New Resistance: Fall Of Man Screens
- Thread starter Hardknock
- Start date
Sure is ... I really like the second picture a lot. I'm still not a big fan of the monster design though, but I have a lot of confidence in the gameplay. I've not been into FPS games for a long while (except trying the occasional demo), and whether I will be interested in this one
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree. We have to see 720p screens first before giving some good judgement. I know that atleast the coloring is off. Still you can already see that devs put lots of nice detailing in the levels.
Thanks Titanio, new shots do look nice. I'm glad the whole game wont be brown. The blue looks rather nice.
Humans turned into aliens will probably take on both human and alien traits.I find it odd that these monsters seem more human now
No its not true, there sacrificing 60fps to get more effcts on screen.
The SP game was always 30fps, MP was 60fps.
They are adding additional effects and enviornment destruction (as mrboo said), moved the player limit from 32 to 40, and going ALL 30fps.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=793316&postcount=30
elementOfpower
Newcomer
I like the monster design a lot, myself. Those guys look creepy, man.
Angelcurio
Regular
I really like the way the secon picture looks. Still dont like the aliens design though.
30fps games are no good
Don't you guys think that 30fps FPS shooter like this will suck bad style. Don't you think FPS should eb at least 60fps to enjoy it properly.
Any comments on this issue, i mean if PS3 is all powerfull as they say it is then why 30FPS? as my PC will probably do 60fps easily with Geforce 6600GT in SLI.
Don't you guys think that 30fps FPS shooter like this will suck bad style. Don't you think FPS should eb at least 60fps to enjoy it properly.
Any comments on this issue, i mean if PS3 is all powerfull as they say it is then why 30FPS? as my PC will probably do 60fps easily with Geforce 6600GT in SLI.
Nismo, I'd say it depends on the pace of the game. If you take something like Quake III where you're all over the place, 60FPS is good but if it's a slow placed shooter, 30 should suffice.
Also, if you don't notice tearing/slowdowns, do you really care what the actual number is? It's more of mental satisfaction. Similar to people buying a new video card to get 180FPS in CS:S vs the 120 they were getting before.
Also, if you don't notice tearing/slowdowns, do you really care what the actual number is? It's more of mental satisfaction. Similar to people buying a new video card to get 180FPS in CS:S vs the 120 they were getting before.
scooby_dooby
Legend
I though halo was awesome, and it only ran at 30fps or less. So I totally disagree, as do the majority of consumers.
I think stable 30 is more important. Whatever the frame rate, if it's constant you get used to it. Unless you're wiggling around like a maniac so the changes between frames break continuity and make it hard to follow what's happening, there's not much need for faster framerates. IMO 60 fps just adds polish, but there's such a sense of quality it brings that it's really something to aim for.
Regards the pics, they look pretty nice but as mentioned, shrunken pics often do. The detail on the terrain seems improved. I'd like to see if they've added that rarity of rarities, AF. The first screens from Resistance had that next-gen blurry floor look that's far more common than it should be.
mckmas8808
Legend
New screens look great. Now all we need to see is this bad boy in motion.
Similar threads
