Resistance 2: 60 Player Matches, 8 Player Online Co-Op,

Status
Not open for further replies.
ooo I definitely wouldn't put The Darkness over Resistance, that was barely a FPS to me, I just used the powers from around the corner to get people. I think all I ever used a gun for was shooting out lights
 
Resistance was crap. The afct that people jack off obver it just goes to show what a **** lineup the PS3 had. The screens for R2 look very nice... They fixed the stupid diffused lighting they used in the first game.
 
Resistance was crap. The afct that people jack off obver it just goes to show what a **** lineup the PS3 had. The screens for R2 look very nice... They fixed the stupid diffused lighting they used in the first game.

That's not true, Resistance is a good game. It's not the best or anything but it's fun for what it is. At least, I'm enjoying it. :yay:
 
The Darkness was bad, at least I didnt like it. CoD4, is by far the best FPS on the system. UT3 comes in second
 
And Similarly, The Darkness is a terrrible game.
Your mother is a ****e, and it's way better than Killzone.

As for this piece of crap game, the lighting looks better but the chimera still look stupid. And about the same quality as Resistance 1.
 
I love how everyone justifies the ******edly large multiplayer games by saying you'll have "squads". Oh so its not going to be a free-for-all, but one giant team deathmatch. :rolleyes:

Have fun dying every 5 seconds because there are so many people in the game.
 
"Squads" is never going to work. Even in the strictest military games, people lone-wolf it like crazy.
 
If you're in a big group and come across some stranded dude, he's screwed. There's no way one guy can take down a whole lot of peers. I've gotten lucky and have taken down maybe four, but I expected death.
 
I love how everyone justifies the ******edly large multiplayer games by saying you'll have "squads". Oh so its not going to be a free-for-all, but one giant team deathmatch. :rolleyes:

Have fun dying every 5 seconds because there are so many people in the game.

you could just choose to play a smaller game
 
I love how everyone justifies the ******edly large multiplayer games by saying you'll have "squads". Oh so its not going to be a free-for-all, but one giant team deathmatch. :rolleyes:

Have fun dying every 5 seconds because there are so many people in the game.

But the multiplayer worked just fine in Resistance 1, an that was 40 player games, 60 players with more structured environments and focusin on team based objectives will be probably end up just fine. "om a lot of people means the multiplayer will be bad!" Except tat wasn't the case with the oiginal (and even then smaller skirmishes will be an option just like in the original) so there's no 'justifying' about it because the number isn't ******ed, nor does it inherently make the multiplayer which none of us have played, good or bad. Maybe they'll pull it off, maybe they won't but accomodating a squad of 4 people or whatnot is a big thing they're designing the game around, and even the heavy needs the medic in Team Fortress.

Seriously you're probably bitvhing over nothing just to *****, think about it, if that doesn't work, you can always play the smaller scaled maps specifically scaled for a smaller numbr of players (as in a map that would be huge with 60 players will be tiny with 8). So eh, have fun justifying your negativity there, because it's going to be a hard sell.
 
The Orange Box, sure, but it's very different kind of FPS.

CoD4 sure it's better, but Resistance 1 isn't Resistance 2.

No chance in hell R6V

And Similarly, The Darkness is a terrrible game.

I'd only stick in Unreal Tournamnet because of the mod features.
Resistance holds its own again those FPS games, and tgere's no chance that R6V is a better FPS, nor the Darkness, so you're left with 2. 1 of which (UTIII) is about the most loosely 'balanced' FPS in history with a totall forgettable campaign. Because the Darkness was pretty bloody Terrible.

R6V walks all over it without looking back. You can go into detail about the graphics etc, whatever, but the gameplay was great, much better than Resistances'
 
I enjoy big deathmatches most of the time but 60 seems insane. However, I'm not gonna knock it until I've played it because it can turn out two ways. It might be the craziest thing ever but be fun as hell, or it could be a major pain as you wouldn't be able to respawn without someone planting a bullet in the back of your head
 
If people just played the smaller games wouldn't that just null the fact that they have 60 player deathmatchs?

no?
people who wants small games can play them and people that large games can play large games
 
60 players is ******ed. I played a 64 player deathmatch once in Call of Duty 4 on my PC. Worst experience in online gaming I ever had. The only thing it could be any fun whatsoever is if they go the Battlefield series' route with MASSIVE environments and lotsa vehicles.
 
블라스;13788311 said:
But, but, but....MORE OF EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS BETTER, AMIRITE??

Resistance was s**t. It doesn't matter whether it is less or more, it's still s**t.
 
블라스;13788311 said:
But, but, but....MORE OF EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS BETTER, AMIRITE??

It is in the context of massive battles over huge maps. You never had the problem of running into a person every 5 seconds with 40 players in the 40 player maps in the original and the new maps are apparently even bigger.
 
It is in the context of massive battles over huge maps. You never had the problem of running into a person every 5 seconds with 40 players in the 40 player maps in the original and the new maps are apparently even bigger.

I played Resistance 1 at Future Shop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,294
Messages
22,081,662
Members
45,881
Latest member
lucindaschatz
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"