OPM's preview of Resistance 3's multiplayer (the horror, the horror)

Insomniac explained that they chopped down the size of player matches from 60 (which didn't work in R2) or even 40 (which worked fine in R1) because they were determined to shamelessly ape CoD.

choose unlocked perks - like increased run speed, better run and gun accuracry or the ability to make three scorpion-like Leapers erupt and attack from our defeated corpses. We also got a chance to play around with active abilities, like laying down portable bubble shields or team ammo-supply points- or, after, a kill streak, turning invisible (as Chimera) or deploying a portable shield (as humans).

Seriously, if a designer's best idea is to rip off CoD, they might as well not bother because CoD fans will buy *wait for it* CoD.

Given that Resistance's singleplayer has never been all that strong (part 1's big battles were fun, but there weren't many of them and part 2 sucked through and through) there is no way I am wasting money on R3 given the anti-competitive nature of the multiplayer.

I miss the online from the first game. Those maps were huge and it was a lot of fun, not to mention it had four player splitscreen. It bums me out when developers try to copy COD. I don't think anyone can compete with them by copying them.rragnaar

16 player battles seem to be the sweet spot for online multiplayer this gen. I didnt mind the 40 player battles in R1 or the 32 player Warzone games in KZ2, but I wont deny that 16 player games run better framerate and netcode wise, and offer a more coherent and less clusterf*** experince.

I also dont think they are ripping off COD. Perks have become the norm this gen, and just because a game includes perks, it doesn't mean they are ripping off COD. I have seen videos of the multiplayer and players take ages to die, that's the complete opposite of COD where getting kills is easier than turning, and players die from two bullets most of the time.

I dont agree with people who claim every scripted shooter is somehow ripping off COD, and I wont agree with games getting COD'ified just because the devs decided to include perks. Uncharted 2, KZ3 and MAG all had perks and aside from DTI in Uncharted 2, they are pretty well balanced and allow for far more customizable multiplayer than we've ever had.

I loved the big 128 and 256 player battles in MAG. In domination, with friendly fire on, there were 255 potential guns out there with your death written on them, not to mention the air strikes and mortors. Yet the way Zipper balanced the game, I died less in 30 minute rounds than I did in the 5 minute COD TDM rounds with barely 10 players TOTAL. My point is COD's biggest problems are the terrible spawns, unbalanced camper friendly maps, unbalanced kill streaks and awful netcode that amplifies the auto-aim and low health problems. Perks not so much. If Insomniac can design a multiplayer with decent maps, decent health and with these perks or kill streak bonuses in mind, it wont be ripping off COD. We know their netcode is excellent, and with health being on the higher side, it wont result in many cheap deaths and that is what COD is all about.

I suppose the biggest reason why I believe in Insomniac not to f*** this up like COD is that they are having a beta for this game. No COD game in the past six years has had a public beta. That's why it's broken. That's why we dont play it. And that's precisely why games like KZ3, MAG and Uncharted 2 (Pre 1.04) are a lot more balanced than COD. Most of the terrible design decisions, perks or killstreaks were reported in betas and corrected for the final release.

16 player battles seem to be the sweet spot for online multiplayer this gen. I didnt mind the 40 player battles in R1 or the 32 player Warzone games in KZ2, but I wont deny that 16 player games run better framerate and netcode wise, and offer a more coherent and less clusterf*** experince.S0lidSnake

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

16 player battles seem to be the sweet spot for online multiplayer this gen. I didnt mind the 40 player battles in R1 or the 32 player Warzone games in KZ2, but I wont deny that 16 player games run better framerate and netcode wise, and offer a more coherent and less clusterf*** experince.rragnaar

I actually thought some of those maps were too big for just 24 players. It worked in Rush because maps opened up as one team progressed through the game, but in conquest, i spent more time running around or driving in ATVs then in actual combat.

It also sucked that I never got to fly a chopper or that small UAV.

BF1943 now was a f***ing masterpiece!

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

16 player battles seem to be the sweet spot for online multiplayer this gen. I didnt mind the 40 player battles in R1 or the 32 player Warzone games in KZ2, but I wont deny that 16 player games run better framerate and netcode wise, and offer a more coherent and less clusterf*** experince.rragnaar

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

16 player battles seem to be the sweet spot for online multiplayer this gen. I didnt mind the 40 player battles in R1 or the 32 player Warzone games in KZ2, but I wont deny that 16 player games run better framerate and netcode wise, and offer a more coherent and less clusterf*** experince.0Hamburgher

16 player battles seem to be the sweet spot for online multiplayer this gen. I didnt mind the 40 player battles in R1 or the 32 player Warzone games in KZ2, but I wont deny that 16 player games run better framerate and netcode wise, and offer a more coherent and less clusterf*** experince.

I also dont think they are ripping off COD. Perks have become the norm this gen, and just because a game includes perks, it doesn't mean they are ripping off COD. I have seen videos of the multiplayer and players take ages to die, that's the complete opposite of COD where getting kills is easier than turning, and players die from two bullets most of the time.

I dont agree with people who claim every scripted shooter is somehow ripping off COD, and I wont agree with games getting COD'ified just because the devs decided to include perks. Uncharted 2, KZ3 and MAG all had perks and aside from DTI in Uncharted 2, they are pretty well balanced and allow for far more customizable multiplayer than we've ever had.

I loved the big 128 and 256 player battles in MAG. In domination, with friendly fire on, there were 255 potential guns out there with your death written on them, not to mention the air strikes and mortors. Yet the way Zipper balanced the game, I died less in 30 minute rounds than I did in the 5 minute COD TDM rounds with barely 10 players TOTAL. My point is COD's biggest problems are the terrible spawns, unbalanced camper friendly maps, unbalanced kill streaks and awful netcode that amplifies the auto-aim and low health problems. Perks not so much. If Insomniac can design a multiplayer with decent maps, decent health and with these perks or kill streak bonuses in mind, it wont be ripping off COD. We know their netcode is excellent, and with health being on the higher side, it wont result in many cheap deaths and that is what COD is all about.

I suppose the biggest reason why I believe in Insomniac not to f*** this up like COD is that they are having a beta for this game. No COD game in the past six years has had a public beta. That's why it's broken. That's why we dont play it. And that's precisely why games like KZ3, MAG and Uncharted 2 (Pre 1.04) are a lot more balanced than COD. Most of the terrible design decisions, perks or killstreaks were reported in betas and corrected for the final release.

S0lidSnake

I agree killstreaks and perks aren't CoD's only problems, but they are problems IMHO. I just want matches to be tests of skill and coordination. It makes no sense to give the most skilled, experienced players better equipment and skills and superweapons ('You've killed a bunch of people, now you're bulletproof, that's make things even less interesting!) because then you're just predjucing things against the less experienced and making losing matches harder to turn around.

I enjoyed Uncharted 2 despite the ridiculous unlock process because as you mentioned, the skills weren't a big deal, but it would have been better without them. I haven't messed with KZ3's full online (though I spent my share of time in the beta)yet but the unlock system really hurt KZ2 (it was ridiculous that you had to get a bunch of kills with the ineffective pistol before you could get the effective pistol).

I hope that Warhawk 2 (or Starhawk, depending on the rumor you listen to) doesn't get sucked into all this unlockable and killstreak stuff. What's the point of Sony making half a dozen shooters with online componentsif those components play exactly the same?

I agree killstreaks and perks aren't CoD's only problems, but they are problems IMHO. I just want matches to be tests of skill and coordination. It makes no sense to give the most skilled, experienced players better equipment and skills and superweapons ('You've killed a bunch of people, now you're bulletproof, that's make things even less interesting!) because then you're just predjucing things against the less experienced and making losing matches harder to turn around.

I enjoyed Uncharted 2 despite the ridiculous unlock process because as you mentioned, the skills weren't a big deal, but it would have been better without them. I haven't messed with KZ3's full online (though I spent my share of time in the beta)yet but the unlock system really hurt KZ2 (it was ridiculous that you had to get a bunch of kills with the ineffective pistol before you could get the effective pistol).

I hope that Warhawk 2 (or Starhawk, depending on the rumor you listen to) doesn't get sucked into all this unlockable and killstreak stuff. What's the point of Sony making half a dozen shooters with online componentsif those components play exactly the same?

CarnageHeart

I think the only multiplayer that's still doing that is Halo. No unlocks or perks, and commend Bungie for sticking to their design and adding more features to compete against the likes of COD.

But at the same time, i will always disagree with you on the merits of unlocks in online multiplayer. I think it gives online games that 'Goal' single player campaigns rely so heavily on. If all you are doing online is killing dudes, capturing flags and boosting stats, you dont get that sense of achievement you get from beating the single player campaign. If I finish KZ3 on Elite, I know I have conquered the game. There is no such feeling in the multiplayer where I could get my ass handed to me by better player, so in effect I feel like s*** for putting in 100 hours in the game and still getting owned like a noob.

That's why having unlocks is so important in a multiplayer. You can be losing badly in a 30 minute round, but you know you have managed just enough points to unlock that ability or that weapon. It just works.

I dont agree with killstreaks so I am with you on that. But games like Uncharted and Killzone give you bonus points for going on killstreaks which dont affect the balance of the game, so it varies from game to game on how unfair killstreaks can be.

I hate to bring up MAG again, but I thought the unlock system in that game was fantastic. It didn't just give you perks or new abilities, or customize your gear, it allowed you to customize everything to suit your playstyIe. For instance, a sniper could be a medic reviving downed comrades AND an engineer repairing AA guns, mortors and whatnot. You could play the game stealthily, blocking enemy radar or simply missing from the radar altogether and still be able to revive players and repear stuff. Yes, unlocking all of that stuff took hours but like any well designed game, they unlocked most of the major abilities at the beginning and only kept the customizable options unlocked at higher levels.

KZ2's unlock system was decent because it allowed you to learn every cIass before moving on to the next one. The Pistol unlock was BS, agreed 100% there.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

I agree killstreaks and perks aren't CoD's only problems, but they are problems IMHO. I just want matches to be tests of skill and coordination. It makes no sense to give the most skilled, experienced players better equipment and skills and superweapons ('You've killed a bunch of people, now you're bulletproof, that's make things even less interesting!) because then you're just predjucing things against the less experienced and making losing matches harder to turn around.

I enjoyed Uncharted 2 despite the ridiculous unlock process because as you mentioned, the skills weren't a big deal, but it would have been better without them. I haven't messed with KZ3's full online (though I spent my share of time in the beta)yet but the unlock system really hurt KZ2 (it was ridiculous that you had to get a bunch of kills with the ineffective pistol before you could get the effective pistol).

I hope that Warhawk 2 (or Starhawk, depending on the rumor you listen to) doesn't get sucked into all this unlockable and killstreak stuff. What's the point of Sony making half a dozen shooters with online componentsif those components play exactly the same?

S0lidSnake

I think the only multiplayer that's still doing that is Halo. No unlocks or perks, and commend Bungie for sticking to their design and adding more features to compete against the likes of COD.

But at the same time, i will always disagree with you on the merits of unlocks in online multiplayer. I think it gives online games that 'Goal' single player campaigns rely so heavily on. If all you are doing online is killing dudes, capturing flags and boosting stats, you dont get that sense of achievement you get from beating the single player campaign. If I finish KZ3 on Elite, I know I have conquered the game. There is no such feeling in the multiplayer where I could get my ass handed to me by better player, so in effect I feel like s*** for putting in 100 hours in the game and still getting owned like a noob.

That's why having unlocks is so important in a multiplayer. You can be losing badly in a 30 minute round, but you know you have managed just enough points to unlock that ability or that weapon. It just works.

I dont agree with killstreaks so I am with you on that. But games like Uncharted and Killzone give you bonus points for going on killstreaks which dont affect the balance of the game, so it varies from game to game on how unfair killstreaks can be.

I hate to bring up MAG again, but I thought the unlock system in that game was fantastic. It didn't just give you perks or new abilities, or customize your gear, it allowed you to customize everything to suit your playstyIe. For instance, a sniper could be a medic reviving downed comrades AND an engineer repairing AA guns, mortors and whatnot. You could play the game stealthily, blocking enemy radar or simply missing from the radar altogether and still be able to revive players and repear stuff. Yes, unlocking all of that stuff took hours but like any well designed game, they unlocked most of the major abilities at the beginning and only kept the customizable options unlocked at higher levels.

KZ2's unlock system was decent because it allowed you to learn every cIass before moving on to the next one. The Pistol unlock was BS, agreed 100% there.

I don't agree with boosting stats either :P. From where I stand, being good in multiplayer is its own reward. I played Warhawk for 600 hours and enjoyed every match, win or lose. I'd switch to the losing side if they were shorthanded just to keep things fair.

Being killed by lower level players didn't bother me or make me wish I had some skill that made me near impossible for newer players to kill in a fair fight. It bothered me if I died due to sloppiness (mine or that of my team) but sometimes it happens even if one does everything right (tank catches you out in the open and you just have a machine gun, that's it).

What I really love are close games where both sides are evenly matches and each guy is trying to make the big move that will give his team the win. Grinding for items just holds no appeal to me. If you like it, that's cool though.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

16 player battles seem to be the sweet spot for online multiplayer this gen. I didnt mind the 40 player battles in R1 or the 32 player Warzone games in KZ2, but I wont deny that 16 player games run better framerate and netcode wise, and offer a more coherent and less clusterf*** experince.S0lidSnake

I actually thought some of those maps were too big for just 24 players. It worked in Rush because maps opened up as one team progressed through the game, but in conquest, i spent more time running around or driving in ATVs then in actual combat.

It also sucked that I never got to fly a chopper or that small UAV.

BF1943 now was a f***ing masterpiece!

I thought Resistance 2 was better then the first in pretty much every way though I like them both. The 60 player online matches were fantastic, it was hectic fast paced fun. Greatly looking forward to part 3.

Personally I like multiplayer that gives me something to work for. I'm not some huge COD fan or anything. I enjoyed the perks too cause it let me setup my character the way I wanted to play better. But when it comes right down to it, you can't exactly make a FPS multiplayer that doesn't look like the others. They are all basically the same. Same modes, same kinds of maps.

The kill-streak system is one of the many reasons why I do not play the Call of Duty games. I really hope this doesn't become an industry trend.killzonexbox

I thought Resistance 2 was better then the first in pretty much every way though I like them both. The 60 player online matches were fantastic, it was hectic fast paced fun. Greatly looking forward to part 3.

AzelKosMos

Dont tell me you liked the single player better than the first.

Please dont.

Please.

Or i will have to take you off my PSN friend's list.

Fear not Carnage, want to know who is really intent on ripping off COD? Naughty Dog of course. Uncharted 3's multiplayer is going to be utter s***.

"Sony revealed two of the Uncharted 3 multiplayer maps at their E3 Sneak Peek event last week. The multiplayer was pretty neat, offering booster (also known as perks for those familiar with Call of Duty) and a brand new medal system. You get medals for kills and then can spend those medals on one-use items like a grenade that splits into three grenades. Naughty Dog has also introduced what everyone wants in Uncharted 3 multiplayer: the ability to sprint."

What. The. F***.

Who wanted sprint in Uncharted? Who wanted Killstreaks in Uncharted? I still maintain that the half health post launch is the biggest f*** up by a Sony studio this gen, i have zero faith in whoever is handling the multiplayer for this game. Whoever is incharge of the multiplayer can get fired for all i care, or worse yet, go work for COD where he mother f***ing belongs.

Fear not Carnage, want to know who is really intent on ripping off COD? Naughty Dog of course. Uncharted 3's multiplayer is going to be utter s***.

"Sony revealed two of the Uncharted 3 multiplayer maps at their E3 Sneak Peek event last week. The multiplayer was pretty neat, offering booster (also known as perks for those familiar with Call of Duty) and a brand new medal system. You get medals for kills and then can spend those medals on one-use items like a grenade that splits into three grenades. Naughty Dog has also introduced what everyone wants in Uncharted 3 multiplayer: the ability to sprint."

What. The. F***.

Who wanted sprint in Uncharted? Who wanted Killstreaks in Uncharted? I still maintain that the half health post launch is the biggest f*** up by a Sony studio this gen, i have zero faith in whoever is handling the multiplayer for this game. Whoever is incharge of the multiplayer can get fired for all i care, or worse yet, go work for COD where he mother f***ing belongs.

S0lidSnake

That's terrible. Uncharted is a superb SP series, so its still a must buy for me, but I'm not even going to touch multiplayer.

It actually reminded me a lot of Halo when I watched the YouTube video, perks don't mean anything, as long as there's still player weight (it's just stupid when the characters buzz around like bees and knifing someone is a better option than shooting them), and it still takes a lot of bullets to die, both of which looked to be true based on the video, then I'm happy. Hopefully it doesn't fall the way of KZ3, I defended it at first but then after playing it I did realize it was just a terrible CoD clone.

[QUOTE="AzelKosMos"]

I thought Resistance 2 was better then the first in pretty much every way though I like them both. The 60 player online matches were fantastic, it was hectic fast paced fun. Greatly looking forward to part 3.

S0lidSnake

Dont tell me you liked the single player better than the first.

Please dont.

Please.

Or i will have to take you off my PSN friend's list.

I liked Resistance 2's SP better too.

[QUOTE="killzonexbox"]The kill-streak system is one of the many reasons why I do not play the Call of Duty games. I really hope this doesn't become an industry trend.AzelKosMos

Killstreaks are fine, giving someone a near invincible helicopter that rains hell down on everyone and can kill any enemy in the entire map that is exposed in like one second s not, it just depends on what it is.

Fear not Carnage, want to know who is really intent on ripping off COD? Naughty Dog of course. Uncharted 3's multiplayer is going to be utter s***.

"Sony revealed two of the Uncharted 3 multiplayer maps at their E3 Sneak Peek event last week. The multiplayer was pretty neat, offering booster (also known as perks for those familiar with Call of Duty) and a brand new medal system. You get medals for kills and then can spend those medals on one-use items like a grenade that splits into three grenades. Naughty Dog has also introduced what everyone wants in Uncharted 3 multiplayer: the ability to sprint."

What. The. F***.

Who wanted sprint in Uncharted? Who wanted Killstreaks in Uncharted? I still maintain that the half health post launch is the biggest f*** up by a Sony studio this gen, i have zero faith in whoever is handling the multiplayer for this game. Whoever is incharge of the multiplayer can get fired for all i care, or worse yet, go work for COD where he mother f***ing belongs.

S0lidSnake

Lol, I remember that, they cite two of the worst MPs this gen as inspirations for the MP. It was bad enough when they just reduced the health slightly in UC2.

I personally wouldn't mind Resistance 3 playing like MP Call of Duty/Battlefield Bad Company 2. I really couldn't get into Resistance 2's multiplayer. But that's just me. EXEraserVS

I couldn't get into R2's multiplayer either. Being broken up into squads by the computer, then having the computer order your squad to a location (and ordering an enemy squad to the same location) just so you two can shoot it out, then once one side has been declared victorious, ordering the squad to another battlesite annoyed the **** out of me. I felt like a puppy being yanked around by its leash.

R1's multiplayer was enjoyable though.

[QUOTE="EXEraserVS"]I personally wouldn't mind Resistance 3 playing like MP Call of Duty/Battlefield Bad Company 2. I really couldn't get into Resistance 2's multiplayer. But that's just me. CarnageHeart

I couldn't get into R2's multiplayer either. Being broken up into squads by the computer, then having the computer order your squad to a location (and ordering an enemy squad to the same location) just so you two can shoot it out, then once one side has been declared victorious, ordering the squad to another battlesite annoyed the **** out of me. I felt like a puppy being yanked around by its leash.

R1's multiplayer was enjoyable though.

As long as they keep online co-op, I'll be content.