Why Resistance: Fall of Man is Better Than Resistance 2

ExgamerLegends - 260 days 20 hours ago

I liked the campaign and the atmosphere of the first resistance better. But the online for R2 was definately better. I also liked some of the new weapons and changes. Marksman is awesome. Alt fire for the rocket launcher was better in R2. the carbine shouldn't have changed. And though ppl complained about Parker's narrating deep down they missed her in R2

Agree(8) | Disagree(1) | Report

NIGHT_HAWK3210 - 260 days 19 hours ago

i never played the first one but all i know is that R2 has some of the most fun multiplayer i have ever played. this game is like halo/cod (which is awesome). the marksman is the exact same as the battle rifle in halo and the overall game plays a lot like halo.

Agree(4) | Disagree(2) | Report

Cajun Chicken - 260 days 19 hours ago

I'm personally more for wherever snow was, Chimera were, the weapon wheel, the unit based health bar and campaign co-op. If those were put in R2 would of been more or less a PERFECT sequel. Oh and more skirmishes with mines and some vehicle sections.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

s8anicslayer - 260 days 19 hours ago

I agree, both were good no complaints thus far

Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report

Nineball2112 - 260 days 19 hours ago

I have to admit that I liked the SP story presentation better in RFOM, but I really like the MP and coop in R2 better

Agree(7) | Disagree(0) | Report

aebriscoejr - 260 days 18 hours ago

I completely agree with the first 4 reasons.

1. They should have keep the narrator if they weren't going to make the game very story driven (the first had the better story hands down). 2. The weapon wheel was awesome and it BETTER be in R3. 3. The co-op campaign needs to come back sine you're with Capelli most of the time anyway (R3 should have 4 player co-op campaign). 4. While R2 was completely playable it did have some problems, like enemies getting stuck and just sitting there. Plus the first game had more realism than R2 did (at least to me).

Now with that being said R2 had things that made it better than R1. 1. Competitive multiplayer. 2. Separate Co-op Campaign. 3. New enemies (I still think they should have kept all the old ones). 4. New weapons (again should have kept the old ones).

Both games feel different. R1 was something new, but they made R2 like everything else, and it wasn't and didn't need to be. Hopefully they can give a better balance between R1 and R2 when R3 comes out.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

SaiyanFury - 260 days 18 hours ago

I'm not a traditional fan of FPS games, but I have to say that the original Resistance is great fun. I did like the sequel, but I still prefer the original for a few of the reasons the article states.

1. 2P split-screen coop. It's one of the most classic gameplay concepts: sit on a couch with a friend right beside you and go and slug it out on the same screen. Two friends; same cause. And you can experience the gameplay together as it ramps up in intensity. Many Friday nights me and my brother in law sit on my couch and have gone through the original Resistance like 6 times. I love it every time and it never gets old.

2. The ability to play with any weapon you choose. I loved this feature in the original Resistance as it made the game feel similar to Ratchet & Clank as I could choose any weapon I wanted at any time. Not just the ones handed to me in the game.

3. Lack of narration. I liked the narration in the original game as you could watch humanity's struggle to overcome the overwhelming chimera. Just a personal note, it was just nice to have the narration to help move the story forward.

4. Lack of vehicle combat. I really enjoyed the Cheddar Gorge area where you motored around in the Jeep jumping off to engage the chimera and open the gates in the bunkers. Just something I enjoyed that R2 didn't have.

Resistance 2 is a great game by a great developer. It's just not *quite* as good as it could have been. It has amazing online coop gameplay, but I was really hoping for 2P splitscreen. That was the biggest disappointment.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Marceles - 260 days 18 hours ago

I was just about to say what Nineball just said. ROFM's campaign was really good and it took me weeks to beat it, thats why I liked it. I was able to beat R2's campaign in a day on difficult. Honestly RFOM on normal was harder than R2 is on difficult, maybe even superhuman..I felt like they were shoving me through the campaign on R2 so I can hurry up to the multiplayer. Combine RFOM's campaign with R2's multiplayer and we would have the perfect FPS.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

crck - 260 days 18 hours ago

The single player was a big letdown in R2. Instead of keeping what was original about Resistance they tried to make it like every other shooter on the market.

No co-op in the campaign: Biggest letdown for me. I planned to play R2 with the friend I played R1 with. I was amazed they would strip this out.

No Parker: I don't give a damn what others say. I loved her voice over narration, much better then the same old hard to hear voice over radio crap they switched to. The same garbage we get with every other shooter on the market.

No weapon wheel: How the hell you gonna let us carry all the weapons in one game then strip us down to 2 in the next? Make it at least 4. Jeez.

No vehicles: Not sure what happened here...

Instant deaths: Why add all these instant deaths? No one likes instant deaths! Not sure how this got past the Q&A sessions.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

stevenhiggster - 260 days 18 hours ago

The first one is better. Graphics are the only area where the second one beats the first for me.

Now don't get me wrong I think R2 is a great game, but I probably won't ever play it again, whereas I have played through the campaign in R:FOM loads of times. I agree with pretty much everything this article says tbh.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Cryos - 260 days 16 hours ago

I dislike pretty much EVERYTHING about R:2. The story is not as focused or as dire as FOM. The Graphics? Some of the colors seem completely off to me. Like I'm looking at the world through super-saturated glasses.

Where this game really loses it for me was the multiplayer.

Not only did I LOVE playing through FOM with someone that was sitting right next to me, the online competitive also was much more enjoyable. The boards are better, as well as the weapons and weapon spawn points. With FOM, I loved playing all the different competitive game-types. With R2, I can barely work up the strength to play team deathmatch (which I'm only doin for the trophy, which will apparently take me 100+ more hours. blah)

I also loved having friends over to play competitive offline as well. What happened to that? Seriously, I still pop in FOM, but hate trying to get all the trophies in R2.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

andron666 - 260 days 14 hours ago

But I liked FOM a little better than R2.

They changed the atmosphere and some of the graphics are a bit off. Also some of the boss battles are a bit easy and disappointing. Mp is much improved in R2 though.

I actually felt that R2 might have been rushed at times. Hopefully Insomniac listens to these criticisms and makes R3 a killer game...

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Cenobia - 260 days 13 hours ago

I'm glad to see the weapon wheel go. I hate games where you collect weapons. For single player that's fine, but in multiplayer its just annoying (I only accept it in Warhawk because you can get to vehicles, although I honestly hope Warhawk 2 is class based).

Spawn, run for a good weapon, die, repeat. That's all RFOM multiplayer was for me. There is no fun in that. The class based systems are way better. And the differences between Chimera and Humans was just annoying.

I agree that the story in RFOM was better, but R2 is better in the multiplayer department by leaps and bounds.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

rockleex - 260 days 6 hours ago

Can't they just tell the story like in Ratchet and Clank?

I don't want the story to be told with ONLY narratives, and I don't want NO narration with a little storyline.

Just do it like Ratchet and Clank... or do it like Bioshock... or do it like Uncharted.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

LarVanian - 260 days 20 hours ago

The action in both games was equal imo. The final fight at the top of the London tower in FOM was mindblowing.

In terms of horror, FOM has R2 beat in that area. The Northern Command level was a very creepy level. I got sorta paranoid because of the tight corridors with Chimera jumping out of nowhere.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Estranged - 260 days 19 hours ago

I just didn't think the first was as good as far as pacing or action. I started out with the second and bought the first after I liked the second so much.

As far as which is better, I think they're equal in awesomness and I agree R2 kind of lost it's uniqueness, but R2 edges it out in most areas, imo.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

stevenhiggster - 260 days 18 hours ago

You'd maybe feel different if you had FOM first.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

blindfromthesun - 260 days 18 hours ago

But its hard to say that Resistance II has any of the charm of its prequel. The campaign is one of my favorites of any FPS to date. It was epic, cohesive and atmospheric. The intel spread throughout the game and narration furthered the story. I could relate to Nathan Hale as he didn't talk (much) and the world "felt" like it was ending. I needed to save it! Granted the multiplayer is better in R2 (with awesome co-op to boot) but thats not the reason I bought the game as I wasn't ever a fan of the multiplayer. Good thing Resistance was 12-15 hours per play through and memorable. R2 ruined the story aspect of the first and made the apocalyptic world into a Saturday morning cartoon with bright and colorful environments. Nathan started talking and I lost any connection with his character. The characters were dumb, unmemorable and I wanted to kill them. Let alone I didn't know what the heck was going on from start to finish. The intel was sporadic, and didn't help fill in the holes I thought it would. The point of my rant is that Resistance was ruined for me as a franchise (until the 3rd?) because of the sequel. I am not saying Resistance 2 had no merits but the campaign made me regret getting the game. Perhaps my experiences and opinions are different from your own, but that makes them no less true. You can defend R2 or you can take off the "googles" and look at it from my perspective. Agree to disagree :-p I hope Resistance 3 surpasses R1 and R2 in every way.

Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report

Panthers - 260 days 18 hours ago

I am wondering about the damn Widowmakers. Those were the coolest enemy ever.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Cajun Chicken - 260 days 17 hours ago

Heh, yeah, the driving was awesome. Shame that wasn't in R2.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

DeathroW22 - 260 days 17 hours ago

"Insomniac need to learn to polish the PS3 titles."

Rachet and clank: TOD and Rachet and clank: QFB are both very polished games.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

NIGHT_HAWK3210 - 259 days 18 hours ago

resistance 2 community isnt even active anymore because the ps3 community just plain sucks. i tried all last night to get into ranked matches and it would send me to the social matches cause there werent any games goin on. i think ps3 fanboys just like to talk sh1t but dont really play. great game, crappy community. game should be on xbox, at least there would be some peeps online.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report

Baka-akaB - 260 days 17 hours ago

precisely . I love how people expected killer numbers for a pretty much "unknown" ip whose main popularity was because of the launch and bundles .

I loved R1 , and it was a pretty good game , but it was met with unwarranted heavy criticism , primarily due to the fact alone , that it didnt match Gears of war's graphics .
R1 built up some steam and following after awhile , like warhawk , when people realized that it was a pretty cool game .
And quite frankly at first there wasnt much else to buy in the fps dep .

But now with people awaiting killzone 2 , playing cod 4 and 5 ... no way r2 was gonna do better than R1 too and it's "forced" ps3 bundles .

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Baka-akaB - 260 days 17 hours ago

Agreed R1's story was nice , only when you stick with the game in the long haul ...

Presentation was horrible : retro ww2 photos and a voice ? really ?

And the game were big and fun , but none of it seemed lke a cohesive story clicking well altogether ..
Not it felt more as if you were loading one job after another .

It's a far cry from solo experience like COD , killzone or any 360 big guns .

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

Tony Scarboni - 260 days 17 hours ago

Personally, I never thought very highly of Resistance, and this is coming from a Sony Loyalist. I always thought of Uncharted as the flagship game for the PS3.

That being said, I really think Resistance 1 + 2 are highly overrated. The story was never very original or great (chimera = locust), the graphics have always been sub-par(halo standards), snd the online play wasn't very rewarding. Anyone can play Restistance online and rack up kills, there aren't many tactics involved.

It seems that the devs. spend so much time focusing on technical achievements that they forget to refine the gameplay. The same can be said for KZ2 to an extent. The story mode in KZ2 is way better the Resistance, yet the online play always devolves into a spam fest.

Devs. need to stop making games for the sake of making games. Find a gameplay mechanic that works, then build the game around that. Who cares if its not using cutting edge tech. First and foremost the game needs to be fun!

Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report

brycespitler - 260 days 16 hours ago

resistance came out b4 gears

therefore (locust=chimera)

edit-maybe not... im not too sure anymore and i dont wanna look it up

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report