Ted Price was right on the money. They made Resistance 2 too easy. Resistance 1 was all out battle on an open battlefield. It felt more like a REAL WAR with flanks, cover spots, and trenches. Resistance 2 was a straight up corridor shooter through and through. Everyone always attacks you head on, and they never attack in groups of more than five. It was weak.
They attack you in groups of five or less, you kill them, then you get a five minute break to search for power ups and weapons, then rinse repeat . The game stuck too this formula too much an d that's why it sucked compared to Resistance 1. If Insomniac made these weak difficulty changes at Sony's behest, you can see why they were so bitter and decided to become independent. It was gh3y and too easy. It was like a FPS for a five year old. The devs hold your hand the entire time, and give you hints how to beat the bosses, EVEN THE LAST BOSS. And I played the game at the highest difficulty.
To make matters worse, the graphics SUCKED so bad in Resistance 2. What kind of sequel game has worse graphics and lower Resolution than it's predecessor? A Terrible one , that's what. WORST. SEQUEL. EVER. Needless to say, I sold Resistance 2 to a co-worker and never bought Resistance 3.