-Resistance looks too much like a cookie cutter shooter. Gears lived up to its creators name. For some odd reason the Resistance games have always struck me as just average even after playing the first and looking at the build of the second game. It was Epic just watching all of that mayhem and glory in Gears (Straight out of a Sci-Fi movie). I've gotten bored with the same old stuff and I like moving onto something new. It's like how I moved on from Quake to Unreal.

-The locusts look far better than those things you call aliens in Resistance 2. First of all if you're going to have Aliens, aren't they supposed to be more intelligent? They are like Zombies on crack in those videos. Even the lower ranked ones.

-You can relate better to the protagonist in Gears.

-In Resistance you can clearly see that they stole the revolver from Gears 1. That Hammer of Dawn in the multiplayer was f'n beautiful. I cannot wait to clash with people in that game.

You can't really compare a FPS with a TPS.


KZ2 will own Resistance (In the FPS war this year), even though I doubt they compare at all to the shooters on the 360.

First to be on topic, my opinions on this will probably be limited considering we've yet to see how the final build of both games look. Especially with Resistance and the E3 build with gameplay on the roof tops because we know that they had yet to add in many of the effects.

Anyway,

I do want to address your concern for multiplayer. Battlefield 2, for example, has 64 players duking it out in large maps and it can be pretty fun so why can't other games? That isn't to say that things could get a little too clumped together during gameplay, but have you not heard anything about what Insomniac is doing with Resistance 2's online?

If I recall, they'll have a squad and rival squad system where you'll be with your squad of players and fighting against another squad of players while an AI director determines current objectives to you. It looks like it can help to keep flow in a large game and to also keep you interested in destroying your worst enemies in the rival squad. Then, if you are getting your behind kicked, the director can assign another squad who is doing better to come in and assist you to try and even things out.

The first Resistance had 40 player online without any kinds of squads or anything, just players running around the map. It looks like Insomniac will make sure that multiplayer will be a great experience.

Ill probably get both games however I'm not sold on the mp for resistance.  60 player matches sounds awesome however without a standard microphone for the majority of players I can see that being, as one person stated, a "clusterf*ck" 

i'm sorry but that part about the flamethrower, that he said was realistic.
it was the most unrealistic garbage i have ever seen, tho it is really hard to realistically depict fire through graphics like that. it was ugly,

Dude how can I watch something with an open mind when it is clearly made with bias? The dude clearly prefers Resistance 2 and it reflects extremely easily in his work. I appreciate his effort but I don't think the criteria that he set out at the beginning of his video are the way that you should compare the two games.

That being said, I did not know R2's graphics were that closely comparable to Gears, I am looking forward to it a bit more. Gears still takes the cake for me though.

the guns he showed on gears looked terrible and gimmicky imo

Everybody in the world know that Gears is gonna have better graphics than R2. I don't know why bother trying to prove otherwise..

Honestly?  A machine-gun and flamethrower looked "gimmicky" compared to the auger and slow-mo Sniper rifle?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I guess.  IMO the auger and sniper, along with secondary fire option, is a far more gimmicky approach, though I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing...I mean Insomniac has kind of been known for their imaginative take on weapons.

As others have said before me, I don't think the video was unbiased, nor do I think the number of players in a multiplayer automatically = a better experience.  In fact, I'd guess that Insomniac has it's work cut out to ensure that crap teams, don't ruin the experience for the better squads.  It would suck to spend your time as a functional squad always trying to save the ass of a group of noobs.

ALL that being said, R2 and KZ2 are probably the games that will push me over the edge to purchasing a PS3, so I am eagerly awaiting the final product.  Gears 2 will keep me more than happy till I get a PS3.  The "dinky" 4 v 4 is still going strong 2 years later and is still a hell of a good ride.

@trios
i mean it's just,
flamethrower, and space cannon...... over the top much?
so inefficient

Good post and I agree with you 100%.

Gears 2 does look better at this point IMO, but R2s graphics are leaps and bounds better than the first games.