Review: Resistance 2

tendo82

Uncanny Valley Cave Dweller
Nov 30, 2007
1,283
0
0
Review: Resistance 2

Resist this game.

Read Full Article
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
I was jokingly going to wonder if this was going to be a copy/pasted Halo 2 review, and frankly for all intents and purposes it could've been. But all jokes aside it's good to know I'm not the only person who doesn't get the appeal of this game.
 

L.B. Jeffries

New member
Nov 29, 2007
2,175
0
0
The frightening thing about this review is that I know there is still a long line of developers trapped in the 2 to 3 year development cycle making an FPS just like this one and getting ready to release it to an audience that is just as tired of it.
 

Yrcitysasuckr

New member
Nov 17, 2008
3
0
0
It's nice to see a generally negative review. I feel that too many game reviewers are soft on games nowadays.

I dig it.
 

Syphonz

New member
Aug 22, 2008
1,255
0
0
I think Resistance 2 was pretty good, not nearly as fun as the first, but still good. I think this review seems a little too intent on pointing out all the features of the game that have been in other games and not nearly enough on how it plays, weapons design, etc.
 

Scypemonk

Proud TBB Warrior
Sep 26, 2007
105
0
0
I haven't played the game, probably would'nt anyway, but as good as people think it is because its well executed in the game design, its certainly fair to give it a negative review for lacking in inventivness. Unfortunatly i hardly think its going to help much, since pretty much every other reviewer (especially the pure ps3 reviewers, suprise, suprise), gives it perfect or near perfect scores and reviews.
 

Supernovajake

New member
Oct 18, 2008
381
0
0
I was going to buy this game and, well I still am. It is the first negative thing I have heard about Resistance 2, not just from reviews but from everyone. This was basically a Yahtzee review minus the funny stuff. I know reviews are opinions but surely he must have liked something about it.
 

Syphonz

New member
Aug 22, 2008
1,255
0
0
Supernovajake said:
I was going to buy this game and, well I still am. It is the first negative thing I have heard about Resistance 2, not just from reviews but from everyone. This was basically a Yahtzee review minus the funny stuff. I know reviews are opinions but surely he must have liked something about it.
Agreed
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
Syphonz said:
I think Resistance 2 was pretty good, not nearly as fun as the first, but still good. I think this review seems a little too intent on pointing out all the features of the game that have been in other games and not nearly enough on how it plays, weapons design, etc.
Because how it plays and weapon design, etc. has also already been in other games.
 

Dom Camus

New member
Sep 8, 2006
199
0
0
Trouble with the "more of the same" argument is there are players who like that. Who are we to deprive them of their fun?

(Yes, I too am too busy with Little Big Planet to play this...)
 

tendo82

Uncanny Valley Cave Dweller
Nov 30, 2007
1,283
0
0
I was thinking about buying this game, but now I'm not so sure. My friends said to not buy it and this guy said not to buy it. I think it will be a rent before I buy. :p
 

James Raynor

New member
Sep 3, 2008
683
0
0
OMG NORMAL HOUSES LOOK LIKE.... NORMAL HOUSES!

Geez...


There's probably no land marks because of the fiasco with the church thing.


And seriously, do you think the PS3 can handle the flying ships, a city, AND what goes on in the actual game play?
 

Smokescreen

New member
Dec 6, 2007
520
0
0
Hm. One of the criticisms of the first Resistance, if I recall, was that it didn't do anything new, but what it did do it did very well, and that was fine.

That's pretty much what I'm hearing now, too; this game doesn't do anything new, and that's what's wrong with it.

There is no real discussion of why it doesn't work, just that you've seen it before, and that's a problem for this reviewer. He doesn't really point out where it isn't fun, or is broken somehow, and so I'm having trouble seeing the ire here. Maybe he expected more out of it?
 

bue519

New member
Oct 3, 2007
913
0
0
I'm really shocked that he didn't even go into multiplayer (a fairly large part of the game, and how well its set up), and when playing this game I found myself taking cover and flanking foes, not really a straight up run and gun. But, I guess thats what I get for playing it on hard. Also, it's interesting about how glowing the gears of war 2 review was, when that game is even more repetitive. You didn't even mention the co-op campaign either. But, to each his own.
 

haruvister

New member
Jun 4, 2008
576
0
0
I've not played R2, so I can't comment on that directly. Yet Mr Endo's review could so easily apply to R1, which I HAVE played. Which would mean that he's basically describing a two year-old game which was, let's face it, already deeply mediocre in its gameplay and eye-avertingly derivative in its production design. It's not the job of professional reviewers to seek a game's qualities in spite of its wealth of deficiencies. I mean, I love Viking: Battle For Asgard, but show me a journalist who scores it above six out of ten and I'll call him or her an unprincipled cretin.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
After hearing so much bull about this game its nice to hear an honest review about it. If this was Halo you guys would be all over it, yet Resistance does the same thing and you defend it...I don't get it.

To whoever mentioned Gears of War, its not very repetitive if you've played it...
 

bue519

New member
Oct 3, 2007
913
0
0
D_987 said:
After hearing so much bull about this game its nice to hear an honest review about it. If this was Halo you guys would be all over it, yet Resistance does the same thing and you defend it...I don't get it.

To whoever mentioned Gears of War, its not very repetitive if you've played it...
Your right. Running from cover to cover shooting other enemies in cover isn't repetitive at all. Please, don't tell me about those "awesome vehicle segments" or the on rails segment. Gears 2 is worse than the original in almost every respect.
 

Aries_Split

New member
May 12, 2008
2,097
0
0
Smokescreen said:
Hm. One of the criticisms of the first Resistance, if I recall, was that it didn't do anything new, but what it did do it did very well, and that was fine.

That's pretty much what I'm hearing now, too; this game doesn't do anything new, and that's what's wrong with it.

There is no real discussion of why it doesn't work, just that you've seen it before, and that's a problem for this reviewer. He doesn't really point out where it isn't fun, or is broken somehow, and so I'm having trouble seeing the ire here. Maybe he expected more out of it?
Exactly my thoughts.

I would like to see this man give a review of Halo 3.

This could be almost a carbon copy of said review, more than likely, the review for Halo 3 would be positive.

Each person has his own opinion, but unless all Mr.Endo's reviews focus on the negative parts of gameplays, I find it hard to believe this one.
 

D_987

New member
Jun 15, 2008
4,839
0
0
bue519 said:
D_987 said:
After hearing so much bull about this game its nice to hear an honest review about it. If this was Halo you guys would be all over it, yet Resistance does the same thing and you defend it...I don't get it.

To whoever mentioned Gears of War, its not very repetitive if you've played it...
Your right. Running from cover to cover shooting other enemies in cover isn't repetitive at all. Please, don't tell me about those "awesome vehicle segments" or the on rails segment. Gears 2 is worse than the original
Fanboy?
Grammar Nazi?

State your business - what you fail to see is that, that is my opinion of Resistance, a shooter that brings nothing new to the table - it just steals bits of other games food. You on the other hand, attack my view of Gears because...

Well I don't know...
 

bue519

New member
Oct 3, 2007
913
0
0
Aries_Split said:
Smokescreen said:
Hm. One of the criticisms of the first Resistance, if I recall, was that it didn't do anything new, but what it did do it did very well, and that was fine.

That's pretty much what I'm hearing now, too; this game doesn't do anything new, and that's what's wrong with it.

There is no real discussion of why it doesn't work, just that you've seen it before, and that's a problem for this reviewer. He doesn't really point out where it isn't fun, or is broken somehow, and so I'm having trouble seeing the ire here. Maybe he expected more out of it?
Exactly my thoughts.

I would like to see this man give a review of Halo 3.

This could be almost a carbon copy of said review, more than likely, the review for Halo 3 would be positive.

Each person has his own opinion, but unless all Mr.Endo's reviews focus on the negative parts of gameplays, I find it hard to believe this one.
My point exactly, and he completely missed the co-op and multiplayer aspects.
 

bue519

New member
Oct 3, 2007
913
0
0
D_987 said:
bue519 said:
D_987 said:
After hearing so much bull about this game its nice to hear an honest review about it. If this was Halo you guys would be all over it, yet Resistance does the same thing and you defend it...I don't get it.

To whoever mentioned Gears of War, its not very repetitive if you've played it...
Your right. Running from cover to cover shooting other enemies in cover isn't repetitive at all. Please, don't tell me about those "awesome vehicle segments" or the on rails segment. Gears 2 is worse than the original
Fanboy?
Grammar Nazi?

State your business - what you fail to see is that, that is my opinion of Resistance, a shooter that brings nothing new to the table - it just steals bits of other games food. You on the other hand, attack my view of Gears because...

Well I don't know...
I don't consider it an attack, more of a discussion. I'm really not sure why your being so defensive. And Grammar Nazi? What?
 

tendo82

Uncanny Valley Cave Dweller
Nov 30, 2007
1,283
0
0
haruvister said:
I've not played R2, so I can't comment on that directly. Yet Mr Endo's review could so easily apply to R1, which I HAVE played. Which would mean that he's basically describing a two year-old game which was, let's face it, already deeply mediocre in its gameplay and eye-avertingly derivative in its production design. It's not the job of professional reviewers to seek a game's qualities in spite of its wealth of deficiencies. I mean, I love Viking: Battle For Asgard, but show me a journalist who scores it above six out of ten and I'll call him or her an unprincipled cretin.
So one should only give a superficial look at the game with the mindset of actively not looking for the quality of it?
 

coakroach

New member
Jun 8, 2008
123
0
0
Its not fun blasting aliens with crazy laser guns and air-fuel grenades?

Go read Twilight and play Braid

Nub.
 

TheBadass

New member
Aug 27, 2008
704
0
0
D_987 said:
After hearing so much bull about this game its nice to hear an honest review about it.
Hey, don't just take this place's opinion as the word dude. The vast majority of people - myself included - have loved it, so check some other reviews or summin' before making a final judgement.
 

wyldefire

New member
Feb 27, 2008
49
0
0
Uninspiring environments? I usually don't say this about reviewer, but did he play the game. There are some moments that are freaking amazing, like looking down on hundreds of miles of farmland from the top of a tower. Most of what Endo says is true and certainly R2 doesn't reinvent the wheel, but the game sucks you in regardless. I will say that I'm not as fond of the story or singleplayer as I was in R1, but the multiplayer and coop, which apparently he hasn't played much of, works extremely well.
 

SinisterDeath

New member
Nov 6, 2006
471
0
0
Uhh, no landmark?
Do you not recall seeing the golden gate bridge?

Well that is unless your reffering to locations you can actually 'shoot' aliens in...

As for its clicheness.
I ask the reviewer this.
Name a game Made this YEAR that isn't 'cliche'?
And yes, LittleBigPlanet is 'cliche', you can point out anything in ANY game that has been done in another game, and I find this a very poor arguement about how 'good' or 'bad' a game is.
I played it, the story was medicore as far as FPS's go. (NO where NEAR as bad as Hazes... god that was a disapointment! Soooo much hype for... that?)
No where near as intricate as MGS was, but thats an analomoly as far as games go...
The Gigantic Bosses, and the Multi-player really seemed to be insomniacs focus for this game... Hopefully the 3rd game will combine the best of R, and the best of R2..
As for the multi-player, I definately find that to be highly entertaining, and the co-op is extremely intense!
On a side note to the Reviewer. There are tons of skirmish maps up, infact trying to find one that isn't full is a pain...
 

shadow skill

New member
Oct 12, 2007
2,850
0
0
You know I could write the same review for every shooter that isn't Doom 1 if I wanted to. I could have said the same thing about Half Life 2, but you know what Half Life 2 was and is a solid game, the same is true for R2 really. What's the point of reviewing FPS' for sameness when the entire genre has been dead for about a decade or so honestly? Now there are plenty of things that are actually wrong with the gameplay but you do not delve into these things.... The review can be boiled down into a two page rant on how allegedly generic R2 is which is pretty sad since there are valid criticisms to be leveled at this game.
 

TsunamiWombat

New member
Sep 6, 2008
5,870
0
0
Whoa, brave! And to think a guy under gameplay discussion was pissed because someone 'only' gave it a 9.1

Wait till he gets a load of this. Anyway, *clapclap*\

Still I don't know if it's fair to complain so much about Resistance 2 (really don't know, havn't played it!). While starting a revolution against shallow pretty games IS a noteworthy cause, is it right to start said crusade against a game that's -reasonably- good? I wouldn't be so harsh- don't say "don't buy this game", say, "wait a few months for it to go down about $10 in price before you buy it, or Rent it first"
 

shadow skill

New member
Oct 12, 2007
2,850
0
0
TsunamiWombat said:
Whoa, brave! And to think a guy under gameplay discussion was pissed because someone 'only' gave it a 9.1

Wait till he gets a load of this. Anyway, *clapclap*\

Still I don't know if it's fair to complain so much about Resistance 2 (really don't know, havn't played it!). While starting a revolution against shallow pretty games IS a noteworthy cause, is it right to start said crusade against a game that's -reasonably- good? I wouldn't be so harsh- don't say "don't buy this game", say, "wait a few months for it to go down about $10 in price before you buy it, or Rent it first"
The worst part of this review is that he doesn't seem to say that the gameplay is somehow poorly executed in addition to being "generic" Although frankly having elements in common with other games in the same genre is kind of expected. But yea that guy in gameplay would flip over this review though I think in this case it is more justified because the review doesn't say that R2 fails at anything just that it's a member of a specific genre.
 

dredmond79

New member
Nov 18, 2008
3
0
0
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
The final paragraph contains a few hints about R2's story, avoid reading it if you don't want to ruin the surprise of the actual game.

Ok. I'm sorry, but this review is simply not accurate.

R2 is a very fine shooter. It's not a puzzle game, it's not an RPG, it's not a platformer, and it should be judged by the standards of its genre. One of the biggest problems of the shooter is (1) mission creep - the addition of extra padding, overpowered vehicles, and escort missions which waste the player's time, (2) execrably bad voice-acting and dialogue (Gears, I'm looking at you), and (3) imperialism. Yes, imperialism - more on this in a bit. R2 avoids all three problems with commendable dexterity.

Now, you can argue with the game mechanics - I would have liked more weapons, but that's just me. But R2 is NOT a generic collection of cliches. The action is nonstop, the pacing is superb, there isn't a single wasted line or padded mission in the game, and the team coop is just outrageous, stupendous fun. And the story is quite subtle: R2 resists, pun intended, the stereotypes of its own genre. Almost every single other shooter ever made has one story: Brave Heroic Marble-Jawed Space Marines blow up evil, swarming, vaguely East Asian lizard aliens bent on whatever it is that vaguely East Asian lizard aliens do for a living. Usually on foreign worlds humanity just happened to colonize, because we humans are just soooooo good at taking care of planets, right?

But R2 takes all the neocolonial stereotypes of a century of American Empire and turns them on their head. Basically, its an alternate world where aliens do to the US what the US Empire did to the planet in the 1950s - neocolonize it. The sense of planetary doom, the subtle cues about race and gender, and most of all, the backstory, where it turns out human beings have unleashed the worst violence against themselves - these are a refreshing change for the shooter genre.

*** SPOILER PARAGRAPH ***

You have been warned!


*** SPOILER PARAGRAPH ***

Think of the second-to-last level, set in Louisiana. The action takes place in old plantation house. Think about it: plantations, symbols of three hundred years of colonialism and slavery, systems whose after-shocks we are still wrestling with. And then the throwaway line about how humanity is reduced to a few million survivors - a reference to the demographic catastrophe of colonialism, where 15-30 million indigenous Americans perished, mostly due to European-introduced disease. Insomniac deserves huge props for creating a game willing and able to speak directly to our sad, violent history as a species, in ways other game companies can't or won't.
 

Mr402

New member
Nov 18, 2008
1
0
0
I didnt buy this even though a clan I am part of swears by it. I am waiting for a copy from gamefly to try it out. The FPS genre in itself is starting to really lose it's draw for me unless it has something that really stands out. The 1st Resistance was a good game though I rented that one as well. Solid but not jaw dropping and just didnt strike me as a must buy. Looks like R2 is in the same boat.
 

shadow skill

New member
Oct 12, 2007
2,850
0
0
You know I just got out of the shower and it hit me, the review itself is generic, it just says that the game is generic without teling me what did and did not work etc. Irony is such a beautiful thing.
 

stinkfire

New member
Sep 30, 2008
1
0
0
James Raynor said:
OMG NORMAL HOUSES LOOK LIKE.... NORMAL HOUSES!

Geez...


There's probably no land marks because of the fiasco with the church thing.


And seriously, do you think the PS3 can handle the flying ships, a city, AND what goes on in the actual game play?
HAHA you are an idiot the ps3 has way enough power learn stuff before you critisize it.

Ok look i have played the beta. I think that it rocked. Obviously you didn't have much fun online due to the fact that IT ISN'T OUT YET DUHHHH no one will be on apart from other reviewers like you. Ok next i like the game it has a lot of original things. First of all 2 campaighns Usually game developers just slap the original capaighn on for show but resistance 2 has one for single player where you play a human / chimera hybrid person who is super strong and can take on hunderd of enemies and then there is the other campaign which you play as average soldiers (i fogot there name) and you need to work as a team to get through.

Another original thing is the 60 player online maps. Yes you couldn't find one but that is because it isn't out yet. During the beta it is amazing. Even playing people across the world and me here in australia i get NO LAG none wat so ever. I also love the water physics they have put into the game. It looks like real water. I love killing people off a building to have there body fall into the ocian and see the water break like real water, so there is something sort of new. Here is anther thing. The weapons design yes weapons have came and gone but not many games have such creative weapons as resistance2. Halo had the "plasma rifle" hey? Well this game has a gun with a blade on the end and you can spin it up to shoot at people so it sticks to them and continues to shred.

Apart from what i have mentianed above the game has heaps more. I love the community aspect you can easily join friends parties and go to a game with then with no problems and you can also level up your player to unlock better weapons.

So before you judge a game on what isn't new just think about it. Hardly any games now days have unique gameplay you just can't bag one game for doing it when all the others do it to. While your at it go bag fable 2 for bieng another rts game or go back little big planet for bieng a platformer. You need to look at the new stuff in games. Like how little bigplanets art design and gameplay mesh together.

So yeah that is what i had to say....

BTW I WAS NOT BAGGING LBP LBP ROCKS AND IS THE BEST GAME EVER HANDS DOWN AND IF I EVER SAY THESE WORDS AGAIN RIP MY THROUT OUT NOW!!!
 

Aries_Split

New member
May 12, 2008
2,097
0
0
shadow skill said:
You know I just got out of the shower and it hit me, the review itself is generic, it just says that the game is ggeneric without teling me what did and did not work ec. Irony is such a beautiful thing.
Ahh...Enlightenment.

A truly beautiful thing.
 

meatloaf231

Old Man Glenn
Feb 13, 2008
2,248
0
0
While the review was fairly well written, it had an undermining sense of bitterness about it, as if the reviewer was reprimanding a child with poor grades. He sounded disappointed in the game. However, I must commend him for reviewing it with little regard to the game's popularity.

One side point: the guns in the Resistance series are quite original. Few to none of them are direct copies from other games. I mean, what other game has a gun that shoots giant plasma bolts that get more powerful the more walls they go through?
 

Aries_Split

New member
May 12, 2008
2,097
0
0
meatloaf231 said:
While the review was fairly well written, it had an undermining sense of bitterness about it, as if the reviewer was reprimanding a child with poor grades. He sounded disappointed in the game. However, I must commend him for reviewing it with little regard to the game's popularity.

One side point: the guns in the Resistance series are quite original. Few to none of them are direct copies from other games. I mean, what other game has a gun that shoots giant plasma bolts that get more powerful the more walls they go through?
Resistance: Fall of Man.

:p
 

Eagle Est1986

That One Guy
Nov 21, 2007
1,976
0
0
It seems a lot like the reviewer is being negative just for the sake of it. I can't help but think that he'd made up his mind before even playing the game.
This has been pretty much the first negative thing I've heard about the game, so I reckon I'm still gonna pick it up somewhere along the line.

On a more positive note though, nice to see The Escapist publishing more critical reviews, some of the reviews recently have felt more like adverts than reviews. *cough* Fallout 3 *cough*
 

haruvister

New member
Jun 4, 2008
576
0
0
Indigo_Dingo said:
haruvister said:
I've not played R2, so I can't comment on that directly. Yet Mr Endo's review could so easily apply to R1, which I HAVE played. Which would mean that he's basically describing a two year-old game which was, let's face it, already deeply mediocre in its gameplay and eye-avertingly derivative in its production design. It's not the job of professional reviewers to seek a game's qualities in spite of its wealth of deficiencies. I mean, I love Viking: Battle For Asgard, but show me a journalist who scores it above six out of ten and I'll call him or her an unprincipled cretin.
So one should only give a superficial look at the game with the mindset of actively not looking for the quality of it?
No. I mean a professional reviewer (or, if you prefer, critic) isn't doing his job if he provides a reasoned analysis, as Mr Endo seems to have done, only to sweep all his criticisms aside in his conclusion due to some irrational personal love (such as mine for Viking). Mr Endo concludes that R2 is satisfactory at best, therefore average - "mediocre".
 

Dogstar060763

New member
Jul 28, 2008
14
0
0
Dom Camus said:
Trouble with the "more of the same" argument is there are players who like that. Who are we to deprive them of their fun?

(Yes, I too am too busy with Little Big Planet to play this...)
True: on the basis of not giving players 'more of the same' we might never have seen Dead Space, for instance - surely a game with absolutely no originality in it's bones, but what a polished and beautiful game to play, regardless.

I'm really tired of these arguments about 'originality over polish'.

I don't have a PS3, and I've never played Resistance 1 or 2.
 

SinisterDeath

New member
Nov 6, 2006
471
0
0
Another original thing is the 60 player online maps. Yes you couldn't find one but that is because it isn't out yet.
It is out, 60 player skirmish maps are 100% completely out.
I think you just might be an idiot is all.


On a side note, one thing I was disapointed at about R2 was the fact that apparently, there are no controlable vehichles!
The tank battle in R1 was fun as hell! ;)
 

zombielifecoach

New member
Feb 21, 2008
167
0
0
I get this strange feeling of bitterness from this review. Almost like Mr. Endo had some personal grudge against this game. Resistance 2 was not perfect(at least in my humble opinion) nor ground-breaking. More a competent, prettied-up sequel. I enjoyed the first outing of the series more. The multi-player was a blast though and Insomniac did try for innovation in that aspect so to say there is nothing new there is a bit misleading. He harps on the repetitive nature of this game. That it doesn't, "do anything new". But repetitive, done-it-all-before is the nature of FPS's. I mean how many WWII shooters are there, and they continue to get high scores from reviewers-COD World at War comes to mind. Innovation in the FP world of gaming can be dangerous, you could end up with another 'Mirror's Edge'. If anything I would say that Resistance 2 does not give you a deep sense of immersion that some other FPS's out there provide. But similarities in shooters is to be expected. No?
 

Kinetic_man

New member
May 7, 2008
13
0
0
Resistance 2 was indeed lacking in terms of what it promised versus what it delivered, but to me this still seemed less like an objective review than a thinly veiled advertisement for HALO! BUY IT TODAY!!! which is getting a bit tiresome. And while other games were mentioned I only bring this up because it was mentioned four separate times in a seven paragraph review.
Now, were the Halo games good? Sure. Were they the end all be all of first person shooters that every other shooter in the sci-fi genre is attempting to rip off merely by daring to exist in their shadow? Contrary to popular belief, no.
It's like reviewing a new DDR game and constantly bitching about how Guitar Hero does rhythm better, or how you've played all these songs before in Rockband. In fact part of me even believes that somewhere there are even madlibs style templates for reviews such as this, where you just plug in what game you want it to say the new release ripped off.
Now I'm not trying to stick up for Sony here or start a flame war, I'm just trying to say that maybe, just maybe, reviewers should focus on the overall fun and mechanics of the game at hand and not get all misty over what games its level design style bears similarity to.
 

zombielifecoach

New member
Feb 21, 2008
167
0
0
Rhythm Games! For the life of me I couldn't think of an appropriate comparison, as an example types of games that are repetitive in nature or style but enjoyed none-the-less. My brain was totally out to lunch. GOOD JOB Kinetic_man!
 

James Raynor

New member
Sep 3, 2008
683
0
0
stinkfire said:
James Raynor said:
OMG NORMAL HOUSES LOOK LIKE.... NORMAL HOUSES!

Geez...


There's probably no land marks because of the fiasco with the church thing.


And seriously, do you think the PS3 can handle the flying ships, a city, AND what goes on in the actual game play?
HAHA you are an idiot the ps3 has way enough power learn stuff before you critisize it.

Ok look i have played the beta. I think that it rocked. Obviously you didn't have much fun online due to the fact that IT ISN'T OUT YET DUHHHH no one will be on apart from other reviewers like you. Ok next i like the game it has a lot of original things. First of all 2 campaighns Usually game developers just slap the original capaighn on for show but resistance 2 has one for single player where you play a human / chimera hybrid person who is super strong and can take on hunderd of enemies and then there is the other campaign which you play as average soldiers (i fogot there name) and you need to work as a team to get through.

Another original thing is the 60 player online maps. Yes you couldn't find one but that is because it isn't out yet. During the beta it is amazing. Even playing people across the world and me here in australia i get NO LAG none wat so ever. I also love the water physics they have put into the game. It looks like real water. I love killing people off a building to have there body fall into the ocian and see the water break like real water, so there is something sort of new. Here is anther thing. The weapons design yes weapons have came and gone but not many games have such creative weapons as resistance2. Halo had the "plasma rifle" hey? Well this game has a gun with a blade on the end and you can spin it up to shoot at people so it sticks to them and continues to shred.

Apart from what i have mentianed above the game has heaps more. I love the community aspect you can easily join friends parties and go to a game with then with no problems and you can also level up your player to unlock better weapons.

So before you judge a game on what isn't new just think about it. Hardly any games now days have unique gameplay you just can't bag one game for doing it when all the others do it to. While your at it go bag fable 2 for bieng another rts game or go back little big planet for bieng a platformer. You need to look at the new stuff in games. Like how little bigplanets art design and gameplay mesh together.

So yeah that is what i had to say....

BTW I WAS NOT BAGGING LBP LBP ROCKS AND IS THE BEST GAME EVER HANDS DOWN AND IF I EVER SAY THESE WORDS AGAIN RIP MY THROUT OUT NOW!!!

Troll.
 

unangbangkay

New member
Oct 10, 2007
142
0
0
I'm not usually one to "review" reviews and their reviewers, but to those that say "it's finally nice to see an honest review" seemingly because the review is negative, that's just as bad as people who claim that negative reviews are posted for reasons of drumming up attention, or that positive reviews are OBVIOUSLY paid for by the publisher. Simply assuming that reviewers are being disingenuous because their opinion does not match yours is both cynical and disrespectful to the writer and the game being reviewed, whomever he or she may be.
 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
tendo82 said:
Review: Resistance 2

Resist this game.

Permalink
What a bad review. When you do a video supplement try to do it right. You seem to know nothing about games whatsoever. Your down-talking of the game seems like a shallow attempt to develop your ego.

I don't even own a PS3 and probably never will but the way you complain about the the production work is completely ignorant.
 

Syphonz

New member
Aug 22, 2008
1,255
0
0
beddo said:
tendo82 said:
Review: Resistance 2

Resist this game.

Permalink
What a bad review. When you do a video supplement try to do it right. You seem to know nothing about games whatsoever. Your down-talking of the game seems like a shallow attempt to develop your ego.

I don't even own a PS3 and probably never will but the way you complain about the the production work is completely ignorant.
Thank you.
 

meatloaf231

Old Man Glenn
Feb 13, 2008
2,248
0
0
Aries_Split said:
meatloaf231 said:
While the review was fairly well written, it had an undermining sense of bitterness about it, as if the reviewer was reprimanding a child with poor grades. He sounded disappointed in the game. However, I must commend him for reviewing it with little regard to the game's popularity.

One side point: the guns in the Resistance series are quite original. Few to none of them are direct copies from other games. I mean, what other game has a gun that shoots giant plasma bolts that get more powerful the more walls they go through?
Resistance: Fall of Man.

:p
Please note I said "the guns in the Resistance series," not just Resistance 2. Still, I suppose the originality was in the first one, and just carried over to the second.
 

haruvister

New member
Jun 4, 2008
576
0
0
beddo said:
I don't even own a PS3 and probably never will but the way you complain about the the production work is completely ignorant.
Seems ironic to label Mr Endo "completely ignorant" when you don't even own the console required to play the game and thus qualify a counter-argument.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
While Mr. Endo is entitled to his opinion, this is the internet after all.

I don't think Insomniac were ever known for the "innovativness" in their games, infact none of their games are really "innovative" and this is coming from an Insomni-whore. They're known for making fun games, pure unadulterated fun games, not exactly original or amazing, but they do enough to their games to make it stand out of the crowd of similar games.

A game doesn't always have to bring something new to the table, it can just be a fun game through and through. I understand if you, Mr. Endo, didn't have fun with Resistance but from what I could read and watch in your review I couldn't tell if you were not having fun with it or talking about some art direction or something.

And what constitutes as "ripping off"? Seriously, it seems that any game that has remote similarities to something is automatically branded as "RIPOFF!" instead of, I dunno, "inspired by..." or "similar to...". Why is everything that has coccoons or a cryo-tank is automatically compared to being a "ripoff" of Aliens or some similar movie? I'll assume that you didn't play the original Resistance, but those coccoons are made to transform humans into more Chimera to fight and while that may not be original when I first saw them I didn't thinkg "ALEINS [email protected]" I thought "Okay, conversion...creepy" and moved on with the game slowly unraveling the story.

I can understand if you didn't have fun with the game, I don't really give two shits if you hated it and told everyone to burn it (okay, maybe it would irk my brain, but still), but I really couldn't tell heads or tails from your review. But I'll blame that on time constraints, word limits, and more time contraints since I'm sure you guys at the Escapist have a quota to fill.

Well, I wasted a few minutes of my life, but that's fine didn't have anything to do anyway.
 

The Iron Ninja

New member
Aug 13, 2008
2,868
0
0
**precautionary note: 360 owner, hasn't played either Resistance 1 or Resistance 2**

I have to say, just from looking at the videos of the gameplay itself, I can't see what the big deal is with this game.

The combat looked very odd. To me it seemed like the gun (and it's bullets) were somehow detached from the rest of the game, and the zombies (aliens?) seemed to just be dieing off on their own (that's the way it looked to me anyway)

It may have just been the video, but the graphics didn't look that spectacular, the animations were rather shoddy in places, the pods being blown apart for example looked very out of place, I know they're supposed to be space pods and all that but I felt, in the same line as what I said earlier, that they looked like they were somehow separate from the rest of the world.

This might have just been the videos themselves, but I honestly can't see what the big deal is about this game, I would even cautiously suggest that it just looks like Halo 2 crossed with Half-life 2, at least from what I saw.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
The problem about this review was it only contained one point. Surely even the most base average reviews can cover more than one aspect? Since when has anyone written music with only one note? It barely glance over the multiplayer. Detailing nothing and seemingly revealing an almost zero experience of the multiplayer. It fails to deal with an aspect of gameplay/weapon design etc. It's just a badly balanced rant.

(Heh note the way I only made one point, failed to cover all aspects and failed to convey an sort of movement throughout the post. If I were to continue and flesh it out and destroy the irony I would mention that the writer is making a brave stand against repetition. That he is right about background and gameplay. That I myself was disappointed with the game (particularly the changed health system) etc)
 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
haruvister said:
beddo said:
I don't even own a PS3 and probably never will but the way you complain about the the production work is completely ignorant.
Seems ironic to label Mr Endo "completely ignorant" when you don't even own the console required to play the game and thus qualify a counter-argument.
If you had the ability to read you would have understood that I was talking about his ignorance of production not of the actual game.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
The Iron Ninja said:
I'd assume mainly it's because it's from Insomniac, and come on, Insomniac are basically the VALVe of the Playstation. Sure, it doesn't seem original, and I can't really put my finger on what makes this game a big deal, but it just...is?

I think a problem with this is that people are comparing Resistance to other FPSs when really it's more or less similar to the Ratchet+Clank games in terms of gameplay atleast. Hell, there's an option to play in First-Person view in some Ratchet games. The feel of the guns, the pacing of the gameplay, the huge unnecisarily big n' loaded BFGs in Resistance pretty much makes it R+C in First-Person in an alternate WWII or something the whole time.
 

Aries_Split

New member
May 12, 2008
2,097
0
0
Jumplion said:
The Iron Ninja said:
I'd assume mainly it's because it's from Insomniac, and come on, Insomniac are basically the VALVe of the Playstation. Sure, it doesn't seem original, and I can't really put my finger on what makes this game a big deal, but it just...is?

I think a problem with this is that people are comparing Resistance to other FPSs when really it's more or less similar to the Ratchet+Clank games in terms of gameplay atleast. Hell, there's an option to play in First-Person view in some Ratchet games. The feel of the guns, the pacing of the gameplay, the huge unnecisarily big n' loaded BFGs in Resistance pretty much makes it R+C in First-Person in an alternate WWII or something the whole time.
Insomniac made R&C, arguably the game with some of the most innovative and creative guns in all video game history...

They made Spyro, a game with a purple dragon going through portals.

And you people call them uninovative?
 

The Iron Ninja

New member
Aug 13, 2008
2,868
0
0
Aries_Split said:
Insomniac made R&C, arguably the game with some of the most innovative and creative guns in all video game history...

They made Spyro, a game with a purple dragon going through portals.

And you people call them uninovative?
What's all this "you people" nonsense?

All I said was "stuff"
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
Aries_Split said:
Jumplion said:
The Iron Ninja said:
I'd assume mainly it's because it's from Insomniac, and come on, Insomniac are basically the VALVe of the Playstation. Sure, it doesn't seem original, and I can't really put my finger on what makes this game a big deal, but it just...is?

I think a problem with this is that people are comparing Resistance to other FPSs when really it's more or less similar to the Ratchet+Clank games in terms of gameplay atleast. Hell, there's an option to play in First-Person view in some Ratchet games. The feel of the guns, the pacing of the gameplay, the huge unnecisarily big n' loaded BFGs in Resistance pretty much makes it R+C in First-Person in an alternate WWII or something the whole time.
Insomniac made R&C, arguably the game with some of the most innovative and creative guns in all video game history...

They made Spyro, a game with a purple dragon going through portals.

And you people call them uninovative?
I'm reluctant to call anything "innovative" these days. Every game either has to have a "gimmick" or an "innovation" to even be worth recomending nowadays and people always semm to "not get it" unless it has a prominent "innovation" or "gimmick" in it.

All I have ever experienced with R+C, hell anything made by Insomniac, was pure fun and I'm fine with that. Every game nowadays seems to try and mash an "innovation" down our throats to prove to us that it's new and interesting, and quite frankly I'm getting sick of it.

So what if R+C were innovating or not? So what if Resistance 2 apparantly "didn't bring anything new to the table"? I just want some fun, I don't need something new every god damn game!
 

James Raynor

New member
Sep 3, 2008
683
0
0
Jumplion said:
Aries_Split said:
Jumplion said:
The Iron Ninja said:
I'd assume mainly it's because it's from Insomniac, and come on, Insomniac are basically the VALVe of the Playstation. Sure, it doesn't seem original, and I can't really put my finger on what makes this game a big deal, but it just...is?

I think a problem with this is that people are comparing Resistance to other FPSs when really it's more or less similar to the Ratchet+Clank games in terms of gameplay atleast. Hell, there's an option to play in First-Person view in some Ratchet games. The feel of the guns, the pacing of the gameplay, the huge unnecisarily big n' loaded BFGs in Resistance pretty much makes it R+C in First-Person in an alternate WWII or something the whole time.
Insomniac made R&C, arguably the game with some of the most innovative and creative guns in all video game history...

They made Spyro, a game with a purple dragon going through portals.

And you people call them uninovative?
I'm reluctant to call anything "innovative" these days. Every game either has to have a "gimmick" or an "innovation" to even be worth recomending nowadays and people always semm to "not get it" unless it has a prominent "innovation" or "gimmick" in it.

All I have ever experienced with R+C, hell anything made by Insomniac, was pure fun and I'm fine with that. Every game nowadays seems to try and mash an "innovation" down our throats to prove to us that it's new and interesting, and quite frankly I'm getting sick of it.

So what if R+C were innovating or not? So what if Resistance 2 apparantly "didn't bring anything new to the table"? I just want some fun, I don't need something new every god damn game!
Well R2 wasn't about WW2 (Same time period), Wasn't about space marines or the future, and it wasn't based on modern times.


Also Iron Ninja they appeared to be dying by them selves because the weapons being used was a blade launcher, bounces around and homes onto enemies.
 

bue519

New member
Oct 3, 2007
913
0
0
haruvister said:
beddo said:
I don't even own a PS3 and probably never will but the way you complain about the the production work is completely ignorant.
Seems ironic to label Mr Endo "completely ignorant" when you don't even own the console required to play the game and thus qualify a counter-argument.
Fine, I own the console, played the game, and still wonder why he skipped out on the multiplayer, and co-op. Am I qualified enough?
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
haruvister said:
I've not played R2, so I can't comment on that directly. Yet Mr Endo's review could so easily apply to R1, which I HAVE played. Which would mean that he's basically describing a two year-old game which was, let's face it, already deeply mediocre in its gameplay and eye-avertingly derivative in its production design. It's not the job of professional reviewers to seek a game's qualities in spite of its wealth of deficiencies. I mean, I love Viking: Battle For Asgard, but show me a journalist who scores it above six out of ten and I'll call him or her an unprincipled cretin.
No... a reviewers job is to sum up his view on a game, positive and negative. What I'm getting from his review is that he didn't enjoy it much - i.e. because it was too bland or too similar to every other FPS, or was just generally meh.
 

Azzaevil

New member
Jun 26, 2008
61
0
0
crappy art rip off events and items yeah yeah but is it fun??? who cares about graphics i care about if im going to have fun im not going to look at the buildings or any of the evioment i want fun im not a graphic freak.
 

CaptainCrunch

Imp-imation Department
Jul 21, 2008
711
0
0
Azzaevil said:
crappy art rip off events and items yeah yeah but is it fun??? who cares about graphics i care about if im going to have fun im not going to look at the buildings or any of the evioment i want fun im not a graphic freak.
It isn't really possible for any reviewer to say if you personally are going to have fun. You won't know for sure unless you try, and if you're still on the fence after a review from a source you trust, you might as well just go rent the game before you decide to buy it.

From what I saw of the gameplay, the most interesting part was the weapons. Everything else was kinda 'meh, I've seen it before'.
 

B33

New member
Nov 19, 2008
4
0
0
Awful review in terms of structure and overall tone.

I agree that Resistance 2 could have used more polish and it doesn't re-define the genre.

But it's far from terrible and still is rather fun.
 

deadgopher

New member
Nov 19, 2008
2
0
0
Sir, as a fellow game journalist (well, an aspiring one, that is), I applaud you for being honest about Resistance 2. I can understand that some people would like this (as you mentioned, they've most likely not been exposed to higher quality games like Gears or Fallout), but it feels like many, many other sites are straight-up lying about it. This game looks like shit, plays like shit, and is mostly just a pile of shit. I've had probably 5-10 minutes of fun out of the 2-3 hours I've put into it so far. What a fucking disappointment.
 

B33

New member
Nov 19, 2008
4
0
0
deadgopher said:
Sir, as a fellow game journalist (well, an aspiring one, that is), I applaud you for being honest about Resistance 2. I can understand that some people would like this (as you mentioned, they've most likely not been exposed to higher quality games like Gears or Fallout), but it feels like many, many other sites are straight-up lying about it. This game looks like shit, plays like shit, and is mostly just a pile of shit. I've had probably 5-10 minutes of fun out of the 2-3 hours I've put into it so far. What a fucking disappointment.
Right, that seems logical. Because there's some sort of huge conspiracy within the gaming journalism industry who explain their opinion and give you a general verdict of the title and are not obligated to say one thing or another, but do so based upon their own taste and perspective. Though by your own logic, these journalists are mere "liars" and only wish to make you spend money on titles you won't enjoy.

Before you ramble about petty theories, try tossing around the idea a bit and really thinking through the logic.
 

haruvister

New member
Jun 4, 2008
576
0
0
beddo said:
haruvister said:
beddo said:
I don't even own a PS3 and probably never will but the way you complain about the the production work is completely ignorant.
Seems ironic to label Mr Endo "completely ignorant" when you don't even own the console required to play the game and thus qualify a counter-argument.
If you had the ability to read you would have understood that I was talking about his ignorance of production not of the actual game.
Chill out, no need to get your panties wet. Production is a pretty broad term. What is "ignorance of production" - is that a euphemism for stupidity?
 

haruvister

New member
Jun 4, 2008
576
0
0
Doug said:
haruvister said:
I've not played R2, so I can't comment on that directly. Yet Mr Endo's review could so easily apply to R1, which I HAVE played. Which would mean that he's basically describing a two year-old game which was, let's face it, already deeply mediocre in its gameplay and eye-avertingly derivative in its production design. It's not the job of professional reviewers to seek a game's qualities in spite of its wealth of deficiencies. I mean, I love Viking: Battle For Asgard, but show me a journalist who scores it above six out of ten and I'll call him or her an unprincipled cretin.
No... a reviewers job is to sum up his view on a game, positive and negative. What I'm getting from his review is that he didn't enjoy it much - i.e. because it was too bland or too similar to every other FPS, or was just generally meh.
Yes... I agree, positive and negative. The reviewer must offer reasoned criticism, and Mr Endo has done that.
 

deadgopher

New member
Nov 19, 2008
2
0
0
B33 said:
deadgopher said:
Sir, as a fellow game journalist (well, an aspiring one, that is), I applaud you for being honest about Resistance 2. I can understand that some people would like this (as you mentioned, they've most likely not been exposed to higher quality games like Gears or Fallout), but it feels like many, many other sites are straight-up lying about it. This game looks like shit, plays like shit, and is mostly just a pile of shit. I've had probably 5-10 minutes of fun out of the 2-3 hours I've put into it so far. What a fucking disappointment.
Right, that seems logical. Because there's some sort of huge conspiracy within the gaming journalism industry who explain their opinion and give you a general verdict of the title and are not obligated to say one thing or another, but do so based upon their own taste and perspective. Though by your own logic, these journalists are mere "liars" and only wish to make you spend money on titles you won't enjoy.

Before you ramble about petty theories, try tossing around the idea a bit and really thinking through the logic.
I have no doubt that there are some people who thoroughly enjoy the game, but there has to be more than TWO journalists (gameplayer.com.au and the escapist guy) that don't think so highly of it.
 

beddo

New member
Dec 12, 2007
1,589
0
0
haruvister said:
beddo said:
haruvister said:
beddo said:
I don't even own a PS3 and probably never will but the way you complain about the the production work is completely ignorant.
Seems ironic to label Mr Endo "completely ignorant" when you don't even own the console required to play the game and thus qualify a counter-argument.
If you had the ability to read you would have understood that I was talking about his ignorance of production not of the actual game.
Chill out, no need to get your panties wet. Production is a pretty broad term. What is "ignorance of production" - is that a euphemism for stupidity?
You bizaare person, why are you mentioning my 'panties'? The reviewer's ignorance of production lies in his inability to understand how game production works. He maks numerous stupid points about things that are features by design for dramatic effect and wonders why it's not an open world FPS.
 

B33

New member
Nov 19, 2008
4
0
0
deadgopher said:
B33 said:
deadgopher said:
Sir, as a fellow game journalist (well, an aspiring one, that is), I applaud you for being honest about Resistance 2. I can understand that some people would like this (as you mentioned, they've most likely not been exposed to higher quality games like Gears or Fallout), but it feels like many, many other sites are straight-up lying about it. This game looks like shit, plays like shit, and is mostly just a pile of shit. I've had probably 5-10 minutes of fun out of the 2-3 hours I've put into it so far. What a fucking disappointment.
Right, that seems logical. Because there's some sort of huge conspiracy within the gaming journalism industry who explain their opinion and give you a general verdict of the title and are not obligated to say one thing or another, but do so based upon their own taste and perspective. Though by your own logic, these journalists are mere "liars" and only wish to make you spend money on titles you won't enjoy.

Before you ramble about petty theories, try tossing around the idea a bit and really thinking through the logic.
I have no doubt that there are some people who thoroughly enjoy the game, but there has to be more than TWO journalists (gameplayer.com.au and the escapist guy) that don't think so highly of it.
Edge Magazine wasn't particularly thrilled with it either.

Regardless, a majority of the journalists out there enjoyed the game.

It's not a conspiracy, just the opinion of a majority.

Though one's own said enjoyment is based upon their own taste and perspective.
 

haruvister

New member
Jun 4, 2008
576
0
0
beddo said:
He maks numerous stupid points about things that are features by design for dramatic effect and wonders why it's not an open world FPS.
To be fair, he points out the wholly undramatic nature of the set-pieces early on. And later, he makes no claim to wishing R2 was "open-world", but rather unshakeably linear and simplistic:

"The gameplay ostensibly takes the best of both Halo and Half Life by mixing together the relatively expansive skirmishes of the former with the speedier, more confined action of the latter. In practice, Insomniac have created a game that plays a lot like House of the Dead"
 

James Raynor

New member
Sep 3, 2008
683
0
0
haruvister said:
beddo said:
He maks numerous stupid points about things that are features by design for dramatic effect and wonders why it's not an open world FPS.
To be fair, he points out the wholly undramatic nature of the set-pieces early on. And later, he makes no claim to wishing R2 was "open-world", but rather unshakeably linear and simplistic:

"The gameplay ostensibly takes the best of both Halo and Half Life by mixing together the relatively expansive skirmishes of the former with the speedier, more confined action of the latter. In practice, Insomniac have created a game that plays a lot like House of the Dead"
And most FPSes aren't Liner?
 

tendo82

Uncanny Valley Cave Dweller
Nov 30, 2007
1,283
0
0
Azzaevil said:
ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?
Good question. I really didn't have any fun playing this game. I definitely believe that derivative can be fun, but in my opinion this game is actually a step backwards in many ways and only derivative at best.

I briefly want to address the multiplayer portion of the game, which some people have mentioned. Multiplayer is always a tricky beast to approach. In an ideal world we'd review the single player campaign at release and the multiplayer campaign a few months later. Even for those who buy the game strictly for the multiplayer, the value of it won't necessarily be immediately clear.

For instance, if we look back to 2007, probably only a few of us could have predicted that COD4 was going to emerge as the dominant multiplayer experience in the face of Halo 3. 12 months later it's pretty clear to everyone. So in my written review(keeping in mind the video review is just a supplement) I tried to briefly address my initial impressions while providing a few qualified judgments. Obviously, even a week later, readers are going to have insights about the multiplayer that I just wouldn't have been able to make, given the earlier period in which I was playing.
 

haruvister

New member
Jun 4, 2008
576
0
0
James Raynor said:
haruvister said:
beddo said:
He maks numerous stupid points about things that are features by design for dramatic effect and wonders why it's not an open world FPS.
To be fair, he points out the wholly undramatic nature of the set-pieces early on. And later, he makes no claim to wishing R2 was "open-world", but rather unshakeably linear and simplistic:

"The gameplay ostensibly takes the best of both Halo and Half Life by mixing together the relatively expansive skirmishes of the former with the speedier, more confined action of the latter. In practice, Insomniac have created a game that plays a lot like House of the Dead"
And most FPSes aren't Liner?
Yep, in fact most games are. But the good ones don't let that affect the gameplay. I quote again:

"There's no strategic movement at work or incentive to use one weapon over another - its a straightforward run and gun."

As Mr Endo implies, this was not the case with, say, Half Life 2; and yet it WAS the case with House of the Dead - and is now the case with R2.
 

Gedo

New member
Apr 22, 2008
20
0
0
Oh my god.

I don't have the game yet, but that review was very, very poor. Half the time, the was talking about how the houses were made in comparison to the time period, things in the horizont, and telling us it was all crap. First of all, who cares? No one else besides that guy notices.

The other half, he just pinned down every thing he thought sucked. Never talked about multiplayer, co-op, the story, the weapons, etc etc.


I mean, we already have Yahtzee for the negativities, but he includes BEING FUN. This was just... bad.

Reading the back of the cover would have given me more information.
 

Azzaevil

New member
Jun 26, 2008
61
0
0
tendo82 said:
Azzaevil said:
ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?
Good question. I really didn't have any fun playing this game. I definitely believe that derivative can be fun, but in my opinion this game is actually a step backwards in many ways and only derivative at best.

I briefly want to address the multiplayer portion of the game, which some people have mentioned. Multiplayer is always a tricky beast to approach. In an ideal world we'd review the single player campaign at release and the multiplayer campaign a few months later. Even for those who buy the game strictly for the multiplayer, the value of it won't necessarily be immediately clear.

For instance, if we look back to 2007, probably only a few of us could have predicted that COD4 was going to emerge as the dominant multiplayer experience in the face of Halo 3. 12 months later it's pretty clear to everyone. So in my written review(keeping in mind the video review is just a supplement) I tried to briefly address my initial impressions while providing a few qualified judgments. Obviously, even a week later, readers are going to have insights about the multiplayer that I just wouldn't have been able to make, given the earlier period in which I was playing.
now that was a good way of saying it (y)
 

James Raynor

New member
Sep 3, 2008
683
0
0
tendo82 said:
Azzaevil said:
ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?
Good question. I really didn't have any fun playing this game. I definitely believe that derivative can be fun, but in my opinion this game is actually a step backwards in many ways and only derivative at best.

I briefly want to address the multiplayer portion of the game, which some people have mentioned. Multiplayer is always a tricky beast to approach. In an ideal world we'd review the single player campaign at release and the multiplayer campaign a few months later. Even for those who buy the game strictly for the multiplayer, the value of it won't necessarily be immediately clear.

For instance, if we look back to 2007, probably only a few of us could have predicted that COD4 was going to emerge as the dominant multiplayer experience in the face of Halo 3. 12 months later it's pretty clear to everyone. So in my written review(keeping in mind the video review is just a supplement) I tried to briefly address my initial impressions while providing a few qualified judgments. Obviously, even a week later, readers are going to have insights about the multiplayer that I just wouldn't have been able to make, given the earlier period in which I was playing.

Also know that R2 isn't a traditional FPS, have you played Ratchet and Clank games before?
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
tendo82 said:
Azzaevil said:
ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?
Good question. I really didn't have any fun playing this game. I definitely believe that derivative can be fun, but in my opinion this game is actually a step backwards in many ways and only derivative at best.

I briefly want to address the multiplayer portion of the game, which some people have mentioned. Multiplayer is always a tricky beast to approach. In an ideal world we'd review the single player campaign at release and the multiplayer campaign a few months later. Even for those who buy the game strictly for the multiplayer, the value of it won't necessarily be immediately clear.

For instance, if we look back to 2007, probably only a few of us could have predicted that COD4 was going to emerge as the dominant multiplayer experience in the face of Halo 3. 12 months later it's pretty clear to everyone. So in my written review(keeping in mind the video review is just a supplement) I tried to briefly address my initial impressions while providing a few qualified judgments. Obviously, even a week later, readers are going to have insights about the multiplayer that I just wouldn't have been able to make, given the earlier period in which I was playing.
Alright, I'm fine with this statement. If you didn't have fun, you didn't have fun, to each his/her own or something like that. (though you didn't actually evaluate on the MP, just something about how MP is hard to qualify judgments on or something)

But I am wondering, did you play the first Resistance? Resistance 2 is definately a huge upgrade from its predecessor, but then again that's my HUMBLE opinion.
 

Vortigar

New member
Nov 8, 2007
862
0
0
tendo82:
You missed the fact that they took out the 'segmented regenerating' lifebar.

One of the things I always praised Resistance for.

Other than that, I wasn't planning on getting it for top-euros anyway. And you've just affirmed that I should wait for a price drop.
 

B33

New member
Nov 19, 2008
4
0
0
James Raynor said:
tendo82 said:
Azzaevil said:
ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?
Good question. I really didn't have any fun playing this game. I definitely believe that derivative can be fun, but in my opinion this game is actually a step backwards in many ways and only derivative at best.

I briefly want to address the multiplayer portion of the game, which some people have mentioned. Multiplayer is always a tricky beast to approach. In an ideal world we'd review the single player campaign at release and the multiplayer campaign a few months later. Even for those who buy the game strictly for the multiplayer, the value of it won't necessarily be immediately clear.

For instance, if we look back to 2007, probably only a few of us could have predicted that COD4 was going to emerge as the dominant multiplayer experience in the face of Halo 3. 12 months later it's pretty clear to everyone. So in my written review(keeping in mind the video review is just a supplement) I tried to briefly address my initial impressions while providing a few qualified judgments. Obviously, even a week later, readers are going to have insights about the multiplayer that I just wouldn't have been able to make, given the earlier period in which I was playing.

Also know that R2 isn't a traditional FPS, have you played Ratchet and Clank games before?
The reviewer, in question, did refer to the Ratchet and Clank games as a "template" sort of game (i.e. lazily put together)... So, no, I'd imagine he hasn't actually played any of the titles, as the accuracy of the previously mentioned statement doesn't particularly line up with the actual quality of the game.
 

tendo82

Uncanny Valley Cave Dweller
Nov 30, 2007
1,283
0
0
The single-player game isn't "run and gun" at all; get caught out in the open for a few seconds and you're dead. You have to be smart, find adequate cover and use the right weapon in each situation (and, unlike almost all FPSs, each weapon is useful). The bosses and story were pretty disappointing but the core gameplay is among the best in its field. The enemy variation and design is particularly praiseworthy.

Co-op and skirmish are too awesome for words. I'll leave it at that.
 

Techni

New member
Oct 6, 2005
48
0
0
I found this review to be full of crap. I watched a few minutes and gave up at the pure utter lies

1) The complaint about the corridors, honestly how long did you play the game for? The environments get huge/expansive and you're not being funneled down corridors the whole time.

2) Wasting the rockets/quicktime events. It's as much a quicktime event as every Zelda boss. Shoot the big guy in the mouth is not a quicktime event. Shoot the bridge above him to make it fall on him is not a quicktime event. (And are you incapable of counting? He was not 3 stories tall, he was over 10)

3) The background was not 2D. The devs flat out said this before. Every object above the cityscape even moved. You'd think the scale of the giant battles would have convinced you otherwise.

To those who used this review as an excuse not to buy the game, you missed out. For starters, did he even review multiplayer?
 

Techni

New member
Oct 6, 2005
48
0
0
haruvister said:
James Raynor said:
"There's no strategic movement at work or incentive to use one weapon over another - its a straightforward run and gun."
He was obviously playing either a different game altogether, or played R2 on the easiest fucking difficulty he could choose.

I hate when assholes complain a game is too easy when they selected easy
 

Hazy

New member
Jun 29, 2008
7,423
0
0
AceDiamond said:
Syphonz said:
I think Resistance 2 was pretty good, not nearly as fun as the first, but still good. I think this review seems a little too intent on pointing out all the features of the game that have been in other games and not nearly enough on how it plays, weapons design, etc.
Because how it plays and weapon design, etc. has also already been in other games.
True, but think about your favorite movie. Odds are, some of the greatest scenes have been done before, in some way shape or form. Does that make it a bad movie? Of course not. Sure, alot of Resistance 2 has been done in other games. But it's still fun to do, regardless of who has done it first.
 

classyplatypus

New member
Jan 22, 2009
315
0
0
This reviewer has it all wrong. Yes, Resistance 2 does take some stuff from other games, but it comes together in a way that makes it feel original. I'm surprised that the reviewer didn't really delve into some of the game's best parts like the awesome and massive scale, or the fantastic sixty player battles combined with great eight player co-op. It seems he just took a really quick look at this stuff because he (stupidly) didn't like the singleplayer.