Resistance 2

[Arwin]

Yep. Actually, from what I've read, Gears 2 has the exact same "animated skybox" feel to the "scale" that he said Resistance 2 had. However, Gears is super awesome and epic to him while Resistance just fakes it. So you dont have to dig far to find some funny examples of his double standards.

It seems that Eurogamer agrees with you, as Resistance 2 gets the same score as Gears 2 ...

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=283054 9/10

 

[Cornsnake]

In the campaign can you keep the hybrids from returning fire if you keep making headshots until they die, just like in Rfom. It would probably need better accuracy for the Carbine to be able to do that.

 

[tha_con]

MS and Epic sold GeoW 2 really really well, while Sony and Insomniac didn't do that hot. And the 'press' is just a bunch of gamers.

On the other hand, let's not round up the wagons in defense of a game that just posts back big-time Sony fans like Kittonwy were pointing out fairly major flaws in. It's okay to like a flawed game, really, not every game you like has to be flawless.

Every single thing Kittonwy mentioned is not a flaw.

I can pick apart dozens of top notch games with visual hiccups (Bioshock, Assassins Creed, GTA IV, Halo 2, Gears of War 1 and 2, etc).

Fact of the matter is, most of these people know jack shit (excuse my language) and they want to view themselves as some sort of conisiuer of gaming.

If the game runs well, has polish (i.e. no frame drops, doesn't freeze, no crazy bugs, etc) then it's deserving of praise these days. Hell, so many games are freaking sub-par, running at near SD resolutions with screen tearing and pop in, it's amazing that people can say negative things about this game with a straight face.

Blows my mind.

 

[Arwin]

Go easy on Kittonwy, he loved the original, and he has every right not to like changes. He probably wanted the same game but with Killzone 2 type graphics.

Eurogamer's review comments this time are already unusually friendly so far (few exceptions), but this little classic interchange between the reviewer and a site member shouldn't be missed:

MONSTER HEIGHT, DAN?

DEAR IHATEMARK@EUROGAMER

THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION. THE SIZE OF THE MONSTERS VARIES CONSIDERABLY. MOST ARE MERELY HUMAN SIZED, OR PERHAPS A LITTLE TALLER. IMAGINE JEFF GOLDBLUM IN PLATFORM HEELS. THERE ARE ALSO SOME MONSTERS WHICH ARE BIGGER THAN THIS. IMAGINE IF BRUCE FORSYTH WERE TO SIT ON JEFF GOLDBLUMS SHOULDERS AND RAISE HIS HANDS IN THE AIR. ABOUT THAT HIGH.

OTHERS ARE VERY SMALL, BEETLES AND SPIDERY THINGS AND SUCHLIKE. THESE MONSTERS ARE USUALLY BETWEEN THE SIZE OF AN OLD LADIES HAND AND A MEDIUM SIZED WOK.

MOSTLY I THINK YOU'LL BE LOOKING FOR THE EXTRA-SPECIAL LARGE MONSTERS WHICH CAN BE AS BIG AS A BUILDING. A PROPER BIG BUILDING, LIKE IN AMERICA, NOT A SCOUT HUT OR BUNGALOW.

THE GAME ALLOWS YOU TO SHOOT BULLETS AT ALL OF THESE MONSTERS. IT'S RATHER GOOD FUN.

LOTS OF LOVE,

DAN

 

[obonicus]

Every single thing Kittonwy mentioned is not a flaw.

Not every thing, but enough of them (to be clear, I'm not referring to Kittonwy's gameplay complaints but to their complaints about graphics and lighting). Again, games don't have to be flawless for you to enjoy them.

If the game runs well, has polish (i.e. no frame drops, doesn't freeze, no crazy bugs, etc) then it's deserving of praise these days. Hell, so many games are freaking sub-par, running at near SD resolutions with screen tearing and pop in, it's amazing that people can say negative things about this game with a straight face.

I'd claim the opposite, though: that all these problems must be brought to light, and because they haven't in the past is no reason not to do so in the future. If R2 has problems of any sort I'd like to know about them.

 

[tha_con]

The thing is, is it best to spend system resources enhancing gameplay, on screen action, frame rate, v-sync, audio support (7.1 surround FTW) or to spend those resources lighting a god damned brick that 90% of the people playing the game will never even notice?

It's absolutely ridiculous with current generation hardware to spend those resources doing silly things like that, when you can dedicate them to so much more.

 

[patsu]

I don't think there is a flawless game.

Despite all the criticisms we hauled at Resistance 2, it is still a pretty good game. I voiced my opinion because I think Insomniac is well capable of addressing them but didn't (or haven't). In my view, the project scope is too big and they ran out of time.

I am glad Insomniac explored these limits though. They form very good studies for future games to come (e.g., MAG, R&C, R3, inFamous, even Uncharted).

Although I have not completed the game, I already look forward to more DLCs.

It's absolutely ridiculous with current generation hardware to spend those resources doing silly things like that, when you can dedicate them to so much more.

I think Kittonwy's comments should be taken in spirit rather than literally. He's after the last 0.5 - 1.5 point to make R2 10.0.

EDIT:
Arwin, yeah... there are new critters in R2. That's why I said R2 felt like a Zoo. Gameplay-wise, you'll have to experience fighting these creatures yourself. I'll refrain from spoiling the game for you guys. There are both highlights and low points in these encounters.

 

[Cornsnake]

They only have finite amount of resources to spend. If they are going to spend them over more things, then obviously your going to lose a little detail. These aren't flaws, they are simply trade-offs.

I look forward to some more detailed impressions of R2, even if I end up disagreeing with them. I prefer user impressions over review sites.

 

[tha_con]

I think Kittonwy's comments should be taken in spirit rather than literally. He's after the last 0.5 - 1.5 point to make R2 10.0.

I don't want people to think I'm *just* putting him on the spot. I'm talking about reviewers, David Ellis, Garnet Lee, lots of folks all around.

I just feel there are certain times where you have to hold your standards to ALL games.

Uncharted had janky animation when platforming, I find this much more jarring than a brick without a shadow.

Bioshock has an absolutely terrible closing 1/3rd of a game, the design is nothing more than fetch quests with a bad boss battle.

Oblivion and Fallout all have problems with enemy AI, people walking through walls, enemies falling out of the sky, and other random bugs.

Halo 3 had absolutely terrible human character models, looking like they were ripped straight from Halo 2, while everyone else looked like they belonged in the 360 version.

Ninja Gaiden II had HUGE issues with framerate and camera work, both of which I find really game breaking.

Point is, the brick without a shadow is not gamebreaking. It's a brick without a shadow. If it did in fact have a shadow, not a single person would really give a rats ass. You never hear anyone talk about the small rock in the corner in Uncharted that cast's a shadow. But bet your pretty little buttons, if that rock DIDN'T cast a shadow, it would be the biggest deal in the world.

It doesn't make sense. It's nothing more than picky gamers being picky gamers (journo's included) who want to hold games to ridiculous standards, while letting their "favorite" games get a free pass.

 

[obonicus]

They only have finite amount of resources to spend. If they are going to spend them over more things, then obviously your going to lose a little detail. These aren't flaws, they are simply trade-offs.

Should they be mentioned, though, should people pick at them?

 

[DrJay24]

Wow this thread is so far of topic.

So far I'm really enjoying the SP, the game takes a great turn in SF with the city in ruins in the background. It is top quality FPS action, ranks up there with HL2 so far.

 

[tha_con]

Should they be mentioned, though, should people pick at them?

No, they shouldn't.

If they are involved enough to be on a forum like this (or NeoGAF) then they are certainly knowledgeable enough to know what tradeoffs are, why they are made, and how to allocate system resources in game development. It doesn't require any technical knowledge, just a little thought.

 

[patsu]

I don't want people to think I'm *just* putting him on the spot. I'm talking about reviewers, David Ellis, Garnet Lee, lots of folks all around.

I just feel there are certain times where you have to hold your standards to ALL games.

Uncharted had janky animation when platforming, I find this much more jarring than a brick without a shadow.

Bioshock has an absolutely terrible closing 1/3rd of a game, the design is nothing more than fetch quests with a bad boss battle.

Oblivion and Fallout all have problems with enemy AI, people walking through walls, enemies falling out of the sky, and other random bugs.

Halo 3 had absolutely terrible human character models, looking like they were ripped straight from Halo 2, while everyone else looked like they belonged in the 360 version.

Ninja Gaiden II had HUGE issues with framerate and camera work, both of which I find really game breaking.

Point is, the brick without a shadow is not gamebreaking. It's a brick without a shadow. If it did in fact have a shadow, not a single person would really give a rats ass. You never hear anyone talk about the small rock in the corner in Uncharted that cast's a shadow. But bet your pretty little buttons, if that rock DIDN'T cast a shadow, it would be the biggest deal in the world.

It doesn't make sense. It's nothing more than picky gamers being picky gamers (journo's included) who want to hold games to ridiculous standards, while letting their "favorite" games get a free pass.

In my view...

The games you cited above had special sauces that kept the players' imagination going. As their imagination were drawn in by the game world, it was easy/natural to overlook the shortcomings you mentioned. I think Bioshock's character model is apalling but they didn't really matter to me while playing.

In R2, I think the above people never really bought into the game world for whatever reasons. As a result, they become more aware of the technical achievement/shortfalls of the game. This is why you also see the same people making comments about "generic shooter".

To be fair, we don't need "every brick to cast shadow" to achieve the immersiveness. Perhaps Insomniac should look into their criticisms to identify where the gap is (for these people).


Personally, I am enjoying R2 SP but I *know* Insomniac can deliver even more if they spend more time on it. The draw of Insomniac games for me has always been one and only one thing: replayability. The R1 disc hardly left my Blu-ray drive (I played close to 8000 games). I also forgot how many times I have replayed R&C.

*If* Insomniac continues to deliver in this area, then they will be rewarded by high DLC sales. But it would be nice if they could create a game world where more people are drawn to emotionally without relying on pure technologies (yet) -- see LBP, MGS. I think they get more mileage that way.

That's just my hunch. May be totally off.

 

[Cornsnake]

Should they be mentioned, though, should people pick at them?

I'd say, mentioning the tradeoffs is ok, because that might lead to a better understanding about them. But I wouldn't pick at them as long as the resources are being well spend. Time is also a resource, finding a shadow missing here and there is also a tradeoff. The time it would take to place all these pre baked shadows on the countless small objects in a massive game world, might be better spend elsewhere.

 

[obonicus]

I'd say, mentioning the tradeoffs is ok, because that might lead to a better understanding about them. But I wouldn't pick at them as long as the resources are being well spend. Time is also a resource, finding a shadow missing here and there is also a tradeoff. The time it would take to place all these pre baked shadows on the countless small objects in a massive game world, might be better spend elsewhere.

Sorry, I think picking was the wrong term. I meant call attention to.

From all the reports, the missing lighting, the poorly-placed objects were immersion-breaking. That's a pretty big complaint coming for first-person-shooter. It's not quite 'a brick didn't have a shadow' that tha_con points out. If you read the Eurogamer review, many of the points were there as well (for instance, Scooter's B+ review in 1up complained about the insta-death camouflaged enemies, while Eurogamer just gave them a passing mention). I mean, 1up's review was actually pretty positive (David Ellis didn't review the game, Thierry Nguyen did), and it brings up most of the problems EG's review does, it's just funny what difference on a review's perception a score makes.

 

[patsu]

I actually think the Chameleons were fun. You get barely enough warning about their approaches. The reviewers may be being "technical" about it. They should pick another example if they want to illustrate trial-n-error gameplay (It's not like you don't know they were coming).

But to be frank, other shooters have the same problem because well... sometimes you just don't know how many enemy waves there are going to be.

Someone in GAF also complained about "cheap" tactics like too many enemies. Again, it really depends on who you are. If you try to brute force your way through, you'll be frustrated. But if you think quickly on the spot, you may be able to get past the stage. So far, I died at most 3 times in tense situations. Respawns are close to your last death too, you don't have to worry about too much backtracking.

My main criticism about R2 is something else. ^_^
I can feel Insomniac's pulling back in the SP campaign (probably due to project scope management).

 

[tha_con]

I haven't had many problems with Chameleons at all, really enjoyed them, so much intensity.

So far, going through the houses, I really don't see the problem.

Considering the size and scope of the levels, it's certainly understandable why it is the way it is. Though I really don't expect any reviewers to rationalize or think on their feet...

 

[thambos]

my take after 3 hours w/ it

i really wish they would make the server browser better. there's no connection quality meter and no way i've found to filter results so you don't have to scroll through them all.

i was also hoping they'd change the gun perspective this time, it's still bobbing around in the center like DOOM from 1993. Sort of takes me out of immersion after playing CoD4 & the like.

the story seems better this time, the graphics aren't as improved as i would have liked (& pop in seems prevalent in some levels). the controls are well executed i think though. could use a better cover system then just ducking, that's my only complaint in that dept.

worth the $60 imo, but not as epic as i had hoped.

 

[Malibu]

I've been really enjoying this. I've only played the campaign so far. I just made it through Chicago and what an awesome mission that is.

 

[SonComet]

Just completed the 5th of what I assume are going to be 7 chapters. So far I'm really really enjoying this game. My biggest complaint has to be the chameleons though. They just feel flat out cheap to me, and are highly annoying. Titans and other larger chimera seem much harder to me than they were in the first game. Maybe because you fight more at the same time in this one.

Also, in some areas I feel like you can't recover from any mistake. You have to do and go exactly where the game wants you to in that situation or you die very very quickly. That makes the battles feel more scripted to me than in the first game.

Don't hate the boss battles, but don't really enjoy them either. I had way more fun taking down the stalkers and titans in the first game than the bosses I have played so far. Stalkers especially. The more intimate battles with them were more fun for sure.

The level design is far far better to me. The game just feels way more exciting. I love the new guns, especially the changes they made to the auger and newly introduced magnum.

In terms of graphics, I think that the game for the most part looks flat out amazing. Yes it can be refined further, but I think that given how much is happening on the screen with the extremely solid framerate that it looks fantastic. Except for 1 level (the one before chicago I think). It looks comparatively awful. OK at times, but mostly just awful. So does the boss, lol. But besides that, this is one of the best looking games available on the console.

I think the most major strides that insomniac can make are probably in the areas of how they present and tell the story. Maybe they need more time to get together a better script and make both the characters and the story far more compelling. The game is so exciting and fun in itself that this isn't a real problem, but the game could just be pushed that extra mile if they took the time to create a meaningful narrative.

Oh, and when someone is standing right next to me in the game don't make the voice sound like it's coming through a radio. That is so jarring and unnecessary, and I find myself wondering how something so obvious could be overlooked. Especially when it changes speakers and volume based on which way you are facing from the character and your distance from them. If it was a radio that wouldn't happen, and people don't have radiofied voices (yes not even in the 50s). Just another flaw to remind you of the sloppy presentation that thankfully is paired with fantastic gameplay.

Yes I am anal. Yes I love this game. It just hurts to see so many little flaws similar to those in RCF that I feel could be fixed with more time. A lot of little touches (presentation wise) in games like bioshock, uncharted, mgs4, portal, etc are just missing. Wouldn't you rather say, "oh wow, I'm amazed they spent the time to do that" rather than "no one will even notice so why bother?".