-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NY Times: A Playful Controller and 2 Alien shoot-em-ups
- Thread starter DenogginizerOS
- Start date
- Status
DenogginizerOS said:
Uh, the AI in Resistance is 2nd only to Halo in FPS games. It completely destroys the R6 Vegas AI that's receiving some praise and is a hell of a lot better than Gears AI as well. The enemies are very smart and use all sorts of non-scripted tactics on you. Each time through an area can produce different firefights like how it is in Halo.
So yeah, for calling out the AI he's an idiot and shows he probably only played the first level or two (as is anyone who calls out the AI in Resistance).
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
dark10x said:
I haven't played Resistance. But after reading the article and comparing it to the Official thread and what I have heard from other people, it just seems very odd. I would like to point out as the OP that I posted this because I thought it was an interesting take on the console wars by another mainstream media source. I also find it to be interesting that some of you are very defensive about the comments being made by this journo with regards to Resistance. It only confirms that Resistance will be one of the first games I buy whenever I get a PS3.
Chris Remo
Member
He didn't say "a 5 year-old Xbox title." He said something you could see on the Xbox, which is five years old. He's obviously not right on the money there, but he's also not far off. The game looks really good but it doesn't make many huge strides graphically, it just ups the texture resolution and geometry rather than something like Gears which from a technical perspective really is startlingly different. I own both games and have played both for hours, and I feel comfortable saying that. From a mainstream perspective especially, I think it's reasonable.kenta said:
nelsonroyale said:
I think that the point here is that people who are not looking for game reviews. That's a much bigger audience than people who are. And, beyond the fact that NYT is probably the most popular newspaper in America(USA Today?), it's articles are, as was pointed out by someone else earlier in the thread, picked up by many other, smaller papers.
And yes, his criticisms of Resistance are hyperbole, but, in the grand scheme of things, almost no one who reads this will know that.
I have no idea if he got paid to do it. He could just have a chip on his shoulder about PS3 hype, pricing etc. All I know is that it's a pretty deliberate teardown clearly thumbing his nose at much more positive feedback. But it's practically meritless. If somebody is going to call AI "lackluster", then I expect it to be downright dumb, but Resistance AI holds its own with the better FPSes I've played. It's not better than anything we've already played but it's not like we have a surplus of really good AI in games that you could call this lackluster by being so commonplace. The AI will alternately take defensive action or actively root you out, depending on the circumstances which rely as much on how you approach each skirmish as the starting setup (initial enemy placement, etc.) for that skirmish. So the battles rarely play out the same way, in no small part because the enemy reacts to changing conditions appropriately.
As for his comment about the visuals, I really hope I don't have to dignify that further.
As for his comment about the visuals, I really hope I don't have to dignify that further.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
vantastic said:
Failing at reading comprehension. :lol
It just seems like everyone is so pissed at Sony for the price and lack of units and lack of OMG 4D, that the media, most of GAF, and probably most of the Joe Sixpack gamers are taking it out by going into every PS3 game and hardware feature with a huge bias to want it to fail.
If Resistance was on the X360 it'd be revered and praised in dozens of threads and papers as a neck and neck tie with Gears as MS's biggest non-Halo franchise.
People want the PS3 to fail and its games to suck. I don't really get it, as hardware is just the means to play good games regardless of which system they were developed on, but Resistance is taking the majority of the flack for the PS3 hate since it's the only AAA game on the system.
If they wanted to hate on the PS3 they should just compare PS3 Gundam to X360 Gears. Then they can say from their one game test, the PS3 sucks and there would be no bias.
If Resistance was on the X360 it'd be revered and praised in dozens of threads and papers as a neck and neck tie with Gears as MS's biggest non-Halo franchise.
People want the PS3 to fail and its games to suck. I don't really get it, as hardware is just the means to play good games regardless of which system they were developed on, but Resistance is taking the majority of the flack for the PS3 hate since it's the only AAA game on the system.
If they wanted to hate on the PS3 they should just compare PS3 Gundam to X360 Gears. Then they can say from their one game test, the PS3 sucks and there would be no bias.
dark10x said:It's pretty much one of the best looking FPS titles ever released on any platform, you know.
simply outstanding. i haven't played this yet but i have played through GoW and to tell the truth, i can see why people would rate these games very closely in the graphics department. that environment looks so huge and awesome with lots of polys building a lot of structures all the way to the distance. lighting looks nice too. and of course GoW looks like heat-rocks too. really fun game. now i want to play RFoM.
Chris Remo
Member
Most games aren't the showcase titles for $500/$600 systems that purport to change the very fabric of reality with their mindbending graphical power.HyperionX said:
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
bigfurb said:
No. I can't. But it still doesn't take away from the fact that the author stated as such. As I said earlier, I find it difficult to believe after seeing the vids and screens of Resistance that any game on Xbox comes close to Resistance. But for whatever reason, this person is not as impressed with Resistance like many of the people in this thread are. Other than money being given to the author, I simply don't understand how this guy could be so off with regards to Resistance and be spot-on with Gears and Zelda. And since we are on the subject of AI, Dom from Gears of War has to be one of the dumbest NPC's I have ever had the displeasure of playing with.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Why does money have to be involved? I don't think a lot of cheerleaders at gaf get paid.
I'm sure the guy finished and played Zelda, GoW, and Resistance in about two weeks time. Who cares what this douche says? He barely played the games. People who are interested in gaming will read real reviews, not this BS.
Edit: And to the people saying OMG NYT. They used to run an extra section every Thursday called Circuits. It was a tech section and a review such as this would probably be on the front cover. They've now replaced it with a special Fashion section, and Circuits has been relegated to 2-3 pages. It would have been more damaging in the old setup, but now that you have to actually search for the review, not so much.
Edit: And to the people saying OMG NYT. They used to run an extra section every Thursday called Circuits. It was a tech section and a review such as this would probably be on the front cover. They've now replaced it with a special Fashion section, and Circuits has been relegated to 2-3 pages. It would have been more damaging in the old setup, but now that you have to actually search for the review, not so much.
frankthurk
Member
> Why does money have to be involved? I don't think a lot of cheerleaders at gaf get paid.
Agreed, people (including journalists) have opinions and biases, no need for money to be involved. With Resistance especially if you only played through the first level or two I could understand his statements. But it is a good reason not to put too much faith in such reviews IMO.
Agreed, people (including journalists) have opinions and biases, no need for money to be involved. With Resistance especially if you only played through the first level or two I could understand his statements. But it is a good reason not to put too much faith in such reviews IMO.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Musashi Wins! said:
How else would one logically explain the disparity between what the usual suspects on GAF are saying versus what the author of the article stated?
Bebpo said:
The funny part is one time I tried to outflank one of the chimeras but I couldn't find it, because it went around and tried to outflank me!!! At the end in the tower, I was always being pinned down by bulleye gunfire and an advanced hybrid was always trying to rush my position to take me out. ~_~
As I said, it's entirely possible that he played no further than the first chapter, which is quite bland in comparison to what lies ahead. The visuals seem a bit dull and the encounters are not all that great (low numbers with lack of AI prowess demonstrated). The game simply starts off slow. Considering that it's possibly twice as long as Gears, though, it's not a huge deal, as it REALLY picks up as you make your way through.
I do not believe that this reviewer devoted anymore than an hour (at most) to the game. It's not a bad game within that first hour, but you won't walk away impressed either.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
DenogginizerOS said:
One perspective = Man who doesn't nitpick or play close attention to games rights an article.
One perspective = Bepbo and Dark praise a Playstation game to high heavens.
Truth = ?
No excessive checks necessary!
edit = in the interest of fairness!
Another perspective = Denogginizer goes suspiciously far in defending said casual article :lol
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
So, basically, the conclusion is the reason the author is so off base with regards to Resistance is because Zelda and Gears likely are more impressive within their first hour, while Resistance proves to be lackluster within its first hour? And here I have been hearing Zelda is a bit hard to get into at first.
While Zelda is lackluster early on, it also demonstrates the capabilites of the Wii-mote very well and serves as a basis for a solid adventure. The use of the Wii-mote alone would likely garner positive press, as they all seem to adore it.DenogginizerOS said:
Resistance literally feels like nothing special at all during it's first hour. I was completely skeptical of the game after Gears and was very "meh" after my first session.
I'm simply defending the game as I feel it is getting a bad reputation. All three games are AAA and we should be thrilled to have received each of them in the span of one month.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
dark10x said:
So do we all agree that the author of this mainstream article that is in a newspaper read by millions has misrepresented Resistance unfairly? Or would the author's remarks been less controversial if he admitted in the article that he only played Resistance for about an hour? Its sounds to me that his comments are only a very partial truth with regards to Resistance.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
kaching said:First hint that he's not serious was back when he said he respects my opinion
You sir are both a scholar and a gentleman. And despite our disagreements, I find your responses to be well thought out and refreshingly articulate.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
What's really depressing about Resistance review in general is that the game is, for artistic/story purposes, intentionally starting off "generic" and getting weirder/cooler as it goes. Hence the comparisons to Half Life.
Unfortunately, that seems to have bitten them on the ass review-wise, since the reviews seem to really get hung up on that early reaction.
I'm only a few hours into the game (not even halfway through) and I can tell you already it has some pretty novel stuff in it.
Unfortunately, that seems to have bitten them on the ass review-wise, since the reviews seem to really get hung up on that early reaction.
I'm only a few hours into the game (not even halfway through) and I can tell you already it has some pretty novel stuff in it.
I think he said what he needed to say - he felt the game was not exeptional at all. It's not a game review, it's an article giving an overview of the new systems, and Resistance is one game on the system. For the purposes of the article, that's all the detail needed.kaching said:
My Arms Your Hearse
Banned
DenogginizerOS said:
You really think Resistance doesn't look better than Xbox games? :lol :lol
Chris Remo said:
Oh. My. God.
Gears of War is a Doom 3 era engine with the unified lighting stripped out. Low poly overly normal mapped blocky rigid characters. Mostly tiny enclosed environments. An amateur effects system. And the engine can't handle more than 8 players at once in multiplayer.
Yeah, 'startling' :lol Golf clap Epic.
But, hey, it's got those lovely bogus highrez marketing shots of bright lights on bumpy/shiny metal that Xbox fans live for.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
My Arms Your Hearse said:
I have no idea. I haven't played Resistance.
Chris Remo
Member
Great. Golf clap you. See, the funny thing is that when you're actually playing it, it looks really impressive. And I played Doom 3 when it came out. The game is not "mostly tiny enclosed environments." You can throw as many buzzwords as you want at me, but the game looks really damn good and it runs at a really solid framerate.Marathon said:
DenogginizerOS said:
I'm one of those people who doesn't think reviewers are generally "bought off" by Microsoft. I do however see some degree of bias among reviewers in favor of Gears over Resistance. I think this is due to several factors but these seem to be the main 3:
1) Unrealistic expectation for launch titles on Playstation, which traditionally has not had AAA titles due to various reasons such as the effort of learning to develop on a new platform and 'playing safe' when you want to capture a whole new mainstream audience. Every launch of ANY system tends to be accompanied by 'generic' racers, sports and action games. Only Nintendo, which has managed to make innovative/polished first party titles its trademark, tends to be the exception to this rule.
2) Resistance ending up caught in the firing line as Sony chose to tout it as their "killer app"to show off their new system's capabilities (which, luckily for them it actually does) And thus invoking the glare of the large number of gamers who are, how shall we say, less than enamored of Sony.
3) A long period of publicity and anticipation of GroW, coupled with years of respect for Epic's shooters. By comparison, Resistance was completely unknown as late as E3 where it suffered from the very 'generic' first impressions we're now all too familiar with.
I also happen to think that this guy is giving his honest opinion about his impressions of the game (what little he played of it - more on that later)
Even those on these forums who love Rfom seem to agree that first level or so is somewhat 'bland' or even 'boring' and then when you reach Manchester or Nottingham there's a feeling that the game suddenly kicks up a notch in graphical quality as well as gameplay.
Also seems pretty clear Gears wins overall on graphics - the texture detail, normal mapping, and other very nice effects such as the water running over rainy surfaces, etc, etc.
But the main problem I have with this article is that like so many reviewers, I have a sneaking suspicion he never got very far into the game, let alone parts of the last levels where the visuals get really jaw-dropping (and yes, dare I say it!) better than Gears.
It's been well documented that Gears can be breezed through in as little as 6 hours, but Resistance is HARD and even those I've seen having finish it in 11 hours didn't do it one sitting - usually it's taking at least 3 days to physically complete it. I get the impression a lot of "professional" reviewers just don't have the time to sit through such a 'bland' title to the end and prefer instead to take a glance over Metacritic and do it that way.
As for whether Resistance is an "innovative" game, perhaps it doesn't Fall into that category. But does Resistance innovate? Does it "advance the genre" as I keep reading it doesn't? Most definitely it does. And not just on the surface. A lot of what Rfom does that no other game has done before is going on under the hood. If we're talking technological innovation, Rfom has that in spades. The problem is some of the features (apart from the awesome visual effects such as glass, snow and pyrotechnics, each of which blow Gears away) tend to be subtle things that only hours and hours of play can you appreciate. Here are a few I can think of:
a) Weapons. Duh.
b) physics, collision and animation systems all working together seamlessly. (for example you don't see enemies in Rfom standing halfway out from a stairway as you do in 'older gen' games like Gears because their legs don't conform to it)
c) ragdoll & physics. Gears ragdoll is all over the place, like so many other examples such as Too Human. Gears took the Havoc engine but did nothing with it. (You'll run past an object and it may stick in your ass and follow you around the level)
d) the animation blending system itself, combining a huge number of unique animations.
e) underrated enemy and allied AI. It may not be as good as FEAR, but again those who have put in some hours on the game will realize these enemies actually learn from repeated scenarios and get better and better at fighting you.
It's these kind of things that makes players say "it all just feels so solid and smooth". Not pinpointing exactly what it is, but it's the sum effect of all these painstaking additions that make it all so truly "next gen".
f) 40 player online. Again - duh. In a year's time it will just be an expected given.
Insomniac has a reputation for adding lots of individual innovations to existing genres rather than trying to "re-invent" the genre, and then you get countless games (even Mario!) copying them. I'd bet that in a years' time people EXPECT all the subtle innovations that are present in Resistance and when they look at other games they'll look remarkably clunky and 'old gen'.
Oh and I've already seen new weapons touted in Halo 3 that sound remarkably familiar...
This is some sort of banner day - Denog calls me a scholar and a gentleman and now it seems GhaleonEB took me off ignore!
I totally get that he wanted to trash the game - how is that not clear from what I've said? No need to try to rationalize it with this backwards "its an overview, not a review" malarkey.
Okay so you say it's not a review, just an overview...but rather than explain why the game has gotten the "rave reviews" he alludes to (which would be considered an actual overview of the game's reception) he instead provides a personal opinion of the game (which is generally regarded as what a review is).GhaleonEB said:
I totally get that he wanted to trash the game - how is that not clear from what I've said? No need to try to rationalize it with this backwards "its an overview, not a review" malarkey.
hyp
Member
great, another gears vs. resistance thread.
wii says: "hey guys, what about miiiiii?"
in other news, gears and resistance are both awesome games. i've had the pleasure of playing them both and am about halfway done in resistance. to all the 360 diehards, no, it's not a gears or halo killer... but it's a damn **** good game.
wii says: "hey guys, what about miiiiii?"
in other news, gears and resistance are both awesome games. i've had the pleasure of playing them both and am about halfway done in resistance. to all the 360 diehards, no, it's not a gears or halo killer... but it's a damn **** good game.
- Status