|
Resistance 3
|
|
| Alucard | Date: Saturday, 05/March/2011, 12:34:50 PM | Message # 61 |
 Colonel
Group: Moderators
Messages: 184
Status: Offline
| Quote (nivasan6) Alu, how does it have RFoM graphics?
it looks better than Killzone if thats wut your asking ^_- in all honesty, it looks 1000 times better than r2 and the colour palette in the maps looks like they went back to how R:FoM looked just refined. Marsh, doesnt that rossmore teleport trick look sick!? lulz it looks like ill be jacking a lot more kills because of it and the range on that rossmore!! wtf! seemed it has the range of the m1014 in cod lol small maps ftw!
 
|
| |
| |
| Ang | Date: Saturday, 05/March/2011, 9:07:05 PM | Message # 62 |
 Lieutenant colonel
Group: Users
Messages: 133
Status: Offline
| Hellz yeah, I might pick up the skillgun a lot more too in R3. Even in BLOPS, I started using the Spas more with steady aim, and it was cool to get a hate message about me using it. 
Now just imagine how much hate you are going to get Alu. lol
I remember all the hate you got in R:FoM.
|
| |
| |
| nivasan6 | Date: Sunday, 06/March/2011, 6:43:00 PM | Message # 63 |
 Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 359
Status: Offline
| Alu, that's not what I was asking. But, since you are comparing the graphics to Resistance 3 and Killzone, or is Fall of Man and Killzone? Not sure, but either way you are the first person that I have heard say that Resistance 3 or Fall of Man has better graphics than Killzone 2, 3. A more closer comparison would be between the Uncharted franchise and Killzone, but even then I still never heard anyone say that either Uncharted games have better graphics than Killzone. With all complaints aside from Killzone, all I hear from people is how good the game looks, and even say that it is the best looking game on consoles. With you comparing Resistance graphics to Killzone would be similar to me saying that MAG has better graphics than Crysis, lol.
|
| |
| |
| Patrick | Date: Monday, 07/March/2011, 6:00:08 AM | Message # 64 |
 Lieutenant
Group: Users
Messages: 76
Status: Offline
| Looks awesome.
_____________
|
| |
| |
| duxy87 | Date: Monday, 07/March/2011, 8:03:23 AM | Message # 65 |
 Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 316
Status: Offline
| Quote (nivasan6) Alu, that's not what I was asking. But, since you are comparing the graphics to Resistance 3 and Killzone, or is Fall of Man and Killzone? Not sure, but either way you are the first person that I have heard say that Resistance 3 or Fall of Man has better graphics than Killzone 2, 3. A more closer comparison would be between the Uncharted franchise and Killzone, but even then I still never heard anyone say that either Uncharted games have better graphics than Killzone. With all complaints aside from Killzone, all I hear from people is how good the game looks, and even say that it is the best looking game on consoles. With you comparing Resistance graphics to Killzone would be similar to me saying that MAG has better graphics than Crysis, lol. Niv are you saying that the graphics in Killzone 2 & 3 are the better than R:FOM and R3 (from what you've seen)? I'm trying to gather what you are going on about here. But with Al saying that the graphics in Resistance 3 is better than K2 &3, I am agreeing with him. I rated Killzone 2 graphics but I think the connection between its visuals and gameplay, it didn't quite give me the impact of an amazing experience visually. From what I played of Killzone 3 MP beta, I didn't find a drastic difference with the visuals K2 portrayed. That was just my experience though... But from what I see in R3 vids, there is.
|
| |
| |
| nivasan6 | Date: Monday, 07/March/2011, 1:53:14 PM | Message # 66 |
|
Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 359
Status: Offline
| There should be a drastic difference between Fall of man, Resistance 2 and 3 because they were released far from each other, and the graphics in Resistance 2 was bad. There are major differences with the graphics in Killzone 2 and 3, but it's somewhat hard to see if you don't know what to look for. Yes, the graphics in Killzone 2 and 3 blow every console game out of the water in terms of graphics. I'm still flustered as to how you guys think that Fall of Man or Resistance 3 has better graphics than either Killzone game. In Resistance 3 they are going for a smaller experience especially in multiplayer so that they can add extra particle effects to the maps. In Killzone they don't need to downsize maps to add a few extra effects, lol. Hell, they even have full blown cut scenes for one multiplayer mode. Next thing I know you guys will say that Resistance looks better than BF3, lol. I'll say it again just because it's practically the same thing as you guys are stating. MAG has better graphics than Crysis. dux, does the slow gameplay in Killzone ruin the "experience" for you? So, I take it that you prefer controlling people as light as paper?
|
| |
| |
| duxy87 | Date: Monday, 07/March/2011, 6:36:43 PM | Message # 67 |
|
Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 316
Status: Offline
| I was referring to R3 having better graphics than Killzone franchise. That is only based on the video I saw. R:FOM I wouldn't be so confident. But knowing that both series are made by different developers, we tend to favor what we see more to fit our taste. We can clearly see that you love Killzone and pride yourself on the amazing graphics you notice there, but in contrast to others here, one might say COD has the best graphics, another would say Uncharted, and another would say Resistance. You just can't really justify the conflicting values that everyone has here. Quote (nivasan6) dux, does the slow gameplay in Killzone ruin the "experience" for you? So, I take it that you prefer controlling people as light as paper? I never said it was slow (even though it was sluggish). I was talking in terms of how the visuals/graphics didn't really give me the impact to say "wow this game is giving me an amazing experience". I don't tend to like controlling my player in any style. Slow, fast..watevs. However, I do like the feel of faster/smoother gameplay. And remember, this is just gaming we're talking here. I guess you and I have different preference on how we like to control our player (regarding FPS games). I understand you like the feel of your player being realistic, with all the weight factors of carrying equip and ADS etc. But to me, I tend to adapt to the feel of playing the game in the way it portrays itself to it's audience/customers. Perhaps when playstation 8 comes out, where virtual reality will be implemented to every game, then yes we can talk about gaming having more of a realistic factor. But back to the graphics part, let's just leave there to say we all have different perspectives on what game looks better than the other, therefore we can come to terms: Agree to Disagree LOL
|
| |
| |
| nivasan6 | Date: Monday, 07/March/2011, 7:21:12 PM | Message # 68 |
|
Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 359
Status: Offline
| dux, you have some excellent points, but even if we are fans of certain games; that should not influence our decision on graphics. I thought you said you agreed with Alu, he said that Fall of Man has better graphics than either Killzone game. Even though I love Killzone, my love for the game does not influence my argument for the graphics. Hell, if Killzone had the graphics of MAG, I would not be saying that Killzone has better graphics than Resistance. cod does have better graphics than BC2, Fall of Man, Resistance 2, MAG, Warhawk, etc... I'm not just saying that to try and prove a point, I said that because it's true. Even though I hate cod, I still acknowledge that it has better graphics than other games. Graphics isn't opinion based, but rather based on fact. dux, I also adapt to the games as well. Yes, I do prefer my fps's to at least have some realism, I could care less if it doesn't as it won't really affect gameplay that much for me. I have UT3 for PS3, and that is far from realism, yet I still enjoy the fast paced ridiculous action. I guess we could agree to disagree, but then again graphics shouldn't really be based on preferences. I don't like the WWII era or anything before that (I do enjoy the ancient times), but if a game that is set in that time frame gorgeous, then I will not deny the fact that isn't.
|
| |
| |
| Kuzu | Date: Monday, 07/March/2011, 10:37:20 PM | Message # 69 |
 The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Status: Offline
| quote from developer: "its much more scrappy and individualistic". thats exactly what i dont want to hear. this game is going to be all about the perks you use, and how to make the individual stronger. have to say, it looks very fast paced. did u notice they got a perk (cloak) at 2-kills? which they said is the same for humans (shield). u basically get 3 perks. i like the sound effects, blend of R1 and R2. lots of ribbons again, and popups on screen for all to see. i dont think this is my cup of tea anymore.
|
| |
| |
| duxy87 | Date: Tuesday, 08/March/2011, 0:12:09 AM | Message # 70 |
|
Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 316
Status: Offline
| Niva, All i'm saying is that people have different views on what they find a quality looking game to them. Kuz, u sure pal? I mean give it time to expand before we can pre-judge what a game is like. Resistance 3 is trying to put as much in from what made R:FOM but from what I see they're also trying to modernise it like most FPS games out there today. You mentioned a while back you missed the weapon wheel. Well from what I saw it's back. Many facets of the game is still in testing mode. I'm just saying with me, I'm giving it a chance to bloom in its testing stages up till the date of release. Then we can discuss the pro's and con's once its been released. I'm not saying they're going to make extreme changes, but the killstreaks at least won't be as low perhaps?? Who knows... It's too uncertain to know what is coming down the track
. And didn't R:FOM have a 'scrappy and individualistic' style of play. To me it sure felt like that. But anyway....
|
| |
| |
| Kuzu | Date: Tuesday, 08/March/2011, 2:56:59 AM | Message # 71 |
|
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Status: Offline
| @dux/red/etc.
as i feel with just about any game out there, i think R3 will be fun. ive said it several times, but im very easy when it comes to games. so in that sense, its reallyt not a cut/dry case of "will the game be fun or not" since i know the answer will be "yes". im not opposed to the game, its just that at my core, i know i have to chose between one or the other. even after a short amount of time, i can tell that BF games suit me more than any other series ive played. i am hesitant to call myself a fanboy, cuz thats just gay, but there are so many things that appeal to me about the series. these things win my over especially when compared to... anything else:
1) small vs big maps - ive always liked big. i have never been keen on close quarters combat in any game. i always prefer maps with range and depth, where i can get those long distance AR kills from accross the map without getting a shotty in my back. after playing BF i am completely in love with the big maps and cannot see myself confined to tight spaces.
2) spazzy vs calm - COD was fun because there was constant action. but looking back the game was absurd, like an arcade game. BF feels like a documentary. u have to traverse open terrain. u need to get from point A to point B, so ur not always in a constant gunfight. its gritty, and sometimes slow, but overall the speed is just right. there are no spazzy quick scopers. or nubbers using lame spray n pray tactics.
3) more vs less perks - BFBC2 uses very minimalistic perks, ones that hardly change the outcome of battlefights. there may be lightweight, juggernaut, stoppower, steady aim, but statistically they do very little. an average AR takes 7 shots to kill, so a SP perk only reduces that by 1. the perks are more to suit styles/taste, not to give abusable advatanges. but Resi already introduced some pretty massive perks in R2, and it seems they are doing the same in R3. perks are definitely an interesting part of a game, and i found myself abusing them in COD games to get more kills. but i think they detract from the overall experience of mano a mano. perks do too much, so i think minimalstic is the way to go.
4) 16 vs 24 players - may not seem like a huge difference, but it is. COD had 18 on small maps, so that just tells me that R3 is planning on going down the same road. playing on small maps means fast and furious kills. i think im getting tired of that, and really prefer more open maps. the thing with small maps is that every map has a certain wall, crate, lookout, window that everyone goes to for the "edge", ie camping. there is none of this in BF since the maps are so huge and shit gets destroyed. this makes the game fresh and dynamic, not just camping in that one "sweet spot". 8 players on a team means there will be less than a dozen active players once ppl get scared and quit out. no thanks.
5) sounds - i do think Resi sounds pretty good given its genre. then again, i dont think anything can beat the sounds from BF...
|
| |
| |
| Kuzu | Date: Tuesday, 08/March/2011, 3:28:03 AM | Message # 72 |
|
The Clan Elder
Group: Administrators
Messages: 1067
Status: Offline
| 6) sci-fi vs military - again, personal preference here. but i chose the military genre over anything else.
graphics - take a look at the trailer. BF3 looks fucking amazing. R3 looks good, but again see the point above. great if you like Stargate and Star Trek spinoffs. but i prefer rough and tough modern combat. in R3 the nade explosions look sweet. the gun animations look good. some perk stuff (cloak, dash) look cool but honestly i think they went overboard. looks very flashy, like they are trying to entice 12 year olds to play.
7) realism - obviously comparing a modern vs sci-fi game is pointless, but i have to state that BF is doing even more to add realistic qualities. for instance gravity pull on shots fired. projectiles take time to travel. lighting patterns, color schemes, environment are all being beefed up to be more realistic.
8) other - BF will beef up their game engine, and provide even more destruction to the environment. if uve never played a BF game, at least watch the way buildings crumble when hit with a tank. watch how grenades make potholes in the road. watch how trees are shot down and expose open areas.
9) solo vs team - it probably seems funny after all these years to hear me say this, but yes, i value teamwork greatly (after finally seeing it implemented consistently). i was always selfish, no doubt about that. but that was dumb. connecting with ppl on the battlefield, saving their life, giving support, working in small squads to get the job done has such sex appeal i cant even begin to describe. its a completely forgotten aspect in most games i guess, but teamwork and cooperation is much more gratifiying than individual accomplishments. i got re-educated by BF games and finally became a team player.
10) vehicles - the most debatable point. if u like them, they can be incredibly fun. they can add so much more depth to the game, since u can travel by land, air, or sea. seriously though, its like a whole different game trying to learn to fly an attack chopper. and its anything but easy... u can even swim, use a parachute after jumping out of choppers, and fly UAVs. fun.
11) spawning - BFBC2 has one of the best spawn systems i have ever seen (also tied in with map size, obviously). u can either spawn on any teammate, your controlled areas (flags/HQ), or home base, and u have a vid cam so u can spot the action. this helps eliminate spawn trapping and just the frustration of dying without knowing what ur getting into.
|
| |
| |
| duxy87 | Date: Tuesday, 08/March/2011, 9:25:38 AM | Message # 73 |
|
Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 316
Status: Offline
| I don't mean to rain on your parade kuz, and I appreciate your argument for prefering the bfbc2 style of play... but the topic here is RESISTANCE 3 and why we hope it's going to be good. and why we are keen to play it. Those points are great for rebutting against a COD type game, or any similar modern FPS, to your style of a FPS game.. but I see resistance 3 in it's own PURE catergory. Bulletstorm, Bioshock, Haze, Singularity, Borderlands, Timeshift, UT3 ...etc These are the type of games you can compare with Resistance.. vastly different to the modern FPS range. Anyway, just hoping this game delivers the goods I must say.
|
| |
| |
| nivasan6 | Date: Tuesday, 08/March/2011, 11:13:36 AM | Message # 74 |
|
Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 359
Status: Offline
| dux, you have Haze? I found the game quite enjoyable. You can compare Resistance to anything, but the question at matter is: would it be fair to compare this to that.
|
| |
| |
| duxy87 | Date: Tuesday, 08/March/2011, 4:59:39 PM | Message # 75 |
|
Major general
Group: Moderators
Messages: 316
Status: Offline
| I never played Haze, Prior to it's release though I was quite keen on getting it. On it's release, I didn't quite feel that it was a game I would get a lot of value out of. And yeah the point I was making earlier was an inaccurate comparison to Resistance 3 calibre. But that's just my view on it.
Message edited by duxy87 - Tuesday, 08/March/2011, 5:00:23 PM |
| |
| |
