selnor said:
bobobologna said:
selnor said:
bobobologna said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
EaglesEye379 said:
Whats surprising (ok not really) is that most of the reviews cited graphics/presentation as a reason to put Resistance 2 down a bit. Like for example the Gamepro one:
Bigger, badder and better than the first, Resistance 2 improves upon the formula set by its predecessor in almost every way. Unfortunately, a handful of minor issues, such as less than stellar graphics, keep this game from reaching the high bar set by competing titles like "Call of Duty 4" and "Gears of War 2." |
Gamepro has really been directly to the point lately. At least they didn't choose to go PC in their review and say "both games are equal," and just give Gears higher ratings in a couple of categories, like IGN.
They gave a real opinion. IGN was just afraid to give the nod to one game or the other.
|
It's funny that Gamepro says that it focuses on bigger brighter, less realistic environments when people usually blast games for having no color because real life (tm) has color.
They also say the stand out mode in Gears of War 2 is the horde mode. A mode where you bascially just take cover and defend from a horde of locusts. Then they blast Resistance 2's co-op campaign by saying that it offers limited variety of the pushing buttons and miniboss type. They even say that Resistance 2's co-op is repetitive, as if horde mode is infallible to the same issues.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying Resistance 2 is a better game. I am not saying that Gears of War 2 isn't a better game. I'm just calling out that review site for having double standards. Every paragraph in the Resistance 2 review basically said "well there's this thing which is cool but...." while the Gears of War 2 sounds like a fanboy review.
It's all hype. GTA4 had a HUGE amount of hype leading up to it, multiple 10's from sites that had given out 1 or 2 10's in their entire history, and look at how the game really turned out. I think everyone can agree that Gears of War 2 had at least twice the hype surrounding it that Resistance 2 had. And that certainly makes a difference in review scores, especially these early reviews. But again, I'm not saying Resistance 2 deserves a better score than Gears of War 2. I have no way of knowing because I haven't played Gears of War 2. But I feel that Resistance 2 is getting an unfair amount of nitpicking.
|
Well the first Resistance wasnt a AAA game, and yes ive finished it. So R2 I had hopes would be better and it seems it is. But well, I didnt expect Halo, MGS4 or Gears type scores. This is one reason why I am holding out on commenting about KZ2's gameplay until reviews. Because the first was worse than R1.
|
What does what you wrote have anything to do with what I wrote?
|
You said R2 is getting an unfair amount of nitpicking. I'm saying thats exactly all I expected after playing the first. The reviews say the game is better, but not really uber. That I expected.
|
So I talk about how Gamepro has double standards. I talk about how their Gears of War review sounds like a fanboy rant. I talk hype is probably a factor in these reviews.
And then you talk about how Resistance 2 deserves to be nitpicked? And how you expected it to be nitpicked? As if Gears of War 2 deserves a free pass?
BTW, I'm not a fanboy, I did think that Gears of War 1 was considerably better than Resistance 1. But it's annoying to see how much hype, fanboyism, and unprofessional journalism all plays a part in game reviews. Especially for 2 heavy weight titles like Gears of War 2 and Resistance 2. And I'm basing my opinion on what I've read in reviews so far. I haven't played Gears of War 2, but I really doubt it doesn't have it's share of flaws for reviewers to nitpick on.
