Resistance reviewed again?

It's basically because they reviewed Gears of War an 8/10.

Though also because Resistance doesn't have the features he currently expects out of an FPS game, and he hasn't evaluated the Online properly. Not to mention glosses over a number of other nice details in the game, simply because he played it through only once, and only on a basic difficulty level. He rushed through it and didn't do his homework. At least, that's my opinion. He could also be right of course, but it doesn't agree very well with the general opinion of the game (as the Gears review didn't either). Then again, that's why they are Eurogamer and we (sometimes) like them. They are kind of like Edge, but a little more whimsical. I still like their reviews though. ;)

From other reviewers though I get the impression that they start liking Resistance more the more they play it. I'm still not sure whether to get Motorstorm or Resistance though.

The C't reviewed all launch games by the way, and for a magazine that doesn't usually do so they did pretty well. Resistance and Motorstorm got a 9, Oblivion got a 10, and then there were a few eights. But there were also a considerable amount of 42, and even 2 and a 1. :D (yes, Gundam)
 
Different reviewers have different opinions I guess? Or maybe the game sucks even more

What most reviewers complain about (from the reviews I read, from all places) is the graphics to a certain point and mostly the lack of innovation and average AI (some call it bad).:???:
 
It was significantly more negative than the average. Websites like this need to normalize their scores, F.E.A.R get a 9/10, ok.... Anyhow anyone really interesting in R:FoM and not just looking to knock the game because it's on the PS3 should go to gamerankings.com. I thought the best review was in Game Informer, it had two independent scores and the text was spot on. Anyone that thinks Resistance is a 6/10 just doesn't like FPS or shooters and should stick the genre they like and let someone who enjoys the genre review it.

BTW Chef it took about 20 seconds of reading the feedback to figure out why there was two scores and two reviewers, but I suspect that's not the reason for the thread.
 
When I heard they re-reviewed it, I figured they gave it a higher score, because 7/10 is a little low for it (in my opinion) and the updated online adds even more to it...

6/10 is pretty unexpected, even if you don't like FPS games... it's the most polished FPS I've ever played and rivals HL1/Halo1, if you ask me. The online play is pretty much top tier as far as online FPS goes. I don't see how you could realistically give this game a 6/10 (even for Eurogamer, where 6/10 is like 7.5-8) -- it's been consistantly underrated by the media for some reason (granted, not by much, but still).
 
how many games get 10/10 at eurogamer??? seems weak art direction (IMO) proved to be huge letdown

edit: why am i thinking that euro delay motivated them to lower the scores???
 
When I heard they re-reviewed it, I figured they gave it a higher score, because 7/10 is a little low for it (in my opinion) and the updated online adds even more to it...

6/10 is pretty unexpected, even if you don't like FPS games... it's the most polished FPS I've ever played and rivals HL1/Halo1, if you ask me. The online play is pretty much top tier as far as online FPS goes. I don't see how you could realistically give this game a 6/10 (even for Eurogamer, where 6/10 is like 7.5-8) -- it's been consistantly underrated by the media for some reason (granted, not by much, but still).


I've noticed that many reviewers are omitting MP as a large % of their scoring. Lost Planet is another example where the SP can suck at points but MP makes up for it (but not reflected in the scores to a great enough % IMO). I think for one, a preview copy does not allow a full MP experience with enough players to judge (although certainly at this late stage he had ample opportunity ;)). which leads me to possibility two; many old school reviewers are simply not too hip to online game play yet. :LOL:
 
I read the interview and felt that the reviewer is looking for something else/different when he reviews this game. Unfortunately when he found them, he downplayed them mostly because the SP game is too easy for him. e.g., claiming Bullseye tag is "useless" since he can kill the aliens perfectly fine without it... and it sounds like he didn't play MP enough to understand it.

This is why I suggested in the "Euro launch recommended games" thread that one should start on "Hard" if he think he's a good player. It is much more fun because the AIs and enemies are tougher. Ducking to cover may not work at higher difficulty level, because one or two of the enemies will have Auger, and a few will attempt to over-run your position with assorted weapons when you're distracted (or they are out of your sight) :)

The initial level where Nathan doesn't regenerate his health is due to plotline. If he plays through the game, he should know. I'm not sure what's there to complain about since he claims that the game is easy.

The weapon strategy only shines when the enemies are smarter and tougher (so you're forced to use them effectively, including the secondary fire modes). The place where they really outshine other FPSes is in silk smooth MP games. The player will realize the menace of Bullseye tagging, shotgun double-damage, Carbine's 40mm grenade launcher, arc charger's node grabbing power, LAARK's multi-homing missiles etc. etc. Without these subtle points, many of the game's tension and tactics are gone. e.g., When you see a guy charging at your defence node with an arc charger, you'll know that you're in trouble especially when there are others behind him.

The other points that was missed in the review is that Insomniac has kept things fresh by updating and adding new features and maps over the last 4 months. I think they have executed well given the initial negative PR. I also looked at some of the hyped games recently and had to say that Resistance dominate in terms of smoothness and player activities.

In short, the score may be fair to the reviewer, but it may have nothing to do with the readers' experiences (I have seen multiple posts claiming that Resistance default difficulty is too hard :) ). Try to play it with a borrowed copy and decide for yourself. I'll see you online :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Doom III did also :LOL: . I could be wrong though.

I think it's "heat of the moment", a new game is relased and it get good reviews. But after some time new games are released and the bar for games is upped a notched and the game is no longer as hot as it was before. Therefore it probably gets a lower score unless it became a classic from the start.
 
The concolusion of the review explains the score - Resistance isn't doing anything new and the reviewer thinks Insomniac should be. Thus it's a mediocre score for a mediocre game (no different to other standard FPS fair) with mediocre graphics.

I like Eurogamer's reviews, for generally balanced content and writing style. They are very subjective reviews though, and they're not afraid to award high or low scores based more on a feeling than any objective analysis. If a game doesn't push their button, it'll score lower, no matter what positives it has, and likewise a naff game can score more highly if they end up playing it lots. It's a good site, but you'd be a fool to take their scores as Gospel truth. Well, you shouldn't take any review scores as Gospel! Read lots of different reviews and get a balanced perspective.
 
I read the interview and felt that the reviewer is looking for something else/different when he reviews this game. Unfortunately when he found them, he downplayed them mostly because the SP game is too easy for him. e.g., claiming Bullseye tag is "useless" since he can kill the aliens perfectly fine without it... and it sounds like he didn't play MP enough to understand it.

How do you know what difficulty level he played at? He does say the 1st level was extremely hard.
 
The concolusion of the review explains the score - Resistance isn't doing anything new and the reviewer thinks Insomniac should be. Thus it's a mediocre score for a mediocre game (no different to other standard FPS fair) with mediocre graphics.

I like Eurogamer's reviews, for generally balanced content and writing style. They are very subjective reviews though, and they're not afraid to award high or low scores based more on a feeling than any objective analysis. If a game doesn't push their button, it'll score lower, no matter what positives it has, and likewise a naff game can score more highly if they end up playing it lots. It's a good site, but you'd be a fool to take their scores as Gospel truth. Well, you shouldn't take any review scores as Gospel! Read lots of different reviews and get a balanced perspective.

good points SG, but evidently it is doing some great (and new?) things in multiplayer, which leads me back to my 1st thought... Some reviewers are just not giving enough credence IMO to online play in many games, yet. Like many shooters, it's where this one's long term strengths lie.

Understandable I suppose since >50% of users are probably not playing online yet. Even so I think MP should be reviewed separately (at least) from SP from now on.
 
The concolusion of the review explains the score - Resistance isn't doing anything new and the reviewer thinks Insomniac should be. Thus it's a mediocre score for a mediocre game (no different to other standard FPS fair) with mediocre graphics.

The problem would be that Resistance isn't a mediocre game with mediocre graphics.

Overall, I'd say Eurogamer is one of the better review sites, but this review was pretty silly.
 
I think they have executed well given the initial negative PR. I also looked at some of the hyped games recently and had to say that Resistance dominate in terms of smoothness and player activities.


Negative PR? The only "negative" I remember is people saying the game wasn't as good as the game of the year. That's hardly negative as every other game last year fell into the same category! :smile:

And what do you mean by "Resistance dominate in terms of smoothness and player activities"?

Do you mean frame/net dips and number of users online?

I'd have to say I haven't played Resistance online but I've not noticed a problem with Gears in "smoothness" or number of users online. So it would be difficult for me to imagine this game "dominating" Gears in these areas. Unless you mean other ps3 games? :???:
 
The problem would be that Resistance isn't a mediocre game with mediocre graphics.

Overall, I'd say Eurogamer is one of the better review sites, but this review was pretty silly.

Is the AI really as bad as he describes it? Because if so, it's worse than it just not doing anything new,but not doing things done 6 years ago (halo) which is pretty unacceptable.

Say what you will about gears, but at least the enemies are fairly intelligent (still worse than halo though). AI makes or breaks a shooter everytime imo.
 
Back
Top