1up Resistance 2 Review: B+

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="Episode_Eve"]

That's the point. From the beggining Insomniac said that they would create separate campaigns. One dedicated to single player experience. And the other to co-op. Fleshing out each mode to its strengths as well as intwining the story. I mean, how can that be a bad thing?

Nike_Air

Appearantly trying to do something new and create a SEPARATE STORY DRIVEN CAMPAIGN, just for co-op, that supports 8 players doesn't meet today's console standards. I will wait on the GS and GT reviews :).

I don't like complaining. I feel like a little ***** doing so, but I can't help it if he gives no reasonable arguments of why he scored it below AAA.

• no co-op through the campaign
• no vehicles
• lack of a narrator
• under 10 hour campaign
• enemies targeting only you - breaking the illusion of being in a real squad
• cheap unexpected deaths
• absence of some visual delights of a modern shooter

postives

• scope
• good weapons
• enemies
• fun multiplayer
• neat co-op mode

Again. Why complain about no tacked on co-op feature in campaign when it was said from the begining that there would be a mode dedicated to the strengths of co-op gameplay? LMAO. Lack of narrator? OMG, 90% of games should have points deducted if thats a negative. 10 hours is above average length this gen. Especially when you have a co-op mode that adds an average of 10-15 hours and a fun and robust MP.

Vehicles shoudn't make or break shooters (hence the word: SHOOTER). CoD didn't have it and was freakin awesome! I don't think the absence of vehicles (something that should only be added if it benefits the gameplay) should dictate any weight in the score. Especailly considering the massive quantity of content the game offers. And it does what it's meant to do extremley well. The top shooters this gen are challenging, every game has "unexpected deaths".

I understand the visual quirks and whatnot, but a majority of the complaints are rediculous IMO.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

Appearantly trying to do something new and create a SEPARATE STORY DRIVEN CAMPAIGN, just for co-op, that supports 8 players doesn't meet today's console standards. I will wait on the GS and GT reviews :).

I don't like complaining. I feel like a little ***** doing so, but I can't help it if he gives no reasonable arguments of why he scored it below AAA.

Nike_Air

• no co-op through the campaign
• no vehicles
• lack of a narrator
• under 10 hour campaign
• enemies targeting only you - breaking the illusion of being in a real squad
• cheap unexpected deaths
• absence of some visual delights of a modern shooter

postives

• scope
• good weapons
• enemies
• fun multiplayer
• neat co-op mode

1.) So now everyone wants a narrator!? People complained about Rachel as a narrator it in the first one...
2.) A 10 hour campaign is VERY reasonable considering it has a 30+ hour 8 player co-op and online MP :|.
3.) Enemies ONLY target you in co-op? Yeah right. So I guess since he sucks and doesn't work with his team he complains that the enemies are only shooting at him :?.
4.) Not having a vehicle section is a valid negative, but they replaced that with huge bosses and more content.
5.) Cheap unexpected deaths I could agree with. But all challenging shooter have a few of these.
6.) Absence of certain visual delights? WTF. It's understandable considering the amount of enemies on screen, scope of the levels, and solid framerate. Even IGN said this.
7.) No traditional co-op? WTF. This is laughable as a gamer. He knew from the beginning what Insomniac planned. They give us MORE and he brushes it off as "neat". It's unheard of on consoles.

Maybe next time he could give reasonable excuses to rate a game lower. I don't care about the score. I care about the reasons he gave. IGN, GS, and GT for the win :).

They gave Motorstorm 2 an A- but Resistance 2 a B+? HUHSolidGame_basic

That dosn't mean much on it's own. B+ is still a good score in it's own rights, but the quality of what's been written is not even up to scratch with sites like Gamespot and IGN. The evidence is flimsy, and the writing (Don't even think about critisising my language. I'm not a great writer, but then I'm not a paid critic) is poor. Two diffrent genres though so the comparison dosn't stand. All that tells us is that they have diffrent tastes, which is almost a flaw in it's self, because it is up to critics to be as open minded as possible. At the same time though we don't really know until we have a finished copy of the game. Of course Xbox 360 fanboys won't read the review, and so it won't matter that the quality sucks, only that by that the review dosn't match up to the hype. My advice to 360 fan boys (I refuse to use the term Lemming, as it is false. Look up Lemming myths and you will see what i mean.), don't get your hopes up.

[QUOTE="SolidGame_basic"]They gave Motorstorm 2 an A- but Resistance 2 a B+? HUHWasntAvailable

That dosn't mean much on it's own. B+ is still a good score in it's own rights, but the quality of what's been written is not even up to scratch with sites like Gamespot and IGN. The evidence is flimsy, and the writing (Don't even think about critisising my language. I'm not a great writer, but then I'm not a paid critic) is poor. Two diffrent genres though so the comparison dosn't stand. All that tells us is that they have diffrent tastes, which is almost a flaw in it's self, because it is up to critics to be as open minded as possible. At the same time though we don't really know until we have a finished copy of the game. Of course Xbox 360 fanboys won't read the review, and so it won't matter that the quality sucks, only that by that the review dosn't match up to the hype. My advice to 360 fan boys (I refuse to use the term Lemming, as it is false. Look up Lemming myths and you will see what i mean.), don't get your hopes up.

I agree. B+ is a great score, but the reasons for giving R2 a B+ are mind boggling.

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="Episode_Eve"][QUOTE="ExtremeOne316"]

The review mentions the one thing I have been feeling is that the game does not have a story co op mode . this side story co op crap is weak and pointless while games like Gears of War 2 have a story co op mode .

Nike_Air

That's the point. From the beggining Insomniac said that they would create separate campaigns. One dedicated to single player experience. And the other to co-op. Fleshing out each mode to its strengths as well as intwining the story. I mean, how can that be a bad thing?

Appearantly trying to do something new and create a SEPARATE STORY DRIVEN CAMPAIGN, just for co-op, that supports 8 players doesn't meet today's console standards. I will wait on the GS and GT reviews :).

I don't like complaining. I feel like a little ***** doing so, but I can't help it if he gives no reasonable arguments of why he scored it below AAA.

• no co-op through the campaign
• no vehicles
• lack of a narrator
• under 10 hour campaign
• enemies targeting only you - breaking the illusion of being in a real squad
• cheap unexpected deaths
• absence of some visual delights of a modern shooter

postives

• scope
• good weapons
• enemies
• fun multiplayer
• neat co-op mode

are u kidding me the cons of this game is almost the same for every other shooter

ex. COD4

no coop campg. no vehicle. lack of a narrator. under 6 hour story mode. enemy only focusing on you. cheap death & the graphics are not perfect either

LOL they gave Wii Music a higher score! 1up are so terrible, I'm not even talking about R2 deserving AAA or not, I haven't played it but there is NOOOOOOOOOOO WAYYYYY Wii Music is a better game.Eddie-Vedder

They never said Wii Music was better. It doesnt work like that.

ex. COD4

no coop campg. no vehicle. lack of a narrator. under 6 hour story mode. enemy only focusing on you. cheap death & the graphics are not perfect either"

Same thing went through my head. Someone said CoD 4 set the barrier earlier. A bit of a contradiction if you wan't to use "standards" as an arguement. Though on the flip side, you only get cheap deaths on veteran, and Resistance 2 and CoD4 both do have competent graphics, just not mind blowing.

What I do find quite funny is how it says lack of campagin co-op, then goes on to say neat co-op.

Edit: Realised quote chain was a bit big.

[QUOTE="Nike_Air"][QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="Episode_Eve"][QUOTE="ExtremeOne316"]

The review mentions the one thing I have been feeling is that the game does not have a story co op mode . this side story co op crap is weak and pointless while games like Gears of War 2 have a story co op mode .

FreeMan5407

That's the point. From the beggining Insomniac said that they would create separate campaigns. One dedicated to single player experience. And the other to co-op. Fleshing out each mode to its strengths as well as intwining the story. I mean, how can that be a bad thing?

Appearantly trying to do something new and create a SEPARATE STORY DRIVEN CAMPAIGN, just for co-op, that supports 8 players doesn't meet today's console standards. I will wait on the GS and GT reviews :).

I don't like complaining. I feel like a little ***** doing so, but I can't help it if he gives no reasonable arguments of why he scored it below AAA.

• no co-op through the campaign
• no vehicles
• lack of a narrator
• under 10 hour campaign
• enemies targeting only you - breaking the illusion of being in a real squad
• cheap unexpected deaths
• absence of some visual delights of a modern shooter

postives

• scope
• good weapons
• enemies
• fun multiplayer
• neat co-op mode

are u kidding me the cons of this game is almost the same for every other shooter

ex. COD4

no coop campg. no vehicle. lack of a narrator. under 6 hour story mode. enemy only focusing on you. cheap death & the graphics are not perfect either

wow according to 1UP wii music > R2

well at least i can still trust IGN and GS

Wait...This game has no traditional co-op? As in, no splitscreen co-op?

Please tell that's not true...If there's one thing that really pisses me off this gen, it's games that have only online co-op. I don't like online co-op. Sure. it's better than nothing, but still, I don't think online co-op can ever match splitscreen co-op.

Don't think I'm a whiney little ***** or something...I usually don't complain, but this is one of the most annoying things this gen, and considering Resistance had splitscreen co op, it's a bit annoying....

I think it's great what they've done with the 8 player co op, but I'd easily trade it for splitscreen. I'll never play online co op on this game.

Wait...This game has no traditional co-op? As in, no splitscreen co-op?

Please tell that's not true...If there's one thing that really pisses me off this gen, it's games that have only online co-op. I don't like online co-op. Sure. it's better than nothing, but still, I don't think online co-op can ever match splitscreen co-op.

Don't think I'm a whiney little ***** or something...I usually don't complain, but this is one of the most annoying things this gen, and considering Resistance had splitscreen co op, it's a bit annoying....

I think it's great what they've done with the 8 player co op, but I'd easily trade it for splitscreen. I'll never play online co op on this game.

SSJ_Nega

Well the beta had that so I don't see why the final game wouldn't.

Wait...This game has no traditional co-op? As in, no splitscreen co-op?

Please tell that's not true...If there's one thing that really pisses me off this gen, it's games that have only online co-op. I don't like online co-op. Sure. it's better than nothing, but still, I don't think online co-op can ever match splitscreen co-op.

Don't think I'm a whiney little ***** or something...I usually don't complain, but this is one of the most annoying things this gen, and considering Resistance had splitscreen co op, it's a bit annoying....

I think it's great what they've done with the 8 player co op, but I'd easily trade it for splitscreen. I'll never play online co op on this game.

SSJ_Nega

Not 100% sure about this being true, but someone said it had splitscreen earlier. The review is talking about not being able to play through the campagin on Co-Op. Not that many FPS games have that anyway, let alone a completely seperate Co-Op component.

Wait...This game has no traditional co-op? As in, no splitscreen co-op?

Please tell that's not true...If there's one thing that really pisses me off this gen, it's games that have only online co-op. I don't like online co-op. Sure. it's better than nothing, but still, I don't think online co-op can ever match splitscreen co-op.

Don't think I'm a whiney little ***** or something...I usually don't complain, but this is one of the most annoying things this gen, and considering Resistance had splitscreen co op, it's a bit annoying....

I think it's great what they've done with the 8 player co op, but I'd easily trade it for splitscreen. I'll never play online co op on this game.

SSJ_Nega

Yes it does have splitscreen co-op. Just not in dedicated single player campaing. In 8-player co-op and MP you can split-screen and go online. And a second person can even log in. Insomniac said they're looking into allowing the 2nd player recieve rank and trophies as well.

[QUOTE="TheOwnerOner"][QUOTE="Episode_Eve"][QUOTE="ozmatic77"]

GT has it's share of questionable reviews...halo 3 having a better story than mgs4?...

Episode_Eve

What was the MGS4 story anyways?

Slept through everyone of the 30 min cutscenes.

No comment.

I wouldn't waste my time neither.

Wait...This game has no traditional co-op? As in, no splitscreen co-op?

Please tell that's not true...If there's one thing that really pisses me off this gen, it's games that have only online co-op. I don't like online co-op. Sure. it's better than nothing, but still, I don't think online co-op can ever match splitscreen co-op.

Don't think I'm a whiney little ***** or something...I usually don't complain, but this is one of the most annoying things this gen, and considering Resistance had splitscreen co op, it's a bit annoying....

I think it's great what they've done with the 8 player co op, but I'd easily trade it for splitscreen. I'll never play online co op on this game.

SSJ_Nega

http://www.dailygame.net/news/archives/008444.php

It uses both it seems.

[QUOTE="SSJ_Nega"]

Wait...This game has no traditional co-op? As in, no splitscreen co-op?

Please tell that's not true...If there's one thing that really pisses me off this gen, it's games that have only online co-op. I don't like online co-op. Sure. it's better than nothing, but still, I don't think online co-op can ever match splitscreen co-op.

Don't think I'm a whiney little ***** or something...I usually don't complain, but this is one of the most annoying things this gen, and considering Resistance had splitscreen co op, it's a bit annoying....

I think it's great what they've done with the 8 player co op, but I'd easily trade it for splitscreen. I'll never play online co op on this game.

Episode_Eve

Yes it does have splitscreen co-op. Just not in dedicated single player campaing. In 8-player co-op and MP you can split-screen and go online. And a second person can even log in. Insomniac said they're looking into allowing the 2nd player recieve rank and trophies as well.

Phew...

I'm just glad it has splitscreen co op. It's pretty cool that it has an entirely different campaign, I prefer it that way.

yea he is nitpicking if you ask him, i mean i dont care for the score could get a 0 or a f im gona buy it ,but give real reason why the game deserve the score cause like i said over 90% fps have must of those cons

btw if the story. gameplay. sound & graphics are good why bring down a score alot cause dont have vehicle or enemies only target you. like i said is silly

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/924/924372p1.html

I don't care for scores, since they are based on arbitrary measuring system. It's essentially someone's opinion. I do understand that many people use them to base their purchases on.

I do, however, like to read the reviews to see what the reviewers thoughts were on gameplay, graphics, storyline, etc. I read the 1up review, and was slightly confused. He gave no valid reasons for scoring this game a b+. Again, doens't matter since that score is an arbitrary grade. But his review stating that the lack of the traditional coop campaign is a negative was asinine, in my opinion. Yes my opinion, not fact. I like playing my fps campaign in single player mode. But sometimes when my brothers are over, I like to do it in coop style, but don't really want to advance my campaign, since I like to do it solo so I can fully experience the story. This option is a fresh new item for any fps games. I think it was innovative, and for that alone should not been a negative about the game.

Short campaign is a negative. But with other shooters having extremely shorter campaigns (I'm looking at you COD4), this 10 hour campaign is a blessing! And COD4 recieved high prasies for its online play, not it story or campaign mode.....i don't care for this, since I like single play, not online. The campaign was a brutal 6 hours. Intense, but 6 hours, how short is that! And it recieved high praises. No vehicle battles, and the graphics were good, but not outstanding. While the r2 graphics don't seem mind blowing, they seem on par with what cod4 had to offer. And the fact that this game offers players so many ways to play it seems worth a purchase. I wasn't a huge fan of RFOM, as a matter of fact I am like halfway through it, at least I think I am. This game wasn't on my radar because of my experience with RFOM, but after reading that it has a single player campaign mode that is different from it coop campaign mode, as well as different form it mp mode.......makes this a purchase for me.

To all, and I know this will fall on deaf ears, play the games you like, not the games that score high. The only opinion that matters is your own.....

My 2 cents!

the co-op is apparently just 5 large maps that players must go around fulfillling various objectives, the classes also sound really weakMarloStanfield

Sounding weak and being weak are different. I played the co-op and trust me the classes are deep and teamwork is important to your success.

EDIT: Awesome sig BTW lol.

Dude its not a bad review.... B+. And why are people comparing it to Wii music, two different genres man. Not only that, the review was a good review and explained a lot of the reasons it didn't score an A+, albeit most of them were subjective. It was still a solid review for a solid game. I see it very hard for it to not get AAA here, since its predocessor was so close and was not deserving of the score.

Seriously.. Motorstorm and resistance 1 felt so incomplete, the sequels on the other hand have gameplay in abundance.
Adrian_Cloud

I don't usually agree with you, but I do this time.