Resistance: Fall of Man and Resistance 2 are two of the best exclusive games on the Playstation 3. Despite being in the same genre and the same series, these two games couldn't be any more different.
Resistance 2 just dropped the ball with no co op mode, it was a pretty standard shooter that threw away the storymode. The extra co op mode was lame, I mean one person did the shooting, the other person did the healing. That's just outthinking yourself. It seems every first person shooter wants to cut out co op mode now, Call of Duty 4 seems to have made that the cool thing to do. Resistance 2 has better graphics, and some extra online modes, but doesn't make up for the lack of co op in my view. I had some pretty good times playing the original with buddies, and Resistance 2 was just a big letdown.
Co-op would not have worked in the R2 story-line. I mean honestly how exactly would co-op work in levels such as the Leviathan and Kraken boss fights? So no, Insomniac didn't cut co-op just because Infinity Ward did.
R1 was better imo. Im just not feeling R2 as much. I have both btw
I prefered the single player in resistance1, it had a more gritty feel to it and just seemed to play better to me, don't know why. thats not to say i didn't enjoy r2, i just had more fun with r1
The hell are you talking about? The "extra lame co-op mode" is what many players and reviewers found to be the best part of the game, including me. Aside from that, I'd agree it was a let down. The campaign wasn't very good at all.
I've been playing resistance 2 after killzone 2 expecting the experience to be ruined by K2's standards. I was so wrong. R2 is fantastic still & is so very addictive & fun. R2's servers are so smooth & skirmish mode can still stand strong. Its a delicious game that can satisfy your need for pure chaos. There are players out there that are so good that's its quite a challenge to beat them. R2 is best played with a mic. I feel resistance 1 was good for its time online but R2 augers it & blast it wide open with a hedgehog grenade. r2 is like a graphic cartoon that's really scary. I will be playing for a long time as I have yet to fully rank up to the limit.
resistance 1 had the better single player. resistance 2 did not do anything that great in the single player and they took the ability to hold multiple weapons away and limited it to 2 instead. resistance 2 had the better mp but resistance wins in the sp in my opinion.
Resistance 1 was better.The matches were fast paced and intense not to mention it had great weapons like the Arc Charger,the flamethrower,backlash grenades,The Reapers,and the Hailstorm with secondary fire turrets.The art direction for R1 was good because the bleak atmosphere was detailed accordingly especially the Cathedral. Not to mention R1 was more of a horror game like when the Grimms attacked you. -I miss the weapon wheel -I miss the narrative from Parker.You suck Nathan -R2 totally butchered the story
i disagree with you except for the Story. But I do agree that they should of bought some of the weapons of R1 back to R2.
i liked the narative as well, kinda knitted the game together for me and really missed it from r2
which is why i wasn't really happy with the color pallet the graphics were a step up bhut in the wrong direction... it somewhat became a halo like game with the color pallet. I didn't particularly like that. R2 should have been a gritty game like R:fom, it was bloody but far from gritty. i wished they would have limited the color pallete and desaturate the look that way the graphics would have looked like a true evolution of R:fom.. The other step backwards was the Narritive... the story i understood and enjoyed it but the narrative was not cohesive. Nathan just wasn't a character you could like and he was completely shallow. Parker from the first Game was excellent at it and it gave you a background of everything and tied the game all together. you didn't have to figure out what was going on because the narrative was walking you through it and explaining the purpose and the journey from start to finish. R2 though is a fabulous game. and a real technical marvel considering all the things it packed. Some of the biggest bosses and great gameplay i'd ever played in a FPS.. R2 should have also kept the weapon wheel, because that was a real good thing and strong point for the first. i prefered having a plethora of weapons to choose from instead of being given clues of whats gonna be required for a boss fight, that made the campaign a bit too easy for me. Still I enjoyed R2 through and through and i hope Ted and the guys listen to the fans and not the critics. the Narrative, cohesive story, weapon wheel and gritty looking graphics was what made the first game so popular. It's a step up on major fronts but also in the wrong direction.
i like the first one kuz it was longer i mean not dissin the 2nd one i like the 60 multiplayer i still have it but i want fps to get longer from these nowadays they been short liek killzone halo and call of duty developers step ur game up
r1 had a weapon wheel which meant that hale can shrink 10 guns into his pocket or up his a$$. The weapon wheel online was tottaly unfair. Baiting players with a pistol to try for a rocket launcher kill with no consequences for missing the shot because you have 5 other guns which were way too powerful. the only people that miss a weapon wheel were the campers. I'm glad its gone. 1 shot kills were good as a option but every custom match used it on the smallest map possible. As for the story, co op would have worked. Arcade mode works so why not player 2 splitscreen? Still, that's not a concern of mine. Nathan hale is a hero yet his chimera rage led him to make some questionable desicions. There are a few twist in the game that are completly surprising. Those that didn't like the story are just boring Brits with tea stained teeth that wanted a Shakespearean drama just because R1 was located in Europe & had buildings look like actual buildings. Its American animosity at its finest. R2 is better than R1.
I started out on R2 and recently got RFOM and they both have their ups and downs. R2 is better in lots of things. For instance, the campaign isn't split up into sections it's smooth, doesn't stop, and much more intesne. If you can understand what I'm saying. The environments were better/varied. More enemies on screen at once. The online was better and the Co-Op was great but not necessarily better than FOM's. R1 is better in some aspects too. It has a more indepth story. The weapon wheel gave it originality, imo. It was much better than only having two weapons. R1 felt original whereas R2 felt more generic. Keep in mind this is my opinion, but that's just how I see it. They're both great and neither are better, imo. IG made some kick ass games and the Resistance Universe is great.
I loved R2 beta but never bought it. I bought R1 but didn't like it.
i actualy like resistance fall of man's graphics better, the ones on r2 seem too cartoony r2 did feel like it had its own identity, i want them to go back to resistance 1 style for the third. but ill buy r3 no matter what
R1 was wayyy better imo. Better atmosphere and I loved the feel of it. Not to mention co-op was a blast.
r2, alot of it felt like rachet and clank to me, especialy in the ships, very poor storey compaired to R1, r1 was gritty and better atmosphere
The same critics who complained about the Narrator's presence in Resistance 1 were the same people who complained that there was no Narrator in Resistance 2. I loved having the narrator because Nathan himself is a very flat character, completely devoid of emotions and even motivations.
the campaign in R1 is much better, but i think R2 just takes the edge with the awesome online
Resistance 2 has the best pistol in all of gaming. I liked the powers in the ending, but I liked how the first was fast paced, and there were rocket launchers which anyone could pick up instead of being a berserk.
I think in R2, although i can't name any 1 area, to me when playing it it seemed like maybe they tried to take on all the criticism from r1 and add all the bits some people claimed was missing from the first game, and seemed like it wasn't following one direction. i liked r1 for because it was doing things a bit different to other fps games. some people complained about r1's lack of colour compared to halo, well if i wanted bright coloures i would have gone for halo, r2 was more colourfull, but seemed to loose the art style from r1 i loved the narative in r1, some people called it lazy, but i liked it and thpught it added to the overall atmosphere and drew you into the battle the story seemed better in r1, again helped by the narrative lets hope r3 has more of the original feel to it, any way, back to kz2 oh, and article says 30 player online in r1, it is 40
R1 just had more of an identity. They caved to pressure about the muted colors of R1 and made the second game ridiculously colorful which threw the entire look and identity right off. I really liked R2 but I remember R1 a heck of a lot more. Plus dropping co op was a huge mistake IMO. I like boss fights in an fps though so I hope they keep that in the 3rd game.
Resistance retribution is coming soon & should wet the appetite of resistance fans with more story & even more gameplay.
Single player - imo, R2 was average. Even though i can't bring myself to complete it, i find it sooo boring. MP though, i think they really put the effort in. So R:FOM > R2 in Single player R2 > R:FOM in Multiplayer, even if they have somehow made it feel a bit like halo.
I think definetly was a better game than R2. Even though R2 maybe a awesome game as well I feel they deviated too far from the first one. The co-op and mulitplayer felt too arcadish. Also I would definetly taken the 2 player co-op over the 8 player thing. People was beating lighting up on n4g over what he was saying about it but he was right.
Resistance 1.5 Fall of Ps3 >:P
What a fu*king twat! Anyway back OT: I did prefer the graphics and story in RFOM over R2. R2 was a let down for me.
they are both great but each is good for some things for example, R1 let you choose from the amazing weapon wheel at any time and i loved the narrative, however R2 has better graphics and amazing boss battles, I still have both so i say Resistance franchise for the win!
I liked the fact that this series is seen in different perspectives of narration. FoM = lady( forgot her name) , R2 = nathen, R3 = Capelli ( from what i'm guessing ) , Retribution = some new dude in third person . Personally I liked R2 better, don't get me wrong FoM was great but I have a personal case of A.D.D. and it literally took me like forever and a day to beat it. With R2 it keep me wanting to play it over and over again and I thought the ending was badass , I just with there was some vehicle play like in the first game.
You have got to be joking me.............
I finished r2 about a week 1/2 ago. I went out and got r1 for £4 2nd hand just after and they are both very good games but both different (in a good way). I didn't enjoy either of them as much as I did halo 3 though.
I loved the action on RE2 that makes R1 looks like a slow motion game to me ..the bullets (laser, plasma beans ,what ever) comes very slowly towards you... but not in R2 that it rocks. I also loved the trophy list on R2 that many of then takes a long time to get but it is possible to so. And comparing it to KillZone 2 since I bought both games on the same month I would say that KZ2's trophy list is a bit too hard to get and a very but very # of players will get a platinium trophy and that is a disappointment I see KZ2 that the game is trying to tell me " "If you are not uber hardcore to play 20hours a day then go home cuz here not in your dreams you will get close to the plat trophy. To conclude Resiatance 2 is the best complete FPS on the PS3 (Bioshock rocks but lacks for not having online) and Resitance 1 and Killzone2 are great games too but not as complete and appeling to come back for more playing as R2 is.
I liked R1 better too, And some of the maps I really miss... DOn`t get me wrong I enjoyed R2, but me and my friends and kids did enjoy beating the game together, which you cant do in r2-
R1 was soo much better in my opinion. The weapon wheel for one was awsome. The 2 player co op to me was alot more fun than the 8 player thing they had for R2. And last the single player was just way too boring and bland for me. R1 had huge battles. Fast paced online and an awsome co op mode. I still play it to this day :DDDD
I don't remember R1 having a co op mode. Was it added later on via a patch ?
Rfom online was so much better than R2's online. 1. All the colourful, xp, perk and class system, changed the game so much, rfom was much better even without these features. 2. The maps on R2 are so poor. You always play the same looking map, only a few more alley ways are open.. Bring yourself back to Somerset, Manchester, Thames, those are real maps.. memories 3. R2 onLy has TDM, DM, Skirmish and Core control. Core control completely ruined what was an excellent CTF in rfom which is what i spend most of my time playing. Rfom has like 10 modes i have no idea what went through insomniacs heads when they decided to scrap them. 4. Lobby, messaging system, friends list, pre-match lobby were amazing on RFOM, imo still the best online support in a ps3 as yet even after KZ2. When i first loaded up R2 i was baffled when they removed it. The pre-match lobby got you fired up, the music was great, and the ability to taunt your opponents through text chat was awesome. Im going to stop their because its making me upset how good r2 would have been if they followed along the lines of rfom.
R1 was alot better then R2, but I didn't care for the online for both of them. I was so dissapointed in R2 that I traded both R1 and R2 in at EB Games. Killzone 2, CoD 4 and CoD: WaW are where its at.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.