View Full Version : First Resistance 2 Review: 9.5 From IGN
Gorvi
10-28-2008, 06:16 AM
The first review of Resistance 2 has hit the interwebs, with IGN (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/924/924372p1.html) giving the game a 9.5.
The huge battles that erupt across the various levels will definitely give you an adrenaline rush. While the scale of the battles in the first game was large, the numbers present on screen at one point in time is simply incredible. You'll find yourself and a dozen or more soldiers squaring off against twenty or more drones, a number of Chimera, and a couple of turrets, all firing bullets at you. Facing down these incoming attacks can be daunting, but when you throw in the fact that the frame rate is rock solid without a hiccup, it's a pretty impressive feat that brings you into the action of the firefight. What also stands out is the fact that there are sections where you'll feel as though you've been through a massive battle – after you and your squad have blasted hordes and hordes of monsters that descend on your position, you'll wade through the bodies of the fallen enemies that litter your path. Details like this help to convey the situation that this is a larger cataclysmic battle in humanity's last days. Fall of Man was eye-catching in its battle sequences, but Resistance 2 blows it out of the water.
Next week.....
jeffbax
10-28-2008, 06:20 AM
November is so painful.
Telefrog
10-28-2008, 07:46 AM
This game falls into the same category as Fallout 3, Fable II, Little Big Planet, Wrath of The Lich King, and Gears of War 2. They're all review-proof. They could get any aggregate score, even the lowest, and they would still sell very well. They also share the trait that they almost assuredly will not get a low score from any major reviewer.
MalReynolds
10-28-2008, 07:55 AM
Gears is more important at the moment but the beta for this game has made me want R2 more
Codicier
10-28-2008, 11:06 AM
This game falls into the same category as Fallout 3, Fable II, Little Big Planet, Wrath of The Lich King, and Gears of War 2. They're all review-proof. They could get any aggregate score, even the lowest, and they would still sell very well. They also share the trait that they almost assuredly will not get a low score from any major reviewer.
It's like they're good or something. ;)
Just messing around. I know what you mean.
Dukefrukem
10-28-2008, 11:11 AM
November is so painful.
last Nov was worse.
Schnoogs
10-28-2008, 11:52 AM
This game falls into the same category as Fallout 3, Fable II, Little Big Planet, Wrath of The Lich King, and Gears of War 2. They're all review-proof. They could get any aggregate score, even the lowest, and they would still sell very well. They also share the trait that they almost assuredly will not get a low score from any major reviewer.
Thanks Captain Obvious...what's important here though is that the original Resistance got a 9.1 and they gave this one a 9.5. It stands to reason that it's significantly better when compared to it's predecessor.
When I had my PS3, I really enjoyed the first game. If I didn't have so many expenses recently, I'd probably pick it up again primarily for this.
pomeroy
10-28-2008, 12:28 PM
This looks great. Really wish I had a PS3 to play it on.
Telefrog
10-28-2008, 12:31 PM
Thanks Captain Obvious...what's important here though is that the original Resistance got a 9.1 and they gave this one a 9.5. It stands to reason that it's significantly better when compared to it's predecessor.
0.4 is significant? :D
Schnoogs
10-28-2008, 12:52 PM
0.4 is significant? :D
It is to me...I thought the first one had some issues and judging by this they seemed to have improved on the first one which means I will most likely give it a chance. 9.5 represents a polished game if you go by IGNs review history.
OldJadedGamer
10-28-2008, 12:58 PM
Is this an exclusive online review? I haven't seen any others.
9.5 represents a polished game if you go by IGNs review history.
Jade Empire got a 9.8
Schnoogs
10-28-2008, 01:03 PM
Jade Empire got a 9.8
Citing exceptions to a rule is as much a rhetorical ploy as calling me an asshole and calling it even :p
Norse
10-28-2008, 01:04 PM
I'll be all over this if they've changed the overall design of the game world and the feel of the weapons since the first one. Do we know if there will be a demo?
violent
10-28-2008, 01:07 PM
I love that some people are uneasy of this game having a good score.
pomeroy
10-28-2008, 01:08 PM
0.4 is significant? :D
If you go by IGN's reviews....sure. Why not.
Adam Blue
10-28-2008, 01:12 PM
I love that some people are uneasy of this game having a good score.
It's not that, it's that people are apparently taking IGN's score seriously.
violent
10-28-2008, 01:21 PM
It's not that, it's that people are apparently taking IGN's score seriously.
You'd be surprised what people take seriously when it benefits their personal opinions. Even though I know IGN to be shitty in it's reviews, they tend to be in the right area. I'm assuming the other reviews will be within the area of this one and that is what I'm finding promising.
Norse
10-28-2008, 01:27 PM
This means it's as good as Halo 3....
Gorvi
10-28-2008, 01:27 PM
It's not that, it's that people are apparently taking IGN's score seriously.
They're hit or miss, but then again so is every other major review site out there. There are terribly done reviews on all sites.
I love that some people are uneasy of this game having a good score.
They gave the first a 9+ and it was really not that good, so...why shouldn't people be uneasy? This is one of the games where IGN painted themselves into a corner with an overrated early game getting a sequel they have to rate with consideration of what the first game received.
Gorvi
10-28-2008, 02:06 PM
They gave the first a 9+ and it was really not that good, so...why shouldn't people be uneasy? This is one of the games where IGN painted themselves into a corner with an overrated early game getting a sequel they have to rate with consideration of what the first game received.
Except a lot of people don't see the first game as overrated. Not that the tired argument over the first game needs to be brought back, but IGN's review was barely over the overall average review score for the first game.
Dukefrukem
10-28-2008, 02:33 PM
0.4 is significant? :D
in Review Land yes.
Adam Blue
10-28-2008, 02:38 PM
They're hit or miss, but then again so is every other major review site out there. There are terribly done reviews on all sites.
Oh I know. I just wouldn't think we'd really care what they have to say. I've come to the point where I just listen to what fellow gamers say.
Gorvi
10-28-2008, 02:44 PM
Oh I know. I just wouldn't think we'd really care what they have to say. I've come to the point where I just listen to what fellow gamers say.
Ahh, ok. Yeah, I do the same thing. Reviews from the major sites tend to not gel to well with the way I feel about most games, anyway, so I mostly agree.
violent
10-28-2008, 02:48 PM
They gave the first a 9+ and it was really not that good, so...why shouldn't people be uneasy? This is one of the games where IGN painted themselves into a corner with an overrated early game getting a sequel they have to rate with consideration of what the first game received.
I don't understand your logic sir but hey, if you consider a game getting a 9.5 as warranting a validated sense of uneasiness, by all means. Don't try to get me to understand that because I think it will simply be lost on me.
King3567
10-28-2008, 04:08 PM
Enough with all these First "Fill-in-the-blank" Review threads. Why not just post the score in one of the game's already existing threads? Especially since this is IGN we are talking about and a completely arbitrary number. I reiterate the fact that Resistance will not get any score lower than a 79 (and that's if someone truly hates this game). Boycott sites like Gamespot and IGN for their handling of game journalism.
Variable Gear
10-28-2008, 04:17 PM
king, do you listen to any IGN podcasts...?
King3567
10-28-2008, 04:35 PM
king, do you listen to any IGN podcasts...?
No, to tell you the truth I don't really listen to any podcasts. But, the reason why I criticize IGN (and Gamespot, but do I really need to lay that all on you guys?) is because their reviews are very hyperbolic and downright amateurish at times. I downright hate their community, their music and movie reviews are often the exact opposite of what they say, their new layout sucks, their video player sucks, etc.
Back to my main point, their reviews. First off, theres their rating system which is worse than even Gamespot's. Even when they give a game a nine, there reviews can still be mostly negative which leads me to believe that this completely arbitrary number that seems to be the only god damn thing that people pay attention to is more out of obligation than the reviewer's sentiments. Their number is never concise with the actual review and for anyone who's read their stuff for a while, you may notice that is extremely rare that a lesser know game gets fairly reviewed.
Sorry, I don't mean to go after you, Variable, or anyone else in this thread. I just want to express my hatred of IGN and why I feel that they are laughing stock of "journalism".
Pale Ale
10-28-2008, 04:36 PM
last Nov was worse.
Kidney stones?
It's another banner year. Just like last year.
Though to be honest I'm not sure I could think of a list of more than 2 items if I didn't involve Google, and I strongly suspect I'll be in the same position next year.
At least they're better than Play...
Edit - And by that I mean IGN
Edit - Or kidney stones.
OldJadedGamer
10-28-2008, 04:37 PM
Because there are no other online reviews posted yet, this must mean that this review is an exclusive so I'm waiting to see what others have to say about the game.
Because there are no other online reviews posted yet, this must mean that this review is an exclusive so I'm waiting to see what others have to say about the game.
I can't remember the embargo off-hand, but yeah - it's an "IGN-exclusive" review. The notion always struck me as absurd, given the nature of the Internet...
Variable Gear
10-28-2008, 04:57 PM
Sorry, I don't mean to go after you, Variable, or anyone else in this thread. I just want to express my hatred of IGN and why I feel that they are laughing stock of "journalism".
It's no big deal, I didn't take your post seriously in the first place.
I just feel like the guys at the major review sites get unfairly shat on sometimes. I've been listening to the majority of the IGN podcasts for awhile, and these guys do represent you and I. Known in general as the hardcore community. I agree with you about the number attached to each review, but you've got to remember what happened when CGW switched to a system devoid of numerical representation. The complaints flooded in begging CGW to change course, and they did. I don't think the gaming community is mature enough to handle scoreless reviews. I don't know if the hardcore will ever be mature enough for that kind of transition. Part of being hardcore means being arrogant, and set in your ways, which is not a good way to perceive the world, especially if you're planning on attaching a number to the end of a seven-page review. Or criticizing the reviewer for writing it.
Because, at the end of the day, it's the audience's fault.
King3567
10-28-2008, 05:51 PM
It's no big deal, I didn't take your post seriously in the first place.
I just feel like the guys at the major review sites get unfairly shat on sometimes. I've been listening to the majority of the IGN podcasts for awhile, and these guys do represent you and I. Known in general as the hardcore community. I agree with you about the number attached to each review, but you've got to remember what happened when CGW switched to a system devoid of numerical representation. The complaints flooded in begging CGW to change course, and they did. I don't think the gaming community is mature enough to handle scoreless reviews. I don't know if the hardcore will ever be mature enough for that kind of transition. Part of being hardcore means being arrogant, and set in your ways, which is not a good way to perceive the world, especially if you're planning on attaching a number to the end of a seven-page review. Or criticizing the reviewer for writing it.
Because, at the end of the day, it's the audience's fault.
Very true. Till that day comes, I will just really on my friends in real life and here on CoG for opinions on thing. I'll admit that IGN occasionally has a good review or two and exaggerated a little bit, but I will not under any circumstances give Gamespot credit for anything they have done past 2006.
jeffbax
10-29-2008, 08:13 PM
last Nov was worse.
I disagree with you on that. There is much more this Nov that I want.
KamaItachi
10-29-2008, 08:28 PM
Thanks Captain Obvious...what's important here though is that the original Resistance got a 9.1 and they gave this one a 9.5. It stands to reason that it's significantly better when compared to it's predecessor.
It's .4 better!
Schnoogs
10-29-2008, 08:30 PM
It's .4 better!
And your point?
Let me explain it to you junior....90% of their scores fall in range between a 7 and 9. So even though it's out of 10 they use a fraction of that scale...so .4 is actually huge when you consider. Plus that makes it one of the highest scores period for any system.
You can name some of the best games ever and IGN usually scores them between 9 and 9.4
Knowing is half the battle.
KamaItachi
10-29-2008, 08:33 PM
And your point?
Let me explain it to you junior....90% of their scores fall in range between a 7 and 9. So even though it's out of 10 they use a fraction of that scale...so .4 is actually huge when you consider. Plus that makes it one of the highest scores period for any system.
You can name some of the best games ever an IGN usually scores them between 9 and 9.4
Knowing is half the battle.
Arbitrary numbers and .00 integers suck cock by choice.
They also run over badgers in their tractor for fun.
Schnoogs
10-29-2008, 08:34 PM
http://www.assassinworks.com/pwn.gif
scythe
10-29-2008, 08:49 PM
GamePlayer (http://www.gameplayer.com.au/gp_documents/Resistance2-Review.aspx?Page=1) gave it a 9/10.
Also, that picture is not fucking necessary.
Telefrog
10-30-2008, 01:49 PM
1up Gives it a B+ (http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3171026).
On a related note, the campaign occasionally dips into "learn by death" territory, affording extremely little leeway to accomplish the task at hand (detect Chameleons before they attack, make a certain series of jumps) before you're killed...and your death served as a "gotcha, you shoulda..." moment instead of a legitimate tactical error. Also, curiously, the previous game's vehicle sequences -- which served as a nice way to break up the gameplay -- are completely absent.
Because the campaign -- with its lavish production values, interesting enemies, and terrific boss fights -- is so much better than the one in Resistance, its annoyances become more prominent. The most aggravating: Ninety percent of the time, the enemies only target you specifically. That's fine if you're the only guy around...but when you're with a squad of fellow badasses, it's a bit illusion-shattering. Two of your buddies are pelting a Titan with rockets and gunfire, and somehow the Titan makes a beeline to you -- even if you're not doing anything. The Chameleon -- a Chimera straight out of Predator -- only decloaks to attack you, brushing by two redshirt A.I. soldiers and swiping you with a one-hit-kill swing. Grims come rushing out of the woodwork -- and, hey look, they all swarm right toward you! It's damn annoying.
Schnoogs
10-30-2008, 02:11 PM
Also, that picture is not fucking necessary.
http://www.assassinworks.com/laugh.gif
OldJadedGamer
10-30-2008, 02:12 PM
1up Gives it a B- (http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3171026).
Good to see the real non-exclusive reviews hitting.
Kenzington4short
10-30-2008, 02:16 PM
1up Gives it a B- (http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3171026).
Did you mean B+?
Anyway, I got an email about an hour ago from Amazon letting me know they've shipped it. I'd probably get it by Saturday if I wasn't so cheap and opted for the free delivery.
I'm not too excited for this or anything but Amazon was giving away $10 gift cards for preordering. I did enjoy the first one though. I'd probably be looking forward to this more if I actually had friends with PS3s. Still, I'm sure it'll be a great game.
Telefrog
10-30-2008, 02:50 PM
Did you mean B+?
Hmm. That's weird. I could've sworn it was a B- when I pulled it up earlier.
Oh well, I've fixed it in the earlier post.
Schnoogs
10-30-2008, 03:36 PM
1up Gives it a B+ (http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3171026).
Oh great...their complaint is my #1 complaint in so many games. I hate it when your teammates are just window dressing. I want them to attack and actually be able to win a battle without me...not just act like they're fighting and the bad guys simply come after me.
Weak!!
Urizen
10-30-2008, 04:42 PM
No, to tell you the truth I don't really listen to any podcasts. But, the reason why I criticize IGN (and Gamespot, but do I really need to lay that all on you guys?) is because their reviews are very hyperbolic and downright amateurish at times.
Show me a review site that isn't hyperbolic and amateurish. Bottom line is that all reviews read the same because they all cater to the same reader, and all such readers (the millions of them) want the same thing.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.