Resistance: Fall of Man Review by 1up

The second official review of Resistance you've all been waiting for.

[THAMMER1]

Well what is there to say?

[Munky]

I see 8.5, am I blind? Looks like a fun game, but nothing ground breaking. From all the reviews I have read the singleplayer wraps up in roughly 11 hours(some say 10 hours some say 12 hours), the multiplayer is where this game has it lasting appeal. Guns are awesome which is to be expected, AI is a let down, which is not to be expected. One really cool thing is that once you kill a enemy their bodies don't disappear...ever! So overall a great launch title, something to keep PS3 owners happy till the heavy hitters are released.

[kmis87]

Where'd the 6.7 come from? Is that the CoD3 score you're thinking of? They gave CoD3 a 6.5 for some reason.

[eques judicii]

its the reader score, not the reviewer score... calm down

[lalaland]

R:FoM was compared to COD3, yet the 1UP official review score of COD3 for X360 is actually 6.5...

[PS360PCROCKS]

Yeah where did 6.7 come from, a 8.5 for a launch title that's not a port is pretty damn good, you're all lucky your getting a good game right off the bat. Although I will say I wonder if and this is not being a "fanboy" if the hype/new standards that GOW set might of lowered the score for this game a bit? I wonder if the 360 was out this christmas with last years launch titles if this game would have scored closer to a 9 or better?

[kmis87]

In the last 1up show they actually talk about how games are probably going to get lower scores for a while because of how impressive Gears was, even if that is unfair to the games that aren't in the same genre.

[PS360PCROCKS]

Oh well than that makes perfect sense, IGN said the same thing about GOW in the video review of COD3, but GOW and Epic deserve that distinction for doing such a great job

[power of Green]

In the IGN review i said RFOM got a half a point more than i thought it would.

[DJ]

maybe i'm just seeing things. 8.5 and 9.1 Things are looking good for the PS3's killer launch title.

[Antan]

i don`t think its a killer title DJ tbh. It looks really good though, much better than say COD3 which i think is really overrated (expected as Infinity Ward were not doing it). Im sure the reviews will say RFOM is the better fps also. Im really disapointed in COD3, its very very claustrophobic, really hemmed in, and the a.i is pretty weak, But i will continue to plod on through the game. Resistance should do pretty well when it hits the states.

[xboxlj]

I guess you would also consider Perfect Dark Zero a Killer Launch title as well?

[DJ]

how that game got perfect 10's and 9.5's is beyond me. At most it deserved a 6 or 7.

[andy capps]

8.5 from 1up and from that editor in particular is like a mid to high 9 from any other site. Not a bad review, wish that 1up did video reviews though.

[Ravenator529]

For a good launch title.

Call of Duty 2 for the 360 received an 8.8, and it was easily the most played 360 game over the last year.

Resistance looks as if it will keep PS3 users busy for quite some time.

And yes, 1up is probably one of harder review teams out there. They gave COD3 a 6.5 which IMO is very unwarranted. I think COD3 received an unfair shake due to the fact that GOW was being reviewed at the same exact time.

[Hayabusa 117]

Well, I've not played Gears of War yet, and I think COD 3 deserves 6.5. Well, OK, 6.5 is abit too low, but I can understand why they'd give it that.

[THWIP]

"Just don't get too close to anything, because the textures that looked good across the way are far less impressive when you get right up on them."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.......like I always said, it looks like a sci-fi BLACK. The PS3 just can't do complex textures like the 360.

"Forty players, though, may be a little bit of overkill. It's nearly impossible to coordinate teams of many more than a dozen. The map design for these big matches also gets a little overzealous, spreading out too much"

I've been saying this since they first started bragging about 40 player MP........it's completely pointless.

[andy capps]

Because the devs chose to go for more enemies on screen, larger environments, and more physics instead of small environments, several enemies at a time, and better textures you're saying that the PS3 can't handle higher textures. That's ridiculous. A lot of games in production are showing great textures: Heavenly Sword, Lair, Motorstorm, etc. It's just what the devs choose to focus on that determines how their game looks. The next Resistance will probably see them upgrade the textures a lot, once they've had more experience with the hardware. I know Insomniac put a lot of work into the physics for the game and how the weapons handle: each "blade" from the hedgehog grenade has it's own AI routine, for example. If you'll watch the videos more closely you'll notice all of the tracer rounds going off, smoke, debris flying around, grenade explosions, etc... It's obvious that Resistance doesn't have the best textures in the world, but you're making it seem like they're absolutely horrible. It's not bad at all and is getting really good reviews, as well as mention of it being a "killer app" according to IGN and 1UP.

40 player multiplayer has been mentioned by players on the Neogaf boards to be a blast, and lots of people have mentioned that as well. Give it time and more people on the network and you'll find that this will probably be the game that PS3 users play online for years (like Halo 2 is for the Xbox). I know it will be the first game that I buy, and I'm looking forward to playing online.

[THE TRUTH]

Was just a better worded review, I never seen it actually make it to the PS3 main site but I could be wrong.
Like many have said RFOM and GOW are 2 different games, but I don't see the logic in giving RFOM lower scores based on GOW?

Fact is none of the people on this article who have negative words for RFOM have even played it! GOW is out which is a good thing but I am truly surprised to say that after having and playing the game for sometime now the shock and awe of the game has really worn off for me! The game just isn't deep at all, and the environments just feel small. Its just a straight path type of game that doesn't offer anything new the 2nd time you play through! The weapons are pretty much standard and offer no variety. I really wish the game offered 4 player co-op online play because the computer AI is dumb as nails on the 2 harder game settings! Honestly I'm really disappointed in the game journalist who make these reviews, it should be the gamers that buy into the hype but the journalist should point out any flaws but it seems as though most game journalist decieded to just buy into the hype and the pretty graphics instead of just really looking at the game and making a fair and honest opinion! I will be the first to admit I bought into the hype of GOW but after playing it online and single player for about a week now I sit back and ask myself "is this it?" did I reach lowest depth gOW can get? Is this all? Graphically amazing but three really isn't much else to hype about! I urge anyone who thinks otherwise to give it a week or 2 and then give their honest opinions!

Why is this relevant to this article? I hope isomanic has done more to get gamers to really enjoy the game more and for longer! Story gameplay and depth, I'm not worried about the graphics! I will be critical of this game if it doesn't surpass GOW in every area but graphics!

On too of that killzone developers and halo developers need to learn from GOW! I don't want JUST awesome graphics! I want a great game that has more than graphics, I want a innovative immersive gaming experience that is on par or better than games that have given gamers that "this game is special" feeling! Such as zelda, the first MGS, RE4, first and 3rd DMC, FF7, Halo, okami, FF12, God of war, ect. Ect. Ect.

I'm am not pleased with this review BUT I haven't played RFOM. After playing GOW I can say I'm not at all happy with the reviews it got either! GOTY no way! Graphics of the year hell yeah! Game of the year should not go to best looking game but one that appeals to a lot of gamers and does things no other games have done! Okami comes to mind! FF12 comes to mind but GOW is just not that level I'm sorry but that is THE TRUTH!

[THWIP]

...but, you ARE in the minority. Only jealous EA types, and thinly-veiled Sony fanboys could say Gears offers nothing new or immersive.....complete bullsh*t. And let me save you the trouble of playing to find out: R:FOM DEFINITELY won't offer anything new.

And, BTW, 'GOTY' is ALWAYS subjective....you can't please everyone, with ANY game. Morrowind and Oblivion BOTH got GOTY...and they're niche RPGs. RE4 got GOTY, and it's a niche survival horror game. Again, NO game can appeal to "everybody"....it's impossible. But Gears is the first truly next-gen, cinematic game to hit retail, and it did so with a ton of pressure/hype...and still delivered. MOST people will deem it worthy of GOTY status, for that alone.

[PS360WII]

Gears is just a graphically awesome game, and that's it. No story, no depth to it, and second play through is a joke. The enemies do get dumber at hardcore and insane. Game of the year it is not. All they did was give us a breath taking visual experience. I'm repeating myself I know but that seems to be what needs to be done with this area. Game of the Year needs to go to be a game that accually has something in it not just good graphics, and I'm sure this game will not surpass Halo2 on Live maybe next week but after that it'll die down. Battlefield supplied a bigger story than that.
Back on track. Resistance is a launch title and is looking like it's a step up from just a standard fps but not by much. They are making huge maps for multiplayer becuase yea there is going to be 40 people online trying to kill one another. Frankly I'm glad a big map is the problem! For the majority (yes majority) of multiplayer games maps have been way to small. Heckticness is going to be had and that's a good way to get the blood pumping so that's where I feel 40 players is going to be sweet. Long post I know thanks for reading

[testerg35]

"Forty players, though, may be a little bit of overkill. It's nearly impossible to coordinate teams of many more than a dozen. The map design for these big matches also gets a little overzealous, spreading out too much. Even with the full 40 people present, it's possible in a couple of maps to wind up wandering around without seeing a soul. With the promise of downloadable content, though, you don't have to worry too much about getting bored with multiplayer."

And I think that's why GOW keeps it to 4X4. But instead the first thing Sony fans say is RFOM does 40 players!

[testerg35]

Congrats to RFOM for the great score.

[Ravenator529]

No one can tell you that you are wrong with the way you feel about the game. But it is far from THE TRUTH.

There are plenty more people who would easily disagree with you on your comments about GOW.

[THE TRUTH]

If you want but take my points and prove why anything I said is out of line! I don't care what anyother gamers say, they don't buy no games for me! I'm tired of hearing that because of the majority of gamers say its great than its writen in stone! You have just proven yourself a hypocrite because the majority of gamers OWN A SONY CONSOLE, so what does THAT mean?

I thought so!

[THWIP]

Simple...it means that there are FAR more stupid Sony fanboys, than there are any other type of gamers. :)

[Mr Bubbles]

I wasn't gonna say anything, but...

telling us that the majority of gamers own a sony console, peppering the statement with CAPS, and saying "I thought so" indicate that you probably eat alot of chainsaw in GOW multiplayer. I can see how that would sour your vag.

seriously, your opinion is yours to have, but what's up with the playground banter? If you really want people to take your comments seriously, don't bring that weak sh!t to the table.

Cheers to Insomniac for delivering on a great launch title!

[Ravenator529]

So what you are saying is that because YOU think differently than the majority, that your opinion is the right one?

All I am saying is that your opinion is your opinion. No one can tell YOU any different.

But like I said, it is far from THE TRUTH! Just because you feel one way doesn't mean that the majority feels the same as you.
And it doesn't mean that the majority is wrong just because it doesn't conform to your opinions!

Opinions aren't considered "THE TRUTH" as you like to say.

Nobody is telling you what to like. But we can sure as he11 disagree without being considered hypocrite's! I don't care if you like GOW or not. But there are countless sources which explain how good this game is. Just look at the scores! Do you think graphics alone is what is getting this game high marks? You must be out of your mind!

IMO, it sounds like you are trying too hard NOT to like GOW just because the majority says how good the game is.

If you don't like it, THAT'S YOUR OPINION!

NOT MINE!

Oh, I thought so too! ;\

[PS360WII]

this is how easy one can pick up on the controls of GoW. Cliffy B the "maker" got schooled by a guy who had been playing it for mear hours. Now if this is possible how is it technical and in depth? Like The Truth has been saying Game of the Year I think not.

[Grown Folks Talk]

was to make it easy to pick up and play. what does that have to do with the game or depth? so everything has to be hard to learn to be any good? it's easier to learn how to have sex than to hit a randy johnson fastball. so by your statement, hitting the fastball is better because of the difficulty, but i'll take sex over playing baseball any day of the week.

[PS360WII]

12.5 but hey I understand if you don't get it. Now lets say it's the world series bottom of the 9th and your down by 3 runs with bases loaded and you hit Randy Johnsons fastball out of the park? Hmm sounds pretty good to me huh?

[Grown Folks Talk]

so in certain circumstances which benefit your statement, difficulty matters, but in general it doesn't. and to your last statement, i'd still take sex over the series winning homer because I can't stand baseball. so in the end, it still comes down to personal preference. i know you are open minded, i know you're not a fanboy. we just don't have the same outlook exactly. i don't think gears is the greatest thing ever, but it's very good. i'm also one of the few people that traded in halo 2 in less than 2 weeks and have never played multi-player on it. i'm one of the few who thinks gta is boring and repetative. i don't like resident evil 4 on the gamecube. i don't like metal gear other than the nes original. you seem like a cool dude in general, but i guess i'm stupid and don't understand because i disagree with you.

[PS360WII]

Now I'm an A$$! Sorry dude I was just getting snatched up in all this bickering. Yeah I didn't really have anywhere to go on that so I thought up the world series thing, but your right the game is set up nicely for pick up and play as well all games should be. My bad I'll calm down

[BIadestarX]

I guess PS3 gamers will have to wait longer for the "Halo" killer. Once they do then they have to wait for the Gears of war killer.

[andy capps]

Actually it's already been called the killer app for the PS3 by at least two different places. Gamespot hasn't put up their review yet so we don't have their scores to go by. Who cares about Halo killer, I don't think it would be that hard to beat that. If they said Half Life 2 killer, that'd be much better.

[BIadestarX]

This may be the PS3 killer app. But does it mean that it is the Killer app among all consoles? What else can beat Resistance in the PS3 launch titles?

[THWIP]

...is NOT the word for a game that's the only decent looking game available at launch, for a $600 console. It's the best on the PS3, but nothing more...PERIOD. Sony hasn't had a decent (exclusive) shooter, since Red Faction....6 YEARS ago, so they were due one. But, R:FOM is in no way a "killer app". COD2 wasn't considered to be a killer app, and I can GUARANTEE you R:FOM will never touch it's sales #s.

[andy capps]

You can't compare apples and oranges from one console to another. I mean, you can, but it's pointless. For the 360, it didn't really have a killer app until possibly Oblivion, definitely with Gears of War. It had some good games at launch, but it didn't have a standout game until Oblivion (which won Game of the Year). All they're saying is that is a must have game, and that every PS3 owner should buy it. Don't see why everyone has to get their panties in a bunch over a great review for a game.

[PS360PCROCKS]

"The Truth" once again your trying to throw your logic out their as if it's "the truth" and like I said before it's so skewed the only one who believes it is you...Let's put it this way everyone can smell your bullsh*t from a mile away...GOW is by far the most technically superior game I have ever seen, the graphics are amazing, the AI is phenomonal, the online is by far the funnest I have played...the AI is pretty good on casual setting too, and you know what this game is VERY addictive and fun, I get so caught up in it I can play for hours and not even notice...I understand what your saying about the "shock and awe wearin off" but that's standard for anything, it might have worn off a little bit for me, but the game is still as much of a blast as it was on day one and I am still as excited about playing it...go play RFOM and leave GOW alone tho...because if you read this review, they say the story sucks in this game too

[THE TRUTH]

His own, if you love GOW then that's great! That's not the point! The point the fact that GOW IS great doesn't take away from what isomanic has done with RFOM! Why is it that you all give credit for GOW being a great game (you have been giving it this credit for a year now) but can't give credit to RFOM which you HAVEN'T even played?

On a sidenote: what does GOW offer that is so innovative and immersive besides graphics? The graphics are too notch! But what does it offer gamers that we haven't seen or played before? I ask that seriously!

[THWIP]

...but you deny THE TRUTH.

The stop-n-pop cover system and gameplay is so much more innovative than anything that's been tried in a shooter before. People who say "Kill.switch did it first", are morons....that game was boring, and the cover system wasn't even NECESSARY. With Gears, you WILL DIE...within MINUTES... if you try to play it like any other shooter.

The immersive, cinematic gameplay goes far beyond anything else that's been done. The in-game cutscenes, which weren't possible until now, add to that experience. No other game has been able to pull that off, until Gears.

The crown jewel, however...the thing that people seem to overlook, when claiming (like EA) that Gears does "nothing innovative": The co-op campaign. No other game has done co-op from within the single player campaign, AS YOU'RE PLAYING IT. That a buddy can basically "possess" Dom, at any point, is one of the coolest things I've experienced in gaming in a long time.

[PS360PCROCKS]

I'm sorry but if you go through MY posts, you will see many things I have said about RFOM and their all good, so before you knock everyone including me maybe you need to do your research...because I think RFOM does look great but it still doesn't compare to GOW, but it shouldn't have to, it's a launch game...on a side note the story they say for RFOM is not that great and that you can literally run through sections with nothing happening...and again what does RFOM bring that's innovative, we've seen aliens in GOW, we've seen WWII in COD 2, we've seen 40 players online in games like battlefield so what does RFOM have besides a few innovative guns? But like I said I'm not taking anything away from RFOM it is indeed a interesting concept, I think the sequel tho will be where to look for a definitive next gen title...

[FeralPhoenix]

Bro, why does it sound like you are whinning like a 5 yr old.....seriously I can understand that you are upset about the 1up review for RFOM, but its just one review/point of view.....I thought it was fair, but if YOU like the game, hell buy it anyway, you said you don't care what anybody else thinks, right? Now everyone wants to suggest that the scores are lowered because of GOW (WOW GOW has that much influence) but I disagree....for instance COD3 got lower scores because IMO its just a "upgrade" of COD2, one year later, which isn't neccessarily a bad thing since COD2 was awesome....but at the same time it doesn't offer anything ground breaking or new to the series. I think it's better than the score but its just one guys opinion, thats all. I think the cummalative scores are a better guage.

Truth, you have made some pretty outlandish statements in the past, but lately you have indeed been more moderate, and I always say its OK, to favor one console over the other and still enjoy both, but when you whine and complain, about your distaste for GOW with your slanted opinions -stated as *fact, then your "true colors" begin to show. Like THWIP said everyone's entitled to their opinion, but in the real world perception is reality, and the overwhelming perception is that GOW is a great OVERALL game....I know you are sick of hearing about GOW, and yeah I think everybody should just shut up and play the damm game....but you know that its going to be that way given all the trash talk in the never ending 360 vs PS3 war. Get over it!....Why even read the posts when you know exactly what you will get stop crying(its been that way all yr)...thats life.

BTW, I thought THWIP made some excellent points about some of the things GOW brought to the table, but since you insist that there's no "innovation" in GOW, please enlighten me about what you would have done to make it more "innovative" for a "shooter"?.....Also please explain to me what is so "innovative" about RFOM? I welcome a response from anyone with a decent reply. Thanks for your time.