RESISTANCE 2 REVEALED! 60man MP, 8p Co-op..etc

LINK

RESISTANCE 2

I just got my latest GameInformer and its cover feature is Resistance 2!!!!!!

Checking it out now... will update. (didn't see this on first two pages so assumed it hasn't been posted)

1: HUGE cooperative game... EIGHT-PLAYER story-driven campaign along side single-player campaign. SIXTY-PLAYER Competitive modes... HUGE United States Landscapes as backdrops.

2: "It is, in short, a tour de force for the untapped might of the PlayStation 3"

3: Narrative stays with Hale the whole time... not Rachel. Hale shot down in Iceland, escapes to US and becomes part of program called Sentinels...
4: Chameleon.. Stalker with total cloaking ability

5: Overcoming stigma that boss encounters don't work in FPS games..

6: Eight player coop over PSN, two player local

E7: ****S! Unique character with one of three basic templates... tank with heavy weaponry, special ops for distance (bullseye modified with zoom), medic

I'm READING FAST!

http://boards.ign.com/ps3_general_bo...7131205/p1/?13

I cant make my own thread, stupid gaf mods., someone make a thread!

8: Online matching... standard difficulty discarded for scaled challenges for team skill..
9: Partially randomized geometry... levels are different with each playthrough

10: again... 60 players online. want sense of epic b attle.. dont want fast-furious gameplay to be focus, more focused on squad v squad.

11: will log into smaller four-to-eight man lobbies for each squad... encouraging communication and camaraderie, squad will be tasked witha particular objective. careful level design aims to deliver intense combat zones or small team conflicts that flow within arena of larger battle.

12: Dedicated gaming community with stat servers for faster matchmaching than any console game of 2007. full-featured profile pages through myresistance.net will incorporate social networking concepts. open clan and party system to encourage community...no player invites needed.

13: Aiming to deliver mobile-phone-quality sound.


14: Futher tapped power of PS3... more enemies onscreen, better AI, better lighting and shaders (SCREENSHOTS LOOK AMAZING!!!). More comples normal mapping and detail mapping combine to deliver textures that look amazing from afar and at extremely close distances.

15: AI getting a lot more attention.. will scaled on-the-fly to players perspective and viewpoint... aka enemies cloesr to the player will actually have more spohisicated AI routines than those further away. assailants in your direct field of view received heightened intelligence. easily more cunning than before

sorry for typos... typing fast

16: listened to complaints... working on solution to long checkpoints and health system. not positive what final solution will be.

17: "Our time playing was a blast"... each character ****contributes in a unique way and "we loved the strategy-laden medic"... unique sense of teamwork

18: Mysterious "Cloven"

19: "Resistance 2 will be too epic to dismiss as anything but one of the biggest, boldest, and most high-reaching titles of 2008. It's a game that won't be ignored."

RELEASE: FALL 2008

Link

to good to be true huh?

i thought the newest game informer was still several days from being sent out?

Edit- i just left GI's website. still lists the tiberium issue as the most recent and doesn't say a word about any resistance sequel. something stinks here...

resistance 2 hype >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> killzone 2 hype for me.

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

cakeorrdeath

no i agree once there are too many people playing the game becomes to chaotic, you lose all sense of teamwork and strategy. I think people need to stop hyping games just because they have a large number of players

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

cakeorrdeath

If it's anything like the first Resistance 20v20 it's just chaos with some people camping and other people bunching up in these little free fire zones. I guess if you are hardcore about it and have a team you play with and schedule fights against other teams it can be more meaningful but I play too many different games to put that much time into any one of them.

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

cakeorrdeath

It makes revenge kills and skulldugery a lot less frequent, but if its anyway near as tense as battlefield 2142 with all the chokepoints and carnage it could shape up to be one hell of a game.

has anyone been able to verify this? cuz i sure can't...bunch of crap, sounds like to me.

has anyone been able to verify this? cuz i sure can't...bunch of crap, sounds like to me.

easymoney725

[QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

hongkingkong

It makes revenge kills and skulldugery a lot less frequent, but if its anyway near as tense as battlefield 2142 with all the chokepoints and carnage it could shape up to be one hell of a game.

Battlefield works very hard to keep things manageable even with all those people. For one it is objective based and people have bases and the like. I never played Resistance 1, is it similar? In my mind it was more straight death matches.

[QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

ParadiddleFill

no i agree once there are too many people playing the game becomes to chaotic, you lose all sense of teamwork and strategy. I think people need to stop hyping games just because they have a large number of players

Battlefields beg to differ :S

What you want shooters to remain 18 players for ever? how lame is that ... its not even a war.

[QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

hongkingkong

It makes revenge kills and skulldugery a lot less frequent, but if its anyway near as tense as battlefield 2142 with all the chokepoints and carnage it could shape up to be one hell of a game.

[QUOTE="easymoney725"]

has anyone been able to verify this? cuz i sure can't...bunch of crap, sounds like to me.

river_rat3117

i hear that. sounds like a load of crap to me. Game Informers website still lists Tiberium (last months) issue as the most recent and doesn't say a word about resistance. what kind of sick thrill do people get out of this kind of s***? is it really the attention? cuz if so, man. thats lame.

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

cakeorrdeath

its called working with a squad.

[QUOTE="ParadiddleFill"][QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

Meu2k7

no i agree once there are too many people playing the game becomes to chaotic, you lose all sense of teamwork and strategy. I think people need to stop hyping games just because they have a large number of players

Battlefields beg to differ :S

What you want shooters to remain 18 players for ever? how lame is that ... its not even a war.

yeah and battlefeild was very war like right? 18 players is perfect you have more focus on teamwork and small specialized units working with each other also an easier time to communicate with each other. WIth 60 players imagine allthose people shouting a million things at once.

[QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

Wartzay

its called working with a squad.

Which is not teh same as spawning by an ally in games like CoD4 ... a squad is much better.

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

cakeorrdeath

This should explain everything.

11: will log into smaller four-to-eight man lobbies for each squad... encouraging communication and camaraderie, squad will be tasked witha particular objective. careful level design aims to deliver intense combat zones or small team conflicts that flow within arena of larger battle.

Even though it will be 60 players online it won't be 30 on 30.

[QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

TREAL_Since

This should explain everything.

11: will log into smaller four-to-eight man lobbies for each squad... encouraging communication and camaraderie, squad will be tasked witha particular objective. careful level design aims to deliver intense combat zones or small team conflicts that flow within arena of larger battle.

Even though it will be 60 players online it won't be 30 on 30.

That makes more sense. You are still heavily reliant on the rest of the people you are with communicating with you though right? PS3s lack of an included head set makes this an issue. Maybe they will bundle one with the game.

[QUOTE="hongkingkong"][QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

cakeorrdeath

It makes revenge kills and skulldugery a lot less frequent, but if its anyway near as tense as battlefield 2142 with all the chokepoints and carnage it could shape up to be one hell of a game.

Battlefield works very hard to keep things manageable even with all those people. For one it is objective based and people have bases and the like. I never played Resistance 1, is it similar? In my mind it was more straight death matches.

haven't played resistance either. But I think though it had quite a large amount of gametypes though.

A 60 player deathmatch would be simply unbearable, i suppose (thats a big suppose) Resistance would limit numbers of player for certain maps or gametypes, but i'm sure the servers could cope well enough.

[QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

Wartzay

its called working with a squad.

Yeah, that's pretty cool: On paper.

You'd need to be part of a large clan or have a bunch of personal friends to play with to get any serious squad interaction. If you don't, then any"squad" you work with will consist of drunk and/or doped up frat boys and screaming children who can't stop and think about what they're doing.

It sounds easy to get players or friends together, but if you're over 15 or you or your friends have lives, finding times and care to make it all work like you imagine takes awhile. Theoritically a clan is easy to get with, but that's if you can actually find a good one, and even then, you have todo some heavy organizing sometimes.

Count me out. I play squad like when I'm with people around me, because other than that I've never had anything but trouble with those kinds of games.

looks like i'm buying a flop consolethe_h_bomb

please just stop!

still, the article begins with "i just got my newest Game Informer". i'm a subscriber myself and i just left their website. the most recent issue doesn't even come out for several more days. that seems like a pretty big flaw in the story, don't you think?

[QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

TREAL_Since

This should explain everything.

11: will log into smaller four-to-eight man lobbies for each squad... encouraging communication and camaraderie, squad will be tasked witha particular objective. careful level design aims to deliver intense combat zones or small team conflicts that flow within arena of larger battle.

Even though it will be 60 players online it won't be 30 on 30.

that easier said then done. In theory it sounds good but when you put it together it can very well be a big mess

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

cakeorrdeath

This should explain everything.

11: will log into smaller four-to-eight man lobbies for each squad... encouraging communication and camaraderie, squad will be tasked witha particular objective. careful level design aims to deliver intense combat zones or small team conflicts that flow within arena of larger battle.

Even though it will be 60 players online it won't be 30 on 30.

That makes more sense. You are still heavily reliant on the rest of the people you are with communicating with you though right? PS3s lack of an included head set makes this an issue. Maybe they will bundle one with the game.

Hopefully they will just like WarHawk.

[QUOTE="Wartzay"][QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

-TheSecondSign-

its called working with a squad.

Yeah, that's pretty cool: On paper.

You'd need to be part of a large clan or have a bunch of personal friends to play with to get any serious squad interaction. If you don't, then any"squad" you work with will consist of drunk and/or doped up frat boys and screaming children who can't stop and think about what they're doing.

It sounds easy to get players or friends together, but if you're over 15 or you or your friends have lives, finding times and care to make it all work like you imagine takes awhile. Theoritically a clan is easy to get with, but that's if you can actually find a good one, and even then, you have todo some heavy organizing sometimes.

Count me out. I play squad like when I'm with people around me, because other than that I've never had anything but trouble with those kinds of games.

It works great on the PC (battlefield 2), I guess the console crowd is too immature for it then?

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

cakeorrdeath

I hate small MP games.

I have Halo 3 set up to only queue me up for Big-Team maps.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

ParadiddleFill

This should explain everything.

11: will log into smaller four-to-eight man lobbies for each squad... encouraging communication and camaraderie, squad will be tasked witha particular objective. careful level design aims to deliver intense combat zones or small team conflicts that flow within arena of larger battle.

Even though it will be 60 players online it won't be 30 on 30.

that easier said then done. In theory it sounds good but when you put it together it can very well be a big mess

True, but I have faith in Insomniac. They never fail to impress. We will just have to wait and see. But if all of this is true I see no shooter this year matching Resistance 2.

I just hope most cows don't go and say it owns Halo when we are 100% sure if this info is true.

[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="Wartzay"][QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

Wartzay

its called working with a squad.

Yeah, that's pretty cool: On paper.

You'd need to be part of a large clan or have a bunch of personal friends to play with to get any serious squad interaction. If you don't, then any"squad" you work with will consist of drunk and/or doped up frat boys and screaming children who can't stop and think about what they're doing.

It sounds easy to get players or friends together, but if you're over 15 or you or your friends have lives, finding times and care to make it all work like you imagine takes awhile. Theoritically a clan is easy to get with, but that's if you can actually find a good one, and even then, you have todo some heavy organizing sometimes.

Count me out. I play squad like when I'm with people around me, because other than that I've never had anything but trouble with those kinds of games.

It works great on the PC (battlefield 2), I guess the console crowd is too immature for it then?

Not just that, but it's waaaay easier for you guys to organize a clan, and everyone has a computer, making several games easier to get your friends in with. If you own adecent PC, you can run BattleField 2142.

Meanwhile, for Resistance, all your friends would have to own a PS3 and that game to play that game and another thing I noticed is how much easier it seems to makea clan on the PC. It's always seemed easier to recruit and organize. The average console online player isn't mature enough to handle a tactical, truly effective squad. I've realized that as I've played console games.

[QUOTE="ParadiddleFill"][QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="cakeorrdeath"]

Am I the only person who doesnt like multiplayer when numbers get that large?

I stop being able to keep track of everybody and end up just dieing a lot. Less battling and more just being in the right place at the right time.

TREAL_Since

This should explain everything.

11: will log into smaller four-to-eight man lobbies for each squad... encouraging communication and camaraderie, squad will be tasked witha particular objective. careful level design aims to deliver intense combat zones or small team conflicts that flow within arena of larger battle.

Even though it will be 60 players online it won't be 30 on 30.

that easier said then done. In theory it sounds good but when you put it together it can very well be a big mess

True, but I have faith in Insomniac. They never fail to impress. We will just have to wait and see. But if all of this is true I see no shooter this year matching Resistance 2.

I just hope most cows don't go and say it owns Halo when we are 100% sure if this info is true.

Battlefield 3 will crush resistance 2 , cmon!

60 players MP

Now more people can enjoy the mediocrity :lol:

*goes back to playing halo 3*

Gh0st_Of_0nyx

You clearly didn't read all of the info. And since when was 8.6 (Resistance:FOM) mediocre??? How can any shooter fan say this is not interesting (if true).