Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Resistance 2 Info Emerges

sikkinixx

sikkinixx

macrumors 68020
Original poster
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=226865

60 player Multiplayer
2 seperate stories: 1 co-op, the other single player (huh??)
Multiplayer classes ala TF2
New Vehicles
Random landscaping in multiplayer maps to make for different fights
Changing the health system/checkpoint system
Fall 08 release


Ohhhh ahhhhhh


Resistance multiplayer was already psycho so adding another 20 people will be...psycho 😀 Insomniac hasn't disappointed me yet so here's hoping all this makes it in for sure.
 
To be honest the 40 player matches are often far from fun, with little in it other than carnage.

The best online sessions were with 8 or 16 players max on most of the resistance maps.

60 players interesting, but unless they expand the maps hugely it's utterly overkill (but that may explain the random factor). A case of look what we did, rather than should we have....

But I liked resistance single player. More so than Halo3 or GOW, so I look forward to the sequel.
 
MacRumorUser said:
To be honest the 40 player matches are often far from fun, with little in it other than carnage.
Click to expand...

I don't know what your talking about but the 40 players in Resistance was a blast and 60 players will be all out warfare(with different classes in such)

I've read the maps will be size fitted for how many people on the map plus the maps won't be the same your second time through..cool.

The image are stunning but I need to see it in action before I start tooting the horn.

2 players coop and 8 players online coop....excellent.

MRU its time to update your sticky thread.

Bless
 
2nyRiggz said:
MRU its time to update your sticky thread.

Bless
Click to expand...

In the process of compiling a new one with chart and stuff. DS & PSP will be on it too 🙂



Guess the reason I didn't like the 40 player matches is because I'm more of a tactical player on online games, more GRAW than FRAGFEST and thats what Resistance online really is... a fragfest (much like cod)
 
MacRumorUser said:
Guess the reason I didn't like the 40 player matches is because I'm more of a tactical player on online games, more GRAW than FRAGFEST and thats what Resistance online really is... a fragfest (much like cod)
Click to expand...

Now I love tactical shooters like R6V(the only one actually...the cover system is heaven sent) but sometimes i just wanna get in and out...Resistance serves that purpose for me..COD4 doesnt do it for me like UT3 and this.


Bless
 
I hope they do more than just bolt on a 60 player class based multiplayer. These things have to be done properly, it's why there are dedicated class based games out there. I doubt RfoM2, primarily a single player game (even with a lacking story) can be the first to change that. Throwing more into a game doesn't necessarily make it better, on the old 64 player Counterstrike Source games it'd be too easy to forget what was going on and got much too messy. Strategy just went out the window. I'd tell the designers to focus on 32 players max with a better quality play experience.

We'll see I suppose. I really didn't like the first RfoM as it did feel a little generic to me. I'd say the single player was a bit more fun than Halo 3's though. Even though they were both nowhere near the quality of what Valve have been outputting to the FPS scene.

But the 2 campaigns feature does sound good. Makes me think of the old FPS games where you'd get 3 episodes and how I'd wish at least one new FPS would use again. 😱
 
aw i just bought Resistance 1, hope I didn't waste my money 🙂 I got it for 39.99 though, so its a deal. Can't wait, the co op sounds awesome.
 
^ Resistance is still one of the best games on the PS3 so you didn't waste your money at all.

Besides you have probably 9 months to wait for the sequel 🙂
 
Depends if Microsoft or Epic own the GOW IP. If Epic own it then yes, if Microsoft own the IP then no 🙂 hope that clears it up (or not) 😛


However the fact that Epic have said they are working on a specific PS3 new IP suggests that maybe GOW is actually owned partially or fully by M$
 
Yeah Microsoft owns Gears of War, the publisher always owns the IP as far as I know.

I just started playing GoW on the PC and it's been a disappointment so far, hopefully it will get better, all the game seems to be about is mindlessly shooting locusts while struggling with the god-awful cover controls, plus everything is brown 😕 and blood looks like huge droplets of red gel.

Yet another overblown hyped game that just doesn't do it for me but I guess it might get better later on.
 
I had issues with the GeOW but the cover system wasn't one of them. It was flawless on the 360 for me. Very intuitive and fun to play with. The colors were maybe a bit too black (I have HD CRT TV so very rich blacks) but not brown. Sorry the PC experience is lacking for you.

Paul
 
Chone said:
Yeah Microsoft owns Gears of War, the publisher always owns the IP as far as I know.

I just started playing GoW on the PC and it's been a disappointment so far, hopefully it will get better, all the game seems to be about is mindlessly shooting locusts while struggling with the god-awful cover controls, plus everything is brown 😕 and blood looks like huge droplets of red gel.

Yet another overblown hyped game that just doesn't do it for me but I guess it might get better later on.
Click to expand...


Yeah I heard the conversion to the PC wasn't so great. It wasn't a stellar game on the 360 to begin with but....
 
sikkinixx said:
Yeah I heard the conversion to the PC wasn't so great. It wasn't a stellar game on the 360 to begin with but....
Click to expand...

Not the biggest fan of it either... Thankfully at least Epic's UT3 is as solid and fun as ever (even against bots)

Chone said:
Yet another overblown hyped game that just doesn't do it for me but I guess it might get better later on.
Click to expand...


Yep pretty much exactly my experience... though I just couldn't be bothered to play it that far in. I hope for your sake it does improve 🙂
 
http://forums.gametrailers.com/showthread.php?t=284446&page=1

Scans from a GT forum member on Resistance 2...

The game is looking to be on a bigger and better scale than part one..I'm looking foward to this game.

I really hope they keep with the "fall of man" theme and actually have humans lose the battle.

It would be something unique if "man" actually lose the battle and the game is just an account of how it happened....that leaves it open to so many things.


Bless
 
2nyRiggz said:
It would be something unique if "man" actually lose the battle and the game is just an account of how it happened....that leaves it open to so many things.
Click to expand...


Kind of like Revenge of the Sith. That would be unique and kind of cool. Later down the line, there could be a game about Man's eventual return or uprising. It would be cool if a game didn't always have a hopeful/uplifting ending where the enemy is defeated or on their way to be defeated.
 
I never seen a game delivered on this part....the good guys always find a way right at the end to overcome which isn't a bad thing but if a game can pull of an epic story where "the fall of man" acts out actually like they say it will then I'm impressed.


Seems like Insomniac is going for a much darker tone than the 1st one.



Bless
 
I hope it is a "fall of man". Incidentally I was talking to a friend about how there are no real disaster films, as there is always a happy ending. Even the Chronicles of Narnia has a kind of bittersweet ending. Insomniac should play this card. Have a few people escape earth or go into permanent hiding. Just please have a sad ending that doesn't result in a sequel where everything is fixed.

For once!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back