mckmas8808
Legend
The snow looked great coming down.
Resistance: Fall of Man update! BIG READ , come inside!
- Thread starter hey69
- Start date
The snow looked great coming down.
It definately looks awesome but I don't think you will find animations like that in this game. Even though the animation in this game looks to be quit good. For example the animations of the soldiers who were running with you in that one .GIF, loved it.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Agreed, this game just looks acsolutely run of the mill. Very few developers can pull of the intensity and adrenaline pumping gameplay like Infinity Ward, when creating this type of run and gun game, and that's what resistance is, run and gun to the extreme.
I would seriously consider buying COD3 or MOH:AA over resistance if I were buying on launch day, and would definately wait for reviews before choosing. Chances are both of those games will be at worst mediocre FPS's, which is what Resistance looks to be as well.
The story seems like the only thing that can save this game at the moment, or at least set it apart form the pack.
Em... I'd say see/play it yourself to decide. Some hands-on reviews mentioned that the enemy AI is excellent, play style reminds them of Halo 1. Others compared Resistance to COD based on the early demo, or play videos. In general, I don't think the developers will allow screen shots/play videos to spoil the game by giving away the surprises in levels.
I'm actually happy that it's run-and-gun. I enjoyed Halo 1 most when I could charge into an intense skirmish, knocked Elites and Grunts down close-quarter with commandos chasing behind me, and returned half dead. During replay, I used to take on Elites one after another (in one of those spawn points) until I die.
I didn't enjoy Halo 2's getting pinned down and running from cover to cover play style that much. It was too much work to push ahead too.
When all is said and done, it depends on how the game feels to you personally once you pick up the controller.
I'm actually happy that it's run-and-gun. I enjoyed Halo 1 most when I could charge into an intense skirmish, knocked Elites and Grunts down close-quarter with commandos chasing behind me, and returned half dead. During replay, I used to take on Elites one after another (in one of those spawn points) until I die.
I didn't enjoy Halo 2's getting pinned down and running from cover to cover play style that much. It was too much work to push ahead too.
When all is said and done, it depends on how the game feels to you personally once you pick up the controller.
mckmas8808
Legend
The thing you seem not to understand/know is that this game is not a run and gun game or anything like COD3 or MOH:AA. It's totally different. Sometimes you will fight with 15 other soliders, sometimes it's 5 other soliders, and sometimes it's just you alone.
The devs have talked about this a few times, so comparing this game to COD3 or MOH:AA is not fair to Resistence or those WW2 games.
scooby_dooby
Legend
From all the media I've seen that is news to me.
How is this any different than COD? Granted in COD2 you always have at least 1 or 2 soldiers, because they made a decision never to have to fight alone, but in COD1 you did. Both COD and MOH have times when you have a large group of allies, and other times when there are just a few, so I don't see how this is anything new.
The gameplay I've seen so far is the definition of run and gun. This isn't always bad, but it takes a certain 'something' to pull it off, which is why Infinity Wards's COD games stand above EA's COD and MOH clones and most other games in this sub-genre.
mckmas8808
Legend
Well I'm not saying that it's 100% different, but to tell somebody they should get COD3 or MOH:AA instead of Resistence is just crazy to me. I could see if were comparing COD3, MOH:AA, and Brother in Arms. All of those games are about the same basic subject with different ways at playing them.
Resistence is just different. The amount of polish and options the game has for a launch day game is crazy. And MOH:AA isn't coming out for another 4 months if I'm not mistaken. Why worry about that game now?
But at the end of the day Resistence and COD3 are two different games. Honestly I could see myself playing both of those games and feeling great about both. Resistence and COD3 are just about the same as Ninja Giden Sigma and Devil May Cry 4.
You would "seriously consider" buying a game from treyarch over one from insomniac? Come now scooby!
Resistance seems like it has scale that COD3 doesn't get close to (level size wise), and from what I've seen it looks better than COD3 (variety of effects and definitely art)... it certainly seems to have weapon variety (part of what insomniac is excellent at)... and gameplay you'd be crazy to doubt insomniac. Multiplayer seems to be a strong point for resistance (40 person should be fun). It may look "average" but I'd be willing to bet you haven't looked very deep into it (which I don't necessarily fault you for, especially if you aren't getting a PS3 at all or for a while).
scooby_dooby
Legend
Well I'm not saying that it's 100% different, but to tell somebody they should get COD3 or MOH:AA instead of Resistence is just crazy to me. I could see if were comparing COD3, MOH:AA, and Brother in Arms. All of those games are about the same basic subject with different ways at playing them.
Resistence is just different. The amount of polish and options the game has for a launch day game is crazy. And MOH:AA isn't coming out for another 4 months if I'm not mistaken. Why worry about that game now?
But at the end of the day Resistence and COD3 are two different games. Honestly I could see myself playing both of those games and feeling great about both. Resistence and COD3 are just about the same as Ninja Giden Sigma and Devil May Cry 4.
I didn't tell anyone what they should get, simply that Resistance is not looking good enough for me to automatically choose it over COD3. I would definately wait for reviews. For some reason I thought MOH was a launch title, so lets just ignore that.
They are definately very different games, but they are both run and gun FPS, and personally I'd only want to play one of those types of games as they get fairly boring, unless it's a really great 9/10 type game like COD2.
Avon_Implosion
Newcomer
Scooby, you completely misinterpreted my quote. This vid alone, I simply dislike....I personally consider Resistance to be the best FPS i've seen all year.
I don't think you can just run and gun in Resistance. Well you can but I think you will die fast.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/742/742522p1.html
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
IMO, that's the difference between intelligent run and gun (i.e., far more strategic/tactical elements) and "this enemy is so stupid I might as well just stand there and mow all 8 of them down instead" run and gun. It's still run and gun as far as I see it. The former just means that things like cover--even though there's no button that makes you "lock" onto cover--and weapon choice--beyond the simple long range/short range--are important, among other things.
How many FPS games lock you into cover? I only can think of rainbow six but doesnt it turn into 3rd person when it locks you into cover?
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
There are very few. Add to that Perfect Dark Zero, and looking at TPS, GRAW and GoW. The important point is, just because there isn't "explicit" cover, doesn't mean you aren't taking cover (sometimes extensively) in the game.
For example, exposing yourself in Call of Duty 2 Veteran or Halo 2 Legendary can often lead to extremely quick deaths, such as Here (didn't find any death scenes whilst quickly browsing for CoD, unfortunately)
Well in that case, wouldnt all FPS's be run and gun, making this nothing really new to the genre. And to simply put, if run and gun were a flaw it would be a flaw of the genre itself, no? It's up to the difficulty to determine how much run and gun there is right? Serious Sam for example would be on the other end of the spectrum imo.
Who says run-and-gun is flawed ? To me it's just a quicker/more intensive play-style. People can still have tons of fun as long as the level is well designed and the enemies are smart. In many cases, you still have to run to the correct place, at the right moment and gun down the most damaging parties quickly before all hell break lose.
From the reviews, perhaps the right weapon, attack strategy and more NPC survivors will work.
Since enemies duck and move around to flank the player, he will have to think and act fast to counter them. Is there a better term than run-and-gun to describe the experiences ? (I am just curious)
Yeah... but not all FPS are run and gun. Halo 2 Legendary for example is more like run-and-hide, especially with those one-shot-kill Jackals around.
Ben-Nice said:
From the reviews, perhaps the right weapon, attack strategy and more NPC survivors will work.
Since enemies duck and move around to flank the player, he will have to think and act fast to counter them. Is there a better term than run-and-gun to describe the experiences ? (I am just curious)
Bad_Boy said:
Yeah... but not all FPS are run and gun. Halo 2 Legendary for example is more like run-and-hide, especially with those one-shot-kill Jackals around.
I'm definately not saying run and gun is flawed, quite the contrary. I'm just saying some people seem to want to put a stigma on the word, which really makes no sense to me.
Similar could be said for resistance, its noted by many to be a very hard game (which is what I was referring to early about difficulty). But people seem to see two sides of the spectrum ever since cliffy trademarked "stop and pop."
Anyways, long story short....The game arrives in less than 3 weeks, and reviews should be coming in about 2 weeks or so so I'm guessing. We shall see how things fair then. But I have faith in Insomniac.
Anyways, long story short....The game arrives in less than 3 weeks, and reviews should be coming in about 2 weeks or so so I'm guessing. We shall see how things fair then. But I have faith in Insomniac.
Certainly...I can't believe the wait is finally over.
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
Late addition: Well, spent the time trying to transform the "feel"(see below) into words and then trying to make those words semi-coherent, so I'll just post this anyway, even though it's already been somewhat answered in far fewer words.
I'll preface this by saying it's all my view on things, and thus may not necessarily mesh with other's views, and is based heavily on how I play these games.
If I were to draw any lines between "run and gun" and "tactical shooters", it would be based on one of two things: how important/safe movement is to the game, and possibly how much impunity you can gain in the game ( or how stupid you can get).
In run and gun, you'll always be on the move, or behind cover (assuming you're in a combat situation). These two things keep you safe. You can rarely shoot (effectively) from behind cover, so you shoot while you're running from position A to position B. Being able to aim accurately very quickly is also key to winning, and as long as we're looking just at consoles, it's absolutely crucial to use the movement stick to aim properly along the x axis in an efficient manner. The best way to handle this at long range is to strafe in one direction and time your shot for when your reticle passes over the enemy. When in close, it can also correct for under/over-aiming with the aim stick. Furthermore, there are many times in these games where you can grab the "powerful weapon" and not have to worry nearly as much about being killed. This would be like when you grab a tank in Halo and there's no anti-armor soldiers or too many vehicles around you. In other games it's of course the BFG or slowmo or something like that.
Cover is quite important in Halo on higher difficulty, but that's because running isn't the safest way of doing things. You can evade certain forms of fire, at certain ranges by running, but if you want to recharge your shields you need to avoid getting hit for a while. The faster long range weapons are also pretty hard to evade ( beam rifle (sniper) and carbine) while moving, at least if you don't have some varying cover between you and the enemy or you're not weaving. Cover is important, but so is being able to move, to maneuver out of bad positions, into good ones, and to flank the enemy. In Halo, you're on the move within a combat area most of the time, unless you're pinned down by the cheating *****s that are the Jackal snipers, ore a mass of enemies like the drones (and so on....). It's rarely advantageous to stay in the same place and try to pick off enemies one by one. When you're in pretty close, you tend not to stay in the same place long, either, because the enemies will all be moving if they know you're there. And there are grenades for flushing you out, as well. But on the lower difficulties, there's really no problem with taking your favorite weapon, grabbing a healthy amount of ammunition for it, and just unloading into the first guy you see. Run and gun. Perhaps another phrase that would work would be "think on the fly".
At its base, a tactical shooter is more methodical, one man at a time, and would place more emphasis on having you think beforehand about where to set up position, assess the enemy's position and creating the best way to handle that (weapon loadout, who to shoot first, will a grenade be effective? etc.). Those weapons that let you just sit there and unload don't show up at all or nearly as often as in a run and gun game. Even though technically a TPS on 360, GRAW is certainly like this. Things I typically think about when playing that game are: how can I reduce the area I have to focus on? That would be whether you can count on your enemies to all appear out of a few openings directly in your field of vision, or whether they'll pop out behind you, to the left, and so on. Where can I set up my guys such that I reduce the risk to myself (and them). I'm always scouting out the enemy position either by sight, memory from going through and dying, or using the aerial drone. Overall, the movement is done before the enemy knows your position/can hurt you (i.e., less risk), and for the most part you're staying still while shooting (whether from behind cover or not): Shoot from a good position, instead of shooting while moving from position to position. I won't run across the road during a firefight if the enemy is fairly close, or there's a lot of them, unless it's important that I do. More often I'll stay behind my cover (say a building), and see if I can move around to the other side to attack the enemy on two sides. Even when you're manning the gun in the helicopter, you're very susceptible to getting torn apart. There's no feeling of being safe when you're trying to take just those half dozen guys out before they start aiming at you. As a last comment, these games tend to punish you for running and shooting at the same time, often with extremely large accuracy penalties for not being in a stable position (stopped/walking slowly) when firing. Overall, you also have more time (at least these days) to take your time and aim at your enemy instead of trying to survive by twitch shooting alone.
Having only played one of the older Rainbow Six games and the demo for Las Vegas, it looks to be the same. Though, for what it's worth, I've gotten pissed and just run out there and shot anything that moved. Generally only when I could count on one enemy at a time, though, and often counting on my allies for being good distractions or, if need be, meat shields. So even then I wasn't out in the middle where everybody could TRY to shoot at me (which you can still do in Halo alot, if you're at a reasonable distance--the range where standing still will kill you in 2 seconds but weaving and moving will let you live with a few scratches).
Now, finally getting directly to your question and then possibly, kind of, sort of, perhaps slipping around it again at the same time: No, I don't think that all FPS are run and gun. But, at the same time, it's been a long time since I've played a tactical shooter that was also strictly/largely in first person. It may be the case that the tactical shooter is moving more and more towards third person (it's much easier to shoot around those corners, as GRAW and R6:V are showing, than trying to "lean" out from a corner where you're effectively blind until you pop out your head.) It may also be because I don't put much stock in whether a game is FP/TP, especially since you often have the option to switch between them (GRAW multiplayer, SW: Battlefield 2,...). With games like GRAW and Gears of War, where you have a very tight 3rd person camera, plus a FP view or a view so close it might as well be first person on the opposite side of the gun, it becomes more useless to point out the technicality as we go on.
In a tactical shooter, I'd rarely ever run around like I've seen people do in Resistance videos. It would also be very dangerous to have so many enemies in so many directions as well (thinking of the roundish courtyard where a dropship eventually comes). I've seen people (not in god mode) just mow their way through one side of this and totally ignore the other side. This would be fine for a run and gun shooter, but would seem very iffy doing in a tactical shooter, since you set up your position to danger to your right as well as a large area in front of you.
The similarities I see suggest to me that Resistance belongs to the same sub-genre as Halo. If one wants to label Halo or Resistance a tactical shooter because the higher difficulties reduce the safety in just mindlessly running and gunning, then that's their choice. I can't say I'd agree at all.
Not that I actually put much importance in any of this. For the most part, I'm actually just trying to rationalize the "feel" of these games when I play them, as they've been labelled by other people. As far as I'm concerned, "rationalizing" something is just trying to take something otherwise simple and complicate it. And there's plenty of complexity in more important things already. So, I hope you'll forgive me if the above argument seems really disjointed/"WTF are you talking about?"-like.
I'll preface this by saying it's all my view on things, and thus may not necessarily mesh with other's views, and is based heavily on how I play these games.
If I were to draw any lines between "run and gun" and "tactical shooters", it would be based on one of two things: how important/safe movement is to the game, and possibly how much impunity you can gain in the game ( or how stupid you can get).
In run and gun, you'll always be on the move, or behind cover (assuming you're in a combat situation). These two things keep you safe. You can rarely shoot (effectively) from behind cover, so you shoot while you're running from position A to position B. Being able to aim accurately very quickly is also key to winning, and as long as we're looking just at consoles, it's absolutely crucial to use the movement stick to aim properly along the x axis in an efficient manner. The best way to handle this at long range is to strafe in one direction and time your shot for when your reticle passes over the enemy. When in close, it can also correct for under/over-aiming with the aim stick. Furthermore, there are many times in these games where you can grab the "powerful weapon" and not have to worry nearly as much about being killed. This would be like when you grab a tank in Halo and there's no anti-armor soldiers or too many vehicles around you. In other games it's of course the BFG or slowmo or something like that.
Cover is quite important in Halo on higher difficulty, but that's because running isn't the safest way of doing things. You can evade certain forms of fire, at certain ranges by running, but if you want to recharge your shields you need to avoid getting hit for a while. The faster long range weapons are also pretty hard to evade ( beam rifle (sniper) and carbine) while moving, at least if you don't have some varying cover between you and the enemy or you're not weaving. Cover is important, but so is being able to move, to maneuver out of bad positions, into good ones, and to flank the enemy. In Halo, you're on the move within a combat area most of the time, unless you're pinned down by the cheating *****s that are the Jackal snipers, ore a mass of enemies like the drones (and so on....). It's rarely advantageous to stay in the same place and try to pick off enemies one by one. When you're in pretty close, you tend not to stay in the same place long, either, because the enemies will all be moving if they know you're there. And there are grenades for flushing you out, as well. But on the lower difficulties, there's really no problem with taking your favorite weapon, grabbing a healthy amount of ammunition for it, and just unloading into the first guy you see. Run and gun. Perhaps another phrase that would work would be "think on the fly".
At its base, a tactical shooter is more methodical, one man at a time, and would place more emphasis on having you think beforehand about where to set up position, assess the enemy's position and creating the best way to handle that (weapon loadout, who to shoot first, will a grenade be effective? etc.). Those weapons that let you just sit there and unload don't show up at all or nearly as often as in a run and gun game. Even though technically a TPS on 360, GRAW is certainly like this. Things I typically think about when playing that game are: how can I reduce the area I have to focus on? That would be whether you can count on your enemies to all appear out of a few openings directly in your field of vision, or whether they'll pop out behind you, to the left, and so on. Where can I set up my guys such that I reduce the risk to myself (and them). I'm always scouting out the enemy position either by sight, memory from going through and dying, or using the aerial drone. Overall, the movement is done before the enemy knows your position/can hurt you (i.e., less risk), and for the most part you're staying still while shooting (whether from behind cover or not): Shoot from a good position, instead of shooting while moving from position to position. I won't run across the road during a firefight if the enemy is fairly close, or there's a lot of them, unless it's important that I do. More often I'll stay behind my cover (say a building), and see if I can move around to the other side to attack the enemy on two sides. Even when you're manning the gun in the helicopter, you're very susceptible to getting torn apart. There's no feeling of being safe when you're trying to take just those half dozen guys out before they start aiming at you. As a last comment, these games tend to punish you for running and shooting at the same time, often with extremely large accuracy penalties for not being in a stable position (stopped/walking slowly) when firing. Overall, you also have more time (at least these days) to take your time and aim at your enemy instead of trying to survive by twitch shooting alone.
Having only played one of the older Rainbow Six games and the demo for Las Vegas, it looks to be the same. Though, for what it's worth, I've gotten pissed and just run out there and shot anything that moved. Generally only when I could count on one enemy at a time, though, and often counting on my allies for being good distractions or, if need be, meat shields. So even then I wasn't out in the middle where everybody could TRY to shoot at me (which you can still do in Halo alot, if you're at a reasonable distance--the range where standing still will kill you in 2 seconds but weaving and moving will let you live with a few scratches).
Now, finally getting directly to your question and then possibly, kind of, sort of, perhaps slipping around it again at the same time: No, I don't think that all FPS are run and gun. But, at the same time, it's been a long time since I've played a tactical shooter that was also strictly/largely in first person. It may be the case that the tactical shooter is moving more and more towards third person (it's much easier to shoot around those corners, as GRAW and R6:V are showing, than trying to "lean" out from a corner where you're effectively blind until you pop out your head.) It may also be because I don't put much stock in whether a game is FP/TP, especially since you often have the option to switch between them (GRAW multiplayer, SW: Battlefield 2,...). With games like GRAW and Gears of War, where you have a very tight 3rd person camera, plus a FP view or a view so close it might as well be first person on the opposite side of the gun, it becomes more useless to point out the technicality as we go on.
What is "this"? Since you seem to be focusing on my cover comment, would you be referring to Gears of War and it's "stop and pop, not run and gun" gameplay? If so, then I've never really thought it was totally new, just far more explicit (whilst also being slower paced).
What flaws? Having just jumped into this discussion, I'm afraid I miss what you're referring to.
I'd say that difficulty can and will "bend" the genre. Halo is absolutely 100% running and gunning on normal or easy, no question. Just mindless shooting. Up the difficulty and many people--myself included--would agree that there are far more tactical/strategic elements to the game. I think this is another side effect of trying to create better gameplay. Just running and gunning isn't good enough, and most of the truly outstanding games aren't going to rely on it alone.
In a tactical shooter, I'd rarely ever run around like I've seen people do in Resistance videos. It would also be very dangerous to have so many enemies in so many directions as well (thinking of the roundish courtyard where a dropship eventually comes). I've seen people (not in god mode) just mow their way through one side of this and totally ignore the other side. This would be fine for a run and gun shooter, but would seem very iffy doing in a tactical shooter, since you set up your position to danger to your right as well as a large area in front of you.
The similarities I see suggest to me that Resistance belongs to the same sub-genre as Halo. If one wants to label Halo or Resistance a tactical shooter because the higher difficulties reduce the safety in just mindlessly running and gunning, then that's their choice. I can't say I'd agree at all.
Not that I actually put much importance in any of this. For the most part, I'm actually just trying to rationalize the "feel" of these games when I play them, as they've been labelled by other people. As far as I'm concerned, "rationalizing" something is just trying to take something otherwise simple and complicate it. And there's plenty of complexity in more important things already. So, I hope you'll forgive me if the above argument seems really disjointed/"WTF are you talking about?"-like.
I'm afraid I've only every played a demo of the first one. It was quite enjoyable, and I've always wanted to play it but didn't go through with it. Perhaps I should grab a copy to ease my present boredom.
