Resistance 2 to feature 60-player online, 8-player co-op, 2 campaigns
The Resistance sequel will apparently feature two separate campaigns, one dedicated to single-player and a second for multiplayer. While the second campaign supports two-player split-screen for local play, once taken online, as many as 8 players can take on the Chimera invasion – or will we be fighting the Cloven this time? But the real treats seem to be stored in the competitive multiplayer modes, as Resistance 2 promises to support up to 60 players online – and not just 30-on-30 chaos. Some multiplayer modes will divide participants into 4- to 8-player squads each with its own virtual lobby. Squads will be tasked with unique objectives, and gameplay will be further diversified through three basic character classes: heavy weaponry, special ops (think: sniper) and medic. Insomniac's even promising an extensive stat-tracking database on MyResistance.net, coupled with faster matchmaking than any game of 2007. Oh snap! You listening to this, Bungie?
[Via Evil Avatar]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Deck @ Jan 11th 2008 4:04PM
Oh snap indeed!
Tony Little @ Jan 11th 2008 5:06PM
Ill believe it when i see it Sony (and then buy a PS3). I remember when the PS3 was going to launch with support for 7 controllers and 2 HDMI outputs for 1080p Support on 2 different TVs. Damn You Sony for crushing my dreams.
(why I need 1080p on 2 tv's is beyond me- it just sounded badass at the time)
Markusdragon @ Jan 11th 2008 6:05PM
And that's just the tip of the iceberg! 17 Cathedrals, 12 Mosques, 5 Gurdwaras, 9 Temples, 8 Synagogues, 2 Quaker meeting houses, a Kingdom Hall, and a Scientology Center all filled with gore-splattering bone-splitting ultra-violence, and all used without permission!
mafafu @ Jan 11th 2008 6:28PM
Markusdragon wins for the JW reference.
JakubK666 @ Jan 11th 2008 6:43PM
@ Vidikron
Duh...Warhawk is a bloody flight simulator, of course that every single map will be bigger than Sandtrap or Valhalla.
Warhawk...the only game that makes me look past my 360 fanboyism and just be jealous...
Who would love to swap GoW, Bioshock and Halo 3 for Warhawka RFOM and Heavenly Sword?
JakubK666 @ Jan 11th 2008 6:46PM
Fuck! Wrong Reply...blame the system!
Ukickmydog9123 @ Jan 11th 2008 7:14PM
is that balamb garden in the background?
B1gC72 @ Jan 11th 2008 8:06PM
well the PS3 does still support 7 controllers. it says so in the manual. but other than that, yea your right. why i would need 2 HDMI out ports was beyond me honestly, i could barely afford one HDTV with HDMI, let alone 2.
Raikage (Wii FC 5508 0487 4434 0992) @ Jan 11th 2008 10:21PM
Epic win for the JW reference. In a Kingdom Hall... LOL
Anyone a JW here?
Yeef @ Jan 12th 2008 1:32AM
To be fair, the PS3 DOES support seven controllers. I don't know of any game that makes use of more than 4 though.
Nate @ Jan 12th 2008 2:39AM
Pixeljunk racers supports 7 players.
Tom @ Jan 12th 2008 6:15AM
Tony little says:
"Ill believe it when i see it Sony (and then buy a PS3). I remember when the PS3 was going to launch with support for 7 controllers and 2 HDMI outputs for 1080p Support on 2 different TVs. Damn You Sony for crushing my dreams.
(why I need 1080p on 2 tv's is beyond me- it just sounded badass at the time)"
let me correct you, ps3 DOES support 7 controller. the controller port reassign menu goes up to 7. Also, 2 HDMI is NOT for output to 2 tvs, one is output for sound and another for video. that was the initial plan, I really dont know where you heard it from. Why 1 hdmi is fine in my opinion, well with one hdmi port, you can output to a receiver input than with another hdmi you output to your hdtv. Kinda like an antenna to vcr to tv setup, but in this case its ps3 to receiver to hdtv.
check with real ps3 owner in forums if you dont believe me.
dsub @ Jan 12th 2008 6:39AM
Let me correct you. There never was, nor never will be a need for separate HDMI cables for Video/Audio. It is and has been an all-in-one connection that delivers audio and video in the same cable. The two HDMI ports originally existed for Dual HD Displays. Here's the damn slide directly from Sony's presentation.
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/game/docs/20050517/ps3_07.jpg
While we're on the subject, let's not forget that the PS3 was also supposed to have a built in Router, but who's keeping track anyways.
This sounds like more of the same from Sony, the same old "Bigger is Better" mentality. Promise the world and deliver a trimmed up, semi-version of the original truth to the consumer. I'll never understand this tactic. While the 4 or 8 different team idea sounds cool, I don't really see how a 60 person online game can be any more fun than a 8 or 16 person online game. What makes games fun online are the games themselves and their content, not the number of people playing.
Medal of Honor Heroes 2 supports 32 players online on the Wii, and Halo supports 16. So does that mean that Medal of Honor Heroes 2 is the better game? Hardly the case.
I believe I've proven my point.
Faar @ Jan 12th 2008 8:49AM
"let's not forget that the PS3 was also supposed to have a built in Router, but who's keeping track anyways."
It was a switch, not router. ;)
"more of the same from Sony, the same old "Bigger is Better" mentality. Promise the world and deliver a trimmed up, semi-version of the original truth to the consumer."
Maybe you should go check just how many features were promised for windows vista, only to get dropped somewhere along the way. This happens ALL THE TIME in the tech industry.
The PS3 with the dual hdmis and 6 USB and 3 gigabit ethernet ports wasn't even a prototype. It was just a shell mockup. If you compare pictures of it with the finished PS3 you'll notice the actual PS3 is noticeably bulkier and studded with venting holes all over the place.
That's what happens when you go beyond the mockup stage and beyond the prototype stage into actual production model territory. If the first PS3s really cost $800 to produce as stated elsewhere, then it's really no wonder there wasn't a gigabit switch also built into it.
As for your defensive mutterings about wether more players make for a better game or not, just show me objective evidence (ie: not based on someone's opinions) that Halo is a better game than MoHH2 - and particulary because it only supports half the amount of players, THEN you have proved your point. ;)
"Fact" is, more players in a map can under the right circumstances lead to more involved tactics and gameplay, like in Quake Wars or other class/objective-based shooters. It depends on the game of course, and the map. Too many players on a small map just leads to clutter, but you can't generalize like you do and say there's no correlation at all between player amount and fun level - because there obviously is one.
Retard Exposer @ Jan 13th 2008 2:44AM
FAAR: You are retard.
You said... "As for your defensive mutterings about wether more players make for a better game or not, just show me objective evidence (ie: not based on someone's opinions) that Halo is a better game than MoHH2 - and particulary because it only supports half the amount of players, THEN you have proved your point"
His point was not that Halo is a better game than MoHH2 particulary [sic] because it only supports half the amount of players, dumbass; rather, it was that Halo is better in spite of the fact that it only supports half the amount of players as MoHH2. i.e. the Amount of players does not determine how good the game is. HTH. Welcome to the Internets.
Superstar90 @ Jan 11th 2008 4:04PM
Won't 60 players be really laggy?
Neebs @ Jan 11th 2008 4:08PM
Battlefield 2 PC.
FidliousWong @ Jan 11th 2008 4:09PM
Why? I mean, PS3 currently runs 32 player Warhawk with zero lag and the original Resistance had 40 player matches with zero lag. 60 may be up there but given current lag free experiences on PS3, why does this seem impossible to you?
Marty @ Jan 11th 2008 4:45PM
Not only will it be really laggy, but it will also not be much fun. As anyone who's played even a 32-player match on Counter Strike or Unreal Tournament can tell you, that many people is too much mayhem for any strategy to be employed... so the game just turns into a "stay alive long enough to kill at least one person" kind of thing.
Marty @ Jan 11th 2008 4:47PM
And Fidious Wong, 60 players is a lot of data to push around the net. Lag with that many players is almost inevitable. Even play with 32 players is pushing it, but I expect that you probably don't know much about net speeds, or else you wouldn't claim that you can play a 32 player game with "zero lag."
SUPER DESU @ Jan 11th 2008 5:02PM
@ Marty.
I play 40 player online with RFOM with zero lag thank you very much. With the correct frameworks, it won't be much of a push with 60.
Jason @ Jan 11th 2008 5:10PM
If this was Bungie saying Halo 4 will have lag-free 60 player online no one would doubt it and everyone would be crapping their pants and pre-ordering it 3 years in advance.
More to the point, with dedicated servers it is possible to do this. It won't be too hectic if the levels are large enough. Warhawk with 32 players is great and not too crowded because the levels are the right size for it (I do not experience any game-killing lag in these matches either).
FidliousWong @ Jan 11th 2008 5:21PM
Marty,
I see what you mean about the total chaos thing except here's the deal. When the map scenarios properly accommidate that number, it can be quite fun because you essentially have the fighting going in on several important points instead of the typical one or two heavily contested areas. You're basing your complaints on Counterstrike and UT3. Both games, when I have played, usually had the fighting concentrated in one, MAYBE two, locations. In the new Warhawk map, due entirely to the size, each checkpoint becomes a battlezone and you do have good old fashioned 4 on 6 battles while having a sense of a much larger battle. That's the key, scale the maps out, make several points of importance, and you will disperse the player chaos by the definition of the game. It's called good map design, worked for Warhawk and Battlefield, why not here?
Also, I know nothing of netcode and how it works (fact: I can't code shit, netcode is much worse) but that hardly makes up for the fact that I play 64 player Battlefield 2 all the time. I play 40 player Resistance all the time. Hell, I regularly host 16 player matches (Insomniac, add support for hosting 32player matches) on my PS3 for Warhawk and regularly join 32 player matches. All of which, lag free.
So I have to wonder.... where is your basis of comparison for "it can't be done?" If Xbox Live is your answer, there's also your problem. You cannot fully integrate a web service, lock it down the way MS has, and not expect it to be a prime factor in Lag. Several developers have stated this. This is also one of the MAIN reasons why few developers run dedicated servers on 360, because Live is such a huge hurdle. On PSN? It's a simple as buying a PS3 and setting it up as a ranked server (Trust me on this. I joined a group on Warhawk who all pitched in to run our own server, I'm one of 300 people who know how to get into it).
jsn @ Jan 11th 2008 5:41PM
it might not be laggy but the game will be horrible in the same ways huge BF games were. This isn't 5 years ago, more isn't better. Make a more balanced game rather than just throw as many people into the map as possible.
Vidikron (FU) @ Jan 11th 2008 5:58PM
@jsn
I think matches of all sizes have their place. It's all about having appropriate sized maps for thenmber of players. Have you ever had a chance to play Warhawk? The matches aren't "horrible" in any way. Even though it supports 32 players, themaps are huge. Each Warhawk map dwarfs even the biggest Halo 3 maps. But that's how it should be given the larger number of players. There's no reason 60 players can't work properly.
JakubK666 @ Jan 11th 2008 6:47PM
@ Vidikron
Duh...Warhawk is a bloody flight simulator, of course that every single map will be bigger than Sandtrap or Valhalla.
Warhawk...the only game that makes me look past my 360 fanboyism and just be jealous...
Who would love to swap GoW, Bioshock and Halo 3 for Warhawka RFOM and Heavenly Sword?
Speddy @ Jan 11th 2008 7:23PM
@ Marty: stfu.
Anticrawl @ Jan 11th 2008 8:51PM
@Marty
You may be right about to many players for consoles, as I like small groups for console games but don't sit there and tell me that's how Unreal is my friend.
32-players deathmatch or onslaught I'll get 45-60 kills on average and only a handfull of deaths. Not only that but the controlled chaos that is Unreal Tournament can be tamed with a decent team and leader. Don't bullshit people, 32-60 players is easily done and playable... on the PC. I'm not sure how well it could work on a home console considering how much slower console shooters play.
All that aside I love console FPSs just as much as PC FPSs, they are just two different beasts entirely.
Autopsy15 @ Jan 11th 2008 11:24PM
@ Marty
Sounds like someone's in deniaaal.
"The PS3 actually having a game that whoops the shit out of Halo!? NO! IT CAN NOT BE DONE!!!!!"
Marty @ Jan 14th 2008 3:29PM
I'm not in denial... not at all. I wrote my comments coming from my experiences with coding online games, and from what I have read on the subject. It might seem like there isn't any lag in a 32 player game, but it's there... there is always a delay between what you do in an online game and what everyone else sees. Lag is the amount of time between action and response, but proper motion planning, among other things, can help mask it.
I'm not denying that the PS3 cannot handle 60 players... in fact, with dedicated servers, there's nary a console out there that can't. All I'm saying is that the more players you add, the more data has to be pushed, the higher the strain that goes on the motion planning to mask lag. It's inevitable that the more players you add, the higher the lag will affect it... if you don't understand that, then you have no business talking about it in the first place.
Huey2k2 @ Jan 11th 2008 4:05PM
Interesting, Resistance was always a game that I thought looked pretty cool, and although I currently do not own a PS3 and have no plans really to ever one, if this turns out as cool as it seems... then who knows?
NATO_Duke @ Jan 11th 2008 6:05PM
I grabbed this the same day as the PS3 and it still is my favorite game to play on it. A sequel is something I was really hoping for!
Jerk Face @ Jan 11th 2008 4:05PM
"Impressive," said Darth Vader.
DangerMouse @ Jan 11th 2008 4:09PM
He said that thrice?
;)
Abuzar @ Jan 11th 2008 9:10PM
He said it thrice indeed. Then he said sorry four times for saying it thrice.
Jerk Face @ Jan 11th 2008 4:05PM
"Impressive," said Darth Vader.
Steve @ Jan 12th 2008 1:18AM
Who the hell marked this up three separate times? I thought duplicate posts normally got marked down.
*Gets force choked, is replaced by younger and more obedient Steve*
Jerk Face @ Jan 11th 2008 4:06PM
"Impressive," said Darth Vader.
hvnlysoldr @ Jan 11th 2008 11:06PM
Impressive indeed MissingNo.
Dirt @ Jan 11th 2008 4:06PM
This actually sounds pretty awesome. I really hope the "new thing" for consoles now is huge 60 player online matches. How could would it be in Gears of War 2, Halo 4, Call of Duty 5, Vegas 2, etc to have co-op with 8+ players and 60 player death matches? Sign me up!
Dirt @ Jan 11th 2008 4:07PM
Err.. I mean "how cool would it be".
I'm glad companies are upping the ante and the bar.
Burritoclock @ Jan 11th 2008 4:06PM
Believe it when I sees it...
cc123 @ Jan 11th 2008 4:06PM
Freaking awesome.
And before people ask: Yes they will have dedicated servers for this.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/845/845049p1.html
cc123 @ Jan 11th 2008 4:07PM
Freaking awesome.
And before people ask: Yes they will have dedicated servers for this.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/845/845049p1.html
SoulBlade @ Jan 11th 2008 4:07PM
That'd be quite awesome if they actually did it... would blow any console FPS multiplayer experience out of the water..
MN Guy @ Jan 11th 2008 4:29PM
Moar players doesn't necessarily mean funner game.
I think these sound like great features. Resistance was dull and boring to me, but I'd sure like to see these types of features in other games with styles that more appeal to me.
thechihuahua @ Jan 11th 2008 4:56PM
Your use of the word "funner" does not confirm your a dumbass, but it heavily implies it.
Deez @ Jan 11th 2008 6:14PM
@thechihuahua
I wouldn't normally do this, but since you picked him up on "funner" I'll have to point this out...
You're a dumbass = you are a dumbass
Remember people: You, Yours, You're
upz @ Jan 12th 2008 1:49PM
The irony in this thread is unbelievable.
@Deez
"I wouldn't normally do this, but since you picked him up on "funner" I'll have to point this out...
You're a dumbass = you are a dumbass"
And I shall correct that to "Your a dumbass = You're a dumbass."
Now let's see what I screwed up.
Deez @ Jan 15th 2008 9:21AM
@ Upz
I'm not sure anyone is even reading this post anymore, but here is my response:
My format was correct in what I was trying to show;
"Corrected grammar" = "Reason for correction"
whereas you had:
"Incorrect grammar" = "Correct grammar"
We were both correct...except I was correct before you :P