insomniac17 on 14 December 2008
| Rob6021 said: I think Resistance 2 was rushed (hello KillZone2), and in turn they left out much needed co-op for the main campaign. This game would have been huge i think if the Main campaign wasn't perceived as a step backwards. I do think the 3rd person narrative, and feel of the first game was more artistic and unique, while some didn't like it - it made the game differentiate itself from the competition. (listening to everyone's complaints doesn't always make a better game) The co-op was very original, kind of a rpg for shooters, but really is no excuse to not include at least split screen co op for the main campaign. It would have balanced the perceived value of all the modes, considering the amount of manpower that went into it. And review scores would have reflected it. It's also too niche to make a game this hard. Gears 2 for me was very well done for the main campaign the storytelling really screamed high production values. They did a wonderful job making a game into a video game version of a Hollywood blockbuster. It's a great game to play with a friend on the same system. Seemed like the better game to me. |
The reason they didn't include co-op for the main campaign was because they ran into issues in making the levels work with two people; there are parts that are specifically made for one player to play. So, they decided to make an entirely seperate campaign. I can understand why it would be nice to have that, but I personally am completely fine without it. As for the "Resistance 2 was rushed" comment; well, maybe a bit, but I don't think so. I believe that they had the multiplayer up and running for a long time before the release, and were just testing to work out any bugs and finish polishing the levels. I'd assume that the single player campaign went through a similar phase, but I'm not sure.
