Such a huge mistake to ask NeoGAF for advice. A forum full of heathens and attention whores.
Resistance 2
- Thread starter ManuVlad3.0
- Start date
Such a huge mistake to ask NeoGAF for advice. A forum full of heathens and attention whores.
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)
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.
Why would they do that, there is nothing to be unlocked after level 30.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
)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.
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.
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.
I don't think vindicated is the word at all.
I don't feel vindicated at all, just disappointed at the opportunity in R2 becoming that blockbuster holiday season FPS being lost.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.