Insomniac Games took negative Resistance 2 fan feedback to heart
by Griffin McElroy 
{ Oct 26th 2009 at 1:20PM } 
Stevenson continued the analogy, stating, "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." We can only guess how disappointing negative fan feedback must be for a developer -- however, couldn't this be seen as your dog telling you they're disappointed, and suggesting ways to do better in the future? Oh, like that adorable, illustrated anti-drug dog! We love that little guy.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
tmacairjordan87 @ Oct 26th 2009 1:25PM
I likely won't even rent 3 because of how awful 2 was. Gamefly'ed it last week and ended up saying fuck it and returning it around chapter 5 or so. To me, it looked and played like an FPS made by someone who shouldn't be making FPS games. I really wish they would ditch this series and move onto something new, like an RPG or something other than an FPS.
roger @ Oct 26th 2009 1:31PM
Metacritic says you're wrong since overall it got a better score than R1, and I concur. When I first bought my PS3 this year I played R1 with all the talk of it being great when in reality it was an average game. The story was the only thing that kept me going and I did like the narration, but the weapon wheel was lame and the graphics were underwhelming. I heard the MP was good but since I tried a few matches they were always empty. I tried R2 only because I wanted to continue the story since I was thrilled with the gameplay, thankfully it was much better. I missed the narration, but was happy there was no weapon wheel. The chimera seemed bigger and badder than before even if most of the boss battles felt underwhelming. R3 should be a mix between the two, but Insomniac should no base their game on a vocal minority.
xFenixKnightx @ Oct 26th 2009 1:31PM
Totally agree.
ComicShaman @ Oct 26th 2009 1:31PM
How about a humorous action-platformer set in space?
tmacairjordan87 @ Oct 26th 2009 1:32PM
"Metacritic says you're wrong"
Sorry, but I had to stop reading after that.
tmacairjordan87 @ Oct 26th 2009 1:36PM
Mmm I'm excited for Ratchet tomorrow, but they need to take a break from that series too. It's up to what...8 games in 7 years? They really need to branch out.
Giroro @ Oct 26th 2009 1:37PM
Metacritic may say he's wrong but James Stevenson says he's right. Guess which of those two was interviewed?
Vidikron @ Oct 26th 2009 1:42PM
"Mmm I'm excited for Ratchet tomorrow, but they need to take a break from that series too. It's up to what...8 games in 7 years? They really need to branch out."
They did, it was called "Resistance".
tmacairjordan87 @ Oct 26th 2009 1:45PM
Yeah and it's awful, and they somehow made a shooter that was more generic than Halo. So it's time to branch out again.
CheeziePotato @ Oct 26th 2009 1:54PM
I'm looking forward to getting Ratchet and Clank tomorrow. I just hope it's MUCH harder than Tools of Destruction.
Fullmetal Salchemist @ Oct 26th 2009 2:09PM
@roger
"Metacritic says you're wrong "
It's an opinion, dipshit.
johnnynumber5 @ Oct 26th 2009 2:21PM
I thought Resistance 2 was pretty good. To each his own. I played through the story mode once but played the co-op and competitive for a while. Not the best game ever made but it did have the trifecta of a good campaign, large competitive multiplayer sessions and the best was the co-op. They did co-op better than just about anyone else ... unless local co-op is important.
I think the fella in the interview was specifically talking about features that were cut from Resistance 2 that were in the original Resistance.
Ballistic H @ Oct 26th 2009 2:30PM
I actually found R2 to be good. Problems were the bosses were easier to fight than the common enemies, story was a bit weak, and I hated the characters.
WINterfang ( Now with the power to piss you off ) @ Oct 26th 2009 3:31PM
LOL Tmac vs Imsoniac.
Damned if you do it, Damned if you don't.
Courtney @ Oct 26th 2009 3:36PM
I skipped R2 specifically because it dropped the co-op story mode. The flaws of the original were really made up for by being able to play through the campaign with someone else. I know, it had the standalone co-op mode, but that just didn't sound that intriguing when I usually play games like this locally with my wife.
Hopefully that's one of the criticisms they take into account for 3.
SoCoolCurt (PSN: KillaKornbread - XBL: SoCoolCurt) @ Oct 26th 2009 8:56PM
i liked both of them but overall i liked the first better. i think i liked the environments and multiplayer of 1 better and the story mode co-op is what got me and my friend to play the game in the first place. the second one's online co-op mode was frickin amazingly addictive but i found myself having to force myself through the campaign mode and didn't really enjoy the competitive multiplayer all that much. if they can mix the high points of 1 and 2 for 3 i'll play it. hell who am i kidding, i'd play pretty much anything Insomniac puts out.
emperorzeroxx @ Oct 26th 2009 1:27PM
How dare a developer compare gamers to dogs, dogs will always and forever be known as the lowly soldiers in an army....NOT GAMERS, we follow no ones orders!! *bites*
KarlW @ Oct 26th 2009 1:44PM
I think they're saying we're their bitches
alinos @ Oct 26th 2009 7:12PM
no were all horny and unkempt
Dirty @ Oct 26th 2009 1:27PM
Sounds like he should get a rabies shot.
Discotheque @ Oct 26th 2009 1:27PM
The thing I didn't like about Resistance 2 was that it lost all the originality of the first game. Regen. health and no weapon wheel?
Resistance 2: COD/Halo edition basically.
Bring back the health system of the first game and the weapon wheel. Maybe then I'll buy the third game.
adamgreeney @ Oct 26th 2009 1:34PM
I agree, and will add the lack of story in R2. I adored the story in R1 and Retribution. I thought they were engaging, creative, and they trapped me into the games. R2 was gorgeous, but a let down as far as the meat of the game.
roger @ Oct 26th 2009 1:33PM
Weapon wheel sucks, who the hells walks around carrying 8 different types of rifles?
roger @ Oct 26th 2009 1:34PM
Not to mention all the ammo for them.
primetime4 @ Oct 26th 2009 1:38PM
I agree... the health system of the first one made it much more of a challenge. You always worried about losing that extra health bubble. I also think the story sort of got flushed out too much with less unknowns or unexpected twists and I could have done without the muscleheaded squadmate but overall I really didn't think it was that much worse than the first.
Maulok @ Oct 26th 2009 1:38PM
@roger: Someone who wants to stop a friggin alien invasion single handed! :)
Giroro @ Oct 26th 2009 1:40PM
I do, because even though I can hold 150 rounds of ammunition per each of 8 rifles, it is physically impossible for me to carry 1200 rounds of ammunition for one rifle.
who the hell walks around recovering entirely from near fatal bullet wounds in a few seconds anyways?
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Oct 26th 2009 1:49PM
Theres two factors to this, the fact we don't want games too realistic, and the fact we do, which one really does the job of depicting your wildest dreams, the one where you are in real life doing what you wouldn't normally get away with, or the one where you are in a fantasy world doing...well, what you wouldn't normally do.
I personally found carrying lots of weapons stupid, I also found health bubbles unrealistic, but then not having health bubbles is no more realistic :D
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Oct 26th 2009 1:29PM
R1 was fun but unoriginal, but the fun factor made up for the unoriginality, R2 was frustrating and unoriginal, it had good intentions, but lost the plot.
If they return to the R1 style, reincluding coop campaign, then I will be happy once more. I will no longer bite your hands Insomniac, until then, you better wear boxing gloves.
Lunastra78 (PSN: lunastra78) @ Oct 26th 2009 1:53PM
Agreed, but I think the main problem of R2 was the less-than-stellar level design and reliance upon scripted events (like the leviathan battle). Stuff like that looks great in video but just doesn't make for very good gameplay. R1 had some great battles and locales with a constant rush of enemies that made it fun to play.
Still, R2 isn't as bad as some people here make it out to be. If they can just wash the stench of Halo away for the third one, I'm sure it will be a great game.
Maulok @ Oct 26th 2009 1:29PM
I never got around to playing R2, but really enjoyed R:FOM. Was it really THAT bad?
primetime4 @ Oct 26th 2009 1:43PM
No, not at all but I think FOM was a little underrated. Just the pacing seemed off in the second one. You didn't really need or use all of the weapon types (they had two alien rifles that were identical), less variety in gameplay, and the boss battles were a little too easy.
kentuckyfried @ Oct 26th 2009 10:47PM
As someone who recently finished R2, let me re-iterate: don't waste your time when there are a number of better titles to occupy your time right now.
xFenixKnightx @ Oct 26th 2009 1:30PM
I rented it and didn't even finish it. It wasn't one of those games where you just can't put it down or youre really excited to play after you get off work or whatever. Oh well. It also didn't help that it came out the same time as CoD:WaW.
Giroro @ Oct 26th 2009 1:34PM
I just started playing CoD:WaW and I have to say, the campaign sucks. in 2 hours I've died multiple times trying to go through obviously open doors that are blocked with invisible walls and I've also had to suicide because a teammate trapped me in a corner and wouldn't move out of the way.
Maulok @ Oct 26th 2009 1:37PM
I have two words that sum up my feelings on W@W's campaign: Tank. Level.
*shudder*
baby sea tuna @ Oct 26th 2009 2:05PM
I actually feel the same way about both R:FOM and CoD:W@W, they were okay, but not good enough for me to bother finishing.
As for R2, I'd play it, but I'm not planning on buying it. Killzone 2 and ODST had already filled my generic military-vs-alien horde-FPS niche for 2009 anyway.
johnnynumber5 @ Oct 26th 2009 2:35PM
I beat both Resistance 2 & World At War pretty effortlessly. I wouldn't say either game was great but both were good enough to finish. I wouldn't put either one of them anywhere near the same level as Killzone 2 but they were both decent titles.
The best thing about Resistance 2 was the co-op in my opinion. I'm not a fan of the COD multiplayer but it was a decent (even if uninspired) game. It wasn't anything compared to Modern Warfare which in my opinion was the biggest disappointment. Resistance 2 certainly had some technical issues (AI scripting, framerate, spawn points in multiplayer etc) but the one thing that redeemed for some of that was the total package that it offered. You don't get many games anymore with a good campaign, co-op and competitive multiplayer. I would say that World At War was like a 7.5 and Resistance 2 was right around the same: maybe a 7.25 because of all the stuff it had to do in it. Both of them should have been better in my opinion considering the hype.
I would take Modern Warfare and Killzone 2 over both of them anyday of the week.
kentuckyfried @ Oct 26th 2009 10:50PM
ooof...W@W. Another campaign I absolutely hated.
I'm interested to see how mw2 plays out, now that people have complained about the infinite enemy respawns and insane laser-pinpoint-grenade tossing.
Giroro @ Oct 26th 2009 1:30PM
Insomniac, I'm not angry, just . . . *sigh* . . . dissappointed
President Taco @ Oct 26th 2009 1:34PM
R2 could have been much better. I could have forgiven them if it had a better coop mode.
mikeburnfire @ Oct 26th 2009 1:55PM
Completely agree with you there.
But "devoted fans" will always find something to complain about. If every developer listened to the "devoted fans", Resident Evil games would still only give you 10 bullets to take out 30 enemies, and instead of Uncharted 2, we'd have Crash Bandicoot 24.
Sometimes developers need to ignore the hardcore fans. They can be crazy.
President Taco @ Oct 26th 2009 2:07PM
yea, there are certainly times when some people should be ignored. There are other times when you should absolutely listen to your fan base (looking at you Infinity Ward!).
With R2 in particular, I hated the coop mode. Not because it was bad, but because it felt like a just another team based multi player mode; I love campaign coop. I don't care if they completely ignore other players in the storyline (a la Halo3 ODST) or that some believe it takes away from the campaign experience (IW again), we need more good campaign coop games.
Douche Bigalow @ Oct 26th 2009 2:24PM
Um, yeah, because it was so much better for Resident Evil to go the "zombies riding motorcycles and carrying AK-47's" route.
Darkfocus @ Oct 26th 2009 7:30PM
"But "devoted fans" will always find something to complain about. If every developer listened to the "devoted fans", Resident Evil games would still only give you 10 bullets to take out 30 enemies, and instead of Uncharted 2, we'd have Crash Bandicoot 24."
Unfortunately I'm pretty sure we already have a Crash Bandicoot 24 :/
il_duce620 @ Oct 26th 2009 1:41PM
R2 could have been better, but I really liked a few things it did, in particular the Skirmish mode in Competitive play, and their 8-person co-op missions. I sunk many hours into co-op in R2 and thought it was stellar. It would have been great had the whole game been available to do something like that in, but getting a few side-missions was nice.
My primary gripe was the lack of DLC for this game. I wanted another co-op mission or two. I wanted more multiplayer maps (besides the two they released that were small-scale CTF _only_, as I recall).
Seeing how Guerilla handled Killzone 2, with all the maps and support it received, I hope Insomniac takes a page from their playbook for Resistance 3.
Chris (PSN: Trax44) @ Oct 26th 2009 1:47PM
I liked both games for what they were. They are different games, different scale, different pace, different takes on co-op play, and so forth...
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ Oct 26th 2009 1:49PM
only problems I had was No MAIN story mode co-op and they took away the weapon wheel....I LOVED that damn thing....aside from that I thought it was a good game
lamebob @ Oct 26th 2009 2:09PM
Am i the only person who enjoyed R2 more than R1? To me, R1 was alot of fun because it had co op story mode. I had so much fun with my buddy going through the story, but didnt care as much for it by myself. But for some reason, i got soo hooked into R2. The graphics, the boss battles, fighting swarms of zombie like chimera in chicago. I like the new health system, it stopped me from wanting to always save. The weapon wheel was fun but too unrealistic. The only things i miss from R1 was that bubbleshooting gun, and the coop story mode. To me the coop story not being there was the only major downfall. However the coop mode was alot of fun, i loved leveling up my character to lvl 30. I wish they would add a higher level cap. I thought the story of R2 was great, but felt like a empire stikes back, causing alot of drama and plot twists, but not resolving anything. I loved the game so much i went through on the hardest difficulty. I guess im alone in the world.....aside from every gaming magazine and website that rated it.
The Alex @ Oct 26th 2009 3:30PM
I agree with everything you said.
Insomniac took Resistance 1 and evolved it into Resistance 2, unlike some game sequels that feel more like cheap knock offs than actual sequels.
I also agree that it's biggest downfall was the lack of a true co-op campaign, one that I hope is remedied in the sequel.
I really hope this series continues beyond even a third game, I could see a more modern Resistance being a lot of fun, or give us a chance to get to the Chimera homeworld.