user plays R2 now but without one/two hit kills.



betan, I am surprised you find BullsEye more accurate in R2. I need to "spray fire" to kill faster (against a Carbine enemy).

Stop-n-pop is about long range battle. You still run and gun when you are within close range. Watch each and every person who is good at KZ2 or CoD4 (which are both fairly big stop and pop games). You never bring up your ironsights when you're in close range, you aim-n-spray.

Thing is, people complained and now neither is effective. The way it was during the closed beta was perfect, but the complainers ruined it. I honestly place a lot of the blame on Insomniac for giving in, because that's not the type of stuff you tune during a beta. You tune things like weapon balance, spawn points, and fix glitches / problems.


That's neither here nor there, the game is the way it is now because of the 'fans' who changed the game, and will likely leave, while the rest of us will stick around and play it for quite some time, even though they abandoned us. It just means I have to wait until those jackholes move on to another game to start preaching to Insomniac to change it back.

[betan]

betan, I am surprised you find BullsEye more accurate in R2. I need to "spray fire" to kill faster (against a Carbine enemy).

Bullseye in ironsight view has little bullet spread though. Without ironsight it sprays similar to R1 Bullseye, but even less accurate of course.

I feel like the new Bullseye is all about managing bullet lag more than anything else, when you are not tagging that is.

[patsu]

Stop-n-pop is about long range battle. You still run and gun when you are within close range. Watch each and every person who is good at KZ2 or CoD4 (which are both fairly big stop and pop games). You never bring up your ironsights when you're in close range, you aim-n-spray.

Thing is, people complained and now neither is effective. The way it was during the closed beta was perfect, but the complainers ruined it. I honestly place a lot of the blame on Insomniac for giving in, because that's not the type of stuff you tune during a beta. You tune things like weapon balance, spawn points, and fix glitches / problems.


That's neither here nor there, the game is the way it is now because of the 'fans' who changed the game, and will likely leave, while the rest of us will stick around and play it for quite some time, even though they abandoned us. It just means I have to wait until those jackholes move on to another game to start preaching to Insomniac to change it back.

That's an interesting take. I think R2 gameplay is heavily weapon-driven. The strategy changes based on the gun one wields. e.g., In general, I'd go stop-n-pop using FarEye, hide-n-seek using Auger, run-n-gun using everything else.

I am experimenting with IronSight now (Only level 14 here). For Auger, I use it frequently (because it allows me to see hidden enemies). For Carbine, it seems to improve headshot even for close combat. I am not entirely sure yet. For BullsEye I need to spray a tad more than in R1 to get a faster kill. Haven't tried tagging in BullsEye coz I can't see where the tag is at this moment.

I feel like the new Bullseye is all about managing bullet lag more than anything else, when you are not tagging that is.

You mean anticipate enemy's next position and fire at that spot before he strafes into position ?

[RenegadeRocks]

Finally played R2 today ! I found the graphics amazing and the gameplay intriguing ! The Campaign (I have just reached Orick) is much better than R1 !!!! :cool:
Well, whats more to say ! I am enjoying it !

[RenegadeRocks]

Hmmm......reached Bryce Cannon..........though the graphics are super cool in Idaho, but the gameplay has started to fail now, maybe I am judging it too early, maybe there's a lot to ply still!

The first time the grims came in, it felt awesome, and I am loving the chamaeleon too, creates a creepy atmosphere. Its just that in R1, every scenario was built around replayability and experimentation till you find a way to tackle it. In R2, I am hardly dying and before I can even understand from where to shoot and try another weapon or something, the encounter is already over(mostly)! :(
Also, R1 felt heavily gametested, and if you played well you would find the health packs and ammo automatically at the right place. It felt as if Insomniac had play tested every situation to such a level that they found out the paths a player would take in a situation and placed health packs and ammo at exactly those paths.

In R2, sometimes I complete an encounter with a different gun, only to realise later thet the gun for the particular situation was lying just in front of the enemy.

People say R1 was rushed as it was a launch title and Insomniac said that they completed the whole gameplay of R2 first and then added graphical effects, but R1 seems more polished gameplay wise to me.
Maybe, I am still too early in the game, but that is what I am feeling now, after the very good level of Orick , Iceland and SRPA centre. Those three felt nice, but after that something went wrong. Lets hope it betters out later, co I am playing tonight !

[tha_con]

R1 was just as linear as R2, the difference was that you could carry every weapon you got, so you had more options to 'mix it up'. The 2 weapon system certainly takes that away, but at the same time it offers you the ability to actually use that weapon.

In R1, I found myself saving a lot of ammo and only using the carbine / bullseye for nearly every situation, and I used many many more weapons in R2, but the general layout is different. The only problem I had with it was that some weapons appear too much, while others are available too little (pules cannong, splicer, and bellock come to mind).

There is work to be done, and some things could be changed, but I think most people find the game to be too different from R1 and interpret that as gameplay flaws and / or poor design (don't get me wrong, there is some poor design ideas, but they aren't so much flawed as they are under-developed).

[RenegadeRocks]

Don't get me wrong ! Read my post just above the "complaint" post, that was my reaction until I reached around the mid of Idaho, from there on, it was boring, but then its all subjective :roll:
I am just hoping it improves again :cool:!

R1 wasn't nonlinear, just that if you played it well, it felt as if it was designed very well !
Idaho encounters fail a little in that regard. The grim making an entry felt great, but after that it tapered off.

Well, writing this post made me realise that it was only Idaho that dissappointed!
I mean, thrice it happened that I cleared up an area only to realise later that the weapon for the situation was placed somewhere else :huh: !

[tha_con]

I will agree that weapon placement was bad in some areas like Idaho, but that was the only area that I remember where weapon placement was that bad (like in front of the diner where you see the bellock by a truck, but have no clue it's there becuase you're taking on a crap ton of auger fire).

Things could be better in areas, but all games are like that. I think it was more a result of the first title having so much that seemed to fall into place that it makes R2 feel under-developed in some areas.

[patsu]

The grim making an entry felt great, but after that it tapered off.

Yes, I liked the R1 Menials better. It had a different behaviour when you're too close. Sometimes it also carried an energy ball that can cause a chain of explosions when the ball bounced. So you have to be more careful when dealing with them. The Grims are more like mindless zombies.

[tha_con]

Yes, I liked the R1 Menials better. It had a different behaviour when you're too close. Sometimes it also carried an energy ball that can cause a chain of explosions when the ball bounced. So you have to be more careful when dealing with them. The Grims are more like mindless zombies.

whaaat!? Dude I have to disagree with the strongest of emotions (lol).

The Menials were slow, boring, and really never even posed a threat to the player unless you happened to miss one of them hiding in a corner. You could always take them out from an extremely long distance, it just wasn't that fun.

Grims attack you in numbers, and demolishing them is just...satisfying. When you see two dozen grims headed your way, and you ravage them with a shotgun or splicer, you just feel really really...cool. Unfortunately, there are only 3 instances during the entire freaking game where this happens, which stinks big time.

Now I'm sad that I don't have a really good internet connection :( I just finished off all the trophies for R2 Co-Op, and now I'm just craving some great competitive action :(

[Cornsnake]

I will agree that weapon placement was bad in some areas like Idaho, but that was the only area that I remember where weapon placement was that bad (like in front of the diner where you see the bellock by a truck, but have no clue it's there becuase you're taking on a crap ton of auger fire).

Things could be better in areas, but all games are like that. I think it was more a result of the first title having so much that seemed to fall into place that it makes R2 feel under-developed in some areas.

There is another bellock in Idaho a bit further when you face the 3 titans. And again its well hidden, it lies next to one of the titans in the grass. So your natural reaction is to keep some distance between them, nor would you see it if you wouldn't be standing directly in front of it. It's great weapon though, one that I would have liked to use more.


The grims are one of the best enemies in R2 IMO. It's good fun to cut them to pieces with the Splicer, or blow them apart with the shotgun as they come rushing in. Still its strange they left out some of the old favourites like the Menials or the Widowmaker. And the same thing goes for some of the weapons like the Hailstorm, Sapper and the dragon.

[patsu]

whaaat!? Dude I have to disagree with the strongest of emotions (lol).

The Menials were slow, boring, and really never even posed a threat to the player unless you happened to miss one of them hiding in a corner. You could always take them out from an extremely long distance, it just wasn't that fun.

That's true ! But in a closed room with tons of enemies, the Menials can be deadly too because you end up running into them (and they grabbed you).

They could have introduced faster Menials and retain some of the older behaviours. A level with a few loose and slow Menials is definitely boring.

[Carl B]

Yes, I liked the R1 Menials better. It had a different behaviour when you're too close. Sometimes it also carried an energy ball that can cause a chain of explosions when the ball bounced. So you have to be more careful when dealing with them. The Grims are more like mindless zombies.

I definitely did like (and miss) the whole conversion center 'scene' from R1. It added a nice touch, the scarabs, spire attacks, etc etc... and the menials were like the worker bees/ants in these colonies. They're relatively easy, relatively oblivious to you, but will attack to defend.

It was nice societal flavor for the chimera. In R2, the chimeran 'society' seems to have gone off in a completely different direction.

[betan]

I thought both Grims and Menials were great. In fact I'm puzzled by visual similarity of designs and absence of Menials from R2 (as a design choice not story wise). I also miss Grey Jacks, particularly sniping them. And Angels, the overlords. :(

Anyway, health regen, as is implemented in modern shooters is a cheap trick, considering how limited combat mechanics generally are. Same goes for the two weapon system.

Honestly I wanted to see Resistance 2 (SP campaign) go more of an RPG route (or more specifically the way of Jedi Knight). It has the right setup, but Insomniac choose a more traditional approach. Even R&C, though not obvious, has a lot of RPG elements.

Still, I'm hopeful, considering the events in both games. :oops:

[tha_con]

That's true ! But in a closed room with tons of enemies, the Menials can be deadly too because you end up running into them (and they grabbed you).

They could have introduced faster Menials and retain some of the older behaviours. A level with a few loose and slow Menials is definitely boring.

I can definitely see that.

WHat I would have liked is if the Furies had something like Mendials, where they would grab you and you could shake the controller or something to break free...I have no idea why that omission was made.

Another thing I would have liked to see in R2 would have been a live spire attack while playing, some civilians, and some spinners. Idaho would have been so much better if you walked into a big shelter full of humans, only to have a spire land through the roof and spinners start wrapping up the civilians.

IMO, that is the biggest problem with the Resistance universe across all games, is that you never run into any civilians or victims. Just like the Halo Franchise, there are only two sides, the soldiers, an the enemies. I've always hated that about first person shooters, these games need more 'regular' people that are victims, just NPC's that you can protect or let die, but have no real impact on the story.

[whome0]

Yesterday finished Resistance2 singleplay campaign, second difficulty level. Overall I liked the game and will replay some of the parts to find more intel docs and achieve some trophies. Favourite gun pair was Auger and a sniper rifle.

Auger does seem to make some of the fire fights a bit too easy, go near enemies but stay behind a corner and obstacles . Headshot enemies through a wall. Probably should play without Auger to have more challenge.

About grenades, in R1 I did not use them properly often enough. Took a lesson this time and was throwing grenades like a mad, great fun.

The most favourite fire fight scene:

Near the end where team had to escort a fission bomb up to the enemy ship, going up the bridge. A massive wave of enemies run down the bridge and we had to break through them, it felt a good old Last Man Standing moment.


Next R3 version: More and more massive wave of enemy fire fights, great fun trying to break through overwhelming enemy lines. And maybe drop Auger, even if was my favourite gun, or change it to give a negative impact on overuse.

If I remember right, R1 had an annoying glitch where it load spin a disc drive 3-5 seconds before hidden enemies attacked on you. You knew immediately next corner has an enemy line. Thanks Insomniac for fixing it R2 did not have anything like that.

edit: about the technical merits. Very smooth run, had none slow downs, no complaints about the graphics either, water simulation one of the best seen.

[patsu]

According to jstevenson, this is the patch without content update: http://blog.us.playstation.com/2009/01/23/resistance-2-patch-140-details/

Multiplayer Progression

Some people have seen their competitive and/or cooperative characters reset to level 1. For several of those cases, this patch will not only bring back all the XP, stats, and attributes that you’ve lost, but it will also add to your character profile the XP/stats/attributes that you’ve earned since those levels were reset. For example, say you were a level 20 medic and after being reset to level 1, and you earned 5,000 XP. Thanks to the patch, you’ll return a level 20 medic and that 5,000 XP will be added to your profile.

This patch will also correct some medal and trophy issues, including the “Killing Machine” trophy (if you’ve already accumulated 10,000 kills but haven’t received this trophy, it’ll pop up as soon as you download the patch).

Here are some additional patch 1.40 details:

Trophy/Medal/Ribbons

* “Salute Me” trophy is not awarded until player reaches level 31 (Lieutenant)
* “Berserker” trophy can be collected during non-ranked games
* “Survivor” medal can be collected in cooperative games
* “Sure Shot” ribbon is awarded if player has accuracy of exactly 50%

Clans

* Added clan support for viewing members, sending invites, and setting up clan tags
* Default clan region is now USA

Match Balancing

* Unbalanced ranked games are cancelled in staging before the game is started
* Parties are prevented from matchmaking into free-for-all Deathmatch games

Competitive

* Loadouts can be disabled in the “Create Game” screen in competitive games
* Balanced the chance of dropping large ammo pickups in competitive games
* Core Control scoreboard displays “Kills”
* Improved scoreboard formatting

Cooperative

* Balanced the amount of XP gained by the Medic class in cooperative games
* Stalker movement enabled in cooperative games
* Small ammo pickups don’t give LAARK ammo in cooperative games

Weapons/Gameplay

* Splash damage on Pulse Cannon can damage the player firing it
* Rossmore reticule better reflects its accuracy
* Fire is easier to shake off
* Players cannot swap weapons in the middle of a melee attack

Miscellaneous

* Localized text updates
* Network message optimizations
* EULA displays the correct language text for Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish and Danish

Now you may be asking, “But what about adding the option to save the second player’s character progress?” Truth be told, it required a certain PS3 firmware that wasn’t available at the time of Resistance 2’s release. We now have that firmware and are currently working to implement the feature. As soon as it’s ready, we’ll get it out to you.

There is another one with content update in the works (May or may not need to pay for that one. No details yet)

[tha_con]

Stalker movement.

OMG.

Stalker movement!

[LordNerevar]

Quite small changes, though a lot of them. Fire being easier to shake off is something i wanted from day one.
Also, i hope that medic XP balance is a nerf.

[patsu]

This...


* Network message optimizations



...and the Stalker movement are the most important to me. The netcode is already very responsive. Let's see how it plays with the new code. ;-)

[betan]

Overall fairly uninteresting patch with only a couple of useful changes. But I have to say, I'm really sorry double melee glitch has been (is going to be?) fixed.
It wasn't abused a lot, and was certainly not an easy trick to pull (with the default control layout I'm using).
On the other hand I'm in favor of more complex melee mechanics in FPSs. It was a good start. :)
Can be a bitch with Wraith shield though.

edit: yeah stalker movement is cool (hopefully), on the other hand I'm not so sure about downgraded medic experience.

edit2: what the hell I missed this

* Balanced the chance of dropping large ammo pickups in competitive games

I was looking under weapon changes. :|
Awesome news that is. And also this:

Loadouts can be disabled in the “Create Game” screen in competitive games

Was sure to come (as was the case in R1), yet still nice to see more gb friendly environment so soon.

[tha_con]

Hopefully I will finally be able to send clan invites and build my army of troops!

There are a lot of substantial changes there that will change the way the game is played. Pulse cannon and Rossmore are two big changes, especially if it carries over to co-op. Also the balancing of large ammo pickups should reduce the number of people throwing multiple grenades and spamming 40MM ammo.

I'm really hoping in the next patch they'll reduce the size of splash damage for the LAARK, but increase the damage. As it is right now, I feel the splash damage radius is waaaay too large. That, and the secondary fire seems to be awefully powerful, much more powerful than it was in R1 at least.

That said, the patch is farily substantial, lots of game fixes and stat corrections. My buddy will be happy to hear that the Login Patch will be on the way. I wonder how they'll make that work? Should be cool to go to his house and log in with my PSN ID and play co-op split screen, then go home and see those results.

[patsu]

What is the double melee glitch ?

[betan]

What is the double melee glitch ?

R3, triangle, R3. Kills instantly if you don't miss.

Melee normally one-hit kills only from behind, and following with another melee takes time.

But if you change weapon right after R3, if the melee hits you get the points, long melee wait is interrupted and you can do another melee immediately.

The whole thing made Wraith a little overpowered, as you can simply run to people with shields up and melee them in the face, but since many couldn't do it, or didn't know, it wasn't a big deal.

Nice skill if you ask me. I'd like to see another combo like that.

[patsu]

Yeah, not a Wraith guy here. :(


Now you may be asking, “But what about adding the option to save the second player’s character progress?” Truth be told, it required a certain PS3 firmware that wasn’t available at the time of Resistance 2’s release. We now have that firmware and are currently working to implement the feature. As soon as it’s ready, we’ll get it out to you.

I wonder if they are refering to firmware 2.60 here (Ability to save second character's progress on the same PS3 for co-op games)

[tha_con]

They may be, and it will indeed be interesting to see. Honestly, I think they're talking about another FW update that may come later, and I don't expect to see that functunality until they release a content pack.

I'm really curious to see what could be done for Co-op for content, or at least what they have planned. Could get interesting :)

Most of all though, I want to see a new map that is WIDE OPEN in an area where we can fend off maybe 2 stalkers that are mobile, a few titans, and a mobile Marauder. MAKE IT HAPPEN PLZ!?

[Cornsnake]

It's a nice update, but I hope it fixes more than this. Like party screen bugs, Auger not being able to hit crouched players, not exploding grenades, the grenade indicator, improve respawning, remove invisible walls.

[patsu]

:shock:

Auger not being able to hit crouched players, not exploding grenades, ..., remove invisible walls

These problems exist ?

The grenade indicator sometimes come up too late. Would definitely be nice to fix it (Perhaps the optimized netcode attempts to address it ?)

[Cornsnake]

:shock:



These problems exist ?

The grenade indicator sometimes come up too late. Would definitely be nice to fix it.

Yup. And Auger is a known issue, so you will get players that abuse the bug. The invisible walls is only a problem for grenades, when you throw them they seems to get stuck behind something and fall to the floor, possibly killing you. It often happens when you try to throw them over railings and such.

[patsu]

Now that you mentioned it. I suicided a few times while trying to lobe grenade over railings. I thought I aimed too low. If I throw high, the grenade will still drop at my feet ? (I remember tossing grenade over railings successfully too).

Thanks for the Auger crouching tip. I'll look out for the squatters now. It sounds like a simple fix.

[Cornsnake]

Now that you mentioned it. I suicided a few times while trying to lobe grenade over railings. I thought I aimed too low. If I throw high, the grenade will still drop at my feet ? (I remember tossing grenade over railings successfully too).

Thanks for the Auger crouching tip. I'll look out for the squatters now. It sounds like a simple fix.

You can still throw over them, its just that they seem to get stuck if you throw it close to them. Also, it would be nice if we could jump over those railings.

[betan]

Yeah, not a Wraith guy here. :(

Neither here, but it's still very useful for close face to face encounters with any weapon.

As for 2.6 update, I wanted to post in the other thread but I forgot.
Despite public changelog being boring, who knows, maybe the NDAed stuff is actually a little more interesting, like simultaneous multiple PSN logins, reduced memory usage, etc.

[RenegadeRocks]

You know When I used to think how Resistance 2 would be, I used to envision a scene on a bridge with all kind of Chimera and Drones attacking me at once. Guys shouting, me dying again and again and a complete Chimera style, very agile Chaos !


and Guess what !! It happened in CHicago !!!!!!!!! :D

Thw game has turned into the awesomeness it ought to be, they nailed it ! Its been a hell of a ride since I entered Chicago and then Iceland, then the Tower !!!

Just like R1 it waited before releasing the killer gameplay ! Oh ! How I am in love again ! :cool:

I have just entered Louisiana ! Hope the game stays like this all the way from now on :) !!
anyways, I have not even touched co-op and I am sure if there is a Resistance 3 , which I hope there will be, I'll be buying it ! :cool:

[Cornsnake]

Apparently this 1.4 patch isn't the big patch they have been talking about. That one is said to arrive 4 to 6 weeks from now. Sorry, I can't give a link because I'm posting on my PS3 again.

4 to 6 weeks puts it right around the release of Killzone 2, which is a bad move IMO. They could stand to lose many players this way.

[patsu]

Blah :cool:

What took you so long ? ^_^

Go try co-op and competitive right after the Monday patch.

4 to 6 weeks puts it right around the release of Killzone 2, which is a bad move IMO. They could stand to lose many players this way.

Let's see how much awesome-ness Insomniac delivers in the next patch.

The "lag-free" MP play has its allure. Reminding people about R2 is not necessarily a bad thing. If I were them, I would plan for another patch after KZ launched.

[RenegadeRocks]

I still have to finish SP ! I am at Loisiana right now..................how much more is left? Malkov said Nathan has 3 hours more to live !................BTW, I am loving the story this time around !Hale is actually turning into a dead Zombie :shock: !

[patsu]

Not far now. I can't remember the sequence of events clearly but I believe you are about 2 levels away. You're delivering the bomb now right ?

[RenegadeRocks]

eh....no, actually I am still looking for it !

[RenegadeRocks]

oK ! Finished the SP :) !

The last boss was one of the lowest points of the campaign (along with Bryce Canyon)But what happened afterwards was AWESOME ! every enemy brought down with so much ease ! Awesome !

The end was great, I was speculating if they would do that or not(with my friend) and they did it ! Great ! But it was a bit abrupt : "It was an Honour, sir !" Thats all ! I was waiting if a video would come after the credits to point the way forward, but none came :( !
Any idea What planets were shown broken up in the background in the last cutscene? It seemed they had travelled tthru time or something, or maybe they weren't on earth at all, coz, we only have moon around us, but they showed two broken planets in the sky!
A great end ! But on the whole, I will have to see, if it can hold up to the replayability of R1!
But, to be true, who needs replayability when you have a whole co-op section :cool: !
Insomniac "It was an honour to serve with you!" :D

[Cornsnake]

If you collect all the intel and co-op mission briefings, you'll get a lot better view of what's going on in Resistance universe.

About the ending. I'm glad they went through with it in the end, I hate all those stories where they make you believe the hero is going to die, and then he survives after all. Capelli should make a good main character for R3.

The co-op missions are mainly about grey tech. They find out that they are pieces to some incredibly advanced machine, and there is speculation that it could be a teleporting device. Something that could perhaps even transport the entire planet. That theory seems to fit well with what happened during the ending.

[tha_con]

Apparently this 1.4 patch isn't the big patch they have been talking about. That one is said to arrive 4 to 6 weeks from now. Sorry, I can't give a link because I'm posting on my PS3 again.

4 to 6 weeks puts it right around the release of Killzone 2, which is a bad move IMO. They could stand to lose many players this way.

I haven't seen anything on this not being the "big patch". The only thing I've read from James and Bryan is that this patch will not add content, but there will be additional content and a new patch coming at a later date.

I don't think releasing a patch around the time KZ2 releases will be bad. Players will leave, and it always happens, but the folks who stay will make the community strong, and people will continue to pick the game up.

IMO the most important part of a multiplayer isn't so much growing your community, but maintaining it. It may shrink a little, but I don't think it will be as bad as many think.

[patsu]

They are probably not on Earth anymore.

Capelli is in a very bad situation. He's going to die of loneliness or become alien food. :twisted:
I think Nathan got it off easy. In a very real sense, he's not Nathan anymore.

[Cornsnake]

I haven't seen anything on this not being the "big patch". The only thing I've read from James and Bryan is that this patch will not add content, but there will be additional content and a new patch coming at a later date.

An Insomnaic (Not James or Bryan) said it somewhere on the myres. forums.

Edit: http://www.myresistance.net/smf/index.php?topic=86232.msg2572507#msg2572507

I think he is still on Earth. The chimera were building a vast energy network around the planet, using the towers and their ships.

I wonder how much of humanity is left after R2, seems like they were losing on all fronts. Or are we finally going to join the winning side :twisted:.

I think Hale still lives. There are mission briefings about the Cloven possessing very similar powers as Hale had in the end, and about them taking 40 to 50 shoots without going down. Hale also survived being stabbed through the chest after all.

[RenegadeRocks]

If you collect all the intel and co-op mission briefings, you'll get a lot better view of what's going on in Resistance universe.

About the ending. I'm glad they went through with it in the end, I hate all those stories where they make you believe the hero is going to die, and then he survives after all. Capelli should make a good main character for R3.

The co-op missions are mainly about grey tech. They find out that they are pieces to some incredibly advanced machine, and there is speculation that it could be a teleporting device. Something that could perhaps even transport the entire planet. That theory seems to fit well with what happened during the ending.

Yes! I was also happy they did it I was discussing with my roomie while playing, whether Nathan would die or become the ultimate villain. Well, they satisfied both of the conditions in the end. I think Nathan is not dead, he'll be back next time and will also show us that since we have played as him in 2 games, that there is no right or wrong side, its just a battle of survival between two species !
Capelli is welcome as a hero, the exciting part is that the last sequence where you play as superpowered Nathan suggests and opens up a lot of possibilities for the next game! Basically they can go in any direction for R3 :cool:!

[betan]

(spoiler)

I'd like to see R1's Hale back, silent but not mute, with slight brain damage and amnesia or something, slowly building up abilities.

[tha_con]

I'd prefer they not revive Hale or anything. If he comes back as a bad guy, I'm entirely fine with that, but we don't need some underdog story of Hale coming back to "finish the fight" (lol). I would much rather have him dead / die later, it works much better to the tragedy of the universe.

What I would really love to see in R3 is the introduction of a new species, or "real" chimera.

[patsu]

They can probably think of interesting twists either way. If Nathan is dead, everything is possible. If he's alive, I'd like to fight against him. But if he is still the player character, Insomniac may need to revamp FPS with his new gained powers :-P

I just want a compact and integrated story for R3. R2 story has interesting things but is too scattered for my taste.

[Cornsnake]

There is plenty of room to introduce a new species. We still haven't seen the Cloven, who have similar power as Hale had. Then there are the pure chimera you can see in Bryce Canyon. And the third species that supposedly made the grey tech.

It would be nice you got new powers throughout R3, just like you pick up new weapons. Kind of like you have the berserks now in competitive.

[patsu]

Have we encountered any living or dead Cloven before ? I know we walked past some original Climeras. I thought they are a form of insects or micro-organisms. :(

[betan]

Have we encountered any living or dead Cloven before ? I know we walked past some original Climeras. I thought they are a form of insects or micro-organisms. :(


Cloven were in R1 multiplayer.
:)

[tha_con]

Have we encountered any living or dead Cloven before ? I know we walked past some original Climeras. I thought they are a form of insects or micro-organisms. :(

It's pretty well explained in R2. There was a large explosion in Russia, this is where the original Chimera were discovered. Their DNA was first integrated into Human Soldiers, they were the Cloven. The second attempt was more powerful, and a larger transformation. These were full-on Chimeran Hybrids. The Hybrids went on to infect larger parts of Russia, and used Spires (with those little insects inside) to deliver the "virus" (essentially their DNA). This way they could begin transformation, and then take the infected to conversion centers.

The chimera we see now (Hybrids) were man made. The others, like Titans, Angels, and nearly every other species, are all Chimeran engineered.

The absolute biggest flaw in the Resistance Universe, to me, is that you never see these "more intelligent" Chimera who apparently are building all this tech and genetically engineering new species of Chimeran soldiers / Monsters.

Here's to hoping we see some in R3 :)

[patsu]

Cloven were in R1 multiplayer.
:)

That's outright cheating. :twisted:

It's pretty well explained in R2. There was a large explosion in Russia, this is where the original Chimera were discovered. Their DNA was first integrated into Human Soldiers, they were the Cloven. The second attempt was more powerful, and a larger transformation. These were full-on Chimeran Hybrids. The Hybrids went on to infect larger parts of Russia, and used Spires (with those little insects inside) to deliver the "virus" (essentially their DNA). This way they could begin transformation, and then take the infected to conversion centers.

The chimera we see now (Hybrids) were man made. The others, like Titans, Angels, and nearly every other species, are all Chimeran engineered.

The absolute biggest flaw in the Resistance Universe, to me, is that you never see these "more intelligent" Chimera who apparently are building all this tech and genetically engineering new species of Chimeran soldiers / Monsters.

Here's to hoping we see some in R3 :)


Yes, that's partly why I find the story scattered. Expected R2 to explain more and instead it raised tons more questions (R2 is like a zoo to me because there are so many different types of critters to fight). So far the humans (Russians and Americans, as usual) seem to be causing more problems than the aliens. Despite the R1 story, I always had the impression that the aliens were more like untamable virus/insects/wildlife. Us human ph*cked it up and wanted to find a scapegoat.

I can't see how the original Chimera could build all those technologies. It's probably why "the third race" is needed to round the story up.

[RenegadeRocks]

Well, they said the Chimera ruled the earth when we were still walking on all fours !They must have been the thriving species that time , and intelligent too! The original CHimera shown in Bryce Canyon were three or 4 times bigger than men, Twice a Titan, we can say, not microorganisms ! Who or what Russia did in it, or America did in it is still pretty hazy to me, but now I think the Chimera want a comeback to rule everything again !

BTW, bought a Jabra BT125 to play co-op today. The co-op is much faster and frantic than the beta now. but few people have Headsets and fewer use them to guide team mates !
Played two rounds of MP too, and surprisingly it was fun to a non-pro like me !!!!

ALso Ireally wish a patch would let us take screenshots ! Some places were amazing in SP :)!

[patsu]

Well, they said the Chimera ruled the earth when we were still walking on all fours !They must have been the thriving species that time , and intelligent too! The original CHimera shown in Bryce Canyon were three or 4 times bigger than men, Twice a Titan, we can say, not microorganisms ! Who or what Russia did in it, or America did in it is still pretty hazy to me, but now I think the Chimera want a comeback to rule everything again !



Yap ! I have been watching too much Barney (http://www.barney.com). The original Chimeras looked like a dinosaur to me :)

OTOH, many of the excavated buildings and technologies we saw were human-sized. So yeah, a third race is needed.



BTW, bought a Jabra BT125 to play co-op today. The co-op is much faster and frantic than the beta now. but few people have Headsets and fewer use them to guide team mates !
Played two rounds of MP too, and surprisingly it was fun to a non-pro like me !!!!

Also I really wish a patch would let us take screenshots ! Some places were amazing in SP :)!

Yes, would be nice. I just downloaded 1.40. Hope to play some this evening and see what has changed.

[betan]

my initial impressions of the new patch:
coop:
Gimped medic experience sucks. Fortunately I have been leveling up medic like crazy during the weekend. They only needed to exp up a spec ops ammo boxes as they aren't rewarded enough.
Haven't seen a mobile stalker, but for some reason the stalker I saw was quite deadly with mini missiles. (nice)

comp:
Secondary box (40z in particular) appearance seems much better.
Weapon switching seems a little gimped now, which, in my opinion, is against the whole two weapon system. I understand (though don't like) prevention of double melee but still...
Weapon loadout config in custom games is nice, but no berserk options? Disappointed :|

interface:
"View clan" context menu item is welcome, but I still would like to see an in-game "players met" tab as well as "send message" context menu item.


Well, overall they addressed biggest weapon balancing issue so I shouldn't complain much.
But I'd like to see squad channels ala R1 for TDM and CC (but not Skirmish naturally).
Re-regioning of some closed parts of current maps would also be welcome.

[patsu]

I think Insomniac tweaked the colors too. I am glad the blues and reds are not as bright as before. I am trying to see if there's any noticeable improvement due to the net optimization.

[tha_con]

They only needed to exp up a spec ops ammo boxes as they aren't rewarded enough.


Nah, The medic needed "nerfing" IMO. I think a lot of it had to do with the Spec Ops and Soldiers having this slow grind up until higher levels, while Medics just seemed to sky rocket to the top. This lead to a large amount of people only playing Medics to get the LVL 30 trophy. i don't know how many games I had to leave because there were too many medics, too many spec ops, and not enough Soldiers.

That said, Spec ops soldiers are beastly at lvl 30. The amount of kills you can get just from run and gun gameplay is ridiculous. Plus you can just use the auger as a "shield" like a soldier and take out hoards of enemies. I've ended matches as a spec ops with 200+ kills, topping 35K experience (and I know there are people who are way better).

[betan]

Nah, The medic needed "nerfing" IMO. I think a lot of it had to do with the Spec Ops and Soldiers having this slow grind up until higher levels, while Medics just seemed to sky rocket to the top. This lead to a large amount of people only playing Medics to get the LVL 30 trophy. i don't know how many games I had to leave because there were too many medics, too many spec ops, and not enough Soldiers.

The thing is medic doesn't get any experience when you play with a couple of people who know what they are doing. Plus when you want to play with a small group, it is even worse.
If there are too few soldiers, I simply play soldier. It's not like too many medics can get too much experience, and they are certainly not stealing exp from other classes.

That said, Spec ops soldiers are beastly at lvl 30. The amount of kills you can get just from run and gun gameplay is ridiculous. Plus you can just use the auger as a "shield" like a soldier and take out hoards of enemies. I've ended matches as a spec ops with 200+ kills, topping 35K experience (and I know there are people who are way better).
I bet you didn't have high level soldiers in those games.
Mute point anyway, since I doubt many people plays after hitting level 30 so it doesn't really matter much. As for personal experiences go, I'm only a lowly level 23 (or something) soldier, I'm yet to see any spec op topping me in recent memory. And I'd consider 35k exp failure for any game that's not short. ;)

Even if spec ops play dirty and don't give any ammo, you only loose grenades since there is a berserk that even fills up shield.

I feel like for three classes at the same level with decent knowledge of the game, soldier always comes on top, by a large margin, especially after his dependence on spec ops decreases.

[RenegadeRocks]

How do you mute the mic in game? Its on all the time !

[JPT]

How do you mute the mic in game? Its on all the time !

Not sure you can mute your own unless your headset supports it.

But you can mute other players, when the game has started, press Start and there is option to mute players there.

[RenegadeRocks]

I was talking about my own. mine doesn't have a mute button (BT125)
The manual of R2 says right arrow for voice chat, but it is on even if u don't press right arrow on d-pad.

[tha_con]

The thing is medic doesn't get any experience when you play with a couple of people who know what they are doing. Plus when you want to play with a small group, it is even worse.
If there are too few soldiers, I simply play soldier. It's not like too many medics can get too much experience, and they are certainly not stealing exp from other classes.

I bet you didn't have high level soldiers in those games.
Mute point anyway, since I doubt many people plays after hitting level 30 so it doesn't really matter much. As for personal experiences go, I'm only a lowly level 23 (or something) soldier, I'm yet to see any spec op topping me in recent memory. And I'd consider 35k exp failure for any game that's not short. ;)

Even if spec ops play dirty and don't give any ammo, you only loose grenades since there is a berserk that even fills up shield.

I feel like for three classes at the same level with decent knowledge of the game, soldier always comes on top, by a large margin, especially after his dependence on spec ops decreases.

A level 30 spec ops is 1 headshot 1 kill, and your range / accuracy is greatly increased. Basically you can take out massive amounts of enemies in an extremely short period of time from a distance. Combine that with the ability to take out an entire playing field before anyone else to get to them with mines, and the Snake Eyes berserk, and you're a killing machine.

35K isn't bad, I've heard of people hitting 40K, but that's neither here nor there.

[betan]

A level 30 spec ops is 1 headshot 1 kill, and your range / accuracy is greatly increased. Basically you can take out massive amounts of enemies in an extremely short period of time from a distance. Combine that with the ability to take out an entire playing field before anyone else to get to them with mines, and the Snake Eyes berserk, and you're a killing machine.

35K isn't bad, I've heard of people hitting 40K, but that's neither here nor there.

35K for spec ops may not be bad, but it's pretty mediocre for a highish level soldier.

Furthermore spec ops is actually punished for giving out ammo because grenade boxes means quick kills for every other class. While mines are great, they aren't that great.

Anyway, my point wasn't the specops being the worst exp collector (though that is/was the case on avarage), but it isn't rewarded enough for helping others.

[patsu]

I think you can mute from in-game XMB's Audio Settings.

35K is low. I have seen 50K for a mid level soldier.

[tha_con]

35K is not bad. Soldiers can get more EXP if they use the Backlash Berserk. That's it. Using Backlash you can throw up your shield and take out MASSIVE amounts of enemies in a matter of seconds.

Folks scoring north of 50K are often playing with extremely low level players. I'm always playing with folks I know who are, at the lowest, level 15. Playing with low level players at a high level always means extremely high exp. If you're team is any good (rather, if you are any good) the EXP will be split into smaller groups, not just one player dominating. If you see one person dominating with EXP, you're doing something wrong, IMO.

[patsu]

I can't remember anymore, but the 50K scores caught my eyes because initially the medics always topped the scoreboard. Gradually, more and more soldiers started to beat them.

Anyway, here's something I missed. An interview with Ted: http://www.interactive.org/features/ted_price.asp


Q: Tell us one of your recent professional insights.

A: This isn't terribly recent but it's become more and more important at Insomniac: depth wins over breadth. At Insomniac we've always had a "everything and the kitchen sink" approach to design. We cram a lot into our games and do as much polish as we can before shipping them. This leads to big, sprawling games with a ton of variety. But it can also trip us up at times. I think we all want to make the perfect game – the one that people remember for their entire lives. And in an attempt to achieve this we're beginning to employ better scope control – we're learning to say 'no' when it comes to implementing one-offs or features that don't reinforce the most important aspects of the games we make.


YES ! Live and let learn.

[tha_con]

I actually remember Ted Price saying something incredibly similar to me at Dinner a few months back. Eerie!

[shadowstryker19]

hi, im new here (obviously) but i play r2 frequently and i have LBP and just about every major ps3 game + multiplats, so if you guys want to add me my psn ID is the same as this SN.... um any word on DLC btw?

[patsu]

Informal assessment by an Insomniac insider was 4-6 weeks for next content patch. Best is not to take the info too seriously... it's just a rough indication.

I don't know if the patch is a DLC.

[tha_con]

Patch will almost certainly have free content, and will likely release on a thursday along side DLC.

I'm guessing the DLC will be new maps. Free content will include new level cap for Co-op, along side new game modes.

[betan]

I expect free maps for both coop and competitive along with new game modes.

[tha_con]

I have high hopes for the new content patch. While I'll enjoy more Competitive modes, I am excited to see if they add anything new to the Co-op besides new maps. It would be great to see some new variations to how the game is played, and some more complex objectives (i.e. I'd love to see them add in a turret to shoot down chimeran ships while your team mates hold off the horde attacking the turret).

[Cornsnake]

I doubt we'll get free maps. We had pay for the 2 map packs in Rfom, and they've only become free recently.

I don't even think competitive needs new maps. There are 70 different versions available. What it needs is a better rotation. Now it seems to favour Orick and Chicago, when there are many more available that you'll rarely get.

A few new gamemodes is what I'm hoping for. The current Skirmish and Core Controle aren't very good for clanwars. Skirmish is random and often can't provide a equal challenge, and Core Controle doesn't work well because it has an easy to defend and hard to defend side on most maps. I would like to see something where you can decide what objectives you want go for. Something like Skirmish, but being able to choose which beacons you want to capture and defend, and whoever holds the most for the longest time wins.

[tha_con]

I doubt we'll get free maps. We had pay for the 2 map packs in Rfom, and they've only become free recently.

I don't even think competitive needs new maps. There are 70 different versions available. What it needs is a better rotation. Now it seems to favour Orick and Chicago, when there are many more available that you'll rarely get.

A few new gamemodes is what I'm hoping for. The current Skirmish and Core Controle aren't very good for clanwars. Skirmish is random and often can't provide a equal challenge, and Core Controle doesn't work well because it has an easy to defend and hard to defend side on most maps. I would like to see something where you can decide what objectives you want go for. Something like Skirmish, but being able to choose which beacons you want to capture and defend, and whoever holds the most for the longest time wins.

I'd like to see Meltdown return, but with a twist. Capturing Beacons will award you with spawn points, as opposed to capturing the nodes. It'll make death a bit more punishing, instead of just respawning back at the node where you died.

[patsu]

I would like to see something where you can decide what objectives you want go for. Something like Skirmish, but being able to choose which beacons you want to capture and defend, and whoever holds the most for the longest time wins.

I experimented a little with Skirmish. It seems that sometimes I can attack unassigned nodes and the objective would change (to get more help for me). Other times, the nodes stayed dormant.

Also, when the AI directs you to attack a node, you can ignore it and stay to defend the current one (if you think new enemies are coming). The objective will change accordingly when the enemies show up.

Finally, it seems that if you kill more than your fair share of enemies within a time limit, you'll become the next target.

So in a sense, you can mold the Skirmish objectives somewhat based on your own actions.

[betan]

I doubt we'll get free maps. We had pay for the 2 map packs in Rfom, and they've only become free recently.

The first DLC before those two map packs was a free map. Apparently people don't remember.

I don't even think competitive needs new maps. There are 70 different versions available. What it needs is a better rotation.

My expectation is not based on number of maps, but Insomniac's previous approach and the fact that they can simple reuse a lot of assets to create new smaller "maps". God knows they can use some. If you are always play in a 2 or more squad party, I wouldn't expect you to notice those though.


Now it seems to favour Orick and Chicago, when there are many more available that you'll rarely get.

I don't think the game favours any maps at all. When it's a popular gaming time (like evening to night), it favours large regions even if you search small games.
Also some smaller regions are not part of any bigger map, and they are the ones that are rarely played.

A few new gamemodes is what I'm hoping for. The current Skirmish and Core Controle aren't very good for clanwars. Skirmish is random and often can't provide a equal challenge, and Core Controle doesn't work well because it has an easy to defend and hard to defend side on most maps.

10 player core conrol works great. 20 player sometimes works, 40 player is mostly hopeless unless teams are significantly unbalanced.
As for asymmetry, I like it. Plus gb requires switching sides on core control.

I would like to see something where you can decide what objectives you want go for. Something like Skirmish, but being able to choose which beacons you want to capture and defend, and whoever holds the most for the longest time wins.

I expect Zone, Assault and Breach like games will surely come eventually, since the node setup is already there.

[Cornsnake]

Core control is a lot better with fewer players. The 40 player games play almost like a teamdeathmatch.

Switching sides isn't a requirement on the ConsoleGaming clan ladders, although most will still do it because of the uneven sides. But it still gives the clan that started out on the easy side an advantage if the game is tied after 2 rounds. I would have preferred if they just cut the maps in half, and mirrored the other side.

Skirmish is very unpredictable. In our last war would often be order to capture 1 node, and suddenly were asked to defend it when in fact it was switched with another node. So we rush over to find the other team has allready taken it. This could very well be caused by someone respawning away from the squad, and accidentally capturing a node on his way back.

The priority target does seem to go to the best player, but because it is assigned without warning, he may find himself in very vulnerable spot. Often both teams priority target would be killed in under 10 seconds.

Skirmish seems to be designed to add some order to large objective based games, after the complete chaos Rfom's larger games displayed. It works well for large ranked games, but not so much for smaller custom games.

[tha_con]

You know, the one thing I really really hope they introduce in Co-op DLC is new enemies. At least new boss enemies, or variants of standard enemies.

I think it would be awesome to see some Leech's in Co-op, as well as a new "boss" enemy, it would help to keep everything fresh :cool:

[patsu]

I think if they adjust the AI such that the enemies behave like the Hybrids on the hilltop, they would give the game a new feel. Insomniac may already have enough enemy variety. What's missing is more diverse behaviour (e.g., charging or jumping Titans, troops with different defensive and offensive strategies).

[patsu]

Heads up ! Insomniac has released 3 new presentations in their Tech Page:
http://www.insomniacgames.com/tech/techpage.php

2 of them were used in R2.


Ramez Exchange Algorithm

02/05/08 - 18:00 PST - Posted by Mike Day, Senior Engine Programmer
I was just telling Mark about some stuff I’ve been doing at home lately, and I thought I’d share. I’ve been trying my hand at the so-called Remez Exchange Algorithm, which is an iterative technique for finding coefficients of minimax polynomials (see example below). The results are promising… I’ve already got it to a state where we could actually use it, and once I’ve done a bit more work on it, maybe during post, I’ll put it up somewhere and write a wiki page on it.

Morphing

02/05/08 - 18:00 PST - Posted by Jonathan Garret, Senior Engine Programmer
For Resistance 2 we added vertex-morphing support to allow more expressive facial animation. This was augmented with a system for compositing textures on the SPU to support features such as animator-driven dynamic-wrinkles.

Prelighting

02/05/08 - 18:00 PST - Posted by Mike Acton, Engine Director
During the development of Resistance 2, one of the things we decided we wanted to do was improve our lighting model toward more of a focus on runtime light performance. With deferred rendering all the rage, we certainly considered it. But ultimately we thought it both too large and too risky for our development process. So we went with a kind of semi-deferred model that allowed us to get much of the benefit of fully deferred rendering without having to completely re-write our pipeline. Mark Lee (Master Engine Programmer) explained the approach during a presentation to the programmers.

[betan]

I noticed the results page after a match pretty much works like a limited, temporary "recently played" list now, which is nice. Yet I still don't see an easy way to initiate messages from in-game player lists. :(

ps: thanks for the heads up patsu. Need to check all three soon.

[Cornsnake]

I noticed the results page after a match pretty much works like a limited, temporary "recently played" list now, which is nice. Yet I still don't see an easy way to initiate messages from in-game player lists. :(

ps: thanks for the heads up patsu. Need to check all three soon.

Yeah, that's sadly missing in R2. I've sent and received plenty of GG (good game) and WP (well played) messages in Rfom. It added a feeling of good sportsmanship to the game. It was a nice thing to do after having a good battle of skills against a player(s).

[patsu]

Definitely agree. I miss the RFOM lobby and community tab.

[betan]

I wouldn't go that far as I think new interface is significantly better. Plus the new overlay menu (player lists for party, friends and clan) means you can multitask.
Broken record as I am, the main missing feature is send message item in context menus. A recently played list ala the old one would also be welcome but not as much necessary after the last patch.

[patsu]

The main thing I missed is the lobby text chat.

[tha_con]

I understand folks want those features, but I think Insomniac is trying to do what users have asked for all along, integrating the PSN into their game. Everyone knocked the PS3 early on because the games felt like individual experiences, and now when they tie it into the PSN, people want the individual experience back.

I don't get it, lol.

[Arwin]

Eventually I'm sure we'll see something close to a combination of both, as PSN api seems to allow for a fairly flexible integration (see for instance the way LBP integrates the friends list in a creative way).

[Phil]

What I liked about the R:FOM lobby was that you could build up a list of friends that didn't have to fill your PSN list for no apparent reason. There were heaps of "buddies" I enjoyed playing Resistance with, but didn't want to add them to my PSN friends list.