Destructoid: Resistance 2 Review

vitz3 - 397 days 20 hours ago

Who agrees with that? What? There's nothing to agree to.
o.O

Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report

ChampIDC - 397 days 19 hours ago

Destructoid is basically always well below the average. It seems they either don't like games that much or they do this for hits.

Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report

Danja - 397 days 18 hours ago

they do these things for hits...but pity they dont know that most ppl dont read reviews on N4G , they just look at the score posted on N4G in the article...then fight over the score and not what was said.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

actas123 - 397 days 15 hours ago

Not a bad score for this game. I would give it 8-8.6 somewhere in this range. It's fun but not uncharted or COD4 fum.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

solidsnakus - 397 days 19 hours ago

yea somehow you say that with every site that gives a bad score to ps3 exclusives.

Agree(5) | Disagree(3) | Report

wardrox - 397 days 19 hours ago

... and they use the full 0 - 10 scale so 7.5 is actually very good, only you didn't bother reading that bit? I'm not sure what you're implying there.

Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report

Action Bastard - 397 days 17 hours ago

C'mon dude, that's just lame. If you were to look at Destructoid's reviews (and only Destructoid's reviews) you would think almost EVERY game was a freakin joke. I just don't agree that the types of games being produced nowadays (with the Yaris or SneeKing or some licensed garbage exception) falls into the 1,2,3 or 4 range. Claiming to use the full 10pt scale, when there is absolutely no real reason to do so, is only bringing attention to how awful the reviews and opinions of the staff are. It's a damn shame they are included in Metacritic.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

thor - 397 days 20 hours ago

Yeah read the review. They didn't like the SP campaign, but said the multiplayer is "above and beyond any PlayStation Network title thus far" - that includes Warhawk, COD4 and anything else you'd care to name. That's high, high praise if you're considering playing this game online.

Read the review before getting mad! (Unlike me :P)

Agree(7) | Disagree(0) | Report

Traveler - 397 days 20 hours ago

Well, I see what you are trying to do, but I'm sorry, I don't agree.
Halo had much better gameplay and campaign than Resistance. Don't get me wrong, I have Resistance and it does a great many things right, but it isn't at the same level as Halo.

Agree(4) | Disagree(8) | Report

OnslaughtX - 397 days 20 hours ago

And I kindly disagree. I think both Halo 1 and Resistance 1 however, had better campaigns than their respective sequels.

Agree(2) | Disagree(3) | Report

RememberThe357 - 397 days 19 hours ago

The guy just did like the SP that much.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

JOLLY1 - 397 days 20 hours ago

I think you are drinking the Kool-aid

Agree(4) | Disagree(1) | Report

thor - 397 days 20 hours ago

Well... why don't you post a user review on N4G?

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

JOLLY1 - 397 days 19 hours ago

They do some things terrific (8 player co-op)
They do some things decent (multiplayer)
Then the do some things not so well (single player)

I am not saying that the single player is horrible, I just didn't find it engaging at all. Now if this was an expansion to the original, it would have been such a huge expansion and it would have been hard to complain. They fix a lot of the mp aspects. they also made these great levels for you and 7 friends. the problem is they added a (what seems to be) rushed single player campaign. Now if I was to rate each individual of the 3 aspects, I would probably rate 10 (for co-op), 8 (for mp) and 7 (for single player). When Developers talk about the enormous monsters, you expect it to be awesome. Then you figure out that the whole encounter is just riding on rails. That really sucks. Then they tell you that you will get tons of enemies on the screen. You get a horde of creatures just running right for you in a fairly tight corridor. It really loses a lot of appeal. I really believe this would have received better scores if they took out single player.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

callahan09 - 397 days 17 hours ago

Wouldn't drinking the Kool-Aid be a score below 9.3? 44 reviewers gave it less than a 93%, versus 7 who gave it 93% and above. That would imply to me that if you're going to listen to what you're told, you'll talk about this game in terms of flaws not fun, you'll give it an above average but not spectacular score. To give this game its due credit for the fun and addictiveness that it offers and score it spectacularly is decidedly OPPOSITE of listening to the general consensus of the brain-dead professional critics.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

aebriscoejr - 397 days 15 hours ago

If the Kool-aid is Resistance 2 then it's mighty good.

But seriously there's nothing technically wrong with the game. If your going to complain then the only thing you can say is that it doesn't feel like the 50's, some effects were left out (water blurring vision), and the single player was lackluster (It wasn't as Epic as people hyped it to be, but it was still enjoyable). And those things don't take away from the overall game (single player can depending on the reviewer). I think some people are mad that it's not the exact same Resistance we played at launch. Yes a lot of things changed, but most of them were for the better.

Overall Resistance 2 is still a great game with a tremendous amount of longevity to it.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Steven Colbert - 397 days 19 hours ago

Some people think Killzone 2 can do it but somehow I just can't see that.At least Resistance is a proven profitable franchise but Killzone 2...not for me

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

callahan09 - 397 days 16 hours ago

I'm just starting to feel sorry for people like you. All the people who are convincing themselves this game isn't the real deal. Just keep believing that, meanwhile those of us who are just in gaming to have a good time are having great fun with Resistance 2. I feel sorry for all those who aren't getting to experience the pure unadulterated joy that this game is giving me.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

wardrox - 397 days 19 hours ago

Yes, being fat makes you wrong. Well done.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

callahan09 - 397 days 16 hours ago

You, sir, have no credibility, proven by your comparison to Unreal. Resistance feels absolutely nothing like Unreal. Period.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

r1000 - 397 days 14 hours ago

First off... I can honestly care two pieces of $4it whether or not you think I'm credible... honestly... I DON'T CARE..

R1 seemed to be way more balanced than this game (again besides the LARK in part 1).

This is spawn, and try to stay alive for more then 10 seconds.. unlike part one.. the environments almost helped you to stay alive somewhat. Here its more tighter maps, it's pretty much who ever gets seen first (you or your oppenent) equals the person that is going to die. Nevermind strategy...

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

callahan09 - 397 days 14 hours ago

Well, I disagree with that. I think the game is very well-balanced and it's more than possible to get a kill streak going. Skill plays largely into it. Knowing what weapon and berserk load-out suits your play style best is half the battle. Comparing the game to Unreal makes no sense. The weapons aren't similar, the map layouts are vastly different, and the speed of play is drastically different. Even the mechanics of health management are completely alien between the two.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

r1000 - 397 days 14 hours ago

Those are good points... but i never said it was a carbon copy of UT.. i said in my first post UT-"ish"

Basically what i'm trying to say.. that 7.5 really does suit this game, it's decent enough, but it sure hasn't reeled me in like the 1st one did.. I spent HOURS on r1

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

earwax - 397 days 19 hours ago

I enjoyed it because I like the IP however, the graphics are WEAK a step down from the first game. The huge (but easy to beat) boss monsters were cool NOT a 9, I would give it an 8. It is short also

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Steven Colbert - 397 days 20 hours ago

I agree.Fable 2 is clearly AAA stuff.

Agree(1) | Disagree(2) | Report

Traveler - 397 days 20 hours ago

Absolutely.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Steven Colbert - 397 days 20 hours ago

You are entitled to your opinion but it seems this reviewer is a contrast to both sides.

Saying that both Fable 2 and Resistance 2 are average games is a mistake .One that Destructoid just takes proudly.I think its best to say that Destructoid f***ed up because many people believe Fable 2 is a good single player game while others say Resistance 2 is a good multiplayer game

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Bangladesh - 397 days 20 hours ago

I spent 30+ hours with Fable 2, and I agree with Traveler and Steven. Fable 2 was 9 or at the very least an 8.5. Destructoid isn't what I consider a good source for accurate reviews.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

thor - 397 days 20 hours ago

Well Destructoid certainly disagree with you, certainly about the online portion of the game which is "above and beyond any PlayStation Network title thus far".

Nice attempt at trolling though.

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

snoopgg - 397 days 19 hours ago

Any game on the 360 compared to a ps3 exclusive just pales in comparision. Gears 2 is pure over the shoulder crap! Resistance 2 blows it away in single and multiplayer modes. Gears 2 is so overated, just like Halo3 and Left for Dead. I wish they would stop making Gears cause it it very tired and needs to die off. Please, stop making overated Gears games!!! There you go you farking Troll how do you like it@@

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report