Insomniac: Fans Think "Resistance 2 Was A Failure"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Insomniac: Fans Think "Resistance 2 Was A Failure"

image

Insomniac community manager James Stevenson says that despite a more favorable critical reception to Resistance 2 than that of the first game, the company was stung by their fans' apparent belief that the game "was a failure."

For better or worse, it may be the game critics who determine a game's Metacritic score, but for developers, it's the fans who buy your games and are enthusiastic about the community. That's why, Insomniac's senior community manager James Stevenson, told Videogamer Resistance 2's superior review scores compared to its predecessor didn't counterbalance the disappointment the company saw amongst its devoted fans.

"The hardcore fans of Resistance 1 were maybe a little bit disappointed. Those folks consistently expressing that - especially [NeoGAF] - it was like your dog turned on you," Stevenson elaborated. "That's the feeling of it. You had this dog that loved you. You loved the dog, too, but they expressed all this affection for you. And then suddenly the dog bites your hand and it's that feeling of, ooh, ow, that really hurts."

True, the reviews might have been better - and the game sits at a not-shabby-at-all 87 on Metacritic - but their opinion doesn't matter quite as much, says Stevenson. If a reviewer dislikes a game, that's all right, since reviewers play "lots of games. They're supposed to be critical." But fan reception is a different thing entirely.

"But the people who put their money down on our game, want to see our game be good and want to invest months of their time into our game, spend months of their time leading up to our game watching videos, reading about it, sending us questions, listening to our podcasts, investing hours and hours and being excited for our game, if they're disappointed then it hurts more than some reviewer being pissy about a game and giving it a seven, well, okay, whatever. I can move on from that. I can ignore that. But fans that are genuinely disappointed are a lot harder to cope with."

I can see his point, true. But on the other hand, is a game doesn't live up to the fans' hype really a "failure," even in their eyes? I think that word has stronger connotations than he might mean.

Permalink

After reading this, I could only think of one thing:

More people will complain about a game than tout it's praises, and will do so for longer periods of time.

Were they complaining because it wasn't like the first one, or did they just think the gameplay sucked?

In the first one, you had a weapon system like Half-Life, where you keep all your weapons in your infinite backpack. Your health would regenerate up to the nearest quarter.

The second one was basically Halo or CoD (Regenerating health, 2 weapons at a time - no dual-wielding, though).

I really like Resistance 2, the gameplay was addictive. However i havent played it in a while thanks to better games.

The biggest problem I had with the game was the multiplayer. Other than that it was ok. The ending surprised me.

Personally what killed this game for me was the lack of a single-player campaign co-op like there was in the first one. In the second one we got this wishy washy co-op think that played a bit too much like TF2. (No really there was even the classic heavy-medic combo taking all the damage and laying down serious firepower with their gatling guns.)

Also the story for R2 was... Meh at best. The lack of the ability to carry every gun you picked up also killed the game (for me).
R2 felt too much like Insomniac was trying too many new things and throwing out too many old things wether they worked or not.

In their attempt to give us something better Insomniac shot themselves in the foot by removing too much of the things that worked in R1.

If only Infinity Ward could think like these guys...

I never bothered to play Resistance 2 because they took out the weapon wheel. The first game was great because you could carry all the guns you encountered. But for some reason Insomniac felt it necessary to follow the Halo and Call of Duty road and only allowed you to carry two guns.

They had a great thing going on with Fall of Men and all they had to do for the sequel was build on top of that. But they tried to do to much and ended up neglecting the single-player.

CantFaketheFunk:

I can see his point, true. But on the other hand, is a game doesn't live up to the fans' hype really a "failure," even in their eyes? I think that word has stronger connotations than he might mean.

The thing is, Stevenson has hit the nail on the head here. Critics? You can wag the middle finger at them, for all you care: the primary concern of a game developer is that the players enjoyed the game.

If the players do not enjoy the game, you've failed, no matter how well the game is critically recieved: because you aren't making a game for the critics, you're making the game for the players.

For instance, I hated Oblivion, as a critic: but Bethseda doesn't give a toss, because as a player, I love the damn thing.

I thought this game was WAY better than Resistance 1 (minus the weapon wheel, which was WAY better than 2 weapons at a time), but it still had a few faults. However, the Chicago level was most definetely awesome.

Well, it by all means isn't a failure. It's a decent game as is, but they cashed some of the stand-aside bits from the first Resistance that made it a little bit better than the other FPSs on the market. Sure, you had some kind of quantum dimensional pockets where everything fit inside including a refrigerator and a small housing complex, but hey, that was kinda cool.

I will have to agree with the fans to some extent. Yes, Resistance 2 wasn't as good as Resistance: Fall of Man, but it wasn't a failure.

This was actually the first game i got when I bought my PS3. I still think it's a great game and i've beaten it. The only thing I wished it had was a co-op campaign mode. The multiplayer wasn't really my thing, but i won't hold that against them.

They have my kudos for making a great game.

I own both games, and I have to agree R1 was superior to R2 in many senses. I really missed the weapon wheel, and I don't like the R2 regenerating health. I liked the R1 regenerating health (regenerate 25%). Plus, I thought the atmosphere in R1 was much better, and it had some pretty tense/scary moments.
R2, not so much, and some of the enemies were cheap.

I never really gave R2 a shot. I played the first game Co-op with a friend, and when I learned I couldn't do that in the R2 I wasn't really interested. It came out at the same time as GoW2, which had the co-op + horde mode (which, while I haven't stuck with it as much, seemed more interested than R2 mini-mission coop). 64 players is awesome, but I really only have a handful of PS3 friends. I'd rather have an experience catered to the 3-6 of us (or 1-2 in campaign coop), than the 16? players needed for R2 mini-mission coop.

They removed co-op campaign, they completely changed the storytelling style, and they changed the weapons system and the health system.

Don't get me started on the goofy "Can you figure out the strategy? Then you win!" bosses.

Other than the recurrence of some enemies and weapons, this was completely unrecognizable as a sequel to the original. I liked it, but I was definitely disappointed.

Yeah, I agree with them on that.
R2 was a good game, but they took out many of the bits that made R1 special, like the health system, and the varied enemy types like the Greyjacks.

Maybe critics just don't know what people want anymore.

Resistance 2 was definately a good game, I thought, but I do agree that it took away too many things from the original. The first Resistance felt more, I dunno, "pure" in a sense I suppose. R2 was good, but I just have this vibe with it. Definitely hope R3 is even better, Insomniac has enough trust in me.

Jumplion:
Resistance 2 was definately a good game, I thought, but I do agree that it took away too many things from the original. The first Resistance felt more, I dunno, "pure" in a sense I suppose. R2 was good, but I just have this vibe with it. Definitely hope R3 is even better, Insomniac has enough trust in me.

Here's hoping. I like the Resistance Franchise.

I liked Resistance 2, but I didn't play the first. Loved the co-op mode.

Single player was damn hard though, even in Normal. Five enemies with Augers that know were you are at all times? That's not fun. Dunno if Resistance one is like that.

The second one was pretty much Quake IV but with prettier graphics.

Hades, they even lifted the walker section from it!

Aura Guardian:

Jumplion:
Resistance 2 was definately a good game, I thought, but I do agree that it took away too many things from the original. The first Resistance felt more, I dunno, "pure" in a sense I suppose. R2 was good, but I just have this vibe with it. Definitely hope R3 is even better, Insomniac has enough trust in me.

Here's hoping. I like the Resistance Franchise.

Though, to be honest, I'm probably being light on it since the PS3 was my first "next-gen/HD" console and Resistance: Fall of Man looked damn amazing when I first played it :S

Jumplion:

Aura Guardian:

Jumplion:
Resistance 2 was definately a good game, I thought, but I do agree that it took away too many things from the original. The first Resistance felt more, I dunno, "pure" in a sense I suppose. R2 was good, but I just have this vibe with it. Definitely hope R3 is even better, Insomniac has enough trust in me.

Here's hoping. I like the Resistance Franchise.

Though, to be honest, I'm probably being light on it since the PS3 was my first "next-gen/HD" console and Resistance: Fall of Man looked damn amazing when I first played it :S

I remember when I bought the Wii and My Cousin bought the PS3. He got Genji: Days of the Blade and Resistance: Fall of Man and I got Rayman Raving Rabbids,Wii Sports and Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess. (Since you mention the whole first next-gen thing) Damn were we having a blast with Resistance and Twilight Princess while our other games were still sealed.

Back to the quote topic: Resistance is a damn good looking shooter. Resistance 2 was also a good looking shooter. But will Resistance 3 take FULL advantage of the PS3? I hope so.

Think I've played the single player R2 more than COD4' single player.

People probably just gave the first game the benifit of the doubt since it was a launch title. A damn good launch title at that. The second one wasn't, so people were harder on it and expected more.

They took out all the things that made the game unique. Things like the weapon wheel, the health bars, and the narrator.

Although Resistance 2 has one of the coolest endings ever.

I liked Resistance 2...I didn't think it was better than 1...I thought it was it's own beast. It had it's own personality. I like both 1 and 2 for different reasons...which is a good thing because it keeps me coming back to both. Insomniac don't be so hard on yourself...and try not to read message boards like this...they are filled with whiny brats who can't possibly be pleased and even if they were would lie about it and say they weren't.

I loved the Co-op on R2, one of the best around. If anything was a failure it would be FoM.

It doesn't surprise me, I really didn't like Resistance 2 at all. I never played the first though.

I loved Resistance 2, although like many have stated, you couldn't experiment with weapons like in Resistance:FoM, but I loved the boss fights and the other modes. I think multiplayer was one of the funnest I have ever played, although the Wraith and Fareye are definetly overpowered. The 60 player multiplayer on small maps were fun, with awesome street battles and grenades exploding every second.
Co-op is also fun, a unique blend of Team Fortress 2 and a MMORPG Dungeon Raid with a dash of Left 4 Dead. The classes balanced each other out, although if you don't have any medics or spec-ops, you might as just quit.
My biggest rant for Resistance 2 was probably the exclusion of 2-player splitscreen. That was some of the funnest 1st person shooter co-op modes i have played other than Halo 3.
Over all, it was a great game, although they should have just added on instead of taking out.

Resistance 2 is a failure? Well, for me it's one of the best games for the PS3, tough I was disappointed, because the campaign didn't feature coop. Everything else was freaking amazing and I can't wait for Resistance 3 ^^

To be honest, rehashing the same boss fight from the previous game doesn't make your game look so great.

Zayren:
I liked Resistance 2, but I didn't play the first. Loved the co-op mode.

Single player was damn hard though, even in Normal. Five enemies with Augers that know were you are at all times? That's not fun. Dunno if Resistance one is like that.

No, more like ten enemies with Augers (Steelheads is the name of that particular Chimera variant btw) and I was on Easy!

I'm kidding but it was still hard, just beat it today in fact. I'm very interested in the second one and will probably start tomorrow.

For me the campaign was great but the multiplayer failed I have fond memories of resistance FOM playing capture the flag, summerset map. Sneaking through the houses taking out the snipers one by one before making a dash for the flag.

Also resistance 2 what a ending!

Ahhhh the nostalgia.

I didn't even buy R2. When I found the co-op campaign got thrown out on it's ass.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.