Resistance 2

[tha_con]

Interestingly enough the folks who don't like the changes in mechanics from R1 to R2 somehow like KZ2, which is more similar to R2 than it is R1.

Crazy.

I guess it's okay for KZ2 to be what it is, but not okay for R2 to be what it is, even though the two are very similar baring some control differences and visuals.

Still, I think the feedback would have been better received if they would have been more than just comparisons to the first game. I think Insomniac was well aware that R1 didn't play like R2, that information they didn't need. What they needed was information and suggestions on how to improve R2. Almost no one talked level design or tweaks, they mostly complained about grenade throwing distance, running speed, or weapon damage compared to R1.

 

[Kittonwy]

Interestingly enough the folks who don't like the changes in mechanics from R1 to R2 somehow like KZ2, which is more similar to R2 than it is R1.

Crazy.

I guess it's okay for KZ2 to be what it is, but not okay for R2 to be what it is, even though the two are very similar baring some control differences and visuals.

Still, I think the feedback would have been better received if they would have been more than just comparisons to the first game. I think Insomniac was well aware that R1 didn't play like R2, that information they didn't need. What they needed was information and suggestions on how to improve R2. Almost no one talked level design or tweaks, they mostly complained about grenade throwing distance, running speed, or weapon damage compared to R1.

Not sure why bringing KZ2 into the discussion would actually help your defense. It's not about "not liking stop-and-pop", it's all about EXECUTION AND QUALITY, great gameplay is great gameplay, whether it's run-and-gun or more tactical, the original gaf clan is actually starting to enjoy SOCOM more (even DESPITE the ridiculously RETARDED online implementation), why? WAY better maps, WAY better gameplay mechanics, it's not about liking one play-style more than another.

In a great tactical shooter, the maps are WELL-DESIGNED for stop-and-pop with plenty of tight corridors and corners and plenty of cleverly-placed cover, controls, movement and aiming are WELL-DESIGNED for stop-and-pop, the weapons are WELL-TUNED in such a way that clever flanking, short bursts and careful aiming are REWARDED with quick kills, and the maps are designed to accommodate different weapons and play-styles, the KZ2 MP beta got ALL the fundamentals right, which is clearly NOT the case with R2.

In R2 it's not about weapon damage "compared to R1", it's about weapon damage not consistent with the play-style they're forcing onto the players. If you want people to go ironsight, then you need to increase the bullet damage and make kills quicker, because it's certainly not fun for players to circle-strafe with ironsights, but the maps are so open that often people are still running and gunning but with controls and aiming tuned that make running and gunning more awkward, flanking isn't as fun when it takes more shots to take out someone running in the open because of the way the maps are. Sure R2 tried to do some sort of stop-and-pop by forcing players to go into ironsights more but the problem was that they just didn't pull it off.

It's about getting things right whether it's map design, controls, aiming, movement, and R2 MP competitive got it wrong for the most part, it's as simple as that. And it's not like they can change the map designs now anyway, but it was clear people in the beta didn't like the map design in chicago, or orick, or SF in MP competitive, and it was clear IG were unwilling to change ANYTHING, the grenade throwing got marginally better only after OVERWHELMING OUTRAGE from the beta crowd, I'm not sure how you or anyone can honestly complain about criticisms on grenade throwing, because if we didn't speak up, you would still be stuck with grenades that throw like balloons.

 

[obonicus]

I swear you guys had this same argument when the game came out.

 

[woundingchaney]

For whatever reason I am repeatedly getting "network error" anytime I attempt to play an online match of any kind. This is a new problem and I do not have an issue connecting to PSN.

Any advice??

 

[Cornsnake]

For whatever reason I am repeatedly getting "network error" anytime I attempt to play an online match of any kind. This is a new problem and I do not have an issue connecting to PSN.

Any advice??

I had the same problem a few hours ago. It's probably something wrong with the R2 servers.

 

[patsu]

There were some network issues yesterday with Playstation Home and Trophy support even though PSN Sign-on was fine. Might be a PSN anomaly (Not sure).

I would try again later.

 

[betan]

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.

That may very well be true, but then again, why would they want to play more of the same when they clearly ignored awesome new maps?

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 disagree here completely. First of all, R2 MP isn't chasing CoD in anyway. Second R1 was a fun as hell game but it didn't have the coolness factor of CoD4 and alike. I played both games a lot, and the number of "older" gamers I encountered in R1 (and R2) is significantly higher than CoD4, something which I attribute to maturity and better social environment.
In addition, considering how R1 was received among the media and gamers besides core fans, I'd say Insomniac just felt to change MP in a way they had fun as opposed to mirroring some other successful title. I'm sure no one there was expecting so much negativity and they were proud of what they did.

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.

I agree with pretty much everything here, but I don't think Insomniac, a company famous for their continued support, can really ignore the internet noise. They are in a very tough spot right now. I just hope they don't split the userbase further by trying the make old fans happy.

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'm quite puzzled by how you played R1 and R2. Rossmore in R1 was a fricking overpowered gun until Arc Charger took it place. New one is still powerful, but requires more skill. New Auger is clearly easier to use than the old one especially in the open. Wraith is the ultimate camping gun, is like the mirror opposite of a run-and-gun weapon, frankly my nightmare when I'm running around with bullseye. I'm glad they added it. The default alt weapon, magnum is full of awesomeness. It can take almost any weapon within its range. Plus you can set traps when cornered. Splicers is another creative and useful gun currently underappreciated.

All weapons feel inadequate in some way or form? Yes it's called balancing. Despite what you think you know, the weapons in R1 weren't any different in that respect except for Laark.

If you guys complained about how powerful all the new guns are I could understand. For example, it's very easy to two-shut snipe someone in the game thanks to almost non-existing reload times on Far Eye. 40mm is plenty. Even when you are flanked even by a newcomer, almost all weapons kill you before you can react unless you have a protective berserk ready. Instead you talk about comfort and stuff? I mean, if you don't feel comfortable with any weapon ever, I think it may be the time to start looking for the source of that problem somewhere else. Maybe it's the HDR.

Maps don't have enough structure? Again, no idea what you are talking about. Most maps are huge, pretty complex, much more so than the ones in R1, have plenty squad sniping spots. What they don't have is the weapon respawn points.

 

[betan]

For whatever reason I am repeatedly getting "network error" anytime I attempt to play an online match of any kind. This is a new problem and I do not have an issue connecting to PSN.

Any advice??

R2 servers crashes when demand is higher. From what I experienced, it generally doesn't take more than a couple of minutes to recover though.

 

[Kittonwy]

I agree with pretty much everything here, but I don't think Insomniac, a company famous for their continued support, can really ignore the internet noise. They are in a very tough spot right now. I just hope they don't split the userbase further by trying the make old fans happy.

I doubt they CAN split the userbase further, they've pretty much pissed off a significant chunk of the old fanbase and I doubt there's a point or a way for them to try to get back the old fans that are already gone, what they have to worry about is losing the new people they managed to lure in from some other popular shooters, because I doubt they'll keep playing R2 for two years like the old fans did with R1.

I'm quite puzzled by how you played R1 and R2. Rossmore in R1 was a fricking overpowered gun until Arc Charger took it place. New one is still powerful, but requires more skill. New Auger is clearly easier to use than the old one especially in the open. Wraith is the ultimate camping gun, is like the mirror opposite of a run-and-gun weapon, frankly my nightmare when I'm running around with bullseye. I'm glad they added it. The default alt weapon, magnum is full of awesomeness. It can take almost any weapon within its range. Plus you can set traps when cornered. Splicers is another creative and useful gun currently underappreciated.

I played R1 and R2 like any other normal human being, not sure how YOU played R1 and R2, maybe you just haven't played something better, but I have.

People always complain about the shotty or the arc charger when they're on the receiving end. Rossmore was deadly at close-range in R1, that's what the point of a shotgun is, but then in R1 there are more close-quartered situations and if you're wielding a shotgun you can play in a way that doesn't expose you as much, not the case in maps like chicago and orick in R2, even the subway map got some seriously long corridors with not enough cover that are not so good for people with shotguns, and definitely not so good in orick. For its range the wraith is pretty underpowered and you can get completely WASTED against someone with a carbine. The splicer is completely useless on a map like orick. It's going to be a LONG time before they can even balance those new weapons to make them more viable.

All weapons feel inadequate in some way or form? Yes it's called balancing. Despite what you think you know, the weapons in R1 weren't any different in that respect except for Laark.

All weapons feeling inadequate in some way or form is NOT called balancing, it's called POOR balancing, there's just no comfort zone for the player, partly because of the way the weapons are tuned, and partly because of the way the maps are designed, with a set of weapons the player should have an awareness of what you can do with what you have and still feel empowered. The difference in R1 is that if you're a player using a carbine or a bullseye, you can get away with using the weapon of your choice because the map designs provided enough routes and cover for the player, but in R2, not so much if we look at maps like SF or Chicago or Orick, if one is wielding a splicer, it's really not so advantageous. The bullseye is completely neutered and useless for all intents and purposes.

If you guys complained about how powerful all the new guns are I could understand. For example, it's very easy to two-shut snipe someone in the game thanks to almost non-existing reload times on Far Eye. 40mm is plenty. Even when you are flanked even by a newcomer, almost all weapons kill you before you can react unless you have a protective berserk ready. Instead you talk about comfort and stuff? I mean, if you don't feel comfortable with any weapon ever, I think it may be the time to start looking for the source of that problem somewhere else. Maybe it's the HDR.

The comfort level is NOT THERE AT ALL and I'm not the only player who feels that way, most of my clan do, even with success with the carbine it never felt right. 40mm is NOT plenty, and flanking does NOT result in a quick kill, while I don't like the idea of "stealing kills", I can often get easy kills that way. If you want to discuss THE LACK OF HDR and all the other visual flaws of R2, we can do that too.

Maps don't have enough structure? Again, no idea what you are talking about. Most maps are huge, pretty complex, much more so than the ones in R1, have plenty squad sniping spots. What they don't have is the weapon respawn points.

Maps like Orick and Chicago are all over the place, the maps being "huge and pretty complex" does NOT mean there's structure in them, maps need to have landmarks that are easily called out so people can co-ordinate, they're not good maps, they weren't during the beta and they still aren't good maps now. Who cares if there are weapon respawn points or not as long as you can somehow make sure there's some sort of balance? It's a gameplay design, some games do, other games don't, and not having spawn points actually HURT R2 because now you can have half a dozen guys sniping in one spot across the map and you can't regulate it anymore unlike R1 where you can have three guys camping and the other people would kind of move on.

 

[Carl B]

I agree with pretty much everything here, but I don't think Insomniac, a company famous for their continued support, can really ignore the internet noise. They are in a very tough spot right now. I just hope they don't split the userbase further by trying the make old fans happy.

I very much agree here, and even wishing that R2 had been a little closer to my own tastes, it doesn't serve anyone any good now for Insomniac to whip back to that in R3 and leave the new R2 fans in the lurch. Man it's a tough place to be in going into R3 development, that's for sure... development that I certainly do hope is on the docket.

I mean above all frankly, the story of Resistance - this trippy sci-fi WWII alternative world is just too awesome. It hooked me like few other games have. Honestly I think they didn't play up the story/campaign details enough in the SP this go around, but that's neither here nor there right now. Just basically, I want to see where this story goes.

I spent some time after my last post in this thread today outside the ivory tower of B3D reading some R2 feelings/thoughts on some other forums, and certainly it is a riven environment. But there certainly are appreciable numbers of folk that prefer R2, that fundamentally prefer this style of MP competitive (granted I think it should've stayed R1 style if only for filling that niche on consoles), and who truly do find the game epic in scope and scale via the presentation... and are to an extent awed. And I won't speak to my differences with those opinions, but will say that they exist in large enough number that I can see at least where Insomniac has a sort of bittersweet vindication in their choices - they just probably didn't expect such a backlash from another segment of the user base, or even if recognized couldn't shift the gears at a point when November 08 was set in stone.

 

[patsu]

There was some rumbling about possible R1 game mode near R2 launch, but it is not a promise. It may not happen, but I am hoping it will.

 

[Cornsnake]

There was some rumbling about possible R1 game mode near R2 launch, but it is not a promise. It may not happen, but I am hoping it will.

That also came with a disclaimer that IF they do it, it would take a lot of time and work adding weapon spawns and rebalancing the weapons. And like Kittonwy said, many of maps in R2 are too open for some of the weapons to really shine. Maybe they should bring back some old favourites like busyard, and balance the weapons on that map in the way they were before the fast respawning of the Laark and 40 messed things up in R1. Or preferably remove these 2 altogether.

It's going to be interesting to see what Insomniac does about the situation. If they are going make an Old School mode, I hope they start out small, and listen to feedback on how to improve it. I wouldn't want them to commit to something big, and not have it work by the time their done.

Then again, if can't do it in time before the next big online FPS comes along, it might not matter. Most of the fans of an Old School mode will be gone anyway.

 

[Carl B]

I wouldn't want them to commit to something big, and not have it work by the time their done.

Then again, if can't do it in time before the next big online FPS comes along, it might not matter. Most of the fans of an Old School mode will be gone anyway.

So true. I honestly hope Insomniac doesn't devote resources to this, because it's just not as worth it as putting towards their regularly scheduled projects, and frankly I think it's got to be somewhat demoralizing to even be in this situation where such is even an option. It's not worth it, as it won't be appreciated even by the gamers asking for it if it arrives; they've already set themselves up mentally to be playing Killzone 2 in two months anyway, so best to focus on the future rather than linger on the present.

 

[Cornsnake]

Insomniac should longer be asking for feedback at this point, but rather communicate where they want to take the series. Now everyone is just going around in circles, trying to convince the rest that their opinion is how R2 should be. Everything that needed to be said has been said, so now it's up to Insomniac to decide what they want to do with it. And after they've made up their minds, then they can ask their fans on how want to see R2 be improved in the direction they have taken.

After all their excellent community support on Rfom, I find it very strange that they are so silent about R2. All they've said is there will be a big patch soon. And that was about a month ago.

 

[obonicus]

Insomniac should longer be asking for feedback at this point, but rather communicate where they want to take the series. Now everyone is just going around in circles, trying to convince the rest that their opinion is how R2 should be. Everything that needed to be said has been said, so now it's up to Insomniac to decide what they want to do with it. And after they've made up their minds, then they can ask their fans on how want to see R2 be improved in the direction they have taken.

After all their excellent community support on Rfom, I find it very strange that they are so silent about R2. All they've said is there will be a big patch soon. And that was about a month ago.

To be fair, they're asking for feedback on tech and art, not on game design.

 

[patsu]

After all their excellent community support on Rfom, I find it very strange that they are so silent about R2. All they've said is there will be a big patch soon. And that was about a month ago.

Insomniac added new game modes (e.g., Team Conversion, Assault, and Spectator mode) to RFOM about 3 months after US launch. Couple of patches were added over time to re-balance the weapons. 2 map-packs were released. Chimera-Chimera was taken out.

I don't necessarily think they have to put the weapon wheel back, but I believe they will try their best to improve the game -- unless there has been a change in strategy. If they decide to release patches, I would be surprised if they don't touch the weapons. The SP health bar is the one I am hoping they tweak.

 

[Cornsnake]

If remember correctly, they had a 10 man team for Rfom that made those patches and extra gamemodes and maps. I assume it will be the same for R2. How often have they tweaked the SP? I agree that a bigger health bar would be an improvement, but I doubt they are going to make changes to the SP at this point.

I think they'll put 2 round games back in because they are still working on balancing the teams after the first round. Weapons being the most important of a shooter will probably received continues attention. And then there is the long list bugs they still need to fix.

 

[betan]

I doubt they CAN split the userbase further, they've pretty much pissed off a significant chunk of the old fanbase and I doubt there's a point or a way for them to try to get back the old fans that are already gone, what they have to worry about is losing the new people they managed to lure in from some other popular shooters, because I doubt they'll keep playing R2 for two years like the old fans did with R1.

God knows who will be playing R2 in two months, but if the old fans are the people kept playing R1 after two years, but hate R2 now, I think it's fair to say Insomniac can safely ignore them, since that's not really splitting the userbase considering their size.

I played R1 and R2 like any other normal human being, not sure how YOU played R1 and R2, maybe you just haven't played something better, but I have.

Sure you have. But that's besides the point. The discussion is about what they changed from R1 for the worse, not whether there are any better shooters in your world.

People always complain about the shotty or the arc charger when they're on the receiving end.

Does that make it OK? (note that I have ever complained about them )

Rossmore was deadly at close-range in R1, that's what the point of a shotgun is, but then in R1 there are more close-quartered situations and if you're wielding a shotgun you can play in a way that doesn't expose you as much, not the case in maps like chicago and orick in R2, even the subway map got some seriously long corridors with not enough cover that are not so good for people with shotguns, and definitely not so good in orick.

That's getting ridiculous. How many maps in R1 are completely safe for shotgun? None. Have you not played Manchester, Summerset, Nottingham? Even relatively closed maps like Grimsby maps have large long corridors or open areas.
Who the hell would want a map where one weapon completely dominates any other?

For its range the wraith is pretty underpowered and you can get completely WASTED against someone with a carbine.

You can get completely wasted with any weapon against someone with wraith depending on the situation.

The splicer is completely useless on a map like orick.

Don't use it then. For the record there are many Orick maps (regions), and the one in the beta is the most open one. That said, I have seen people rule with splicer in that exact map.
I'm really curious whether you were also complaining because Far Eye was useless in all 8p maps besides Manchester in R1?

It's going to be a LONG time before they can even balance those new weapons to make them more viable.

I'm sorry but you either don't know, or don't care what balancing means.

All weapons feeling inadequate in some way or form is NOT called balancing, it's called POOR balancing,

Let's rephrase this. "Good balancing" implies all weapons feel adequate for all situations? Right?

there's just no comfort zone for the player,

There's just no comfort zone for the player who plays games based on HDR maybe.
Seriously, speak for your self.

partly because of the way the weapons are tuned, and partly because of the way the maps are designed, with a set of weapons the player should have an awareness of what you can do with what you have and still feel empowered. The difference in R1 is that if you're a player using a carbine or a bullseye, you can get away with using the weapon of your choice because the map designs provided enough routes and cover for the player, but in R2, not so much if we look at maps like SF or Chicago or Orick, if one is wielding a splicer, it's really not so advantageous. The bullseye is completely neutered and useless for all intents and purposes.
The comfort level is NOT THERE AT ALL and I'm not the only player who feels that way, most of my clan do,

I bet you all used Auger, Dragon, prepatch Arc Charger in R1 since they are full of comfort zones.
And bullseye is an awesome weapon for all maps if you are willing to run.

even with success with the carbine it never felt right. 40mm is NOT plenty,

40mm doesn't magically appear in your carbine. You need to find ammo boxes and this is why people with carbine are always racing over dead bodies. Sometimes you 40 an opponent, the game gives you another 40mm.

and flanking does NOT result in a quick kill, while I don't like the idea of "stealing kills", I can often get easy kills that way.

Sorry, I have nothing to say to that.

If you want to discuss THE LACK OF HDR and all the other visual flaws of R2, we can do that too.

No we cannot, for a couple of reasons. There is no game that does everything right graphically. And I can nitpick your favorite game way more than you. For example, R2 destroys vegetation and geometry of Uncharted. So what?

Also your obsession with HDR is a joke. Among all the visual shortcomings of R2, HDR is the least important one.

Maps like Orick and Chicago are all over the place, the maps being "huge and pretty complex" does NOT mean there's structure in them, maps need to have landmarks that are easily called out so people can co-ordinate, they're not good maps, they weren't during the beta and they still aren't good maps now.

Again they aren't any worse than R1 maps in terms of landmarks. Downtown Orick is actually way better since there are signs on the buildings.

I had enough of this tough. Maps are generally bigger and more open than R1, thus ranged weapons are favored more so than R1 especially with gimped tagging and carbine range.

If you want to criticize R1 to R2 MP changes logically, be my guest. If you cannot find any logic, just cite your personal preference and leave it at that, it's way better than what you are doing.

So true. I honestly hope Insomniac doesn't devote resources to this, because it's just not as worth it as putting towards their regularly scheduled projects, and frankly I think it's got to be somewhat demoralizing to even be in this situation where such is even an option. It's not worth it, as it won't be appreciated even by the gamers asking for it if it arrives; they've already set themselves up mentally to be playing Killzone 2 in two months anyway, so best to focus on the future rather than linger on the present.

Wise words as always.
I'm also with you on the story. While I'm not sure they picked the best way to present the story especially in case of R2, Resistance lore hooked me unlike any other. It somewhat sucks game raises many times more questions than it answers though. Still I'm pretty happy with the little details they revealed, and the general direction in the sequel.

 

[Arwin]

I'm still looking to play this game eventually, just haven't been in a hurry. There's too many FPS games out there and I'm going to space them evenly, and buy them on budget prices. Far Cry 2 got budget price first (payed 25 euros for that) so I bought that first. I might just buy Killzone 2 upon release, but only if some of my colleagues do the same, otherwise I might even wait with that one.

 

[woundingchaney]

I'm still looking to play this game eventually, just haven't been in a hurry. There's too many FPS games out there and I'm going to space them evenly, and buy them on budget prices. Far Cry 2 got budget price first (payed 25 euros for that) so I bought that first. I might just buy Killzone 2 upon release, but only if some of my colleagues do the same, otherwise I might even wait with that one.

Well you could resale your budget bought FC2 as it most likely isnt worth the money you paid for it and purchase Res.2.

JK

In some ways I agree that the onslaught of games leaves many titles either unpurchased or unappreciated as what they would of been if shelf competition wasnt so high and it may be better to lengthen out title/genre releases. Though with console gaming there is the tendency of "latest and greatest" and I find that I move from title to title considerably quicker and the online population diminishes considerably faster as well.

Anyways enjoy FC2 and despite Res.2's various letdowns I would consider it to be a worthwhile purchase for a PS3 owner even at standard retail cost (though I am American and Im not overly sure what a game would cost you comparably).