Resistance 3 Multiplayer Revealed, Beta Later This Year

Greetings from the PlayStation.Blog.Lounge here at the fabulous W Hotel, across the street from the Game Developers Conference in downtown San Francisco. As this post goes live, we are revealing our all-new multiplayer for Resistance 3. We’ve said all along we wanted Resistance 3’s MP mode to bring the best of both Resistance: Fall of Man and Resistance 2’s MP and co-op modes, and you’re about to see just how we’ve managed to do that.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
2fk2785d ago

sweet another beta im down

Static-X2785d ago

Text chat in lobbies was just confirmed :]

SCEA_RULES2785d ago

awesome, those days of rfom

Nitrowolf22785d ago

Holy Shit YES!!!
i think they need to bring back in-game player friend list, def cuts back on your friend list and was actually quite a useful feature, especially if your list is full, or there are just players you want to be friend to play resistance on.

More online games need this

AKA2785d ago

like in FOM nice!!!

the only thing i dont like so far is the faster shooting ability i meant what is IG thinking?

i understand faster reloading but not faster shooting makes no sense :/ but it looks great everything else.

pangitkqb2784d ago

I want in on this freakin' beta! I love the Resistance series and look forward to this latest installment.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2784d ago
InfiniteJustice2785d ago

16 players and apparently deep customization and progression. Objective based gameplay... Drop in player numbers (especially since R2) but this should be great

Nitrowolf22785d ago (Edited 2785d ago )

drop in player number is a good thing, although i would prefer around 18. 60 players is far to much for this game (to much for R2 if you ask me), R1 had 40 i think which was perfect due to map size, so this makes me think map sizes are much smaller this time around.

Hopefully the get things right this time. I feel like they are still experimenting with the online part of Restistance as you can see with the other titles.

-Alpha2785d ago


I hate when people assert bigger numbers as better quality.

Lower numbers simply offer a DIFFERENT experience, whether or not it's a quality experience is totally dependent on the game itself

InfiniteJustice2785d ago

Just look at Uncharted 2 multiplayer. Because it was only 5 v 5 it allowed for more tactical and thoughtout gameplay. 16 seems like a good number, especially if the maps aren't too small or too huge.

AKA2785d ago

i could have make it 22 or 24 player but i guess if 16 players is what they think is the best
it will be the best but i don't know :/ 16 sound to much like cod i hope its well pace gameplay.

CaliGamer2785d ago

This sounds like it might be good. I really wanna see some video tho.

-Alpha2785d ago (Edited 2785d ago )

16 players confirmed. I like that a lot.

Perosonally, I love that Resistance 3 sounds a lot like Halo/COD instead of Killzone or MAG. IMO, it could be the best thing we get to Halo-style FPS for the PS3.

I also see this appealing a lot more than Killzone to the "wider FPS audience" that GG was trying for.

If they can focus on deeper customization, etc. then we can get a content-rich MP game filled with hopefully Theater mode, tons of game modes, game mode options, customization, etc. that makes games like Halo so fun

Sony's FPS games like MAG and Killzone are more squad based and I was hoping Resistance would do what Uncharted MP did and go more arena-style.

I love lower player MP because it offers a more competitive, personal MP experience than bigger games. I love knowing my enemy and then constantly outwitting their playstyles.

Team/class games require a certain dedication while with games like this you can just kick back and have some mindless fun. It's appealing to the COD base while not forcing teamwork as a necessity for victory.

I'm very excited for R3 MP now

theonlylolking2785d ago

I still with it had 40 like in R1 or near that. Oh well, I guess we can see how they do with a smaller number of players.

a_bro2785d ago (Edited 2785d ago )

its a huge departure from the the 40 or 60 player games from the past 2 titles, but i think its a good idea as well.

bringing in a higher player count doesn't mean a better multiplayer game. its all about quality. hopefully they have learned that.

Resistance 1 had a decent multiplayer, but R2 killed it.

And yes i agree, what the PS3 needs is a a halo esque multiplayer game that rivals that of course of Halo/COD.

-Alpha2785d ago (Edited 2785d ago )

This is what I've always said. Numbers=/= Quality

I also think arena FPS's are more successful than games that require teamwork. With games like this you can sit back and just enjoy some mindless fun, and the option to work as a dedicated teammate is something optional, meaning you wont lose games if your teammates are important for victory.

It's a more "selfish" mentality, but I think Halo and COD are successful because they allow for players to do that.

Takoulya2785d ago

The thing I find though is that Halo would be much better with 40 player dedicated servers. A game with such large maps (Boneyard, Spire, Hemmorage) are wasted with an 18 player limit. I like the arena style of it, but Halo seems like it should have a large war-sized player count, mainly because of the vehicles. Either way, I just find it horrible to take such a large step back in terms of gameplay, since Resistance is a hectic game with large maps.

-Alpha2785d ago (Edited 2785d ago )

But Halo isn't that sort of shooter to have ridiculous chaos like that.

I think it'd be great for modes like Invasion, but the core of Halo has always been epic 4 on 4 matches. This doesn't make the game inferior- it makes it a different experience, something some fans never seem to understand.

There is a TON of strategy when you have a clan of 4 v 4 Halo.

There is such an adrenaline rush when you are so focused on the 4 enemies and constantly out-playing them. It's a difference experience than having a 60 player game where you could die by some random player coming in out of nowhere.

In smaller games you have more room to predict factors and have them play out like you expect-- the strategy comes from out-smarting and thinking ahead in a more controlled environment.

Takoulya2785d ago


I agree with that completely, but that's why I think that competitive clan battles and large scale battles are completely different. There is a ton of strategy involved with Halo's small matches, but I love playing a chaotic game with randoms on Invasion or Big Team. I'd love for both to stay, but if Halo Reach supported large games for Invasion and Big Team while keeping MLG for small numbers, it would probably be my favourite FPS, depending on how it would have been handled.

Show all comments (47)
The story is too old to be commented.