Seems like a fair comparison. I personally could go either way with multiplayer. I've had so much fun with both. I actually made a bunch of friends in resistance and then we all moved on and played halo 3 together.

Edit* You have to give credit to Insomniac for even competing with Halo. It's their first FPS and Bungie is the juggernaut of FPS's.

CoD4 had no clan support, no server list, no seperate squads or chat channels.  And each match is people camping and whoring grenades.

I hate doing this, but don't forget about Disruptor. It was Insomniac's first game, and the only one I haven't been able to try. =(

After that though, they moved onto Spyro, then to Ratchet and Clank, so they have a lot more experience in the platforming area than in making a FPS.

Edit: A very good comparison, btw. I can see some reasons why people would say it is unfair, seeing as how the 360 had been out for longer, and Halo 3 came out a year later, but I still think its a valid comparison. I haven't tried Halo 3's multiplayer, but I have played a bit of the campaign, and it was decent. I'd still take Resistance, however. (In part because I never finished the campaign on Halo 3.)

Resistance isn't their first FPS by the wau. Insomniac's first game was a ps1 fps published by Universal but I forget the title.

On Topic: The author really couldn't wait 2 months for a more fair(albeit still unbalanced by a year) comparison between Resistance 2. Gears would have been a better comparison.

Well Bungie did it the first time.

OT: Halo 3 rips Resistance in half. Really. Talk about a bland shooter...