Resistance 2

[betan]

I cannot believe some people are complaining about graphics. Please go investigate Plantation and tell us again how game needs self shadowing and HDR. And it's a multiplayer map for God's sake. It's certainly not worst looking than any other SP game I have seen this year.

As for gameplay, I think Insomniac can safely ignore the kids who cannot even defend their own ideas. And stuff like "It's not fun" does not count as an idea in my book.

Not that the game is perfect, far from it. I'd like to see a lot of changes even in MP. But for me it's still the best multiplayer (shooter) experience since R1, by far. Also improves on the first game in so many areas. Amount of ignorance is just sad.

 

[JPT]

I wonder, would R2 have been better received if there was no R:FoM before it?

Personally I think R:FoM SP was more fun than R2 SP, not saying R2 SP was bad or anything. But my gut tells me that I enjoyed SP more on R:FoM. And its not pure nostalgia,since I completed R:FoM this summer, so that I would know the back story better when R2 was released.

R2 MP vs R:FoM MP, ie competitive, I have no clue, I got about 2 mins with R:FoM and 10 mins with R2 MP during the beta.

R2 Co-Op is a winner for me, mainly because it gives you the fun of MP, without being trashed by everybody and his dog due to have reaction times of a 120 year old after to much women,drinking and dancing So its very noob friendly I guess.

Overall, my perception is R2 > R:FoM.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Am I right in thinking this is Insomniac's second ever shooter, or third with Disruptor? Perhaps a real problem here is they aren't good shooter developers?! Perhaps their ideas of what makes a good shooter don't tally with the people who buy shooters on the whole, and as a result they've had to develop with a sort of copy-cat approach trying to understand the FPS from other games, instead of creating from their own hearts a title that rings true from their own love of the genre?

Maybe it's a genre they should steer clear of, because there's so much competition from some very seasoned developers who are better are giving the genre fans what they want? We don't need another shooter IP. Then again, maybe their struggling to understand what this generation does want, seeing titles like RnC and Spyro not selling so well these days?

 

[djskribbles]

I don't think that's it at all. I'm a huge FPS fan and R1 and R2 are among the best FPS I've played. Most people complaining about R2 seem to not like it because it's far different than R1. I think most agree that R1 was a good all around shooter.

 

[Cornsnake]

They are good making shooters, they just got their priorities mixed up. After CoD4 they tried to bring over some of it's best elements to Resistance. But these 2 are about as far apart as you can get in shooters, and they don't work well together. It's like mixing GT's realistic gameplay with Ridge Racers arcade gameplay. They should have chosen one way or the other. And if it's sales their after, I think they would have been better off being CoD WaW's opposite, then it's competitor.

 

[betan]

Yeah, CoD4 influence on R2 coop clearly sucks. Bad, bad Insomniac.

On a more serious note, two weapon system and full health regen are the worst things that happened to Resistance SP (though they work great for MP, especially objective stuff). They may very well be a poor attempt for coolness or simply cheap design. Still SP gives way more Half-Life 2 vibe than CoD4, if anything.
MP however, is a totally different beast.

As for being poorly received by gamers, that may very well be true. However R1 had a lot of haters at the time, people just don't seem to remember. More importantly I'm pretty sure a sequel to R1 that would satisfy all fans would be much less successful. I think the biggest threat to R2's continues popularity is Killzone 2, not CoD5.

ps: Cornsnake, that Spartan guy in your clan is a lagger.

 

[Carl B]

More importantly I'm pretty sure a sequel to R1 that would satisfy all fans would be much less successful.

I don't agree with that at all. If even the people saying they love the game qualify those statements in the context of the original title, how in the world would being more like the original be a negative? You could have added a co-op mode to the MP options, left deathmatch frenetic, and paced the SP more like in R1 and frankly... if it seems the case that both the R2 lovers and those critical of R2 would prefer that title, how could the sales be anything but better?

 

[betan]

I don't agree with that at all. If even the people saying they love the game qualify those statements in the context of the original title, how in the world would being more like the original be a negative? You could have added a co-op mode to the MP options, left deathmatch frenetic, and paced the SP more like in R1 and frankly... if it seems the case that both the R2 lovers and those critical of R2 would prefer that title, how could the sales be anything but better?

Are you implying R2 lovers only love the game because of coop?
Anyway, my argument is simply based on what I painfully witnessed, what happened to R1, R1 DLCs, and R1 matchmaking. It's clear to me that most R1 players weren't playing the game because they preferred the gameplay to the likes of CoD.

 

[Carl B]

Are you implying R2 lovers only love the game because of coop?

Not what I'm implying, but I am saying that co-op seems to be the one thing everyone can agree on being a good addition. R2 lovers love the game as a whole for all its aspects, but I see enough guarded admission to preference for aspects of the first to believe that whatever the debate on the forums, they might have preferred what the 'instigators' were hoping for as well in terms of SP campaign feel.

Anyway, my argument is simply based on what I painfully witnessed, what happened to R1, R1 DLCs, and R1 matchmaking. It's clear to me that most R1 players weren't playing the game because they preferred the gameplay to the likes of CoD.

But like I said earlier, it's like bands and CDs... I mean no game can maintain its audience indefinitely (except WoW), people want to try new things. It's not because they're any less fond of what they were playing up until then.

R1 MP in my opinion is legendary in quality and the respect it held amongst its fans... it's on the order of the original Quake deathmatch in terms of its 'purity,' and frankly, just enjoyable as hell. But I stopped playing it too when Warhawk came out, not because it was any less awesome, but just because I wanted to try Warhawk. So that was my game for the next couple of months. And I guess for some/most, that shift occurred at CoD.

Still with R2 I think/bet that a lot of those that drifted to CoD and/or other games were ready to come back and have the next couple of months be about R2 in an 'echoes of R1' sort of way. That the MP design seemed to have chased the players to where they had gone rather than wait for them to come back to an old friend I think was a mistake.

I mean these are just opinions and who can know what would have been better, worse, or whatever else. Above all I do respect the place of the artist (Insomniac) to put out a game that reflects their own choices/will and to do so in a way that ignores the noise of the Internet if they choose to, even if it results in a game different than that some were expecting. But, it's just that it did result in a game different than some were expecting.

 

[Cornsnake]

Yeah, CoD4 influence on R2 coop clearly sucks. Bad, bad Insomniac.

On a more serious note, two weapon system and full health regen are the worst things that happened to Resistance SP (though they work great for MP, especially objective stuff). They may very well be a poor attempt for coolness or simply cheap design. Still SP gives way more Half-Life 2 vibe than CoD4, if anything.
MP however, is a totally different beast.

As for being poorly received by gamers, that may very well be true. However R1 had a lot of haters at the time, people just don't seem to remember. More importantly I'm pretty sure a sequel to R1 that would satisfy all fans would be much less successful. I think the biggest threat to R2's continues popularity is Killzone 2, not CoD5.

ps: Cornsnake, that Spartan guy in your clan is a lagger.

Off topic.

I'm afraid that might be true. I played some custom games again him and thought the same thing. But I don't think he's doing deliberately. It's either his slow internet connection, or a bug in the game. I've seen more laggers, but it's never because the servers can't handle the amount of players. It's usually just a single player that's is very hard to kill, or can kill you faster then should be possible.

On topic.

That 2 weapon limit in the SP is really killing the replay value for me. In Rfom you could try different weapons and tactics in different situations. But in R2 you'd better exchange your weapon which the one that is strangely laying along your path, because the next part is going to be very difficult without it.

 

[patsu]

Yeah, R2 competitive is alright now.

Played with the clan once, I actually enjoyed it more than I expected. I thought it's more arcady than R1. Basically, I ran all over the map picking people off using the gunsight view (mostly). Most of the time, these people were distracted by other players.

In R1, I find myself going solo more often, and fighting was more intense/standalone (probably due to the levels I tried). I also use grenades more in R1, often leaving behind one just before I die . In R2, because my hands are kinda locked due to the gunsight view, it's harder to engineer other moves. I don't switch weapons in R2 too (even though there's one sidearm).

In a sense, I find R1 easier to pick up (Just point and shoot !) but harder to master (Extremely fast pace, difficult to deal with skillful, well-equipped players). I find R2 slightly more awkward to pick up (gun sight view, need to choose weapons, need to understand berserk mode and abilities) but more friendly moving forward (and less depth in weapon strategy). However, these feelings may be due to the fact that I have not played R2 competitive a lot.

I had to confront nasty tactics people employed in R1 (e.g., Auger + Shotgun tag team, holed up sniper team in some high location, fast weapon switchers, Auger spamming in closed rooms, one-shot Flamethrower/Arc charger/40mm dudes, etc.). I treat them more as a puzzle (How do I take them out using my available weapons ?). In R2, I haven't played enough to know people's styles yet. The ones I played against seem to just shoot freestyle. Every time I logged on to try competitive, I get sidetracked by Co-op (Too lazy to learn the berserk stuff too).

* Do you use secondary fire more in R2 ? Or do you rely on the special abilities ?

* Have you fought someone one-to-one (undisturbed by a third person ?). Do you prefer one-to-one fight in R1 or R2 ?

 

[Kittonwy]

I wonder, would R2 have been better received if there was no R:FoM before it?

Personally I think R:FoM SP was more fun than R2 SP, not saying R2 SP was bad or anything. But my gut tells me that I enjoyed SP more on R:FoM. And its not pure nostalgia,since I completed R:FoM this summer, so that I would know the back story better when R2 was released.

R2 MP vs R:FoM MP, ie competitive, I have no clue, I got about 2 mins with R:FoM and 10 mins with R2 MP during the beta.

R2 Co-Op is a winner for me, mainly because it gives you the fun of MP, without being trashed by everybody and his dog due to have reaction times of a 120 year old after to much women,drinking and dancing So its very noob friendly I guess.

Overall, my perception is R2 > R:FoM.

The problem is not RFOM before R2, it's R2 trying to attempt stop-and-pop without 1) designing the maps around it and 2) tuning the damage to make stop and pop effective. The maps in R2 are RUN-AND-GUN MAPS, most of them are WIDE-OPEN.

Graphics-wise it's just lacking good lighting/shadowing and cohesiveness. I have the art book and the art concepts were actually really good, they just didn't realize the concepts at all.

 

[Kittonwy]

Yeah, CoD4 influence on R2 coop clearly sucks. Bad, bad Insomniac.

On a more serious note, two weapon system and full health regen are the worst things that happened to Resistance SP (though they work great for MP, especially objective stuff). They may very well be a poor attempt for coolness or simply cheap design. Still SP gives way more Half-Life 2 vibe than CoD4, if anything.
MP however, is a totally different beast.

As for being poorly received by gamers, that may very well be true. However R1 had a lot of haters at the time, people just don't seem to remember. More importantly I'm pretty sure a sequel to R1 that would satisfy all fans would be much less successful. I think the biggest threat to R2's continues popularity is Killzone 2, not CoD5.

ps: Cornsnake, that Spartan guy in your clan is a lagger.

When you have a two weapon system you need to make sure the player feels empowered with their primary weapon with the handgun still making the player feels safe enough, which is far from the case. NONE of the weapons feels good as primary, ALL of them feels inadequate in some way or form, there's NEVER a comfort zone, partly because the maps are simply too wide-open for what they're trying to do, without the safety provided by ample secondary fire. Shotguns are NOT fearsome close-ranged weapons, carbine doesn't have adequate range, snipers are completely vulnerable because now they don't have a good secondary weapon to protect themselves, the marksman is an unnecessary tweener weapon which serves to marginalize the sniper rifle and causes the carbine to have a more useless range, weapons like the splicer, bellock, wraith and auger are basically pointless. The maps themselves simply don't have enough structure, you want to set the snipers up at various points, you want to provide enough cover for the shorter ranged weapons to work through, you want to create enough close-quartered situations for close-ranged weapons to dominate, when your levels are so open, it just kind of kills tactical possibilities.

 

[patsu]

Graphics-wise it's just lacking good lighting/shadowing and cohesiveness. I have the art book and the art concepts were actually really good, they just didn't realize the concepts at all.

Kittonwy, are these the concept arts you refer to ?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9944073&postcount=1

If so, they are indeed beautifully rendered but compared to MGS4, KZ2, LBP, DMC, HellBoy I & II (the movies), Pan's Labyrinth (movie), I think they are lacking in imagination, personality and "sexiness". If they want to start from scratch, might as well expect something higher internally. What gave the R1 monsters personality was their in-game (AI) behaviour. I was never really attracted to the Resistance concept art (I don't hate them either).



I do agree that there were too many lost opportunities in R2 SP.

In R1, the monsters seemed to have deeper behaviour (Hybrids flank more effectively, menial will hug, bite and sometimes carry explosives, Stalkers will stomp all over the place in a level full of hiding places and debris, Titans will move more freely, etc.).

I feel that in R2, I am forced to keep my distance because my health bar is artificially made too short, I don't have many powerful weapons to take the hordes on. In effect, compared to R1, I was gimped to make the game fun (The enemies in R2 are mostly one-trick and so "far" from me that they lost most of their personality). Together with the fragmented stories, the R2 handicap gave me the feeling that something is missing throughout the game. Even though I enjoyed the game, I felt somewhat constipated.

I believe because of that safety distance the player kept between himself and the monsters, the enemies were designed to charge repeatedly (or some say indefinitely) to make things eventful. It could have been more interesting if I am right in the thick of these battles like in R1. R2 SP has a few of these but mostly you have to fight strictly behind cover. The Chameleons should not be a one-hit killer, I should be allowed to duke it out with him for a longer period... like in Co-op.


That said, I think the hilltop R2 Co-op fight far surpassed the best R1 level. It's the only place I felt threatened in shooters against the computer (like playing in an alien movie where all your comrades were murdered. It's "Game Over" if I died too). Amongst all the R1 and R2 monsters, the Hybrids (Augerer and regular foot soldiers) in R2 remain formidable. They are determined, vicious and extremely mobile -- given the right level design.

Overall, the R2 experience covers a wide range. If they can tighten the experience, I have no doubt that R2 > R1. And I disagree with Kittonwy's criticisms on HDR, shadowing and what not (Seriously).

 

[scificube]

When you have a two weapon system you need to make sure the player feels empowered with their primary weapon with the handgun still making the player feels safe enough, which is far from the case. NONE of the weapons feels good as primary, ALL of them feels inadequate in some way or form, there's NEVER a comfort zone, partly because the maps are simply too wide-open for what they're trying to do, without the safety provided by ample secondary fire. Shotguns are NOT fearsome close-ranged weapons, carbine doesn't have adequate range, snipers are completely vulnerable because now they don't have a good secondary weapon to protect themselves, the marksman is an unnecessary tweener weapon which serves to marginalize the sniper rifle and causes the carbine to have a more useless range, weapons like the splicer, bellock, wraith and auger are basically pointless. The maps themselves simply don't have enough structure, you want to set the snipers up at various points, you want to provide enough cover for the shorter ranged weapons to work through, you want to create enough close-quartered situations for close-ranged weapons to dominate, when your levels are so open, it just kind of kills tactical possibilities.

I disagree with most of this.

The marksman is an excellent weapon. It has excellent range and an excellent alt fire. It doesn't make sense to criticize the weapon for working even if you consider that others do not.

I never felt vulnerable with a FarEye. I felt god like. The secondary fire on that weapon had me destroying enemies without fear of retribution due the slow motion effect. Also, I always had a short to mid-range weapon as my second weapon so if anything go too close it was all good. If I had a FarEye it meant the enemies were in serious trouble not the other way around...getting nicked by that weapon means death to them.

The Carbine is a midrange spray and pray sort of weapon much like the Bullseye. If there is a complaint about the carbine is that its alt fire has such limited and un-replinishable ammo. I really didn't use either of these weapons for any other reason that there was a constant ammo supply for them. There were more effective weapons on the battle field that I held on to once I acquired them.

There are plenty of levels where there is either cover all about or level geometry you can use to your advantage for stop and pop game-play so I don't get what you're saying there at all. (any car which has been previously blown up becomes indestructible cover) In all the "open" levels you have access to either a Marksman or a FarEye at all times so you really should be picking off enemies in the distance more often than not. The Marksman is actually very effective even in close range if you're good with head shots.The Marksman along with the Auger were my two primary weapons of choice in R2 and I play with them for the majority of the SP campaign.

The Rossmore never shows up much in indoor areas which where it would be most effective but IS available every time Grims make an appearance so that you can handle close quarters combat with ease.

The Splicer'ss alternate fire kills titans in ONE shot...that hardly makes it pointless not to mention anything else you alt-fire with it. This and the shotgun eats Grims for breakfast although I prefer to use my knife a lot to conserve ammo for tougher enemies.

The Bellock isn't featured enough or in the right situations to make a difference so I agree with it not being worth very much when you come across one.

The Auger is INCREDIBLY effective. It does better than average damage and can shield you in sticky situations. The Auger is basically a stealth sniper rifle in my opinion. Enemies can't see you behind walls especially if they are off in the distance. You can headshot them till your heart's content. A single clip with an Auger is worth 15-20 kills easy for me. The Auger is anything BUT pointless in my opinion. The Auger has always been an EXCELLENT weapon for me...its almost not fair I'm allowed to have it.

The Wraith is extremely effective in the latter levels. Switch on the shield - deal death - rinse repeat. It does exactly as it's advertised to do. Kill stuff dead and fast at that.

I stop and pop almost exclusively in R2. Running and gunning gets you mauled because you're often up against 10-20 Chimera of various types. I actually felt it necessary to stop, access, and kill over and over again because certain enemies are definitely more dangerous than others.

I have had a vastly different experience with R2 than you so I guess something must be up but given my experience with the game I can't agree with much you said there.

 

[Kittonwy]

I'm talking about MP competitive, I'm not even referring to SP at all.

 

[patsu]

I think Kittonwy may be talking about the guns in MP. They behave differently in SP.

In SP...

I use Auger to fight in the open. It's my weapon of choice in R2 (to play it like R1 ) but the ammo is harder to find.

I love the Marksman and the pistol.

I use Wraith exclusively against the Ravager, Rossberg for the Grims and Chameleon.

I didn't know you can kill a Titan with a Splicer alt-fire.

I know you can cause serious damage to a group of Titans with Belllock alt-fire (because they stay put in the fire).

EDIT: Oops, too late.

 

[scificube]

I'm talking about MP competitive, I'm not even referring to SP at all.

Really...my apologies Kittonwy. No clue about MP as I've never played it I hope the weapons don't magically transform though.

 

[scificube]

I think Kittonwy may be talking about the guns in MP. They behave differently in SP.

In SP...

I use Auger to fight in the open. It's my weapon of choice in R2 (to play it like R1 ) but the ammo is harder to find.

I love the Marksman and the pistol.

I use Wraith exclusively against the Ravager, Rossberg for the Grims and Chameleon.

I didn't know you can kill a Titan with a Splicer alt-fire.

I know you can cause serious damage to a group of Titans with Belllock alt-fire (because they stay put in the fire).

EDIT: Oops, too late.

Yep, my bad but thanks for the Bellock tip. I would have never found a use for it without you saying something...and my ignorance of the discussion at hand

 

[Kittonwy]

Kittonwy, are these the concept arts you refer to ?
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9944073&postcount=1

If so, they are indeed beautifully rendered but compared to MGS4, KZ2, LBP, DMC, HellBoy I & II (the movies), Pan's Labyrinth (movie), I think they are lacking in imagination, personality and "sexiness". If they want to start from scratch, might as well expect something higher internally. What gave the R1 monsters personality was their in-game (AI) behaviour. I was never really attracted to the Resistance concept art (I don't hate them either).



I do agree that there were too many lost opportunities in R2 SP.

In R1, the monsters seemed to have deeper behaviour (Hybrids flank more effectively, menial will hug, bite and sometimes carry explosives, Stalkers will stomp all over the place in a level full of hiding places and debris, Titans will move more freely, etc.).

I feel that in R2, I am forced to keep my distance because my health bar is artificially made too short, I don't have many powerful weapons to take the hordes on. In effect, compared to R1, I was gimped to make the game fun (The enemies in R2 are mostly one-trick and so "far" from me that they lost most of their personality). Together with the fragmented stories, the R2 handicap gave me the feeling that something is missing throughout the game. Even though I enjoyed the game, I felt somewhat constipated.

I believe because of that safety distance the player kept between himself and the monsters, the enemies were designed to charge repeatedly (or some say indefinitely) to make things eventful. It could have been more interesting if I am right in the thick of these battles like in R1. R2 SP has a few of these but mostly you have to fight strictly behind cover. The Chameleons should not be a one-hit killer, I should be allowed to duke it out with him for a longer period.


That said, I think the hilltop R2 Co-op fight far surpassed the best R1 level. It's the only place I felt threatened in shooters (like playing in an alien movie where all your comrades were murdered. It's "Game Over" if I died too). Amongst all the R1 and R2 monsters, the Hybrids (Augerer and regular foot soldiers) in R2 remain formidable. They are determined, vicious and extremely mobile -- given the right level design.

Overall, the R2 experience covers a wide range. If they can tighten the experience, I have no doubt that R2 > R1. And I disagree with Kittonwy's criticisms on HDR, shadowing and what not (Seriously).

Yep AI is way too simplistic in SP, chameleons shouldn't have been a one-hit kill or a one-hit killer (1/3-1/2 damage would have been better, attack/turtle/repeat), movement should reduce the amount of camoflage and the chameleon should move from cover to cover to get close enough to the player. Titan and stalker fights were simply poorly designed, lazy even in terms of giving the player the ability to get creative and use cover. SP level design simply didn't provide a lot of flank or be flanked possibilities.

I felt the concept art compared to the final product was so much bigger and better, enemies like the goliath, leviathan, and the kraken in the final product were simply docile compared to their portrayal in the concept art.

I still maintain my stance on HDR+self-shadowin.