resistance 2 gripes

RAIN

decided to get resistance 2 at the weekend, never played rfom.

gotta say its a bit of a mixed bag,maybe its just me but as i have devoted alot of time to halo over the last nearly 2 years my standards were high.

my gripes are and please feel free to disagree.

1. the graphics just arent that good ? mgs4 little big planet and mirrors edge all look fantastic on my tv at the mo but i went and bought a hdmi during the week because i couldnt get over how poor the display was in R2. its dark and the detail in the weapons are only visible in very bright areas.

2 the campaign AI is really bad,enemies just run at you. its very last gen in that respect. the big guys with the fire balls are as thick as bricks. i fought them on 2 ocassions and both times the ran into scenery!! and i just shot them from behind.

3.enviorments,its like they spent loads of time on great vista's but on the ground your just running around corridors that arent that detailed,im fighting in an alien ship at the moment and there is just zero charecter to thing.its just greyish blue.

on the plus the competitive multiplayer is fantastic.

ahhhh thats better ,sorry if this has all been argued about weeks/months ago but i had to get it off my chest.

dissapointing cus i was looking forward to it big time.

whiterebel

Something wrong there, I think. Detail is very good to me on all aspects.
AI seems to get better as you go up the difficulty levels, I haven't attempted Superhuman yet! Certainly more difficult than RFoM because you can only carry two weapons at a time, and if you're getting charged by loads of them, the rifle ain't much use! There are glitches with some of the bosses, especially the Titans, they get "stuck" sometimes walking into buildings, particularly in Co-op.

Maybe check your settings on the game or PS3? Everywhere on it looks incredibly detailed, even in the darker areas.

ongarite

I think the graphics are decent. It's a game with lots of open spaces and huge number of players on screen, you can't expect the same level of detail as a corridor shooter.
The SP graphics are excellent for the scope of the game, MP graphics take a hit but have huge numbers of bosses, players in co-op, 60 player MP modes.

smooch71

I thought was above average over all (having loved RFOM) but no more than that.

The graphics were a slight disappointment. The PS3 is capable of much more and this being a Sony exclusive the visuals should have been mind blowing. I supposed this just shows how we've become so used to the current generation graphics that I'm criticising graphics that two years ago would have amazing.

The AI wasn't hectic either, didn't like the way they only targeted you. Those guys in the pods ran straight by my squad mates and always came straight for me.

I didn't like the aiming, it wasn't really like "iron sights" and I never felt I was looking down the barrell of the gun.

whiterebel

smooch71 wrote: »

The AI wasn't hectic either, didn't like the way they only targeted you. Those guys in the pods ran straight by my squad mates and always came straight for me.

Forgot that bit. I thought they just knew how dangerous I was........:D

Penis Eye

i didnt think the ai got any better as u went up it was just more enemies. i beat it on superhuman and died less in it than in hard. it just took a little longer cause ther was more baddies.

i was dissapointed with the lack of weaponry compared to the first rfom. i like the way in other games carrying 2 weapons only is a challenge to ur decision making and skill but i liked the way in the first one you could carry 20-30 weapons ( i wanted that back it fitted in with the run in and kill as many baddies as you can without having to play strategy feel of the game)

oh well i was dissapointed and i was a big fan of the first game. im still gonna go for platinum trophy on it tho!:D

Benzino

RAIN wrote: »

i have devoted alot of time to halo over the last nearly 2 years my standards were low.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

R2 is an average FPS at best. No doubt about it. I liked the first one because of the weapons, but they didn't stand out to me in the second one. Maybe because I was used to them or I was limited to 2 at a time, either way R2 is just all right.

RAIN

i knew it was risky talking about halo round these parts.

again its just dissapointing that a console exclusive was rushed out like this,mgs4 takes a big hot steamy piss on it in terms of art direction and polish and so does killzone by the looks of it ... gah should have just waited till the end of the month.

L31mr0d

Since the gameplay of CoD4 and the graphics of Crysis I haven't been overly impressed with any FPS's.

I think you should of played FoM first, as this game is a definite improvement in every area over the original. That being said I felt it didn't innovate in any area.

bugs

Liked the first game, not that it was great, but at least it had some smart weapons and the levels were laid out well.
But after 2 years of tinkering with the ps3, its a pretty poor effort to come out with something that in my opinion didn't manage to even be as good as the first one.

Frisbee

No Co-op play of the main storyline :mad:

WolfForager

I thought the game was a 9/10. Thought it was better than Cod: Waw anyway.

SP graphics are pretty top notch, i haven't played the SP since i completed it in november but from what i can remember, the AI was decent if not a tad stupid on occassion.

MP is mind blowing, it's just fun! Too many games go for a "realistic" approach nowadays, it's great to have a game which is more like an arcade game!