Resistance 3 is very average IMO

These are my opinion so please dont flame me if you dont agree, please respect them.

I picked up Resistance 3 yesterday, was very disappointed after I completed the game, it was very average. Nothing like how PS3 fans hyped. I will state the good points and bad points.

Single Player

Good points:

1. Very Good graphics

2. Good Voice acting

Bad Points

1. Very Short, only 4-5 hour campaign. I really expected something like 6-8 hour campaign, I expect a long campaign if I pay $60 for it. There are some exceptions like Halo, COD where a short campaign is enough because there are other content like zombies, firefight, multiplayer which make up the cost. In this case, Resistance 3 has a very boring generic multiplayer which I will talk about.

2. Generic, Repetitive, boring. In the 4 hour campaign of the campaign, all it was, which was just run, shoot and move on to next objective. The game included no variations, different type of gameplay missions. At least in Halo reach, there were railshooter missions, space missions which werent generic and boring. In R3, it gets too boring too fast because it is the same gameplay over and over.

3. Bad Framerates, whenever there are alot of explosions, action going on. The game's framerate drops down below average and its turns horrible, it's like a slideshow.

Multiplayer

Good Points

Can be fun for a short amount of time.

Bad Points

1. The Balancing system sucks, Many times you will find yourself in a game, where there's only 2 players in one team and 8 players on the other which leads to mean the matchmaking sucks because it doesnt bring any new players into the game.

2. No new things added, I'm sorry but there is nothing new in this game that doesnt exist in other games, there are game modes that exist in all FPS games, v ery generic game modes like CTF. Nothing new. Nothing innovative. I rather play COD than this.

3. Spawns are horrid, alot of times you will find yourself spawning in front of a enemy which will obviously be an easy target for the enemy. You will also alot of times get spawned in the same place you get killed.

4. Framerates are also bad in this.

IMO, the conclusion is R3 had a huge potential being a great game and it failed for me. It sucked, it added nothing new to the series, same crap that exist other games, multiplayer is very bland. I think Halo reach was thousand times better.

Wait, your upset that nothing is innovative but say you would rather play cod as if it has pushed new game modes....understand i do not.eboyishere

[QUOTE="eboyishere"]Wait, your upset that nothing is innovative but say you would rather play cod as if it has pushed new game modes....understand i do not.shahilsyed

modes that they ripped from the PC community and acted like it was new and fresh? each resistance has had a different setup, cod has always been the 6v6, 3 perk, 3 types of killstreaks setup, and mw3 is doing basically the same execpt on steroids.

These are my opinion so please dont flame me if you dont agree, please respect them.

I picked up Resistance 3 yesterday, was very disappointed after I completed the game, it was very average. Nothing like how PS3 fans hyped. I will state the good points and bad points.

Single Player

Good points:

1. Very Good graphics

2. Good Voice acting

Bad Points

1. Very Short, only 4-5 hour campaign. I really expected something like 6-8 hour campaign, I expect a long campaign if I pay $60 for it. There are some exceptions like Halo, COD where a short campaign is enough because there are other content like zombies, firefight, multiplayer which make up the cost. In this case, Resistance 3 has a very boring generic multiplayer which I will talk about.

2. Generic, Repetitive, boring. In the 4 hour campaign of the campaign, all it was, which was just run, shoot and move on to next objective. The game included no variations, different type of gameplay missions. At least in Halo reach, there were railshooter missions, space missions which werent generic and boring. In R3, it gets too boring too fast because it is the same gameplay over and over.

3. Bad Framerates, whenever there are alot of explosions, action going on. The game's framerate drops down below average and its turns horrible, it's like a slideshow.

Multiplayer

Good Points

Can be fun for a short amount of time.

Bad Points

1. The Balancing system sucks, Many times you will find yourself in a game, where there's only 2 players in one team and 8 players on the other which leads to mean the matchmaking sucks because it doesnt bring any new players into the game.

2. No new things added, I'm sorry but there is nothing new in this game that doesnt exist in other games, there are game modes that exist in all FPS games, v ery generic game modes like CTF. Nothing new. Nothing innovative. I rather play COD than this.

3. Spawns are horrid, alot of times you will find yourself spawning in front of a enemy which will obviously be an easy target for the enemy. You will also alot of times get spawned in the same place you get killed.

4. Framerates are also bad in this.

IMO, the conclusion is R3 had a huge potential being a great game and it failed for me. It sucked, it added nothing new to the series, same crap that exist other games, multiplayer is very bland. I think Halo reach was thousand times better.

shahilsyed

you had me going for a while until i got upto that bit.

The amount of times ive done that exact 'protect the ship' 'defend against enemy ships inbound in waves' before is not funny. It was very generic.

Also i agree with ur opinion soley on the fact that i did not enjoy reach and that you keep comparing resistance to it thus your taste is completely different to mine. I also question the time it took you to beat the campaign as the past resistance games have taken me between 8-10 hours to complete and i doubt they would reduce it by 3 hours :|

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"][QUOTE="eboyishere"]Wait, your upset that nothing is innovative but say you would rather play cod as if it has pushed new game modes....understand i do not.eboyishere

modes that they ripped from the PC community and acted like it was new and fresh? each resistance has had a different setup, cod has always been the 6v6, 3 perk, 3 types of killstreaks setup, and mw3 is doing basically the same execpt on steroids.

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"]

These are my opinion so please dont flame me if you dont agree, please respect them.

I picked up Resistance 3 yesterday, was very disappointed after I completed the game, it was very average. Nothing like how PS3 fans hyped. I will state the good points and bad points.

Single Player

Good points:

1. Very Good graphics

2. Good Voice acting

Bad Points

1. Very Short, only 4-5 hour campaign. I really expected something like 6-8 hour campaign, I expect a long campaign if I pay $60 for it. There are some exceptions like Halo, COD where a short campaign is enough because there are other content like zombies, firefight, multiplayer which make up the cost. In this case, Resistance 3 has a very boring generic multiplayer which I will talk about.

2. Generic, Repetitive, boring. In the 4 hour campaign of the campaign, all it was, which was just run, shoot and move on to next objective. The game included no variations, different type of gameplay missions. At least in Halo reach, there were railshooter missions, space missions which werent generic and boring. In R3, it gets too boring too fast because it is the same gameplay over and over.

3. Bad Framerates, whenever there are alot of explosions, action going on. The game's framerate drops down below average and its turns horrible, it's like a slideshow.

Multiplayer

Good Points

Can be fun for a short amount of time.

Bad Points

1. The Balancing system sucks, Many times you will find yourself in a game, where there's only 2 players in one team and 8 players on the other which leads to mean the matchmaking sucks because it doesnt bring any new players into the game.

2. No new things added, I'm sorry but there is nothing new in this game that doesnt exist in other games, there are game modes that exist in all FPS games, v ery generic game modes like CTF. Nothing new. Nothing innovative. I rather play COD than this.

3. Spawns are horrid, alot of times you will find yourself spawning in front of a enemy which will obviously be an easy target for the enemy. You will also alot of times get spawned in the same place you get killed.

4. Framerates are also bad in this.

IMO, the conclusion is R3 had a huge potential being a great game and it failed for me. It sucked, it added nothing new to the series, same crap that exist other games, multiplayer is very bland. I think Halo reach was thousand times better.

campzor

you had me going for a while until i got upto that bit.

The amount of times ive done that exact 'protect the ship' 'defend against enemy ships inbound in waves' before is not funny. It was very generic.

Also i agree with ur opinion soley on the fact that i did not enjoy reach and that you keep comparing resistance to it thus your taste is completely different to mine. I also question the time it took you to beat the campaign as the past resistance games have taken me between 8-10 hours to complete and i doubt they would reduce it by 3 hours :|

[QUOTE="eboyishere"]

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"] R3 adds nothing new to the series, no new games mode for multiplayer, very generic gameplay, same as R2. COD at least adds some game modes which are fun like the wager modes in BO. shahilsyed

modes that they ripped from the PC community and acted like it was new and fresh? each resistance has had a different setup, cod has always been the 6v6, 3 perk, 3 types of killstreaks setup, and mw3 is doing basically the same execpt on steroids.

so you dont like R3 because it's not innovative?

I red through this whole thread and just saw bashing of other games and complaining about the TCs points. Is anyone going to put in some useful information claiming why Resistance 3 is actually good? Someone reassure me that this game is good so I can go buy it sometime.

This is the most idiotic thread I have seen in a while , in SW thats really saying something.

You should feel bad

Zaibach

Nice blog, bro.

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"][QUOTE="eboyishere"]

modes that they ripped from the PC community and acted like it was new and fresh? each resistance has had a different setup, cod has always been the 6v6, 3 perk, 3 types of killstreaks setup, and mw3 is doing basically the same execpt on steroids.

eboyishere

so you dont like R3 because it's not innovative?

[QUOTE="eboyishere"]

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"] They may be ripped-off from the PC but they are new to the Consoles and the franchise. Game modes like CTF, TDM exist on all FPS online games these days. Also R3 has abilities which are all ripped-off from Halo. Sorry but R3 is nothing innovative.shahilsyed

so you dont like R3 because it's not innovative?

i didnt know leveling up weapons in SP were repeatitive, so what does that make everything else :o

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"][QUOTE="eboyishere"]

so you dont like R3 because it's not innovative?

eboyishere

i didnt know leveling up weapons in SP were repeatitive, so what does that make everything else :o

[QUOTE="eboyishere"]

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"] Not being innovative is ONE of the reasons why I dont like it, there are other reasons why I dont like it too. This game's campaign is very repetitive, you get to do same things over and over. shahilsyed

i didnt know leveling up weapons in SP were repeatitive, so what does that make everything else :o

You mean set pieces? you like set pieces :o

While I agree with the OP that the multiplayer could have used much more polish I disagree with his stance on the campaign.
You said the campaign is repetitive, It's an FPS so most of the time you'll be shooting at that stuff but what else did you expect? There is variety in the missions though [spoiler] you get to defend your position, there's an escort mission, there are on rail missions, there are sniper missions etc [/spoiler]
This game also has one of the coolest arsenals around and you can hold all weapons at once, all the weapons are unique and fun to shoot and that's very important to me in an FPS. Also, you said you completed the campaign in 4-5 hours, what difficulty did you play on?
I'm currently on my second playthrough on superhuman and I'm having a blast, I will be going for the platinum trophy.

Multiplayer could have used more polish though, it's not bad but it's decent at best mainly because of balancing and framerate issues. I hope IG brings out another patch soon to adress these problems.

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"][QUOTE="Zaibach"]

This is the most idiotic thread I have seen in a while , in SW thats really saying something.

You should feel bad

Zaibach

Its my opinion that your opinion is nonesensical drivel powered by flawed logic and poo. I'm just telling everyone how awful and lame this thread is and its a waste of retina muscle and seconds, nothing else.

IMO

These are my opinion so please dont flame me if you dont agree, please respect them.

I picked up Resistance 3 yesterday, was very disappointed after I completed the game, it was very average. Nothing like how PS3 fans hyped. I will state the good points and bad points.

Single Player

Good points:

1. Very Good graphics

2. Good Voice acting

Bad Points

1. Very Short, only 4-5 hour campaign. I really expected something like 6-8 hour campaign, I expect a long campaign if I pay $60 for it. There are some exceptions like Halo, COD where a short campaign is enough because there are other content like zombies, firefight, multiplayer which make up the cost. In this case, Resistance 3 has a very boring generic multiplayer which I will talk about.

2. Generic, Repetitive, boring. In the 4 hour campaign of the campaign, all it was, which was just run, shoot and move on to next objective. The game included no variations, different type of gameplay missions. At least in Halo reach, there were railshooter missions, space missions which werent generic and boring. In R3, it gets too boring too fast because it is the same gameplay over and over.

3. Bad Framerates, whenever there are alot of explosions, action going on. The game's framerate drops down below average and its turns horrible, it's like a slideshow.

Multiplayer

Good Points

Can be fun for a short amount of time.

Bad Points

1. The Balancing system sucks, Many times you will find yourself in a game, where there's only 2 players in one team and 8 players on the other which leads to mean the matchmaking sucks because it doesnt bring any new players into the game.

2. No new things added, I'm sorry but there is nothing new in this game that doesnt exist in other games, there are game modes that exist in all FPS games, v ery generic game modes like CTF. Nothing new. Nothing innovative. I rather play COD than this.

3. Spawns are horrid, alot of times you will find yourself spawning in front of a enemy which will obviously be an easy target for the enemy. You will also alot of times get spawned in the same place you get killed.

4. Framerates are also bad in this.

IMO, the conclusion is R3 had a huge potential being a great game and it failed for me. It sucked, it added nothing new to the series, same crap that exist other games, multiplayer is very bland. I think Halo reach was thousand times better.

shahilsyed

You just lost me right there:lol:

R3 is not amazing but its quite polished and its a solid shooter.

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"]

These are my opinion so please dont flame me if you dont agree, please respect them.

I picked up Resistance 3 yesterday, was very disappointed after I completed the game, it was very average. Nothing like how PS3 fans hyped. I will state the good points and bad points.

Single Player

Good points:

1. Very Good graphics

2. Good Voice acting

Bad Points

1. Very Short, only 4-5 hour campaign. I really expected something like 6-8 hour campaign, I expect a long campaign if I pay $60 for it. There are some exceptions like Halo, COD where a short campaign is enough because there are other content like zombies, firefight, multiplayer which make up the cost. In this case, Resistance 3 has a very boring generic multiplayer which I will talk about.

2. Generic, Repetitive, boring. In the 4 hour campaign of the campaign, all it was, which was just run, shoot and move on to next objective. The game included no variations, different type of gameplay missions. At least in Halo reach, there were railshooter missions, space missions which werent generic and boring. In R3, it gets too boring too fast because it is the same gameplay over and over.

3. Bad Framerates, whenever there are alot of explosions, action going on. The game's framerate drops down below average and its turns horrible, it's like a slideshow.

Multiplayer

Good Points

Can be fun for a short amount of time.

Bad Points

1. The Balancing system sucks, Many times you will find yourself in a game, where there's only 2 players in one team and 8 players on the other which leads to mean the matchmaking sucks because it doesnt bring any new players into the game.

2. No new things added, I'm sorry but there is nothing new in this game that doesnt exist in other games, there are game modes that exist in all FPS games, v ery generic game modes like CTF. Nothing new. Nothing innovative. I rather play COD than this.

3. Spawns are horrid, alot of times you will find yourself spawning in front of a enemy which will obviously be an easy target for the enemy. You will also alot of times get spawned in the same place you get killed.

4. Framerates are also bad in this.

IMO, the conclusion is R3 had a huge potential being a great game and it failed for me. It sucked, it added nothing new to the series, same crap that exist other games, multiplayer is very bland. I think Halo reach was thousand times better.

Adamantium4k2

You just lost me right there:lol:

[QUOTE="eboyishere"]

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"] Not being innovative is ONE of the reasons why I dont like it, there are other reasons why I dont like it too. This game's campaign is very repetitive, you get to do same things over and over. shahilsyed

i didnt know leveling up weapons in SP were repeatitive, so what does that make everything else :o

[QUOTE="Zaibach"]

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"] So you're calling an opinion thread idiotic because its not geared towards your opinion? Learn to ACCEPT an opinion. I dont feel bad, I'm just telling everyone how bad this game and its a waste of money. Nothing else. shahilsyed

Its my opinion that your opinion is nonesensical drivel powered by flawed logic and poo. I'm just telling everyone how awful and lame this thread is and its a waste of retina muscle and seconds, nothing else.

IMO

You must be new to the internets, I am not obligated to respect anything you say.

Zaibach

You don't have to be uncivil, either. He's just stating his opinion. How is it any different than the endless Gears 3 vs. UC3 threads?

[QUOTE="eboyishere"]

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"] Not being innovative is ONE of the reasons why I dont like it, there are other reasons why I dont like it too. This game's campaign is very repetitive, you get to do same things over and over. shahilsyed

i didnt know leveling up weapons in SP were repeatitive, so what does that make everything else :o

[QUOTE="Zaibach"]You must be new to the internets, I am not obligated to respect anything you say.

clone01

You don't have to be uncivil, either. He's just stating his opinion. How is it any different than the endless Gears 3 vs. UC3 threads?

You are a Call of Duty Fanboy, Good games like Resistance 3, Killzone 3 etc are wasted on you.

Stick to being a Xbox Call of Duty Fan boy, it works better and is more entertaining.

These are my opinion so please dont flame me if you dont agree, please respect them.

I picked up Resistance 3 yesterday, was very disappointed after I completed the game, it was very average. Nothing like how PS3 fans hyped. I will state the good points and bad points.

Single Player

Good points:

1. Very Good graphics

2. Good Voice acting

Bad Points

1. Very Short, only 4-5 hour campaign. I really expected something like 6-8 hour campaign, I expect a long campaign if I pay $60 for it. There are some exceptions like Halo, COD where a short campaign is enough because there are other content like zombies, firefight, multiplayer which make up the cost. In this case, Resistance 3 has a very boring generic multiplayer which I will talk about.

2. Generic, Repetitive, boring. In the 4 hour campaign of the campaign, all it was, which was just run, shoot and move on to next objective. The game included no variations, different type of gameplay missions. At least in Halo reach, there were railshooter missions, space missions which werent generic and boring. In R3, it gets too boring too fast because it is the same gameplay over and over.

3. Bad Framerates, whenever there are alot of explosions, action going on. The game's framerate drops down below average and its turns horrible, it's like a slideshow.

Multiplayer

Good Points

Can be fun for a short amount of time.

Bad Points

1. The Balancing system sucks, Many times you will find yourself in a game, where there's only 2 players in one team and 8 players on the other which leads to mean the matchmaking sucks because it doesnt bring any new players into the game.

2. No new things added, I'm sorry but there is nothing new in this game that doesnt exist in other games, there are game modes that exist in all FPS games, v ery generic game modes like CTF. Nothing new. Nothing innovative. I rather play COD than this.

3. Spawns are horrid, alot of times you will find yourself spawning in front of a enemy which will obviously be an easy target for the enemy. You will also alot of times get spawned in the same place you get killed.

4. Framerates are also bad in this.

IMO, the conclusion is R3 had a huge potential being a great game and it failed for me. It sucked, it added nothing new to the series, same crap that exist other games, multiplayer is very bland. I think Halo reach was thousand times better.

shahilsyed

I dont agree, the colors are dull, the game is blurry and the textures are flat, one of the worst looking games on the ps3 IMO, looks worse then the other 2 games, I think it has to do with the 3d or move, because I dont see why else it would look so bad.

I would NEVER pay $60 for a 4 hour SP game (I don't play FPS online multiplayer). No game is $15 an hour good.

[QUOTE="clone01"]

[QUOTE="Zaibach"]You must be new to the internets, I am not obligated to respect anything you say.

Bazooka_4ME

You don't have to be uncivil, either. He's just stating his opinion. How is it any different than the endless Gears 3 vs. UC3 threads?

I would have to agree. The SP was mildly enjoying but wasn't very satisfying overall. I played some MP last night and some lobbies I got in seem to have really low frame rates (I would guess around 20). I play on a higher sensitivity than default so this was a huge pain and made it unenjoyable

I would NEVER pay $60 for a 4 hour SP game (I don't play FPS online multiplayer).

Bigboi500

It took me 7 hours on Normal with a buddy on co op without us ever really dying

[QUOTE="Bazooka_4ME"][QUOTE="clone01"]

You don't have to be uncivil, either. He's just stating his opinion. How is it any different than the endless Gears 3 vs. UC3 threads?

millerlight89

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

I would NEVER pay $60 for a 4 hour SP game (I don't play FPS online multiplayer).

BPoole96

It took me 7 hours on Normal with a buddy on co op without us ever really dying

2. Generic, Repetitive, boring. In the 4 hour campaign of the campaign, all it was, which was just run, shoot and move on to next objective. shahilsyed

The same can be saidf about a lot of other FPS like COD's :roll: