Resistance 3

RFoM was brilliant, and the second one just unfortunately fell short of it. I'm hoping the 3rd instalment has more of the scope of the first.

I'm aware of a lot of hate towards the first game. But a lot of it was born due to the Gears vs RFoM era this gen. And I'm pretty sure a lot of hate came without even playing the game! because it was hardly as bad as a lot made out.
 
Oh come off it the first Resistance was about as generic as an FPS can be, typical average rush job to be the first shooter on a new console :o
 
wannabedamned said:
RFoM was brilliant, and the second one just unfortunately fell short of it. I'm hoping the 3rd instalment has more of the scope of the first.

I'm aware of a lot of hate towards the first game. But a lot of it was born due to the Gears vs RFoM era this gen. And I'm pretty sure a lot of hate came without even playing the game! because it was hardly as bad as a lot made out.
Click to expand...
You are right.
Tom84 said:
Oh come off it the first Resistance was about as generic as an FPS can be, typical average rush job to be the first shooter on a new console :o
Click to expand...
Are you serious? I really hope you are kidding.

Many people did hate the game, because it required skill, and wasn't a run and gun like cod. Not was it a strategy game like BF. It needed 11 bullets of the carbine to the head to kill. You could easily deal with a 2v1 if you HS them. Sniper needed 2 bullets or 1 to the head.

wannabedamned, what was your PSN? I was balzan back then and played RFoM so much. Do you remember the clans iKz, WAR, R*F, Chuck Norris Elite/Army etc. Some of the best RFoM clans right there :P I was in sKe, massive hated team and I see where it was coming from tbh :P
 
Tom84 said:
no you're right it was and still is the best brown and beige FPS on the console :p
Click to expand...


It looks like someone didn't play past the first few levels most of the game takes place in a mix of underground bases, sci-fi alien structures and in a snow filled london.


Skyfall said:
Wait wait wait... What?!

Resistance 2 was at least 300x better than FOM, FOM was a giant turd.
Click to expand...

you sir are fundamentally broken.

Any game in which the final boss can be killed by simply walking in a circle in front of it can not be considered good. especially when its a horrible buggy mess.

R2 had-

A painful 2 weapon system in a gun based game.
Less interesting weapons.
Very inconsistent graphics.
Unkillable enemies for no reason.
Poor squad AI.
Very bad enemy AI.
Enemies who would ignore your squad mates to get to you.
Enemies who would remain unscratched by ally fire.
Clipping errors.
Enemies getting stuck in geometry.
The weapon you had to use laying on the ground 5 feet in front of the fight removing any real free will.
A final boss who can be killed by the player walking in a circle in front of it and shooting a few light bulbs.
No story telling ability.
Fewer and less interesting enemy types.
Invisible enemies who will one hit kill you.
No co-op campaign mode.


Just to re-iterate a final boss that the player never even needs to actually look at to kill.

The only good thing in that whole game was the magnum.


The backlash was enough to cause insomniac to change its whole development cycle and allow R3 twice as long to be developed. There are also retrospective videos via the full moon show where the developers discuss the games failings in a fair bit of depth.
 
Skyfall said:
Wait wait wait... What?!

Resistance 2 was at least 300x better than FOM, FOM was a giant turd.
Click to expand...

ic1male said:
Sorry, I'm another who preferred R2 to R1. :p
Click to expand...
Must be a joke.

If you ask me, RFoM had

- Colour scheme. Grey/orange/brown was much nicer and war like than the bright modern colours R2 had
- Less bullets to kill
- Chimera seemed like they were straight
- Where were the nice Arc Charger and Dragon?
- Proportion went out of the window
- R2 had berserks, WHAT THE ****
- RFoM you can hold all weapons
- So little gamemodes. People forced meltdown back
- 60 players was too big and felt stupid.
- Maps were not proportional and well drawn. Manchaster <3 Nothingham <3 Subway <3 Bus Yard <3 Lexington ,3
- R2's story felt a bit off imo

And all the other things the other person said above me :P
Twentyone said:
Is this the sort of game that needs you to play through them all or can I just start the second game ? :)
Click to expand...

Imo, the story is the best I have ever played, Better than Uncharted. You won't understand much from R2 so i suggest you start RfoM
 
The__Malteser said:
- Chimera seemed like they were straight
Click to expand...
You prefer your aliens gay?

Honestly for me FOM:

Extremely poor graphics
Really bad AI
Annoying health system
Terrible checkpoints
Enemies who shot at you through walls without being able to see you, at least in R2 you can shoot back
No trophies
No objective markers
A gunner on the back of your jeep that couldn't hit the floor if he fell on it
A story that whilst OK, really never grabbed me, mainly due to the fact there were no twists or reveals
Really bad pacing, one moment I'm running through rooms the next I'm being charged by 100 enemies

That was pretty much my experience of the game.

Sure R2 was a bit random, went from FOM being completely war era to 2 years later equipment is pretty much modern day. But I enjoyed playing it unlike FOM which was more like torture.
 
Last edited:
Skyfall said:
You prefer your aliens gay?

Honestly for me FOM:

Enemies who shot at you through walls without being able to see you, at least in R2 you can shoot back
No trophies
No objective markers
A gunner on the back of your jeep that couldn't hit the floor if he fell on it

That was pretty much my experience of the game.


.
Click to expand...


1- the player had a auger that could shoot through walls too.
2- no ps3 game had trophies then sony hadnt made them yet.
3- its a linear fps which doesn't need them
4- a necessary concession for what would be the second players seat in the full campaign co-op mode.
 
Skyfall said:
You prefer your aliens gay? Lol. Nah, they were not hunchbacked like in RFoM.

Honestly for me FOM:

Extremely poor graphics - launch ps3 title. Plus they weren't so bad. They were bad up close
Really bad AI - didn't see this tbh. thought they were pretty good
Annoying health system - what was bad?
Terrible checkpoints - Wut? They were great imo
Enemies who shot at you through walls without being able to see you, at least in R2 you can shoot back - Auger :confused:
No trophies - No games had trophies at that time. When R2 was out, games HAD to have trophies
No objective markers - Why if you needed always to go in 1 direction :confused:
A gunner on the back of your jeep that couldn't hit the floor if he fell on it - Make the game harder for you + play co-op
A story that whilst OK, really never grabbed me, mainly due to the fact there were no twists or reveals - No twists?
Really bad pacing, one moment I'm running through rooms the next I'm being charged by 100 enemies - Because they used to be grouped and when they see you they charge at you :P

That was pretty much my experience of the game.

Sure R2 was a bit random, went from FOM being completely war era to 2 years later equipment is pretty much modern day. But I enjoyed playing it unlike FOM which was more like torture.
Click to expand...

In bold.

Guess we will never agree on this :P
 
To be honest, people are harsh on the graphics because of Gears of war. Its as simple as that, They forget about the quality of other titles around at the time, and go straight to focusing on the difference between GOW and RFoM, which to be honest GOW looked a lot better!! But Gears graphics still hold up today! RFoM hardly had "Extremely poor Graphics"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom