Resistance 2 Comments by Dan Whitehead

LOL, Anyone checked Game rankings lately? This game only gets a totally crap 88.6%! In comparison to 93.8% for the mighty Gears 2! FAILsistance 2, more like it, LULZ!

"read what the professional thinks."

Sorry but I am yet to see any professional journalism in the games industry (especially in the online section). EG's average article most certainly doesn't score any high points. The people writing video game reviews are just gamers like you and me, giving their opinion. Just because they get paid to give their opinion and receive games before we do, doesn't mean that they are professional journalists.

Not that the rest of the press is doing so much better these days mind.

"If you don't need wifi, then its a needless addition in the PS3... all back to the whatever suits your needs principle, but don't disregard it because you personally don't want it. The same thing winds be up with people regarding bluray ability as unnecessary and therefore a useless addition. "

The exact opposite holds true as well.

"Am I the only one who thought HL2 was, just a tad overrated and...well....just a little bit...boring? "

No. But there are a lot of people in denial.

Wireless works fine with my ps3 and the likes of COD4, no lag whatsoever, couldn't have a cable running across my living room and wouldn't want the hassle of pulling carpets up etc.

I think it should be standard in this generation of consoles, ok you might not need it, but at least it's there if you do, ie you might switch your console to another room or move house etc

It must be a bit of a nasty shock to some 360 owners to have to fork out the extra cash and find out that their console was not so cheap after all.

"I think it should be standard in this generation of consoles, ok you might not need it, but at least it's there if you do, ie you might switch your console to another room or move house etc"

No. I wont pay for extras I dont need, and the general public won't either which is a large part of why the PS3 is such an abject failure and is rapidly bankrupting Sony.

--"No. I wont pay for extras I dont need, and the general public won't either which is a large part of why the PS3 is such an abject failure and is rapidly bankrupting Sony"--


It's nice of you to speak on behalf of the general public, but I think you might be putting words into their mouths. Let's look at this news story published by EG on monday:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?art...

"which is a large part of why the PS3 is such an abject failure and is rapidly bankrupting Sony"

Yeah, it sells as poorly as the 360, year-on-year which can be considered catastrophic. But the main reason is that besides pushing lots of pixels it doesn't do much more than the consoles the masses already own: PS2 and Wii.

"Am I the only one who thought HL2 was, just a tad overrated and...well....just a little bit...boring?'

No, I thought it was pretty tedious too... not a patch on the original.

@m0thr4 - "In general, the levels were described as soulless and the whole game simply a collection of other people's ideas."

Oh you mean just like Halo and every other FPS since? ;)

I didn't think Halo was particularly original. It was well executed, but there certainly wasn't anything in that game that hadn't been seen before.

Seriously since when has the first person shooter genre being innovative?


You're possibly too young to remember but, since the first person shooter genre was invented, there have been numerous innovations including (but not limited to) - split-screen multiplayer, online multiplayer, ability to create your own levels, proper 3D modelling, grenades, vehicles, cover systems, NPCs fighting alongside you, RPG-style stats. The games that brought in these innovations are generally heralded as ground-breaking, those that merely copied have largely fallen by the wayside (unless they took a previously broken innovation and made it work).

Resistance 2 brings absolutely nothing new to the genre at all, ergo it's nothing to get particularly excited about IMO.

A lack of new ideas isn't necessarily a bad thing as it doesn't mean they're not fun to play. I mean Halo and Call of Duty 4 proved that.

Depends on how easily pleased you are... I found those two games dull as ditchwater.

Even Gears of War wasn't exactly original since the cover tactic has been used in other games before that, it was just that it was one of the few games to put everything together into one neat little fun package.

The ability to allow a friend to drop in or out of the single-player campaign was pretty original - very few games before GoW offered that feature in quite that way. But really, I fail to see your point. I never mentioned any of these games you're talking about. For the record, although I even got bored with Gears of War by the start of the very last chapter of the single-player campaign and never bothered finishing it... and I was generally only playing that in co-op mode.

No. I wont pay for extras I dont need, and the general public won't either which is a large part of why the PS3 is such an abject failure and is rapidly bankrupting Sony.

Actually, SCE (who make the PS3) are the one company in Sony who are reducing their losses (with a recent 10% profit increase).

Sony's current financial problems are actually due to the weak Yen against the US Dollar and Euro.

"Sorry but I am yet to see any professional journalism in the games industry (especially in the online section). EG's average article most certainly doesn't score any high points. The people writing video game reviews are just gamers like you and me, giving their opinion.Just because they get paid to give their opinion and receive games before we do, doesn't mean that they are professional journalists."

Gah. I swear, that kind of half-cocked drivel gives me heartburn.

If you take a little look down the annals of publishing history, you might find that there's a historical precedent for this strange beast know as the "review". Whether you define reviewers - of games, theatre, restaurants or anything else - as "journalists" or as "critics" is up to you. Either way, they're being paid for their work, so they're professionals.

If you, in turn, wish to criticise them, it will be about how well they meet their brief, not whether they do so as a professional. And you'll be speaking as an amateur critic. There's one of those babies inside all of us so, you know, forgive us if we don't listen.

And, incidentally, are you saying games writers cannot, in principle, be journalists? Because the last time I looked, the collecting, writing and presenting of news was pretty much the definition of journalism, and that - along with features - makes up a substantial amount of many games mags. Just because it's news from a niche doesn't mean it's not news.

Or are you saying that you're open to the idea that games journalism could exist, in principle, but that you've never seen any in the whole history of games-related publishing that has lived up to the standards you demand? What might those standards be?

Finally received the game today, after taking 2 weeks to get here from the US... Gameplay is great, quite similar to the first game. The lighting is a bit off though. In some daytime outdoor environments I need to use my flashlight to see a damn thing!? Anybody else suffering from the same problem? The game could use some brightness controls or better still a lighting patch (both of which won't happen of course).

Since you cant carry every weapon in the campaign im not sure whether to but it to be honest, two weapon systems in FPS are fine but if half life can stick with having every gun why cant resistance.

@ Grayvern

Don't mind the 2 weapon system too much. Had feared it would be annoying but given the frequency with which you can swap guns, it's not too bad. What's less ideal though is that you know what's coming up by the weapons that lie around. Must admit that I played R1 using almost only the Carabine and Auger (just like in R&C from the huge number of guns you end up using 2-3 favourites over and over most of the time), at least the two weapon set-up makes sure you give them all a try.

I'm confused, Edge pretty much trashed the game giving it a paltry 6/10, although reading that review again their main gripe seemed to be that the game was too hard strangely.

"although reading that review again their main gripe seemed to be that the game was too hard strangely."

The game is less polished than the typical Insomniac game and game balancing is off now and then. It's not very hard (though I'm only half way through but I'm not very good at shooters) but there's the occasional 1-hit kill attack that some find annoying, though it doesn't bother me much TBH. And I personally prefer a health system with proper hit point idication and health packs over the nowadays common damage-magically-goes-away-if-you-don't-get-shot-for-x-secon
ds-system (which R2 applies as well, to be clear).

@DanWhitehead:
"From the number of tantrums that flare up after a review is posted, you'd think the writers had personally broken into some readers' homes and taken a dump on their joypads. "

To be fair, I really should stop doing that. Terrible habit.

Winner of the thread.

Thanks Les, also edge this month (i don't buy i look in the shop for laughs) seems to have been deliberately playing for controversy and marking as low as possible.

++++1 pixelsmith. Finally a voice of reason. Well Done.

@DaemonB

"...30 or more enemies on screen at one time..."

Dont mean for this to sound trollish but how many does GOW2 manage? Im a big fan of lots of on screen action, its a real immersion puller for me.

Don't believe everything you see/hear.

If you look closely at the Locust, like when you're on the big.. robot.. thing.., use the sniper and look at them and there's barely any detail on them at all.
Hardly convincing as the really small examples at that point probably have 20 times less polycount than the original sized ones.
Found that very disappointing.

Epic were saying about loads on a screen and could only manage it with really small, blurry examples that only have a running an dying animation and that's it...

Damn, I was going to get this but gamecentral gave it a 7 today. Cvg gave it an 8.0, unfortunately eurogamers reviews aren't as reliable as they used to be.

I gave up on this yesterday out of sheer frustration.

I'm normally pretty good at shooters but i've literally died hundred of times while playing R2 on normal. The majority of the deaths have been one hit kills or enemies just rushing me and gunning me down in 3 or 4 hits.

It pure trial-and-error, learn-where-the-enemies-come-from gameplay. No skill involved just a desire to replay the same sections over and over. Utter shit compared to the first one or GOW2 which i moved onto last night after this crap.

Maybe the multiplayer is good but it just isn't a 9/10 game based on my experience of the single player.

"I'm normally pretty good at shooters but i've literally died hundred of times while playing R2 on normal. The majority of the deaths have been one hit kills or enemies just rushing me and gunning me down in 3 or 4 hits."

Really? Just finished it (SP) and I'm not a very good FPS player (never even played one online) but had little trouble with R2 on normal, think it's a bit too easy even. Thanks to the now common regenerating health there's no challenge whatsoever in FPSs anymore. I thought the one-hit-kill enemies were a good remedy for this system: they keep you on your toes. Even better would be to just go back to good old hit points en med packs though.

R2 grew on me. At first the too dark lighting (or lack of brightness controls) bothered me a lot, by the end it bothered me a little bit. The game would have looked even better if a significant part of it wasn't completely black, but maybe it's just my TV (though I don't have this problem with any other game). While restrictive and sometimes ruining surprises ('gee, a shotgun, wonder what type of enemy will come up next'), the 2-weapon system at least made me use each and every weapon rather than just stick to Augur and Bullseye for the entire game.

All in all a worthy successor to R1 IMO. Will definitely give online a try this time.

OMG, this is the first game I might actually buy for the PS3 since MGS4

It's been a long wait. Too long :S

Yes

As a huge fan of FoM I have to say I think EG are utterly round the bend on this one. It seems to me that Insomniac just didn't have any faith in their game chucked out everything that made it good in the first place. R2 just feels like some crappy COD wannabe where you run from one set piece to the next and worse still, it doesn't manage to do it well!

How they you think this warrants a 9 and the original is worth a 6 is just...mind shatteringly incomprehensible.

Thank a bunch Insomniac.

"How they you think this warrants a 9 and the original is worth a 6 is just...mind shatteringly incomprehensible."

True, the discrepancy doesn't make any sense (probably different reviewers, which again proves the point that review scores are futile).

The first game was more polished, had better level design, better damage system and more varied gameplay. But this one looks better (except for the lighting) so that probably explains the higher score... And it has better enemies and bosses (though the latter are rather easy).

As for running from one set-piece to the next, that's basically the template for FPSs, was the same in the first one and every other FPS except maybe STALKER (according to the mixed reviews).

Yet Edge magazine give it a 6? Fucking hell I have this game and it is not bad the multi player rules but the graphics are inconsistant in single player.

6/10 was a fair score for the first game, this one deserves a 4. Really poor, I'll be trading it back in ASAP.

"As for running from one set-piece to the next, that's basically the template for FPSs, was the same in the first one and every other FPS except maybe STALKER (according to the mixed reviews)"

Possibly, but it was a hell of a lot better disguised in the first one. What really kills this for me, though, is losing the full campaign co-op. That was definitely the best way to play FoM.

Playing other FPS and inc the recent great fun 3rd person GoW2 and then trying out R2 really shown up how much scripting there is in this game. I got killed a few times cos the bastard 'friendly' NPC kept pushing me out into the open just cos its scripted and you can easily predict and kill the baddies!

Fury, dont talk to me about those stupid man-fish who just go round and round like a goldfish no matter what was happening around them!

These flaws gets up my nose so far!

Can see why its doesnt get critically high score across the board, good game but some flaws too. Sadly not GoTY for me from the first couple of hours, as it was with MSG4 or other games.

Actually, I've changed my mind. It's really started kick arse now!

1. It gets really good at Orick.

2. It looks a hell of a lot better on my old 26in Samsung that it does on my 42in Toshiba. On the Tosh it looks jaggy as hell and the constrast is really buggered, being either very bright or very dark with little in between. I've had this problem on one other game on the PS3 - Uncharted. It's a shame because the Tosh is really good, overwise. Certainly glad I kept the Samsung, though.

"1. It gets really good at Orick."

Had the same experience. I spent the first two levels mainly being annoyed by some small lacks of polish but around Orick the game really gets going.

The first two levels in the first game were meh as well...then it took off big time.

The game does improve as you go through it but playing this so soon after Gears 2, it just doesn't compare in any way, this is the kind of game I would enjoy when there's a drought of good software, that's not the case at present, I very happily traded it in for Fallout 3. I strongly suggest that people rent/borrow this one before paying full price for it. It's really not that good at all imho.

@Xerx3s
"Sorry but I am yet to see any professional journalism in the games industry..."

Oh dear oh dear. A whole new level of stupid on the EG comment threads!

Played my first online R2 today and it's excellent (though I'm not). Especially Skirmish is genius, with its dynamic objectives. And I really like the way that you're always in the 'blue' team. Team colour switching got me confused sometimes during multiple round Warhawk sessions. Minor niggle but still, nice to see an easy fix for it.

been playing this now for a few days, overall it's good, but a 9/10 it's not I'm afraid, definitely not a triple A title, I know the PS3 crew may disagree but I honestly don't consider this sequel to be any better than the first, in ways it's worse (and I pretty much agreed with the 6/10 EG gave the original)... A decent game, definitely not bad, just really not great imo.

I liked this, especially once my avatar started moving into Orick. Orick makes you forget about some of the cheap one hit kills in there. Also, strangely enough (or maybe not), after beating Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy) a few months back, memorising enemy patterns to go from one showcase to the next seems to have become an utterly complete walk in the park :).

9/10 is all very well, but I still haven't managed to convince any of my Xbox360-owning friends to buy a PS3 and 1-up absolutely crucified the single-player mode (in their "1-Up Yours" podcast on 07/11/08).

:-(

I know I'm throwing another bucketload of kerosene into this discussion, but does anyone else find it odd that the Resistance 2 review is still linked to via a picture on the main page? It's been a while since the review, hasn't it? Sorry if it's been mentioned already.

[edit] Grand, it's removed now. And it's gone from the Highlights section on every page as well.

AS GD AS COD 4.
i thought resistance FOM was quite gd, if R2 is betta then i cnt wait 2 get it,
one of the best games on ps3 if not then all consoles

bought a PS3 on monday to sit along side my 360. got the machine + bluray, HDMI and 3 games for £300.... thanks HMV, however, this game is bloody awful and a chore to play through. The graphics are terrible with one of the worst main screens i have seen in 10 years and the online is a joke. very, very disappointed with this.