201
rate

Why Resistance: FoM is Better then Resistance 2

April 01, 2009 in Blog comments 24

This has been discussed a lot between fans of the series. With many being either in the middle, but there is still a fair share amount of people that are split. Here are five reason's why associatedcontent.com thinks that Resistance 1 was a much better game then Resistance 2. Remember, this doesn't automatically mean that Resistance 2 is bad.

For Resistance: Fall of Man fans, the sequel did not lived up to expectations. They felt that Resistance 2, while a good game, was far too different from the original hit. So why do they feel that Resistance 2 for Playstation 3 isn't
as good as the first title? Let's examine several factors.
Linkin Park Fan via associatedcontent.com »
Favourite this article Add source
| More
Report!
News story attached to:

Comments

Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 0
    Shattered Apr 2, 09
    In my opinion the thing that killed Resistance 2 for a lot of people was the horrible team-based online games. That's what killed it for me completely. Plus the scare & mysterious factors we're not present in the sequel, and it was too bright.

    The war-torn, gritty, bleak, greyed out setting of Fall of Man fit PERFECTLY. That's what made it so awesome IMHO.
  • 0
    Gamesta100 Apr 2, 09
    Scare factor? What RFOM was supposed to have a scare factor?
  • 0
    Shattered Apr 2, 09
    It depends on how easily your scared. RFOM did have some "shit your pants" moments that may have slightly scared some people.
    • 1
      Gamesta100 Apr 2, 09
      Pussies lol. I wish I could be scared easily.It sucks playing horror games hoping to be scared but only 1% them actually scare me.
    • 0
      pooOBKp Apr 2, 09
      What about the little zombie aliens in R2? Those parts in the cabins and the tunnels was pretty scary.
      • 2
        Duality_18 Apr 2, 09
        Little zombie aliens, way to be descriptive >_>

        Either way I was a huge fan of R:fom and was hugely dissapointed with R2.

        Dont fix what aint broken, but R2 tried to anyway, they got rid of weapon wheel, traded in unique weapons for general uncreative weapons, made the online a cod clone, have so much spray to every weapon with large ammount of aim assist so that the game takes little skill. The score limit for a 10 person game is the same for a 60 player game. So 60 player games last about 2 minutes. It's pretty bad.
        • 1
          Bale Fire Apr 2, 09
          Actually the score limit has been changed, not sure if its any better though.

          I really don't agree with a lot of those points. Storytelling was fine in R2, not confusing and much more involving without the narrator. Weapon wheel was no big loss, and the two weapon system allows more uniqueness in online. New co-op is way better than the last, you couldn't even play online co-op in R:FOM. Can't see any lack of polish in R2, and never suffered a AI problem. Nostalgia makes sense, the only point I really agree with.

          I do agree with Shattered that competitive is not as good as the first, but its still a decent romp. And I hardly think it destroys the game.
  • 3
    Seeker X Apr 2, 09
    I think someone forgot to say "April Fools" here...
    • 0
      reaver11 Apr 2, 09
      Umm, no. FoM was way better. I liked the atmosphere a lot better in that game. The AI was also much better. You didn't see Titans in that game running in circles shooting at you and only you. The weapon system was much better with better weapons to boot. I prefered having a weapon inventory rather than only being able to pick up 2 at a time. The levels were also much more interesting. R2 just had a lot of gore.

      The only thing R2 has over FoM is the updated graphics.

      Still, R2 is more fun to play. I just liked FoM better.
      • 1
        Seeker X Apr 2, 09
        quote
        Umm, no. FoM was way better.
        Wrong. The correct answer is "I think FoM was way better". Like the rest of your post showed, it's a matter of "I believe".

        quote
        The only thing R2 has over FoM is the updated graphics.
        It's like the 8 player co-op, new leveling system, and 60 player/new multiplayer modes are obviously pointless. Jeezus, guys try to keep it a little more realistic. Not to mention the nostalgia reason is a giant load of shit. I'm sure we all want to relive memories of a game that came out a couple of years ago with an even more forgettable campaign; awesome.
        • 0
          reaver11 Apr 2, 09
          Point taken. I think its better, and so do a lot of other people. Regardless, the campagin was more epic in 2, much more balanced in FoM. The online in 2 was bigger and "better", much easier and fun in FoM.

          Like I said, I play R2 a lot more, but overall, the experience of FoM was better for me.
  • 3
    Hunskelper Apr 2, 09
    quote Linkin Park Fan - Article
    Remember, this doesn't automatically mean that Resistance 2 is bad.
    You're right. This doesn't automatically make Resistance 2 bad.

    The duller than dishwater gameplay makes it bad.
    • 2
      redneonfish Apr 2, 09
      Pfft, I reckon R2 does enough to stand out from the crowd. You've obviously never played it if you think it's dull. The weapons for a start...
      • 1
        reaver11 Apr 2, 09
        The weapons are nothing compared to what they were in FoM. The Sapper, the Dragon, Reapers, Arc Charger...R2 gets...the Wraith. Whoop-de-do.
      • 2
        Hunskelper Apr 2, 09
        Haha, that made lol.

        You know someone's grasping at straws when they resort to the "you don't like it? You couldn't have played it! ". I played Resistance 2, I liked the weapons, the rest of the game was duller than an unseasoned crisp.

        Considering the other FPS's on the market (COD4, Bioshock, The Orange Box, etc.) I couldn't recommend Resistance 2 to anyone. As for the weapons, which are excellent, the Ratchet and Clank series has better weapons and infinitely better gameplay.
        • 1
          redneonfish Apr 2, 09
          Hah, i'm not resorting to that. You don't know a good game when you see one
        • 1
          Hunskelper Apr 2, 09
          Hunskelper 1 - 0 redneonfish.
        • 0
          redneonfish Apr 2, 09
          Hah, it's not a competition. I was merely stating my point of view. IE, you must've been playing the same game as me.
  • 1
    Stefan Apr 2, 09
    i thought R:2 was better than 1.
    i preferred the Storyline alot more(not to mention the ending) and although it might not of been scarier, you cant argue that the level were your going through the suburbs and chased by about 50 of the basic chimera wasnt enough to get your heart pumping.
    • 1
      Shattered Apr 2, 09
      Honestly guys, does anyone bother learning their bloody names? I didn't even like the game for the most part but I know they are called GRIMS, not "basic chimera" or "little zombie aliens" - Grims. Say it properly or don't say it all please.
      • 5
        Stefan Apr 2, 09
        or i can call it what i want, honestly why do you care so much what there called?
        • 1
          Shattered Apr 2, 09
          I care because it sounds odd. The developers gave them a name so they could be called that. By you just calling them whatever the hell you want you basically just wasted their effort.

          That's like me calling you "dumb @$$" instead of Stefan1888 just because I felt like it. If they have a name, use it.
    • 0
      reaver11 Apr 2, 09
      I'll agree with you there. That part was great. That and Chicago.
  • 0
    Linkin Park Fan Apr 2, 09
    One thing is the environments in FoM were better. There where to much 'hi-tech' areas in in 2 that didn't fit at all with the 50's timeline. The only levels that really felt like you where in the fifties were orick california and chicago.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.