MacRumorUser
Jan 7, 2007, 10:09 AM
For those without insider knoweldge
Grudge Match: Resistance vs. Gears of War
Stop-and-pop against run-and-gun in a grisly battle to the death.
by David Clayman
US, January 5, 2007 - The Grudge Match feature doesn't look as closely the hardcore specs and features of a game like our Head-to-Heads but instead it takes a broader look at two similar games. The point is to let editors who are knowledgeable about the individual titles argue in favor of one or the other.
This Grudge Match has a unique quality in that both of these games have been developed as system sellers for their respective consoles. Shooters don't get much different than this unless maybe we threw a light gun game into the mix. We debated throwing Elebits into the mix, but for now we'll debate the selling points of the two biggest entries in the FPS genre this past holiday season. Ladies and gentlemen, the contenders:
http://insidermedia.ign.com/insider/image/article/753/753346/grudge-match-resistance-vs-gears-of-war-20070105013921729.jpg
Gears of War had the highest possible profile long before anyone had the opportunity to play it. Described as a "stop and pop" shooter by its creators it's about taking cover and strategic flanking. There's no circle strafing and unfortunately grenades are nearly useless. You can't run, but you can hide and you'll do plenty of this if you want to stay alive for more than five minutes. This type of gameplay is decidedly "un-Halo" and we've seen it before in less successful games like Kill.switch.
Resistance Fall of Man has been touted as the killer-app for the PS3. It is a technically impressive shooter but the selling point is not really the single player experience or even the graphics made possible by the power of the PS3. What Resistance has is a 40 player online mode that has the sole purpose of making people respect Sony as a player in the realm of online gaming. It does this well, with an impressively smooth online play.
The next generation starts when?
This time we're not making you wait around for the most exciting category. What most gamers want to know when they plunk down about half a grand for a system is whether it looks better than the console they scorned. This category is an easy call. Gears of War is the best looking game ever made. Even though the characters are generic meat heads the architecture and the detail put into the environments is astounding. Not that Resistance is ugly and on a technical level it puts a lot more action on the screen at once with no hiccups.
Jon Miller, IGN Xbox 360: Graphics has to go Gears. In fact, Resistance has a very average look to it in my opinion, especially after looking at both games side by side. Makes you wonder just what the hell Sony was talking about with all that "next-gen starts when we say it does" talk.
On the other hand, Gears is possibly the best-looking console game to date.
Does either piece of software win the day for its respective console?
Based on numbers alone Gears is very much the behemoth of a game that Microsoft hoped it would be. It reached the one million sales mark in the first two weeks it was on sale and then hit the two million mark in less than six weeks after hitting the market. The 360 game had the natural advantage considering the number of 360s already on the market and the lack of PS3s available at launch but when you're counting by millions the game is an unqualified success. This question can't really be answered for at least a year - if Resistance continues to sell consoles and copies over the next year it could build slow momentum and staying power just like Halo did for Xbox. I think it has the features to do this. Gears of War feels more like a really, really big flash in the pan. Does that make sense? Probably not.
How does each game represent a different style of shooter?
Has it been done before and has it been done better? After playing Rainbow Six Vegas I can definitely say that the left-trigger cover system is more accurate and dynamic than pressing "A" for nearly everything in Gears. As for Resistance, the fast and furious gameplay feels very much like TimeSplitters but without the sense of humor. I'm not saying these games aren't awesome, but while they top other shooters in graphics and presentations - the very core of their gameplay has been done better. I say they both lose!
Jon Miller: In terms of gameplay, they both do a lot of things right in very different ways, as Dave already mentioned. The weapons are awesome in Resistance but the game is very Unreal/Timesplitters-ish. Twitchy.
I've come to really enjoy the slower pace of Gears compared to other shooters. The sticky cover system is a fun, but it makes for repetitive gameplay in the long run as you slowly work your way up the battlefield from wall to wall.
Online Slaughter
Resistance pulled off 40 players online which is really incredible. It's probably frustrating to developers, but oftentimes simplicity and size makes for a more fun online experience. Gears had some interesting ideas and the chainsaw is an instant adrenaline rush, but it runs out of steam quickly. Stop-and-pop is not the type of gameplay that carries over into endless online skirmishes.
An outside factor that takes away from the Gears of War online hype was the proximity of the release of Rainbow Six Vegas. While the Ubisoft title also uses a cover system it feels like more of an option than a requirement and side by side RSV feels more accessible to the non-hardcore. On a personal note, the IGN San Francisco office is packed with Rainbow Six fans who have patiently waited through Lockdown and Black Arrow which were both online duds for the editors.
http://insidermedia.ign.com/insider/image/article/753/753346/grudge-match-resistance-vs-gears-of-war-20070105013921370.jpg
There was never a real opportunity for Resistance to take off for the editors because of the lack of availability of PS3s. The editors that played Resistance love it, but as a launch title there just isn't enough of us that own a PS3 to warrant the afternoon email chains setting up online skirmishes that night.
Jon Miller: Online, 40 players is amazing for Resistance and if you throw out the PS3 online interface compared to Live, it's the better online game than Gears. The small maps that are small in number, along with small game modes and small number of players online (eight) make for a small online experience with Gears.
I'm one of the few that think a huge online experience would benefit Gears even more, despite Epic's desire to keep things intimate. First, get some clans in there. Duh. Second, my favorite battles in Gears were the big ones across town squares and in wide-open environments. I think fans would really dig the slower Gears pace but with huge maps and a ton of players, guys sniping from a hundred yards while your team throws smoke an inches forward. In that way, working for position and capturing points (See game mode War, COD3) would actually mean something. Instead, we get five-minute team deathmatches over and over again.
Winner by Decision
This isn't a KO or even a TKO. Maybe if everyone in the office had a shiny new PS3 waiting at home then Resistance would win out. Unfortunately, by the time everyone has taken the plunge with the $600 behemoth we'll probably be too busy playing Metal Gear Solid 4 to care.
Jon Miller: I've got to give the nod to Gears. Great all-around game. Room for improvement. While I haven't had that much time with Resistance, it's not too different than what we've seen before. It's like Insomniac said, "Hmm. World War II is popular. Aliens are popular. Let's put 'em together!" Also, Resistance doesn't have a chainsaw.
Craig Beridon, IGN Insider: On the surface both Gears of War and Resistance: Fall of Man look very similar: Same genre, same scenario (soldiers vs. invading alien army), same features, etc. But if you've played a shooter before its pretty obvious the gameplay an online portions of both games aren't really comperable.
But I want talk about something else. I've never had this chance to say this yet on paper so here's my opportunity. I do not understand why Resistance is being called a killer app. Actually that's too nice; Resistance is in no way a killer app. It offers nothing that we've never seen in another FPS (except for the Bullseye). Now maybe I'm putting too much importance on originality, but a video game that just improves upon certain aspects of other FPS's and does nothing remarkable or unique shouldn't be given that title. Killer applications are supposed to prove the value of hardware. These standout pieces of software must justify the worth of the equipment they are designed for. Resistance does not do that. It might have if the PS3 was $250 and not $600, but when a piece of electronics cost that much it needs to offer more than above average applications. Plus; since the rest of the system's launch is comprised of third party ports and mediocre (Genji, Ridge Racer) to downright terrible (Gundam, Untold Legends) exclusives, the one really good exclusive launch game looks great by default. A fresh turkey club always looks delicious surrounded by turd sandwiches and last week's leftovers.
But I'm only questioning the validity of Resistance's "System Seller" tag, not saying it's a bad game. It's a great game; especially the co-op campaign. It's just not worthy of that label it's been given and it's not the reason people are buying PS3s. People are buying $600 PS3's because either: a) they're early adopting gear heads that need the latest and greatest tech on the market, b) they're reselling on EBay, or c) they don't know a damn thing about videogames. I haven't met one person who waited in line for a day (or two) on PS3 launch day just to play Resistance. So by saying that game - or any piece of softwaren for that matter - sold that system is just plain wrong. That system sold itself.
Brennan Ieyoub, IGN Video: Resistance is, at best, a competent science-fiction, twitch shooter. The graphics are sub-par, the music and sound effects are forgettable, and the gameplay is totally vanilla. It's overrated across the board. The killer-app-starved masses of PS3 owners that are singing the praises of Resistance are kidding themselves, and I'd go as far as to say Jeremy Dunham must've been writing his review on a mouthful of Quaaludes when he scored the game a 9.1.
That being said, Resistance has its moments. The single player campaign is lengthy and features some interesting environments, the unique arsenal of weapons introduces some admirable strategy elements, and the multiplayer component is quite robust for a day-one title. But honestly if I had one thing to say to Ted Price about his maiden voyage into first-person-shooter territory it'd be this: stick to making platformers, Ted.
Gears of War is a landmark title for Microsoft and a fantastic achievement for Epic. The cover system is intuitive, the graphics totally raise the bar, the sound and music are beautifully scored and implemented; it just resonates with that AAA title pedigree that so few games on the market today possess. I wanted more in terms of multiplayer modes and options and the story was admittedly a bit weak, but overall, the GOW experience is a memorable one that endures today after so many weeks of release.
Gears of War and Resistance are fundamentally different, so obviously a direct comparison cannot be made, but in the grand scheme of things I believe people will sober up in time and give credit where credit is due. Resistance has only gotten as much press as it has because the PS3 is sorely lacking in terms of software. Gears of War is a well designed and rather original take on the shooter genre that will continue to evolve in future installments and continue to amaze us with each innovation.
Grudge Match: Resistance vs. Gears of War
Stop-and-pop against run-and-gun in a grisly battle to the death.
by David Clayman
US, January 5, 2007 - The Grudge Match feature doesn't look as closely the hardcore specs and features of a game like our Head-to-Heads but instead it takes a broader look at two similar games. The point is to let editors who are knowledgeable about the individual titles argue in favor of one or the other.
This Grudge Match has a unique quality in that both of these games have been developed as system sellers for their respective consoles. Shooters don't get much different than this unless maybe we threw a light gun game into the mix. We debated throwing Elebits into the mix, but for now we'll debate the selling points of the two biggest entries in the FPS genre this past holiday season. Ladies and gentlemen, the contenders:
http://insidermedia.ign.com/insider/image/article/753/753346/grudge-match-resistance-vs-gears-of-war-20070105013921729.jpg
Gears of War had the highest possible profile long before anyone had the opportunity to play it. Described as a "stop and pop" shooter by its creators it's about taking cover and strategic flanking. There's no circle strafing and unfortunately grenades are nearly useless. You can't run, but you can hide and you'll do plenty of this if you want to stay alive for more than five minutes. This type of gameplay is decidedly "un-Halo" and we've seen it before in less successful games like Kill.switch.
Resistance Fall of Man has been touted as the killer-app for the PS3. It is a technically impressive shooter but the selling point is not really the single player experience or even the graphics made possible by the power of the PS3. What Resistance has is a 40 player online mode that has the sole purpose of making people respect Sony as a player in the realm of online gaming. It does this well, with an impressively smooth online play.
The next generation starts when?
This time we're not making you wait around for the most exciting category. What most gamers want to know when they plunk down about half a grand for a system is whether it looks better than the console they scorned. This category is an easy call. Gears of War is the best looking game ever made. Even though the characters are generic meat heads the architecture and the detail put into the environments is astounding. Not that Resistance is ugly and on a technical level it puts a lot more action on the screen at once with no hiccups.
Jon Miller, IGN Xbox 360: Graphics has to go Gears. In fact, Resistance has a very average look to it in my opinion, especially after looking at both games side by side. Makes you wonder just what the hell Sony was talking about with all that "next-gen starts when we say it does" talk.
On the other hand, Gears is possibly the best-looking console game to date.
Does either piece of software win the day for its respective console?
Based on numbers alone Gears is very much the behemoth of a game that Microsoft hoped it would be. It reached the one million sales mark in the first two weeks it was on sale and then hit the two million mark in less than six weeks after hitting the market. The 360 game had the natural advantage considering the number of 360s already on the market and the lack of PS3s available at launch but when you're counting by millions the game is an unqualified success. This question can't really be answered for at least a year - if Resistance continues to sell consoles and copies over the next year it could build slow momentum and staying power just like Halo did for Xbox. I think it has the features to do this. Gears of War feels more like a really, really big flash in the pan. Does that make sense? Probably not.
How does each game represent a different style of shooter?
Has it been done before and has it been done better? After playing Rainbow Six Vegas I can definitely say that the left-trigger cover system is more accurate and dynamic than pressing "A" for nearly everything in Gears. As for Resistance, the fast and furious gameplay feels very much like TimeSplitters but without the sense of humor. I'm not saying these games aren't awesome, but while they top other shooters in graphics and presentations - the very core of their gameplay has been done better. I say they both lose!
Jon Miller: In terms of gameplay, they both do a lot of things right in very different ways, as Dave already mentioned. The weapons are awesome in Resistance but the game is very Unreal/Timesplitters-ish. Twitchy.
I've come to really enjoy the slower pace of Gears compared to other shooters. The sticky cover system is a fun, but it makes for repetitive gameplay in the long run as you slowly work your way up the battlefield from wall to wall.
Online Slaughter
Resistance pulled off 40 players online which is really incredible. It's probably frustrating to developers, but oftentimes simplicity and size makes for a more fun online experience. Gears had some interesting ideas and the chainsaw is an instant adrenaline rush, but it runs out of steam quickly. Stop-and-pop is not the type of gameplay that carries over into endless online skirmishes.
An outside factor that takes away from the Gears of War online hype was the proximity of the release of Rainbow Six Vegas. While the Ubisoft title also uses a cover system it feels like more of an option than a requirement and side by side RSV feels more accessible to the non-hardcore. On a personal note, the IGN San Francisco office is packed with Rainbow Six fans who have patiently waited through Lockdown and Black Arrow which were both online duds for the editors.
http://insidermedia.ign.com/insider/image/article/753/753346/grudge-match-resistance-vs-gears-of-war-20070105013921370.jpg
There was never a real opportunity for Resistance to take off for the editors because of the lack of availability of PS3s. The editors that played Resistance love it, but as a launch title there just isn't enough of us that own a PS3 to warrant the afternoon email chains setting up online skirmishes that night.
Jon Miller: Online, 40 players is amazing for Resistance and if you throw out the PS3 online interface compared to Live, it's the better online game than Gears. The small maps that are small in number, along with small game modes and small number of players online (eight) make for a small online experience with Gears.
I'm one of the few that think a huge online experience would benefit Gears even more, despite Epic's desire to keep things intimate. First, get some clans in there. Duh. Second, my favorite battles in Gears were the big ones across town squares and in wide-open environments. I think fans would really dig the slower Gears pace but with huge maps and a ton of players, guys sniping from a hundred yards while your team throws smoke an inches forward. In that way, working for position and capturing points (See game mode War, COD3) would actually mean something. Instead, we get five-minute team deathmatches over and over again.
Winner by Decision
This isn't a KO or even a TKO. Maybe if everyone in the office had a shiny new PS3 waiting at home then Resistance would win out. Unfortunately, by the time everyone has taken the plunge with the $600 behemoth we'll probably be too busy playing Metal Gear Solid 4 to care.
Jon Miller: I've got to give the nod to Gears. Great all-around game. Room for improvement. While I haven't had that much time with Resistance, it's not too different than what we've seen before. It's like Insomniac said, "Hmm. World War II is popular. Aliens are popular. Let's put 'em together!" Also, Resistance doesn't have a chainsaw.
Craig Beridon, IGN Insider: On the surface both Gears of War and Resistance: Fall of Man look very similar: Same genre, same scenario (soldiers vs. invading alien army), same features, etc. But if you've played a shooter before its pretty obvious the gameplay an online portions of both games aren't really comperable.
But I want talk about something else. I've never had this chance to say this yet on paper so here's my opportunity. I do not understand why Resistance is being called a killer app. Actually that's too nice; Resistance is in no way a killer app. It offers nothing that we've never seen in another FPS (except for the Bullseye). Now maybe I'm putting too much importance on originality, but a video game that just improves upon certain aspects of other FPS's and does nothing remarkable or unique shouldn't be given that title. Killer applications are supposed to prove the value of hardware. These standout pieces of software must justify the worth of the equipment they are designed for. Resistance does not do that. It might have if the PS3 was $250 and not $600, but when a piece of electronics cost that much it needs to offer more than above average applications. Plus; since the rest of the system's launch is comprised of third party ports and mediocre (Genji, Ridge Racer) to downright terrible (Gundam, Untold Legends) exclusives, the one really good exclusive launch game looks great by default. A fresh turkey club always looks delicious surrounded by turd sandwiches and last week's leftovers.
But I'm only questioning the validity of Resistance's "System Seller" tag, not saying it's a bad game. It's a great game; especially the co-op campaign. It's just not worthy of that label it's been given and it's not the reason people are buying PS3s. People are buying $600 PS3's because either: a) they're early adopting gear heads that need the latest and greatest tech on the market, b) they're reselling on EBay, or c) they don't know a damn thing about videogames. I haven't met one person who waited in line for a day (or two) on PS3 launch day just to play Resistance. So by saying that game - or any piece of softwaren for that matter - sold that system is just plain wrong. That system sold itself.
Brennan Ieyoub, IGN Video: Resistance is, at best, a competent science-fiction, twitch shooter. The graphics are sub-par, the music and sound effects are forgettable, and the gameplay is totally vanilla. It's overrated across the board. The killer-app-starved masses of PS3 owners that are singing the praises of Resistance are kidding themselves, and I'd go as far as to say Jeremy Dunham must've been writing his review on a mouthful of Quaaludes when he scored the game a 9.1.
That being said, Resistance has its moments. The single player campaign is lengthy and features some interesting environments, the unique arsenal of weapons introduces some admirable strategy elements, and the multiplayer component is quite robust for a day-one title. But honestly if I had one thing to say to Ted Price about his maiden voyage into first-person-shooter territory it'd be this: stick to making platformers, Ted.
Gears of War is a landmark title for Microsoft and a fantastic achievement for Epic. The cover system is intuitive, the graphics totally raise the bar, the sound and music are beautifully scored and implemented; it just resonates with that AAA title pedigree that so few games on the market today possess. I wanted more in terms of multiplayer modes and options and the story was admittedly a bit weak, but overall, the GOW experience is a memorable one that endures today after so many weeks of release.
Gears of War and Resistance are fundamentally different, so obviously a direct comparison cannot be made, but in the grand scheme of things I believe people will sober up in time and give credit where credit is due. Resistance has only gotten as much press as it has because the PS3 is sorely lacking in terms of software. Gears of War is a well designed and rather original take on the shooter genre that will continue to evolve in future installments and continue to amaze us with each innovation.
