Resistance reviewed again?

[SugarCoat]

Sure. But the 6/10 review from Eurogamer is definitely not one of them, and that's what we're discussing right?

well that depends on your view of the review. Did you read it or just look at the number like i bet most here have done? I cannot disagree with the conclusion, i dont see how anyone here can unless you've been locked in the closet for the last few years. To quote:

The overall disappointment that comes from playing Resistance is troubling. For years, Insomniac has carved itself an impressive reputation, and had a golden opportunity to throw its creativity at a genre which has been stuck in its ways for far too long. That it merely aped almost all of the things wrong with this creatively moribund genre is alarming. That's not to say that it's a bad game at all, because in most senses Resistance bears a solid resemblance to a lot of very successful shooters of the last few years. But to simply come up with a game on a new platform that completely stands still feels like a huge disappointment from a studio that's more than capable of doing thing differently to everyone else. Put bluntly, the combat and AI is merely average, the visuals don't really wow, and the much-vaunted weaponry makes little difference to how it plays. To say we're underwhelmed is the understatement of the year.

They expected something more from a new generation of gaming and a promising studio, not essentially the same experience they've been squeezing out of FPS games since 2001 (the ai for example does remind me a lot of that from Halo). If you look at it from the perspective of someone who was hoping to get wow'd in terms of playing a game with the promise of tons of innovation on the most powerful gaming console ever created it is infact a rather large let down which is where the score comes from. You cant disagree or argue with someone who happens to have the feeling of "really...we waited 6 years for this?"

I'm not a huge console gamer, i perfer the computer, especially for FPS, so i dont personally care all that much. Console games are something i mess around with a couple hours a few weekends in a year. But if that was my source of gaming, i would feel exactly the same way as the reviewer. When new games of a genre launch on brand spankin new hardware i want to see more then nice textures, i want to see some sort of freshness in the genre and experience all the new things they can make the game do, like powerful AI or destructible environments or at the very least i want to be thrust in a very unique immersive world with a great story that keeps me going. I do not want to play a cookie cutter FPS on battlefields that may of been stolen straight out of the playbook of MoH, CoD, or Brothers in Arms. Thats how i feel anyway.

 

[Rolf N]

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.

Thank you for making the effort to produce a normal posting. Seriously.

RolfN contends that each of the points he mentioned was improved in Resistance over the previous Halo series.

It's not even that -- it's a given that technically there's a huge gulf between the games as we have switched console generations in the meantime -- but the style. The sub-genre of shooters this falls into, the style of play, the scope of the environments, the pace, the function of the weapons, the function of the enemies, their amount and behaviour, are just so similar. They stimulate the exact same taste buds.

Just to recap a number of variations in the fps group alone:
Very fast, large scale mass battles are the Serious Sam style.
Fairly fast, large scale environments against small groups is more like Medal Of Honor.
Fast, small environments, small groups: [strike]Red Steel[/strike]Quake series
Slow, small environments, small groups: Doom 3

Resistance just hits the exact same balance of pace, environmental scope and enemy density as Halo. Again: Gears Of War doesn't. Thus this comparison is much more apt.
The biggest fundamental gameplay difference for MP will be the vehicle thing. Resistance doesn't do vehicles in competitive multiplayer (or I didn't play the mode yet).

If one is open-minded enough to accept that, then yes - Resistance is the new standard, until Halo3 exceeds it.

I trust Bungie to deliver a more effective musical score, they always had that nailed.

And Joshua, CoD 3 is out for the PS3 already (there'll soon be Rainbow Six and Graw, too). I don't think it's gaining the same online traction though. The formulas are different, and what Resistance does, in conjunction with its excellent match-making, is just more universally attractive.

 

[Ben-Nice]

Why is the A.I. in Half-Life 1 still better than almost all other FPS IMO Hallf-Life 2's was actually much worse.

 

[Rolf N]

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.

Then it better be consistent this way!
It appears much more likely that this harsher standard for reviews has been just temporarily installed at Eurogamer and elsewhere to be able to mark Resistance down, and will be lifted again just in time to review its competition.

And for the record, Reistance does bring its own innovations. The mines, the Hailstorm, the Auger (which doubles up as a shield gun btw), the split health meter, the prolonged use of a vehicle as a kinetic weapon, body heat management for Chimera players in multiplayer, lots of destructible cover, floating above "jump pads" just to name stuff off the top of my head.
The Eurogamer review is just ridiculously asinine. The same person, for the same site, gave CoD 3 a better score for crying out loud.

 

[CEO]

I have a question: Would anyone claim that Resistance is the best FPS so far this gen? That seems to be the inferred position of some R:FOM fans here.

What other FPS's you played "this" gen? Some might say so, others won't.
I say no. Its like every damn Call of Duty on GameCube, it isn't necessary because no one
buys a gamecube for first person shooters. Same with the PS3, i think no one here bought the PS3 for Resistance, it even isnt a technical feat(imo), its more of a "checklist feature" thing(Every Console has FPS's so lets make one!).

ps. as for the weapons, yes they are nice n shit but remind me somehow a lot of Project Snowblind and AVP.

 

[scooby_dooby]

It appears much more likely that this harsher standard for reviews has been just temporarily installed at Eurogamer and elsewhere to be able to mark Resistance down, and will be lifted again just in time to review its competition.

Sounds more like a tinhat conspiracy theory to me...doesn't it really seem much more likely that not everyone is as impressed with the game as you guys are??

Maybe people who have enjoyed HL2, and Halo 2 for several years, aren't finding too much to be excited about?

 

[TheChefO]

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.

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.

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)

Now remove the points that don't quite fit Gears Of War. See? Halo is much closer.
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?"

What I meant was (and I did not make this clear in my original post ) Halo3 would be compared to Gears, KZ2. Not Resistance.

I think Resistance will largely be an afterthought after KZ2 comes out for ps3. As someone else said in this thread, If this game were released 2 years from now, it wouldn't get the pub it's getting now.

IMO.

I understand where you're coming from, but another title that matches much of your criteria that nobody has made the comparison with yet (that I've heard) is Lost planet. The reason it isn't compared (IMO) is the game was/is not positioned as a key title by MS, in contrast to the "big hitters" we were discussing. Genre and like-atmosphere/story is only one aspect of key comparisons. The general feel for the game is also an aspect, but the biggest is how the console makers position these titles.

If Halo3 is being compared (in anything other than a footnote) to Resistance when it comes out, MS did something very, very wrong.

 

[Deepak]

When Halo 3 gets reviewed it will get compared against PS3 FPSes and being a premier FPS on PS3, R:FoM will be the obvious choice.

 

[TheChefO]

When Halo 3 gets reviewed it will get compared against PS3 FPSes and being a premier FPS on PS3, R:FoM will be the obvious choice.

I think the only ones it will be compared to are H1&2 and Gears a bit. Unless KZ hits roughly the same time.

 

[patsu]

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?

I'm not sure if I can compare them like that. I can only relate my experiences to you for reference. Also, it's been a long time now, so I may not recall the details correctly...

I loved Halo 1 because of its AI and excellent pace (I was a Marathon fan before that). The game allows you to play with different tactics (e.g., sniping from far, dashing out "hero style", stop-and-pop), or even out of order (jump to the ground floor from third floor, and fight your way up backwards). I also used to visit a spawn point and fight the Elites toe-to-toe (no cover), one after another until I die. Even with this simple exercise, Halo 1 can be fun.

I thought the default difficulty for Halo 1 was perfect. Heroic and Legendary were great too.

Halo 2 was a personal disappointment. I remember it was too easy for the default difficulty and too monotoneous for legendary (You're forced to stop-and-pop or snipe from hidden positions many times). In a few occassions, there were also bugs that caused us/me to restart a level (e.g., I fell from a platform because the floor disappeared, the game took a snapshot at the wrong time -- just before I was getting killed). On legendary, this is devastating.

I tried Halo online once in an nVidia friend's place, but I didn't really go deep (We started with LAN play and then XBL for a quick game, and then back to LAN). LAN party with buddies was fun (Lot's of muahahas) but I can't comment on the balancing (There were noobs like our wives in the sessions).

For RoFM, it started off easy with short levels, and then took an upward turn once you get into Alien territory (i.e., you're not defending anymore).

Like Halo 1, I have not encountered any bugs in SP. The environment is indeed varied (Hello, Halo). The framerate is smooth (I don't fee nauseous after hours of play). I can certainly appreciate the fact that Insomniac took the time to test and polish the game.

IMHO, the enemy AI is comparable and more aggressive than Halo's (That's why I don't think they are stupid). The rich weapon combination allows me to play the game differently even in a tough fight (Different dynamics and level designs from Halo 1). In MP there were occassional freezes.

For online, Chimera and Human have their own traits. I love Chimera's rage mode (Increased speed, X-ray vision and higher damage) and Bullseye, but I hate the darker vision. I like human's speed, 1 free grenade and radar, but dislike the default Carbine weapon. There are also interesting interaction between race and weapon (e.g., Chimera rage mode + Auger can be deadly, Human + flame thrower can spell trouble for Chimera -- because the latter is susceptible to heat damage).

The Chimera is generally stronger (I think, but I have encountered people who claimed otherwise). In an online game, you swap race in 2 rounds so that's not a big issue. Insomniac tuned their game last week (Up Carbine damage among other things). I think they are about equal now but I'm not sure yet.

The developer has rev'ed the game regularly enough to keep things even more interesting (I have not tried the latest tweak in depth yet). There are many online game options that are beyond me (mostly custom games). I also don't play objective games that much except with the clan. The clan has taught me a few things, I'm striking out on my own now . If I play alone, I usually go for Team Deathmatch. The online game system in Resistance is indeed broad and deep (e.g., Another thing I haven't tried is the spectator mode).

 

[Rolf N]

What other FPS's you played "this" gen? Some might say so, others won't.
I say no. Its like every damn Call of Duty on GameCube, it isn't necessary because no one
buys a gamecube for first person shooters. Same with the PS3, i think no one here bought the PS3 for Resistance, it even isnt a technical feat(imo), its more of a "checklist feature" thing(Every Console has FPS's so lets make one!).

That's just the thing isn't it? The only standing criticism anyone managed to bring up against Resistance was "It's a shooter, and I'm tired of shooters". Well duh! Let's just wait a few months and see how quickly that stance will be retracted when the circumstances make it convenient.
And besides that, it does its own new things that extend the gameplay, such as the new mechanics I've listed before, but also with its content design, which e.g. does some pretty interesting things with elevation and multi-level arenas (in single-player, too).
And besides that, the PS3 needed at least one competitive online game anyway, having it sooner rather than later is a good idea, as there's not much to play otherwise with a library that isn't fully fleshed out.
And besides that it's both technologically sock-off-knocking and artistically pleasing.

 

[scooby_dooby]

"It's a shooter, and I'm tired of shooters".

That's an especially poor representation of the majority of reviews. You can be a little more objective/honest than that I think...

The standing criticism of Resistance is that it borrows too heavily from existing games (Halo and HL2 being the most commonly cited), and doesn't do enough in it's own right, to set it apart.

 

[Todd33]

That's an especially poor representation of the majority of reviews. You can be a little more objective/honest than that I think...

The standing criticism of Resistance is that it borrows too heavily from existing games (Halo and HL2 being the most commonly cited), and doesn't do enough in it's own right, to set it apart.

The same can go for just about any game. R:FoM was not like Halo in term of story or feel. It's more like CoD2 mixed with War of the Worlds. I'm not sure many games (or movies) have a completely original premise now a day, does that make them bad?

GoW = Aliens (the movie) meets Killzone and Kill.Switch. Is GoW a bad game now?

Oversimplifications and opinions from people who have never played it FTL.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's an especially poor representation of the majority of reviews. You can be a little more objective/honest than that I think...

The standing criticism of Resistance is that it borrows too heavily from existing games (Halo and HL2 being the most commonly cited), and doesn't do enough in it's own right, to set it apart.

How much more difference can there be? The same can surelt be said of a lot of shoters and racers. Resistance did do things differently in story, weapons, multiplayer, and so forth. That fact that other titles may have had similar features is more an issue of there only being so many features you can have.

What can Halo3 or any other shooter do that's totally original? The best you can hope for is either animation and control, perhaps physics-based gameplay (blowing up walls to flatten people below), and AI. AI is possibly iffy. We already hear Resistance in harder modes can be quite tricky. We can't have AI too advanced or it makes the gamer's place in the game irrelevant. Physics gameplay is going to be everywhere - not sure the first game to have it en masse should get a bonus award for being 'new' when a few titles will follow suit. Animation is perhaps the only area of real differentiation to go, and I thought R:FoM did a pretty good job there.

As I said before, perhaps scores should also exist from those who haven't seen it all before, rather than comparing every feature to every shooter past and deciding it's not new so isn't exciting? Execution is more important than originality 9 times out of 10, and myself, I'd prefer that to carry more weight.

 

[scooby_dooby]

does that make them bad?

Who said it was bad?

You guys are trying to argue that somehow Resistance has raised the bar for Halo, on order to do that it has to bring innovation to the genre, and I don't think minor innovations like copying Halo's shield system and slightly tweaking it, or adding some cool new weapons are enough.

Bottom line is, if Resistance was that good, it would've scored 9's across the board, like COD2, GRAW or Gears. It didn't.

 

[Todd33]

Who said it was bad?

You guys are trying to argue that somehow Resistance has raised the bar for Halo, on order to do that it has to bring innovation to the genre, and I don't think minor innovations like copying Halo's shield system and slightly tweaking it, or adding some cool new weapons are enough.

Bottom line is, if Resistance was that good, it would've scored 9's across the board, like COD2, GRAW or Gears. It didn't.

There is no shield system in Resistance. But of course the same type of Halo system is used in Gow, RS:V and COD3 - where is your thread on that? Now the definition of a good game is 9's across the board (it has a 88% at gamerankings). How many or your beloved 360 games are under 90%? Lost Planet, Crackdown, etc. I don't see you guys making threads and beating up those games, I wonder why?

Here is an idea, play and finish Resistance before you go on and one and on about how not great it is. I can't remember that last time I made or contributed to a thread about a game I have never played on a system I don't own just to somehow tell others about how unoriginal or average it is. Sad.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You guys are trying to argue that somehow Resistance has raised the bar for Halo

I dunno about that. Certainly I'm not...

Bottom line is, if Resistance was that good, it would've scored 9's across the board, like COD2, GRAW or Gears. It didn't.

The question I was raising was whether R:FoM was reviewed as fairly as some other titles - if the suggestions raised here against it are valid. Looking at GameRankings, GRAW scored 91%, and R:FoM scored 88%. GeOW scored 94%. To me it seems R:FoM wasn't rated unfairly and the arguments against it not doing anything new are pretty redundant. There's one or two reviews that rate R:FoM down on these grounds, but on the whole it has obviously been well appreciated. Unless people want to believe the difference of 4 or 5% is the difference between a, exceptional, genre-changing, landmark game and a mediocre title

 

[patsu]

In case it gets lost in this Halo-vs-Resistance argument... I just want to point out that the review in the OP is inaccurate (e.g., The author's criticism of the AI, and his reference to Hailstorm when talking about MP mode where the weapon doesn't exist).

I don't think minor innovations like copying Halo's shield system and slightly tweaking it, or adding some cool new weapons are enough.

RoFM has a different health system from Halo 1 and 2. I thought the health bar is there since Doom ?
Halo 1 has a shield bar and health bar (with health kit), right ? Halo 2 has a shield bar (no health kit). Resistance has a health bar broken into 3 parts (with health kit/serum). It has other form of shields:
* The Auger shield blocks all ammo except Auger
* At second playthrough, the Backlash grenade forms a shield that deflects ammo (back to sender).

I don't understand why people want to compare it to Halo to recognize its salient points.
Besides a smooth, bug-free and varied game world, an excellent weapon system, and a decent enemy AI, Resistance also includes a rich variety of enemies (Too complicated to fit into this short post).

To say Halo needs to surpass Resistance to be Halo is pushing it (Halo's identity is already well defined !). To say Resistance needs to surpass Halo to be great is also moot. Resistance has already surpassed Halo 1 and 2 in quite a few aspects (including scope) but...

I think they fall short in art direction and macro-level imagination (e.g., The aliens have changed the Earth's weather system in Fall of Men, but Insomniac didn't capitalize on this idea to come up with new game-play elements).

I'll just say that there are indeed "Halo moments" in Resistance but the game is (as should be !) different and great in its own right.


EDIT: In short, I consider it a must-buy ... to make sure we get a sequel out of this.

 

[TheChefO]

In case it gets lost in this Halo-vs-Resistance argument... I just want to point out that the review in the OP is inaccurate (e.g., The author's criticism of the AI, and his reference to Hailstorm when talking about MP mode where the weapon doesn't exist).



RoFM has a different health system from Halo 1 and 2. I thought the health bar is there since Doom ?
Halo 1 has a shield bar and health bar (with health kit), right ? Halo 2 has a shield bar (no health kit). Resistance has a health bar broken into 3 parts (with health kit/serum). It has other form of shields:
* The Auger shield blocks all ammo except Auger
* At second playthrough, the Backlash grenade forms a shield that deflects ammo (back to sender).

I don't understand why people want to compare it to Halo to recognize its salient points.
Besides a smooth, bug-free and varied game world, an excellent weapon system, and a decent enemy AI, Resistance also includes a rich variety of enemies (Too complicated to fit into this short post).

To say Halo needs to surpass Resistance to be Halo is pushing it (Halo's identity is already well defined !). To say Resistance needs to surpass Halo to be great is also moot. Resistance has already surpassed Halo 1 and 2 in quite a few aspects (including scope) but...

I think they fall short in art direction and macro-level imagination (e.g., The aliens have changed the Earth's weather system in Fall of Men, but Insomniac didn't capitalize on this idea to come up with new game-play elements).

I'll just say that there are indeed "Halo moments" in Resistance but the game is (as should be !) different and great in its own right.

Great post Patsu - Agreed.

Hopefully Resistance has sold enough to have established itself in it's own right and can carry on to become a great series. I think the game concept is interesting and worthy of a proper sequel.

 

[aselto]

Eurogamer's notes are ridiculous sometimes. They gave Conker L&R 4/10 while I really loved the game. They also gave Tony Hawk Project 8 an incredibly high 9/10, while the game wasn't innovative at all and it had serious issues. I don't think we should take their reviews seriously.