Resistance 1 and 2

All the reviewers said Resistance: Fall of Man was great, and that R2 was even better, but I've also heard that the latter was a major disappointment for a lot of people. Anyone care to explain to me if the series is worth checking out? I've really been wanting to try it, but I haven't seen anything purely definite on the quality of the sequel, and the original is a bit dated by now.

Thanks! :D

All the reviewers said Resistance: Fall of Man was great, and that R2 was even better, but I've also heard that the latter was a major disappointment for a lot of people. Anyone care to explain to me if the series is worth checking out? I've really been wanting to try it, but I haven't seen anything purely definite on the quality of the sequel, and the original is a bit dated by now.

Thanks! :D

R1 had the weapons wheel, where you could carry every gun in the game at once. R2 doesn't have the wheel. I think its supposed to be in R3 too. I think most people wanted the wheel in 2 and were disappointed.

Hmm.... Local splitscreen would be great. So those two things are the main reason that people were disappointed?

I could understand how exclusion of those things could be a bit frustrating. At least it'll be fixed in Resistance 3 (from what you guys are saying). I'll have to catch up if possible, so I can then enjoy R3.

The 2nd one was a disappointment to a lot of people because they took out co-op story mode.

It's a series definitely worth checking out. Personally I thought Resistance: Fall of Man was great, but found Resistance 2 very disappointing because of the severe lack of dark and gritty realism to both visuals and gameplay. Resistance 3, however, that is being released later this year looks to be reverting back to Resistance: Fall of Man's routes, so maybe there is still hope in this inconsistent First-person shooter series ;) :P

The weapon wheel and split-screen co-op were removed from Resistance 2, but I think the biggest complaint about the second game was that it just didn't feel the same as the first one. The atmosphere was completely different.

In the first game, it was dark and gritty. The story was set in the 1950s and you could tell because everything felt like it was in that era. Also the story was explain in a narrative by Parker that was accompanied by black and white still photos and map, which gave the game a cool war-time feel.

In the second game, all of that was gone. There was no narraration between levels, instead you got regular cut-sceens. The colors were too vivid and almost cartoony at points. A lot of the tech in the game felt too modern. It didn't feel like it was in an alternate 1950s anymore.

I have answered this question so many times on this forums.. No I don't like what they did with majority of the changed with Resistance 2.

The best thing you can do at this point is to rent the game first and decide for yourself. Resistance 1 was my first PS3 game and I really enjoyed it, Resistance 2 was a disappointment for me personally.

Play both of them, they are great. Although in my opinion R2 was better, the campaign was superb and co-op was really fun (8 players). Of course I'm not saying that the first was bad, no, no where near that.

They're both fantastic games.

As far as the second game goes, they made a bunch of improvements to the game, but at the same time that caused it to lose some of the characteristics/features that made the first one unique. Some people liked the changes, others didn't. I personally am not a big fan of either of the games' online though (although the coop for R2 was fantastic). I think it just takes way too many bullets to kill enemies in competitive mode.

At the price they are now, they're both definitely worth picking up.

Resistance 2 was a disappointment because it lost it's identity. The first Resistance felt like a throwback to old shooters while R2 attempted to be Halo.

Not saying R2 was bad, but when you change so much in a sequel (especially a sequel to a game fans loved) you're bound to disappoint people.

Liked the first one a lot, but the second one didn't appeal to me at all. Made me lose interest and faith in the franchise. But hopefully Resistance 3 tops them all

The weapons wheel is missing, Nathan has a voice, and the first one was just a more organic game in some senses, if that makes any sense at all. The second one felt fabricated and forced, and I didn't like how most NPC voices came through the headset (sounding tinny and thin) even if they were standing right next to you. The level design wasn't as natural in the second game, and the encounters and environments didn't inspire ever, like some of the set pieces or boss battles in the first game.

I really liked the first one, but the second one, I had to force myself a few times... The weapons wheel was really important too, because it gave a greater sense of flexibility, you could approach a level the way you wanted to, tactically.

I would still play them both, in order.

:D

They're both great games and should be played. But I definitely preferred #1xsynth

[QUOTE="xsynth"]They're both great games and should be played. But I definitely preferred #1CTR360

Only played the 1st game was ok,ended up getting fed up with it after half way through and traded it in.

both brillliant games, one of my favourite series of game on ps3 :)

They're both great games and should be played. But I definitely preferred #1xsynth