With no reason to connect with these characters and little in the way of action to separate itself from the packed FPS crowd, Resistance 3 makes it clear that the series doesn't belong amongst the triple-A competition in the genre.
The score is a 7.0 not a 3.0, but I still don't agree even with that score or the text of the review. I think they're being overly harsh on this game, whereas they are incredibly easy on a number of other games of similar or even rightfully lower status.
Played a couple hours last night. This game has a quality way better than the 1st and 2nd... I have no idea how its scoring below 8/10... but thats okay. Its all about the gamers and our personal opinions, not the paid shills.
If game critics opinions were spot on, they would be making games instead of writing rants. Nuff said. Edit: @LOGICWINS Im not saying "making games" in the sense of actually making them but rather in the sense of giving developers insight of whats good or whats bad.
^^That makes no sense. Most game critics(even the good ones) don't have the technical know-how to make a game. And NO ONES opinions are "spot on"..thats why they're called opinions. Entirely subjective.
That's actually a good point that isn't brought up too often. Game reviewers actually don't know jack sh*t about the real technical details about making games. They only know their own opinions. However, in a sense that's what should be reviewed more, the game not necessarily the tech. You can understand that if a shitty game was made by hard working developers, that doesn't mean the game should receive an instant 9+ because they worked so hard on it. The harsh reality is that it doesn't matter if a development team busts their arses or not, if a game sucks it sucks. But it would be nice if more reviewers educated themselves on certain details that could make them appreciate the hard efforts a bit more. Particularly game design changes that were catered to the fanbase I think should be a positive. For example, they brought back the weapon wheel because the fan base demanded it. Things like that should also be taken into consideration. Still, I didn't like Resistance 2 as much as I did the first one. If Resistance 3 is anywhere more like the first, then I'm a happy camper and I'll be purchasing it.
I'm a gamer. I don't know jack spit about making a game but I know when a game sucks and when it doesn't.
To be trueful if I was to write an article on this game I would give it a 6 or a 7 as it generates far more attention for my site then giving it 9's and 10's. There's a review just above this one giving it 4.5 out of 5 praises the game and no one has taken any notice. Just an observation. I cant wait to play it though as I'm a Insomniac loving freak.
This is probably the harshest review I have seen. Clearly the reviewer doesn't like anything about it. The way the review went it sounds like he would of given it a 6 or lower but was forced to give it a 7 instead. I personally enjoy this game, I have only played like 2 hours so far. But comparing it to other reviewers and friends opinions, I don't see what he sees. The amount of blantant harshness is just astounashing. Like Jim Sterling wrote this or something. Point out why it sucks, don't just rip it to all hell.
I don't understand the "technical details" argument. Mediocre or merely good movies don't become classics or Oscar winners simply because of awesome cinematography and special effects. Games should be judged on the overall experience, not individual parts.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum... Famitsu 9/8/8/9 (34/40) Past: Resistance: Fall of Man - 9/8/8/8 (33/40) Resistance 2: 8/8/8/9 (33/40) IGN 9.0 Past: Resistance: Fall of Man: 9.1 Resistance 2: 9.5 Resistance PSP: 9.2 G4TV 100 Past: Resistance: Fall of Man - 100 Resistance 2: 100 3l33t Online: 100 Joystiq 90 VideoGamer 90 Just Push Start 90 Meristation: 90 Past: Resistance 2: 90 XGN 90 GamePro 90 PlayStation Lifestyle 90 Videogameszone 86 GameTrailers 88 Past: Resistance: Fall of Man - 90 Resistance 2: 91 CVG: 87 NZGamer: 87 Past: Resistance 2: 92 Eurogamer: 80 Past: Resistance: Fall of Man: 60 Resistance 2: 90 GameReactor 80 Eurogamer Portugal: 80 Past: Resistance 2: 100 Eurogamer Sweden: 70 IncGamers: 70
I don't really rely on reviews when thinking of what game to but, but I suppose when they're all factored together and read properly (where deserved) they serve there purpose! @Sarcasm Agree, especially with the last bit, that said I am enjoying R2 having started playing it again recently and its not as bad as I remember.
I agree with you on that one.I have played 2 hours and tried the coop and mp and it's a he'll of a lot better then a 7.an easy 8.5/10 from me.No offense but a 7/10 is just way to harsh if they knew what they where talking about.the score just doesn't justify how the pros just out weigh the cons.
How the hell did Resistance 2 get such good reviews? Just judging from vids I could see where R3 has it but R2 was not nearly perfect
You don't need to be the cook to taste the food. This talk about judging a game going hand in hand with technical knowledge is nonsense. Seems people will tell themselves whatever they want to feel comfortable in their own skin. Understandable in some respects...but not when you're talking video games. This is a hobby, people, not your kids.
They DESTROYED the multiplayer. If I wanted to play Call of Duty with Chimera, I'd do some hallucinogenic drugs and play COD4.
After reading the review I see the author hates this game real bad. He says that the campaign sucks and that the online MP is average at best, right? Then I wonder why he scored the game the game so high then... On top of that he says that Resistance copied the bubbles shield from Reach when that has been in the game since the first Resistance in 2006.
The fact that he says it copies bubble shields from Halo pretty much discredits this whole review. If they can't get basic information correct, how could you put any weight behind the rest of what they have to say?
@ MrDead " To be trueful if I was to write an article on this game I would give it a 6 or a 7 as it generates far more attention for my site then giving it 9's and 10's. " Due to their $15 yearly subscription through Gamestop "Game Informer" is by far the most widely read game magazine in the US and actually one of the top selling print magazines in the US. They aren't just big money, they are HUGE money. That's why they get so many exclusive first-reveals of major titles. They don't exactly need to fish for hits like the little blog-spot amateur-journalism game sites. You can disagree with their reviewer the conspiracy theory is way off base. They already have major (really top of the tops) exposure without trying stunts with scores.
@palaeomerus I'm a bit confused that my observation of giving this game a low score was an attack on gameinformer? It was a generalization. I was commenting that a low scrore genarates far more attention then a high one.
Drekken -yeah maybe,but does it have the quality of the shooters that are out now,i mean its great comparing with the other two games,but those weren't that great either,i played both games,liked the first one,well because it was the best FPS PS3 had at that time,but the second one was bad,what kept me playing was the story,a story arc that ended with the character that i got used to,now there is nothing that this game can make me play it ,a plus for this game is that i doesn't have regenerating health
Everyone pissed and moaned about Resistance 2 - yet i really liked it. I saw peoples opinions and review scores and you know what?.. Didn't change a thing. I suggest you all nut up and play R3 for yourself, base your own opinions... And not care what "this site" or "that site" think about it. Just because you think it's a 9, doesn't mean everyone else will... And it don't matter none.
I think a lot of people can't get past the crappy graphics. Let's be honest, this game is no where in the zone of GOW3 or UN2 (let alone 3). I can't stand playing a game that looks last gen on current gen consoles, especially when the current gen consoles are nearing the end. It's an exclusive so act like it.
This Reviewer is like many others, always review on personal taste and do not review on what the game developers tried to do when making a title. BOOOOO!
@TheOneYouHate, Uhhhh...what? What do you think a critic is? A critic doesn't review games for another person's taste. Insomniac, as good as they are as a developer, work no harder on a game than a number of other top-echelon developers. Critics review games according to their own personal taste. They can do this for 3 reasons. Firstly, they can pick up a controller and play video-games. They may not be the best in the world at them, but if they can get from beginning to end, then they've played it an adequate amount. Secondly, they have English and Journalism skills far beyond the average forum-goer/keyboard warrior/N4G member. They can articulate their points in a concise and distinct manner (exactly what Greg Miller of IGN CAN'T do). Thirdly, they have their own opinions. Yes, I know this is mind-blowing, startling information, but they can in fact think for themselves (you know, the thing that Jim Sterling does, and everyone gets angry about). I'm sick and tired of fans nitpicking every 7 or below review. It's ridiculous. Acting as if this is a "disappointing" effort from Gameinformer. Grow some nads and accept that while they still think it's a good game, it probably doesn't realise its potential and that you may very well like it more. EDIT: As predicted, those without the ability to write choose to press the disagree button. Ironically, making them look even more like sheep.
@Floetry101 I understand there will always be a little "Pesronal taste" when a person reviews a game, or anything else in particular. But that's not how reviews where made years ago. Imagine if you or I reviews games based on taste. For example I don't like Golf at all. So I review a Golf game and I say "This game is boring, it's slow and the graphics are bland" 5/10 .... Yet the game is actualy pretty precise in simulating a Golf game. A person who likes Golf would actually enjoy this. But now based on my review he won't get the game, thanx to my taste. And even though the developers did an EXCELENT job I now just ruined a good game with a bad review. We all know "Professional" reviewers don't like every genre, right? Yet they have to review based on what the game is trying to do.
I see where you are coming from, but in an industry like this, they have critics chosen to review specific franchises or genres of a game. They won't choose someone unaccustomed to FPS's to play and review Resistance 3, and it's evident that he's played the previous games in the series. I understand you have an opinion, if you like the game I hold nothing against you. I haven't played it yet so I can't comment, but it's still subjective. What may appeal to one person might not appeal to another. The guy cleary liked the series prior to this review, hence labelling it a "disappointing" addition.
@Floetry 101 In the end it dosent mater who reviews a game or what score it gets ( 1/10-10/10) we as people and gamers vote with our wallets by purchasing what we LIKE :) I say let's not brainwash our selves with "Reviews" LET'S PLAY! HA!
TheOneYouHate is right. Reviewers whole purpose is to give an opinion on a game which they believe will resonate with what anyone interested in that "type" of game will like. Because if a reviewer reviews a game like tetris and he HATES puzzles, based on HIS liking the game is horendous, but if he bases it on what fans of that genre will like it will be much more fair. The idea of reading reviews is that their opinion is aligned with what general consensus will be on the game. If I like RPGs and a reviewer doesn't why would I listen to their opinion? I guess this might be more of what Reviewers SHOULD be doing while reviewing a game than what they actually are because far too often personal bias bleeds through.
What are you talking about? I don't like Forza 3 but if I was reviewing it I would say: If you are a racing fan, buy this game! it's incredible. But then I would never play it again because I do not like the genre, but I can still identify a great game in a genre I do not like... You have this crazy idea that this guy gave the game a bad review because of personal taste? You're incredibly naive my friend. It doesn't matter what games developers 'tried to do' If the end result is average and nothing more, then that's what people and their £40 want to know!
calibann is exactly right just reading over your comment it seems you have CONVINCED YOURSELF that the reviewer gave the score he did because he doesn't like the FPS's, or at the very least you're implying he had some motive other than how he felt about the game for giving the score he did..... how do you know this? Maybe he just didn't think the game was that great. For whatever its worth I think the score is low because the few sites I tend to agree with on reviews gave it a better scores, still I don't think this review is WRONG or that the reviewer was unjustified for the score he gave. I think there are some very, very rare examples where I've seen scores from a *notable site like GameInformer that were purely for attention, I mean I'm not naive enough to think theres absolutely no bias in journalism, if every score was 90 or above and 1 site gave it a 4 or 5 you might have a case but everything is not a conspiracy. The reality is this guy simply just didn't think R3 was more than a 7 kind of game and its his job to tell GameInformer fans his opinion, not what he thinks psfans want to hear. btw, the only reason this review is getting more attention than it deserves is because of all the folks calling out this review, ALL gamers should realize that by making a big deal out of the lesser reviews you only highlight the low scores even more. If you disagree with a review just buy the game and judge for yourself.
@floetry101 I mostly agree with you but quit with the hate on Greg and/or IGN. First, Greg didn't review Resistance 3. Stephen did. Bringing him up doesn't help your point in the slightest. Second, you imply that Greg's writing skills are subpar when he not only has a degree in journalism but articulate his points better than you do. For instance, while you criticize his writing skills for not being concise or distinct enough, your writing contains neither characteristic. Simply by using too many examples such as "beyond the average forum-goer/keyboard warrior/N4G member" you are no longer being as concise as you could. That example shrouds your point. Who exactly are you comparing to these people with Journalism skills to and why do you use several terms when you could just sum it up with one? Greg, however, explains his opinion of games in a relatively concise manner. Read his Dead Island review. It's really concise. He gets his points across to the reader in a very clear way that anyone could understand and does so using few words. That's literally the definition of being concise. I'm not the best writer, you are not the best. Greg is not the best, and Jim Sterling is certainly not the best. The fact is writing a review does not take much skill. The more skill you have only means the review is written better but it does not change the opinion of the reviewer which what we read reviews for in the first place. If you are able to respect Jim Sterling's opinion, you should be able to respect Greg's opinion. I don't care if his opinion is written "Dis gayme iz awe-sum It iz fun and long I don't like dis abaut it dough: Random example of something the reviwer did not like". His opinion would still be as valid as the next guy. Anyways that is all
[email protected] does not have a degree in journalism...
"I think they're being overly harsh on this game" PLEEEASE tell me you've already played the game yet, because if not, your making youself look like a fool.
I have played a few hours so far and yes, as usual... they are being hard on IG and Resistance. This game is a step up from both previous games, but I don't expect my opinion to weigh in with the haters. The feel, the graphics, and the gun play has all been amazing so far. I also loved the beta and I never liked the online competitive modes.
This is harsh, the reviewer of this game must not have liked the franchise at all. Secondly, you come in to defend a less than stellar review score, this entire month you've been trolling R3 threads. Why don't you play the game and stop telling people what's right and subjective. Form your own opinion based on playing versus keeping your own baseless opinions.
I've only played the beta and to be fair, it was good. I think a 7/8 is fair but I haven't played the single player yet
Oh please. You made yourself look like a fool plenty of times deadreckoning. Stop screaming as if you're so damn important. Anyway, as cgoodno pointed, the statement: "As you progress through these areas, the combat situations feel anything but dynamic. Each one is scripted beat-by-beat, with waves of enemies appearing like clockwork whenever you cross an invisible line." sounds weird doesn't it? Opinons are opinions but we catch something that seems weird, aren't we allowed to comment on it? Especially considering every game (FPS) does it. If you don't like what anyone right, then don't comment.
Just lookt at others reviews, even with ps3 special treatment (harsh, because it's the best toy), they are all beetween 8 and 10... and most of all, just check other gameinformer(lol) reviews : el shaddai : 9, galaGa legion : 8,5, homefront 7, duke nukem 6,75, bulletstorm 8,75 enough said, probably another ms employee, or xfantard, trying to downplay ps3 exclusives, we can see that each time (problem is, some misinformed people can think they are right, or just believing more the bad score then all the fabulous one : like for lbp, killzone, and all AAA games)
I'll give the guy his opinion, but this part: "As you progress through these areas, the combat situations feel anything but dynamic. Each one is scripted beat-by-beat, with waves of enemies appearing like clockwork whenever you cross an invisible line." Wait... 90% of the shooters (let alone TPS and action games in general) I've played are just like this... Including the big hitters (CoD, Battlefield, BioShock, etc.). ***Resistance 3 makes it clear that the series doesn’t belong amongst the triple-A competition in the genre.*** This is an extremely petty statement to make about the series based on a single review of a game within the series, IMHO.
"Resistance 3 makes it clear that the series doesn’t belong amongst the triple-A competition in the genre" That tells me that he went in already disliking the other resistance games.
That sentence killed his entire opinion for me, I just kept thinking "how can I take his opinion seriously now?". I have no problem anyone's negative opinion but saying things like "Resistance 3 makes it clear that the series doesn’t belong amongst the triple-A competition in the genre." I just can't take it serious.
I AGREE WITH YOU ALL THE WAY. I JUST PLAYED THIS GAME AND LOVED IT FROM BEGGINING TO END AND I CAN SAY IT WAS TRULY BREATH TAKING. THE WEAPONS THE STORY THE GAMEPLAY ARE BY ANY MEANS WAY HIGHER THAN MOST GAMES OF THIS GENERATION AND TO TOP THIS OFF WITH A 7 U GOTTA B F##KING JOKING. THIS GAME IF ANYTHING IS A 9 AND UP. COME ON COOP STORY ONLINE AND MULTIPLAYER THATS INSANE.. MICROSOFT GAVE SOME 1 A CHECK TO KEEP THERE MOUTHS SHUT!!!. BUT ITS OK BECAUSE THE GAMERS LIKE OURSELVES KNOW HOW GREAT THIS GAME IS AND GAMEINFORMER CANT SPEAK FOR THE WORLD SO F##K U GM.
i think your keyboards on caps lock
I love GI but i find this a tad harsh. Its the first review ive seen below 8 and its from GI. IGN gave it a 9 & they r always tough. I hope mw3 gets the scrutiny. They seemed to hav overlooked alll the great things that got no mention. Its ironic that they found wrong many of the aspects others reviewers found right. Quite a sad review.
Agreed, 7 is not a 3. I played R2 and liked, maybe not loved, it. I am willing to give R3 a go, maybe after Gears.
GameInformer confirmed for only NON paid review for Resistance 3. I mean seriously go check out IGN & Gametrailers, hell even GamesRadar and be prepared for advertisements that cover your entire screen making sure you notice them. Search your heart you know it to be true.
honest review this game is not AAA graphics and tech and game just never outlived half life it was created after
i'm playing co-op with my brother and we are loving it so far. its this dudes opinion and he's entitled to it but i respectfully disagree.
Ban me or restrict me if you want. PS3 exclusives have been dissed enough as it is with 360 having nothing to show this year, but with this game it needs to stop. This is truely an awesome game. This is better then the first 2 and anyone who doesn't play can't say anything.
Thats because i believe this is supposed to be a "AAA" title. I believe you should be more harsh on the big guns like RE3,GeOW3, MW3, etc. You had the luxury of $$$ to help you.
i really feel sad for Insomniac considering the effort the team has taken and for what? a mere 7...i mean 7 is a good score but when all other critics are giving top notch scores....it does not feel good when a good magazine like GameInformer gives a 7!!:/ anyways just my opinion....though i have played a preview code and i agree with what others are saying...its the best in the series yet and co-op is outrageously fun with the new innovative weapons...:-) all in all...must buy for PS3 gamers...like me..:D
I wouldn't call GI good exactly, they are ok at best. I personally only read for the previews of what is to come rather than reviews.
Get over it lol, wow i guess it's true, people only remember the bad things. So after the game has gotten a load of scores 8.5 or higher, all we are really gonna remember is "Resistance 3, the game that got 7 on GameInformer" Quick Someone update the wiki page
eww a 7
7 is good, in other news gamepro now recently gave it a 4.5/5 like joystiq :)
PSOnly (Dutch reviewer) also gave this game a 9. They would have given it a 9,4, but their system works like Gamespot's as of now, if it would have been 3 months ago it would have been a 9,4. Here the review: http://translate.google.com...
ok sweet ^^
Hmm this one is a tad off from the other major reviewers. Several have given high 8's and 9's. Ehh doesn't matter to me when all the other sites are offering a good score.
for me the game its a 8/10 for me the AI is kind of dumb. in terms of multiplayer yeah its not the most original but its fun which is the most important thing at least for me.
The reviewer seems to spend more time bashing the game than actually doing a review
Biased or paid maybe.... to disagrees, explain why they spend most of their time bashing the game then. Also, learn a little bit about marketing/business. I'm just going to ignore this article and let it fade to the second page.
so wut if paid
Yeah a few of these seem really slanted. And to think that they purposely gave the game a negative review is not a far reaching thought in the world of game journalism. Many of these writers can easily be bought or persuaded. I can see Gears 3 getting a glowing review with all it's flaws being over looked. I just have to question when a big site/magazine is far outside the general consensus. A bad review from GI can hurt sales witch makes them a very valuable asset to have.
Yeah that must be it. o_O
i know that reviews are opinions and we can't do anything to change that. but i feel this is the first time disagreeing with gameinformer. i have been a subscriber to them for quite some time but i find the score a little unfair. especially the hard work and effort insomniac put into this after resistance 2's negative feedback from some fans. the enviorment and world itself is meant to be bleak and depressive. humanity is on the brink of extinction not a rainbow and clouds or advanced alien cities. they wanted to move away from that and focus on the games namesake. resistance the final push for survival against a enemy far more advanced than them. how can you like a character if he's cracking jokes or laughing during a period where a threat to mankind poses a serious threat. if you seen your own men fall or die fighting creatures that dominated your team would you be cracking smart ass jokes?. and no i am not saying they wanted characters like that but it seems that you can't get more emotional trying to save your family or atleast stop the destruction of humanity.
Easily the most negative review we've seen thus far and as much bashing as they did, still gave it a 7. I don't get it.
Pretty biased review I thought, especially when the review states that the graphics in R2 were better.
Well the graphics in R2 was probably slightly sharper due to the higher resolution. But yes R3 does have more effects and the overall graphical presentation is better than R2.
Yeah what's up with that? R3's graphics are a leap over R2s... Almost like the leap from Uncharted to Uncharted 2.