Did anyone else think resistance 2 was terrible?

Hey everyone, i recently bought resistance 2 and found it to be one of the worst games i've played in ages. I'm gonna make a list of pros and cons and tell me if you agree with them or not.

Pros: 60 player almost lag free multiplayer, the boss fights are ok and the weapons are still cool.

Cons: the game's graphics are even worse than in resistance:FOM, the gameplay is boring, there's no sense of atmosphere, there're way too many cheap deaths, the story was awful and the ending was just crap.

How did anyone miss all of these things, what am i missing from the game cos i can barely find anything good about it

the story of resistance 1 was better then resistance2 but i had the most fun in co-op didnt really liked the campaign much

The single player was complete crap.

Co-op was fantastic.

It wasn't terrible, wasn't great.

The single player was complete crap.

Co-op was fantastic.

BioShockOwnz

It was okay, nothing spectacular, hardly AAA. The first one was MUCH better, that one should have gotten AAA.

[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

The single player was complete crap.

Co-op was fantastic.

SilverChimera

Yup, the narrator in FoM really sold it. Without that, I felt R2 really disappointed.

Did you play Retribution? Check it out! Even better than FoM, imo.

Single Player: Lame and unfinished. Graphics looked amazing at some points and lackluster at others. Fall of Man SP was clearly better

Co-op Campaign: Unique and extremely fun. Great addition they should capitalize on in the next Resistance game.

Competitive Multiplayer: Fun, but not interesting enough for 'me' to play. No lag and 60 players is an amazing feat. Stat tracking is amazing, on par with Halo. Best party system I've ever seen in a a game. Ever. Clan system is a cool addition, but should be beefed up. Player tracking and Resistance.net is almost as good as Bungie.net. No game competes when it comes to this (PS3).

---

I think the shooting mechanics aren't fun enough or satisfying enough for me. Weapons and multiplayer are what held this game, which is not a bad thing at all because it IS a part of the game. I hope they focus on better single player pacing, add vehicles, flesh out co-op story, and tweak the core shooting mechanics to be more satisfying.

It was a GIGANTIC AAA game with much variety and content that was hampered by a short 2 year dev time. I think Insomiac should take more time with the next one.

Hey everyone, i recently bought resistance 2 and found it to be one of the worst games i've played in ages. I'm gonna make a list of pros and cons and tell me if you agree with them or not.

Pros: 60 player almost lag free multiplayer, the boss fights are ok and the weapons are still cool.

Cons: the game's graphics are even worse than in resistance:FOM, the gameplay is boring, there's no sense of atmosphere, there're way too many cheap deaths, the story was awful and the ending was just crap.

How did anyone miss all of these things, what am i missing from the game cos i can barely find anything good about it

29121994

I agree with you. I prefered R:FOM honestly...

No. Resistance 2 is a good game. Not excellent. Sure as hell not terrible. These adjectives like trash, terrible, amazing, generic get thrown around so much at games that they are losing meaning. Makes me sad. A terrible game is Turning Point. Not R2.

Also the graphics are NOT worse. They are much improved over the original. The art style is a little different though.

Yes, a PS3 exclusive is getting bashed, awesome. Also, multiplayer>single player.

[QUOTE="SilverChimera"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

The single player was complete crap.

Co-op was fantastic.

BioShockOwnz

Yup, the narrator in FoM really sold it. Without that, I felt R2 really disappointed.

Did you play Retribution? Check it out! Even better than FoM, imo.

it was in no way a terrible game. the multiplayer was great fun. was it AAA quality though? no, not really

Single Player: Lame and unfinished. Graphics looked amazing at some points and lackluster at others. Fall of Man SP was clearly better

Co-op Campaign: Unique and extremely fun. Great addition they should capitalize on in the next Resistance game.

Competitive Multiplayer: Fun, but not interesting enough for 'me' to play. No lag and 60 players is an amazing feat. Stat tracking is amazing, on par with Halo. Best party system I've ever seen in a a game. Ever. Clan system is a cool addition, but should be beefed up. Player tracking and Resistance.net is almost as good as Bungie.net. No game competes when it comes to this (PS3).

---

I think the shooting mechanics aren't fun enough or satisfying enough for me. Weapons and multiplayer are what held this game, which is not a bad thing at all because it IS a part of the game. I hope they focus on better single player pacing, add vehicles, flesh out co-op story, and tweak the core shooting mechanics to be more satisfying.

It was a GIGANTIC AAA game with much variety and content that was hampered by a short 2 year dev time. I think Insomiac should take more time with the next one.

TREAL_Since

I don't understand how this game got AAA, Valkyria Chronicles deserved it, heck, even Uncharted, even though I don't think it's AAA worthy, it should had gotten it over this.

It was mixed with great and mediocre moments.

in my opinion R2s online was far better than KZ2s including co op is overkill, don't get me wrong though kz2s online is good and all

Hey everyone, i recently bought resistance 2 and found it to be one of the worst games i've played in ages. 29121994

I think I'm am on of the few who really liked the Sp in R2.

Then again, I did play it with headphones on, something which I don't normally do, so I may have been a little more impressed by being more immersed. If you do "get into" the SP campaign the game is actually very atmospheric. The pacing is excellent, with lots of vareity. The games focus on scale was awesome. Graphics were fine, I dont know what some of you are talking about.

If I had complaints it would be the "cheap" feel of some of the boss fights.

I think to many people play these blockbuster games without trying to like them, if you play half-life 2 on the sofa while listening to music you are probably going to get bored.

The time and effort put into player testing them and checking everything really shows. It is a shame they didn't hire better writers, instead of the enigma ridden anus plot with characters of wood.

It's not as great as everyone says it is. I took part in the beta but it wasn't very fun, it got boring quickly.

Actually, graphics are light years better than R:FoM

Gameplay is not boring at all. Weapons are awesome and unique. Co-op is nothing but fun, and competitive multiplayer is intense and addicting.

Atmosphere, I'll give you that. It's mostly attributed to art-****though, and the environments. R:FoM created a great atmosphere with the gritty atmosphere in an urban and gray environment. R2 didn't really do that.

I don't understand what you mean by cheap deaths. Even then, they're in every game.

Story wasn't that bad. It was more generic than bad. Ending was very abrupt.

GodofBigMacs

One thing I do want to know though, why did they lose the gas pipes on the chimera's backs for the sequel, it doesn't make any sense.

[QUOTE="GodofBigMacs"]

hip-hop-cola2

One thing I do want to know though, why did they lose the gas pipes on the chimera's backs for the sequel, it doesn't make any sense.

Not terrible, but not setting any standards at all ...