Resistance 2

[RenegadeRocks]

I will play with anyone. Apparently I'm the only person on the face of the planet who is absolutely in love with the game (or I'm the only person with acceptable standards ).

THATS WHY I AM GOING TO INSOMNIAC FOOLS! FANBOY VICTORY STRIKES AGAIN!!!

You selfish person ! learn to share your love ! There are many more smitten with it !

But, for the others, insomniac can speed up the MP a bit, but do it only in the competitive. See, thats how you share love !

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Resistance 2 = 2008's Orange Box

Found this very interestng quote by someone named Mazzingerz at n4g !
QFT !

 

[tha_con]

RAWR.

If the rest of GAF won't play, maybe us Bannificated folks can play together!

Honestly, I think what Insomniac SHOULD do is offer a bite sized update with a new "old core" gameplay mode that's faster and has weapon spawns, with more than a 2 weapon system.

Forget about balance and all that other crap, patch that later. Just give a few maps some old core stuff, let the RFOM guy's have it, and PLEASE let me keep what is already available. PLEASE.

 

[patsu]

That's what I hope for when I said "patch (part of) the game" above.

Skirmish is their new favorite mode. Insomniac spent a lot of time tuning it for R2 competitive.

When they are done, they can change TDM to be like R1. That would be heaven. Seriously, I don't need the perks ^_^

 

[tha_con]

That's what I hope for when I said "patch (part of) the game" above.

Skirmish is their new favorite mode. Insomniac spent a lot of time tuning it for R2 competitive.

When they are done, they can change TDM to be like R1. That would be heaven. Seriously, I don't need the perks ^_^

I would much rather they add a new gametype all together, as I want team death match to stay exactly like it is now. Every level requires different skill sets.

Honestly, the only level I feel needs more tuning is Chicago subway. Unfortunately, the level is an absolute DISASTER with the Splicer. It's terrible. Friendly fire on that map would certainly solve that problem.

That said, if they offer an "old school" mode, specifically, then I would be happy for you guy's. I could care less for R1 gameplay mechanics, as they were aged and passed on from last generation, in my opinion, but I understand people want that kind of stuff, and it should have it's own game type.

 

[patsu]

That would work for me.

Why is the Chicago map a disaester with Splicers ?

 

[Cornsnake]

Hear hear ! It's not that people don't want to play. I think it's because we are bad in the competitive mode given the changes. There's no point bunching up and die together.

tha_con is probably eager to get some games.

[size=-2]Patch (part of) the game for RFOM players, Insomniac[/size]

It's not that were bad at it. There are some excellent player in our clan that are good at it, but still don't like it.

R2 is a mix between Rfom and CoD4. It has some of the run and gun gameplay of Rfom, but it's missing the depth of Rfom. And at the same time has some of the more tactical gameplay of CoD4, but again is missing some of the depth of CoD4. That makes R2 easily accessible, but also rather shallow. Both Rfom's and CoD4's gameplay has been done before, so a simplified combination of the two isn't all that difficult if you played them before. R2 is missing some of the depth to it's gameplay that had Rfom and CoD4 players coming back for more.

I'm also disappointed by the number of gameplay modes in Competitive. Reviews have only mentioned the 4 present in the beta, Deathmatch, Teamdeathmatch, Core Control ( their version of Capture the Flag ), and Skirmish. For a clanwar Deathmatch obviously won't work, Skirmish won't work because we would have different objectives potentially making the difficulty uneven. That leaves Teamdeathmatch and Core Control, that's far less the Rfom had to offer. Which had Teamdeathmatch, Capture the Flag, Meltdown, Breach, and Assault. R2 is a step back from Rfom in a number of areas. It's going to need a good patch to make it better.

Isomnaic has said on myres. that they are thinking of something along the lines of an old school mode. But adding versions of the maps that work with Rfom's gameplay play, balancing the weapons for accuracy, adding weapon spawns, carrying all weapons, takes a lot of work. And they are not making any promises on if they are going to do it, and how it will turn out if they do. And we shouldn't expect anything soon.

 

[patsu]

That's good feedback. I can't comment on the depth since I gave up and delayed playing competitive soon after public beta. At this moment, I know I dislike the complexity (specifically perks), the new weapon balance and the 2 weapon limits. The speed is slower but is still good enough and smooth.

Insomniac will probably watch their active userbase before deciding their next move. There are some new things in R2 (8P co-op and Skirmish) that I expect will attract and retent some people. For the other modes, my gut feel is they will have to tweak them further.

Have they said what the day 1 patch will fix ?

 

[Cornsnake]

They haven't said anything about the day 1 patch yet. The US beta ends tonight, the EU beta lasts until Nov. 13, so I hope whatever the patch brings that the beta gets it too.

Isomnaic will probably wait until they see how the general public responds to the changes. It's going to be interesting to see if its along the same lines as the responds to the beta's. Lot of predictions are being made that gamers won't keep playing R2 for as long as they played Rfom. But we won't know for sure until a while after the release. The easy accessibility can be good for attracting more casual gamers.

I don't like using the berserks, I usually walk around with them for a while before even using them. I think take some berserk that helps the team, and leave it at that. I think the weapons are well balanced for what the gameplay is offering right now, but I want them to be more accurate, which would mean they need to be rebalanced. And I want more focus on headshots, now there is very little difference, which makes sense with the inaccurate weapons. The speed needs to go up, you should need more hits to kill, and be able to carry more then two weapons.

I doubt we'll get all that though.

 

[Kittonwy]

I think if they're going to do ironsight, they should just patch it so that the player can do real ironsight online, I just don't really understand the point of having a reticle when the whole point of "IRONSIGHT" is to look down the scope, or at least make the reticle tighter even if there is still a bit of spray. I do think berserk makes a huge difference when you have ironheart on, in a one-on-one encounter you can pretty much dominate. I think even with less accurate weapons they can make the difference between headshots and bodyshots greater to differentiate between levels of skill.

I'm still picking this up on day one, just a bit disappointed because I was really expecting a visual feast and MP-wise some of the objective modes that were so overwhelmingly more enjoyable than crap like CTF didn't make it into R2. Obviously I wasn't the only person having an issue with the visuals as several review sites have pointed out some of the textures (1UP) and lighting problems (gamepro), I so wanted this to be THE shooter for the PS3 but there's really only so much they can fix via patches.

 

[tha_con]

Gameplay > Visuals.

If it was the other way around, I would have still been playing Gears of War. Significantly better looking, far less entertaining.

Resistance 2 has numbers, scale, challenge, variety, everything I want in a shooter. HDR can blow my hairy balls, give me more people on screen, more action, more explosions, bigger enemies. To hell with textures and lighting, I'm playing a game, not pretending that shit really makes a difference in my experience.

SOTC was full of ugly textures and frame drops, clipping and what not. Fucking fabulous game.

Okami wasn't full of high res textures or HDR. Fucking fabulous game.

SMG doesn't have super high res visuals or HDR. GTFO.

Basically, don't hold ONE GAME to a standard you wouldn't hold ALL games to, regardless of platform, it's ridiculous. If the game looks good, runs well, plays well, and is fun, then x texture doesn't matter, nor does the 'dynamic range' of the lighting (or shadows being case on object y from light source j).

 

[Kittonwy]

I would think great games should be able to match gameplay with visuals, the notion that one would need to choose one over the other is bs. Average visuals does not imply superior gameplay or vice-versa. Uncharted is a testament to that, Wipeout HD is a testament to that, Little Big Planet is a testament to that, even Motorstorm 2 is a testament to that, all have gorgeous lighting/shadowing, a great visual package and great gameplay. It's really not like you have scenarios where you're facing a hundred enemies at once anyway, maybe a dozen at most outside of encounters with grims, but then one can look at Uncharted in the custom house there are at least 10 enemies in the level, all with EXCELLENT AI, in a large area with great lighting/shadowing and consistently high quality textures.

SOTC was doing a TON of stuff on the PS2 from reflective, bouyant water to self-shadowed characters, lens flare, motion blur, dynamic lights that cast shadows, bosses that you can fight ON, grab onto and collision maps were up the wazoo for a PS2 game that literally puts a game like Heavenly Sword TO SHAME, things that the critically acclaimed but highly scripted God of War series couldn't even touch when God of War 2 was released in 2007.

Okami was a fully realized world where you're not restricted by invisible walls, where the wolf can literally jump and double jump over most things, you can go as far as your eyes can see, it's not just being rendered to be seen, but to interact with, everything in the game has a consistent feel, it's actually one of the most beautiful game on the PS2 and has better and more consistent textures than any open-world game on the system, Okami as a visual package was EXCEPTIONAL.

Don't really care about SMG to be honest, but this might have to do with the fact that the wii is a graphically much less capable console.

If visuals don't matter then there's really no point in developing for a more capable platform. It's not even like I'm expecting something that only one or two games are capable of doing, even Sony's own Edge tools allow for self-shadowing as well as HDR, even SOCOM Confrontation has some form of HDR (for those arguing it's not really HDR for argument's sake, I'm talking about just a form of hack or approximation), this isn't Insomniac's first game on the system, it's their FOURTH, it shouldn't even be a question of time because they've had plenty of time to get those features in, if this is a direction they're taking then they should expect to get knocked on their games' visuals because it's already happening. I happen to like their games and want them to review well, but then it's up to them to bring it in terms of visuals, reviewers aren't going to be pulling punches just because Ted is a nice guy or that it's a great place to work, etc, etc. It's a competitive market where games are constantly trying to outdo each other in scope, visuals, gameplay twists, there's no sitting on one's laurels in ANY of those areas.

I have no problem with scope as long as scope means anywhere within the player's view the player can go, do I care about having a hundred ships in the air that I can't do anything with? Nope, as long as stuff that I CAN interact with looks great and there is a ton of great physics in the level as well as great enemy AI, why is the massive titan not able to knock cars out of its way to get to the player? Why is it that when one is in orick that you can have so little destructability that a titan carrying a ROCKETLAUNCHER can't touch you behind a crate? If the player is allowed to board one of those chimera crafts and fly to one of the big ships ALL IN REAL TIME, then maybe it might justify spending so much rendering power just to draw all those ships, scope alone shouldn't be as important as scope that one can in fact interact with.

The problem is a matter of consistency, when you have the SF map having characters casting long shadows, it makes zero sense to see a wall of sandbags or crates sticking out and not fitting within the lighting scheme, somehow they need to make everything blend in, even if it meant baking a few shadows or have a mid-day map to minimize the number of shadows needed or make it easier to fake the shadows, great looking wood and stone should be expected, places where you have had an invasion should show more destruction, there should be a little more destructability. R2 should be setting a new standard for visuals in the shooter genre because it's THE blockbuster shooter on the PS3 this holiday season and the FOURTH game Insomniac developed on the same platform, there should be no excuses unless they're seriously constrained by budget which I doubt is the case.

For me and most of the guys in the clan, we just expected a better game because we actually played the first game ALOT and actually care about the direction of the franchise, I'm critical because I don't give a crap about free stuff or getting on a developer's good side, some of us are always pushing for a better game, maybe our feedback will go unnoticed but it doesn't mean we can't express what we think or what we express doesn't make sense in terms of Insomniac making this IP into a blockbuster series instead of just one of a dozen good games this holiday season. I've seen people try to make fun of reviews that have raised issues with graphics and other things when those are in fact constructive criticisms that Insomniac should really take to heart because visuals was one of the main complaints with RFOM.

 

[Cornsnake]

For the few things R2 is missing in its graphics, its still putting on an impressive display. Scale and number of enemies are more likely the reason why its missing a few things, rather then anything on Insomniac's part. They are simply trying to stand out in a different way then most games are.

I like great graphics to enhance the experience in a singleplayer game, but in a multiplayer game with so much going on, I'll settle for good enough graphics and more importantly a stable framerate.

 

[tha_con]

Kittonwy, I'm going to stop before things get ugly. I don't know if you're trying to suggest that I'm defending the game just to get on Insomniacs "good side" and catch a free ride or something, but that is certainly not the case.

We'll just end it here and agree to disagree.

 

[patsu]

You can probably find shortfalls in various places. However, for the insane amount of activities in 8P co-op, I don't see how we can fault the graphics.

I remembered turning on the shield and stepped into the second gully. I have never dreamt of that amount of firepower when the Chimeras unloaded all their arsenal on me at once. I could barely see the enemies and my comrades because bullets were flying everywhere (plus Ring of Life). Couldn't move because I knew everyone behind me would be dead instantly. The world was literally shaking (visually and acoustically) as we get pounded. Then the Grims and Hybrids charged, then the Titan stomped all the way up the gully, right by the door.

We have never seen it wandered so far before. One guy yelled "WTF !", and the remaining 2-3 of us pulled back (more like ran away).

I think 8P co-op is nice especially if the AI keeps improving.

The main personal disappointment is the competitive play.

 

[Arwin]

Tha_con, if it helps, I'm currently still on your side. But I'll have to play the final game to give a definite stance on the matter. I can say though that I vastly preferred R2's multiplayer, even competitive, so far as I've played the beta. Sure it could use even more modes, but I like Skirmish a lot as well as the berserk modes, which add a lot of depth to team-play. The speed of it is perfect for someone like me.

 

[tha_con]

For the few things R2 is missing in its graphics, its still putting on an impressive display. Scale and number of enemies are more likely the reason why its missing a few things, rather then anything on Insomniac's part. They are simply trying to stand out in a different way then most games are.

I like great graphics to enhance the experience in a singleplayer game, but in a multiplayer game with so much going on, I'll settle for good enough graphics and more importantly a stable framerate.

See, this is also how I feel. Rather than just push the envelope with pretty visuals, they want to move in another direction and offer something no other developer is offering. Scope and scale are two things that have been sorely lacking this generation.

How many games have we played this generation with hacked in Co-op? Even RE5 looks like it's force feeding people some hack job co-op with a new character. Insomniac decided to do something entirely new and innovative for online co-operative multiplayer in a First Person Shooter. Instead of just offering campaign, they offered massive battles that have great replay value.

Sure, we've all played 16 player shooters with smaller maps and vehicles, but how many of us have played 60 player maps?

Even more importantly, why does the 16 player title only look marginally better than Resistance 2? Even the much smaller Gears of War doesn't look like it's a generation ahead of Resistance 2, with 1/6th of the player count (and smaller levels to boot).

These things are all infinitely more important to me than "that texture looks nice" or "that brick is casting a shadow on my characters foot!".

I don't mean to belittle anyone, however, you can easily see that the better looking titles are often the ones that have the least replay value.

Bioshock
Uncharted
Army of Two
Assassins Creed
GTA IV
Unreal Tourney 3

I'm sure there are plenty more to add, but Single Player or Multiplayer, these games all expired long before many thought they would. Who is still talking about Assassins Creed? Once you get over the visuals, the game itself was rather shallow and repetative, with a story that I personally thought was poor.

I would argue that Uncharted was great, but came no where near the scope or scale of R2. Insomniac needed to use 1 engine to create 3 different components of the game, which all support massive amounts of polygons and particle effects. To knock them for not giving you a nice texture on some walls, or shadowing on crates...is just over the top, IMO.

They've certainly made their achievements, and worked hard to get where they are. To sell them short, or pretend that what they've done is some sort of betrayal to fans is ridiculous. They are a company, and they are certainly looking to the market to see where the money is. I don't hold that against them, it's what they do with that direction that counts. With Resistance 2, I think they've offered up a meaty shooter with plenty of depth to keep players coming back for more, while making it accessible enough for new players to get into it quickly and have fun.

 

[Kittonwy]

Kittonwy, I'm going to stop before things get ugly. I don't know if you're trying to suggest that I'm defending the game just to get on Insomniacs "good side" and catch a free ride or something, but that is certainly not the case.

We'll just end it here and agree to disagree.

Not referring to you wrt free stuff, just saying personally I'm not in it for the loot or trying to get on a dev's good side, although I do see some people pulling punches just because devs post on boards and stuff. As a fan of RFOM I'm simply giving an honest opinion because I want R2 to be a great game and there's no reason why anyone should dismiss the visual aspect as important in some sort of "gameplay>graphics" argument, the best games often have both aspects nailed, I think just because most people aren't involved in the process of making games (some of us don't ever want to be making games, I just like playing them for entertainment), it doesn't mean the devs know better what a good game plays like.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

You can probably find shortfalls in various places. However, for the insane amount of activities in 8P co-op, I don't see how we can fault the graphics.

I remembered turning on the shield and stepped into the second gully. I have never dreamt of that amount of firepower when the Chimeras unloaded all their arsenal on me at once. I could barely see the enemies and my comrades because bullets were flying everywhere (plus Ring of Life). Couldn't move because I knew everyone behind me would be dead instantly. The world was literally shaking (visually and acoustically) as we get pounded. Then the Grims and Hybrids charged, then the Titans stomped all the way up the gully, right by the door.

We have never seen it wandered so far before. One guy yelled "WTF !", and the remaining 2-3 of us pulled back (more like ran away).

I think 8P co-op is nice especially if the AI keeps improving.

The main personal disappointment is the competitive play.

I just don't see how one could argue with the bold part above.

 

[patsu]

Not referring to you wrt free stuff, just saying personally I'm not in it for the loot or trying to get on a dev's good side, although I do see some people pulling punches just because devs post on boards and stuff. As a fan of RFOM I'm simply giving an honest opinion because I want R2 to be a great game and there's no reason why anyone should dismiss the visual aspect as important in some sort of "gameplay>graphics" argument, the best games often have both aspects nailed, I think just because most people aren't involved in the process of making games (some of us don't ever want to be making games, I just like playing them for entertainment), it doesn't mean the devs know better what a good game plays like.

Hmm... I believe it's also an issue of packaging. The amazing elements I experienced came much later. For someone who has not ventured far enough, they will not get to see those. In addition, these experiences only occurred at specific points in the game compared to basic visuals that are "everywhere".

I understand your concerns with visuals; but given the same amount of time, I'd rather they fix and enhance the gameplay first. We have given our feedback in the closed beta, but apparently there are enough opposite opinions. And so here we are.

It remains to be seen who's sticks around longer. Them or us (old timers with R1).