scooby_dooby
Legend
Lol, so a game that will be lucky to sell 1million units, and averaged ~8.5 in reviews, has now somehow become the bar for Halo 3??
Ummm...no.
Resistance reviewed again?
- Thread starter TheChefO
- Start date
Lol, so a game that will be lucky to sell 1million units, and averaged ~8.5 in reviews, has now somehow become the bar for Halo 3??
Ummm...no.
Umm yes. Halo and Halo2 were released when FPS on consoles blew. The bar has been raised.
The only reason people keep been comparing it to Gears Of War is that that was the only thing people compared anything to (even Zelda: Twilight Princess has been compared to Gears Of War!). They're both shooters, but that's it. The two games are roughly as dissimilar as Gears Of War and Halo. If these two are somehow the same thing, then okay, compare Resistance to Gears Of War, but I don't think anyone is planning to seriously make that comparison once Halo 3 comes out.Not to say anything negative about this game is it is clearly one of if not the best on ps3, but:
You don't honestly think people will be holding this game up as a standard for Halo3 to meet do you?
I think this game will be the furthest thing from peoples minds when Halo3 comes out. Gears, yeah maybe a bit. KZ2... yeah quite a bit. Anything else... not so much.
IMO.
Resistance and Halo are similar. There is no single game in the Xbox library that makes for a better comparison and vice versa.
- Multiple types of grenades; grenades that matter.
- Force fields (sometimes shields).
- Strong focus on multiplayer, deep ranking system, trivial to get started and find the matches you want (so any doofus can play and enjoy it)
- Large, open outdoor levels
- fast pace
- battles against masses of enemies at once
- vehicles (for a driver and a gunner)
- squads of AI side-kicks
- story envelope (last stand on earth against the alien invasion)
- enemy traits (looks, multiply by consuming/transforming human life)
- Weapon similarities (AR=AR; shotgun=shotgun; shard cannon=bull's eye; Auger=Plasma (it penetrates shields, right?);
- enemy design similarities (humanoids in several sizes/behaviours, plus hordes of small "Flood" trashmobs)
I don't think anyone who's seen the two could claim with a straight face that the two games are too different to make a comparison.
I see it now:
Phil Harrison: "Hey, Ted, how ya doing. You guys interested in making an fps? Something that would have an irresistible appeal to Halo players?"
If you have nothing to say, please do so.
scooby_dooby
Legend
What I'm saying is I think your wrong in stating Resistance has signifigantly raised the bar for Halo, based on the reviews the press did not think it advanced the genre much if at all. Much more an amalgomation of existing games such as Halo and Half Life that a game that progresses the genre.
The simple fact that the AI appears to be dumb as nails already puts it in Halo's shadow imo.
The AI is fine. It could better, but so could Halo's.
To use 1 facet of a game, AI, to place the total package in the shadow of another is foolish. I could just say that the level design and repetitiveness of Halo puts it in Resistance's shadow. But that would be doing a disjuctice to the total package that Halo is.
btw, have you played Resistance for any length of time ?
Let me summarize: The people that started this thread and continue to negatively respond to this thread do not own a PS3 and wear anti-Sony goggles. I hate to put it that bluntly, but this is getting old.
Lets end this: Resistance sucks if you hate Sony and/or the PS3. Resistance is great if you have played it for more than a few minutes, on-line or off.
RolfN contends that each of the points he mentioned was improved in Resistance over the previous Halo series. If one is open-minded enough to accept that, then yes - Resistance is the new standard, until Halo3 exceeds it. Let's not forget the fact that resistance is a launch game.
Resistance being a launch games means? Beyond graphics I do not see that being a factor.
Resistance, in what I've played of it, was a solid game. A good 6.5/10. To put that in perspective, I would give Halo and Halo 2 about the same.
Nope. The AI is not dumb. The review is inaccurate as I pointed out in my posts.
I played Halo 1 almost every night for 2 years. I played Halo 2 almost every night for 2 weeks (and then got bored). I now play Resistance almost every night since I bought it about 4 months ago (I'm starting on "Super Human").
Actually, this thread just reminded me I have not tried the Spectator mode yet. Will have to find time to check it out.
The thing is that there will be those that can same the opposite. I played Halo 1 almost every night for a few months, and I still continue to play Halo 2 almost every weekend. I played RFoM for a week before getting bored, and I only finished the game because it's impossible for me to start a game and not finish it. My point is this: one reviewer's score is meaningless, and one person's opinion is meaningless. It's the average that counts. Given that, having averaged a score in the high 80s, RFoM is obviously a great game. I'm not sure we can say that it set a new bar because it doesn't do anything that hasn't been done before (which can be said for all the other games RFoM is being compared to), but I think it's fair to say it's a pretty damn good game.
//note that this wasn't directed at you, Patsu. I was just using your post to start my two cents.
No worries, I am actually waiting for someone to point out the above point. But even so, the AI in Resistance is not stupid.
I only differ in one point: "It's the average that counts". I'd say... it's your own opinion that count (I'm not interested in Halo-killer threads... it's kinda missing the point). Play the game to find out.
TurnDragoZeroV2G
Regular
Wish I could rent a PS3 for a couple weeks, so I could play Resistance and Motorstorm.
BTW, patsu, how does the difficulty/fairness compare between it and Halo 1 as well as Halo 2?
BTW, patsu, how does the difficulty/fairness compare between it and Halo 1 as well as Halo 2?
No worries, I am actually waiting for someone to point out the above point. But even so, the AI in Resistance is not stupid.
I only differ in one point: "It's the average that counts". I'd say... it's your own opinion that count (I'm not interested in Halo-killer threads... it's kinda missing the point). Play the game to find out.
I agree, some of my favourite games have scored terribly. I should have clarified my point, what I meant was that we shouldn't be bothered that RFoM received one or two poor scores when the average suggests it's a great game.
//and yes, the AI in Resistance is far, far from Stupid.
The AI in resistance is definately not "dumb as nails" in no way shape or form. The only mindless AI in the game are from the spider type creatures that hatch out of eggs and attack you in swarms. The chimera soldier that you fight during most of the game works pretty well. They come up close and attack when there are multiple soldiers. If theres only one or two, they usually fall back and take cover and have a classic shootout with you, ducking in and out. They flank you in out door areas or open areas. In closed areas the big guys with augers will stay behind a wall and shoot through walls unless theres a bunch of them. I remember seeing a video where one chimerian soldier ran away from the player, hid inside of a building standing next to a door and popped out as soon as the player walked through the door and shot him dead. The only problem I really had with the AI was that in some sniping moments, if you take out one guy, the others around him don't try to take cover, instead they just shoot back at you standing in the open. But for the most part the AI was pretty good.
Not to be rude, but maybe some of you should play it first before making certain statements?
Not to be rude, but maybe some of you should play it first before making certain statements?
I'd say it's the most complete FPS out there in terms of playability / online mode / variety.
Technically solid, without any weaknesses.
personally it reminded me a lot of quake 4. I just dont think it brought anything new/great to the table at all other then a decently creative setting. FPS can be fun in their own right which Resistance is, but there is nothing special about Resistance that deserves an A+ or anything of the sort IF we're talking about what it brings to the genre.
With that said i echo much the same sentiment onto Gears of War and other games like Doom 3 which have been quite literally praised as being the second coming of Shooter action and also brought practically nothing to the genre other then new graphic engines. Perhaps im picky? I dont know. But i think Resistance actually got a fair and just review by many places. Its on par with The Thing which was also a decent FPS, however from last gen, but didnt make it as a launch title so it was largly overlooked. I think the only reason Resistance gets so much attention by sites and people on the forums is because its one of the few things the PS3 has going for it right now until the real gems pop up. If this was released two years from now people wouldnt be making this much of a fuss (rabid complaint or praise) about it which is what i find, and no offense ment, a little sad.
When i think of A+ games i think of ones that redefined the genre their in, and in that respect its been a long time since i've felt that way about any game.
With that said i echo much the same sentiment onto Gears of War and other games like Doom 3 which have been quite literally praised as being the second coming of Shooter action and also brought practically nothing to the genre other then new graphic engines. Perhaps im picky? I dont know. But i think Resistance actually got a fair and just review by many places. Its on par with The Thing which was also a decent FPS, however from last gen, but didnt make it as a launch title so it was largly overlooked. I think the only reason Resistance gets so much attention by sites and people on the forums is because its one of the few things the PS3 has going for it right now until the real gems pop up. If this was released two years from now people wouldnt be making this much of a fuss (rabid complaint or praise) about it which is what i find, and no offense ment, a little sad.
When i think of A+ games i think of ones that redefined the genre their in, and in that respect its been a long time since i've felt that way about any game.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure. But the 6/10 review from Eurogamer is definitely not one of them, and that's what we're discussing right?
It really depends on what factors are important to you and how you weigh them as well as what appeals to your tastes. The Ghost Recon titles (90.7%, 88.4%), Call of Duty titles (90.0%, 83.3%), and FEAR (84%) have all been well received by critics, which all compare similarly to RFoM's 88.2% average review (all gamerankings.com). If you include shooters in general you could add in Gears of War (93.8%), and seeing as most FPS fans would be at least interested in Gears it is relative (as gamers tend to go for the best games on a platform). Each of those games has strengths and weaknesses, like Resistance, and it can be a matter of taste. Some people enjoy the amazing feel of CoD2 and the non-stop onslaught of excellently scripted warfar, others the tactical warfare in Ghost Recon and the more "steady" pace of online (overlooked a lot imo) and others the impressive AI and story/cheap thrills & chills in FEAR. So what is important to you will really determine what sticks out as the best as well as how important the flaws are. If the flaws are irrelevant to your tastes it won't even matter.
Personally I look for the sum of innovations/evolution (which don't always need to come in big packages) and if the gameplay is well designed (levels, weapons, design) and if it has an engaging, fun experience that can draw me in through the story. Very, very few titles do this and tend to insult you with poor AI that doesn't hope to do much outside of run and kill, if not with a variety of "intelligence" in regards to take better cover or coordination (and most FPS do have poor AI, but it is relative to eachother and execution... my hope in FPS titles is that they know their limitations and then design around them with the goal of accenting gameplay and the story with believable AI for the circumstances, hence I liked HL2's AI better than Far Cry's due to execution). MP is pretty important to a games value these days, but just having a lot of players doesn't mean much in itself (BF was superior to the OF games even though they had a lot more people in the later) but again how it is designed, balanced, and plays out. Taste will always be a factor but most online games don't have staying power not because of lack of features but lack of execution and the "addictive" gameplay balance as well as the intangible "easy to pick up, difficult to master" design as well as the engaging factors that pull you in but are deep enough to reward you for coming back.
Anyhow, using objective benchmarks the Call of Duty, GRAW, and GeOW have all done commercially well, critically well, and had robust online activity which makes it hard to flat out say Resistance is the best or even most complete. It depends what you put first in your priorities. What is most relevant is that the PS3 has a new franchise that fills a genre of need and is very solid in SP and MP. It is something to enjoy now and build upon for the future and it is the best the PS3 has to offer. Kind of unfair to even begin comparing it to 360 titles because it isn't a one to one comparison to begin with for fans of this genre (hence why it has taken a lot of time to convince PC-FPS gamers to take console FPS seriously at all).
Personally I look for the sum of innovations/evolution (which don't always need to come in big packages) and if the gameplay is well designed (levels, weapons, design) and if it has an engaging, fun experience that can draw me in through the story. Very, very few titles do this and tend to insult you with poor AI that doesn't hope to do much outside of run and kill, if not with a variety of "intelligence" in regards to take better cover or coordination (and most FPS do have poor AI, but it is relative to eachother and execution... my hope in FPS titles is that they know their limitations and then design around them with the goal of accenting gameplay and the story with believable AI for the circumstances, hence I liked HL2's AI better than Far Cry's due to execution). MP is pretty important to a games value these days, but just having a lot of players doesn't mean much in itself (BF was superior to the OF games even though they had a lot more people in the later) but again how it is designed, balanced, and plays out. Taste will always be a factor but most online games don't have staying power not because of lack of features but lack of execution and the "addictive" gameplay balance as well as the intangible "easy to pick up, difficult to master" design as well as the engaging factors that pull you in but are deep enough to reward you for coming back.
Anyhow, using objective benchmarks the Call of Duty, GRAW, and GeOW have all done commercially well, critically well, and had robust online activity which makes it hard to flat out say Resistance is the best or even most complete. It depends what you put first in your priorities. What is most relevant is that the PS3 has a new franchise that fills a genre of need and is very solid in SP and MP. It is something to enjoy now and build upon for the future and it is the best the PS3 has to offer. Kind of unfair to even begin comparing it to 360 titles because it isn't a one to one comparison to begin with for fans of this genre (hence why it has taken a lot of time to convince PC-FPS gamers to take console FPS seriously at all).
