Support NeoGAF

[Wolffen]

I've seen basically one enemy behavioral pattern in these videos and it's: RUN STRAIGHT AT THE PLAYER. What's up with that? The chimera did this in the first game but not like the dudes in these videos. They just come straight at you .. like, all the time.

(a) What difficulty were these demos set at? If they were set to Easy, that would explain it to an extent.
(b) There were several spots in the demo where Chimera were using cover, not just running at the player.
(c) Several of the sections shows in the videos are essentially narrow corridors, not allowing for much more behavior than running at the player.

I'm really ready for the damned beta at this point, just so there's something else to talk about. This is reminding me way too much of the Halo3 threads last year. Ugh.

So Jstevenson, I'll ask again (not expecting an answer): any chance you could give us an idea of when the preorder beta code emails will be going out? Are we looking at this week or the week after?

 

[patsu]

What so special about having a bunch of grims come at you through a narrow corridor? If I can set up turrets and these grims are coming from multiple directions that would be more impressive.

That's because the player was smart enough to stay far and away from the spawn point(s). We already saw enemies coming from multiple directions at the players in the Co-op game play when a scattered 8P team wandered unwittingly into the spawn area. The SP level will have to be adjusted accordingly.

I brought up the horde of enemies because you mentioned that there was no large number of enemies. There is at least one case shown.

As for strategic flanking, I believe Jstevenson mentioned smarter group flank earlier in this thread. But the videos did not show any. Perhaps they are still testing it, or they don't want to spoil the game.

I can understand MP because chicago has a ton of verticality, but everything they're shown so far has been quite linear, if they have these epic levels they need to fucking show it because it's almost october and the game probably needs to go gold in a little over a couple of weeks. The goliath definitely needs to be much more than the canned stuff we've seen so far, even in the first game the player got to fight it for real, it's almost like going backwards.

They look linear because we have only seen one level, one path and one difficulty so far. The newer video above showed a lost player and a different angle of the scouts.

As for epic levels, I don't think it will harm them if they show later (or even wait for players to discover for themselves).

 

[FightyF]

But from what i have see Resistance 2 is a much bigger game than both,Killzone 2 has more open environment than GOW2 from what i have see,but Resistance scale is bigger so less detail is in place,but i think for a game of its size is very good looking.

Totally agree. In terms of FPSs, the scale and the amount of detail along with it is unmatched. I mean, someone can claim Tribes is bigger, but it's barren. This game is huge and has got a lot of detail at the same time.

So if people don't put much stock into that quality, the game is going to seem less impressive to them.

 

[Kittonwy]

I've seen basically one enemy behavioral pattern in these videos and it's: RUN STRAIGHT AT THE PLAYER. What's up with that? The chimera did this in the first game but not like the dudes in these videos. They just come straight at you .. like, all the time.

The chimeras need to use cover more. I don't understand their development philosophy. The main problems with the first game were:

1) Visuals (in order of priority from first to last: lack of HDR/tone-mapping, dynamic shadowing and self-shadowing, lack of reflection map on water and windows, lack of destructability, lack of iconic structures and landmarks that truly distinguish a level)

2) Music (lack of truly rousing, epic pieces, atmospheric pieces are fine for survival horror game but not for an epic shooter, they need to be memorable to the point of people humming them)

3) SP Gameplay (too much linearity, needs more intelligent AI in terms of behaviours, tactics and taking cover, needs more verticality in SP levels as well as more open levels, TRUE BOSS FIGHTS)

4) MP Gameplay (needs to get rid of any kind of CTF, more Breach/Assault type games but without the Nottingham breach-type chokepoints that will result in massive deaths that can destroy the player's k/d which tends to keep k/d whores away from objective games)

What they ended up doing was revamping the entire weapon system, slowing the pace of MP, nurfing grenade throwing which can be seen from the recent footage, NONE OF WHICH WERE NECESSARY AT ALL WHATSOEVER. You don't fix what wasn't broken and you certainly don't BREAK what already worked extremely well.

The engine and the the lighting tweaks as well as the water tech came in basically at the last minute when those should have been the FIRST THING they needed to do after R1 shipped and R2 got the go-ahead from Sony, the engine was rushed, it was inadequate, lacking in key current gen features. R2 development, especially engine development should have been a higher priority over development of Q4B or even FTOD (both COMBINED didn't sell as much as R1).

 

[oneHeero]

Games is 60fps right?
Its the largest scale FPS game right?
Has 8p Co-OP online right?
Has up to 60p online right?
2 Stories right?
One of the best dev teams behind it right?

Yet the game isnt the best in terms of lighting or textures so its not as great as expected? 95% of FPS games out there cant do what R2 will do but ppl are bitching about lighting?

Stfu and get over yourselves, probably a bunch of idiots who didnt make it in the industry or some nonsense to be so cynical about it.
LOL @ the comment about wanting it to sell 3-4mil but dont know if it will, like lighting plays a part of that..

 

[Kittonwy]

Games is 60fps right?
Its the largest scale FPS game right?
Has 8p Co-OP online right?
Has up to 60p online right?
2 Stories right?
One of the best dev teams behind it right?

Yet the game isnt the best in terms of lighting or textures so its not as great as expected? 95% of FPS games out there cant do what R2 will do but ppl are bitching about lighting?

Stfu and get over yourselves, probably a bunch of idiots who didnt make it in the industry or some nonsense to be so cynical about it.
LOL @ the comment about wanting it to sell 3-4mil but dont know if it will, like lighting plays a part of that..

It's not 60fps, and it's not about the dev team, it's about the product they put out, you're a good team BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF YOUR PRODUCTS, not the other way around. I would like to see that "scale" in the SP campaign, so far it's all been linear corridors in iceland and orick, it needs to get bigger, which I hope will happen.

I have no intention of ever entering the game development at any point in my life, there's not a lot of longevity in being a game designer. I just want one great game, not 95% of what's already out there.

 

[Kittonwy]

That's because the player was smart enough to stay far and away from the spawn point(s). We already saw enemies coming from multiple directions at the players in the Co-op game play when a scattered 8P team wandered unwittingly into the spawn area. The SP level will have to be adjusted accordingly.

I brought up the horde of enemies because you mentioned that there was no large number of enemies. There is at least one case shown.

As for strategic flanking, I believe Jstevenson mentioned smarter group flank earlier in this thread. But the videos did not show any. Perhaps they are still testing it, or they don't want to spoil the game.

It's almost october, they need to show it so they have something to sell this game to people on, damn the spoiling. SP needs to be more dynamic than what they're showing. It's not even like there's a dozen enemies on screen here, you have maybe three to four chimeras and all they do is rush, seriously I mean wtf, that's Gears/UNCHARTED territory, if this is the kind of scenarios you have, 1) the AI needs to be smarter and 2) the game needs to look better.

They look linear because we have only seen one level, one path and one difficulty so far. The newer video above showed a lost player and a different angle of the scouts.

As for epic levels, I don't think it will harm them if they show later (or even wait for players to discover for themselves).

The gamekyo video is simply frustrating to watch, it's not because the level isn't linear, it's because there aren't enough visual cues to show the player where to go, such as increasing number of tree stumps, or more barren landscape, or some sort of onscreen indicator in the hud to point the player at the right direction, having one or two flying drones is WAY TOO SUBTLE and people won't pick that up, especially when the player might just shoot them down. How much later can they wait to show the "good stuff", is the game not coming out on November 4th? Sony can have these game events to show off the game but it's up to IG to bring the goods.

 

[oneHeero]

It's not 60fps, and it's not about the dev team, it's about the product they put out, you're a good team BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF YOUR PRODUCTS, not the other way around. I would like to see that "scale" in the SP campaign, so far it's all been linear corridors in iceland and orick, it needs to get bigger, which I hope will happen.

I have no intention of ever entering the game industry at any point in my life. I just want one great game, not 95% of what's already out there.

*Stunnerz oneHeero**

 

[patsu]

It's almost october, they need to show it so they have something to sell this game to people on, damn the spoiling. SP needs to be more dynamic than what they're showing.

November... still have time. Besides AI, we also do not know anything about their web integration feature yet.

The gamekyo video is simply frustrating to watch, it's not because the level isn't linear, it's because there aren't enough visual cues to show the player where to go, such as increasing number of tree stumps, or more barren landscape, or some sort of onscreen indicator in the hud to point the player at the right direction, having one or two flying drones is WAY TOO SUBTLE and people won't pick that up, especially when the player might just shoot them down. How much later can they wait to show the "good stuff", is the game not coming out on November 4th?

The visual cue worry is valid since the play area is huge. But the on-screen HUD to indicate objective is indeed available if you look carefully (!)

In addition, the game seems to generate enemies/drones to lure the player to the right direction (e.g., The player found the point where he needed to jump into the water but he walked away.... a drone and alert sound got him back). I don't remember seeing that drone in Jstevenson's walkthrough.

 

[Tiduz]

Kitton, now you confused me.

first you say the game is too linear and now you say there arent enough cues where to go next.

which is it?

 

[cjtiger300]

Kittonwy, your starting to go all crazy and stuff! Calm down a little. You would have thought RFOM was one of the worst games ever reading your post. It was a launch game!!!!! There engine has many more tools now.

 

[Kittonwy]

Kitton, now you confused me.

first you say the game is too linear and now you say there arent enough cues where to go next.

which is it?

Right now it is too linear.

There aren't multiple paths through the area with the trees, just one entrance and one exit, it IS linear, THE PLAYER GOT LOST IN A LINEAR AREA, THAT is a problem.

 

[Tiduz]

Right now it is too linear.

There aren't multiple paths through the area with the trees, just one entrance and one exit, it IS linear, THE PLAYER GOT LOST IN A LINEAR AREA, THAT is a problem.

ok, i understand now, maybe theyll fix it in the final game, i do agree i hate it when i get lost in games for hours :lol

 

[jett]

It seems the KittonAI is breaking down.

 

[cjtiger300]

Right now it is too linear.

There aren't multiple paths through the area with the trees, just one entrance and one exit, it IS linear, THE PLAYER GOT LOST IN A LINEAR AREA, THAT is a problem.

As much as we both love Uncharted, it was pretty linear. I still love the game and so far it is the best of this gen and is high up on my list for best game ever.

I hear everything you are saying, but we haven't seen enough of the game to really draw a complete opinion. To me, the story is very important too. I think the story will make or break this game. We all know that the game play will be top notch!

 

[Awntawn]

Just pre-ordered this yesterday at Gamestop, got a little scratch card with the open beta code on it for when it opens ;D

 

[Tideas]

i hope the dev aren't making this game to one person's vision

 

[cjtiger300]

Just pre-ordered this yesterday at Gamestop, got a little scratch card with the open beta code on it for when it opens ;D

Read the card. You have to register with that code at http://register.myresistance.net/. Then they will send you the code to your email before the open beta starts.

 

[spwolf]

The gamekyo video is simply frustrating to watch, it's not because the level isn't linear, it's because there aren't enough visual cues to show the player where to go, such as increasing number of tree stumps, or more barren landscape, or some sort of onscreen indicator in the hud to point the player at the right direction, having one or two flying drones is WAY TOO SUBTLE and people won't pick that up, especially when the player might just shoot them down. How much later can they wait to show the "good stuff", is the game not coming out on November 4th? Sony can have these game events to show off the game but it's up to IG to bring the goods.

oh i got it now.. there should be 30 paths, and big arrows showing us where to go, because thats, um, not being linear?

Two of your arguments are arguing between themselves.

I hate getting lost myself... but if you get lost, that means game is not linear :lol

 

[cjtiger300]

i hope the dev aren't making this game to one person's vision

What does that even mean? What if that one persons vision is the most bad ass game ever?

 

[patsu]

Come on guys, stop picking on Kittonwy. He has good intention and we all know what he's trying to get at.

 

[Kittonwy]

As much as we both love Uncharted, it was pretty linear. I still love the game and so far it is the best of this gen and is high up on my list for best game ever.

I hear everything you are saying, but we haven't seen enough of the game to really draw a complete opinion. To me, the story is very important too. I think the story will make or break this game. We all know that the game play will be top notch!

UNCHARTED!!!111!!!

haz great AI though, a lot of the levels are set up such that the player and the enemies can try to outflank each other. But seriously this is a 2008 game and should be better than UNCHARTED!!!111!!!

, I'm still kind of surprised they didn't try to put air vents in SP and let the player vault from one place to another as well as let chimeras chase after you that way. Picking them off as they're traveling in the air would have been cool. There's so many things they can do instead of this "travel through the corridor" thing they did with the orick and iceland levels.

 

[Kittonwy]

oh i got it now.. there should be 30 paths, and big arrows showing us where to go, because thats, um, not being linear?

Two of your arguments are arguing between themselves.

I hate getting lost myself... but if you get lost, that means game is not linear :lol

You can provide the player with a big level and multiple paths as long as you let the player know where to go in terms of giving the player the necessary landmark to proceed towards, like taking the high road versus the low road, or letting the player freely decide at anytime which road to take like allowing the player to jump down to engage enemies at the bottom level or use an air vent to get up top.

The forest area was basically a giant circle with a bunch of trees in it, where the area is not divided into set paths, it's just that the end point is not clearly indicated and it would be easy for the player to be turning in circles. It would be like having a corridor where both ends look exactly the same, if the player forget which direction he was facing, he might go back the previous direction which is something you wouldn't want the player to do.

 

[cjtiger300]

UNCHARTED!!!111!!!

haz great AI though, a lot of the levels are set up such that the player and the enemies can try to outflank each other. But seriously this is a 2008 game and should be better than UNCHARTED!!!111!!!

, I'm still kind of surprised they didn't try to put air vents in SP and let the player vault from one place to another as well as let chimeras chase after you that way. Picking them off as they're traveling in the air would have been cool. There's so many things they can do instead of this "travel through the corridor" thing they did with the orick and iceland levels.

I hope that the AI is like Uncharted. That is the best enemy AI ever in a video game. Amazing stuff if R2 can replicate that. Who knows what difficulty they were playing at.

 

[DrPirate]

I hope that the AI is like Uncharted. That is the best enemy AI ever in a video game. Amazing stuff if R2 can replicate that. Who knows what difficulty they were playing at.

Yeah, the Uncharted AI was pretty unique. Enemies attempted to flank you, they took cover, they put down suppressing fire, they always found ways to either get around you or flush you out with grenades. Even those fake-ish AI routines where they would do the MC Hammer head bob to dodge your headshots were done.

From the video on Gamersyde, all I see is them running at you, pausing, and shooting.

To be fair though, in every single R2 video, the player would have died if God Mode was not turned on. I guess even with the AI routines the game has, it's still pretty hard.

 

[Dibbz]

I'm not going to say anything until I play the beta now, but when the hell is it coming?? It has to be after the Killzone 2 beta ends since no one is going to drop K2 for R2. No one. :|

Spoiler

I'm joking, tons of people will play the R2 beta.

 

[Awntawn]

Read the card. You have to register with that code at http://register.myresistance.net/. Then they will send you the code to your email before the open beta starts.

Damn fine print!

 

[JB1981]

It seems the KittonAI is breaking down.

He's on the money with every post.

 

[RockmanWhore]

Even with Uncharted's AI, they couldn't do much in those giant corridors One other things is that they don't have much HP this time, every bullets seems to have an impact, which is great but if the enemies don't last long, they don't have time to show you how smart they are. High HP and tighly designed arena are the biggest reason why Uncharted's AI seems so smart, and yeah, they spank you, throw grenade, blind fire, etc...

 

[Private Hoffman]

Excuse me ? I love FPS!

edit> wow @ thread. It's nice to read that my opinion is in the minority, but what minority exactly ? The minority of people who've never seen the game for real ?

Apparently in the minority of the vast majority of the gaming press.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/912/912569p1.html

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3170110&p=37

I believe Garnett made a few comments on here too about how amazing it looked.

N'Gai: Polish Confirmed.

I hear none of these people saying the game looks anywhere near a "PS2" title, and that sort of comment is laughable trolling.

About your nice comments stating that I'm a Xbot (how original !), well, good for you.
I don't give a damn about the platform, I hav'em all and play all the games that come out. I played Killzone 2 and it looked very impressive to me, I played Gears 2's campaign it looked fucking incredible to me, I played Far Cry 2 and it looked superb especially considering what sort of game it is... R2's graphics were a big letdown. I'm not saying it looks like shit, just that it's far from being impressive - to me.

So, Killzone 2 looks "very impressive" while Gears 2 looked "fucking incredible" and Resistance 2 looked "unimpressive".

Your choice of words is suspect, honestly, and I can't take your opinion very seriously when you say TONS of people passed by saying R2 looked like a PS2 game. Maybe one uninformed person said that passing by, but tons? Yeah, I don't believe that at all.

Of course it doesn't look like a PS2 game. And anyway if you want to check your hype, just watch the gameplay videos and look at the level design. Then you'll have a good reason for growing or deflating your hype.

Level design...

I see monsters that you can shoot things.

I see linear, epic, scripted events.

Again, you made the same comment regarding Killzone 2's "unimpressive" level design, and I didn't see it watching the videos of KZ2.

Given your absolute adoration of Gears of War 2, I'm sure you believe its level design is "fucking incredible" too, despite its level design being almost ENTIRELY the same formulas as the other two in question (I'm a big Gears fan and will be getting that game too).

Tell me I'm wrong here, but I doubt you'll claim Gears of War 2's level design is unimpressive as the other two PS3 games you already mentioned as having bad level design...

 

[Madman]

Hopefully the official thread goes better then this one. I'm hyped for R2. And I wish this thread was an actual hype thread and not a general bitch fest.

 

[Fersis]

Hopefully the official thread goes better then this one. I'm hyped for R2. And I wish this thread was an actual hype thread and not a general bitch fest.

I was a really nice thread ,JStevenson was posting a lot of info... until 'THAT' happened....
the whole 'where's my self shadowing bricks and grass !'
I think that we scared JStevenson with all the bitch fest....

 

[DrPirate]

Hopefully the official thread goes better then this one. I'm hyped for R2. And I wish this thread was an actual hype thread and not a general bitch fest.

No way to tell until the game is out. All I know is that I'll be spending more time in the matchup forum than the official thread. I'm a coop freak and I know I'll be wanting to find people who want to do the hardest maps on the hardest difficulties.

 

[jstevenson]

The chimeras need to use cover more. I don't understand their development philosophy. The main problems with the first game were:

1) Visuals (in order of priority from first to last: lack of HDR/tone-mapping, dynamic shadowing and self-shadowing, lack of reflection map on water and windows, lack of destructability, lack of iconic structures and landmarks that truly distinguish a level)

The water is both reflective and refractive, and it varies based on the environment and lighting. We can make it reflect everything, or nothing. Just because you didn't get a good look at it doesn't mean it's reflecting. There are some destructible objects --- and I think many levels have iconic elements - including the Node in Chicago, the town square in Twin Falls and other levels we haven't even talked about.

2) Music (lack of truly rousing, epic pieces, atmospheric pieces are fine for survival horror game but not for an epic shooter, they need to be memorable to the point of people humming them)

New composer. Actually orchestrated music with a symphony. You haven't had a chance to hear much yet, but the podcast has some of the music that people seem to love. Maybe I'll swap in some other new R2 music for this week.

The sound in the game is quite improved, if you don't have surround sound or good headphones, I feel bad for you, the game's sound is one of its best elements.

3) SP Gameplay (too much linearity, needs more intelligent AI in terms of behaviours, tactics and taking cover, needs more verticality in SP levels as well as more open levels, TRUE BOSS FIGHTS)

Have you played the whole game? Did you see Chicago and the nature of the buildings there? Could you imagine some of the open town squares we might have throughout the game? Do you remember the open battles in RFOM? Do you think we just dropped those?. We showed our opening (tutorial level) and our third level (in which the Lumberyard battle starts to reflect some of the large scale of battles and multiple paths you can take) and now you already want more?

4) MP Gameplay (needs to get rid of any kind of CTF, more Breach/Assault type games but without the Nottingham breach-type chokepoints that will result in massive deaths that can destroy the player's k/d which tends to keep k/d whores away from objective games)

We've already made lots of tweaks and focused our objective games into Skirmish. Plus you know we'll support the game beyond launch.

What they ended up doing was revamping the entire weapon system, slowing the pace of MP, nurfing grenade throwing which can be seen from the recent footage, NONE OF WHICH WERE NECESSARY AT ALL WHATSOEVER. You don't fix what wasn't broken and you certainly don't BREAK what already worked extremely well.

The engine and the the lighting tweaks as well as the water tech came in basically at the last minute when those should have been the FIRST THING they needed to do after R1 shipped and R2 got the go-ahead from Sony, the engine was rushed, it was inadequate, lacking in key current gen features. R2 development, especially engine development should have been a higher priority over development of Q4B or even FTOD (both COMBINED didn't sell as much as R1).

We changed the weapon system for good reasons, MP plays at the same pace, grenade throwing isn't the Brett Favre tosses it use to be, but it's not the private beta either.

The lighting and water came on last minute because our engine team has been working on it all of this time. They also worked on new tech for Ratchet last year that went into that. It's ALL THE SAME engine Kitty. The features from TOD that made that game look good are all in R2.

The gamekyo video is simply frustrating to watch, it's not because the level isn't linear, it's because there aren't enough visual cues to show the player where to go, such as increasing number of tree stumps, or more barren landscape, or some sort of onscreen indicator in the hud to point the player at the right direction, having one or two flying drones is WAY TOO SUBTLE and people won't pick that up, especially when the player might just shoot them down. How much later can they wait to show the "good stuff", is the game not coming out on November 4th? Sony can have these game events to show off the game but it's up to IG to bring the goods.

There is also a giant, huge, objective marker/arrow that shows up when you're lost and directs you to where you're supposed to go.

And I've argued we've shown the "good stuff" but we're intentionally holding stuff back. The press LOVED what they played, and their previews proved it. We showed we're delivering. People are excited, and everywhere we show Orick, we get great feedback.

It's not 60fps, and it's not about the dev team, it's about the product they put out, you're a good team BECAUSE OF THE QUALITY OF YOUR PRODUCTS, not the other way around. I would like to see that "scale" in the SP campaign, so far it's all been linear corridors in iceland and orick, it needs to get bigger, which I hope will happen.

Guess what - you'll play the game in 6 weeks or so. And you'll find out for yourself. Why not save the bitching until AFTER you have the final product. Do you have any reason to believe we won't deliver?

*stone cold stunnerz*

 

[Mesijs]

I think the only thing that Resistance lacked were those real WOW-moments, this jaw-dropping elements. Sometimes when I play games I just feel totally impressed by a situation and Resistance never had that. I think it was a great game and when I reviewed it for Gamer.nl I gave it a 9. But you really miss the moments that totally impress you.

Although Resistance 2 has upped the scale, I wonder if those moments are in it. The Leviathan is damned big but apart from being big it's not someting jaw-dropping. I think action games like this one really need some of those moments.

 

[DrPirate]

Wow Jstevenson

*blinks*

that should shut everyone up.

 

[RobertM]

Kittonwy
stone cold stunnerzed by jstevenson
Reply | Quote

 

[snoopers]

Tell me I'm wrong here, but I doubt you'll claim Gears of War 2's level design is unimpressive as the other two PS3 games you already mentioned as having bad level design...

You're the one bringing this console war bullshit into the discussion. Again, I couldn't care less about the platform, I care about the games, whatever you have to say about this.

 

[MrHicks]

jstevenson who are you?
im not in the know about all the devs on this board

 

[jmd494]

jstevenson who are you?
im not in the know about all the devs on this board

Community manager at Insomniac

 

[BeeDog]

hai guys what's coo-

 

[Ceb]

I think the only thing that Resistance lacked were those real WOW-moments, this jaw-dropping elements. Sometimes when I play games I just feel totally impressed by a situation and Resistance never had that. I think it was a great game and when I reviewed it for Gamer.nl I gave it a 9. But you really miss the moments that totally impress you.

Although Resistance 2 has upped the scale, I wonder if those moments are in it. The Leviathan is damned big but apart from being big it's not someting jaw-dropping. I think action games like this one really need some of those moments.

I think I know what you'd want added into the game, but personally, R1 wowed me pretty often. The dropships + stalker at the end of Manchester, the big firefight that ended Somerset, the big battle at the Thames and the final "boss" of course. All of these frantic, huge shootouts were totally exhilarating since they throwed so much stuff at you. And the aftermath with all the bodies, totalled cars and broken signposts, shrapnel everywhere was pretty awe-inspiring.

We changed the weapon system for good reasons

IIRC, you've previously said it was due to maintaining "balance". Yet R1 never ever felt unbalanced despite the massive arsenal at your disposal. I don't know if getting this balance down pat meant a lot of extra work for you that you'd rather spend on other things, but I definitely think you could've made R2 just as balanced with a full weapon selection.

I know Iceland is the first level, but right now it feels like limiting the player to two weapons is just a way of controlling that the scenario gets played through the way you want it to. It makes it easy for you to make more scripted events. "Pick up LAARK and fire at target X", etc.

I think getting rid of the weapon wheel will turn out to be a huge mistake. I'm sure the game will still be great, but it just seems bone-headed to drastically reduce the player's ability to map out his own battle plan.

 

[Stike]

You're the one bringing this console war bullshit into the discussion. Again, I couldn't care less about the platform, I care about the games, whatever you have to say about this.

-.-

This does not distract many folks here from the obvious - with a subtle choice of words you were bashing the game.

 

[jstevenson]

IIRC, you've previously said it was due to maintaining "balance". Yet R1 never ever felt unbalanced despite the massive arsenal at your disposal. I don't know if getting this balance down pat meant a lot of extra work for you that you'd rather spend on other things, but I definitely think you could've made R2 just as balanced with a full weapon selection.

I know Iceland is the first level, but right now it feels like limiting the player to two weapons is just a way of controlling that the scenario gets played through the way you want it to. It makes it easy for you to make more scripted events. "Pick up LAARK and fire at target X", etc.

I think getting rid of the weapon wheel will turn out to be a huge mistake. I'm sure the game will still be great, but it just seems bone-headed to drastically reduce the player's ability to map out his own battle plan.

But we always did sort of control it--- for instance, we'd give you ammo when we wanted you to have it. And we also structured the weapons so that you wouldn't get the powerful ones until late in the game. This also posed a frustration to players because they'd have a weapon and never get ammo for it. Or players would save ammo for "just in case" situations that wouldn't come and never use the cool weapons.

Most players in RFOM stuck to the Carbine/Bullseye/Shotty, and didn't try many others.

Believe me this was well-debated, and we ultimately decided - after all sides had presented their case and we tested the ideas - that two weapons worked best.

 

[jett]

Awesome post jstevenson, total kittownage. By the way...will there be a demo?

But we always did sort of control it--- for instance, we'd give you ammo when we wanted you to have it. And we also structured the weapons so that you wouldn't get the powerful ones until late in the game. This also posed a frustration to players because they'd have a weapon and never get ammo for it. Or players would save ammo for "just in case" situations that wouldn't come and never use the cool weapons.

Most players in RFOM stuck to the Carbine/Bullseye/Shotty, and didn't try many others.

Believe me this was well-debated, and we ultimately decided - after all sides had presented their case and we tested the ideas - that two weapons worked best.

Heh, you just described how I played through R1, personally I think I'm gonna like the new system better.

 

[Fersis]

Its like a : Stone Cold Stunner -> Rock Bottom -> Sweet Chin Music....

Anywho, i trully believe its gonna be real fun and entertaining game, games need to be fun , no tech demos with a bullet point list with all the tech.

Any word on a demo like R1 ?

 

[Ceb]

Most players in RFOM stuck to the Carbine/Bullseye/Shotty, and didn't try many others.

Believe me this was well-debated, and we ultimately decided - after all sides had presented their case and we tested the ideas - that two weapons worked best.

I just can't imagine life in Resistance without the Sapper/Hailstorm/Fareye/Bullseye/Auger/LAARK combo. I loved setting up a defensive perimeter and then have a good mix of mid- and long-range offensive weapons at my disposal.

Ah well, I guess I'll learn to accept this new approach eventually... I hope.

 

[FightyF]

I'm not going to say anything until I play the beta now, but when the hell is it coming?? It has to be after the Killzone 2 beta ends since no one is going to drop K2 for R2. No one. :|

Spoiler

I'm joking, tons of people will play the R2 beta.

The game is coming out in November, I don't see the KZ2 beta coming out before then. I could be wrong...but for a Spring game, an Oct/Nov beta seems way too early to me.

BTW I was playing Wipeout, and was 0.06 seconds away from a Gold timing and I was like DAMMAAT, but then I saw yours a few spots above mine, that was 0.01 seconds away from Gold. I'll admit it made me feel a bit better, heheheh.

*stone cold stunnerz*

:lol

Somewhere Diamond Dallas Page and Disco Inferno are crying...

 

[Fersis]

Also i would like to add this :
The animation of the chimeras add so much to the gameplay, its a huge improvement over R1, i really like the fact that you used motion capture.

 

[RobertM]

I think I know what you'd want added into the game, but personally, R1 wowed me pretty often. The dropships + stalker at the end of Manchester, the big firefight that ended Somerset, the big battle at the Thames and the final "boss" of course. All of these frantic, huge shootouts were totally exhilarating since they throwed so much stuff at you. And the aftermath with all the bodies, totalled cars and broken signposts, shrapnel everywhere was pretty awe-inspiring.



IIRC, you've previously said it was due to maintaining "balance". Yet R1 never ever felt unbalanced despite the massive arsenal at your disposal. I don't know if getting this balance down pat meant a lot of extra work for you that you'd rather spend on other things, but I definitely think you could've made R2 just as balanced with a full weapon selection.

I know Iceland is the first level, but right now it feels like limiting the player to two weapons is just a way of controlling that the scenario gets played through the way you want it to. It makes it easy for you to make more scripted events. "Pick up LAARK and fire at target X", etc.

I think getting rid of the weapon wheel will turn out to be a huge mistake. I'm sure the game will still be great, but it just seems bone-headed to drastically reduce the player's ability to map out his own battle plan.

To me it never felt like I was using all those guns in R1; I usually used Carbine or Bullseye throughout the whole game. It's something to do with the fact that you don't get much ammo for those guns, and try to conserve them for later encounters. Also it didn't really feel like those guns had a purpose, they were all just out there use them if you please with uniqueness tied to them. If the limitation gives guns more meaning, I'm fine with that. If it creates an interesting scenario, I'm fine with that. Did you really map out your own battle plans in R1 or did you just roam through the game just using random tactics? I'm sure it's the later because that's how I played it.