Print

[jaygould30]

Well I figured some people might be interested. This is the first official review (in english) that I've seen for Resistance: Fall of Man for the PS3. All in all it seems like a great game. To bad the system is far to expensive and in to limited of a supply for anyone to actually play the game. At least the system will have 1 decent game to play at launch, since most others are looking rather crappy.





Something I'd like to address though. I keep hearing PS3 fanboys all over gaming sites making statements about how the 360 had no killer apps at launch and we had to wait a year for GoW while they are getting one on day one. I'd just like to express my opinion that the 360 came out rather early in it's production cycle, while developers have actually had the past year in addition to work on there games for the PS3. You have to wonder if it's even fair to call something that took this long a launch title. In reality I think that the PS3 is just as far along as it's competition. I also still don't think the 360 launch titles were that bad. This game doesn't seem to be that far ahead on Call of Duty 2 at launch (at least in scores). Also add in the fact that there were a lot more "good" games at launch then the PS3 seems to have. But none of this really suprises me. Playstation fans will blow one success out of proportion so that it overshadows all the other failures.

Thats my opinion, feel free to express yours.

[silentbob343]

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/745/745206p1.html
I'm pretty excited to play come launch day.

QUOTE

As strong as everything in Resistance is, the real standout factor in the experience is its multiplayer. Simply put, it's incredible. Jacked in from multiple locations (via broadband Internet connection) we were consistently able to enjoy 30-40 player games with no noticeable lag whatsoever (Insomniac did a fantastic job of hiding what little latency there appears to be). And while all these opponents made for crazy all-out wars, the multiplayer options are flexible enough to allow users to scale maps downward to accommodate smaller parties (40, 32, 24, 16 map types), choose Chimeran or Human sides (complete with unique abilities), and alter the rules to allow for a multitude of possibilities.

Sounds nice

oh and $10 says this thread turns in to GoW vs RFOM, though I hope it does not.

This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 11 2006, 10:47 PM

[throwingks]

^
If you are allowed to touch that thing on launch day, you have a much nicer brother than you realize. Or, you are capable of beating him up. 1 or the other.

[Boydster]

Resistance should not have been a launch title. If the PS3 were to launch ON SCHEDULE, all of sony's bitches would have had to of waiten a year for their killer app just like MS's.

But anyways, if I were to keep the PS3 I'm getting(hopefully), i'd be stoked about RFOM. That's the only game that makes me sort of want to maybe kind of lean towards buying one for myself. Between GOW and RFOM, I'd personally rather have RFOM for the multiplayer, but I've already got a 360 and GOW so that's what I'm going to stick with. $500 + $60 + tax is not worth it for one game.

[silentbob343]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 11 2006, 05:13 PM)

^
If you are allowed to touch that thing on launch day, you have a much nicer brother than you realize. Or, you are capable of beating him up. 1 or the other. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

lol, he did mention that he was going to buy a second controller so I guess he wants to play with someone.

Even better is that weekend is his 1 year anniversary.  So who gets to have fun with the PS3 while he is off doing the anniversary thing that weekend… (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

QUOTE(Boydster @ Nov 11 2006, 05:35 PM)

$500 + $60 + tax is not worth it for one game.

That is a silly argument.  Is any system worth buying for A game?  I truly hope people aren't dropping $300-$600 on consoles because of one title, regardless of make.  I love the RE series and I couldn't even bring myself to drop the coin on a GC back when they were doing the remakes and RE4 was exclusive to the GC.  That was a series and I couldn't do it.

I keep hearing about how these games aren't launch titles, then why isn't there a years worth of titles availbe upon launch?  I agree that more dev time was had, but I'm not sure it's as much some of us think or had the impact we wantto believe.

This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 11 2006, 11:25 PM

[jaygould30]

I obviously don't want this to turn into an arguement of GoW and Resistance. Thats not my intentions. I do think the game is good and unlike Sony fans I don't have any need to bad mouth either side because I'm a gamer not a fanboy. I'm not loyal to anyone...only what I like. It just turns out that MS has more games in the works that I'm interested in then Sony does. To be honest I've never been into many Sony games and for that reason I've never really been a big Sony guy. But when they do come out with good games I give it the praise it deserves. Basically what I'm saying is loyalty is overrated, especially to large companies like Sony or MS who are really very similar in thier buisness practices. Resistance does seem like a game I would be into so I give Sony credit on that, although until I play it I can't say if I would prefer to play it over GoW because I enjoy the gameplay in that game a LOT.


I really don't see though how anyone can call this a launch title. This "launch title" has been in the works for some time. The whole idea of 1gen, 2gen, 3gen games is that over that time developers work out the little things in the hardware and software to make the game that much better. With the time that this game was in development I just can't call it a 1gen launch title. If so then the 2gen titles are going to be a LONG time away. As far as why there aren't many games on launch...thats a better question for Sony to answer but I bet the answer will be a combination of many things related to the bad press the system has gotten over the last few months. There's an answer to it, I just don't think I have the time to tie all the many seemingly meaningless reasons together into one large reason why the developers aren't releasing games.


In any case I think the 360 launch lineup was much more stout. They had good games (8+) for many different genres. Racing, shooters, adventures, etc. were mostly all covered right out of the door. Anything else was addressed rather quickly after launch. Sony has what seems to be 1 good game worth getting right now at launch and not to much coming after that date with many of the games getting pushed back AGAIN. I don't know I just don't see anything good coming out any time soon.

[silentbob343]

QUOTE(jaygould30 @ Nov 11 2006, 10:07 PM)

I really don't see though how anyone can call this a launch title. This "launch title" has been in the works for some time. The whole idea of 1gen, 2gen, 3gen games is that over that time developers work out the little things in the hardware and software to make the game that much better. With the time that this game was in development I just can't call it a 1gen launch title. If so then the 2gen titles are going to be a LONG time away. As far as why there aren't many games on launch...thats a better question for Sony to answer but I bet the answer will be a combination of many things related to the bad press the system has gotten over the last few months. There's an answer to it, I just don't think I have the time to tie all the many seemingly meaningless reasons together into one large reason why the developers aren't releasing games.

You already said that in your first post.  Do you want to debate or looking for agreeance?  It is a launch game in that it's being released with the launch of the console.  I already admitted that it had longer dev time than other titles.  Though it would be interesting to see the various games and a break down of dev time they had.  I honestly don't know how much more time the PS3 launch being pushed back allowed for dev on RFOM or how hardware delays might have affected the dev.

Anyway, your opinion has been noted.  You don't think RFOM is a 1st gen launch title.  The system doesn't appeal to you and that's fine.  Maybe in a year things will change...maybe not.

As far as launch lineup; Shooters/Racing/Sports/Tony Hawk/RPG-Marvel Alliance? etc available on PS3.  The PS3 will be around for a while and there will be plenty of games made for it.  Sony sold 300,00 PS2 in September, there are still PS1 games being made sold.  Not in huge quantities, but 1000s a week.  Passing judgment on the console now is premature.  I do believe for the first year many will say the PS3 is losing, but in the long term it will be a close race.  They won't have 70% of the market like they did with the PS2 this last generation so even in they do "win" they still lose.

[incognegro]

No online coop?

Oh well, I  can't wait to rent the system so I can play this game

Anyways, back to GoW....

[jaygould30]

QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 11 2006, 07:05 PM)

You already said that in your first post.  Do you want to debate or looking for agreeance?  It is a launch game in that it's being released with the launch of the console.  I already admitted that it had longer dev time than other titles.  Though it would be interesting to see the various games and a break down of dev time they had.  I honestly don't know how much more time the PS3 launch being pushed back allowed for dev on RFOM or how hardware delays might have affected the dev.

Anyway, your opinion has been noted.  You don't think RFOM is a 1st gen launch title.  The system doesn't appeal to you and that's fine.  Maybe in a year things will change...maybe not.

As far as launch lineup; Shooters/Racing/Sports/Tony Hawk/RPG-Marvel Alliance? etc available on PS3.  The PS3 will be around for a while and there will be plenty of games made for it.  Sony sold 300,00 PS2 in September, there are still PS1 games being made sold.  Not in huge quantities, but 1000s a week.  Passing judgment on the console now is premature.  I do believe for the first year many will say the PS3 is losing, but in the long term it will be a close race.  They won't have 70% of the market like they did with the PS2 this last generation so even in they do "win" they still lose.

I was just looking for a conversation on the topic really. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my point but I'd like to know if anyone thinks I'm off base with my analysis of the situation. It's amazing to me that forums are so hostile anymore. People come on to discuss topics of interest and whenever someone doesn't agree they call them stupid or give them a hard time. So like I said all I was looking for was to see if anyone had some thoughts on the topic and wanted to have a mature conversation about it. You seemed mature about it and I respect your opinions, there well thought out and make sense.



Just for the record I think when all is said and done the systems will end up being considered to be equal in power, just like the last generation. Which will sell better will depend on the people I suppose and I'm guessing, like you alluded to, that sales will be closer then last generation. And of course I will be getting a PS3...eventually. I have purchased every single console in the last 20 years and have a collection of ancient consoles stored a way as well that I've found over the years. I'm sure there will be games I wish to play on it just like there were a few on the PS2 I wanted to play. As of right now though I can't see myself spending the money on the PS3. How soon I purchase the system will depend on how many games they come out with that appeal to me. Unlike some other people, I don't have loyalty to either side...I'm just a gamer.

[throwingks]

QUOTE(jaygould30 @ Nov 12 2006, 11:10 AM)

Just for the record I think when all is said and done the systems will end up being considered to be equal in power, just like the last generation.

They were equal?

[jaygould30]

QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 12 2006, 08:43 AM)

They were equal? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

More or less they were equal. Slight edge to MS which I'd contribute to when it released. Thats my opinion.

[Pheidias]

I wonder why gears of wars only had 5 hours of singleplayer. Was there no more space on the dvd or what

You guys missed me, admit it

[Mojiba]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 12 2006, 07:46 PM)

I wonder why gears of wars only had 5 hours of singleplayer. Was there no more space on the dvd or what (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You guys missed me, admit it

I wonder why Resistance fall from Gears in every aspect =)
Sorry =)

[jaygould30]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 12 2006, 10:46 AM)

I wonder why gears of wars only had 5 hours of singleplayer. Was there no more space on the dvd or what

You guys missed me, admit it

Wow.

Honestly I don't know why they say GoW only takes 10-12hrs. Maybe if you don't take your time and enjoy the game it takes that long. It won't take that long if you play it on the hardest difficulty. I've heard it's darn near impossible on that difficulty without co-op play. Not to mention, as 1UP stated, GoW makes you want to come back and play it again and again even after you beat it while Resistance seems to be falling into the realm of once you beat it you don't want to play single player again.


You know whats really funny, how every game so far except Resistance takes up so little space on those more expensive blu-ray disks that they could have easily fit onto a regualr dvd. I still have my doubts about whats on that resistance disk as well. Or how bout how 1080p is "true high-def" but the best game they have right now is in what resolution? Oh thats right 720p.

See if you want to be childish and make this thread something that it wasn't intented to be then I'll be happy to make a fool out of you all day. Instead I'd like it more if you would delete your useless post that was completely off the topic from my thread and then I will delete mine and we can all call it a day. Your move.

[Mr Invader]

QUOTE(Pheidias @ Nov 12 2006, 12:46 PM)

I wonder why gears of wars only had 5 hours of singleplayer. Was there no more space on the dvd or what

You guys missed me, admit it

i played 5 hours the first night i had it and i was only in the middle of act 2, i would have taken it off of casual difficulty if i were you

Anyway, about Resistance. I think that this game will be very good because of its solid gameplay and multiplayer, that's it though, there doesn't seem to be anything new in the game. I'm still questioning the ability to support 40 players though, how many people have that high of a bandwidth? Some website tested it and said they had 30 people with no lag, but then again how good is there connection? How much could a standard cable conenction deal?

and yeah Fetus, it gets boring in the forums without a little bit o' conflict. I missed you