Resistance 2

[obonicus]

It does have classes, but that's neither here nor there. The issue is not how similar is R2 MP to other games' MP (I never mentioned COD4 incidentally), the question is how similar is R2's MP to R1's - I would say very dissimilar. I think people here are getting way way defensive/antagonistic about this issue, for reasons I don't understand. To reject that this has been a mixed-review shift in product offering, IMO, is simply to deny reality.

Actually, I don't care either way, I never played R1 beyond a few minutes and didn't care much for skirmish mode in R2, so probably won't go back. I was referring to your 'why are there classes' comment, which only applies to coop, and you seemed to place it as a way of R1 losing individuality. I say it's the opposite; there is nothing on the market like R2's coop, for better or for worse.

I'm certainly not qualified to talk about the competitive MP -- I just found descriptions surprisingly similar to UT or Quake, which really isn't an MP flavor you get much on consoles.

 

[Carl B]

4) it is a different experience. R1 was very "old school" and for R2 to be successful, it will have to be different. R1 was largely critisized for it's elements that can be attributed to early shooters, things like weapon pick ups and run and gun gameplay.

R1 may have been criticized for that - initially - but it was exactly that old school "deathmatch is fun again" gameplay that had me and thousands of others playing it for years after launch. Since I have to imagine that the existing R1 userbase will form the core of the R2 ownerbase as well, it would seem to me obvious enough to focus less on the reviews of two years ago and more on the idea of here's a facet that the userbase loves, and these are the reasons why.

Say what you will, but for the average consumer, R2 is a better game, and far more accessible. Trying to lessen the choices made by Insomniac by worthlessly comparing it to another successful shooter like Call of Duty is a bit over the top, in my opinion.

Where this is occurring, I don't know.

 

[tha_con]

It's not necessarily coming from you, though your "Call of Resistance" certainly struck a nerve. It's just something I've heard going through the Beta up until release. The changes Insomniac made were largely made, as far as I can tell, to make the game more accessable to the end user, keeping a larger user base for a longer period of time, hopefully lowering the amount of used sales for this title.

It's a business industry, and Insomniac likes money, I'm sure there are more people looking for a game like Resistance 2 than there are people looking for a game like Resistance 1.

 

[Carl B]

It's not necessarily coming from you, though your "Call of Resistance" certainly struck a nerve.

Call of the Resistance - and I think it's just plain catchy a title.

It's just something I've heard going through the Beta up until release.

If you're hearing that constantly though, maybe it's time to stop thinking that everyone's got it wrong, and that maybe instead there's *something* to it.

The changes Insomniac made were largely made, as far as I can tell, to make the game more accessable to the end user, keeping a larger user base for a longer period of time, hopefully lowering the amount of used sales for this title.

It's a business industry, and Insomniac likes money, I'm sure there are more people looking for a game like Resistance 2 than there are people looking for a game like Resistance 1.

IMO nothing could be more accessible than R1 death match gameplay. You come in, you find a game, you blast away. If there are more people looking for R2-style gameplay vs R1 style gameplay IMO it would be hard to determine, because R1 is noteworthy on its emphasis on the solo deathmatch experience. The speed was awesome. Maybe everyone wants teamwork, squad-based play, and slower run-n-gun these days - I don't know. If that's the appeal here in R2, then no matter the differences real or otherwise, you're going to get the comparisons to the other games leading in that space. That R1 might be best compared to Quake or somesuch IMO is a clarion call as to the degree to which the core deathmatch space has been ignored for the past several years, so ancient are the comparison titles, and that's what made R1 MP awesome. If R2 is being compared to COD4, then it need be for no other reason than it's perceived to be attractive to the same type of gamer as is COD4.

 

[betan]

R1 may have been criticized for that - initially - but it was exactly that old school "deathmatch is fun again" gameplay that had me and thousands of others playing it for years after launch. Since I have to imagine that the existing R1 userbase will form the core of the R2 ownerbase as well, it would seem to me obvious enough to focus less on the reviews of two years ago and more on the idea of here's a facet that the userbase loves, and these are the reasons why.

Here is the thing. R1 matchmaking suffered a big hit after the release of CoD4 (then recovered briefly then went dead again. I really don't know how Patsu was able to play after that.)
That says something about either size or preference of the core players.

I'm not defending R2 here, I'm defending IG's need for change.

Now, personally, I obviously loved R1 TDM, and was really upset after being forced to play CoD4.
As someone who tried a lot of shooters and got a shooter fatigue in search of R1 fun, I feel like R2 is the game that's by far closest to it in terms of the my gunplay style. I still mostly run and gun, tag and snipe. The only difference is I'm being forced to use ironsight for tagging way more than R1, but people were complaining about bullseye tagging in R1 anyway.

As for experience points poping up, and classes in R2, we had score points before and exact same number of classes (0 or 2 depending on your point of view) in R1.

IMO nothing could be more accessible than R1 death match gameplay. You come in, you find a game, you blast away.

Funny, yesterday I was thinking how much easier it's to get into in R2 than R1. I was still having trouble remembering which weapon spawns where in Manchester 40.

In R1 it was the weapon spawn points that made the whole strategy aspect in DM and TDM. Now there are far more options but they are also very high level, nothing a beginner needs to concern him/herself with.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

tha-con : I don't get your complaint with other people's complaints! Consider Burnout, an arcade racer. If the next Burnout were to go with more realism, to be more like GT, because that's a bigger franchise, would that be a good thing? Yes, more people like the GT style game, but they are already being served by GT (and other simulation racers). Is it worth the fans of the the arcade racer losing the arcade racer entirely? If you already have a fanbase, isn't it a good idea to serve them what they want, at least if they are sizeable and profitable? You can extend the business idea to why everyone isn't making shooters. If FPSes are the most highly selling, profitable titles, why make any other game? Why make VF if it's going to appeal to a smaller audience? Why not make Virtua Fighter VI a shooter, alienting the existing VF fans but appealing to a larger audience in general? Why not make Halo into a waggle-controlled minigame experience, appealing to a larger audience? Why not make the next Ferrari a small, economical town-car as that would be far more appealing to the masses?

These are unrealistic extremes, but hopefully they illustrate the point that changing a recipe that already has a lot of fans is going to upset them. Even if the new recipe is good, and will be appreciated by new customers, you lose the old fans. In Resistance's case it had a few million players who are now presented with quite a different game, and if they don't like the changes, they don't. That's normal. If someone replaces something you love with something new, it's never going to go down well.

"Where's my old teddy, the one i had since I was 2?"
"I chucked it out as it was old and dingy looking, and bought you this much nicer talking teddy instead."

Not good! It sounds like Insomniac have lost their old fans, and now have to struggle with the competition to win new customers who already have a wealth of choice. It'll be interesting how well R2 does.

 

[tha_con]

Here's the thing, R2 is proof positive easier to get into.

Fewer shots required to down a foe (and the difference between headshots and body shots had been tuned so super good players who get lots of headshots don't have massive advantage). The weapon pick up camping is completely gone, replaced by a "pick how you want to play" system that rewards players for their playstyle, rather than their ability to get to a weapon spawn point before the other team.

Squad based play makes it easy to organize team, and helps to keep encounters down to smaller sizes so players aren't getting bombarded by tons of gunfire.

The ability to pick any weapon you want allows players to fall into their 'niche' with the game, quickly discovering if they are a carbine player, if they prefer medium ranged marksman play, sniper, or just a combination of massive damage weapons like the splicer and bellock. It really does cater to the player far more than R1 ever did.

Shifty - You have my apologies, I'm pretty passionate about Resistance, and it just bothers me to see so many people ripping on the game because it's not a rehash of it's predecessor. Especially when those people are likely to complain about the lack of progression in any given series, etc. A lof of the folks saying "Oh R2 is just CoD4" are the same people who were complaining that Halo 3 was "Halo 2.5" etc. It's just really really tiresome and disrespectful, IMO, to the guys who worked hard on this product.

Like I stated before, I think it has more to do with message board gamers in general secluding themselves to high profile titles only, thus having a very 'hard to reach' standard, and these games that are great get ripped apart, without a passing notice to how bad it COULD have been.

That said, your example was very extreme. The changes made to R2 aren't so great that an R1 player can't pick it up and play it. It didn't "alienate" anyone, IMO, it just tuned an already existing product to be more accessible to new players, compared to the previous product (R1 in this case). R2 still has a great deal in common with R1, while introducing a lot of new mechanics, and doing away with some old ones.

 

[Carl B]

I'm pretty passionate about Resistance, and it just bothers me to see so many people ripping on the game because it's not a rehash of it's predecessor.

Those people are just as passionate about Resistance is what you need to understand. No one wishing for its predecessor is not a fan of it, know what I mean? I *want* the bullet storms, the head shots, the speed, the quick kills. It rewards becoming a more able player in ways that XP points and weapon loadout options don't. You are, literally, a better player - and it means something.

Like I stated before, I think it has more to do with message board gamers in general secluding themselves to high profile titles only, thus having a very 'hard to reach' standard, and these games that are great get ripped apart, without a passing notice to how bad it COULD have been.

I think you need to get over this illusory bugbear of yours concerning gamers, message boards, 'other titles,' and contrasts. You can be certain that Insomniac, for instance, has played/explored a number of the high profile titles that are out there. If you disdain other players playing "mainstream" titles, do you disdain developers playing each others' games? Or checking out the competition? I think like most things, you are better served by having played more rather than less.

This may seem like from another world, but I recall a recent Project Runway episode, where the competitor was told that her creation resembled another famous designers; her response was equal parts 'so what?' and 'I'm not familiar with their work.' To which the judges response was essentially, if you aren't familiar with their work, you should be, if this is the industry you wish to be active in.

That's not anything at Insomniac, but rather towards your idea that folk hurt themselves by comparing one product to another. How, as a human being, can you not compare your experiences? To which the answer is not: have fewer experiences.

Anyway, for my part, I don't own any FPS' for the PS3 other than Resistance, and Resistance 2 - that shows you the extent of 'hardcore' I am for this game in terms of it being all I need. When I talk about my preferences for MP, it has nothing to do with any coloration stemming from other titles, because I haven't played those to begin with. It stems from changes to Resistance and within that context alone. R1 is a game that me and my former roommates played for hours and hours, both splitscreen in the same room (death match and co-op both), or online. I even created a different player account for them on my PS3 that's how often they were on this thing. When I recently got one of these friends a PS3 for his wedding, the first game he wanted to borrow? R1 - and this nearly two years after its launch.

*********************************

I'm going to be spending a large amount of time over the next couple of days on R2 MP and Co-op, just because that's next up for me to do anyway. Honestly when I posted about the game a page or two ago, a discussion on MP wasn't what I was looking for. I'm not trying to tear it down whatsoever; by the same token, if my views are considered 'wrong,' I'm of course going to defend them.

I would honestly rather be talking about the SP campaign, and what others felt in terms of the pacing, structure, scope, and presentation.

 

[tha_con]

I think you took my comment in reference to gamers playing high profile games the wrong way.

Basically, having played ONLY high profile games, you ONLY see one side of the fence, and the bar between good and great seems to be enromous.

If a lot of those gamers would spend a few minutes to really look at all the bad games that are available out there, and try them out, it kind of narrows the gap between "good" and "great" and makes it significantly more reasonable.

Basically I think these gamers have been playing only high profile games for so long, they result to splitting hairs to find flaws and problems with a game, just to do so.

 

[betan]

tha_con, as a fellow Resistance fan, I'm puzzled by your continues efforts to compare R2 to low profile (aka "bad") games.

 

[tha_con]

tha_con, as a fellow Resistance fan, I'm puzzled by your continues efforts to compare R2 to low profile (aka "bad") games.

It's not that I'm comparing it at all. I'm just saying that when you only play high profile games, you start splitting hairs to justify the price. Like this:


Great Game
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Good Game
--Nothing Follows--

The gap between the two seems large, because people complain about little things like lighting on bricks, locations, graphics, etc.

But then, to those who play a wider spectrum of games, the gap looks more like this:

Great Game
=
=
Good Game
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=Bad Game
--Nothing Follows--

Basically, you have played *really* bad games, so you know that the small stuff everyone is sweating here, really isn't a big deal at all, it's just getting blown out of proportion.

Basically, if you're used to wearing bronze jewelry your whole life, then you won't be able to tell a huge difference (or care if there is one, for that matter) between a "good" diamond, and a "great" one.

But if all you've ever worn is Diamonds your whole life (high profile games) then you start to notice small things that suddenly make a "good" diamond "terrible". See what I'm saying?

Hopefully I didn't lose you in this crazy theory of mine.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Basically, you have played *really* bad games, so you know that the small stuff everyone is sweating here, really isn't a big deal at all, it's just getting blown out of proportion.

Look. Many people have relatively little time on their hands, when they got the time to play, they want to play great games. They will compare all games, to other great games.

Because thats what we play.

Seriously, games are SUPPOSED to be compared to the best games out there. Just like all products are compared to the best products in of their type and price range.

If you where going to buy a car, would you buy the car that is better than a Lada, or the car thats better than a BMW?

See where this is going?

Further, im getting sick and tired of hearing these rants about how all these flaws in games should be overlooked because somebody likes it. You like it fine, others dont, let us discuss it. Dont tell me to overlook flaws in games just because there is a gazillion crappy games out there. I have no interest of playing crappy games, i play good games, if the game is not good, then i rather waste my time on something else!

If you want to run around comparing R2 to SoF: payback or some other crappy games, be my guest.

Dont tell me that we should overlook any flaw in any game you like just because there are worse titles out there. Of course there are worse titles out there, but generally, when people want to buy a game, they want to buy the best game possible in a genre they like.

Oh and btw, CoD4 DOES have classes, but you can create them to your own needs. (hence the "Create a class" option at lvl 4). It also has predefined classes like assault, sniper, etc.. It may not be your traditional way of thinking of classes, but it definately has them. Thats not the point of this post.

The point of this post is that games ARE SUPPOSED TO BE COMPARED TO THE BEST GAMES OF ITS GENRE. Thats the way it is. They all cost $60 bucks, if you have the choice between buying a crappy game for $60 or a great game, if your rational, you will choose the great game.
The second point of this post is that trying to stop people from critizising and discussing a game, aspecially by saying that, well there are a tons of crappy games out there, compared to that, its great, is not exactly a great argument, and it makes you look rather silly.

 

[DrJay24]

Oh and btw, CoD4 DOES have classes, but you can create them to your own needs.

R2's classes are not some load out like COD4 or SOCOM, they are classes like in the MMORPG sense. There is a healer class, DPS class and tank class. I don't think COD4 has any influence in it, no shooter does, it's more like how EQ or WoW works.

 

[Kittonwy]

tha-con : I don't get your complaint with other people's complaints! Consider Burnout, an arcade racer. If the next Burnout were to go with more realism, to be more like GT, because that's a bigger franchise, would that be a good thing? Yes, more people like the GT style game, but they are already being served by GT (and other simulation racers). Is it worth the fans of the the arcade racer losing the arcade racer entirely? If you already have a fanbase, isn't it a good idea to serve them what they want, at least if they are sizeable and profitable? You can extend the business idea to why everyone isn't making shooters. If FPSes are the most highly selling, profitable titles, why make any other game? Why make VF if it's going to appeal to a smaller audience? Why not make Virtua Fighter VI a shooter, alienting the existing VF fans but appealing to a larger audience in general? Why not make Halo into a waggle-controlled minigame experience, appealing to a larger audience? Why not make the next Ferrari a small, economical town-car as that would be far more appealing to the masses?

These are unrealistic extremes, but hopefully they illustrate the point that changing a recipe that already has a lot of fans is going to upset them. Even if the new recipe is good, and will be appreciated by new customers, you lose the old fans. In Resistance's case it had a few million players who are now presented with quite a different game, and if they don't like the changes, they don't. That's normal. If someone replaces something you love with something new, it's never going to go down well.

"Where's my old teddy, the one i had since I was 2?"
"I chucked it out as it was old and dingy looking, and bought you this much nicer talking teddy instead."

Not good! It sounds like Insomniac have lost their old fans, and now have to struggle with the competition to win new customers who already have a wealth of choice. It'll be interesting how well R2 does.

Frankly it's not like some of us can't stand changes to the IP, I think if R2 MP competitive plays like a dream people wouldn't be complaining, it's just how things are now that people are upset about. I think some of us just wanted a better game than the one Insomniac delivered. But hey there's always co-op.

 

[betan]

R2's classes are not some load out like COD4 or SOCOM, they are classes like in the MMORPG sense. There is a healer class, DPS class and tank class. I don't think COD4 has any influence in it, no shooter does, it's more like how EQ or WoW works.

To be fair, the discussion is about competitive MP, for which R2 offers a selection of gameplay related customizations, mainly primary weapon and a berserk (which happens to be somewhat similar to radar/air support in CoD 4).

CoD 4 offers customization for primary/secondary weapons, their upgrades and three perks which all together make up a class. While I'm not comfortable with the terminology, especially in case of R2, I wouldn't go as far to say CoD4 didn't influence R2 MP.

 

[SonComet]

I'm sure you will have the same criticism with Gear's 2 Horde mode and Left4Dead. I'm not sure why you are hung up on a play mode that was not advertised and is no means standard at this point. The game isn't for you, time to get this thread back on track, R2 isn't Halo 3 and I for one am very happy about that.

It's funny that you brought up this point. I'm one of those people that won't play an online game unless at least one other real life friend is in the game. I've played Horde Mode in GeoW2 a couple of times. But only because the other 4 players were real life friends from work. I'm not buying L4D because the people I know are buying it for the PC or 360 and so I'll have a much less likely chance of getting together a full team to play it with. I refuse to play R2 co-op because I'm literally the only person I know who owns the game. Even though I know quite a few people with PS3s. I would play co-op if I had even just one real life friend in the 8 man group with me, lol. I know you may think people like me are crazy, but I just don't get any pleasure from playing with strangers.

 

[tha_con]

Look. Many people have relatively little time on their hands, when they got the time to play, they want to play great games. They will compare all games, to other great games.

Because thats what we play.

Seriously, games are SUPPOSED to be compared to the best games out there. Just like all products are compared to the best products in of their type and price range.

If you where going to buy a car, would you buy the car that is better than a Lada, or the car thats better than a BMW?

See where this is going?

Further, im getting sick and tired of hearing these rants about how all these flaws in games should be overlooked because somebody likes it. You like it fine, others dont, let us discuss it. Dont tell me to overlook flaws in games just because there is a gazillion crappy games out there. I have no interest of playing crappy games, i play good games, if the game is not good, then i rather waste my time on something else!

If you want to run around comparing R2 to SoF: payback or some other crappy games, be my guest.

Dont tell me that we should overlook any flaw in any game you like just because there are worse titles out there. Of course there are worse titles out there, but generally, when people want to buy a game, they want to buy the best game possible in a genre they like.

Oh and btw, CoD4 DOES have classes, but you can create them to your own needs. (hence the "Create a class" option at lvl 4). It also has predefined classes like assault, sniper, etc.. It may not be your traditional way of thinking of classes, but it definately has them. Thats not the point of this post.

The point of this post is that games ARE SUPPOSED TO BE COMPARED TO THE BEST GAMES OF ITS GENRE. Thats the way it is. They all cost $60 bucks, if you have the choice between buying a crappy game for $60 or a great game, if your rational, you will choose the great game.
The second point of this post is that trying to stop people from critizising and discussing a game, aspecially by saying that, well there are a tons of crappy games out there, compared to that, its great, is not exactly a great argument, and it makes you look rather silly.

Now tell me how you really feel.

It's whatever man, I think you're jaded, so be my guest to continue seeing the world through your foggy glasses. R2 is a great game.

If anyone looks silly, it's the people saying things like "well R2 looks okay, but it doesn't have the same lighting as x game, or it doesn't have the same special effects as y game" without discussing any trades offs. THOSE are the silly (I would have said stupid) people.

 

[djskribbles]

I don't care what anybody says, I think R2 looks awesome and it was one of the best games I've played this year. I don't think I've ever played a game this action packed before. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. And the sound in this game is one of the best (if not the best) i've ever heard. I think this game has 7.1 uncompressed PCM just like the first, but the sound is a lot more dynamic than R1. I have my PS3 running through my Pioneer VSX-1018AH receiver and it sounds amazing.

 

[BoardBonobo]

I don't believe that there is such a thing as a fair comparison for games now. It all boils down to who's got the loudest voice about the game they like on the platform they prefer. And all arguments end the same, mines bigger than yours blah blah blah etc.

I really enjoyed R1, I'm really looking forward to R2. I was really looking forward to Halo 3... I am enjoying GOW2 but not as much as I'd like. Maybe R2 will be a disappointment, but it won't be because of a flickery pixel, a flat cabbage, or a change of direction. If I fail to enjoy playing the game it's because the game is no fun, or not something I can extend the game ethos to. And that is a purely personal experience.

Besides which it's only out in America so far, there's a whole wide world yet to make up their minds about it. How about we wait and see?

 

[JPT]

I am looking forward to the SP ie the story, that is what I liked about R1. I never got into MP, same with competetive MP in the beta, but co-op was great fun, with players that played it "correctly".
So roll on 26th of nov