People also have to remember It's well documented that Insomniac focuses on gameplay before they even start worrying about graphics (Ted Price said so in GDC). I can't wait to play all the modes this game has to offer, though campaign is on the top of my list.

looks sweet cant wait

The 60 player battles look like they're gonna be tons of fun. With that, the 8 player online co-op and the single player campaign, this sounds like its gonna be my GotY.

looking good and I wonder how the big battles will be. I guess the issue I'm seeing is with people who wish to mess with their team by not doing objectives. The guy explaining the system only really mentioned losing out on points to be the only punishment for players who don't stick with their squads.

 

Mainly, I hope that there will be some crazy 60 player battles in the maps like Battlefield 2 can, but hopefully without massive spamming and some of the more annoying things in BF2. I mean, the squad gameplay sounds cool and a good way to manage 60 players, but having stuff happening everywhere is something that really interests me.

Something else I noticed in the background gameplay was that it's much slower now. Near the end, the player reloads his carbine rifle and rather than reloading in like one second flat, it was a much slower process. I'm glad that this is the case now because multiplayer Resistance: Fall of Man was like watching a movie in fast forward.  

 

This game should make for a lot of fun :D

November can't come sooner!

IllegalPaladin said: looking good and I wonder how the big battles will be. I guess the issue I'm seeing is with people who wish to mess with their team by not doing objectives. The guy explaining the system only really mentioned losing out on points to be the only punishment for players who don't stick with their squads.   Mainly, I hope that there will be some crazy 60 player battles in the maps like Battlefield 2 can, but hopefully without massive spamming and some of the more annoying things in BF2. I mean, the squad gameplay sounds cool and a good way to manage 60 players, but having stuff happening everywhere is something that really interests me. Something else I noticed in the background gameplay was that it's much slower now. Near the end, the player reloads his carbine rifle and rather than reloading in like one second flat, it was a much slower process. I'm glad that this is the case now because multiplayer Resistance: Fall of Man was like watching a movie in fast forward.

I think the drive to win the game will be enough to make people follow the objectives. You also also get more points for killing rival squad members, health and other upgrades for completing objectives. Just think about how in Halo even if you're playing an objective gametype you can go off and kill people. You're still helping the team to an extent but there's a better chance you won't win. That's why I have a 5 to 1 kill/death ratio but I've but I've lost half my games. People should still have the freedom to choose regardless.

 

Watching that video it finally hit me how much replayability and fun the objective-based gameplay will add.  Sure, you get points for killing any enemy, it's just that you get more for killing members of the opposing squad and accomplishing objectives.  All the teams working at cross purposes and blowing the crap out of each other sounds sweet.  Chaotic, but not stationary or stagnant.

I really want to see how the 8-player co-op story mode works... 

looks graphicly same as gears but if its like gears good graphics good controls but i can see it lacking either the HD side like HAZE is or has HD and 5 hour single player so im worried cos R1 was only a 7-8 good/generic shooter

insomniac17 said: The 60 player battles look like they're gonna be tons of fun. With that, the 8 player online co-op and the single player campaign, this sounds like its gonna be my GotY.

not that you are biased or anything, mr. insomniac17 =)

stonj said: looks graphicly same as gears but if its like gears good graphics good controls but i can see it lacking either the HD side like HAZE is or has HD and 5 hour single player so im worried cos R1 was only a 7-8 good/generic shooter

 I really don't care that much about full HD. It's really put in half the games that have it for the sake of technical bragging rights. It takes a very keen eye to notice the difference. Instead I'd prefer that they use memory to maintain a stable frame-rate, texture streaming, or more enemies on screen. The first Resistance's single player was 15 hours on a single layer blu-ray disk. I really wouldn't worry to much because they can go up to double. Remember this is Insomniac we are talking about here. They have a flawless track record and I can almost guarantee that the game will have a ton of value.