Post by: jaygould30 on November 11, 2006, 12:01:00 PM
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.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 11, 2006, 02:36:00 PM
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 niceoh 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
Post by: throwingks on November 11, 2006, 02:06:00 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.
Post by: Boydster on November 11, 2006, 03:04:00 PM
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.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 11, 2006, 03:21:00 PM
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 weekendÂ… (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
Post by: jaygould30 on November 11, 2006, 07:36:00 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.
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.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 11, 2006, 07:58:00 PM
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.
Post by: incognegro on November 12, 2006, 03:38:00 AM
Oh well, I can't wait to rent the system so I can play this game
Anyways, back to GoW....
Post by: jaygould30 on November 12, 2006, 09:39:00 AM
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.
Post by: throwingks on November 12, 2006, 09:36:00 AM
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? 
Post by: jaygould30 on November 12, 2006, 10:21:00 AM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Nov 12 2006, 08:43 AM)
More or less they were equal. Slight edge to MS which I'd contribute to when it released. Thats my opinion.
Post by: Pheidias on November 12, 2006, 11:39:00 AM
You guys missed me, admit it
Post by: Mojiba on November 12, 2006, 12:28:00 PM
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 =)
Post by: jaygould30 on November 12, 2006, 12:08:00 PM
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.
Post by: Mr Invader on November 12, 2006, 03:55:00 PM
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
Post by: silentbob343 on November 12, 2006, 04:44:00 PM
QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Nov 12 2006, 07:02 PM)
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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Hopefully as long as people playing have decent connections there shouldn't be too many issues. I'm used to playing FPS with 20+ people on a server, with the min being 12-16. Anything lower and I wouldn't bother unless I was desperate or it was a game limitation.
Post by: Mr Invader on November 12, 2006, 08:05:00 PM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 12 2006, 05:15 PM)
Hopefully as long as people playing have decent connections there shouldn't be too many issues. I'm used to playing FPS with 20+ people on a server, with the min being 12-16.
for perfect dark zero i can have 16 players with less than-average lag, i have a good cable connection with 1mbps downloading speed and 3.5mbps bandwidth at its best. I'm seriously doubting that the person with average internet will be able to host 30-40 people.
QUOTE
Anything lower and I wouldn't bother unless I was desperate or it was a game limitation.
do you like gears of war multiplayer?
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 12, 2006, 08:45:00 PM
40+ players for MP.....no thank you. But i guess it really doesn't matter anyway, because the ps3/ps2 controller is garbage for FPS, and thereby skills wouldn't even be an issue.
Post by: Deftech on November 12, 2006, 08:24:00 PM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Nov 12 2006, 11:16 PM)
Anything more then 12 players total becomes a frag fest. And frag fest = no skills or tactics. I prefer 3 vs 3 for some good tactics and skills in my FPS.
40+ players for MP.....no thank you. But i guess it really doesn't matter anyway, because the ps3/ps2 controller is garbage for FPS, and thereby skills wouldn't even be an issue.
so true
Post by: silentbob343 on November 12, 2006, 09:00:00 PM
QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Nov 12 2006, 11:12 PM)
for perfect dark zero i can have 16 players with less than-average lag, i have a good cable connection with 1mbps downloading speed and 3.5mbps bandwidth at its best. I'm seriously doubting that the person with average internet will be able to host 30-40 people.
do you like gears of war multiplayer?
I haven't had the chance to play GoW. I tried to convince my friend to buy it a couple weeks ago and showed him some several clips, but he wasn't having any part of it. Not his type of game, can't blame him we have similar FPS taste and GoW is a bit more unreal/quake looking over the top, but I'm willing to give it a shot. I was hoping they would release a demo so the both of us could get a better idea of how it plays. Even if he had the game he doesn't have live. He had an account and played COD2 for a bit, but didn't renew his account after it expired.
I played fear quite a bit, tried to stay in the 12-16 servers, but of course played in the less full servers when pushed come to shove.
Who is hosting the games? I agree that most wouldn't be able to host, but I thought RFOM had it's own servers.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 13 2006, 05:14 AM
Post by: silentbob343 on November 12, 2006, 08:35:00 PM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Nov 12 2006, 11:16 PM)
Anything more then 12 players total becomes a frag fest. And frag fest = no skills or tactics. I prefer 3 vs 3 for some good tactics and skills in my FPS.
40+ players for MP.....no thank you.
Lol, spout out generic gameplay comment. That number doesn't hold for every FPS. I've often played 32 in BF1942/DC and I wouldn't say that is anything like frag-fest or fast twitch gameplay.
Well I have different moods, i.e. crazy MP DM and smaller team death match, but the maps in RFOM are said to scale depending on the number of players on a server. For MOHAA I would play 4v4 or 6v6 teams with no respawn. Sometimes I would go for simple MP deathmatch. Either way I always had fun.
Anyway not every server will be 40, if you read the review you'll see; "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),".
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 13, 2006, 01:33:00 AM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 12 2006, 08:42 PM)
Lol, spout out generic gameplay comment.
LOL, someone who played/plays FPS on the ps2.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 13, 2006, 05:16:00 AM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Nov 13 2006, 04:40 AM)
not that one.
this one
QUOTE
Anything more then 12 players total becomes a frag fest. And frag fest = no skills or tactics.
It depends on the game and the map. That is why I referred to your comment as a generic gameplay comment.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 13 2006, 01:17 PM
Post by: jaygould30 on November 13, 2006, 12:29:00 PM
1UP Review
Post by: silentbob343 on November 13, 2006, 01:12:00 PM
QUOTE(jaygould30 @ Nov 13 2006, 03:36 PM)
1UP had a little different take on this game. Still not a bad score at 8.5 but they didn't seem to praise it as much as the IGN review.
1UP Review
OT:
One thing I like about IGN is that they list review scores from other sites.
Yeah it has nothing to do with the PS3/game or whatever, but I wish more sites did that.
heh haven't read the whole thing, but they didn't seem to like story. Just goes to show not everybody likes the same thing. Also says that some of the maps are too large even with 40 players.
I think their conclusion sums it up pretty well:
QUOTE
That's only the beginning of Insomniac's plans: It's no secret that this is intended to be the beginning of a new franchise. And with the list of questions built up even before the sequel-setting ending, the potential for a refined return engagement measures almost off the charts. For now, Resistance falls a little short of being the hoped-for "Halo-killer," but with a package that would be considered complete by any standards, it delivers a launch classic, and it lives up to its billing as the PS3's killer app.
and for somebody like me who didn't care for halo, I never got the whole "halo" killer thing as I like many FPS titles more than halo. Yes, I know, blasphemy.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 13 2006, 09:24 PM
Post by: jaygould30 on November 13, 2006, 12:38:00 PM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 13 2006, 11:43 AM)
OT:
One thing I like about IGN is that they list review scores from other sites.
Yeah it has nothing to do with the PS3/game or whatever, but I wish more sites did that.
LOL, gamespot does it as well but they take to long to update their scores.
On topic...I respect 1UP's reviewers a lot so I think this score would be more along the lines of my take on the game after playing it.
Post by: incognegro on November 13, 2006, 01:29:00 PM
QUOTE(jaygould30 @ Nov 13 2006, 08:36 PM)
1UP had a little different take on this game. Still not a bad score at 8.5 but they didn't seem to praise it as much as the IGN review.
1UP Review
They are the same site that gave GoW a perfect 10. I remember watching a recent podcast from them and someone was saying they loved Rfom until they played GoW. GoW raised the bar and it made them like Rfom less. Though its unfair to say that. thats just how it is....
hmm more crummy textures....seems like a trend with ps3 games
This post has been edited by incognegro: Nov 13 2006, 09:36 PM
Post by: silentbob343 on November 13, 2006, 01:41:00 PM
QUOTE(incognegro @ Nov 13 2006, 04:00 PM)
They are the same site that gave GoW a perfect 10. I remember watching a recent podcast from them and someone was saying they loved Rfom until they played GoW. GoW raised the bar and it made them like Rfom less. Though its unfair to say that. thats just how it is....
I have to agree with the guys over at HardOCP. A perfect 10 means it was a perfect game and it isn't. Hell I don't think I've ever played a perfect game.
QUOTE
So, is Gears of War a perfect game? No.
Is it a perfect 10? No.
Is Gears of War the best game you’ve played all year? Yes.
Gears of War is a fantastic game in spite of its little flaws and no one can tell you any different. Period.
Looking at the review on 1UP for COD3 and they gave it a 6.5, that's boarder line rental/own in my book. Other sites, IGN & Gamespot gave it an 8.8. 8.5-9.1, difference in RFOM scores, is pretty close, but 6.5-8.8 is a good bit of distance.Is it a perfect 10? No.
Is Gears of War the best game you’ve played all year? Yes.
Gears of War is a fantastic game in spite of its little flaws and no one can tell you any different. Period.
Sorry for getting OT:
Eager to see the rest of the RFOM reviews trickle in.
This post has been edited by silentbob343: Nov 13 2006, 09:47 PM
Post by: incognegro on November 13, 2006, 02:24:00 PM
1up uses this principle, gamespot uses this principle.....I review games for a living and thats the principle I use. I think it's fair.
How you like a game is dependent on your choice as a gamer, so its like looking for a perfect girl. There is no perfect girl, just a girl thats perfect for you.
This post has been edited by incognegro: Nov 13 2006, 10:25 PM
Post by: silentbob343 on November 13, 2006, 02:03:00 PM
QUOTE(incognegro @ Nov 13 2006, 04:55 PM)
I TOTALLY disagree! A 10 should never mean perfect! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PERFECT GAME! It really urks me when i hear stupid stuff like that. Listen games are reviewed (this goes for any credible publication) based on their competition. If gears of wars is the best game in its genre and raises the bar for everything (check anybody that review games and they would say something similar) it deserves a 10. You cannot say a game is perfect cause that is "retarded" im sorry. when 10 is given you're saying there is no game in its class.
1up uses this principle, gamespot uses this principle.....I review games for a living and thats the principle I use. I think it's fair.
How you like a game is dependent on your choice as a gamer, so its like looking for a perfect girl. There is no perfect girl, just a girl thats perfect for you.
I agree there aren't too many great games in the over-the-shoulder shooter genre.
Post by: jaygould30 on November 13, 2006, 03:20:00 PM
I'd say anyone who has not played GoW and questions the 10 should wait to play it first. You might change your mind on just how "crazy" the score seems. As someone who has played it I will say that yes a 10/10 seems a little high to me but not nearly as outrageous as others make it out to be. 9.6-9.8 would be my rating. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
On topic...do you think stores will start putting Resistance in the system to Demo? I'd like to see how this game feels and looks.
Post by: Foe-hammer on November 13, 2006, 02:49:00 PM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 13 2006, 12:43 PM)
and for somebody like me who didn't care for halo, I never got the whole "halo" killer thing as I like many FPS titles more than halo. Yes, I know, blasphemy.
Well your opinion just went out the window for me.
Halo 1 was the most brilliant game i've ever played. Simply amazing.
Post by: silentbob343 on November 13, 2006, 06:21:00 PM
QUOTE(Foe-hammer @ Nov 13 2006, 05:56 PM)
Well your opinion just went out the window for me. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
Halo 1 was the most brilliant game i've ever played. Simply amazing.
Sorry. I guess it filled a niche in the console arena, but me and several friends were pretty underwhelmed. I don't want to get in to here though.
Post by: no0b123 on November 25, 2006, 10:20:00 AM
Average Customer Review: (IMG:http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a8/no0b12345/4star.gif) Number of Reviews: 10
(IMG:http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a8/no0b12345/1star.gif) NO
Reviewed By: A Customer Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2006
this game would look better on the xbox 360, PS3 SUCKS!!!
Post by: Mr Invader on November 25, 2006, 09:04:00 PM
Post by: epsilon72 on December 09, 2006, 11:32:00 PM
QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Nov 25 2006, 08:35 PM)
I still wanna play Resistance since it is suppose to be the best game for PS3 so far. I wanna see how it compares
Resistance is really fun. The campaign is good, but the ending sucks (like most console shooters these days). Multiplayer is really frantic and addicting.
Post by: Foe-hammer on December 10, 2006, 02:56:00 AM
QUOTE(silentbob343 @ Nov 13 2006, 05:52 PM)
Sorry. I guess it filled a niche in the console arena, but me and several friends were pretty underwhelmed. I don't want to get in to here though.
Question is do you like ANY console FPS? I enjoy playing FPS on the PC, and before halo hated FPS on consoles. Halo was just so much more different then any FPS i'd played on the PC. And it was the first FPS on a console where i prefered using a controller over the K&M.
Some people just 'got' halo, while others did not.
Post by: Lethal_NFS on December 13, 2006, 04:26:00 PM
Post by: Mr Invader on December 14, 2006, 03:15:00 PM
QUOTE(jaygould30 @ Nov 13 2006, 03:51 PM)
On topic...do you think stores will start putting Resistance in the system to Demo? I'd like to see how this game feels and looks.
I would like to say no since it's rated M, but that didn't stop them from displaying condemned: crimnal origins.
Post by: mlmadmax on December 14, 2006, 04:18:00 PM
As far as gameplay goes it is fun as hell. The weapons are very cool and I like the artwork on the aliens. It is also very long.
The multiplayer I can't really enjoy because nobody talks to anybody, it sucks. Deathmatch is okay but has to many people and is just a spawn kill fest.
This post has been edited by mlmadmax: Dec 15 2006, 12:20 AM
Post by: epsilon72 on January 04, 2007, 06:55:00 PM
On a side note - I rented Gears a few days ago, and while I despise the online play and the repetitive hide, shoot, hide, shoot gameplay, that game is absolutely gorgeous. It makes Resistance look like a PS2 game; there's no comparison. Kudos to Epic for crafting such an awesome game engine.
*sigh* these console games just don't appeal to me anymore - we need a real hack for the 360 to make things interesting like they are for the xbox1.