• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

RESISTANCE 2 - Hype Thread w/latest info

neorej

ERMYGERD!
I really enjoyed the co-op-mode. I never felt much for co-op online, since the only games I ever played that way were Rainbow Six Vegas and Kane & Lynch. Both games ended up in everyone running around and the co-op-part never came to light. R2 forces you to play co-op, since you get ammo and experience for actually playing together.

Gonna try competitive tonight, but I'm excited about the co-op already. The AI is not all that and then some, but the gameplay is fun IMHO. And I prefer fun in my games.
 

Dizzan

MINI Member
My Arms Your Hearse said:
Why do people keep saying this? I'm really liking the game, but the game has already gone gold.

I've had fun in co-op, but I've only done two of them. I just like killing people, sorry, and I'm liking the game better and better on that front with each match. 10 man San Fransisco is amazing... (especially when everyone else is running around with carbines and bullseyes).

I dont know how many times it has to be said..................


DAY

ONE

PATCH!
 
Rapping Granny said:
At first I was like D: then was like :O then back to D:

I never played Resistance before except for the demo on PSN, so this was my first.

At first I was like oh shit this feels loose and shitty, then I got used to it and felt fine.

Then I tried Co-op, at first I was like oh man cool 8 player co-op and no lag, then the chimera appear and I was getting frustrated because I thought it was legging but it turned out that the enemies need a full clip of ammo to die, just for one to die, then I was like WTF didly uck is this shit?
Every enemy requires shit loads of bullets and the bosses... oh my god at the bosses, SO BORING. you just stand there with the machine gun and hold R1 until the magical line reaches zero. I tried medic and found that even more boring since I just hide behind the soldier and he protects me and I revive him but I do less damage so... yeah.

And the AI, I don't think it even exists in this game at all, just stand there and wait until they die, and oh yeah they move around a bit but will stop when they collide with the other chimera. BRAIN DEAD AI!

Co-op is basically a really shitty version of Left4Dead (shit AI, boring, pacing sucks, really useless and no need for it at all)

And the weapons. they feel like staplers with scopes, the only one that felt satisfying is the grenade launcher thingy.

Also, the character customization looks like joke, I have no idea what to do when I am in that menu, I don't understand the presets and all that shit with it.

I wish Insomniac stops with this a game every year crap, this game needs more time.

my shooter money is leaning towards Killzone 2. sorry.

BTW it's 2:30 AM and I could be just cranky too.

I agree with you, even if you put it rather bluntly. And I hate admitting it too because I respect the guys at Insomniac a whole lot. They're insanely talented for even delivering this sort of game in a year. I just think they bit off more than they could chew, given the development time for this game.

I think it's time to give both Ratchet and Resistance a break and develop a new IP for 2-3 years and see where it takes them. An added year or two to their games would elevate them from merely 'good' to top notch, and I feel that's what IG deserves, but what they've never been able to accomplish thanks to their rather ambitious yearly schedule. Insomniac no longer has to carry the PS3 anymore with the other studios ramped up, so there's no reason for making a game every year.
 

Acid08

Banned
Private Hoffman said:
I agree with you, even if you put it rather bluntly. And I hate admitting it too because I respect the guys at Insomniac a whole lot. They're insanely talented for even delivering this sort of game in a year. I just think they bit off more than they could chew, given the development time for this game.

I think it's time to give both Ratchet and Resistance a break and develop a new IP for 2-3 years and see where it takes them. An added year or two to their games would elevate them from merely 'good' to top notch, and I feel that's what IG deserves, but what they've never been able to accomplish thanks to their rather ambitious yearly schedule. Insomniac no longer has to carry the PS3 anymore with the other studios ramped up, so there's no reason for making a game every year.
No matter how much you like a developer you need to voice your honest opinion about their game. I agree with everything Granny said. I do really like the competitive when it isn't a 60 player clusterfuck.
 
Dizzan said:
There's this one really good reason that they do it. It's called turnover.

Turnover?

I'm just saying, 2009 brings Sony Killzone 2, InFamous, Heavy Rain, MAG, and potentially God of War 3, Team ICO, and Uncharted 2. Not to mention a lot of very good third party games such as FFXIII and RE5.

Maybe I just don't see the need for Insomniac to deliver every year.

The PS3 launch and the year after would have been total shit without them, though. Resistance and Ratchet were some of the only good games early on.
 

Sean

Banned
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy said:
B....E....T....A

BE....TA

BETA
BETA
BETA
BETA
ETA
TA
A

When the beta was released the game had already gone gold. That's not a true beta, it's a multiplayer demo that was branded as a beta for marketing purposes. Perhaps issues like the pathfinding AI will be improved upon in the day 1 patch, but they're not going to revamp the whole game in three weeks.

Most of my complaints were game design issues anyway. The class-based system just doesn't work in this game and feels shoehorned in without much thought at all.
 

Dizzan

MINI Member
Private Hoffman said:
Turnover?

I'm just saying, 2009 brings Sony Killzone 2, InFamous, Heavy Rain, MAG, and potentially God of War 3, Team ICO, and Uncharted 2. Not to mention a lot of very good third party games such as FFXIII and RE5.

Maybe I just don't see the need for Insomniac to deliver every year.

The PS3 launch and the year after would have been total shit without them, though. Resistance and Ratchet were some of the only good games early on.

Sorry, turnover might be an Aussie word?

What I mean is that at the end of the day, the most important thing for them as a business is that they make money. There are wages to pay and if they don't have a constant stream of $$$ coming in they can't pay their bills. Or they have to get an overdraft/loan until the money comes in. (on which they have to pay interest)

We see them as the team that makes kickass games and we expect soooo much out of them but we have to be realistic. Insomniac probably doesn't have the funds or backing that say Bungie has (had).

R2 has already exceeded my expectations. And we all know they will support the game after launch to meet the community expectations.

Besides, if the game was perfect, they would have nothing to improve in R3. :D
 

Rainy Dog

Member
fanboi said:
Everyone with connection problems, what happens if you use the modem directley?
Work?
Not sure how I can use my modem/router directly? Only thing I haven't tried is unplugging my 2 PC's from the router so the PS3's the only thing connected to it if that's what you mean. Either way, the PS3 needs to go through the router.
 
Dizzan said:
Sorry, turnover might be an Aussie word?

What I mean is that at the end of the day, the most important thing for them as a business is that they make money. There are wages to pay and if they don't have a constant stream of $$$ coming in they can't pay their bills. Or they have to get an overdraft/loan until the money comes in. (on which they have to pay interest)

We see them as the team that makes kickass games and we expect soooo much out of them but we have to be realistic. Insomniac probably doesn't have the funds or backing that say Bungie has (had).

R2 has already exceeded my expectations. And we all know they will support the game after launch to meet the community expectations.

Besides, if the game was perfect, they would have nothing to improve in R3. :D

Oh, I understand that it is a business decision for them.

But, sometimes 1 amazing intellectual property every few years is worth way more than 2-3 'above average, but not upper echelon' tiered titles every year.

Given Insomniac's size, I actually think they do have the funding/size that Bungie has. They just release a game every year rather than every 3.
 

Dizzan

MINI Member
Private Hoffman said:
Oh, I understand that it is a business decision for them.

But, sometimes 1 amazing intellectual property every few years is worth way more than 2-3 'above average, but not upper echelon' tiered titles.

Given Insomniac's size, I actually think they do have the funding/size that Bungie has. They just release a game every year rather than every 3.

I don't know for certain but I'm pretty sure Bungie has a few more bucks than Insomniac.

Kuroyume said:
I played team deathmatch in that huge forest for a few... Ugh...

What was wrong with it?
 

Rainy Dog

Member
Private Hoffman said:
Turnover?Maybe I just don't see the need for Insomniac to deliver every year.

The PS3 launch and the year after would have been total shit without them, though. Resistance and Ratchet were some of the only good games early on.
Hoff, are you sure Ratchet and Resistance 2 were conceived within a year each? I was led to believe they had two separate teams working on each over the course of 2 years and only in the last couple of months of development did they merge to get each game done and dusted.
 
Dizzan said:
I don't know for certain but I'm pretty sure Bungie has a few more bucks than Insomniac.

It's not really about bucks. It's more about the size of the studio. Insomniac is a massive studio, and they're expanding. They already have 175+ staff members according to Wikipedia. Bungie has less, believe it or not, at around 120.

So just think about it: those 175 members are getting paid similarly to the rest of the industry, including Bungie, so Insomniac has more yearly operating costs than Bungie.

They just operate differently. Bungie takes 3 years to make a game. Insomniac delivers every single year. Microsoft owned Bungie previously, so by default they had 'more bucks' backing them, but in terms of actual yearly investment, it may be much less than it costs to run IG.
 

fanboi

Banned
Rainy Dog said:
Not sure how I can use my modem/router directly? Only thing I haven't tried is unplugging my 2 PC's from the router so the PS3's the only thing connected to it if that's what you mean. Either way, the PS3 needs to go through the router.

This is something I didnt know, that the PS3 needed to go through a router, shouldnt it just work if you used a networkcabel from PS3 into the modem? (the networkcabel is a specifik one, not the normal one dont know the name on english)
 
Rainy Dog said:
Hoff, are you sure Ratchet and Resistance 2 were conceived within a year each? I was led to believe they had two separate teams working on each over the course of 2 years and only in the last couple of months of development did they merge to get each game done and dusted.

From my understanding they do some preliminary work with a much, much smaller team for 1 year, and then each year they have the main 'production' team that does the bulk of the actual development that the other guys have structured and organized. So, in a sense it is more than 1 year, but in practice what that means is that you have less time to polish and tweak, since most issues will be found during production and not during the preliminary design.

Sometimes you don't know how something is going to work until you're actually building it and it is coming together. From there, you tweak and you iterate. IG has a lot less time to do the latter.

It's an even bigger issue when you're trying to develop something massively ambitious like R2 is with 60 player multi and 8 player co-op.
 
Acid08 said:
No matter how much you like a developer you need to voice your honest opinion about their game. I agree with everything Granny said. I do really like the competitive when it isn't a 60 player clusterfuck.

48e9b27345a9f.png


My favorite part of any T&E episode. Well done.

And in regards with what RG said, I agree. As much as I want to freakin' support the hell out of the game, I'm just not having fun playing it. I'm surfing the Internet when fighting bosses, and weird spawning mobs gets boring after some time.

Competitive feels different from R1. Less...engaging? Hard to explain. And it hurts to say this, but I may just rent the game after playing the beta :(
 

Kuroyume

Banned
Dizzan said:
I don't know for certain but I'm pretty sure Bungie has a few more bucks than Insomniac.



What was wrong with it?

I spent like 10 minutes running around trying to find someone to kill. Eventually I ran into this huge firefight where people were bumping into each other trying to kill a bunch of people across the map. It was very awkward, and it didn't feel right. Also, what's with all the burning cars?
 

Dizzan

MINI Member
Private Hoffman said:
It's not really about bucks. It's more about the size of the studio. Insomniac is a massive studio, and they're expanding. They already have 175+ staff members according to Wikipedia. Bungie has less, believe it or not, at around 120.

So just think about it: those 175 members are getting paid similarly to the rest of the industry, including Bungie, so Insomniac has more yearly operating costs than Bungie.

They just operate differently. Bungie takes 3 years to make a game. Insomniac delivers every single year. Microsoft owned Bungie previously, so by default they had 'more bucks' backing them, but in terms of actual yearly investment, it may be much less than it costs to run IG.

You just supported my argument. They have higher costs and can't afford to produce a game every 3 years. They need an income every year.

This is all speculation mind you. JS is probably sitting there laughing at us cos were completely off the mark. :lol
 
Dizzan said:
You just supported my argument. They have higher costs and can't afford to produce a game every 3 years. They need an income every year. This is all speculation mind you


But I didn't necessarily support your argument at all.

If they had 3 years to work on a game, but it was a much better, much more polished title and ended up selling significantly more, then it could have the potential to cumulatively outsell 3 separate games that were released every year for three years.

It depends on a whole lot of factors. Given the size of their studio, I'm not saying they should release a game every 3 years, but perhaps every 2 years would be a better fit and they'd have much more time to polish.

They're kind of competing with Gears 2 this holiday season, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Gears 2 more than double Resistance 2's sales...and Gears was on a proper 2 year dev cycle.
 
I'm pretty confident at this point most people complaining about the guns not feeling powerful are all going 10-40. There are things to complain about, but the supposed weakness of the guns is not one of them. If you just got on and have played 2 matches, you really aren't in a position to make reliable comments.

The exception I think would be the Splicer, but then I didn't realize that you can fire the primed blade for more damage, so I may have to rethink that one too. You're just (really) bad if it takes you a whole clip of anything to kill someone.
 
And, actually, maybe the biggest issue in R2 working against it IS scale.

8 player co-op can only be made difficult through volume of enemies, but when you have so many enemies you can't really have great AI. So the difficulty is strictly through volume, and it becomes almost a grind/chore when you're playing it.

And 60 player co-op requires HUGE maps that feel dull and lifeless unless you spend a ridiculous time fleshing them out.

On top of that, IG had to make a massive single player campaign as well, and honestly, I don't think they had enough time to flesh things out.

I'll be interested in seeing if SCALE genuinely works in a game like MAG's favor, where the developers will EXCLUSIVELY be working on one component of the game, and over the course of many years of development.

If IG wishes to do the yearly game schedule, then they need to bring the scale back to much smaller numbers in online play, but make the experience much better.

I'm playing the Orick map, and honestly, there's nothing good about it. It's just a big open map. It's not really designed very well at all. If you go inside the houses and stuff, the graphics look so flat and dull.
 
fanboi said:
Ok GAF you are strange...

R2 hype o meter:

First: :O

THEN: :D

NOW: :|

the fuck gaf? the fuck...

If you love the game, more power to you. I'm just one person, but I'm being honest with my impressions. I'm still looking forward to the single player campaign.

I think Co-op can still be fun (playing with your friends is always a blast), but it's just not really spectacular and has quite a few issues.

My opinion has also been tainted a bit by the Killzone 2 beta (a game that has been in development for years), so take that into account.
 

fanboi

Banned
Private Hoffman said:
If you love the game, more power to you. I'm just one person, but I'm being honest with my impressions. I'm still looking forward to the single player campaign.

I think Co-op can still be fun (playing with your friends is always a blast), but it's just not really spectacular and has quite a few issues.

My opinion has also been tainted a bit by the Killzone 2 beta (a game that has been in development for years), so take that into account.

Ah... I C.

I also look forward to the SP camp. only reason I will buy it.
 

Gibb

Member
Private Hoffman said:
Turnover?
What about pioneering?

Maybe they love to work this way, to keep it interesting/challenging/fun for them, satisfying their hunger for knowledge, to have those eureka moments every year.

They've already learned and improved their tech alot and are sharing their knowledge with others. I don't see why they shouldn't keep doing this.

As a dev, I rather improve early and cumulatively (agile approach) then not meeting the expectations at all after a 2 or 3 year period.
 
Gibb said:
What about pioneering?

Maybe they love to work this way, to keep it interesting/challenging/fun for them, satisfying their hunger for knowledge, to have those eureka moments every year.

They've already learned and improved their tech alot and are sharing their knowledge with others. I don't see why they shouldn't keep doing this.

As a dev, I rather improve early and cumulatively (agile approach) then not meeting the expectations at all after a 2 or 3 year period.

I understand that mentality as well. The risk is much higher with a 3 year dev cycle than it is with a single year dev cycle. If you do not deliver on a 3 year project, then that can be a nightmare.

Not delivering one year just means you always have the next.

I can respect that, actually.

Like I said, maybe the problem isn't with the dev cycle for IG, but just their ambition with the title. It was simply too much to take on.

As a gamer, however, I suppose I'd prefer that they take that risk, with the potential for them to craft something truly stunning.
 

Rainy Dog

Member
fanboi said:
This is something I didnt know, that the PS3 needed to go through a router, shouldnt it just work if you used a networkcabel from PS3 into the modem? (the networkcabel is a specifik one, not the normal one dont know the name on english)
I don't have a modem though, just a router. Can't plug the PS3 directly into the phone line so it goes into the router via. an Ethernet cable and in turn the router goes into the telephone line. Perhaps it's a UK thing but I don't know of an alternative method :/
 

fanboi

Banned
Rainy Dog said:
I don't have a modem though, just a router. Can't plug the PS3 directly into the phone line so it goes into the router via. an Ethernet cable and in turn the router goes into the telephone line. Perhaps it's a UK thing but I don't know of an alternative method :/

Ok.
What kind of NAT type do you get on the PS3?
 
Bearillusion said:
I've been away for a few days so I'm sorry if this has been asked and answered. Have IG responded to complaints about the AI (in particular with regard to the bosses) as everyone seemed to be complaing about it? I'm close to preordering the game but I'm a little concerned.

Anyone?
 

Darkpen

Banned
So yeah, I agree with the people who are like ":| :O :D D: :|"

I don't know about you guys, but for the past few days, all I did was play the co-op, and only recently started to play the competitive again. I hate the competitive so much, it reminds me too much of R1, except the guns are tighter this time.

As far as weapon stuff is concerned, I wish they'd show a picture of the weapon, instead of just a description of it.

In co-op, at first, it was like "oh, wow, this is kinda fun," then it was "wow, this is super fun," then it was "omg, my team knows how to play" or "my team sucks ass/what the fuck, specops, I need my motherfucking ammo you pussy shit/why is the medic running into them?" then "this is kinda boring."

I mean, coordination and talking is key, with people sharing information, where most of the time, I'll actually coordinate my team, telling which members need to do what, who needs a spec op, who needs healing, who needs to use berzerk, etc, but when no one's doing their job, it just makes for an annoying experience.

In other words, this feels so god damned much like an MMORPG, except with only 3 job classes. You have parties where everyone knows their shit, and everyone's communicating, and then you have parties where the sky is the ground, and black is white.

Personally, I've gotten over the whole "boss character AI is nonexistant/bulletsponge" issue, especially when a specop has some prototype ammo, and half the party ISN'T composed of medics, but I do hope for some variety when the full game's released.

I also wish you could select which mission you go on, instead of it being random. I also wish you could, while offline or not making a room, read the mission briefing you get during the load time.
 

Rainy Dog

Member
Gibb said:
What about pioneering?

Maybe they love to work this way, to keep it interesting/challenging/fun for them, satisfying their hunger for knowledge, to have those eureka moments every year.

They've already learned and improved their tech alot and are sharing their knowledge with others. I don't see why they shouldn't keep doing this.

As a dev, I rather improve early and cumulatively (agile approach) then not meeting the expectations at all after a 2 or 3 year period.
I can definitely see how it helps keep things fresh for them. As a rule, a favourite old band of mine never worked on a track for more than 4 days as they acknowledged 100% satisfaction can rarely ever be attained regardless of however many days/weeks/months you work on something. Plus they just became bored and constantly seeked the new and challenging. With all due respect, not sure if the latter can be related to Insomniac though as they hardly vary their projects at the rate they move from one to the next...
 

Rainy Dog

Member
fanboi said:
Ok.
What kind of NAT type do you get on the PS3?
NAT2. UPnP enabled on both PS3 and router though not put as DMZ as never needed to...Plus doesn't seem like it'll do the trick in this case either, as BruceLeeRoy's tried and had no luck.
 

Sean

Banned
Private Hoffman said:
And, actually, maybe the biggest issue in R2 working against it IS scale.

8 player co-op can only be made difficult through volume of enemies, but when you have so many enemies you can't really have great AI. So the difficulty is strictly through volume, and it becomes almost a grind/chore when you're playing it.

GRAW had 16 player co-op and it was pretty challenging. I'm sure most people would rather fight against less enemies but more challenging and smarter ones.
 

Rolf NB

Member
Dizzan said:
Sorry, turnover might be an Aussie word?
If you meant revenue, yeah, probably.
Most here will understand turnover as employee turnover, i.e. constant loss of people being replaced by new hires.
 

Gibb

Member
Kuroyume said:
That download took forever. What the fuck? :lol

same here.. wanted to try this beta yesterday evening.. ended up downloading overnight.

however, I got to test the "shutdown system after background download" option, and it seems to work.
 
The competitive multiplayer is a blast. It strikes this perfect blend between Halo, Battlefield, and COD4 to create an experience unique to Resistance 2.

The cooperative is alright. It's fun with a bunch of people, but their are some poorly designed elements to cooperative play(boss characters?).
 

TTP

Have a fun! Enjoy!
I agree with all the complains expressed about the coop mode. I don't get why enemies are stationary. Especially since some of them are not and do actually chase you. The single player AI was so good in Resistance 1, and I assume it will be even better in Resistance 2 single player mode. But perhaps having the AI to deal with 8 players rather than 1 is too much so they went the "stationary route"? Or maybe it's just the level we got to play in.

About the amount of time it takes to kill an enemy. Perhaps it will take less when you rank up more? I can already see my medic doing better. I guess advanced soldiers will deal more damage.
 

Stillmatic

Member
I've only played co-op, and i've really enjoyed it. It's great when you have a bunch of people/friends working together to tackle each situation.

The AI of the bosses could be a bit more aggressive, but it's not a huge issue, can't expect one boss to chase down all 8 players at the same time. That's the only thing that i can see that needs tweaking. Co-op as it is, is already pretty fucking good. No lag issues at all either, which i didn't expect.
 

Kingsora

Would rather have no penis than have to show his to a medical professional
So anybody has a spare code? Because I just can't believe that R2 is a bad game
 

JB1981

Member
Sean said:
GRAW had 16 player co-op and it was pretty challenging. I'm sure most people would rather fight against less enemies but more challenging and smarter ones.

I remember co-op in the original GRAW. It was actually pretty awesome. Could have been because it was my first co-op experience ever though.....
 

Yoshichan

And they made him a Lord of Cinder. Not for virtue, but for might. Such is a lord, I suppose. But here I ask. Do we have a sodding chance?
God, I just woke up and read this pathetic hate-page.

The thing is, apparently it actually affects people! It's just like three people constantly saying the same thing in this thread, and everyone's like "ooh guys GAF hates the game - I'm not buying it anymore LAWL"

But hey, I guess I'm the only good player on GAF. I can play 8 player cooperative as a healer and think it's fun as hell while being #1 in terms of experience. That's fun to me.

I can also enjoy 60 man online which I did last night and that was extremely fun too. I was #1 there too. I guess that's why I'm ejoying it so much and you guys aren't. Because you suck at the game.

And the AI in the Coop? I don't care about it, I still think it's fun - but it's probably getting patched anyway.
 
Top Bottom