Review: Resistance 2

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Doug:

haruvister:
I've not played R2, so I can't comment on that directly. Yet Mr Endo's review could so easily apply to R1, which I HAVE played. Which would mean that he's basically describing a two year-old game which was, let's face it, already deeply mediocre in its gameplay and eye-avertingly derivative in its production design. It's not the job of professional reviewers to seek a game's qualities in spite of its wealth of deficiencies. I mean, I love Viking: Battle For Asgard, but show me a journalist who scores it above six out of ten and I'll call him or her an unprincipled cretin.

No... a reviewers job is to sum up his view on a game, positive and negative. What I'm getting from his review is that he didn't enjoy it much - i.e. because it was too bland or too similar to every other FPS, or was just generally meh.

Yes... I agree, positive and negative. The reviewer must offer reasoned criticism, and Mr Endo has done that.

B33:

deadgopher:
Sir, as a fellow game journalist (well, an aspiring one, that is), I applaud you for being honest about Resistance 2. I can understand that some people would like this (as you mentioned, they've most likely not been exposed to higher quality games like Gears or Fallout), but it feels like many, many other sites are straight-up lying about it. This game looks like shit, plays like shit, and is mostly just a pile of shit. I've had probably 5-10 minutes of fun out of the 2-3 hours I've put into it so far. What a fucking disappointment.

Right, that seems logical. Because there's some sort of huge conspiracy within the gaming journalism industry who explain their opinion and give you a general verdict of the title and are not obligated to say one thing or another, but do so based upon their own taste and perspective. Though by your own logic, these journalists are mere "liars" and only wish to make you spend money on titles you won't enjoy.

Before you ramble about petty theories, try tossing around the idea a bit and really thinking through the logic.

I have no doubt that there are some people who thoroughly enjoy the game, but there has to be more than TWO journalists (gameplayer.com.au and the escapist guy) that don't think so highly of it.

haruvister:

beddo:

haruvister:

beddo:
I don't even own a PS3 and probably never will but the way you complain about the the production work is completely ignorant.

Seems ironic to label Mr Endo "completely ignorant" when you don't even own the console required to play the game and thus qualify a counter-argument.

If you had the ability to read you would have understood that I was talking about his ignorance of production not of the actual game.

Chill out, no need to get your panties wet. Production is a pretty broad term. What is "ignorance of production" - is that a euphemism for stupidity?

You bizaare person, why are you mentioning my 'panties'? The reviewer's ignorance of production lies in his inability to understand how game production works. He maks numerous stupid points about things that are features by design for dramatic effect and wonders why it's not an open world FPS.

deadgopher:

B33:

deadgopher:
Sir, as a fellow game journalist (well, an aspiring one, that is), I applaud you for being honest about Resistance 2. I can understand that some people would like this (as you mentioned, they've most likely not been exposed to higher quality games like Gears or Fallout), but it feels like many, many other sites are straight-up lying about it. This game looks like shit, plays like shit, and is mostly just a pile of shit. I've had probably 5-10 minutes of fun out of the 2-3 hours I've put into it so far. What a fucking disappointment.

Right, that seems logical. Because there's some sort of huge conspiracy within the gaming journalism industry who explain their opinion and give you a general verdict of the title and are not obligated to say one thing or another, but do so based upon their own taste and perspective. Though by your own logic, these journalists are mere "liars" and only wish to make you spend money on titles you won't enjoy.

Before you ramble about petty theories, try tossing around the idea a bit and really thinking through the logic.

I have no doubt that there are some people who thoroughly enjoy the game, but there has to be more than TWO journalists (gameplayer.com.au and the escapist guy) that don't think so highly of it.

Edge Magazine wasn't particularly thrilled with it either.

Regardless, a majority of the journalists out there enjoyed the game.

It's not a conspiracy, just the opinion of a majority.

Though one's own said enjoyment is based upon their own taste and perspective.

ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?

beddo:
He maks numerous stupid points about things that are features by design for dramatic effect and wonders why it's not an open world FPS.

To be fair, he points out the wholly undramatic nature of the set-pieces early on. And later, he makes no claim to wishing R2 was "open-world", but rather unshakeably linear and simplistic:

"The gameplay ostensibly takes the best of both Halo and Half Life by mixing together the relatively expansive skirmishes of the former with the speedier, more confined action of the latter. In practice, Insomniac have created a game that plays a lot like House of the Dead"

haruvister:

beddo:
He maks numerous stupid points about things that are features by design for dramatic effect and wonders why it's not an open world FPS.

To be fair, he points out the wholly undramatic nature of the set-pieces early on. And later, he makes no claim to wishing R2 was "open-world", but rather unshakeably linear and simplistic:

"The gameplay ostensibly takes the best of both Halo and Half Life by mixing together the relatively expansive skirmishes of the former with the speedier, more confined action of the latter. In practice, Insomniac have created a game that plays a lot like House of the Dead"

And most FPSes aren't Liner?

Azzaevil:
ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?

Good question. I really didn't have any fun playing this game. I definitely believe that derivative can be fun, but in my opinion this game is actually a step backwards in many ways and only derivative at best.

I briefly want to address the multiplayer portion of the game, which some people have mentioned. Multiplayer is always a tricky beast to approach. In an ideal world we'd review the single player campaign at release and the multiplayer campaign a few months later. Even for those who buy the game strictly for the multiplayer, the value of it won't necessarily be immediately clear.

For instance, if we look back to 2007, probably only a few of us could have predicted that COD4 was going to emerge as the dominant multiplayer experience in the face of Halo 3. 12 months later it's pretty clear to everyone. So in my written review(keeping in mind the video review is just a supplement) I tried to briefly address my initial impressions while providing a few qualified judgments. Obviously, even a week later, readers are going to have insights about the multiplayer that I just wouldn't have been able to make, given the earlier period in which I was playing.

James Raynor:

haruvister:

beddo:
He maks numerous stupid points about things that are features by design for dramatic effect and wonders why it's not an open world FPS.

To be fair, he points out the wholly undramatic nature of the set-pieces early on. And later, he makes no claim to wishing R2 was "open-world", but rather unshakeably linear and simplistic:

"The gameplay ostensibly takes the best of both Halo and Half Life by mixing together the relatively expansive skirmishes of the former with the speedier, more confined action of the latter. In practice, Insomniac have created a game that plays a lot like House of the Dead"

And most FPSes aren't Liner?

Yep, in fact most games are. But the good ones don't let that affect the gameplay. I quote again:

"There's no strategic movement at work or incentive to use one weapon over another - its a straightforward run and gun."

As Mr Endo implies, this was not the case with, say, Half Life 2; and yet it WAS the case with House of the Dead - and is now the case with R2.

Oh my god.

I don't have the game yet, but that review was very, very poor. Half the time, the was talking about how the houses were made in comparison to the time period, things in the horizont, and telling us it was all crap. First of all, who cares? No one else besides that guy notices.

The other half, he just pinned down every thing he thought sucked. Never talked about multiplayer, co-op, the story, the weapons, etc etc.

I mean, we already have Yahtzee for the negativities, but he includes BEING FUN. This was just... bad.

Reading the back of the cover would have given me more information.

tendo82:

Azzaevil:
ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?

Good question. I really didn't have any fun playing this game. I definitely believe that derivative can be fun, but in my opinion this game is actually a step backwards in many ways and only derivative at best.

I briefly want to address the multiplayer portion of the game, which some people have mentioned. Multiplayer is always a tricky beast to approach. In an ideal world we'd review the single player campaign at release and the multiplayer campaign a few months later. Even for those who buy the game strictly for the multiplayer, the value of it won't necessarily be immediately clear.

For instance, if we look back to 2007, probably only a few of us could have predicted that COD4 was going to emerge as the dominant multiplayer experience in the face of Halo 3. 12 months later it's pretty clear to everyone. So in my written review(keeping in mind the video review is just a supplement) I tried to briefly address my initial impressions while providing a few qualified judgments. Obviously, even a week later, readers are going to have insights about the multiplayer that I just wouldn't have been able to make, given the earlier period in which I was playing.

now that was a good way of saying it (y)

tendo82:

Azzaevil:
ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?

Good question. I really didn't have any fun playing this game. I definitely believe that derivative can be fun, but in my opinion this game is actually a step backwards in many ways and only derivative at best.

I briefly want to address the multiplayer portion of the game, which some people have mentioned. Multiplayer is always a tricky beast to approach. In an ideal world we'd review the single player campaign at release and the multiplayer campaign a few months later. Even for those who buy the game strictly for the multiplayer, the value of it won't necessarily be immediately clear.

For instance, if we look back to 2007, probably only a few of us could have predicted that COD4 was going to emerge as the dominant multiplayer experience in the face of Halo 3. 12 months later it's pretty clear to everyone. So in my written review(keeping in mind the video review is just a supplement) I tried to briefly address my initial impressions while providing a few qualified judgments. Obviously, even a week later, readers are going to have insights about the multiplayer that I just wouldn't have been able to make, given the earlier period in which I was playing.

Also know that R2 isn't a traditional FPS, have you played Ratchet and Clank games before?

tendo82:

Azzaevil:
ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?

Good question. I really didn't have any fun playing this game. I definitely believe that derivative can be fun, but in my opinion this game is actually a step backwards in many ways and only derivative at best.

I briefly want to address the multiplayer portion of the game, which some people have mentioned. Multiplayer is always a tricky beast to approach. In an ideal world we'd review the single player campaign at release and the multiplayer campaign a few months later. Even for those who buy the game strictly for the multiplayer, the value of it won't necessarily be immediately clear.

For instance, if we look back to 2007, probably only a few of us could have predicted that COD4 was going to emerge as the dominant multiplayer experience in the face of Halo 3. 12 months later it's pretty clear to everyone. So in my written review(keeping in mind the video review is just a supplement) I tried to briefly address my initial impressions while providing a few qualified judgments. Obviously, even a week later, readers are going to have insights about the multiplayer that I just wouldn't have been able to make, given the earlier period in which I was playing.

Alright, I'm fine with this statement. If you didn't have fun, you didn't have fun, to each his/her own or something like that. (though you didn't actually evaluate on the MP, just something about how MP is hard to qualify judgments on or something)

But I am wondering, did you play the first Resistance? Resistance 2 is definately a huge upgrade from its predecessor, but then again that's my HUMBLE opinion.

tendo82:
You missed the fact that they took out the 'segmented regenerating' lifebar.

One of the things I always praised Resistance for.

Other than that, I wasn't planning on getting it for top-euros anyway. And you've just affirmed that I should wait for a price drop.

James Raynor:

tendo82:

Azzaevil:
ok ok then did the reviwer have fun?

Good question. I really didn't have any fun playing this game. I definitely believe that derivative can be fun, but in my opinion this game is actually a step backwards in many ways and only derivative at best.

I briefly want to address the multiplayer portion of the game, which some people have mentioned. Multiplayer is always a tricky beast to approach. In an ideal world we'd review the single player campaign at release and the multiplayer campaign a few months later. Even for those who buy the game strictly for the multiplayer, the value of it won't necessarily be immediately clear.

For instance, if we look back to 2007, probably only a few of us could have predicted that COD4 was going to emerge as the dominant multiplayer experience in the face of Halo 3. 12 months later it's pretty clear to everyone. So in my written review(keeping in mind the video review is just a supplement) I tried to briefly address my initial impressions while providing a few qualified judgments. Obviously, even a week later, readers are going to have insights about the multiplayer that I just wouldn't have been able to make, given the earlier period in which I was playing.

Also know that R2 isn't a traditional FPS, have you played Ratchet and Clank games before?

The reviewer, in question, did refer to the Ratchet and Clank games as a "template" sort of game (i.e. lazily put together)... So, no, I'd imagine he hasn't actually played any of the titles, as the accuracy of the previously mentioned statement doesn't particularly line up with the actual quality of the game.

Yeah. It looked like a ripoff of halo to me when I watched the gameplay video.

Mr. Endo gets paid for this? I want his job.

The single-player game isn't "run and gun" at all; get caught out in the open for a few seconds and you're dead. You have to be smart, find adequate cover and use the right weapon in each situation (and, unlike almost all FPSs, each weapon is useful). The bosses and story were pretty disappointing but the core gameplay is among the best in its field. The enemy variation and design is particularly praiseworthy.

Co-op and skirmish are too awesome for words. I'll leave it at that.

I found this review to be full of crap. I watched a few minutes and gave up at the pure utter lies

1) The complaint about the corridors, honestly how long did you play the game for? The environments get huge/expansive and you're not being funneled down corridors the whole time.

2) Wasting the rockets/quicktime events. It's as much a quicktime event as every Zelda boss. Shoot the big guy in the mouth is not a quicktime event. Shoot the bridge above him to make it fall on him is not a quicktime event. (And are you incapable of counting? He was not 3 stories tall, he was over 10)

3) The background was not 2D. The devs flat out said this before. Every object above the cityscape even moved. You'd think the scale of the giant battles would have convinced you otherwise.

To those who used this review as an excuse not to buy the game, you missed out. For starters, did he even review multiplayer?

haruvister:
[quote="James Raynor" post="6.77339.950251"]
"There's no strategic movement at work or incentive to use one weapon over another - its a straightforward run and gun."

He was obviously playing either a different game altogether, or played R2 on the easiest fucking difficulty he could choose.

I hate when assholes complain a game is too easy when they selected easy

AceDiamond:

Syphonz:
I think Resistance 2 was pretty good, not nearly as fun as the first, but still good. I think this review seems a little too intent on pointing out all the features of the game that have been in other games and not nearly enough on how it plays, weapons design, etc.

Because how it plays and weapon design, etc. has also already been in other games.

True, but think about your favorite movie. Odds are, some of the greatest scenes have been done before, in some way shape or form. Does that make it a bad movie? Of course not. Sure, alot of Resistance 2 has been done in other games. But it's still fun to do, regardless of who has done it first.

This reviewer has it all wrong. Yes, Resistance 2 does take some stuff from other games, but it comes together in a way that makes it feel original. I'm surprised that the reviewer didn't really delve into some of the game's best parts like the awesome and massive scale, or the fantastic sixty player battles combined with great eight player co-op. It seems he just took a really quick look at this stuff because he (stupidly) didn't like the singleplayer.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here