Resistance 3 Page 16

  • Page

    of 16 First / Last

  • Phattso Moderator 18 Feb 2013 13:25:25 12,721 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Also there's one early level that's so ridiculous it could've been in Duke Nukem 3D. Both visually and on an insane gameplay level.
  • Triggerhappytel 18 Feb 2013 14:14:43 2,664 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I enjoyed R2 for what it was, although it definitely made some missteps with regard to changes implemented from the first game. It really was just a big dumb shooter with regenerating health and a two weapon limit which tried to wow you with big battles, big bosses and a group of special ops Marines as the protagonists.

    Resistance 3 was very different, with a very bleak and defeatist premise and was back to using health packs only and with no weapon limits. It's a much better balanced game with some great set-pieces, although the narrative isn't up to much and the ending feels very rushed. I'd say both are worth playing, and if you can pick up Resistance 2 for a few quid and know what to expect (i.e. a dumb but fun corridor shooter with an onus on big monsters and big guns) then it's worth checking out.
  • DUFFKING 18 Feb 2013 15:35:35 6,487 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    -cerberus- wrote:
    I'm just curious, what went wrong with R2 precisely?
    Just about everything. It's fuck ugly throughout, and frustrating from start to finish. Stupid AI, crap checkpointing, trial and error gameplay throughout.

    The invisible one hit kill monsters are probably the most retarded design decision in FPS history.

    It's also impossible to tell how much damage you've taken, since one shot from the weakest weapons in the game (flying drone things) turns your screen the same amount red as if you just got shot in the face by a rocket launcher.

    I find it genuinely astonishing that a dev team could put out a game as excellent as R3 and one as absolutely terrible as R2.
  • -cerberus- 18 Feb 2013 16:09:06 2,067 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Ouch, sounds painful to play... Then I wonder what it did to deserved near-perfect scores back when it was released?

    "You see it too? For me, it's always like this..."
    (Angela Orosco - Silent Hill 2)

  • FanBoysSuck 18 Feb 2013 18:03:27 1,382 posts
    Seen 21 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Those invisible bastards, that's what I hates most about the second game. That and they changed the cool alternate 1940's story for generic marine shit with a 2 weapon limit and the visuals were bloody awful. As in Haze bad a some points. No coop either.

    I can only assume the reviewers at the time were being given free coke and hookers throughout.

    For the emperor!

  • King_Edward 18 Feb 2013 18:15:33 11,454 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    It ticked a lot of trendy fps boxes at the time. Epic campaign with massive bosses. 60 player competitive online, 8 player co-op. A dark and gritty (unhappy) story.

    It was all terribly done, but it's the sort of impressive stuff that blinds people to a bad game.
  • chessboxer 19 Feb 2013 04:17:53 250 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I liked R2. There were fewer slow moments than in R:FOM and you went from chapter to chapter without the load screens (I think there were 2 load screens in the entire game).

    I thought losing the health packs also made sense as Nathan Hale wasn't really human anymore, whereas Capelli (in R3) had been cured with the Hale Vaccine. Having regenerating health in R2 made more sense than it does in a shitload of other FPS games.
  • Page

    of 16 First / Last

Log in or register to reply