Amazon.com: Resistance 2: Playstation 3: Video Games

184 Reviews

5 star:		(86)
4 star:		(31)
3 star:		(30)
2 star:		(22)
1 star:		(15)

Average Customer Review

3.8 out of 5 stars (184 customer reviews)

Share your thoughts with other customers:

Create your own review

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

42 of 51 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Inferior to the Original, But Still Good, December 3, 2008

By	Raul G. "Raul G." (USA) - See all my reviews

Fun:3.0 out of 5 stars

Resistance 2 comes as somewhat of a disappointment to me. I absolutely loved the first Resistance game for the PS3 and it was truly the first "must have" title for the system.

Unfortunately many of the things that endeared me to the first game have been modified or dropped completely in R2. The excellent narration between levels featured in the first game is now completely gone and sorely missed. The story suffers because of it. Now instead of getting a quick update of the fight against the Chimera the game relies on in-game voice acting to move the story. It simply doesn't work for me. The objectives are never quite clear enough, the motivation isn't quite there. I felt like every level was simplified to "kill the guys who don't look like us". Very disappointing considering the first game had such an excellent story.

Another disappointment to me is the graphics. While R2 does add more colors to the originals palette the game is by no means stunning. Graphical glitches are prevalent in everything from evident polygon seams to areas completely missing textures. The environment textures themselves vary from pixilated to blurry. This all stands in stark contrast to in-game bosses which are stunning. The graphical detail from level to level is also uneven. The very first level looks terrible while the next level, situated in a redwood forest, looks great. I can't help but feel that the game could've used another 6 months in development to improve the graphics.

Also cut are the fun vehicle sequences from R1. That's right you won't get a crack to pilot any vehicle of any type at any point in the game. Co-operative offline campaign has also been cut and replaced with random levels that feature no story to speak of. Very disappointing.

Another change to R2 is the weapons themselves. The first game featured a large variety of weapons that were added to the player's inventory permanently. Now, not only has the amount of weapons offered dwindled; but you can only carry 2 weapons at one time. I can understand certain players citing more realism as the reason for the change but it simply doesn't make sense - Resistance isn't about realism.

Changes too have been made to the health system. In the first game the player had a traditional health bar that provided the pertinent information. That has now been removed in favor of a damage system represented by a red screen. The more damage your character takes the more red the outer ring of your screen will become. I don't have a problem with the new system as much as I have a problem with the one-hit instant kills that have been added to the game. Certain enemies retain the capability of stopping you dead in your tracks. Unfortunately this is abused by the developer and you'll find yourself randomly dying at the hands of enemies in what can only be described as trial and error. It's very frustrating to be killed unexpectedly because you're unclear where to go or what to do or by invisible enemies.

One change to the game that I liked is the inclusion of a cast of characters that Nathan actually fights alongside. The first Resistance game was essentially a one man show. While in R2 you have no direct control of your squad-mates they are there and fight along with you. The AI for these characters is moderately capable.

The online portion of the game has clearly received more attention in R2. You now have a slew of options including cooperative and competitive online modes. A big selling point touted by the developer is the ability to fight in 60-player online battles. My experience thus far has been mixed. The massive battles I've played in are unorganized and chaotic. I confess that thus far I'm not a fan. The game attempts to encourage small squad based objectives but it hasn't had the desired effect. In online games I've started it seems that my squad immediately fragments into individuals.

Ultimately, Resistance 2 will probably be liked more by newcomers to the series. Fans of the original game will likely notice the shortcomings and changes all to well. Still, R2 is a proficient enough of an effort and here's hoping the next game realigns with the efforts of the first.

Comment Comments (5) | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

49 of 61 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Multiplayer milestone, The bar is pushed way higher, November 4, 2008

By	ice grizzly "Grrrrrr" (Dream Land) - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

Fun:5.0 out of 5 stars

It was very obvious from day 1 Sony and Insomniac focus was on PSN/multi-player. We heard a lot about it. Now the game is out, every bit that was promised is delivered. My most favorite parts in the game are the co-op missions. It is so much fun to play with buddies split-screen, the game levels are randomly generated. The experience is never the same any time you play back the levels.

Co-op missions are class based. Dont try to run around and get killed. You need to be organized and push inch by inch. Every one has a role to play and all of them are fun. You can play with upto 8 people online. The game completely suits itself for the number of people playing at a time. I like it when there is a minimum of 4 people, with a good medic. It is so satisfying and epic.

They have also pushed the competitive bar to 60 players. It gets really crazy at the last min when every one converges to the center. It has a similar feel to UT3 warfare mode. If you are tired of the vanilla kill count based games, R2 is the decisive answer.

We are going to be talking about R2 for a long long time to come. This has set the bar for multi-player. We are going to see a lot copy cats too. The engine has been revamped a lot from R1. The game never slows down with all the explosions and 60 people running around. It is a amazing technological achievement. Even PC games couldn't do what R2 has done on a console. Competitive levels are much more methodical than run and gun. It takes a few shots before the person dies. So you can always move away and find a better flanking position.

Competitive multiplayer levels are very well balanced. It is not winner takes all. If you play well you become a bigger bulls eye in the map. So every one has a chance. It also increases the challenge for higher skill palyers. It is a win-win. Very well thought out maps. Take your time and play slowly. It is a very enjoyable game. If you are looking for a simple bunny hop and shoot multi-player; you are in for disappointment.

The game is slightly different from R1. No more weapons wheel. You can just carry two weapons at a time. You also get a Uncharted style fully recovering health. Some of old weapons are tweaked to make it more interesting to use. Art direction also has changed. Now visuals have a pop. Forest is no more the post apocalyptic gray burnt one.. it is a green lush forest. Every thing feels fresh and natural.

Resistance 2 is in direct competition with LBP for its massiveness. I don't think there is any other games that packs so much content in a single disk. I have a strong feeling Insomniac filled up the entire Blu-ray disc.

Single player mode much more narrated. The game walks you through a very cinematic presentation. The games takes control of the camera to several times to show all the glorious backgrounds and set pieces. Boss battles are huge. Some of the levels are just one single big boss battle. You are just circling around slowly taking the health of the big behemoths.
So far I have killed more than 1000 enemies in single player. The game sincerely makes you feel helpless. AI is stunningly smart. My winning formula is survey, find a safe position, move & fortify, then survey again. Run and gun doesn't seem to work. I was able to be finish R1 without thinking this much.

Audio in this game is amazing. This time it feels lot more like Hollywood. Weapons pack a punch. If you have a 7.1, close all the doors and crank up the volume. You will be in the edge of the chair through out the entire mission.

The franchise has solidified its base now. Iam very eager to see what they have under their cloak for R3. I would love to see the weapons wheel back in R3.

Comment Comments (9) | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

44 of 55 people found the following review helpful:

2.0 out of 5 stars Crushing disappointment, November 22, 2008

By	Ragingbear - See all my reviews

Fun:2.0 out of 5 stars

Fall of Man was exceptional in many ways, but most generally because it avoided many dominant tropes of the genre in favor of pure design. It stood out from the crowd. Apparently, Insomniac decided they wanted to be part of the crowd after all, because they actually introduced all the painful cliches they used to avoid into the sequel.

I still think of Fall of Man as the best console FPS I've ever played. The level design pulled off large, open battles and corridor encounters equally brilliantly. They looked great too; the human buildings looked as good as you'd expect, but the alien environments were immensely creative in their design, and all of it was stunningly sharp for a launch title. The weapons were equally creative, and possibly the high point of the entire package. Each was not just fun to use, but distinct in its effectiveness, so that choosing your tool was as-or more-important to your strategy as strafing or seeking cover.

Pacing and difficulty were perfectly balanced, and it's the only game I've ever been able to enjoy and finish up to the highest difficulty setting, because even then, it never felt cheap. The story was mysterious and perfectly underplayed, and contributed to the atmosphere without interrupting the pace of the game. There were few occasions that could be called boss battles, and they came and went fairly organically.

Nearly all of this was undone for the sequel, as if Insomniac thought all the good points of the original were mistakes to be corrected.

The level design is still largely unchanged, but does have problems. The large, many-participant battles that cropped up from time to time in FoM are much less frequent, and levels are often broken up by tedious jumping exercises that punish you with instant death if you fail. The graphics are worse than in the original as well. It's hard to put my finger on why, but everything simply looks uglier. While it's not outright awful, there are a few glaring examples; the Grim pods, for one, look hideously low-res close up, and in the early part of the last chapter, set in a Louisiana bayou, the leafy trees and spanish moss look staggeringly atrocious.

All the subtlety is gone from the story and characters of the first one, and the new style of presentation damages the pace of gameplay. Hale, instead of being taciturn (ok, some might say shallow and undeveloped, but I liked the minimalist presentation that allowed room for interpretation), is now a cookie-cutter gruff commander type. His squad is equally annoying, especially with the painfully lackluster attempts at giving them backstories. That would be bad enough, but the gameplay is frequently interrupted by deliberately protracted elevator rides or waits in hallways while someone hacks/bombs a door. Why? Just so you can listen to your squad bicker or discuss generic objectives at length. The dialogue isn't remotely original or interesting, and sometimes outright painful ("That water's reading as white hot, so I'd keep my distance if I were you." 'White hot water'? Please).

The weapons are still good, but, in perhaps the most head-slappingly idiotic design choice Insomniac has ever made, they instituted the 2 weapon system that's been defiling the FPS genre since Halo. Obviously, I've never been a fan of this system. Some people justify it by saying it's more realistic, or that it introduces a new element of strategy. Firstly, realism does not remotely apply; in Halo, you're a superhuman cyborg fighting aliens on a ring shaped planet; in Resistance, you're a superhuman soldier fighting aliens (or whatever) with super high-tech weaponry. But the idea that one of these superhumans could carry 3 guns is just too outlandish? As for strategy, it's the worst kind of strategy. You come upon a weapon, and have to consider how much ammo you have, how long this weapon will last, if it's appropriate for the next encounter (as if you know what that'll be) etc. It breaks up the pace, requires more backtracking, and leaves you always imagining how much more enjoyable gunfights would be if you had the gun you actually wanted.

Yet, many, many FPSs use this system, apparently for no reason other than the fact that Halo did it and Halo made lots of money. But Fall of Man ignored this trend, and I considered this a minor miracle. Maybe some people thought having all the weapons and a fairly consistent supply of ammo made things too easy, but I don't; the game was still thoroughly challenging. It's just that the strategy was in using the weapons rather than just choosing them. And it was fun. WAS.

The enemy design and AI is, I will say, still above average. The main complaint I have about the enemies in general is that the Chimera start to seem like an absurdly diverse species. In FoM, they were somewhat believable as a humanoid race with a few larger, more monstrous forms. Now, there's a fish Chimera, a few squid-like Chimera, a skyscraper-sized Chimera, and a Chimera that looks like a dinosaur. Okay, it's not the worst thing about the game, but I think if they were trying to build a credible universe around these creatures they shouldn't be so laughably monster-for-all-occasions-ish. The low point of the enemy design, though, is definitely the Chameleon. This is an invisible monster that presents itself with an audio cue, then appears seconds before performing an instant kill move on you. After the first, there's a further sound effect that lets you know there are more in the area, and they almost always come from directly ahead of you in a linear path. However, the first is always more abrupt, and worse than that, if you happen to be looking in the wrong direction at the wrong time, or reloading, you are killed instantly.

This ties into my biggest complaint about the game; Insomniac made a big feature of constant, infuriating and arbitrary death. Chameleons come out of nowhere, you misjudge a jump just slightly, you look the wrong direction for a moment, and you're dead. You advance into an area you've just cleared, and when you're far enough from cover, the next wave of enemies rushes in and overwhelms you before you can find more cover. You spend both clips from all two of your weapons killing half such a wave, then the rest kill you easily when you're forced to reload. Bosses might kill you with one hit, again if you're foolish enough not to be looking in the right direction for a second, or in one case, after it softens you up with an attack you can't avoid. Enemies spawn from the clear area at your back. Compounding this all is the health system. Insomniac ditched the meter in favor of the going-monochrome-near-death thing. This works in some games, but here, where death is so frequent and abrupt, some precision would have been welcome.

The natural reaction to this complaint is to just say I'm just no good at it. I'm sure I don't play to professional standards, but FPS is my favorite genre, and I play them a lot. In particular, I've played through Fall of Man many, many times, including on the highest difficulty, as I mentioned above. At the very least, I know when a death is my fault, be it from carelessness or bad strategy (invariably the case in FoM), or from cheap shots. As far as cheap shots are concerned, the AI in Resistance 2 isn't even to blame; it's all in the cheap, punishing design. You'll die countless times from cheap environmental hazards, one hit kills only avoidable through trial and error, or simply from standing in the wrong place when a wave of enemies spawns. It's a design philosophy that has less to do with your skill and more to do with knowing exactly what will happen next, and punishing you for failing to predict the future. It's incredibly frustrating, and it's worlds apart from Fall of Man.

Obviously, this is all about the campaign. I don't go in for multiplayer, but if that's all you're interested in, I hear R2 is terrific. Maybe they put so much effort into perfecting it that it explains why the single player is so painfully inferior to the original. The only reason gave it 2 stars rather than 1 is that there are moments, however rare, where there are echoes of the engrossing fun and exhilaration of Fall of Man. But then the echoes fade, and it's back to yammering squad mates, cheap death, and ludicrously aggrandized monsters. Insomniac, I can get that dreck from every other shooter on the market. I thought you were different.