[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="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

[QUOTE="shahilsyed"][QUOTE="Bazooka_4ME"] uhh yeah dude you are being to funny... :lol:

No offense but I'm sure you just started gaming this gen... The cover system has been around when Time Crisis first came out in 1995. MGS2 for the PS2 (IMO) revolutionized it when it came out in 2001. Finally, Namco got everything right and released the first cover-based, hide and peek TPS Kill.Switch in 2003. Technically all these games you listed would still be here if Epic never released Gears of War.

As far as God of War, are we talking GOW3 or the original GOW? Because when the original GOW first came out, it had its own unique battle system that set it apart from its rivals DMC and NG. Declaring a game's originality will be dependent on past games from its genre like for instance:

What did Halo do differently from Half-Life, Doom, and Tribes?

What did Gears of War implemented that separates itself from Kill.Switch?

Overall, a lot games that are coming out today are mostly generic imo.

Bazooka_4ME

You keep saying they "added many things" and "did differently" from the games I listed but you listed nothing? Like what did Halo do differently that set itself apart form Half-Life and Tribes?

Halo did nothing originally. The reason Halo games are big and many people considered that it started this and that is because it made the FPS genre more popular when it came out on consoles. All the stuff you see in Halo have been done mostly from past FPS games on PC.

Same with Gears of War; Epic did nothing orignally but made Kill.Switch with different enemies and better graphics.

[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

Infamous is good and IMO one of the few PS3 exclusives thats actually decent. With that being said, Batman Arkham Asylum is far better.

[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?

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

You should feel bad

Zaibach

It's the best this gen for sure.

Stringerboy