Resistance: Fall of Man gameplay impressions

[Ben-Nice]

I don't want to be a nuisance, but would someone direct me to the video where it was demonstrated you can't break the bulbs if you shoot at them.
I've watched the 720p official trailer and the Sony E3 conference video, and just cant't see it in either of them and I've watched them a few times in a row.

The gameplay should not be judged by these videos though. If you notice, in the E3 conference the guy is playing it very straight forward style. I think he even has some "god mode" on where he can't die. It's ok for demonstration purposes to go forward in the game fast, but when you play at your home without cheats, I think the game will have a very different pacing.

The one at the top right @ 54 seconds. It's labeled "Amazing New Gameplay Footage (05/08/2006)". It totally negates everything else good in the whole video. Resistance is officially going to suck Royally now

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748483/vids_1.html

 

[Arwin]

The one at the top right @ 54 seconds. It's labeled "Amazing New Gameplay Footage (05/08/2006)". It totally negates everything else good in the whole video. Resistance is officially going to suck Royally now

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/748/748483/vids_1.html

Omg, lol, they obviously didn't have it destroyable simply because they needed to show the lighting from the swinging lamp, as they were showing off physics. Who complained about this again?

 

[Bad_Boy]

http://www.1up.com/media?id=2894074&type=lg
that art looks pretty cool.

1up interview here
http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3151083

 

[Bad_Boy]

http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/action/insomniacshooter/news.html?sid=6152225

GS: What speculation did you see written about the game on forums that was totally wrong?

TP: This is a pretty easy question to answer. Some people seem to think we're "just a WWII shooter with aliens." We've been pretty vocal about the fact that WWII doesn't even exist in our game. But we're also making sure that with our weapons, story, backgrounds, and characters, Resistance: Fall of Man feels very different than the large crop of WWII shooters that has appeared over the past several years. Once we reveal more details about the story and game, we're confident that Resistance: Fall of Man will stand on its own as a unique experience. And despite what you saw at E3 that revealed little about the chimera, in the game we're putting a heavy emphasis on chimeran architecture, weapons, and vehicles that will create a big "twist" on the European background.

So I suppose we should all lay off the call of duty 2 comparisons.

GS: What can you tell us about the vehicles in the game?

TP: We can tell you that we will have playable vehicles in the game, but we're not revealing details right now.

woot.

seems it will have sp co-op also

 

[sonyps35]

It's not using AF either

There is a pic with a road line and it's very blurry in the background. Whereas the foreground is sharp.

 

[Bad_Boy]

It's not using AF either

There is a pic with a road line and it's very blurry in the background. Whereas the foreground is sharp.

on the same gamespot link...

That said, we didn't expect people to be so jaded about the current state of all PlayStation 3 games. I think that sometimes it's hard for folks to remember that what they see at E3 is months away from being finished product--and that means there will be a ton of improvement in all of the titles before launch.

 

[weaksauce]

Yeah if we're gonna compare them to 360 we should compare them to the games it showed last e3.

 

[sonyps35]

I didn't compare it to the 360.

Where did that come from?

 

[Moonblade]

Yeah if we're gonna compare them to 360 we should compare them to the games it showed last e3.

Why? That's not a fair comparison either.

I'm not looking forward to this game since FPS (on consoles) aren't my kind of games but I have to say it looks damn good.
But still ... I wish they just focussed on 720p to make the game look even better. The only thing that worries me in general is this 'emphasis' on 1080p PS3 games. I think sony is trying to push it too hard. Developers can try that on PS3 after 5 years when some people finally have 1080p at home but there really is no point in aiming for 1080p for a launchgame.
In the end, meeting 1080p might turn out to be counterproductive instead of introducing a higher visual fidelity (untold legends comes to mind).

 

[weaksauce]

I didn't compare it to the 360.

Where did that come from?

I didn't refer to anyone, just commented. :smile:

edit: why is not fair? This show is half a year from ps3 launch, last years was half a year from 360's.

 

[Moonblade]

I didn't refer to anyone, just commented. :smile:

edit: why is not fair? This show is half a year from ps3 launch, last years was half a year from 360's.

Because if you think about it, there might be other factors than hardware performance or development time that can explain visual differences between early PS3 and X360 games/demo's, even if you try to keep 1 factor constant.

 

[aznable]

I didn't refer to anyone, just commented. :smile:

edit: why is not fair? This show is half a year from ps3 launch, last years was half a year from 360's.

maybe because the ps3's devs got a near final hardware in jan 2006 and they where showing the games on final hw at this e3; in which hw were running games for 360 in last year e3? Alpha kits (at best) got since a month or so. Microsoft fault of course to bring the console on the market as soon as possible.

 

[Robert.L]

maybe because the ps3's devs got a near final hardware in jan 2006 and they where showing the games on final hw at this e3; in which hw were running games for 360 in last year e3? Alpha kits (at best) got since a month or so. Microsoft fault of course to bring the console on the market as soon as possible.

Going by the dev kit slide of gdc they weren't most games where probably show cased on nearly final hardware , which only handful of devs had received in January

 

[_phil_]

maybe because the ps3's devs got a near final hardware in jan 2006 and they where showing the games on final hw at this e3; in which hw were running games for 360 in last year e3? Alpha kits (at best) got since a month or so. Microsoft fault of course to bring the console on the market as soon as possible.

saying that without any consideration for the software side of the things, is pretty moot ,you know

 

[Nesh]

maybe because the ps3's devs got a near final hardware in jan 2006 and they where showing the games on final hw at this e3; in which hw were running games for 360 in last year e3? Alpha kits (at best) got since a month or so. Microsoft fault of course to bring the console on the market as soon as possible.

But how powerful were the Apple computers relative to the 360?

 

[aznable]

Going by the dev kit slide of gdc they weren't most games where probably show cased on nearly final hardware , which only handful of devs had received in January

Well i guess all devs got final kits befolre E3. Anyway we can compare the Alpha Kits of 360 with the previous kit for PS3
360: A power PC g5 (maybe dual?) with an ati x800 (or x850)
PS3: A cell clocked 30% less than final and a 7800gtx

As you can see the difference of 360 kit with BETAs/Final is temendous (different CPU-completly different GPU without eDRAM). The ps3 ones a quite close to the final hardware (same CPU - more or less same GPU ftwk).

saying that without any consideration for the software side of the things, is pretty moot ,you know

Are you talking about SDK? I think the hardware is more important.

But how powerful were the Apple computers relative to the 360?

Who knows...if you listen to marketing propaganda they were 1/3rd of the final kits (i guess they were talking about the 3 cpu cores of final cpu; laughable). Rare said the GPU on beta kits had 2x the performance of alpha kits.

 

[Nemo80]

Well i guess all devs got final kits befolre E3. Anyway we can compare the Alpha Kits of 360 with the previous kit for PS3
360: A power PC g5 (maybe dual?) with an ati x800 (or x850)
PS3: A cell clocked 30% less than final and a 7800gtx

As you can see the difference of 360 kit with BETAs/Final is temendous (different CPU-completly different GPU without eDRAM). The ps3 ones a quite close to the final hardware (same CPU - more or less same GPU ftwk).


Are you talking about SDK? I think the hardware is more important.


Who knows...if you listen to marketing propaganda they were 1/3rd of the final kits (i guess they were talking about the 3 cpu cores of final cpu; laughable). Rare said the GPU on beta kits had 2x the performance of alpha kits.

Per cycle, a dual core G5 is more powerful than the XCpu. I think the difference for PS3 devs was much higher because of the non existing bandwidths available in the final PS3 kit:

And this is not an early devkit. Early ones had 2.4Ghz CELL and 6800 SLI afaik. Also consider a G70 being clocked much lower than the final RSX.

Edit: Seems they tried to compensate the bandwidth limitations by adding more RAM (both CPU and GPU have double the RAM). Wonder if that worked out...

 

[_phil_]

Are you talking about SDK? I think the hardware is more important.

Both Are important (and software side isVery important considering the GAP between software sdks) ,you can't conclude anything with a so selective argumentation.

 

[sonyps35]

But the PS3 dev kits would have had a 256 bit bus on the 7800GTX, or actually more bandwidth in certain areas.

At least the conventionasl wisdom was PS3 kits would have been closer to the final than 360 non-final kits..but you know how that goes.

 

[Robert.L]

But the PS3 dev kits would have had a 256 bit bus on the 7800GTX, or actually more bandwidth in certain areas.

At least the conventionasl wisdom was PS3 kits would have been closer to the final than 360 non-final kits..but you know how that goes.

The first few models where with 6800 series cards ,the later ones where with 7800 series but would have had their memory down clocked to match RSX bandwidth i think.

And isn’t that chart wrong ?