I think the difference between Ratchet and Resistance is that there is a very clear vision on what a Ratchet game is. You can't say the same thing about a Resistance game.
Ratchet = furry space creature with robot campaign fighting some evil space nemesis with crazy weapons. Makes sense. It works. Sounds fun.
Resistance = alternate reality where WW2 never happened with some ancient virus/ bug thing that turns people into monsters and a bunch of other shit and characters that don't make sense....okay...
The only thing I truly hate about Resistance is the art. It's truly an ugly franchise. Hodge podged is an understatement. It's an utter mess.
Both, Resistance and Killzone, have missed potential as story wise, and Resistance gameplay wise.
The first Resistance had the best gameplay of the series. Game actually felt different from all the other tad slower paced modern age shooter games. The story was hurt by the second game, mainly because of Hale's sentinel history.
Killzone 2 felt more mature than 3. There was more time for characters emotions and characters weren't as one-sided. KZ3 disappointed me a lot because the story got more immature and kinda messed. It felt like GG didn't really know if the game supposed be this light-hearted-Hollywood-summer-war movie or should it be more about the soldiers and how affects them, how it breaks them, pure drama. The canon was also butchered by nuking the whole Helghan planet and killing everyone on it.
To me, Killzone has more potential than Resistance. (Resistance 3 will be the first IG game I won't be playing since Disruptor.)
They do make good games though, I hated the first Resistance single player with a passion but I still think it's a well made/good game. It just wasn't for me.
As for the Resistance franchise, to me it has more potential than the Killzone one and I'd like to see a franchise reboot developped by Guerrilla Games on the PS4.
Killzone has too few ennemy types -> Resistance has more ennemies and allow more freedom.
Killzone doesn't have original weapons -> Resistance has.
Resistance graphics ( in R2 and R3 ) are bad -> Guerrilla could fix this.
Resistance weapons don't have enough recoil, and your character's animation aren't good ( it looks like you have a robotic arm, it's too static ) -> Guerrilla could fix this too.
The choices you talk about are simply because of the different directions in terms of tone and story. The enemies in KZ are all humans. The KZ series is a space opera version of WWI and WWII rold on a personal scale. Hence comparisons about design choices between the two series are pointless. They were done on purpose.
@Atruvius
Spoilers? And you obviously didn't understand what happened at the end.
Not everyone on helgahn is dead and the planet was not "nuked" the natural petrusite veins underneath the planets surface exploded.
I played through Tools of Destruction, RFOM, and Crack in Time. The first two listed were okay. Crack in Time was good. None were great. I wouldn't call Insomniac top-tier, and I'm not excited about their multiplatform game. I don't wish them bankrupt or anything, I just don't sit here and look forward to the next Insomniac game.
So, yea, their games are fine. Resistance 2 was awful, but sometimes companies just can't deliver. That's alright. Maybe they just have too much pressure to get a game out every year.
I thought the demo for RFOM and the beta for R2 were pretty bad. I haven't played R3 yet so can't judge it. RR demo was good while the PSV Resistance looks downright horrible. I do like the Killzone universe and am looking forward to buying Killzone 3 when it drops in price, GG is always messing up somewhere on Killzone, no online co op was a bonehead move that cost them me buying the game Day 1. That and they CODfied the multiplayer too much.
I platinumed that game. Thought it was okay, not as good as some people make it out to be and not as good as the PS2 Ratchets. I also like to point out that IG is not as "looking out to the consumer" as Naughty Dog is for example. ND was one of the first to patch their game for trophies while all IG gave were excuses due to their expansion and stuff. I think they see themselves being bigger and more prestigious than they really are.
Call me an idiot but it wasn't a particularly good FPS. It plays like a PS2 era Medal of Honor, but with less crap going on and is outclassed by games that came out years before it.
I've said it before but, RFOM isn't a particularly good game. It was only seen as one given the vacuum of games in the PS3 launch window.
Insomniac have done very well this gen imo, the R&C games have been great, RfoM was amazing, ok r2 was a dud but if they can pull it out the bag with R3 then I'd say they can be pretty happy with what they achieved this gen.
I think its good that they finish up the trilogy and then let someone else do them. They are a group of creative talented people and they can then focus on their own IP (Over Strike), maybe another IP to and continue doing R&C games (I hope)
For the people who think Resistance is bottom of the barrel as far as FPSs go, I'm curious what games you consider to be better or the best in the genre? People are really vitriolic about their hatred for the series. I think it has great atmosphere, gameplay, and lore.
I've played the Halos and Half-Lifes but personally found them to be a bit too sterile to be any fun.
To me, Resistance:FOM ranks up there with Bioshock and Portal (if this counts as an FPS) as being my favorites this gen. (And I'd easily include it along with Jumping Flash, Metroid Prime, and Doom as my favorite first person games ever).
The GAF Insomniac hate is becoming a fashionable meme that has little connection with reality. It's like if a game doesn't get 90+ on Metacritic then it's shit and the developers are incompetent.
The Ratchet games are generally of a high standard and Crack in Time is just an excellent game. I agree the franchise is a little tired but that's as much Sony's fault as it is Insomniac's. Resistance FOM was fine for a launch title, especially on a platform that was frankly unfinished at launch. R2 was a bit sloppy but it was rushed and Insomniac have admitted that and taken significant steps to address it (moving to a three year dev cycle).
I'm looking forward to seeing how R3 and A4O turn out, certainly no reason to write them off at the moment.
Although I like Resistance games and I wont hesitate on getting R3 , the series did not get the appeal that are needed to survive this days. FPS are this generation are like JRPG on the PS2 era, to much options.
Uncharted gets WAY too much merit, especially on GAF. Now, as great as the franchise is, as talented as Naughty Dog is, as well made as the Uncharted games, what exactly do they do? I mean, besides the incredible graphics and impressive cinematics, what does that franchise do to stick out?
There is NOTHING about Uncharted that makes it unique. The platforming segements, though nice inclusions, don't add enough difficulty to consider them noteworthy. The puzzles are fairly rudimentary. The shooting and cover mechanics are alright, but not rock solid like other games. The story and characters? Okay, Indiana Jones, the game, minus Harrison Ford.
Don't even dare say Gears of War is slow. I've been playing that game competively since 2006. Sure, the campaign is a pop and stop shooter, but the multiplayer is entirely different. If you know how to roadie run (holding A...derp) and wallbounce, then you know that game is hardly slow. This isn't debatable.
Halo offers superb controls, online funcationality and matchmaking. Call of Duty offers a deep perk and leveling system, plus an experience that is easy to pick up and play. Gears of War has all kinds of unique competitive and co-op modes. Hell, Killzone has incredible atmosphere and immersion. Uncharted doesn't offer anything that is unique, or anything that I can only experience in that game. Don't get me wrong, the Uncharted games are a lot of fun. But there is nothing about them that makes me say, "OH SHIT! I gotta go back. I must revisit that game!"
It's not innovative. It's not revolutionary. It's not leading or influencing anything. It gets praise, but you don't hear or see other developers tring to do what Naughty Dog does. Other games aren't trying to be like Uncharted. They're trying to be like Halo, like CoD, like Gears, ect.
So I ask you, once again, besides pretty graphics and high caliber cutscenes, what does Uncharted offer that is special? What sets it apart from other games? How is it pushing the envelope?
Killzone and Resistance overstayed their welcome it's time for Sony to focus on new things with their first party stable. I don't see why they would or should stick with those two franchises. In any case Insomniac is a good bunch so I'm sure they'll land on their feet with Overstrike. It looks like their most interesting project since the first Resistance.
I kind of agree that if the games were multiplatform then there wouldn't be the same love for these series.
Toppot said:
I think its good that they finish up the trilogy and then let someone else do them. They are a group of creative talented people and they can then focus on their own IP (Over Strike), maybe another IP to and continue doing R&C games (I hope)
I'm in the "R&C:aCiT" camp too. Loved that game. One of the best, most fun PS3 exclusives out there. I don't get the Insomniac hate. Just because they made *one* disappointing game, they should give it up and close shop? Pleasee ...
Uncharted gets WAY too much merit, especially on GAF. Now, as great as the franchise is, as talented as Naughty Dog is, as well made as the Uncharted games, what exactly do they do? I mean, besides the incredible graphics and impressive cinematics, what does that franchise do to stick out?
There is NOTHING about Uncharted that makes it unique. The platforming segements, though nice inclusions, don't add enough difficulty to consider them noteworthy. The puzzles are fairly rudimentary. The shooting and cover mechanics are alright, but not rock solid like other games. The story and characters? Okay, Indiana Jones, the game, minus Harrison Ford.
Don't even dare say Gears of War is slow. I've been playing that game competively since 2006. Sure, the campaign is a pop and stop shooter, but the multiplayer is entirely different. If you know how to roadie run (holding A...derp) and wallbounce, then you know that game is hardly slow. This isn't debatable.
Halo offers superb online funcationality and matchmaking. Call of Duty offers a deep perk and leveling system. Gears of War has all kinds of co-op modes. Hell, Killzone has incredible atmosphere and immersion. Uncharted doesn't offer anything that is unique, or anything that I can only experience in that game. Don't get me wrong, the Uncharted games are a lot of fun. But there is nothing about them that makes me say, "OH SHIT! I gotta go back. I must revisit that game!"
It's not innovative. It's not revolutionary. It's not leading or influencing anything. It gets praise, but you don't hear or see other developers tring to do what Naughty Dog does. Other games aren't trying to be like Uncharted. They're trying to be like Halo, like CoD, like Gears, ect.
So I ask you, once again, besides pretty graphics and high caliber cutscenes, what does Uncharted offer that is special? What sets it apart from other games? How is it pushing the envelope?
It's simply a ridiculously fun and does third-person cover shooting a lot better than Gears of War. The traversal mechanics add the necessary layer to differentiate it enough so it's better than GeOW.
And it's fun hearing that if games like Resistance and Killzone weren't PS3 exclusives, they wouldn't get as much attention. Perhaps that's true, but I also bet that they get unwarranted flak just because they're exclusives. Actually, same goes for pretty much any exclusive game.
For the people who think Resistance is bottom of the barrel as far as FPSs go, I'm curious what games you consider to be better or the best in the genre? People are really vitriolic about their hatred for the series. I think it has great atmosphere, gameplay, and lore.
I've played the Halos and Half-Lifes but personally found them to be a bit too sterile to be any fun.
To me, Resistance:FOM ranks up there with Bioshock and Portal (if this counts as an FPS) as being my favorites this gen. (And I'd easily include it along with Jumping Flash, Metroid Prime, and Doom as my favorite first person games ever).
I think it's crap, I wouldn't say 'bottom of the barrel', there are worse shooters, but arguing degress of bad is pretty pointless. It's the worst shooter I've owned this generation.
For shooters this generation that outclass it, certainly HL2 and it's episodes, BioShock, I'm kind of a CoD hater, but all of those are better, all three Halo's, both Left 4 Dead's, both Bad Companies, Borderlands, the three Cryses, all the FEARs, Mirror's Edge probably shouldn't count, but I'll list it anyway, Singularity, Far Cry Instincts Predator, I didn't play all of Wolfenstein, but what I did was better, both Killzone's, no doubt more if I looked harder.
Now 3D platformers better than R&C this generation would be a very small list, but that says more about the state of the genre really.
Don't even dare say Gears of War is slow. I've been playing that game competively since 2006. Sure, the campaign is a pop and stop shooter, but the multiplayer is entirely different. If you know how to roadie run (holding A...derp) and wallbounce, then you know that game is hardly slow.
Has the R3 Beta reception really been so bad that people want this series killed? The SP videos looked great to me, far better and more promising than anything in the first two games (I didn't even played the second actually with how boring it looked).
Uncharted gets WAY too much merit, especially on GAF. Now, as great as the franchise is, as talented as Naughty Dog is, as well made as the Uncharted games, what exactly do they do? I mean, besides the incredible graphics and impressive cinematics, what does that franchise do to stick out?
There is NOTHING about Uncharted that makes it unique. The platforming segements, though nice inclusions, don't add enough difficulty to consider them noteworthy. The puzzles are fairly rudimentary. The shooting and cover mechanics are alright, but not rock solid like other games. The story and characters? Okay, Indiana Jones, the game, minus Harrison Ford.
Don't even dare say Gears of War is slow. I've been playing that game competively since 2006. Sure, the campaign is a pop and stop shooter, but the multiplayer is entirely different. If you know how to roadie run (holding A...derp) and wallbounce, then you know that game is hardly slow. This isn't debatable.
Halo offers superb online funcationality and matchmaking. Call of Duty offers a deep perk and leveling system. Gears of War has all kinds of co-op modes. Hell, Killzone has incredible atmosphere and immersion. Uncharted doesn't offer anything that is unique, or anything that I can only experience in that game. Don't get me wrong, the Uncharted games are a lot of fun. But there is nothing about them that makes me say, "OH SHIT! I gotta go back. I must revisit that game!"
It's not innovative. It's not revolutionary. It's not leading or influencing anything. It gets praise, but you don't hear or see other developers tring to do what Naughty Dog does. Other games aren't trying to be like Uncharted. They're trying to be like Halo, like CoD, like Gears, ect.
So I ask you, once again, besides pretty graphics and high caliber cutscenes, what does Uncharted offer that is special? What sets it apart from other games? How is it pushing the envelope?
You're right, Uncharted doesn't bring anything new to the table. However, I think your underestimating the pull of a game that has a well told story, fun/interesting characters, and polished mechanics. It's rare that game nails all three of those factors.
I'm in the "R&C:aCiT" camp too. Loved that game. One of the best, most fun PS3 exclusives out there. I don't get the Insomniac hate. Just because they made *one* disappointing game, they should give it up and close shop? Pleasee ...
Has the R3 Beta reception really been so bad that people want this series killed? The SP videos looked great to me, far better and more promising than anything in the first two games (I didn't even played the second actually with how boring it looked).
The beta is alarmingly unpolished, especially considering that the game's out soon and despite the fact that Insomniac allowed themselves a longer development time. The SP looks great, yeah, but... I dunno. I have R3 preordered, but I pray I don't get burned.
Uncharted gets WAY too much merit, especially on GAF. Now, as great as the franchise is, as talented as Naughty Dog is, as well made as the Uncharted games, what exactly do they do? I mean, besides the incredible graphics and impressive cinematics, what does that franchise do to stick out?
There is NOTHING about Uncharted that makes it unique. The platforming segements, though nice inclusions, don't add enough difficulty to consider them noteworthy. The puzzles are fairly rudimentary. The shooting and cover mechanics are alright, but not rock solid like other games. The story and characters? Okay, Indiana Jones, the game, minus Harrison Ford.
Don't even dare say Gears of War is slow. I've been playing that game competively since 2006. Sure, the campaign is a pop and stop shooter, but the multiplayer is entirely different. If you know how to roadie run (holding A...derp) and wallbounce, then you know that game is hardly slow. This isn't debatable.
Halo offers superb online funcationality and matchmaking. Call of Duty offers a deep perk and leveling system. Gears of War has all kinds of co-op modes. Hell, Killzone has incredible atmosphere and immersion. Uncharted doesn't offer anything that is unique, or anything that I can only experience in that game. Don't get me wrong, the Uncharted games are a lot of fun. But there is nothing about them that makes me say, "OH SHIT! I gotta go back. I must revisit that game!"
It's not innovative. It's not revolutionary. It's not leading or influencing anything. It gets praise, but you don't hear or see other developers tring to do what Naughty Dog does. Other games aren't trying to be like Uncharted. They're trying to be like Halo, like CoD, like Gears, ect.
So I ask you, once again, besides pretty graphics and high caliber cutscenes, what does Uncharted offer that is special? What sets it apart from other games? How is it pushing the envelope?
Do you know any other game that offers online gameplay in third person with platforming elements? Nope, yet Uncharted does it very well. There's something unique going for it.
The game has great graphics, great gameplay, and likeable characters. Cover mechanics aren't rock solid? They are. What more do you want it to do?
What you said to put it down can be twisted to any other game...
What exactly makes COD unique? The gunplay? It's been the same for ages. Leveling up? It just stole it from other games that done it before. The graphics? They're average at best. Besides the fact that everyone plays it online what exactly makes it stick out? (See?)
And developers aren't trying to do what Naughty Dog does? Have you checked spec ops? Have you checked the new tomb raider?
For the people who think Resistance is bottom of the barrel as far as FPSs go, I'm curious what games you consider to be better or the best in the genre?
Best? Half-Life series, Portal series if we're counting that, FEAR 1 and its first expansion pack.
Almost best? Bioshock 1
Wholly under-rated but similarly despised? TimeShift and the first two Call of Juarez
Out of date and poorly aged but still better for its time? GoldenEye.
Better recent console exclusive FPS? Halo Reach.
Better recent Sony console exclusive FPS? Killzone 3.
Better PC exclusive FPS? Crysis.
Better multi-platform FPS dumbed down because of console ports? Crysis 2.
Better FPS considered Doom clones? Dark Forces and DN3D.
Better FPS considered a recent and massive bomb? DNF.
Better FPS that came with my box of cereal? Chex Quest.
I've played more FPS's than I can probably remember and RFOM is bottom 10%. Easily.
Turn up sensitivity, hold A to run and don't sit in cover all day like an idiot. Oh and learn to wallbounce. Once you grasp all of those (simple) concepts, go ahead and try to convince me that the game is slow.
There is such a thing as playing a game the wrong way. This is common in Gears. However, to be fair, it's not for everyone. It's a little strange and a lot different than most games. The learning curve is fairly high too.
Take my word for it, especially someone who has been playing it for as long as I have. It's not slow. I'm not suggesting that you should use the Gnasher exclusively and jump around cover like a nut. That's not the right way to play either. But, if you think it's slow, you're playing it wrong. Period.
The beta is alarmingly unpolished, especially considering that the game's out soon and despite the fact that Insomniac allowed themselves a longer development time. The SP looks great, yeah, but... I dunno. I have R3 preordered, but I pray I don't get burned.
The beta is alarmingly unpolished, especially considering that the game's out soon and despite the fact that Insomniac allowed themselves a longer development time. The SP looks great, yeah, but... I dunno. I have R3 preordered, but I pray I don't get burned.
Yap, bugs come up too close to launch. Hope 2.0.4 today nail them.
But the gameplay is intense and fun though. ^_^
I play games to get away from work for short breaks. It's really hard to pull away from R3 MP once I get going. >_<
Well being awesomely cool (and handsome) has not anything to do with making good games. I really enjoy their games some people dont. Im cool with that but what surprises me is the sheer bitterness... i mean 'closing them down'? Harsh words.
Turn up sensitivity, hold A to run and don't sit in cover all day like an idiot. Oh and learn to wallbounce. Once you grasp all of those (simple) concepts, go ahead and try to convince me that the game is slow.
Making a lot of bold assumptions aren't you about how I play, as if I haven't gone through the options. None of that is going to change the feel of the characters. They all feel heavy and unwieldy. I don't want to convince you, that's how I feel and not everyone is going to feel the same as you.
I find the MP beta somewhat fun, though I haven't invested too much time with it. It just worries me that despite the longer dev time than their other games, it still comes off as unpolished. KZ3's MP is much more fun to me, but I seem to be in the GAF minority.
I wouldn't be surprised if they went 100% multiplat next-gen.
As for the Resistance franchise, to me it has more potential than the Killzone one and I'd like to see a franchise reboot developped by Guerrilla Games on the PS4.
Killzone has too few ennemy types -> Resistance has more ennemies and allow more freedom.
Killzone doesn't have original weapons -> Resistance has.
Resistance graphics ( in R2 and R3 ) are bad -> Guerrilla could fix this.
Resistance weapons don't have enough recoil, and your character's animation aren't good ( it looks like you have a robotic arm, it's too static ) -> Guerrilla could fix this too.
I hope Sony decides to be done with the franchise for good instead of putting Guerilla on an IP that is not their own, of course they can put Bend on Resistance since Bend is more of a second-tier studio, they can hire Ready At Dawn for something like this but it's kind of a waste anytime you have a top-tier studio and you force them to work on another team's IP when they want to develop and work on their own IPs.
