disolitude said:
Kantor said:
Insomniac are some of the only game developers I have seen who actually read the reviews of their games, and improve what people say is bad. They say they want online co-op, Insomniac gives them 8-player online co-op in a completely different campaign.
I suppose Resistance could be called Sony's Halo, but I agree with everyone who said it is going in the opposite direction, from good to excellent.
I doubt it will get Halo's sales. 1. I'm not sure why Halo manages to sell more copies than it really should (Halo 3 sold 8.1 million). 2. Halo and Resistance were both launch games for their platforms, so Resistance should have every bit as much popularity as Halo. Of course, the review scores are lower and I'll admit Combat Evolved is a better game than Fall of Man. 3. But I'm going to guess R2 will be better than Halo 2 (because Halo 2 was pretty bad by Halo standards) |
1. Because its a great game and better FPS package than any FPS available on ps3 thus far.
2. Difference is that Halo 1 was revolutionary at the time and an experience never seen on a console before with quite a good story to boot. Resistance was an ok, run of the mill shooter that only got the attention it did as it was the only PS3 launch title worth purchasing.
3. Halo 2 was an amazing gaming achievement for a console. There is no way Halo 3 would have had such amazing launch sales had Halo 2 not been great. WIll resistance 2 be as good as Halo 2 was when it came out...i doubt it, but we will know in Novemeber.
|
1) Definitely better than any FPS on PS3, yes. But Halo 3 was really not a good enough game to deserve 8 million sales. I mean MGS4 won't go beyond 4 million.
2) The N64 was really the first console with incredibly good FPS games. But you're right, Halo: Combat Evolved is, for its time, one of the best in the genre. It set standards for what an FPS should be that many games try to follow and very few succeed. Resistance was better than run of the mill, though. It was a very good game, nowhere near Combat Evolved, but still great in its own right.
3) Halo 2 should have been better than Combat Evolved. It was made 3 years later, most likely had a bigger budget and a comfortable base to build upon. It was not as good. Not even close. Still a hell of a lot better than any future FPS on a Sony console, but then Resistance is not a future FPS
Sadly, the only way for Halo to go was down. They left very little room for improvement on their first game. That is why the first game in a series should not try to be 'best game ever'. That will give them two choices
1) Copy the old game in every way because it was so good and be called a copy
2) Try something new and not be as good as the original
Resistance has left quite a bit of room to improve, but hopefully they won't try to make the 'ultimate game' out of Resistance 2. Most series seem to reach their peak at number 4, which is why trilogies are disadvantaged.
Often, it goes like this:
Best: 1 and 4
Then: 3
Finally 2
Best to worst. Basically, two tries something different from one, is not as good, 3 is a return to one, and 4 is a revamp of the series to try and make it ultimate.
In Resistance's case, 2 will probably be much better, so that is what R3 will be based upon. (In Asia maybe?)
(Former) Lead Moderator
