It is pretty good...... it has perks... it is not the best shooter though I think that would have to be Cod4 or Gears.. might be same as halo not to sure tho..... halo is couple years old .. so r2 shoulda been way better considering it is a recent release.

In my opinion Resistance 2 is the best FPS this year! Why?...: Call of Duty 5 is like CoD 4, only CoD4 has cooler weapons and cooler settings! And CoD 4 is 07.

Bioshock is awesome but it was already released on 360 in 07... So again, not counting!...

Gears is no FPS! Sooo... And the scale of Resistance 2 is eppic!

I owned it and traded it in ..

Ender said: MikeB said: This reminds me of a 360 fan who told me friends told him Resistance 1 was broken because you could shoot through walls and suffered from slowdowns (sniper rifle function).   Weird AI behavior cannot be exlpained away as a design decision.  It sounds more like a developer hack.

All other allied soldiers die en masse while battling the chimera, if you save them it helps later on like was the case with Resistance 1. However some individuals don't seem to die nomatter what, they happen to be the ones crucial to the ongoing story progress. So it's clearly a game design decision (an alternative would be, they die you die, which is far less realistic),

IMO some people are hanging onto straws here. You can take advantage of this by luring enemies towards them and then keeping some distance enemies will attack them (and be weakened enough for you to finish them off more easily).

Resistance 2 is easily the best Online FPS of the Year on PS3. It's main campaign is rather dry, though. Myself and all my friends have agreed on this. As far as Left 4 Dead, I would say it is a great Online FPS of the Year on 360, and is a very thrilling and fun experience. Comparing the two, however, I could not say which is better because both of their single player campaigns are rather dry and you have to have Online multiplayer (R2) or online co-op (L4D) for them to be fully appreciated.

Also, in reference to Mike B's comment on campaign scale, Resistance 2 does a great job with the graphics given it's scale, but I think Gears of War 2's scale is much larger and since every mission has multiple paths and different methods of making it through, I wouldn't call it any more linear than R2 (Yes I am assuming you meant Gears 2 when you were referencing the big budget linear game of great graphic detail).

Maybe it is...

@ nightsurge

I haven't played Gears 2 enough, so I won't comment directly on this. But Gears 1 was very much caged, the invisible walls are very narrow in this game, of course you can look through these walls to give the impression of scale, but technically limited spaces to move around in (the invisible walls) simplifies things a lot. You know beforehand much better the range of view available to the player and it's also a lot easier to pre-script events.

I think Gears 2 (or a game like Killzone 2) probably has seen more time by graphic artists spend on visually optimising the graphics assets. This is not a technical issue, if you spend days on a 16 color picture it may end up looking more polished than another asset drawn in True color (which is technically better) in a couple of hours. That's of course an exaggeration just to get the point across, Resistance 2 has great looking assets as well.

If Gears 2 had to be able to handle 30 (6 teams of 5) vs 30 multiplayer (6 teams of 5) matches instead of 5 vs 5 matches this would probably pose a problem on the 360.

Multiple of narrow paths is still linear more predictable game design, it just takes more space on disc if both paths include different assets.

Gears 1 was very caged and linear. Gears 2 was less so. I never meant to argue that it wasn't linear; only that it was just as linear as any other shooter. I mean, it's kind of impossible to create an "open" shooter unless you take out most of the shooter mechanics and take out objectives.

I'm not sure why Microsoft has not tried doing larger multiplayer modes. I think mostly it is because they tend to do P2P which is much better suited for the smaller matches. Plus, the amount of people who enjoy larger scale matches is much lower than the amount that wants 4v4 up to 8v8. Anything above that just gets hectic, as I'm sure that anyone playing R2 can vouch for the fact that the majority of players will not operate well in squads with random players. If they are in a group of friends, then the squads work well, but joining by yourself usually doesn't cut it.

gears is more of a 3rd person mgs4 type of game...i dont think they can do 30 players because of the graphic design.....resistance to me is like halo with more poeple online...I own both games one thing I did not like about resistance is its match making sytem and its online.... sometimes u get stuck playing the same MAP.... i think gears is somewhat like MGS4 control wise.... resistance 2 is good, but not as epic as i thought it would be...

@ nightsurge

Internet capabilities may be an issue, but you would also need much larger environments to keep track of.

It does not need to become "too hectic" (I would rather say too crowded) if you have large enough environments. PC shooters I often find too crowded and fast paced, sometimes you're dead the moment you drop into a online battle because of this.