Your feelings on Resistance 2?
- Thread starter Pyre1million
- Start date
Well I had a whole long post, but my internet provider spazzed AS I HIT SEND. So...
Firstly: I know It's sad to feel as though one needs a consensus opinion to like something. And the endless amount of people forever playing Resistance 2's co-op proves the game's quality more than words ever could. But I'm glad to have started discussion on it (well, discussion in this thread anyway, as there have been others I guess?)
Like I said before, I thought the game had flaws and good points: The gunplay remains as wonderfully accessible as ever (and is the only shooter I've ever played where this is the case, though that could be a lack of variety on my part). The story is absolutely, utterly different from the plot and atmosphere of the first resistance (From horror and a bit of suspense and mystery to the same generic military-group-fights-evil-aliens, with a bit of horror added. Frickin' Grims), but Insomniac was so committed to the new plot that it works.
And, as I must make this observation: Hale, like EVERY character in the game, does not LACK characterization or personality.
Perhaps a comparison would help. It seems to me that people's problems with regards to character personality stem from an unreasonable expectation of character behavior. Or to put it in a more inflammatory way: The characterization in Gears of War 2 is shit. Like much of the writing in that game (And if that's too close to home for too many people, by all means feel free to remove "Gears of War 2" from the above statement and replace it with "Jericho", though this means my comment about the writing is inaccurate in places). Real people, most especially military people, do not spout endless gallows humor or curse at every available moment. Just because Hale and co. behave as real military personnel would in their situation does not mean they are 'boring'. It does, however, indicate a disturbing trend in which gamers need steady streams of audio-visual bullshit fed directly to them to comprehend that a character is indeed sentient.
I could be wrong here, but I've yet to see any example of someone stating the above view about boring personalities actually backed up with a valid argument. And it has made me slightly irate, obviously. Since the commenters in this thread seem by and large quite intelligent, perhaps someone with the opposing view to mine could offer one such argument?
The guns in Resistance 2, while suffering unfortunately from a removal of an armory's worth of interesting weapons from the first game, are all useful and varied enough that the game actually keeps replay value, something almost unheard of in shooters. When I play through a level again, and realize with glee that I have a choice between an explodey revolver or a buzz-saw gun, and can use either to much the same effect, something's been done right.
And I needn't even mention the co-op. It's a fantastically glorious, crack-rank-addictive symphony. Inspired by Team Fortress 2, but I can live with that and apparently so can the thousands of other people who are always playing it ALL the time.
Also, use the Splicer in competitive mode if you're not a sniper. Use the Splicer or the Carbine. Trust me.
Firstly: I know It's sad to feel as though one needs a consensus opinion to like something. And the endless amount of people forever playing Resistance 2's co-op proves the game's quality more than words ever could. But I'm glad to have started discussion on it (well, discussion in this thread anyway, as there have been others I guess?)
Like I said before, I thought the game had flaws and good points: The gunplay remains as wonderfully accessible as ever (and is the only shooter I've ever played where this is the case, though that could be a lack of variety on my part). The story is absolutely, utterly different from the plot and atmosphere of the first resistance (From horror and a bit of suspense and mystery to the same generic military-group-fights-evil-aliens, with a bit of horror added. Frickin' Grims), but Insomniac was so committed to the new plot that it works.
And, as I must make this observation: Hale, like EVERY character in the game, does not LACK characterization or personality.
Perhaps a comparison would help. It seems to me that people's problems with regards to character personality stem from an unreasonable expectation of character behavior. Or to put it in a more inflammatory way: The characterization in Gears of War 2 is shit. Like much of the writing in that game (And if that's too close to home for too many people, by all means feel free to remove "Gears of War 2" from the above statement and replace it with "Jericho", though this means my comment about the writing is inaccurate in places). Real people, most especially military people, do not spout endless gallows humor or curse at every available moment. Just because Hale and co. behave as real military personnel would in their situation does not mean they are 'boring'. It does, however, indicate a disturbing trend in which gamers need steady streams of audio-visual bullshit fed directly to them to comprehend that a character is indeed sentient.
I could be wrong here, but I've yet to see any example of someone stating the above view about boring personalities actually backed up with a valid argument. And it has made me slightly irate, obviously. Since the commenters in this thread seem by and large quite intelligent, perhaps someone with the opposing view to mine could offer one such argument?
The guns in Resistance 2, while suffering unfortunately from a removal of an armory's worth of interesting weapons from the first game, are all useful and varied enough that the game actually keeps replay value, something almost unheard of in shooters. When I play through a level again, and realize with glee that I have a choice between an explodey revolver or a buzz-saw gun, and can use either to much the same effect, something's been done right.
And I needn't even mention the co-op. It's a fantastically glorious, crack-rank-addictive symphony. Inspired by Team Fortress 2, but I can live with that and apparently so can the thousands of other people who are always playing it ALL the time.
Also, use the Splicer in competitive mode if you're not a sniper. Use the Splicer or the Carbine. Trust me.
Alright, rented in from Blockbusters. I think the first part of the game sucks ass, I really do. Didn't enjoy it at all. Was gonna put it down and regret ever loving the franchise.
And then Chicago...
That was quite possibly the best level of any FPS I've ever played. Everything was dead on, the pacing, the platforming, the enemy variation, the boss... and the graphics were so much better than every other level that it made me forgive them for copy-pasting a picture background in Idaho.
Even if the last level sucks, this game is still gonna hold a special place in my heart. Aww.
Me + Chicago = <3
And then Chicago...
That was quite possibly the best level of any FPS I've ever played. Everything was dead on, the pacing, the platforming, the enemy variation, the boss... and the graphics were so much better than every other level that it made me forgive them for copy-pasting a picture background in Idaho.
Even if the last level sucks, this game is still gonna hold a special place in my heart. Aww.
Me + Chicago = <3
I can see your point about the levels at the beginning being oddly similar (apart from the fact that having a chameleon on a ship was very confusing but a nice twist to keep you on your toes!)
Also I agree that chicago is one of the best levels in Resistance 2!
However my only faults that I feel are worth mentioning are that the storyline is a little bit short and that the whole 2 weapons thing took a bit of getting used to after playing the first game through as a kind of mobile armoury.
Saying that though, it made you think about what weapons you need and making you plan ahead which I think is a kind of learn from your mistakes kind of strategy.
Also I think all the online stuff is absolutely amazing, with real variation form co-op to the fast-paced deathmatches.
Well thats my opinion anyway.....
Also I agree that chicago is one of the best levels in Resistance 2!
However my only faults that I feel are worth mentioning are that the storyline is a little bit short and that the whole 2 weapons thing took a bit of getting used to after playing the first game through as a kind of mobile armoury.
Saying that though, it made you think about what weapons you need and making you plan ahead which I think is a kind of learn from your mistakes kind of strategy.
Also I think all the online stuff is absolutely amazing, with real variation form co-op to the fast-paced deathmatches.
Well thats my opinion anyway.....
I don't understand the flack about how many weapons you can hold. In R1, I pretty much only used two or three guns throughout the campaign. The other guns were interesting but it was easier to use the Bullseye or the carbine when they is so much ammo of it lying around.
In R2 it just seemed to me that Insomniac responded to that type of gameplay.
I like the Co-Op because even if your playing with players who are officer rank, they can not win without the others in the group. Everyone must work together. I played one match where a maxed out Solider pushed well ahead of the others ( who were all one or three stripers ) and then started to cry and whine when he died and the marksmans held back sniping and providing ammo to the others. He left the game and working together the rest of us finished the game all w/o mics.
I played matches where we all lose and yet I still want to play. Since I haven't tried competitive mode yey, I can't give any thoughts about that.
Single play was fun and with the addition of bonus options unlocked after acquiring trophies the game became more repeatable. The radio show was an excellent addition. It really pulled me into the game and you could actually feel the anguish and despair of the host.
I liked that they pulled the life meter. I can't see mine, so why should Hale see his?
In R2 it just seemed to me that Insomniac responded to that type of gameplay.
I like the Co-Op because even if your playing with players who are officer rank, they can not win without the others in the group. Everyone must work together. I played one match where a maxed out Solider pushed well ahead of the others ( who were all one or three stripers ) and then started to cry and whine when he died and the marksmans held back sniping and providing ammo to the others. He left the game and working together the rest of us finished the game all w/o mics.
I played matches where we all lose and yet I still want to play. Since I haven't tried competitive mode yey, I can't give any thoughts about that.
Single play was fun and with the addition of bonus options unlocked after acquiring trophies the game became more repeatable. The radio show was an excellent addition. It really pulled me into the game and you could actually feel the anguish and despair of the host.
I liked that they pulled the life meter. I can't see mine, so why should Hale see his?
I used the shotgun alot, and besides why take away options when they had already had a perfetly good method of making it easy to switch through the weapons in the SP. (You could set it so that the game paused while you were in the weapon select screen.) All they did was telegraph what kind of enemies/situation you were going to face in R2 with their two weapon limit.SomeUnregPunk said:
Here is how I feel. It was awful and did not live up to RFOM which was by far the superior game. In fact, rather then re-listing all the bull I didn't like, I'll just copy paste a quote of mine from another thread.
"I played Resistance 2 (as well as Resistance: Fall of Man. I may make references to RFOM due to the fact that I liked the first one a lot more) and beat R2 on Difficult and SuperHuman (the hard difficulty, and the hardest difficulty, respectively). Personally, I found the game's campaign mode to be easy, but I'm not criticizing you as a gamer, that's way they put in place different difficulties, so one may challenge themselves at their own playing level. If it matters to anyone that much, it took me 9 hours on difficult, and 7 hours on superhuman.
I actually found the story-line to be fairly well put together. (I have never played GoW, but I hear story line wise they are similar.) However, I thought the guns were intuitive (most were from RFOM. come on, there is a gun that shoots saw blades, it may be the worst gun in the game, but the very concept it awesome), and I thought for the most part the gameplay was decent for the single player. Yes, crouching was a pain in the ass, but at the same time, it took more than three shots to take one down.
Considering you have not played R2 multiplayer, I will say that personally I thought it was a disgrace to the first game. The first game did not give into the two weapon approach that EVERY game in the last decade has started to do because of Halo's success. But yeah, the Co-op is repetitive, and quite boring after the first few times.
And well the competitive multiplayer is awful, in my opinion. Absolutely awful. The maps are exact clones of the co-op, and sometimes there is a map that has been modified off the single player. Virtually every map gives an unfair advantage to one side. Each player can select a berserk (i.e. CoD4 Perks on steroids) which for one example, Ironheart reduces the amount of damage one takes by half (similar to Juggernaught from CoD4) and is unfortunately one of the most overused and unbalancing berserks in the multiplayer (and to clarify for those who have not experienced the online, you cannot always have the berserk activated like in CoD4, they must be achieved by gaining a certain amount of XP). However, the number one offense Insomniac did was offer a ridiculous amount of one-hit kills. By my count, there are 6 different options for a one-hit kill (I counted the laark and pulse cannon twice due to the fact that they both offer two different attacks for different variations of one-hit kills). And the 40mm for the Carbine is distributed like candy on halloween. After every kill, the "killer" (or whomever may run over the ammo drop) has a 1/3 chance of getting a 40mm. So even decent players suffer unnecessary kills in an unbalanced online system.
But to digress, the online is just unfortunate (I could continue ranting about it, but quite frankly no one would care, and I suppose if you're still reading you've gotten the idea that I don't personally enjoy it). And please don't revert to the 'you must suck at the game" argument. I have beaten the single player on superhuman, as aforementioned, I have beaten the Co-op, and I have a 2.2 K/D on the multiplayer (I'm not saying I'm great, I'm saying I'm better than most).
But to summarize, the point I'm trying to get at is, if you (General Rogue, or anyone else who agrees with him) thinks that the single player was bad, the online is much worse, and while I may disagree with you about the single player, I must agree that the game is garbage, and certainly did not deserve a decent review."
That was directed at someone who had not played the multiplayer, but yeah, I prefer the first game.
"I played Resistance 2 (as well as Resistance: Fall of Man. I may make references to RFOM due to the fact that I liked the first one a lot more) and beat R2 on Difficult and SuperHuman (the hard difficulty, and the hardest difficulty, respectively). Personally, I found the game's campaign mode to be easy, but I'm not criticizing you as a gamer, that's way they put in place different difficulties, so one may challenge themselves at their own playing level. If it matters to anyone that much, it took me 9 hours on difficult, and 7 hours on superhuman.
I actually found the story-line to be fairly well put together. (I have never played GoW, but I hear story line wise they are similar.) However, I thought the guns were intuitive (most were from RFOM. come on, there is a gun that shoots saw blades, it may be the worst gun in the game, but the very concept it awesome), and I thought for the most part the gameplay was decent for the single player. Yes, crouching was a pain in the ass, but at the same time, it took more than three shots to take one down.
Considering you have not played R2 multiplayer, I will say that personally I thought it was a disgrace to the first game. The first game did not give into the two weapon approach that EVERY game in the last decade has started to do because of Halo's success. But yeah, the Co-op is repetitive, and quite boring after the first few times.
And well the competitive multiplayer is awful, in my opinion. Absolutely awful. The maps are exact clones of the co-op, and sometimes there is a map that has been modified off the single player. Virtually every map gives an unfair advantage to one side. Each player can select a berserk (i.e. CoD4 Perks on steroids) which for one example, Ironheart reduces the amount of damage one takes by half (similar to Juggernaught from CoD4) and is unfortunately one of the most overused and unbalancing berserks in the multiplayer (and to clarify for those who have not experienced the online, you cannot always have the berserk activated like in CoD4, they must be achieved by gaining a certain amount of XP). However, the number one offense Insomniac did was offer a ridiculous amount of one-hit kills. By my count, there are 6 different options for a one-hit kill (I counted the laark and pulse cannon twice due to the fact that they both offer two different attacks for different variations of one-hit kills). And the 40mm for the Carbine is distributed like candy on halloween. After every kill, the "killer" (or whomever may run over the ammo drop) has a 1/3 chance of getting a 40mm. So even decent players suffer unnecessary kills in an unbalanced online system.
But to digress, the online is just unfortunate (I could continue ranting about it, but quite frankly no one would care, and I suppose if you're still reading you've gotten the idea that I don't personally enjoy it). And please don't revert to the 'you must suck at the game" argument. I have beaten the single player on superhuman, as aforementioned, I have beaten the Co-op, and I have a 2.2 K/D on the multiplayer (I'm not saying I'm great, I'm saying I'm better than most).
But to summarize, the point I'm trying to get at is, if you (General Rogue, or anyone else who agrees with him) thinks that the single player was bad, the online is much worse, and while I may disagree with you about the single player, I must agree that the game is garbage, and certainly did not deserve a decent review."
That was directed at someone who had not played the multiplayer, but yeah, I prefer the first game.
I must admit, that level was AWESOME. You had to job on cars in a newly formed river to avoid furies (by the way, if you can kill the Kraken, a huge sea monster, why not the smaller guys). The leviation was a joke, but it was a spectacle. However, I really enjoyed San Fransisco, and especially after you kill Daedalus. That was great. I started going along thinking you had to punch all the enemies. I was drastically mistaken.TheBadass said: