@Deviation

I strongly disagree, the single player is vastly improved in R2, its a much better, much funner experience, the visuals have also had a complete overhaul from the last game.

One of the best FPS single player experiences on the PS3 imo.

Much to the contrary, unless a game is called God of War, or developed by Jaffe, I usually will try to not rip on it. Especially when it plays into the stereotype most people try to pigeonhole me into.

As for Resistance 2's campaign....a lot of it is made up for with the multiplayer, like Bad Company was.

I think you're high. Talking about shooters in general (in other words, including third-person shooters as they're mostly the same thing), you'd be better off with games like Uncharted, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Dead Space, The Darkness, Rainbow Six Vegas and the original Resistance. Heck, you can even play Ratchet and Clank Future in first-person and it's a better game than the single-player campaign for Resistance 2.

And Zenfolder... I was really only responding to your first three lines. Resistance 2 is still a great game for the multi-player aspect if nothing else.

I loved the first resistance, but im not impressed with the weapon system change.

Hmmmm

I am going to get my resistance 2 this afternoon, hope this will be a good game.

Hmm, I have mixed feelings about this. R2 is a very fine shooter, and the multiplayer is superb, but it's true that the weapons options are limiting in single-player. True, the level designers always put the most helpful gun in the right location, so I found myself backtracking, getting a secondary weapon, using it, going back for the original. I think MGS4 got this right, by giving you five weapon slots - enough to give you flexibility while making sure you always have enough firepower.

I'm not a huge fan of the original health meter. The problem is, in a visceral shooter game, I don't want to constantly glance down at the bottom of the screen to check my health. Again, this is something which could've been addressed by health packs.

As for the difficulty level - I'm absolutely dreadful at FPS games, though I do enjoy the good ones, so I honestly can't tell if this was harder than R1. What do other people think?

The one thing I did like about R2 was the desperation of its storyline, the sense of advancing, unalterable doom. Because what the Chimera did to humanity is basically what Portuguese, Spanish, and English colonialism did to the indigenous peoples of the Americas - it's estimated that out of a year 1500 population of 15-30 million (we don't know the exact number) maybe 3 million survived by the year 1700 or so, killed mostly by disease (they had no immunity to European illnesses). I thought it was very clever that the penultimate stage of the story opened at a particular place in America which has indisputable links with the history of slavery and colonialism in the Americas - I won't reveal the location, because it is sort of a spoiler. Most FPS games give the imperialist version of this history - brave Space Marines defending Earth colonies, etc. R2 dared to give us a taste of the price tag humanity paid to create a world-market.

i really liked, single player, In first resistance it was a chore to get trough it. In this one it's pretty nice, it's more fun, I do hate invisable walls, and 2 weapon only choice.

I definatly agree with the health system and 2 gun system being better in R:FoM.

But the multiplayer should more than make up for that

The ending was wrong, gameplay was right.

Seems like no1 in internet goes silent,no matter what you say.

Nice review tho.