Insomniac: Fans Think "Resistance 2 Was A Failure"

[John Funk]

Insomniac: Fans Think "Resistance 2 Was A Failure"

Insomniac community manager James Stevenson says that despite a more favorable critical reception to Resistance 2 than that of the first game, the company was stung by their fans' apparent belief that the game "was a failure."

For better or worse, it may be the game critics who determine a game's Metacritic score, but for developers, it's the fans who buy your games and are enthusiastic about the community. That's why, Insomniac's senior community manager James Stevenson, told Videogamer [http://www.videogamer.com/news/insomniac_fans_believe_resistance_2_was_a_failure.html] Resistance 2's superior review scores compared to its predecessor didn't counterbalance the disappointment the company saw amongst its devoted fans.

"The hardcore fans of Resistance 1 were maybe a little bit disappointed. Those folks consistently expressing that - especially [NeoGAF] [http://www.neogaf.com/forum/] - it was like your dog turned on you," Stevenson elaborated. "That's the feeling of it. You had this dog that loved you. You loved the dog, too, but they expressed all this affection for you. And then suddenly the dog bites your hand and it's that feeling of, ooh, ow, that really hurts."

True, the reviews might have been better - and the game sits at a not-shabby-at-all 87 on Metacritic - but their opinion doesn't matter quite as much, says Stevenson. If a reviewer dislikes a game, that's all right, since reviewers play "lots of games. They're supposed to be critical." But fan reception is a different thing entirely.

[blockquote]"But the people who put their money down on our game, want to see our game be good and want to invest months of their time into our game, spend months of their time leading up to our game watching videos, reading about it, sending us questions, listening to our podcasts, investing hours and hours and being excited for our game, if they're disappointed then it hurts more than some reviewer being pissy about a game and giving it a seven, well, okay, whatever. I can move on from that. I can ignore that. But fans that are genuinely disappointed are a lot harder to cope with."[/blockquote]

I can see his point, true. But on the other hand, is a game doesn't live up to the fans' hype really a "failure," even in their eyes? I think that word has stronger connotations than he might mean.

Permalink

 

[Heart of Darkness]

After reading this, I could only think of one thing:

More people will complain about a game than tout it's praises, and will do so for longer periods of time.

 

[Redingold]

Were they complaining because it wasn't like the first one, or did they just think the gameplay sucked?

In the first one, you had a weapon system like Half-Life, where you keep all your weapons in your infinite backpack. Your health would regenerate up to the nearest quarter.

The second one was basically Halo or CoD (Regenerating health, 2 weapons at a time - no dual-wielding, though).

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

I really like Resistance 2, the gameplay was addictive. However i havent played it in a while thanks to better games.

 

[ae86gamer]

The biggest problem I had with the game was the multiplayer. Other than that it was ok. The ending surprised me.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Personally what killed this game for me was the lack of a single-player campaign co-op like there was in the first one. In the second one we got this wishy washy co-op think that played a bit too much like TF2. (No really there was even the classic heavy-medic combo taking all the damage and laying down serious firepower with their gatling guns.)

Also the story for R2 was... Meh at best. The lack of the ability to carry every gun you picked up also killed the game (for me).
R2 felt too much like Insomniac was trying too many new things and throwing out too many old things wether they worked or not.

In their attempt to give us something better Insomniac shot themselves in the foot by removing too much of the things that worked in R1.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

If only Infinity Ward could think like these guys...

 

[Casual Shinji]

I never bothered to play Resistance 2 because they took out the weapon wheel. The first game was great because you could carry all the guns you encountered. But for some reason Insomniac felt it necessary to follow the Halo and Call of Duty road and only allowed you to carry two guns.

They had a great thing going on with Fall of Men and all they had to do for the sequel was build on top of that. But they tried to do to much and ended up neglecting the single-player.

 

[scotth266]

I can see his point, true. But on the other hand, is a game doesn't live up to the fans' hype really a "failure," even in their eyes? I think that word has stronger connotations than he might mean.

The thing is, Stevenson has hit the nail on the head here. Critics? You can wag the middle finger at them, for all you care: the primary concern of a game developer is that the players enjoyed the game.

If the players do not enjoy the game, you've failed, no matter how well the game is critically recieved: because you aren't making a game for the critics, you're making the game for the players.

For instance, I hated Oblivion, as a critic: but Bethseda doesn't give a toss, because as a player, I love the damn thing.

 

[DarthDonut]

I thought this game was WAY better than Resistance 1 (minus the weapon wheel, which was WAY better than 2 weapons at a time), but it still had a few faults. However, the Chicago level was most definetely awesome.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Well, it by all means isn't a failure. It's a decent game as is, but they cashed some of the stand-aside bits from the first Resistance that made it a little bit better than the other FPSs on the market. Sure, you had some kind of quantum dimensional pockets where everything fit inside including a refrigerator and a small housing complex, but hey, that was kinda cool.

 

[Kajt]

I will have to agree with the fans to some extent. Yes, Resistance 2 wasn't as good as Resistance: Fall of Man, but it wasn't a failure.

 

[Frizzle]

This was actually the first game i got when I bought my PS3. I still think it's a great game and i've beaten it. The only thing I wished it had was a co-op campaign mode. The multiplayer wasn't really my thing, but i won't hold that against them.

They have my kudos for making a great game.

 

[j0z]

I own both games, and I have to agree R1 was superior to R2 in many senses. I really missed the weapon wheel, and I don't like the R2 regenerating health. I liked the R1 regenerating health (regenerate 25%). Plus, I thought the atmosphere in R1 was much better, and it had some pretty tense/scary moments.
R2, not so much, and some of the enemies were cheap.

 

[Phokal]

I never really gave R2 a shot. I played the first game Co-op with a friend, and when I learned I couldn't do that in the R2 I wasn't really interested. It came out at the same time as GoW2, which had the co-op + horde mode (which, while I haven't stuck with it as much, seemed more interested than R2 mini-mission coop). 64 players is awesome, but I really only have a handful of PS3 friends. I'd rather have an experience catered to the 3-6 of us (or 1-2 in campaign coop), than the 16? players needed for R2 mini-mission coop.

 

[PhiMed]

They removed co-op campaign, they completely changed the storytelling style, and they changed the weapons system and the health system.

Don't get me started on the goofy "Can you figure out the strategy? Then you win!" bosses.

Other than the recurrence of some enemies and weapons, this was completely unrecognizable as a sequel to the original. I liked it, but I was definitely disappointed.

 

[dekkarax]

Yeah, I agree with them on that.
R2 was a good game, but they took out many of the bits that made R1 special, like the health system, and the varied enemy types like the Greyjacks.

 

[Captain Pancake]

Maybe critics just don't know what people want anymore.

 

[Jumplion]

Resistance 2 was definately a good game, I thought, but I do agree that it took away too many things from the original. The first Resistance felt more, I dunno, "pure" in a sense I suppose. R2 was good, but I just have this vibe with it. Definitely hope R3 is even better, Insomniac has enough trust in me.

 

[Aura Guardian]

Resistance 2 was definately a good game, I thought, but I do agree that it took away too many things from the original. The first Resistance felt more, I dunno, "pure" in a sense I suppose. R2 was good, but I just have this vibe with it. Definitely hope R3 is even better, Insomniac has enough trust in me.

Here's hoping. I like the Resistance Franchise.