Resistance: Fall of Man update! BIG READ , come inside!

[Shifty Geezer]

Seen both, Resistance has a better graphics, or at least a better engine (overall)...

Can you give some examples of features of note in the R:FoM engine and how it compares with UE3 (GeoW), so us mere mortals can see the 'behind the scenes' technical differences?

 

[Bobbler]

Having played several hours of Resistance now, I can safely say that at times, it's more impressive than anything in GoW (GoW may be more impressive if all you count is normal maps -- although on average I think GoW may look a little better) -- there's tons more shit going on at any given point and it never loses a frame.

GoW looks great on average, but it sort of looks plain and boring in terms of the amount of stuff going on -- things floating in the air, number of enemies/friends, smoke, etc. Not a huge issue, but I think Resistance is being a little bit underrated just because it doesn't have a normal map on everything -- which is a pity, because it's pretty snazzy to see in motion if you pay attention to all the small details (for example: the snow in Resistance is perfectly done -- that's how weather effects should be! not the flat texture grid rain in GoW!)

I sort of have to agree with nAo... from a technology stand point Resistance is rather amazing. GoW does look very good and I'd say it is definitely one of the most impressive games to date, but Resistance is also quite impressive and I can't understand how anyone would give it much less than GoW in graphics department (I'd say they deserve the same score -- for different reasons). After playing GoW (and surprisingly enjoying the hell out of it), I don't think Resistance is lacking in any way in the graphics department.

side note: I agree with previous mentions that the PS3 controller is tons better for FPS games than PS2 controller was.

 

[pipo]

side note: I agree with previous mentions that the PS3 controller is tons better for FPS games than PS2 controller was.

The best PS3 news I've heard in a while.

 

[_phil_]

Whats the point of technically better graphics that don't lead to visually better graphics?

Resistance isn't an academic exercise, so it doesn't matter how technically impressive the engine is if it can't leverage that technology and produce better graphics visually.

Resistance wasn't made to impress people who write 3d engines, it was made to impress consumers who play 3d games.

Most people (allmost all) that don't directly work in the industry on a production team ,have an 'alternate reality' grasp on the real relationship between art and technicalities.Sad ,but it's a fact.

 

[Sankari]

First 5/5 score for Resistance, by G4.

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=743659

The game looks pretty hot.

some impression from PS3 forums.

No keyboard and mouse in Resistance but the game is really really hard. I am playing on easy mode and died 2x in the first 15 minutes of play. I am a good FPS gamer on pc and have played just about all FPS games on pc for the last few years but this game is hard. Absolutely beautiful game though. Tons and tons of detail. There's so much you have to just kinda stop to look at it for a while... really neat. It's very immersive and definitely my favorite game so far.

 

[hey69]

just received my copy. boy is it hard. or I suck at FPS (that must be it ).
driving the tank and shooting things was fun .. only played for 30 minutes.
online , i couldnt find a server. My game is a japan copy, i hope you that does not mean anything special regarding online play.

 

[btdvox]

I got to say ive been playin resistence all day- and it rocks and yes it is tough as hell. But graphically wow. What a standpoint for a launch game- textures look next gen, lighting is great, physics and interactivity is amazing. This game shows that PS3 has a huge upbringing- And though it has flaws- ive had some sound glitches, and some control glitches where id spin in a circle 2wice lol Its a launch title and it has its problems i think the reviews are right 8.9-9.1- I havent even touched online!!!

 

[Dot50Cal]

I'm at the bridge area where you jump from rooftop to rooftop and hot damn, this part is hard! I thought the stalker battle in London was tough..jeeze.

Anyone having sound issues, I thought I had the same thing. But I found that my problems were caused when I held the weapon switch button for longer than a second. Since that drops all audio out and pauses the game while you switch.

My PS3 controller keeps losing its signal though or something. Its happened maybe 10 times now while playing Resistance. Whatever button I was pressing will keep held down for roughly 2-3 seconds and then the control will come back. Very annoying and they need to fix that asap. Thankfully it happens every 1-2 hours only but its still very annoying and bad especially when your in a fire fight.

I havent had one framerate drop, even when using tons of physics with grenades, etc. Quite astonishing!

 

[speng]

The game is difficult and lots of fun. Not super hard but it's not so easy that you can breeze through it. I think the difficulty level is just right. I'm playing on medium.

Game looks fantastic and the control scheme so far is great.

I played online and that was a blast (deathmatch).

So far I'm very pleased, the story is also great.

Speng.

 

[Deepak]

Wow, so folks from Insomniac didn't dissapoint. Most interesting thing seems to be no frame drop EVER. That is really astonishing these days.:smile:

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Is that astonishing from Insomniac? I hope (please please please please please) that framerates do become a priority in future.

 

[EricVonZipper]

Hmmm....Is this game 60fps?

If it's 30fps then I'm disappointed. I would hope the average gamer expects more from these consoles. I really enjoy the ability to crank the frame rates on my PC gaming rig.

IF these systems(PS3,360) are THAT powerful than I expect 1920x1080 @ 60+fps.

Gameplay>Graphics.

 

[nAo]

It's 30 FPS

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Hmmm....Is this game 60fps?

If it's 30fps then I'm disappointed. I would hope the average gamer expects more from these consoles. I really enjoy the ability to crank the frame rates on my PC gaming rig.

Seeing as lately games have been sub-30 fps, I'm not surprised that 30 fps is appreciated.

IF these systems(PS3,360) are THAT powerful than I expect 1920x1080 @ 60+fps.

Define THAT powerful... Of course 1920x1080 @ 60 fps is possible (60+? Why on earth do you want >60 fps on a TV?), but you need less details to manage that. If you want the levels these games have, at those resolutions...well, what PC card is capable of something like this at 1920x1080 @ 60 fps? I think your expectations are way too high.

 

[EricVonZipper]

It's 30 FPS

Thanks.

Well.... there's always the PS4 !

 

[22psi]

30 fps is more than enough for most games, only racing games I want 60 fps

 

[EricVonZipper]

Seeing as lately games have been sub-30 fps, I'm not surprised that 30 fps is appreciated.

Define THAT powerful... Of course 1920x1080 @ 60 fps is possible (60+? Why on earth do you want >60 fps on a TV?), but you need less details to manage that. If you want the levels these games have, at those resolutions...well, what PC card is capable of something like this at 1920x1080 @ 60 fps? I think your expectations are way too high.

Many games are running 200-1000+fps(looking at the ground, wall, sky), it's only when there is vast amount of objects, explosions, logic, ect.. on the screen does the frame rate drop below or near a target. When I say 60+ , I would like the frame rate to be >100 and locked at 60......not sure if I'm making myself clear? I would much rather have 640x480 rendering with a nice scaler. I don't think for a second these consoles are ready for HD.......maybe 1000x600 or 800x600.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

When I say 60+ , I would like the frame rate to be >100 and locked at 60......not sure if I'm making myself clear?

You mean solid 60 fps

I would much rather have 640x480 rendering with a nice scaler. I don't think for a second these consoles are ready for HD.......maybe 1000x600 or 800x600.

I'd take higher resolution at 30 fps. 60 fps looks slick, but 30 is very useable and allows for more eyecandy. Higher resolutions make a big difference when viewing objects at a distance too, so actually affects gameplay to a degree.

As long as a game never drops below 30 fps (or better yet, either locked absolutely to 30 fps or 60 fps) I'd be happy.

 

[EricVonZipper]

30 fps is more than enough for most games, only racing games I want 60 fps

Well....try this test: Set any PC game(HL2,doom3,quake,ect..)you have to run at 30fps(max detail,ect...), now set the game to run 60fps(adjust resolution, affects water quality, ect...)

I think the majority of gamers want 60+ frames per second.....but I could be wrong.

 

[groper]

Define THAT powerful... Of course 1920x1080 @ 60 fps is possible but you need less details to manage that. If you want the levels these games have, at those resolutions...well, what PC card is capable of something like this at 1920x1080 @ 60 fps? I think your expectations are way too high.

No , you dont need less details but more skills/experience. COD3 do have more details and graphical stuff on screen that FoM and runs at 60fps.