Wow...that's some tough love there!

Looking back at it, Resistance 2 was a disappointment, imo. I agree with Draven about the weapon placement. Whenever you saw a laark/rocket launcher on the floor, you'll know a titan is coming up. 'Hey, look a wraith! Use it to shoot all the chimeras that will come out in a minute.' It took out the exciment. You practically knew what was coming up next. The boss battles were also disappointing; the boss scales are amazing but fighting them is not. Take the first boss for example, that big spider robot thing: he looked incredible, and I thought the fight was going to be blast but it wasn't. You just have to wait until he turns around, so you shoot his back with rockets. That's it. There are others like that.

Co-op got boring very fast. It's fun at first, but it's very repetitive. Every map has the same objectives - shoot the chimeras, go to this location, turn on switches, shoot chimeras, repeat. Also being paired up with players who have unlocked everything really takes out the excitement in co-op since they can kill the whole wave of chimeras with one or two explosions.

Team were mostly unbalanced in ranked games. In pretty much every ranked game I got in, it always ended being 5 vs. 30, 4 vs. 8, 6 vs. 1, etc. It's unbelievable. I don't think there were any penalties for quitting a game.

The only things I liked about Resistance 2 were the party system and the ending. All in all, I preferred Resistance 1.

Best PS3 exclusive IMO and one of the best shooters of all time.

I swear the people who talk about resistance 1 as if it was an amazing game must be remembering a very different game to what I actually experienced. Its an average FPS with an average campaign, an average multiplayer and terrible graphics. It got away with all this solely because it was a launch title (at least it was in Europe) and was better than the competition... of which there was very little at the time.

Resistance 2 changed a lot, probably a bit too much from the first, but overall it was still the better game. The single-player flowed better, had a wider variety of environments and had some insane moments. Unfortunately, the changes they made weren't always for the better (the health system, the reduction in original weapons & carrying capacity, cheap invisible enemies) and yes, they could have made the boss fights play better rather than just being epic in scale, but really they were no worse than in the 1st game.

The multiplayer on the other hand in R2 is leagues better than in R1. 8 player co-op and insane 60 player competitive matches. The only thing that I thought they should have done with the multiplayer is kept the local co-op mode.

Note to Insomniac: It takes more than one year to make a AAA game.

I like it alot, imo the game is worth only for the 8 player co-op.

Just in case you don't know... They do spend about 2 years per game. Right now, they have one team always working on one franchise, and one on the other, and then a third that moves back and forth between the two. I haven't heard anything to dispute that lately, so I'm going with that.

Resistance 3 will be PS3's christmas blockbuster in 2010, Insomniac are not playing around anymore, Resistance 3 will be amazing.

I thought R2 was better then Fall of Man too. First off i liked how Hale took action into his own hands instead of following orders from the britian female. I mean he was a badass and i liked that about him. And i thought the story was an awesome addition. I played R2 in one day compared to a week for R1 its cuz i couldnt put it down! I hope R3 is even better then R2.

From a sales perspective it sold about as good as expected; with the first obviously benefiting from being a launch title. The last one went up against a lot of competition relatively speaking. Even if the next game sees a significant overhaul I see it selling similar to the last one (unless they really do something special).

I for one would like to see them work on something else (too many damed shooters already).