Resistance 3 looks to be playing it a little too safe

1) From 30 vs. 30 to 8 vs. 8 competitive multiplayer

- I get it... the want to give multiplayer a better sense of 'control' with a smaller amount of players per game. That's cool and all... but what makes that so different from the

other shooters out there? The 60 player chaos was a PLUS according to the AAA GS review of Resistance 2.

2) Creative Coop was removed, and replaced with the regular campaign coop. RPG-like leveling system transferred to competitive multiplayer mode.

- I don't understand this move as well. I thought people loved that insane coop mode in R2. The reviewers loved it, and GS loved it as well.

What do you guys think of this? I'd especially like to know if you're a huge fan of the series. What bothers me... is that the new direction insomniac took for R2 was WELL RECEIVED, and basically gave the game AAA status at GS. IGN claimed it was like playing 3 fully developed games in one. Now, it looks like they are releasing Resistance 1 all over again, with better graphics (R1 actually had 40 players, still double the amount of R3). The graphics are the only thing benefitting from these changes, although they look great it doesn't seem to be on par with the best looking PS3 games.

I'm doubting this a lot.... 8.5 tops me thinks.

Yea 8.5 is really a terrible score............

It sounds like Call of Duty with aliens now. That's a shame, I always liked what Resistance aimed to do because at the very least it was different. Oh well, not like I have a PS3 to play it anyway.

well i think one of the reasons why it is 8 vs 8 is because the graphics are better now. Like how KZ3 cut it down, and also how uncharted has 5 vs 5 and gears has 4 vs 4. The graphical limitations on consoles cause this i think. unless you want great graphics, then imagine the loading times!!!!! and also the lag!

Yea 8.5 is really a terrible score............

Ninten007

Yea 8.5 is really a terrible score............

Ninten007

I'm not saying it is... but it's not necessarily going above and beyond.

There's a reason why a AAA score (9.0 and above) is highly regarded, GS even gives games an 'editors choice' award if it hits that mark. Plus, let me remind you that you are in system wars... we want our games to score 9.0 and above here.

I think the better graphics makes it difficult to transfer data at the same rate like the previous did. Look at Crysis 2,Uncharted 2,Killzone 3

I think the better graphics makes it difficult to transfer data at the same rate like the previous did. Look at Crysis 2,Uncharted 2,Killzone 3

megaspiderweb09

Wouldn't playing it safe be doing the exact same things R2 did?

I liked the chaos in those 60 man multiplayer matches:(

Wouldn't playing it safe be doing the exact same things R2 did?

Silverbond

..or doing what every other shooter is doing. take your pick.

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

Wouldn't playing it safe be doing the exact same things R2 did?

leadernator

..or doing what every other shooter is doing. take your pick.

So you're not going to answer me?

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

Wouldn't playing it safe be doing the exact same things R2 did?

Silverbond

..or doing what every other shooter is doing. take your pick.

So you're not going to answer me?

I just did :|

There's no absolute correct answer, and you're just coming into this thread to knit-pick anyway.

I believe 'playing it safe' in this case would be for the game to follow what every other shooter is doing... don't understand why you didn't get that but oh well. You believe 'playing it safe' means something different for this game... really who cares. The point of this thread is to see who's happy about these changes, and who isn't.

Why don't you answer my question in the topic post, and give me your darn opinion on whether or not you like the changes :| None of this witty remark nonsense please.

I liked the chaos in those 60 man multiplayer matches:(

bez2083

Yeah, a lot of people did... I thought it was one of the games strong, and distinguishing points. What does sound interesting though, is that they're putting the 'leveling up' system from coop into the competitive play. It might work better that way, but still, a lot of people loved the original coop in R2 as well.

I like the new 8 vs 8 coop.

I loved R2 online coop... :(

Still I think it's gonna be a great game overall, just like the 2 others.

well i think one of the reasons why it is 8 vs 8 is because the graphics are better now. Like how KZ3 cut it down, and also how uncharted has 5 vs 5 and gears has 4 vs 4. The graphical limitations on consoles cause this i think. unless you want great graphics, then imagine the loading times!!!!! and also the lag!

SpeedsterCards

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

..or doing what every other shooter is doing. take your pick.

leadernator

So you're not going to answer me?

I just did :|

There's no absolute correct answer, and you're just coming into this thread to knit-pick anyway.

I believe 'playing it safe' in this case would be for the game to follow what every other shooter is doing... don't understand why you didn't get that but oh well. You believe 'playing it safe' means something different for this game... really who cares. The point of this thread is to see who's happy about these changes, and who isn't.

Why don't you answer my question in the topic post, and give me your darn opinion on whether or not you like the changes :| None of this witty remark nonsense please.

Hostility...

It is uncalled for. :|

[spoiler] Seriesly. :| [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="SpeedsterCards"]

well i think one of the reasons why it is 8 vs 8 is because the graphics are better now. Like how KZ3 cut it down, and also how uncharted has 5 vs 5 and gears has 4 vs 4. The graphical limitations on consoles cause this i think. unless you want great graphics, then imagine the loading times!!!!! and also the lag!

hip-fire

1) From 30 vs. 30 to 8 vs. 8 competitive multiplayer

- I get it... the want to give multiplayer a better sense of 'control' with a smaller amount of players per game. That's cool and all... but what makes that so different from the

other shooters out there? The 60 player chaos was a PLUS according to the AAA GS review of Resistance 2.

2) Creative Coop was removed, and replaced with the regular campaign coop. RPG-like leveling system transferred to competitive multiplayer mode.

- I don't understand this move as well. I thought people loved that insane coop mode in R2.The reviewers loved it, and GS loved it as well.

What do you guys think of this? I'd especially like to know if you're a huge fan of the series. What bothers me... is that the new direction insomniac took for R2 was WELL RECEIVED, and basically gave the game AAA status at GS. IGN claimed it was like playing 3 fully developed games in one. Now, it looks like they are releasing Resistance 1 all over again, with better graphics (R1 actually had 40 players, still double the amount of R3). The graphics are the only thing benefitting from these changes, although they look great it doesn't seem to be on par with the best looking PS3 games.

I'm doubting this a lot.... 8.5 tops me thinks.

leadernator

The abilities / maps / weapons and possibly other features that are included which havnt been revealed

i HATED 60 players... i WISH resistance had 8-10 vs 8-10 in the first place... as far as im concerned my most anticipated game is shaping up EXTREMELY nicely and i may actually invest tonnes of hours into this mp unlike the other resistance games

Dunno about others but i didnt like it.. i rather have campaign coop, the coop mode in r2 was random and i disliked that and moving the rpg elements into the mp (which r2 had to a degree) is a better move.. again.. they are making the game I AM EXTREMELY looking forward to, also why bother saying what GS loves? the staff that rate the games clearly have different tastes and likes and dislikes then me.. they gave yakuza 3 and the first uncharted an 8 i think... i would easily give then a 9.

Good, cause resistance 1 had a much better campaign (with coop) AND a much better multiplayer then resistance 2, ontop of that... THEY GOT RID OF THE CRAP THAT IS REGEN HEALTH!! omg.. hopefully more devs stop following like sheep... and weapon wheel is included... Man NOTHING will top this game for me.

It sounds like Call of Duty with aliens now. That's a shame, I always liked what Resistance aimed to do because at the very least it was different. Oh well, not like I have a PS3 to play it anyway.

NeonNinja

[QUOTE="SpeedsterCards"]

well i think one of the reasons why it is 8 vs 8 is because the graphics are better now. Like how KZ3 cut it down, and also how uncharted has 5 vs 5 and gears has 4 vs 4. The graphical limitations on consoles cause this i think. unless you want great graphics, then imagine the loading times!!!!! and also the lag!

hip-fire

As fun as R2s multiplayers modes were, they were flawed. The competitive modes were fun for a bit but they were too hectic and required the same amount of skill it takes to play Call of Duty. In a 30 vs. 30 match, throw one frag or hedgehog grenade and you get 3+ kills almost every time. 8 vs. 8 eliminates the hectic mayhem that ensued when playing R2, and should make it a little more balanced, but due to the fact that I don't have a time machine and have never played the game I can't be 100% sure of that, I am basing my prediction on the video released. As for co-op, it is a shame that they took it out, but if you think about it, to keep with the story, it makes sense. R2's co-op was based on the fact that the huge war against the Chimera was being fought by others, not just Nathan Hale. In R3, there is no war anymore, and there are no groups of soldiers trying to win the war. In this users opinion, these changes make sense.

I really like the co-op in R2. But I also like being able to play the campaign with my wife in R1. Hmmm... I dunno. I'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

[QUOTE="Silverbond"]

So you're not going to answer me?

Silverbond

I just did :|

There's no absolute correct answer, and you're just coming into this thread to knit-pick anyway.

I believe 'playing it safe' in this case would be for the game to follow what every other shooter is doing... don't understand why you didn't get that but oh well. You believe 'playing it safe' means something different for this game... really who cares. The point of this thread is to see who's happy about these changes, and who isn't.

Why don't you answer my question in the topic post, and give me your darn opinion on whether or not you like the changes :| None of this witty remark nonsense please.

Hostility...

It is uncalled for. :|

Just making it clear for you ... I'm sure you can tell I was annoyed by your reply. I was. Nothing hostile bro.

well i think one of the reasons why it is 8 vs 8 is because the graphics are better now. Like how KZ3 cut it down, and also how uncharted has 5 vs 5 and gears has 4 vs 4. The graphical limitations on consoles cause this i think. unless you want great graphics, then imagine the loading times!!!!! and also the lag!

SpeedsterCards

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

1) From 30 vs. 30 to 8 vs. 8 competitive multiplayer

- I get it... the want to give multiplayer a better sense of 'control' with a smaller amount of players per game. That's cool and all... but what makes that so different from the

other shooters out there? The 60 player chaos was a PLUS according to the AAA GS review of Resistance 2.

2) Creative Coop was removed, and replaced with the regular campaign coop. RPG-like leveling system transferred to competitive multiplayer mode.

- I don't understand this move as well. I thought people loved that insane coop mode in R2.The reviewers loved it, and GS loved it as well.

What do you guys think of this? I'd especially like to know if you're a huge fan of the series. What bothers me... is that the new direction insomniac took for R2 was WELL RECEIVED, and basically gave the game AAA status at GS. IGN claimed it was like playing 3 fully developed games in one. Now, it looks like they are releasing Resistance 1 all over again, with better graphics (R1 actually had 40 players, still double the amount of R3). The graphics are the only thing benefitting from these changes, although they look great it doesn't seem to be on par with the best looking PS3 games.

I'm doubting this a lot.... 8.5 tops me thinks.

campzor

The abilities / maps / weapons and possibly other features that are included which havnt been revealed

i HATED 60 players... i WISH resistance had 8-10 vs 8-10 in the first place... as far as im concerned my most anticipated game is shaping up EXTREMELY nicely and i may actually invest tonnes of hours into this mp unlike the other resistance games

Dunno about others but i didnt like it.. i rather have campaign coop, the coop mode in r2 was random and i disliked that and moving the rpg elements into the mp (which r2 had to a degree) is a better move.. again.. they are making the game I AM EXTREMELY looking forward to, also why bother saying what GS loves? the staff that rate the games clearly have different tastes and likes and dislikes then me.. they gave yakuza 3 and the first uncharted an 8 i think... i would easily give then a 9.

Good, cause resistance 1 had a much better campaign (with coop) AND a much better multiplayer then resistance 2, ontop of that... THEY GOT RID OF THE CRAP THAT IS REGEN HEALTH!! omg.. hopefully more devs stop following like sheep... and weapon wheel is included... Man NOTHING will top this game for me.

I brought up what GS thinks, because that's what people typically follow in system wars.

It looks like the perfect game for you, I'm glad that it's turning out the way you want it. While I agree that 60 players can become a mess, it can also be chaotic fun. Resistance 1 was 20 vs. 20... still above your average shooter, and you liked it right? I thought the massive multiplayer is what defined resistance's competitive multiplayer

I though the original coop from R2 was awesome. It is cool that they are putting some of its elements towards competitive play, but I would still like a coop version. Campaign coop + original coop can be done, right?

My whole problem is that we are pretty much saturated with FPSs, if you make an FPS nowadays, you're going to have to stand out. I don't think new abilities, maps, and weapons are enough to do it, and I thought they went on a pretty good direction with R2. I guess that's where we really disagree... I'm a bigger fan of R2 than I was with R1.

[QUOTE="SpeedsterCards"]

well i think one of the reasons why it is 8 vs 8 is because the graphics are better now. Like how KZ3 cut it down, and also how uncharted has 5 vs 5 and gears has 4 vs 4. The graphical limitations on consoles cause this i think. unless you want great graphics, then imagine the loading times!!!!! and also the lag!

mitu123

I would agree, but with a bigger sacrifice like that I expected the game to look better than what they have shown so far. Still looks good though.

I never understood why can't they give the players the option to play the game the way they want, they could keep the 30 vs 30 competitive as max, and of course this should be adjustable to lesser numbers, 8 Vs 8, 15 Vs 15 ...etc .

[QUOTE="hip-fire"][QUOTE="SpeedsterCards"]

well i think one of the reasons why it is 8 vs 8 is because the graphics are better now. Like how KZ3 cut it down, and also how uncharted has 5 vs 5 and gears has 4 vs 4. The graphical limitations on consoles cause this i think. unless you want great graphics, then imagine the loading times!!!!! and also the lag!

djsifer01

Warzone is very awesome.... What u tlking bout Willis.

And isnt UC2 5v5

[QUOTE="djsifer01"][QUOTE="hip-fire"] -Geow2 = 5 vs 5 -UC3 = 6 vs 6 -KZ3 = 12 vs 12 Gets yo facts rightSnakemaster9

Warzone is very awesome.... What u tlking bout Willis.

And isnt UC2 5v5

thank god they decreased the players for the multiplayer. R2 was far too chaotic and didn't take much skill, nor did skill help you :P

Here's what they could had done:

Reduce to 40

Reduce to 32

Reduce to 24

Have maps designed for 60, 40, 32 and 24 players(certain games like Killzone 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Battlefield 2, etc. do that)

But 16? This is a joke. There might not be a server browser like the 1st 2 which I loved which means crappy matchmaking and most likely lag, hopefully there's custom games. The only reasons they are doing this is to improve graphics and be less chaotic, but they could easily do any of my suggestions. Now it's going to be called a Halo/COD clone with unique guns.

Still want to play it though, though no way in hell I'm paying 60, I got the others for 30 and less bucks.

Here's what they could had done:

Reduce to 40

Reduce to 32

Reduce to 24

Have maps designed for 60, 40, 32 and 24 players(certain games like Killzone 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Battlefield 2, etc. do that)

But 16? This is a joke. There might not be a server browser like the 1st 2 which I loved which means crappy matchmaking and most likely lag, hopefully there's custom games. The only reasons they are doing this is to improve graphics and be less chaotic, but they could easily do any of my suggestions. Now it's going to be called a Halo/COD clone with unique guns.

Still want to play it though, though no way in hell I'm paying 60, I got the others for 30 and less bucks.

mitu123

no one complains when third person shooters only have 5 on 5 matches, 16 is fine for a game that won't have too vast of maps.

I think it was a good move, the way insomniac has the resistance games designed it really wasn't meant for 60 player matches or even 40.

[QUOTE="leadernator"]

1) From 30 vs. 30 to 8 vs. 8 competitive multiplayer

- I get it... the want to give multiplayer a better sense of 'control' with a smaller amount of players per game. That's cool and all... but what makes that so different from the

other shooters out there? The 60 player chaos was a PLUS according to the AAA GS review of Resistance 2.

2) Creative Coop was removed, and replaced with the regular campaign coop. RPG-like leveling system transferred to competitive multiplayer mode.

- I don't understand this move as well. I thought people loved that insane coop mode in R2.The reviewers loved it, and GS loved it as well.

What do you guys think of this? I'd especially like to know if you're a huge fan of the series. What bothers me... is that the new direction insomniac took for R2 was WELL RECEIVED, and basically gave the game AAA status at GS. IGN claimed it was like playing 3 fully developed games in one. Now, it looks like they are releasing Resistance 1 all over again, with better graphics (R1 actually had 40 players, still double the amount of R3). The graphics are the only thing benefitting from these changes, although they look great it doesn't seem to be on par with the best looking PS3 games.

I'm doubting this a lot.... 8.5 tops me thinks.

campzor

The abilities / maps / weapons and possibly other features that are included which havnt been revealed

i HATED 60 players... i WISH resistance had 8-10 vs 8-10 in the first place... as far as im concerned my most anticipated game is shaping up EXTREMELY nicely and i may actually invest tonnes of hours into this mp unlike the other resistance games

Dunno about others but i didnt like it.. i rather have campaign coop, the coop mode in r2 was random and i disliked that and moving the rpg elements into the mp (which r2 had to a degree) is a better move.. again.. they are making the game I AM EXTREMELY looking forward to, also why bother saying what GS loves? the staff that rate the games clearly have different tastes and likes and dislikes then me.. they gave yakuza 3 and the first uncharted an 8 i think... i would easily give then a 9.

Good, cause resistance 1 had a much better campaign (with coop) AND a much better multiplayer then resistance 2, ontop of that... THEY GOT RID OF THE CRAP THAT IS REGEN HEALTH!! omg.. hopefully more devs stop following like sheep... and weapon wheel is included... Man NOTHING will top this game for me.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Here's what they could had done:

Reduce to 40

Reduce to 32

Reduce to 24

Have maps designed for 60, 40, 32 and 24 players(certain games like Killzone 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Battlefield 2, etc. do that)

But 16? This is a joke. There might not be a server browser like the 1st 2 which I loved which means crappy matchmaking and most likely lag, hopefully there's custom games. The only reasons they are doing this is to improve graphics and be less chaotic, but they could easily do any of my suggestions. Now it's going to be called a Halo/COD clone with unique guns.

Still want to play it though, though no way in hell I'm paying 60, I got the others for 30 and less bucks.

theuncharted34

no one complains when third person shooters only have 5 on 5 matches, 16 is fine for a game that won't have too vast of maps.

I think it was a good move, the way insomniac has the resistance games designed it really wasn't meant for 60 player matches or even 40.

I'll settle down.

[QUOTE="theuncharted34"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Here's what they could had done:

Reduce to 40

Reduce to 32

Reduce to 24

Have maps designed for 60, 40, 32 and 24 players(certain games like Killzone 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Battlefield 2, etc. do that)

But 16? This is a joke. There might not be a server browser like the 1st 2 which I loved which means crappy matchmaking and most likely lag, hopefully there's custom games. The only reasons they are doing this is to improve graphics and be less chaotic, but they could easily do any of my suggestions. Now it's going to be called a Halo/COD clone with unique guns.

Still want to play it though, though no way in hell I'm paying 60, I got the others for 30 and less bucks.

mitu123

no one complains when third person shooters only have 5 on 5 matches, 16 is fine for a game that won't have too vast of maps.

I think it was a good move, the way insomniac has the resistance games designed it really wasn't meant for 60 player matches or even 40.

I'll settle down.

dam socom 4 is really getting 32 players? :o

impressive.

Yep, it's up to 32.

"Multiplayer mode supports up to 32 players per match."

You can get into the beta without having to even own Killzone 3 as it's public.

^there honestly was no point in"rushing for a spot" by buying kz3 to be in the beta.....loleboyishere

I never liked Resistance online all that much, it's to Halo for me. 60 player matches were fun though, but the matchmaking hardly ever put me in matches of that size.

I think I liked the first games online better than the second, which makes me think I'll despise the 3rds online, if the trend continues.

I've got KZ3 for my multiplayer needs, that is if GG gets off their asses and region lock the servers. I'm so tired of European and Asian players jumping on the US servers to gain lag advantage. It's cheating, plain and simple.

You know what TC? maybe you should create a topic about this at the official resistance 3 forums at insomniacgames.com