Support NeoGAF

[Dizzan]

And don't forget.

There's still alot of people (me) who would take this MP any day of the week over Resistance 1's multiplayer.

I actually enjoy Resistance 2's competitive moreso than CoD4.

Then again, it doesn't take me more than a couple of shots to drop other people and I rarely die.

Add me to the camp that likes R2 more than R1. Especially competitive. As a more casual player, it is more accessible. I can do well in rounds by following objectives and getting a few kills. my KDR also seems to be higher in R2 (this is based on private beta as I haven't played much of the public beta).

I can understand the gripes with the co-op aI but i'm sure this will be being worked on as we speak. THIS IS A BETA! INSOMNIAC WILL TAKE THE FEEDBACK TO FIX THE GAME AND PLEASE THEIR FANS LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

I just had a lot of fun in san fran competitive death match (10). I had Auger and stuck with it. I got into little pockets sometimes, looked in iron sights for xray sight, and pick people off. I loved that weapon, and never picked up another. Auger is a darn good weapon.

I'm also in the "love it more" camp. There is so much stuff in it, and this is just 3 maps, and beta form gameplay. Cake dough is sweet, sure. Naked cake bread is tasty, I agree. But a finished cake with icing beats them both. This is a beta, SP, more maps, levels, gear, weapon access (co op), and more will be in the final. Not to mention finished stuff, tweaks, etc..

 

[AgentOtaku]

To be fair, it's only multiplayer and co-op.

The single player could still easily impress.

I'm not sure if IG really understands what makes a good multiplayer game. Resistance 1 mp was okay, but not phenomenal. R2 seems even worse because of the added player count.

More players is a great bullet point, but unless the gameplay is thought out well, it will fail. R2 has failed in that regard.

I didn't wanna believe this but yeah, when I dropped into a 60 player match, all I could think was this is just soooo unneccesary and still hasn't fixed the issue of high player count MP

Then again, the only game I CAN think that was a bit succesful with +50 players in recent memory was Battlefield2 ....and even that was only on certain maps

 

[patsu]

Played a bit of co-op today. Really mindless fun, though I would enjoy a little more strategy. The Stalker, for example, just sat there as my entire team spent a few minutes pounding away at it.

Oh you'll see. At higher level co-op, the Chimeras turn nasty. Some of the bosses start to move around too.

They need to remove like 2-3 co-op level difficulties. I think the entry level AI just plain sucks.

 

[patsu]

Seriously, the negativity in this thread is getting really depressing. Personally, I've been having a blast with both the competitive and co-op gameplay. Yes, the game has changed dramatically from R1 and it sucks that it's pissed off the hardcore R1 players, but in my opinion the gameplay changes are going to attract more than they deter. Why is it so bad that the game plays more like COD4, the most popular online shooter right now?

I believe most of us here are positive and very supportive. We are just being constructive when we critic the game.

 

[patsu]

To those who say co-op suck. I can agree with you for the first 3 player level. I think the AI becomes more interesting at or after level 4 (Either that or they just tweaked the AI).

They become more aggressive, more intelligent and will track you down across greater distance.

 

[GodofWine]

I didn't wanna believe this but yeah, when I dropped into a 60 player match, all I could think was this is just soooo unneccesary and still hasn't fixed the issue of high player count MP

Then again, the only game I CAN think that was a bit succesful with +50 players in recent memory was Battlefield2 ....and even that was only on certain maps

(Im TOTALLY enjoying the R2 Beta..so lets get that out there)

On this point, I agree, but I think its such a spawn point issue...they need to make all spawns occur at the edge of the map, and have each team only spawn on one side....the way it is now, its so random, people are always spawning in front of you/behind you etc.

CODE UP FOR GRABS!!!!
L6EG-P3BF-QDRR

 

[Loudninja]

Oh you'll see. At higher level co-op, the Chimeras turn nasty. Some of the bosses start to move around too.

They need to remove like 2-3 co-op level difficulties. I think the entry level AI just plain sucks.

I have no idea what people are talking about, almost all the bosses move around for me, and usually they get drop pretty quick with teamwork.

But I do agree with this.

 

[patsu]

That means they have patched it. ^_^ (Good !)

The Titans used to take a l-o-n-g time to kill. In fact, I would hold down R1 and read GAF threads while the monster stayed stationery for minutes.

 

[Loudninja]

That means they have patched it. ^_^ (Good !)

The Titans used to take a l-o-n-g time to kill. In fact, I would hold down R1 and read GAF threads while the monster stayed stationery for minutes.

It was 8 if us fighting one, they seem to go down quicker that way.

Edit:Some do take longer than others, I wonder does it depends on the amount of players?

 

[patsu]

Well, I noticed that the Titans died faster now. However I couldn't tell if Insomniac has patched it, or if it's me levelling up.

 

[FightyF]

I don't want to risk giving premature opinions here, I've only played 3 Co-Op missions and a couple TDMs...but I have to say that I agree with a lot of the negative sentiment here.

So take the following impressions with a grain of salt, with the above in mind. Also, I'll try to make my criticism constructive by giving some ideas that I think would fix what I see as issues:

Co-Op:
The Good:

• Sense of direction the whole time. There were no points where we didn't know where to go, or failed to understand what was next, it was laid out pretty clear to players.
• Making Medic fun to play. This was a concern of mine, but it turns out to be pretty fun of a mechanic, and crucial to team success.
• Revive mechanic played out pretty well. The fact that medics can revive fast was a good inclusion, no matter how obvious it was that it should have happened. Some games miss little things like that it seems.
• Level design was good I thought. There were some good choke points, some interesting parts where you were surrounded. Other points where there was cover and others where there wasn't. But I do think there were some flaws, which I'll get into.
• Levelling up is somewhat compelling for myself. Though I don't really want to spend a lot of time doing this, so it can be a negative. But it seems that it serves a decent enough purpose (more abilities).
• Extra abilities...I think they're great that they help the team. This way a good team can make themselves more well rounded by getting guys with diff abilities.
• Variety of enemies: The screamers, big guys with shields, the usual chimeras, the bosses (well, when they actually fight back), and they flying robo things...there's a good amount of variety in how they attack and defend, in how they move, and how much damage they can take.
• Ability to speak to the whole team without pressing a button...I think this has to be mentioned, although you would think it would be a given, the fact that this is 8 players and it has that, it has to be recognized as a good inclusion.
• Audio cues: I liked the inclusion of this and its something that many developers overlook. These cues come out clear over the mix of armsfire, explosions, and other stuff.

The Bad:

• The Weapons: Not really BAD, but not good either IMO. Apart from the ammo dude, the Medic and Soldier basically point and hold down trigger. You could get more accuracy with the Soldier by shooting in spurts, but there isn't much skill in it. It ends up making the enemies seems like sponges in the end. The Ammo guy's weapon is a lot more gratifying to use, and the other guys should have had equally gratifying weapons. Maybe it's early to judge, as I don't have access to many other secondary weapons (a LAARK in this mode would be great, along with an Auger). But yeah, the ones you start wth aren't exciting.
• The controls...I felt like I was fighting my controller. Maybe because I haven't played a PS3 FPS in a while, or maybe it's the game. R1 had a similar issue but I got over it quick (I felt that you could do a lot and there were simply too many buttons and too many functions, but I got used to it in a week). For this game, I've remapped the buttons and I'm more comfortable now...but the default controls felt like I had to fight the controller. Really odd feeling, can't really explain it.
• Didn't use some of the level design to its full potential. There seemed to be buildings that you can go into in Orpik (or whatever the small town is called), but you rarely went in them to fight off baddies, or for an objective (and to have it surrounded by baddies with your team inside). No part where you went on a rooftop and then have the building surrounded by baddies trying to come up the stairs, stuff like that. There were some great choke points and scenarios (when you were on a hill being attacked from all sides), but none that really used the architecture of the town, really.
• objectives were too basic. None that required any team effort (ie. 2 switches must be held at the same time, multiple nodes that regenerate have to be taken down in 2 different areas, etc.) How about an objective where someone has to "capture" a point and the rest are simply trying to protect that player from baddies, otherwise if he dies you have to start it all over again. Seemed really basic to go from one area to another to another, just to hit switches it seems.
• The bosses...the spider was ineffective because it didn't shoot missiles (I remember having a hell of a time in R1's story mode with these guys, and it was great). They of course didnt' get a chance to move around, which is a negative, but more importantly it wasn't that lethal in its attacks. Sure, it can only focus on one player, that's ok. It's a good way to get it to turn around so you can attack it from behind. But it doesn't do much to the player it's attacking. I think a great attack from the spider would be one that attacks soldiers that are bunched together by sending a bomb into the air and onto them. That way people see the bomb coming as it arcs in the air and disperse. It would mean less pointing and shooting, and more moving around to avoid attacks while trying to get in some of your own. The bigger screamers were good bosses. Hard to take down, but they are fast and they go after you. It takes a concerted effort in distracting it, in hitting it from behind, and it does some damage to you if you are in its path. I also liked how there were 2 of them. They were good bosses. The big ogre dude is similar to the spider, though had a decent close range attack that can kill, but sometimes they are positioned so that they couldn't attack you or do much to you.
• Challenge...wasn't much of it. I think that even with good players you should face a challenge, and with poor players you have to restart it as everyone dies. Shouldn't be possible to beat it on your first try. Now, if there is a way to boost challenge, and by doing so you get more XP, then my complaint is not warranted. But if it's just like this for the full release, it's not going to be fun beyond the first couple of times for me. Simply compare playing Halo 3 in 4P co-op...once in normal mode and the other in Legendary. In Legendary it's an incredible experience...in normal it's a yawn fest. So I think this is critical.

BTW don't want to sound like mr. gamer expert here, this is just my opinion. I liked Co-Op, and thought it has promise. But I have a few concerns...one of which being the replayability, and the other being the number of Co-Op levels (and how many campaigns each one gets). I was thinking...do I really need to up my XP to get that extra perk, when I can beat the level just fine with an average group of players?

I've paid the game in full, but I'll be honest...I'm considering maybe using those funds to pick up LBP, and then pick this up later. I've played betas and demos of games this year that made me think "OMG I need this NOW", LBP being one, Braid being another, but this beta didn't make me feel this way to be honest. I'm not going to do anything rash at the moment, I'm gonna play more of this before I make any decision. BTW, I've felt the same with the Motorstorm 2 demo...maybe it's just me and my changing tastes. I'll be playing a lot of GH:WT and LBP this Fall mainly because I can make music/levels...so maybe it is just me. I haven't tried the KZ2 beta though...gotta find out how to get into that.

I spent some time on that Co Op bit...I'll do DM impressions later (I should get more under my belt anyways). Also gotta try that other team mode.

 

[Narcosis]

I got a beta key for this game, and the 8 player co-op is interesting. I don't get what the problem with some of the users is. If I'm pegging a gigantic monster with minigun fire and some dumbass from my team wanders in front and I shoot him accidentally, why the hell are they screaming at me on the headset?

 

[RockmanWhore]

Sorry but whoever designed those co-op missions sucks. Not even slighty exciting. Same old thing for hours, downing teleporting braindead dudes with green shields , eventually you have to press a switch or some such. The Stalker "boss" is just...wtf. I run circles around it and it can't do a single thing to me. Also, protip: Shooting around 15000 bullets into some uber-resistant chimera boss is not really fun...and how is any living thing supposed to survive that after 5 minutes of uninterrupted pounding anyway? I don't really like how the weapons feel either, the shooting mechanics are really unsatisfactory.

I'll definitely be passing on this game based on the beta.

You shouldn't judge the co-op with one game though. The experience really vary depending on which class suits you best and who you're playing with. Being in a team that works well is really satisfying. Also, remember that this is a beta. The objectives seems random here, but they'll be tied to a story, and I'm sure they're going to tweak a lot of gameplay, a few days ago, the big bosses didn't even moved for example :lol

 

[Rolf NB]

Fighty, I think you've lucked out with your co-op groups. It's incredibly frustrating with "average" players. If you had an easy waltz, it was because you all stuck together as a group and at least two or three of the support guys on your team definitely knew what they were doing. It's all good when stuff works out, and then the onus lies on you to pull your own weight, but you really have to have been in a bunch of shit matches to appreciate the hard work a team has to do to make it such a smooth ride to begin with.

Friday evening and Saturday afternoon here in the EU were glorious. Or maybe I had a lot of luck with my matchups.

But right now seems to be a terrible time for co-op. Late saturday night in the US I reckon.

I've just seen matches where people split up without reason and get killed, spec-ops storm into houses alone trying to melee a steelhead boss, matches with five soldiers, matches without soldiers, matches where two medics hang back in a corner, circle-jerking, while parts of the front-line team sit huddled up behind a tree there with 20% health for minutes, not to mention the matches that don't even launch because people don't understand the significance of the "Start game" control on their screen. My hope is that a majority of players will eventually learn what to do and when, they will learn how to contribute to the team, because that's what maximizes their own benefits, and OTOH that those who just can't learn will get frustrated enough to stop playing it.

You should definitely play some more. There are some random parts of the missions that get mixed and matched all the time. Maybe you'll find something closer to the situations you're asking for.

 

[Bearillusion]

It's growing on me but I have this weird 'what's the whole point' feeling while playing it. Strange I know as the point of any game is to have fun and I am it's just that.....I don't know.

When are the first reviews expected to hit? IGN etc.

 

[AgentOtaku]

It's growing on me but I have this weird 'what's the whole point' feeling while playing it. Strange I know as the point of any game is to have fun and I am it's just that.....I don't know.
When are the first reviews expected to hit? IGN etc.

Honestly I had a similar feeling...I think it's just because there's a fair bit of unsatisfying elements to the competetive mode as it is right now. From the shooting, so so player animations, "boxy" feel of the environments, and the very basic "Objective" of just capturing and holding a node

 

[FightyF]

You should definitely play some more. There are some random parts of the missions that get mixed and matched all the time. Maybe you'll find something closer to the situations you're asking for.

I can see how it can get frustrating, as I've seen some players just not do their jobs. But even then we got through it...just not as painless as we'd like. I'm sure in smaller groups it can get bad as each member is depended on moreso.

But yeah, definitely plan to give it more time. It's not like I didn't have fun with it...but I can see myself getting tired of it pretty quickly.

I feel like saying something about the visuals, but I'll bite my tongue until I've played more.

 

[ChryZ]

so are you guys going to skip R2?

I, for one, will wait and might pick it up for SP. I doubt heavy game changing patching will happen, that would be pretty much the only way to save MP for me. I'm a big Insomniac fan, but I'm not going to follow blindly. There are way too many must-have games on PS3 anyway.

 

[UntoldDreams]

Hahaha... Halfway through COOP the soldiers left leaving 2 medics.

 

[UntoldDreams]

I, for one, will wait and might picked it up for SP. I doubt heavy game changing patching will happen, that would be pretty much the only way to save MP for me. I'm a big Insomniac fan, but I'm not going to follow blindly. There are way too many must-have games on PS3 anyway.

I think you are judging way too quick.

We only have one map. Its possible other maps have different more interesting objectives as well.

 

[ChryZ]

I think you are judging way too quick.

We only have one map. Its possible other maps have different more interesting objectives as well.

My problem aren't the maps and modes. I don't like the new gunplay, aim, perks, weapon system ... pretty much the really really basic stuff. The whole chemistry of it isn't working for me.

 

[Rolf NB]

Question:
Does the "high weapon damage" modifier affect grenades in any way? How about fire damage (inflicted by bellock)? Are there any exceptions with regard to the more spamtastic weapons (marksman secondary, carbine secondary, splicer)?

 

[Rolf NB]

My problem aren't the maps and modes. I don't like the new gunplay, aim, perks, weapon system ... pretty much the really really basic stuff. The whole chemistry of it isn't working for me.

I'm a bit torn on the competitive side. I think some of the fundamental decisions are just wrong on an absolute scale, namely the cut back to two weapons and the sprint vs walk vs ironsight-aiming magic triangle of we-didn't-really-think-this-through. OTOH these limitations are easy to adjust to. What's limiting my own personal fun more is the balance of the weapons, the general weakness of any one player and the resulting absolute reliance on gang combat with grenades. It would take only slight tweaks here and there to completely turn this around though.

The weapon designs themselves are a-ok, and I like all of the maps except for maybe Chicago alleys. I like how the spawning system works and how it brings regular change to the flow of an ongoing match.

So I have two high-level issues that would be impossible to fix now but really don't bother me much, and a few balancing tweaks that would be easy to do and could potentially turn the competitive game from fine to awesome.

A total surprise to me is the co-op mode. I usually don't like social gaming, so I just ignored it for a couple of days, but now I'm really hooked. I really love how well it all works even completely without voice comms. It's very smartly done. It needs a few tweaks which have been uniformly requested, so I'm confident it will be just perfect come release.

So overall I have a definite desire to play the single-player and co-op. Somewhat down on competitive currently, but still curious to see how it evolves with patches. Maybe they'll reel me back in. Overall still a definite buy.

I think I might buy Warhawk soon.

 

[Bearillusion]

I think the graphics are much better than I intially thought. I'm watching a friend play Gears at the moment and it's like watching a black and white movie. :lol

 

[Fizzle]

I would like it if they:

1. Show people what level they are in in the (end) scoreboard. Are their weapon unlocks? I'd love to kill n00bs with splicer, thus motivating them to level up like i did.

2.Weapon Customization, maybe i want tiny scope on my splicer for that (whilst holding the r2 trigger syle) perfect shot.

3.Create a separate screen where i can see my player and customize, change my clothing , use gray tech and those COD4 style fundamentals. But it should look like SOCOM: Confrontation's style of UI. If you get what i mean.

I would like it also if there were clan logo's. But everything else is fine. I love the party feature. Super-easy to use.

 

[DIRTY-D]

(Im TOTALLY enjoying the R2 Beta..so lets get that out there)

On this point, I agree, but I think its such a spawn point issue...they need to make all spawns occur at the edge of the map, and have each team only spawn on one side....the way it is now, its so random, people are always spawning in front of you/behind you etc.

CODE UP FOR GRABS!!!!
L6EG-P3BF-QDRR

Thanks for putting up the code...It didn't work for me..so I'm guessing it already got snagged which is a total bummer. I really wanna check out the beta so if anyone has a extra code they could hook me up with that would be awesome.

Somebody throw this old dog a bone :lol

 

[RockmanWhore]

I would like it if they:

1. Show people what level they are in in the (end) scoreboard. Are their weapon unlocks? I'd love to kill n00bs with splicer, thus motivating them to level up like i did.

2.Weapon Customization, maybe i want tiny scope on my splicer for that (whilst holding the r2 trigger syle) perfect shot.

3.Create a separate screen where i can see my player and customize, change my clothing , use gray tech and those COD4 style fundamentals. But it should look like SOCOM: Confrontation's style of UI. If you get what i mean.

I would like it also if there were clan logo's. But everything else is fine. I love the party feature. Super-easy to use.

I really don't like your ideas, I don't want some RPG crap to fuck up the balance. A new player must have the same chances to win than a veteran. Skill is what should matter in a competitive game, not your exp points. And weapon customisation sounds like a pain to balance, there's already some crazy weapon and it must have been pretty tricky to balance too, let's not add more headache to those poor devs. It's fine to have some customization/RPG elements in co-op, but I really don't want this stuff in competitive. The winner should be the most skilled player, not the one who have played the most or somebody who bought XP points in the PSN :lol

 

[Rolf NB]

What the hell. It's back to being awesome. Another 60-man TDM on Orrick, without high weapn damage even (I checked), and it was amazing. Either I'm a weirdo -- which is possible either way --, or something about the game changed on the server side. Maybe the spawning. I don't know. It definitely felt like much less of a clusterfuck and more like warfare.

I really don't like your ideas, I don't want some RPG crap to fuck up the balance. A new player must have the same chances to win than a veteran. Skill is what should matter in a competitive game, not your exp points. And weapon customisation sounds like a pain to balance, there's already some crazy weapon and it must have been pretty tricky to balance too, let's not add more headache to those poor devs. It's fine to have some customization/RPG elements in co-op, but I really don't want this stuff in competitive. The winner should be the most skilled player, not the one who have played the most or somebody who bought XP points in the PSN :lol

Agreed 100%.

 

[StuBurns]

I don't think people should be able to develop their weapons based on time they've played, it's stupid, the whole point is that it's a level playing field, someone shouldn't have an advantage based on owning the game earlier.

However there is something addictive about the COD4 level system. So maybe there is a nice middle ground they could come to. Character customization is the obvious thing, but it's probably not enough to keep anyone interested. What about the COD4 system, you unlock weapons/upgrades at certain levels achieved in the competitive multiplayer, but you only unlock them for the cooperative multiplayer? That way there is no advantage that puts anyone else at a disadvantage.

 

[Fizzle]

I really don't like your ideas, I don't want some RPG crap to fuck up the balance. A new player must have the same chances to win than a veteran. Skill is what should matter in a competitive game, not your exp points. And weapon customisation sounds like a pain to balance, there's already some crazy weapon and it must have been pretty tricky to balance too, let's not add more headache to those poor devs. It's fine to have some customization/RPG elements in co-op, but I really don't want this stuff in competitive. The winner should be the most skilled player, not the one who have played the most or somebody who bought XP points in the PSN :lol

Well have you played COD4, Do you see how that works, (and obviously suceeded). That my friend is what i think works. If they did it or at least tried to implement as as inuitive as COD4's, then i can see this being alot more accessible to alot more people who don't speciafically have that "skill". COD4's full of n00bs but at the end of the day this whole XP/Perks system made them better eventually. I feel more sorry for the guy that ddoesn't know how to play this as intensely as the others but can't do anything to practise to get better. That's why the whole exp/perks works. I can't imagine any other way to motivate me to play more seeing as i just got the game and "everyones more skilled than me". If it was like that it'd be like SOCOM aswell. Full of elites and hardly anything to help you to get better.

 

[Rolf NB]

Well have you played COD4, Do you see how that works, (and obviously suceeded). That my friend is what i think works. If they did it or at least tried to implement as as inuitive as COD4's, then i can see this being alot more accessible to alot more people who don't speciafically have that "skill". COD4's full of n00bs but at the end of the day this whole XP/Perks system made them better eventually. I feel more sorry for the guy that ddoesn't know how to play this as intensely as the others but can't do anything to practise to get better. That's why the whole exp/perks works. I can't imagine any other way to motivate me to play more seeing as i just got the game and "everyones more skilled than me". If it was like that it'd be like SOCOM aswell. Full of elites and hardly anything to help you to get better.

That makes absolutely no sense. If you want to get your ass kicked as a new player, the sheer play experience of veteran players alone will give you that. They know the controls, they know the weapons, they know the maps, ergo they will kick your ass.

But you're completely wrong about that being a motivator anyway. The XP system itself is the motivator to keep playing despite being constantly torn to shreds, not the mutilation itself. That actually turns people off if anything.

 

[Fizzle]

That makes absolutely no sense. If you want to get your ass kicked as a new player, the sheer play experience of veteran players alone will give you that. They know the controls, they know the weapons, they know the maps, ergo they will kick your ass.

But you're completely wrong about that being a motivator anyway. The XP system itself is the motivator to keep playing despite being constantly torn to shreds, not the mutilation itself. That actually turns people off if anything.

What part doesn't make sense? IMO, COD4 was succesful because of the perk system and the other RPG tidbits that it uses. That's what made it accessible for me. If the game was based around skill i can definitely see that being ignored by new FPS comers.

 

[StuBurns]

I have to agree. A Vet in COD4 just has such an absence advantage. Knowing the maps perfectly, knowing the way other people move around the maps, knowing spawn points, having all the high end weapons. I'm not trying to shit on COD4 though, IW did an amazing job, it's not faultless, but nothing is, and it certainly changed the way many people look at multiplayer, I just think it's unfair and needs refining.

The best thing about it is that it only takes a few hours to get the big perks.

I think a XP system that ties into perks for the co-op multiplayer in R2 would be a perfect middle ground. It give you that RPG addictive player growth thing, but it keeps all people being equal (or at least closer to equal).

What part doesn't make sense? IMO, COD4 was succesful because of the perk system and the other RPG tidbits that it uses. That's what made it accessible for me. If the game was based around skill i can definitely see that being ignored by new FPS comers.

It doesn't make sense because you implied COD4's system works because it closes the gap between difficulties, so new people can catch up quicker. But it doesn't, it's the opposite, the gulf between newbies and vets in that game is beyond any other.

 

[Fizzle]

Well i am totally speaking out of experience and the XP/Perk system helped me alot to get better. it kept me going and i became as good as the others in about 6 or so hours. [\off topic discussion]

 

[Rolf NB]

And the what-the-hell moments just keep coming. Team Deathmatch in Chicago alleys can actually be fun! The game has definitely changed since I last tried that map. Players are more evenly spread out. No more long, concentrated struggles near the corners of the map.

 

[spwolf]

this whole thread makes me laugh...

1. R2 interfaces look like they are very polished - its Insomniac game.
2. R2 graphics and sounds look and sound great and are way way above R1.
3. I had R1 and played it kind of a lot (for me anyway) but never loved the game. I know others did.
3. R2 feels a bit more enjoyable for me in MP mode than R1, maybe more familiar.
4. Co-op is R2 is something amazing - it is awesome, and reason for me to buy the game.

Few people do not like the changes from R1, good... they should let us know that... but many others love the changes and not everyone likes same things. COD4 and R2 and completly different games, they can not compared as they are in different genre completly...

 

[CowJoMonkey_927]

Quick thoughts on the beta:

60 player team deathmatch at Orick is extremely fun. Skirmish on Chicago sucks donkey balls. Control mode is interesting and pretty fun. Deathmatch is very fun ofcourse, but I'm not fond of the San Francisco map, ironic since i live in the Bay area. I cant really judge Co-op yet because i havent played with friends, but the times i played randomly werent that fun.

I was down on the beta at first, but the 60 player TDM's on Orick are too fun and i cant wait for the full game with more maps.

 

[spwolf]

Well i am totally speaking out of experience and the XP/Perk system helped me alot to get better. it kept me going and i became as good as the others in about 6 or so hours. [\off topic discussion]

your argument makes no sense - sicne they leveled up more than you, difference between newbies and veterans is much bigger. Not only do they know how to play better and know maps better, they also are faster, aim better, etc, etc.

How is that easier on the newbies? Because it makes them want to get better?
It is silly notion that bigger gulf between newbies and vets will make newbies play more and try more. Reason COD4 was accessible was that you had fun in any case, and gameplay was such that people didnt care if they died few times more or less.

I actually find Socom community much nicer and more helpful because of the slower and more meaningful gameplay.

 

[JB1981]

What I don't like about the Loadout/Berserk combo system is there seems to be no rhyme or reason to them. I usually just end up using Ironheart because it's what the enemy always uses and it's a real pain in the ass to bring those guys down. It feels somewhat inconsequential compared to COD 4 where mixing and matching perks/loadout/weapon customization brought a new layer of strategy to the game.

I mean, certainly, it changes ones play style when you choose a different type of weapon from the start but I don't really see how the Berserks impact your decision making in any meaningful way.

 

[-viper-]

this whole thread makes me laugh...

1. R2 interfaces look like they are very polished - its Insomniac game.
2. R2 graphics and sounds look and sound great and are way way above R1.
3. I had R1 and played it kind of a lot (for me anyway) but never loved the game. I know others did.
3. R2 feels a bit more enjoyable for me in MP mode than R1, maybe more familiar.
4. Co-op is R2 is something amazing - it is awesome, and reason for me to buy the game.

Few people do not like the changes from R1, good... they should let us know that... but many others love the changes and not everyone likes same things. COD4 and R2 and completly different games, they can not compared as they are in different genre completly...

I pretty much agree with you.

I found the gameplay on R1 less accessible and therefore harder; the top players will always annihilate you in R1, but this may not always be the case in R2. It is a friendly game for a newcomer. I was pretty bad at R1 in MP, but I find that I'm pretty good in R2. Yay.

Overall I think its a better game. Less twitchy.

 

[M3Freak]

so are you guys going to skip R2?

Some might delay the purchase. One said he's considering just renting the game for the single player - that's it.

I want to buy it, but I don't know if I'll play the multiplayer enough to make the CAD$67 (after tax) I'll be paying for it worthwhile. I'm 99% sure, come Nov. 4, I will buy this game. ChryZ, is right though: there are a lot of games coming out, so waiting on R2 wouldn't be a disaster for me either.

I will say this though: I'm ecstatic I cancelled my pre-order for the LE version and went with the standard release instead.

 

[JB1981]

On balance:

I'd say the only weapon that is currently crazy overpowered is the Carbine. It is no longer a skill weapon that requires head shots to take someone down fast. IG has done away with the 'tracer fire' of the original game. What made the Carbine a skill weapon in the original was the combination of tracer fire and good aim - you HAD to train your reticule on the enemy's head to put them down fast. This is no longer the case. I would say 90% of the time I die, it's from some noob with a Carbine.

 

[Fizzle]

your argument makes no sense - sicne they leveled up more than you, difference between newbies and veterans is much bigger. Not only do they know how to play better and know maps better, they also are faster, aim better, etc, etc.

How is that easier on the newbies? Because it makes them want to get better?
It is silly notion that bigger gulf between newbies and vets will make newbies play more and try more. Reason COD4 was accessible was that you had fun in any case, and gameplay was such that people didnt care if they died few times more or less.

I actually find Socom community much nicer and more helpful because of the slower and more meaningful gameplay.

I believe that XP/Perks posed a challenge for me and along the way whilst i was killing the same n00bs as me, it helped me to better myself(spawn points/knowing maps/whatnot and whatnot!) End of. If you wanna continue this argument, lets dig up the COD4 thread.

 

[M3Freak]

I really don't like your ideas, I don't want some RPG crap to fuck up the balance. A new player must have the same chances to win than a veteran. Skill is what should matter in a competitive game, not your exp points. And weapon customisation sounds like a pain to balance, there's already some crazy weapon and it must have been pretty tricky to balance too, let's not add more headache to those poor devs. It's fine to have some customization/RPG elements in co-op, but I really don't want this stuff in competitive. The winner should be the most skilled player, not the one who have played the most or somebody who bought XP points in the PSN :lol

Which is EXACTLY why the hardcore LOVED R:FoM multiplayer. It was a pure skilled based FPS, and it was glorious. Now, your stupid ass perk and so on determine if you're going to win a battle. Even if the guy you're playing is experienced, a complete and total newb can own him over and over again if the newb has the right perk/berserk/weapon loadout combo. It's good for newbs and casual players, ass for everyone else.

I'm glad R2 has new fans. I wonder if they'll play the game as much R:FoM fans did.

Oh one other thing: I've finally decided I absolutely hate the two weapon system in competitive games. I use the bullseye constantly. I'm too afraid to loadout any other weapon for fear I'll be caught with the wrong weapon in a fire fight. Having to die to change my loadout is suckage. I either have to get killed, or decide to grenade myself if I need to change weapons. How on earth can this be a good decision? Do people actually LIKE this change? There has to be a better way to handle this. Oh wait, I know: two weapon system with spawn points! But, that would be too logical to put in, so let's just chuck that out the window. ::cries::

JS, I think the wrong side won that 2 weapon argument.

 

[Fizzle]

Has anyone also noticed with the Marksman that the reticule sticks onto the person you're aiming softly on. Like the medic gun. Feels like playing Warhawk. Except Warhawk's sniper gun didn't do that obviously.

 

[Rolf NB]

What I don't like about the Loadout/Berserk combo system is there seems to be no rhyme or reason to them. I usually just end up using Ironheart because it's what the enemy always uses and it's a real pain in the ass to bring those guys down. It feels somewhat inconsequential compared to COD 4 where mixing and matching perks/loadout/weapon customization brought a new layer of strategy to the game.

I mean, certainly, it changes ones play style when you choose a different type of weapon from the start but I don't really see how the Berserks impact your decision making in any meaningful way.

The visibility berserks (rage/radar) and prototype ammo are good for people who want to fight as a squad. These things do come in handy, but mostly for your teammates, not so much for yourself. Ironheart is for lone wolves trying to stay alive. Electrostatic orb is for lone wolves on a kamikaze mission.

There is also some interaction with your weapon choices. Consider a far-eye user who employs e-orb as an emergency defense. Consider how prototype ammo allows carbine users and marksman users to kill two people before having to reload, and restocks their precious secondary ammo as well.

 

[ianp622]

Has anyone also noticed with the Marksman that the reticule sticks onto the person you're aiming softly on. Like the medic gun. Feels like playing Warhawk. Except Warhawk's sniper gun didn't do that obviously.

Yeah, it kinda makes me feel bad for pwning with it so much. I think it would be a good gun even without that, I don't know why they put that in.

 

[Rolf NB]

Has anyone also noticed with the Marksman that the reticule sticks onto the person you're aiming softly on. Like the medic gun. Feels like playing Warhawk. Except Warhawk's sniper gun didn't do that obviously.

With default weapon damage the marksman is barely strong enough to kill one enemy before having to reload. That's when you completely rely on the auto-aim. If you want headshots, you have to earn them yourself.

The proper sniper weapon is the far eye by the way, and it doesn't auto-aim at all when zoomed in.

 

[Fizzle]

With default weapon damage the marksman is barely strong enough to kill one enemy before having to reload. That's when you completely rely on the auto-aim. If you want headshots, you have to earn them yourself.

The proper sniper weapon is the far eye by the way, and it doesn't auto-aim at all when zoomed in.

Default damage? How do i set it to high damage like a real sniper gun usually is....?