By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
geddesmond2 on 21 February 2011
Edit Thread
makingmusic476 said:
non-gravity said:
geddesmond2 said:
badgenome said:
outlawauron said:
badgenome said:
makingmusic476 said:
  • Insomniac:  Released an incredibly underwhelming Resistance 2 after only two years, and switched to a three year dev cycle for Resistance 3.
  • Epic:  Released a somewhat underwhelming Gears 2 after only two years (it was mainly the multiplayer that had issues), and switched to a three year dev cycle for Gears 3.

There goes your credibility! Both of those games ruled.

I agree on one end. Gears 2 was better than the first in every way possible.

Resistance 2 did suck balls though.

I really don't understand why so many people say that. Granted, Resistance 2 was one of the first PS3 games I played, so maybe I was still intoxicated with the novelty of the thing. And I never played the first Resistance, so it could have been an awesome game and maybe Resistance 2 was just a huge letdown by comparison. But damn it, Resistance 2 was fucking fun!

I also don't get all the hate for Gears 2 multiplayer. I really enjoyed it, whereas the first one was just a boring shotgunpalooza to me.

Aye most of the people who say Resistance sucked havn't even played the game. They just took what fans said about the game when comparing it to the first and ran with it.

Resistance 2 was very very lackluster until the Chicago level which was more than halfway past the singleplayer. 

Multiplayer also took a big graphical hit and playing the co-op mode offline was really pointless.

 

I did like it's online features though.


Reistance 2 had a boatload of problems.  They abandoned the weapon wheel, removing most potential methods fo taking down enemies.  Instead you could only carry two weapons at a time, with the weapon they decided you should use always appearing right before each encounter.  They also abandoned traditional and offline co-op, and had barely any time to implement AI and animations for enemies, which is why many of the enemies (the Titan) were bullet sponges that stood in one place.

The Full Moon Podcast Resistance 2 Retrospective sheds a lot of light on this.  The Stalker, for example, wasn't even functioning in game until about a week before it went gold.  The AI and animations were actually worse than they were in Resistance: Fall of Man, given Fall of Man used Insomniac's PS2 engine, thus they had to rebuild much of the Resistance universe around the engine they had built alongside Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, something they just didn't have time to do.  They realized this, and this is why they moved to a three year dev cycle for Resistance 3.

There were also many complaints about the change in style from Fall of Man to Resistance 2.  They abandoned the dark, oppressive, almost survival horror-esque tone of the first game in favor of a cleaner look more similar to Half-life or Halo. 

All of these issues, even that of color tone and atmosphere, are issues they have specifically stated they are trying to fix with Resistance 3, so they seem to agree that the game wasn't all that it should've been.

The game was still pretty good, to be sure, but it lost a lot of the identity the first game had, so it came off feeling somewhat generic compared to other shooters at the time.


And this is my whole point about Resistance 2. Resistance 2 is a good game on its own but when people compare it to RFOM then thats where all the hate comes from. Every bad point people have against Resistance 2 are the changes they made over the first one. I've always said that if Resistance 2 was the first game in the series then people would be praising it for the things it did accomplish.

It was one of the best looking games on a consol back then and it managed to pull off 60 players online which was a first for a consol.