Review: Resistance 2

[James Raynor]

Stuff

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Azzaevil]

ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?

 

[haruvister]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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