60 player online

60 players? BF2142 servers aren't always stable with 64 (atleast my clans server has a tendency to randomly crash when lots of action focuses on one area)

its bound to lag

you can throw teamwork right out the window at that point 30 people per team=disorganized fragfeast ...my understanding is that most people on PSN don't have mics regardless

UnknownSniper65

Most people do, play R6V or COD4.

[QUOTE="TheCrazed420"]Huxley will do 60 vs. 60. Ownage denied.-Sniper99-

It's in beta as we speak. There was a new spread in a recent PC gamer. Impressions from people have been decent so far, stating that all the pieces are there for a great MMOFPS, there just not all implemented yet. If youre interested check out http://huxley-evolved.com/ . Heres a newer vid too : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv00lZdxcGY&feature=related

Will there even be 60 people who buy R:FoM 2?Demetri_OS

Resistance has sold between 2 and 3 million copies.

OMG, imangine hte 12 year olds...... i can just imagine a 20 vs. 20 name calling match........ good thing you can turn that off. Goten_king

The good thing about PS3 is the mic doesn't come with the system, which means not a lot of people have them.

why the hell would we want resistance 2

gears of war 2 is going to destroy it just like gears of war one slaughtered resistance 1

60 player mp who cares resistance was 40 players and it sucked

gears of war won 30 goty awards resistance got nothing it got the shaft

gears won every major multiplayer game of the year award

again resistance got the shaft

this time 60 players can get together and play complete mediocrity

u can bet insomniac wont release resistance 2 around the same time gears 2 comes out

insomniac is pretty much scared $hitless of gears since it completly obliterated resistance

btw huxley has 60 v 60 so once again

FAILED

mcjagspire

You've never played Resistance.

Resistance is a FPS, Gears is not.

Let me know when its known that Gears has half the features, that were just stated by IG, that Resistance 2 has.

:lol: cows think 60 man MP = AAA shooter

you guys are the most amazing fanboys on SW

Gh0st_Of_0nyx

Cows are hyping Resistance 2 AAA because the first one got a high AA score and the second one seems to have vastly improved on the original in every way, including campaign and multiplayer.

Aren't you getting tired of trolling all day?

exactly quality vs quantity if gears has 4v4 u can bet your ass its gonna spank resistance 2 just like gears 1 spanked resistance 1

id rather have a small based tactical shooter that takes skill and team work

vs 60 noobs running around in run and gun gameplay that takes virtually no skill and is overall just boring

mcjagspire

"I'd rather have a small based tactical shooter" - thats an opinion, nobody cares

"...that takes skill and team work" - if you have ever played Resistance, AND YOU HAVEN'T, you would know that the first one was a great demonstration of skill, specifically human on human games. Compare that to a game like CoD4, where it really only comes down to who sees who first because the weapon damage is so oppressive.

And how is 60 players in a match in any way shape or form boring? That makes no sense.

And if you actually read the features list, they said you would be split up into small groups for multiplayer...

And finally you people act like 60 players (30 on 30) is how every game is...and thats not true. The max is 30 on 30. It will be like the original Resistance where ranked games have a variety of map sizes depending on how many people are playing.

IM NOT A LEMMING Im a sheep :wink:

And im not impressed by the new RfOM it seems just as generic and bland as the 1st one but this time they just put 60 player MP to give people a reason to waste 60 bucks.

Gh0st_Of_0nyx

I'm sorry, but remind me of what made Resistance generic?

story - um, no. Gimme the game from which Resistance took its story from. You know, because the plot of the second world war never happening because humans becoming infected by an "alien" virus from a race whose origins are completly unknown?

ending - while I'm not going to spoil it here, the game is similar to the Empire Strikes Back in the way that it leaves you hanging. Not a generic ending where the hero saves the day and everyone lives happily ever after.

weapons - um, its Insomniac. They are famous for creating new and innovative weapons.

multiplayer - two races instead of the normal 1, each with different abilities advantages/disadvantages. Map sizes that change depending on how many players are participating?

The most notable thing that Resistance jacked from another FPS is the Stalkers. They seem a bit too similar to the Striders from Half Life 2, as do the battles against them.

Meanwhile your beloved Gears and is praised "cover system" jacked that idea from an N64 game called Operation: Winback.

EVERYBODY STEALS.

And for a game that is apparently generic and one that you have no interest in, why have you spent all day in numerous Resistance threads discussing it?

60 player online suddenly means an awesome game? :lol: One player mode > you.Erebyssial

Just wait for Resistence 3, 120 vs 120 person multiplayer! Seriously more =/= better. Counter stirke for instance just becomes a pray and spray games after you get more than 30 on a server.htekemerald

so 60 player MP= AAA title? interestinglawlessx

Its getting AAA hype because of all the new features mentioned and because the first one was close to getting AAA. And since Resistance 1 handled 40 players flawlessly, PS3 owners want to know if Resistance 2 can do 60 that well.

60 players? BF2142 servers aren't always stable with 64 (atleast my clans server has a tendency to randomly crash when lots of action focuses on one area)

its bound to lag

you can throw teamwork right out the window at that point 30 people per team=disorganized fragfeast ...my understanding is that most people on PSN don't have mics regardless

UnknownSniper65

They already explained that you would be separated into squads so that you would be forced to work as a team...read the features list, they explain it better.

60 players doesn't necessarily mean it's really fun. i've played 60 player pc games and often times it just feels like too much.paullywog

I agree, but it doesnt mean that its going to be bad. I have played 60 player PC games and they were alot of fun :)

This sounds so familiar.

Pre resistance release "Resistance is going to own so hard, more players = better multiplayer."

After resistance release "bu..bu...but.. teh moar playerz=moar fun!!!!1!"

I don't mind, I don't like that large number of players, too many. On top of it, R2? I disliked the first.

exactly quality vs quantity if gears has 4v4 u can bet your ass its gonna spank resistance 2 just like gears 1 spanked resistance 1

id rather have a small based tactical shooter that takes skill and team work

vs 60 noobs running around in run and gun gameplay that takes virtually no skill and is overall just boring

mcjagspire

i have to agree, i v played counter strike with above 30 players, it just becomes pretty stupid.i have played games with a lot of players, but i d always perfer the ones with the less people, for one, its not chaotic so that you dont get blown away turning a corner, and it actually takes more skill, because you have to basically flank there ass to win, in a match with a lot of people, all you get is hordes of people rushing.

This sounds so familiar.

Pre resistance release "Resistance is going to own so hard, more players = better multiplayer."

After resistance release "bu..bu...but.. teh moar playerz=moar fun!!!!1!"

MTBare

ok on the real, im going to speak to you like you are not a fanboy. I want you to look over the list of all the announced features in Resistance 2, and point out the ones which you think "fanboys" shouldnt hype and explain why.

And what is it with you thinking that just because a game has more players its gonna suck? First of all, that is the MAX number of players u can use. U can have 4v4 games if thats wat u like. And other games like Battlefield 2 have 64 players online, and everyone seems to regard them highly, so i dunno where this theory that "More = Worse" came from. So anyways, i await your response.

ok on the real, im going to speak to you like you are not a fanboy. I want you to look over the list of all the announced features in Resistance 2, and point out the ones which you think "fanboys" shouldnt hype and explain why.

And what is it with you thinking that just because a game has more players its gonna suck? First of all, that is the MAX number of players u can use. U can have 4v4 games if thats wat u like. And other games like Battlefield 2 have 64 players online, and everyone seems to regard them highly, so i dunno where this theory that "More = Worse" came from. So anyways, i await your response.

II_Seraphim_II

I didn't express my opinion of either of the games. I just pointed out what I've noticed from 'round these parts. Maybe you were not here back then.

P.S. Was my response everything you hoped it would be?

[QUOTE="Gh0st_Of_0nyx"]

:lol: cows think 60 man MP = AAA shooter

you guys are the most amazing fanboys on SW

II_Seraphim_II

I think lemmings are the only people who arent impressed by the R:FoM 2 news. I know if this was announce for X360 u would be screaming about how the PS3 is officially dead.

sure lems will be screaming like 'end of the console war'

I am excited for this. I hope they don't have to dumb down the graphics and textures much to make it run smooth, but I imagine that it will work well. This is exciting news and this is EXACTLY what sony needs.

60 person MP may be great. But I think that 40 was great too. Although I thought that the battles were either way to frantic, or the maps were too small to house that many people. it just became a frag fest, where throwing a nade out, is likely to kill. I imagine things well get well balanced though as it was pretty good in RFOM though.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]

ok on the real, im going to speak to you like you are not a fanboy. I want you to look over the list of all the announced features in Resistance 2, and point out the ones which you think "fanboys" shouldnt hype and explain why.

And what is it with you thinking that just because a game has more players its gonna suck? First of all, that is the MAX number of players u can use. U can have 4v4 games if thats wat u like. And other games like Battlefield 2 have 64 players online, and everyone seems to regard them highly, so i dunno where this theory that "More = Worse" came from. So anyways, i await your response.

MTBare

I didn't express my opinion of either of the games. I just pointed out what I've noticed from 'round these parts. Maybe you were not here back then.

P.S. Was my response everything you hoped it would be?

By saying "this sounds so familiar" and then following up with your qoutations you are in essence implying that Resistance 2 is going to be a bad game or atleast a game that doesnt live up to hype, and what about the features brought you to this conclussion? This game has all the features that gamers have been calling for yet, you imply that it wont live up to expectations. What makes you think so? The dev team is capable, the features seem very interesting, the graphics are great. So what about Resistance 2 that you know of so far logically led you to the assumption that it wont live up to hype? and that PS3 fanboys will be left trying to make excuses to defend this game?

And while the 60 player online is a major selling point, you have completley chosen to ignore the other features that people are equally if not more excited about.

"What features?" you ask?

2 different campaigns, 1 for single player and 1 designed with CO-OP in mind.

8 player Coop.

Partial Randomized geometry.

The continuation of the story.

Multiplayer ****s.

and many more...

So yes, people are hyping the 60 player multiplayer aspect but there are other aspects of the game that people are more excited about.

qoutations

II_Seraphim_II

Ah yes, there's the key word. Quotations imply that I'm not using my own words, they're someone elses. And no, I don't care about the features. I don't have a ps3, I'm not going to play the game I could care less how awesome/sucky it is.

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]

qoutations

MTBare

Ah yes, there's the key word. Quotations imply that I'm not using my own words, they're someone elses. And no, I don't care about the features. I don't have a ps3, I'm not going to play the game I could care less how awesome/sucky it is.

then comes the question..."why comment game you dont care about and are never going to play?"

the 360 could never do this resistance 2 will own this year patrickjw333

RFOM is probaly one of the worst fps i never played and RFOM 2 looks just like to first.

But if its any better i might pick it up and thats a big might cuz i hated the first one.

But at this point of owning a PS3 im soooo desperate for a new game to play on it that i will buy anything they bring out for it.

60 players? BF2142 servers aren't always stable with 64 (atleast my clans server has a tendency to randomly crash when lots of action focuses on one area)

its bound to lag

you can throw teamwork right out the window at that point 30 people per team=disorganized fragfeast ...my understanding is that most people on PSN don't have mics regardless

UnknownSniper65

Keep in mind BF 2142's netcode is optimized to cover a wide range of hardware. The R2 on the other hand will only have one type of hardware type to be optimized to. It SHOULD run better.

[QUOTE="patrickjw333"]the 360 could never do this resistance 2 will own this year MrPostman4Chi

RFOM is probaly one of the worst fps i never played and RFOM 2 looks just like to first.

But if its any better i might pick it up and thats a big might cuz i hated the first one.

But at this point of owning a PS3 im soooo desperate for a new game to play on it that i will buy anything they bring out for it.

Worst FPS you never played ic.

Huxley will do 60 vs. 60. Ownage denied.TheCrazed420

Besides the game looks like nothing special anymore - after seeing gamplay videos.

Its like Quake.... on ACID, with worse guns.

Probably the fastest FPS i have seen in ages, and would play terribly on the 360.

60 player online will be amazing, insomniac said they will try to make it so its not just run and gu shooting. If they do this right then it will literally be like a small all out war. People say there will be no tactics but there will, just bigger, instead of measly teams of 4, we will have groups of men 10 strong holed up in a building, with 5 snipers hanging back, some poeple geiing behind the enemy, and the rest at the frontline. It will be amazing. the more people you have, the better and more tactics you can create.

When gamespot does a tournemant of this we will see what tactics you can use with so many players! It will be amazing.

Only lemmings cannot see how good this will be, but then againg if I was not getting this I would say its rubbish, trying to hide my jelousy. have fun with 4v4 action lemmings. I will enjoy 30v30 action! you can haave your close quaters action, I will have close, medium and long range action! AND with vehicles! finally a game with a campaign and single player, the way warhawk should have been...

All I can say from experience is it's hard enough to coordinate a 6 or 8-man team, let alone a 30-man one...

And 60-player free-for-all...sheesh...

to be honest, 60 people online seems really stupid

i hate in COD4 when i run in to the enemy team's area, i kill off 5 of their guys, and then someone respawns right behind me and rpg's me.

i think 16 people is the perfect amount for FPS multiplayer

60mp > 8mp

WHY? 10 players online and below is good for TACTICAL games but in an all out war..the big numbers gets you somewhere. I hate people who say "I'd rather play a 2v2 game with friends rather than a 10v10 with strangers." REALLY? Seriously if you play 2v2 with friends ALL THE TIME EVERY TIME there is no need for online for you. Just play splitscreen. Not that im saying less people online means the online would suc, im just saying that in a type of game like resistance which is a battlefield like game 60 online would be waaay better than 10. Just think, your fighting in a WAR...30v30 seems appropriate to me.

But I still love games with small players online such as gears, which was perfect but i do think they could bump it up to 6v6. Or rainbow six vegas in which oyu were tactical at most times. But what fits me, is big batles, tactical and small is ok at times but I love chaos and destruction.

8 usb ports

4 ethernet ports

120fps

hear what im saying, sony has a bad rep when it comes to telling the truth. but at least you be waiting to see it not happen........again

Huxley will do 60 vs. 60. Ownage denied.TheCrazed420

Also has a monthly fee on top of live fee

the 360 could never do this resistance 2 will own this year patrickjw333

It could do it easily if a game had dedicated servers

Btw 60 people for small spaces will be hell. I dont even play BF2 with 60 player

[QUOTE="TheCrazed420"]

[QUOTE="EVOLV3"][QUOTE="TheCrazed420"]Huxley will do 60 vs. 60. Ownage denied.BobHipJames

Taken from Wiki...

Huxley's main producer Kijong Kang said that the cities in Huxley will be able to accommodate up to 5000 (according to recent publications that number was increased to 10000 since summer 2006) people, and the individual battles will support over a hundred players. The battles can be as small as 1 VS 1 or as big as 60 VS 60 players (120), which is a modest improvement over the 150 player maximum of Novalogic's Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising. Player vs. AI will allow up to 64 players of a given faction to play together.

Player vs. player battles will be available, as will be player vs. AI quests that the player can choose to take on. The 360 version of Huxley is said to include a single player campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huxley_(video_game)

Um....how the hell is that game managing 60vs 60 players? Is it using dedicated servers? This just isn't feasible via a P2P connection....

this isn't even generally feasible via a dedicated server unless they're splitting the battlefield up into segments and allowing for seperate pieces of action that is sent to players in greater detail while the rest is left in a relative haze....

although given the possibility that these are very high end and well-maintained servers, in which case, I suppose you should expect a meaty subscription fee in addition to your XBL sub....

Plus, that's Wiki.....plus, that doesn't guarantee that the Xbox 360 version of the game will be able to have 120 player battles, given it's not specifically cited and PC is the other release platform.

It will use dedicated servers. 120 people on one screen isn't something that mad, WoW has done more I think.

[QUOTE="BobHipJames"][QUOTE="TheCrazed420"]

[QUOTE="EVOLV3"][QUOTE="TheCrazed420"]Huxley will do 60 vs. 60. Ownage denied.Supafly1

Taken from Wiki...

Huxley's main producer Kijong Kang said that the cities in Huxley will be able to accommodate up to 5000 (according to recent publications that number was increased to 10000 since summer 2006) people, and the individual battles will support over a hundred players. The battles can be as small as 1 VS 1 or as big as 60 VS 60 players (120), which is a modest improvement over the 150 player maximum of Novalogic's Joint Operations: Typhoon Rising. Player vs. AI will allow up to 64 players of a given faction to play together.

Player vs. player battles will be available, as will be player vs. AI quests that the player can choose to take on. The 360 version of Huxley is said to include a single player campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huxley_(video_game)

Um....how the hell is that game managing 60vs 60 players? Is it using dedicated servers? This just isn't feasible via a P2P connection....

this isn't even generally feasible via a dedicated server unless they're splitting the battlefield up into segments and allowing for seperate pieces of action that is sent to players in greater detail while the rest is left in a relative haze....

although given the possibility that these are very high end and well-maintained servers, in which case, I suppose you should expect a meaty subscription fee in addition to your XBL sub....

Plus, that's Wiki.....plus, that doesn't guarantee that the Xbox 360 version of the game will be able to have 120 player battles, given it's not specifically cited and PC is the other release platform.

It will use dedicated servers. 120 people on one screen isn't something that mad, WoW has done more I think.

Yep...We did it when we raided Ironforge back in 05....too bad the realm crashed soon as we got through the gates(probably because over 150 people were now fighting)....GMs were not happy with us in the slightest bit

This is what makes BF such a great series, it's the large scale maps that are designed for large amounts of players. 32v32 is usually pretty damn cool, and with BF3 it will be more than that.

With Resistance, I wasn't too impressed with it's online, but I'll give R2 a chance regardless.

Will there even be 60 people who buy R:FoM 2?Demetri_OS

seeing as the last one hit platinum, yes. pwned. gtfo.

:lol: People are going crazy over 60 players online, meanwhile, PC games, such as BF 2, have been doing that for years. Consoles, always on the cutting edge of internet play. luigigreen

Get a PC.

Noobs going ape over a 60 player game make me sad.

Will there even be 60 people who buy R:FoM 2?Demetri_OS

[QUOTE="Demetri_OS"]Will there even be 60 people who buy R:FoM 2?Gamersince81

2 million has the first one. If you look online ANYTIME youll see many people still playing the first one. RFOM will be the Halo of PS3!!!!!

thats it man the game is jinxed now

anyways 60 players seems like alittle to much if you ask me. Ive played the battlefeilds and all the novalogic games including all the delta force games. And once you get more then 20 players even on huge maps like that it becomes really chaotic, for example you got the spawn campers and the guys who go out really far and get good sniping spots and then aim for the spawn points and pick up the body counts.

[QUOTE="TheCrazed420"]Huxley will do 60 vs. 60. Ownage denied.kcpp2b

Also has a monthly fee on top of live fee

:lol::lol:Why are lemmings talking about Huxley? It will be best on PC anyways.

Will there even be 60 people who buy R:FoM 2?Demetri_OS

[QUOTE="Gamersince81"]

[QUOTE="Demetri_OS"]Will there even be 60 people who buy R:FoM 2?ParadiddleFill

2 million has the first one. If you look online ANYTIME youll see many people still playing the first one. RFOM will be the Halo of PS3!!!!!

thats it man the game is jinxed now

anyways 60 players seems like alittle to much if you ask me. Ive played the battlefeilds and all the novalogic games including all the delta force games. And once you get more then 20 players even on huge maps like that it becomes really chaotic, for example you got the spawn campers and the guys who go out really far and get good sniping spots and then aim for the spawn points and pick up the body counts.

[QUOTE="TheCrazed420"]Huxley will do 60 vs. 60. Ownage denied.kcpp2b

Also has a monthly fee on top of live fee

[QUOTE="ParadiddleFill"][QUOTE="Gamersince81"]

[QUOTE="Demetri_OS"]Will there even be 60 people who buy R:FoM 2?AskForDetails

2 million has the first one. If you look online ANYTIME youll see many people still playing the first one. RFOM will be the Halo of PS3!!!!!

thats it man the game is jinxed now

anyways 60 players seems like alittle to much if you ask me. Ive played the battlefeilds and all the novalogic games including all the delta force games. And once you get more then 20 players even on huge maps like that it becomes really chaotic, for example you got the spawn campers and the guys who go out really far and get good sniping spots and then aim for the spawn points and pick up the body counts.

umm i wasent insulting the game, i was saying that i prefer less people playing so the game doesnt become chaotic. Dont take your lack of reading skills out on me