• 24Aug 10

  What Resistance 3 Needs to Be

  As most people know by now, Resistance 3 has finally been officially announced. However we don't really know anything about how the game will actually look or play like. So while I wait to see what Resistance 3 will be like, here's my opinion on what would make it one of the best PS3 shooters.

  1. Overall, I think Resistance 3 needs to be more like Fall of Man, and the first element I would like to see return is the weapon wheel. Unlike most shooters, Resistance: Fall of Man did not use the usual "You can only use 2 guns at a time" formula. Instead, it used the Ratchet & Clank system of letting you permanently keeping every weapon you collect, which means that as you collect your up to 8 weapons, (The first playthrough anyway), you will always be able to pick which weapon you want for each particular encounter, adding a layer of strategy to the game and making it more fun in my opinion.

  1-b. Another thing is that Resistance 1 seemed harder and more satisfying than Resistance 2, and the main reason for this I think is actually the weapon wheel. Since you were not limited to 2 weapons in FoM, you always had plenty of ammo, so the game made up for it by making every enemy more of a challenge to take down than R2 or your average shooter.

  2. Secondly, I really hope Resistance 3has a consistant, gritty feel like R1. In R1, the overall feel of the game was dark and realistic, giving a constant feeling of tension that I think really set an appropriate mood. However with R2 it seems like the creators went for a more colorful and fast paced game, which made it seem more like your typical shooter, but a bad thing in my opinion since it lost the unique feel that Resistance should have.

  3. The third aspect that I hope R3 will nail is the multiplayer. Some obvious things that would be great is if it included offline campaign co-op, online co-op (similar to R2), split-screen multiplayer, split-screen lan multiplayer,and improve on the 2 player split-screen online by making it 4 players on the same console playing online.

  Really, I wish all these options would be available in every big shooter, but unfortunately because of costs, many games don't have these options. And it would also be good if R3 had a firefight type mode, and maybe some other yet unknown great mode like that.

  And now for the online multiplayer we all know it will have. I really hope it will switch back to the formula where everybody starts with the same gun each round and has to pick up different guns scattered across the map. R2 did what almost all shooters are doing these days and used a class based multiplayer system where players pick their gun before the match starts. The main thing wrong with that is that R2 seemed kind of weak compared to other games because there were not very many weapons, and they were not balanced very good. I think games that use the "same gun for everyone" formula like R1 and Halo can be funner because you have to strategize based on where the different guns are on the map and it makes all the guns seem more special since not everyone can get them.

  All the things I've listed above are what I would most like implemented in Resistance 3 based on my experience with the first 2 games, but we'll all just have to wait and see what Insomniac Games has in store for us!

  • Posted Aug 24, 2010 8:13 am GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 13Aug 10

  Emotionless Shooters...

  Like many other people, First-Person Shooters are one of my favorite types of video games because of the fun action and feeling of immersion you get while playing them.

  Now I'm fairly new to shooters, with Halo 3 being my first FPS ever,and I didn't really ever start getting them until I got my PS3 last summer. But it seems like at least today's shooters are becoming increasingly lacking in an actual story, or reason, for the conquest you partake in. More often than not, (Even though it's quite fun), you are constantly mowing down waves of enemies for the simple reason that they are the "Bad guys", without really knowing why you are where you are, or knowingexactly what is going on.

  In my opinion, this is why many people say that there are too many shooters out there, or that they are tired of them. Because really, most shooters really are essentially the same gameplay-wise. You basically shoot, lob grenades,quickly take out an enemy with a melee attack, and repeat as many times as necessary until you beat the game. Now I'm not saying that this isn't fun, or that every shooter really is the same as the one before it, but I think that a crucial ingredient to making a really good and unique game is the world in which you are playing in. Sometimes that means having an engaging and well thought out story, and sometimes it just means making sure you actually care about your character and what he's doing.

  Now one example that I'm thinking of is the Call of Duty games, and Modern Warfare 2 in particular, because that's the only one I own. Modern Warfare 2 really has no storyline or interesting characters, and I had no Idea why I was in a certain place or what was going on. However, I think Modern Warfare 2 is one of the best shooters of all time because It's fun, fast paced, the most realistic looking game I've ever seen, and has amazingly tight and smooth controls. Essentially, this is a game that relies on gameplay and technical quality to make it a Good.

  Right now, Modern Warfare 2 is a really good game, but in the future, when all game have as good of graphics and controls as it, it will not seem very outstanding.

  I think more games need to follow the example of the Halo series, which really invests in the world, characters, and storyline of it's games. What makes Halo great, (Besides it's fun, balanced, gameplay), is that Bungie made an effort to create a unique, detailed, and cool universe to host it's games. Other games that seem to have had their narrative or incentive for playing tacked on,or not thought very well through, may be fun enough to make them good, but are missing a vital part in being a truly memorable experience.

  I wish more FPS's were more than mindless shooting fests, and gave players a reason to care and invest in the world they are playing in.

  • Posted Aug 13, 2010 11:53 am GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 29Jul 10

  My (Negative) Opinion of Multiplatform Games

  Ok, let me just get this outof the way.In my opinion, the PS3 is the best gaming platform and I tend to be biased sometimes against other systems.

  However, despite my opinion that the PS3 is better than the Xbox (which is basically the only other platform I compare with), I was sorely dissappointed with Bungie when they announced that they were entering a 10 year agreement with Activision to produce multiplatform games. Because, of course, they created the phenomenon that is Halo, which is actually my favorite FPS, and it has been the pillar of the Xbox consoles. It just seems like it would be wrong for Bungie to develop for any other platform.

  Now I know that Halo is not moving consoles, but the fact that Bungie IS just means one less developer to create the Identity of today's video game platforms. The announcement of not only Bungie, but also Insomniac Games (makers of Spyro, Ratchet, & Resistance for Playstation) going multiplatform recently made me realize just how rapidly console exclusivity is going extinct. Because in today's huge and less risky game industry, most developers just can't pass up the opportunity to make more money by receiving profit from multiple console owners as opposed to one.

  In my mind, when I think multiplatform, I immediately think "lower quality", because many times it's true, and also because it just makes the game seem less special. Overall, my problem is that the PS3 and Xbox are becoming less and less unique as the dozens of multiplatform games that come out each year grossly overshadow the few exclusives for each of them. I'm glad the the Xbox has exclusives like Halo, Gears of War, Fable, and Mass Effect. And the PS3 has it's ownexclusives like Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted, Infamous, and Killzone. Unlike many others, I don't think that having the same game on multiple platforms is always a win-win situation for everyone, because I think every console needs it'sexclusives to give itself an identity.

  Now I actually enjoy the console-war arguements on which gaming platform is better, but it's starting to get old when you have to compare the same games and series that have been around for years.There just aren't hardly any new IPs coming out for individual consoles.

  Just for a little contrast to today's reality, imagine if maybe Fallout 3 was exclusive to X360, and Oblivion was exclusive to PS3, or if Assassin's Creed was on Xbox and Batman Arkham Asylum was on PS3. That would just make both the games and the platforms all the more interesting and great.

  But regretfully, exclusive games are becoming a thing of the past, and multiplatform titles are the new standard.

  • Posted Jul 29, 2010 7:07 am GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »