They are certainly something else. Hence why I created the thread in the first place. I was pretty sure they reviewed Resistance and gave it a 7/10 only to review it again a few months later and drop the score (!?) Games like Fear IMO did not deserve their score and others (Conker 4/10)
Resistance reviewed again?
- Thread starter TheChefO
- Start date
They are certainly something else. Hence why I created the thread in the first place. I was pretty sure they reviewed Resistance and gave it a 7/10 only to review it again a few months later and drop the score (!?) Games like Fear IMO did not deserve their score and others (Conker 4/10)
Part of the reason why I started the ... err ... comparison of comparisons (did we cross a line? I thought we are still doing fine) was that I sincerely believe, paranoia or not, that Eurogamer is finding reasons to hate the game because of the platform it's on. The inaccuracies that were pointed out should prove that at least some of the "concerns" the reviewer had were just fabricated.
And regarding the ... err. Was that a novel idea? Let me just ramble a bit first.
Video games are a not just a series of tubes, they are a vast spectrum of rules, ideals, trade-offs and styles and many more dimensions. Every game makes a blob somewhere in that spectrum, some games are very focused on one thing (Tetris) and have a sharp spot right there, other games try to deliver "a little bit of everything" (Jak 3) and hence their spot in the gaming metaverse is a little more fuzzy and stretched out.
An ideal games library for a system covers all of that space to have the broadest possible appeal. It happens automatically to an extent: 1)two games that cover the exact same ground would compete with each other and couldn't be as successful individually (so efficiency is lost), so they tend to drift away from each other ("carve out their own niche"); 2)publishers, as they are observing and optimizing their own performance, try to make the blobs large and fuzzy to attract a maximum of users per title. This is manifested e.g. by puzzle-ish minigames and racing interludes in action adventures, fishing in Zelda, custom sound-tracks, difficulty selections, multiple playable characters etc.
When it's synergy you're after, there may be overlap,l but it's unlikely that two games will have the same center of gravity, size and shape, so to speak.
When you're [strike]competing with[/strike] trying to knock something out though, closeness is actively pursued (as it is when you're trying to ride along on a wave that you see rolling but you don't understand it; that's a fresh tangent though and shall be followed another day).
It is my theory, and I wasn't aware until today it was so outlandish, but maybe we're getting there, that both Sony and Microsoft have comissioned, and continue to comission "anti-games" that hit certain areas in the gaming spectrum that are already occupied and have met significant success on the other system.
IMO the Forza franchise was comissioned to have a counter to Gran Turismo.
IMO Saint's Row was comissioned to have something GTAish (deal signed when it was still unclear when/if GTA would come to the library).
Before we roll over each other, let me just say that the question whether these examples were successful as anti-games, whether they had their own original extensions, isn't really the point. The point is that these games wouldn't have come to pass as is if it weren't for the perceived relevance of their, err, "inspirations", and the desire to counter-point them.
Resistance: FOM is another such game IMO quite clearly. I've already said which formula their starting point was IMO.
And of course it raised the bar. The old nemesis came out on the Xbox 1, and of course it has been surpassed and looks outdated now. No surprises there, and no blame.
And regarding the ... err. Was that a novel idea? Let me just ramble a bit first.
Video games are a not just a series of tubes, they are a vast spectrum of rules, ideals, trade-offs and styles and many more dimensions. Every game makes a blob somewhere in that spectrum, some games are very focused on one thing (Tetris) and have a sharp spot right there, other games try to deliver "a little bit of everything" (Jak 3) and hence their spot in the gaming metaverse is a little more fuzzy and stretched out.
An ideal games library for a system covers all of that space to have the broadest possible appeal. It happens automatically to an extent: 1)two games that cover the exact same ground would compete with each other and couldn't be as successful individually (so efficiency is lost), so they tend to drift away from each other ("carve out their own niche"); 2)publishers, as they are observing and optimizing their own performance, try to make the blobs large and fuzzy to attract a maximum of users per title. This is manifested e.g. by puzzle-ish minigames and racing interludes in action adventures, fishing in Zelda, custom sound-tracks, difficulty selections, multiple playable characters etc.
When it's synergy you're after, there may be overlap,l but it's unlikely that two games will have the same center of gravity, size and shape, so to speak.
When you're [strike]competing with[/strike] trying to knock something out though, closeness is actively pursued (as it is when you're trying to ride along on a wave that you see rolling but you don't understand it; that's a fresh tangent though and shall be followed another day).
It is my theory, and I wasn't aware until today it was so outlandish, but maybe we're getting there, that both Sony and Microsoft have comissioned, and continue to comission "anti-games" that hit certain areas in the gaming spectrum that are already occupied and have met significant success on the other system.
IMO the Forza franchise was comissioned to have a counter to Gran Turismo.
IMO Saint's Row was comissioned to have something GTAish (deal signed when it was still unclear when/if GTA would come to the library).
Before we roll over each other, let me just say that the question whether these examples were successful as anti-games, whether they had their own original extensions, isn't really the point. The point is that these games wouldn't have come to pass as is if it weren't for the perceived relevance of their, err, "inspirations", and the desire to counter-point them.
Resistance: FOM is another such game IMO quite clearly. I've already said which formula their starting point was IMO.
And of course it raised the bar. The old nemesis came out on the Xbox 1, and of course it has been surpassed and looks outdated now. No surprises there, and no blame.
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
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?
I don't see me beating up on resistance either, are you delusional? I would respond to your points, but I would only be wasting my time.
If you want to have a decent discussion, leave the hyporbole at the door, all this nonsense about 'beloved 360 games' or 'beatin up on resistance' is childish and drags down the entire discussion.
For the record, yes many games copy Halo's shield system. Point was, Resistance's shield system was raised as an area of innovation, I simply replied it's more a minor varient on Halo's system and is hardly a step forward, but rather a different implemenation.
Of course in 'Todd's World' that amount to me beating up on the game, and apparently I should be required to start threads on every single game that also uses this system....
Good post - agreed on the Anti-game notion. FTR I believe this is Sony's second Anti-game in this regard with the other being significantly more notable, hence my reasoning in this thread and the other in the comparison.
I disagree on Saint's Row, I think that was specificly a dev profitability opportunity. Crackdown I agree with but again not so much anti as expounding the genre.
Forza for sure is trying to fill a notable void.
FTR I don't see anything wrong with it as it makes your platform stronger and better able to bring more gamers aboard that might otherwise avoid your platform.
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
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
It's general convention that 9+ is reserved for the best games. So, call it a 4% difference if you want, but we all know that in game reviews, the best games get 9+. If resistance really raised the bar for the entire genre, I don't understand why it recieved an average of 88%.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Wierd way of looking at it imo.
If game X is selling well on a platform, and another platform has nothing equivalent in that genre, that marks an area of consumer interest that is not being served. It only makes financial sense to try and fill the hole in the Library.
Forza commisioned as an anti-GT? Or Forza commisioned because Xbox lacked a racing sim, and racing sim's sell well?
Resistance commisioned as a Halo killer? Or Resistance commisoned because Sony recognized the increasing populatiry of FPS's, and noticed a lack of them in their current lineup?
I guess it's a little of both in the end.
Or Sony may just want a few great FPSes for PS3 to round up their collection.
Fresh out of the gate, Resistance is one of the most fun and most replayed titles I have purchased. In my view, Insomniac has successfully created a high-shine game, with a solid following.
I think they can start to think about breakthroughs now that they have better tools, better understanding of PS3 and more FPS experiences.
scooby dooby said:
Resistance has no implicit shield system like Halo 1 and 2 (Don't they exist before Halo ?).
Halo has no user deployable shield system like Resistance. I think the Resistance shields are also offensive. Enemies get hurt when they pass through them.
They are night and day. I don't see where the variation or copying are. They are new (and useful) innovations from gameplay perspective.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there is a lot of truth to the antigame sentiment. Imagine If Forza3 blew gt5 out of the water. That is huge. Or vice versa, if Killzone rocked Halo3 and established a new ... ehh actually fps is much more difficult to compare head to head due to scope issues etc. Car racing is pretty straight forward. :smile:
Honestly I'm surprised EA hasn't jumped into this realm. NFS is there but not in the same league. It could have been judging from how it started but has since been twisted into a very different place.
Anyway, fps comparisons are difficult because of scale differences and difference of design priority. But they will be made anyway (Gears to Resistance to Halo to KZ etc) In the end though I think the goal is very clear for MS and Sony in commissioning these games. To dethrown the competition in popular opinion and fill a void in their current lineup.
scooby_dooby
Legend
See I'm not so sure on this. Is there any evidence to show that a game succesful on another platform, seriously impacted sales of another game in the same genre on a competing platform? i.e. Did NG impact teh sales of DMC? Did Forza impact sales of GT?
I guess that's not the proper way to look at it, because in the end the goal is to sell systems. From that perspective, offering an anti-game would increase sales of the platform it's on, if it's good. But then, this only applies to that handful of games that really move systems.
So, I would agree with on this concept, but only with relation to the AAA system sellers. Halo, GTA, GT and FF. You could look at Lost Odyssey and Forza as MS's anti games, GTA is cross platform so there is no need, and I dunno, maybe Resistance was meant to be an anti-game to Halo, but if it was, I still think it fell short.
Unfortunately I live in NA.
As already mentioned, RFOM doesn't have an attached shield, it has a classical/platformer hybrid life bar only with partial recharge. On the other hand, Halo's classical life bar is at least as old as Wolfenstein 3d while its shield bar is as Doom (minus auto recharge). In my opinion though, those weapons you seem to belittle adds more gameplay value.
While I respect your opinion, I think it may be better not to generalize at least until you play RFOM.
And if RFOM had a smaller scale, less fun and variety but better graphics those review scores would probably go up significantly.
What great weapons. I never used shield of Auger in SP but in MP it's enormous fun.
Though nothing to do with shielding, the double handguns (reapers?) are ingenious. You can fire at two different targets at the same time with different reapers. To bad I cannot seem to find ammo for it.
I think it has an attach rate close to 50 percent in NA (admittedly without competition) and it will end up being a big franchise. At least I expect a lot from Rise of Man.
By the way, I agree with Rolf N's initial post that RFOM set the bar for Halo 3 (or any other console FPS). Certainly not as a whole package, but in specific aspects all of which were listed countless times.
In the end, I wouldn't be surprised if people appreciate RFOM more after Halo 3. For some reason it was consistently compared to Gears. That said, I cannot imagine the pressure Bungie guys are currently under. I certainly hope they bring lots of new stuff to the table.
ps: Apparently this thread practically had exploded with the mention of Halo, I fear other games such as GT/Forza/FF/... will only contribute to deviation.
Indeed I don't think it was either. I think it was a: "have something on the market when they drop Gears" game. KZ will be their answer for Halo3 IMO.
Regarding impaccting competitors sales, I think it can if the moves happen soon enough on the console. Forza didn't have a chance as it was released on a dying platform. KZ1 flopped. But now that both of these titles have been established as "intriguing" I think they can provide a sway for those on the fence. (ie: if one were interested in both a 360 and ps3 and came from a gt3&4 background, but was unsure of the pricing for ps3, they may pay close attention to Forza2 and if it reviews well, it may get this fence sitter to "jump in") ... or the opposite with KZ v H3.
This game though IMO was not an answer for or intended to be the answer for Halo.
Yes, the Reapers... they are very cool (especially the sound). I used its auto lock-on and track feature on the swift, leaping Chimeras. Later on, I also learned to tag them with Bulleyes (It kills them faster).
I didn't like the Auger at first (even in MP). Once I "get it", I use it rather frequently on certain maps (Rooftop, the Mall, the small Grimsby map)... wherever there are narrow and long walk-ways, layers of walls and/or floors. It is also my favorite weapon to kill holed-up (and superior) snipers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Come, this is all nonsense. Resistance is a game from a company who did an FPS game before, and after all the Ratchet & Clank titles, really wanted to do another one and saw the launch of the PS3 as a good opportunity. All Sony did was greenlight the project.
That, at least, what Ted Price has told us, and I have no reason not to believe him whatsoever. And there's nothing, not a shred of evidence out there that even suggests otherwise.
By the way, I did try the spectator mode a few days ago, and it works really well. Great fun.
How so? What'll happen if Forza is 'better' than GT5, or KZ is 'better' than Halo3? Will the fans of those genres switch sides? Isn't that like thinking fans of Chelsea will start buying Arsenal tickets if Arsenal beat Chelsea in the league? People who like racing games will buy the racing games available on the platform they own. If they're the sort of person who buys a platform for one game, I doubt their loyalties will be swayed in one outing. More likely if a game is better on a rival machine, they'll just downlplay it!
Shifty - agreed 100%
People will buy the games that interest them on the consoles they own.
Now outside of these current owners, (not many at this point relative to the cumulative userbase of last gen) I think it can have a significant impact to gamers that are specificly interested in the genre but also for percieved ability of the system. I think gt3 enabled ps2 to be accepted to a wider userbase as a nextgen machine worth owning and sales support this theory. Not that I think this scenario is likely this gen as I think ps3 and xb360 are too close to secure any demonstrable dominance.
To bring it back to your post, I think the amount of gamers out there that were GT gamers is huge. To be able to sway a portion of this userbase that has not jumped into nextgen yet is big, but what's bigger is perception on the whole.
Regarding the goal of Resistance, I agree the game was greenlighted because it was a good idea, but I also think Sony was cognizant of the possibility that this title could help improve their overall ps3 image. Early last year the title was seen to be getting a heavy coat of polish that was not present nor expected and the game really came together in comparison to it's first showing. I know most games do this but I also think Sony realized the importance of this title in context and gave the team a bit more "attention" than they would have had the circumstances been different.
I'll be curious to see where the team takes the franchise from here. :smile:
Arwin, how did you get into spectator mode ? I read the release note but couldn't find the "Find Game" button.
I also did some poking around in custom game and the clan area (Great job here btw), but still can't find a place for me to specify "spectator"
Arwin, how did you get into spectator mode ? I read the release note but couldn't find the "Find Game" button.
I also did some poking around in custom game and the clan area (Great job here btw), but still can't find a place for me to specify "spectator"
I thought "find game screen" was the one where you searched custom games.
When you select a game before joining, spectate button appears along with the join button, only if the match has that option enabled. (Allow spectator yes). That is the screen where you see game options.
Thanks betan, I found the "Spectate" button now.
Hopping onto a game as we speak...
EDIT:
Oh my god, this is so neat ! I can navigate independently on the battlefield (in addition to viewing through different player's visor). I can also ride the updraft to move between floors. They should allow me to record the games next time and may be add some effects (Roady-cam !)
Hopping onto a game as we speak...
EDIT:
Oh my god, this is so neat ! I can navigate independently on the battlefield (in addition to viewing through different player's visor). I can also ride the updraft to move between floors. They should allow me to record the games next time and may be add some effects (Roady-cam !)
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's two quick and dirty shots I made of spectator mode earlier. I'm sure there are a lot better shots to get, just quickly took some before the cam battery went dead.
I finished York yesterday and moved on to Manchester. The end of York forced me to take care of some serious numbers of Chimera ... also interesting was dealing with the guys with turrets ... some decent level design there, at least I got it eventually. Manchester starts with a rather serious large-scale battle that we saw bits of very early on in the trailers.
A lot of hard work there, I'm sure!
The single player campaign seems very solid, so far! Of course, I haven't played much FPS lately.
I finished York yesterday and moved on to Manchester. The end of York forced me to take care of some serious numbers of Chimera ... also interesting was dealing with the guys with turrets ... some decent level design there, at least I got it eventually
. Manchester starts with a rather serious large-scale battle that we saw bits of very early on in the trailers. A lot of hard work there, I'm sure!
The single player campaign seems very solid, so far! Of course, I haven't played much FPS lately.
Ok, so after Insomniac themselves generously admitted that Gears of War looks better than Resistance (which you won't hear me say looks bad!), and also points out exactly why (no streaming textures in Resistance), it will be interesting to see how games will turn out that do support streaming textures ... they already have upgraded their engine to support them for Ratchett & Clank, and we seem to have a general consensus that this looks decent ... But I'm sure this should also bode well for Resistance 2! And surely the PS3 should be able to benefit from using the HDD in some form at the very core of the game too.
Looking forward to what's coming! I do believe that we'll see some huge visual improvements in games over the next year. (That was to be expected, but it becomes more tangible now when and why) Unreal Engine games on the PS3 should do well in this respect too.
Looking forward to what's coming! I do believe that we'll see some huge visual improvements in games over the next year. (That was to be expected, but it becomes more tangible now when and why) Unreal Engine games on the PS3 should do well in this respect too.
