I've read posts of peepz who think Resistance 1 looks better than R2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for multiplat
multiplat

1692

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 multiplat
Member since 2009 • 1692 Posts

I honestly felt this way and I know others do to (from reading what they wrote)

I love Ps3, I love R1 FOM, but I sincerely feel that FOM looked better than R2.

Also, whats weird is that Insomniac's other game, R&C TOS appeared to be more graphically impressive than ACIT, (however ACIT is a far superior game, gameplay and fun-factor wise). However, In TOS, you had an awesome feeling zipping through Metropolis with all those vehicles and stuff goin on in the background, it was technically and artisticaly impressive.

I know i know, graphics dont mean anything when compared to gameplay, but still....

Avatar image for shabab12
shabab12

2613

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 shabab12
Member since 2007 • 2613 Posts
whats TOS? and there wrong.
Avatar image for Djmaster214
Djmaster214

3240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Djmaster214
Member since 2005 • 3240 Posts
whats TOS? and there wrong. shabab12
you cant be wrong about an opinion. and personally in my OPINION Fall of man did look better in most areas
Avatar image for milan22
milan22

840

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 milan22
Member since 2007 • 840 Posts

I honestly felt this way and I know others do to (from reading what they wrote)

I love Ps3, I love R1 FOM, but I sincerely feel that FOM looked better than R2.

Also, whats weird is that Insomniac's other game, R&C TOS appeared to be more graphically impressive than ACIT, (however ACIT is a far superior game, gameplay and fun-factor wise). However, In TOS, you had an awesome feeling zipping through Metropolis with all those vehicles and stuff goin on in the background, it was technically and artisticaly impressive.

I know i know, graphics dont mean anything when compared to gameplay, but still....

multiplat
It's looked better and was more original. I actually think R1 is better than R2. i dunno why i get some cheap feeling when i play R2..
Avatar image for danthegardner99
danthegardner99

799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 danthegardner99
Member since 2006 • 799 Posts

I don't think there is any way that FOM has better graphics than Res 2, but Res 2 can't compete with the atmosphere FOM brings. Res 2 wanted to bring a 1950s postcard look, with the colorfulness of everything. I think Insomniac succeeded with that, but it didn't feel appropriate for an alien invasion. FOM just looks better with the washed out colors and the depressing look for an alien invasion.

Avatar image for meluvulongtime8
meluvulongtime8

1428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 14

#6 meluvulongtime8
Member since 2007 • 1428 Posts

R2 may be better graphically, but R:FOM had an overall better feel than R2. R:FOM had character. Something I think that R2 kinda lacked.

Avatar image for Second_Rook
Second_Rook

3680

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#7 Second_Rook
Member since 2007 • 3680 Posts
I think that Resistance is the better game, but I don't know if there is even room for discussion over which one is better looking. Unless you have a real passion for desaturation Resistance 2 looks considerably better.
Avatar image for Papadrach
Papadrach

1965

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Papadrach
Member since 2008 • 1965 Posts
whats TOS? and there wrong. shabab12
Tools of Destruction, and sorry but its a pet peeve when people dont use the correct there their and they're..... in this case they're. But its sometimes common for sequel games to look worse. Look at call of duty lol, Black ops looks like a really good PS2 game compared to MW2. Although console graphics aren't really that great, except for a select few.
Avatar image for benleslie5
benleslie5

9174

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 557

User Lists: 0

#9 benleslie5  Moderator
Member since 2006 • 9174 Posts

I did find Resistance 2 disapointing on it's story, but multiplayer was good. But I do prefer Resistance Fall of Man which was almost perfect for a FPS game for the PS3.

Avatar image for Joker1232003
Joker1232003

1567

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Joker1232003
Member since 2003 • 1567 Posts

Resistance FOM did look loads better than Resistance 2. R1 was alot sharper with clean textures, R2 took the GTA San Andres approach and went for Quantity over quality.

The only flaw reviewer had with R1 was that is was a standard shooter, other than a unique story line. Nothing set it apart from other shooters. I got bored playing Resistance 2 and never even finished it. Compared to Resistance 1 which I played through LOADS! R1 in my opinion was far better in almost every factor than Resistance 2

I loved the story and the side narration on Fall Of Man, Its a shame it lost its touch, R2 felt cheap and Last Gen.

Avatar image for multiplat
multiplat

1692

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 multiplat
Member since 2009 • 1692 Posts
[QUOTE="shabab12"]whats TOS? and there wrong. Djmaster214
you cant be wrong about an opinion. and personally in my OPINION Fall of man did look better in most areas

I meant TOD
Avatar image for multiplat
multiplat

1692

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 multiplat
Member since 2009 • 1692 Posts
[QUOTE="multiplat"]

I honestly felt this way and I know others do to (from reading what they wrote)

I love Ps3, I love R1 FOM, but I sincerely feel that FOM looked better than R2.

Also, whats weird is that Insomniac's other game, R&C TOS appeared to be more graphically impressive than ACIT, (however ACIT is a far superior game, gameplay and fun-factor wise). However, In TOS, you had an awesome feeling zipping through Metropolis with all those vehicles and stuff goin on in the background, it was technically and artisticaly impressive.

I know i know, graphics dont mean anything when compared to gameplay, but still....

milan22
It's looked better and was more original. I actually think R1 is better than R2. i dunno why i get some cheap feeling when i play R2..

Ya, a cheap feeling, I second that. Not as much thought put into the game, atmosphere, narration (or lack of), mediocore level design, overall lack of fun in R2
Avatar image for JoKeR_421
JoKeR_421

8920

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13 JoKeR_421
Member since 2006 • 8920 Posts
the only thing thats better than in R1 than R2, was the weapon wheel in R1 they took that off which i dont know why. and also single player was co-op in the 2nd there isnt any co-op in single player. other than that R2 was better in almost every other way. i bet if these 2 options were available from start in R2 ppl wouldnt be complaining about it that much
Avatar image for Elann2008
Elann2008

33028

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

#14 Elann2008
Member since 2007 • 33028 Posts
R1 had more depth, R2 had better graphics and visuals. R3 will be the better game. To me, the Resistance series never captured its true essence. It never really defined itself. R1 focused on Nathan Hale, R2 was more about the alien takeover. Gunplay mechanics still feel cheap and unsatisfying. I felt like I was using Ratchet and Clank guns in Resistance. They really need to work on that and give it a more satisfying gunplay feel. I want to see more enemy types, more interesting and stronger characters, and a sense of "struggle." Resistance series is one of those games that have a lot of potential but clearly falls short and it's overrated as heck. I have a lot of hope for Resistance 3 though.