Resistance 2 'Miserable Solo Campaign' [Archive]

Evil Avatar

11-06-2008, 12:53 PM

Game Journalist Tom Chick has posted his review (http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117938931.html?categoryid=1079&cs=1) of Sony's new shooter, Resistance 2, over at Variety and the good word is not so good.

Despite a unique attempt to draw in players by setting its narrative in a sci-fi version of Earth's recent past instead of the more typical far-off planet, "Resistance 2" is ultimately just a confused amalgam of alien invasion, alternate history and zombie motifs.

...

For those who play alone, "Resistance 2" is simply a bad shooter. The levels are relentlessly linear and contrived, stocked with cheap "gotcha!" deaths to pad playing time. There are monster closet ambushes, invisible creatures that instantly kill the player, and frustrating boss battles that can only be beat through pattern memorization.

...

Visual design is largely disappointing and occasionally downright lazy, such as an alien base that seems to have been created out of leftover artwork from "Halo."The article does go on to compliment the multiplayer gameplay, but after hearing about the miserable single player campaign - why would you bother buying it?

BlueBomber

11-06-2008, 01:00 PM

Well, IGN said the game was pretty epic and gave it a 9.5.

Moral of the story - rent/play the game yourself before deciding whether or not it's worth a purchase.

Evil Avatar

11-06-2008, 01:03 PM

Well, IGN said the game was pretty epic and gave it a 9.5.

Moral of the story - rent/play the game yourself before deciding whether or not it's worth a purchase.

Agreed. Is there a demo? I rarely have the PS3 hooked up to the 'net. I need to dig around here and find a second cable so I can hook up the PS3 and 360 without having to switch the cable all the time.

Bugsplatter

11-06-2008, 01:05 PM

Well, IGN said the game was pretty epic and gave it a 9.5.

Moral of the story - rent/play the game yourself before deciding whether or not it's worth a purchase.

Moral of the story - Skip it because there are far better games that involve no such ambiguity

DarkDaY

11-06-2008, 01:06 PM

Interesting, I guess. I was only thinking of it for the solo as that is what my consoles are for. Pc for multi for me.

Ill wait to hear more.

violentp

11-06-2008, 01:13 PM

I'm playing the game right now and I think it's damned fine. There are better sources than Variety out there for game reviews. This guy seems to be playing a different version of Resistance 2 than me apparently. One that's no good.

KidNicarus

11-06-2008, 01:22 PM

Sonic Wang

11-06-2008, 01:26 PM

I thought the first game was very overrated. Poorly designed and poorly paced FPS. I do hear they've done a few changes to the sequel, so i'm gonna give it a go and see for myself.

violentp

11-06-2008, 01:28 PM

I think the game might be an aquired taste.

I played the first one and didn't think it was all that great, but a friend of mine loved it and thought it was one of the better console shooters.

The reviews so far for Resistance 2 have been mixed so I think its pretty consistent with how the first game was recieved.

The reviews actually haven't been a mixed bag. They've all been good. Variety is the single worst review for the game out there. Picking the worst review of almost 20 to put in your front page as news? That's just bad reporting. Especially when the next lowest one beats it by 10 points.

Salesmunn

11-06-2008, 01:29 PM

Agreed. Is there a demo? I rarely have the PS3 hooked up to the 'net. I need to dig around here and find a second cable so I can hook up the PS3 and 360 without having to switch the cable all the time.

There's this awesome new tech called WiFi, you should give it a shot.

falcon

11-06-2008, 01:33 PM

Been playing since Monday and calling BS on this. The single player side is as good and probably better than whats in Halo 3 and most other shooters out there. Are the invisible monsters a bit cheap? Maybe but you know when they are coming and the game tells you how to beat them (bullseye trap).

Boss monster fights are solid and feature some pretty solid design. They aren't all winners but they are jam packed in there. Pacing is also solid as Insomniac did a great job of making sure you never get bored with how it works.

VYPUR

11-06-2008, 01:36 PM

iwas in the beta and did not like it all. Maybe it is all the games that are out are much better. I was very disappointed with it I thought that it was supposed to be the shit for the PS3. I even preordered it then canceled after the beta.

Evil Avatar

11-06-2008, 01:40 PM

There's this awesome new tech called WiFi, you should give it a shot.

Is that built into the PS3? Because I have a wireless router.

VYPUR

11-06-2008, 01:43 PM

Is that built into the PS3? Because I have a wireless router.

Yes sir I do believe it is.

jacob.armitage

11-06-2008, 01:44 PM

I agree with the cheap deaths. yes, the invisable monsters are badly designed, especially if you have the sound low/off as that is the only way to detect them, and yes they kill you in one hit even on easy. The game as whole however is much better than the picture he is painting even as just a single player game. Visually the game is up there, but it really shines during 8 player co-op and dozens of enemies on screen or in massive 60 player online games (which are less hectic than one might imagine) without a hint of slowdown.

as for boss enoucunters? i have found all so far to be very enjoyable. Its rare we get so many boss creatures in an FPS and too be honest, its refreshing.

FearTheReaper

11-06-2008, 01:44 PM

Is that built into the PS3? Because I have a wireless router.

On the 40, 60, 80 and 160 units, yes.

oldjadedgamer

11-06-2008, 01:46 PM

Well, IGN said the game was pretty epic and gave it a 9.5.

Moral of the story - rent/play the game yourself before deciding whether or not it's worth a purchase.

IGN also paid for the exclusive first review as well so they can't be trusted in this situation. Exclusive reviews and reviews of first party titles from official magazines are tainted right from the start.

Orz

11-06-2008, 01:47 PM

The two-player offline split-screen co-op is far inferior to the original's full campaign mode. I've no doubt the co-op is fun when playing online with a lot of people, but it's impossibly difficult with 2 people. Deaths are cheap, and if you both die, you start the entire massive level over from a random starting point.

Wolfgang

11-06-2008, 01:51 PM

1up took a dump on this game too on the recent 1up Yours podcast.

Evil Avatar

11-06-2008, 02:05 PM

The reviews actually haven't been a mixed bag. They've all been good. Variety is the single worst review for the game out there. Picking the worst review of almost 20 to put in your front page as news? That's just bad reporting. Especially when the next lowest one beats it by 10 points.

Tom Chick, Baby. Its all about the Tom Chick.

oldjadedgamer

11-06-2008, 02:09 PM

According to Gamerankings.com:

Resistance 1 86.6%

Resistance 2 89.6%

Evil Avatar

11-06-2008, 02:14 PM

On the 40, 60, 80 and 160 units, yes.

Well, now don't I feel foolish. Reading the manual for the win! I'll try it later, if I can pull myself away from Gears of War 2 or Left4Dead. Heh! :eek:

violentp

11-06-2008, 02:14 PM

Tom Chick, Baby. Its all about the Tom Chick.

I'm hard pressed to get beyond the theologian fact.

Emabulator

11-06-2008, 02:17 PM

Tom Chick has been around the block (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Chick) more than a few times.

violentp

11-06-2008, 02:37 PM

Tom Chick has been around the block (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Chick) more than a few times.

And he's entitled to his own opinion. That's cool. I'm more questioning the motive of the OP when it asks why buy this game based on the one sub-par review that doesn't even come from a gaming source. Bad reporting here, not there.

Evil Avatar

11-06-2008, 02:41 PM

And he's entitled to his own opinion. That's cool. I'm more questioning the motive of the OP when it asks why buy this game based on the one sub-par review that doesn't even come from a gaming source. Bad reporting here, not there.

I think that was exactly our point... Tom Chick IS a one-man gaming source.

violentp

11-06-2008, 02:44 PM

I think that was exactly our point... Tom Chick IS a one-man gaming source.

I'd argue that a person who decides to get a degree in a fairy tale wouldn't be the ultimate source for anything really but hey, to each his own. I'll choose my own sources I suppose.

silv

11-06-2008, 03:02 PM

Looks like its a decent shooter, but not a system seller.

Exodus

11-06-2008, 03:08 PM

I'd argue that a person who decides to get a degree in a fairy tale wouldn't be the ultimate source for anything really but hey, to each his own. I'll choose my own sources I suppose.

Well I can see why Evil would agree with Tom Chick considering they have a degree in the same thing. :)

I don't know if this is what I was expecting or isn't but I'm just going to have to rent this one. Right after I finish off every other game that I know is good for sure that is. I predict somewhere around february.

Reanimated

11-06-2008, 03:13 PM

I almost stopped at Best Buy to pick this up on the way home. Glad I waited. I'll just get it from Gamefly.

drakkarim

11-06-2008, 03:29 PM

damn, i was almost getting dejected until i realized this is coming from variety.com, not exactly a 'source' worth considering.

i've been fighting the urge to buy the collector's for $70 shipped for a few days.... not sure if i can hold off much longer...

CptTripps

11-06-2008, 03:34 PM

If it's anything like the first one, I would agree.

Mike Jones

11-06-2008, 03:48 PM

Shocking review since Microsoft moneyhats them.....

MSN and Variety Forge Distribution Relationship

MSN continues to add great content from leaders in entertainment.
REDMOND, Wash. — Sept. 19, 2007 — MSN® is joining forces with Variety.com to bring even more entertainment information to the site’s visitors. The distribution relationship will provide Variety with an avenue for reaching an even wider global audience and at the same time offer MSN a broader range of information on television, movies, music and Internet deals.

riposte101

11-06-2008, 04:14 PM

I wasn't too impressed with the first Resistence and I didn't get what all the buzz was about. But 2 might be worth getting for the crazy co-op.

Greeble

11-06-2008, 04:17 PM

I stayed up till 6am last "night" and that Tom Chick guy is full of shit. My only complaints about the campaign was I wish it was a longer and 2 of the bosses were kinda too easy. It plays a hell of a lot better than Resitance 1, the guns have been tweaked and are a lot more satisfying and are all fun to use, the world is colorful and looks great, and there are many awesome epic moments to it.. Its easily in my top 5 games this year.

I do think its pretty lame that evil avatar put this review up an none of the other 9/10 reviews out there.

ResistanceAddict

11-06-2008, 04:28 PM

I just LOL. Resistance 2 is by far the best Shooter I've played in years next to COD4. The controls are near perfect, the maps are great, etc. The campaign is a little underwhelming, but that's no reason to shit on the entire game. I'm tired of all these spoiled prick reviewers who expect every facet of a game to be perfect.

The only true complain tI have about the game is the online spawning. It's terrible.

Salesmunn

11-06-2008, 04:29 PM

Does anyone here read Variety for their game news/reviews?

lost

11-06-2008, 04:53 PM

This review has been placed on my ignore list.

Phades

11-06-2008, 05:01 PM

It's pretty idiotic to post this as front page content and then completely ignore the fact that the majority of the reviews out there are overwhelmingly positive.

ElektroDragon

11-06-2008, 05:16 PM

I own the Resistance 2 Collector's Edition. Can't tell you what its like yet, because I have yet to finish Resistance 1. The curse of the grown up gamer.

JimmyDanger

11-06-2008, 07:15 PM

I just LOL. Resistance 2 is by far the best Shooter I've played in years next to COD4.

From the guy who calls himself ResistanceAddict (who funnily joined the site soon before the release of the original game - as he was already 'addicted') - why am I not surprised?

I heard this guy called Zeal really liked Halo3 too.

Hecubus

11-06-2008, 07:18 PM

I'll choose my own sources I suppose.

Sounds a bit like incestuous amplification, sort of like Countdown with Keith Olbermann--only listen to people or sources who agree with your opinion/worldview.

Olby: Man, I love R2, don't you?
Olby's guest: Yeah, I do. I love it. Don't you?
Olby: Yeah, R2 rocks. I really love it.
Olby's guest: Yeah. I agree. It's awesome. I love it.

Bill O'Reilly: I don't think it's that good actually.

Obly: Tonight's 'Worst Person in the World'... Bill-O for saying R2 was quote, "not that good actually."

Regardless, I really enjoyed the single-player game with the first game, but it was still just a shooter... nothing particularly new was introduced. R2 is very underwhelming. Nothing original, cheap deaths, boring level design and setting. I'm going to finish it, but I'll be trading it in as soon as I do. I'm disappointed I spent $65 on it, but oh well.

Rotting

11-06-2008, 07:34 PM

Am I the only one embarrassed by the fact that this was posted here?

violentp

11-06-2008, 07:37 PM

Sounds a bit like incestuous amplification, sort of like Countdown with Keith Olbermann--only listen to people or sources who agree with your opinion/worldview.

Olby: Man, I love R2, don't you?
Olby's guest: Yeah, I do. I love it. Don't you?
Olby: Yeah, R2 rocks. I really love it.
Olby's guest: Yeah. I agree. It's awesome. I love it.

Bill O'Reilly: I don't think it's that good actually.

Obly: Tonight's 'Worst Person in the World'... Bill-O for saying R2 was quote, "not that good actually."

Regardless, I really enjoyed the single-player game with the first game, but it was still just a shooter... nothing particularly new was introduced. R2 is very underwhelming. Nothing original, cheap deaths, boring level design and setting. I'm going to finish it, but I'll be trading it in as soon as I do. I'm disappointed I spent $65 on it, but oh well.

Let me actually put it in more accurate terms:

Game Reviewer 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18: R2 is a great experience.

Movie Informant: It was a mediocre experience.

Bill O'Reilly: Is this mediocre experience of a game worth buying?

It shouldn't take a genius to see what's wrong with that. Also, Movie informant = the publication, not the reviewer.

EDIT: Also, I don't watch TV so if my choice of O'Reilly was inaccurate, feel free to replace him with someone who may fit that bill more appropriately.

Hecubus

11-06-2008, 07:57 PM

Let me actually put it in more accurate terms:

Game Reviewer 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 and 18: R2 is a great experience.

Movie Informant: It was a mediocre experience.

Bill O'Reilly: Is this mediocre experience of a game worth buying?

It shouldn't take a genius to see what's wrong with that. Also, Movie informant = the publication, not the reviewer.

There's nothing wrong with that. That you're saying there is, is amusing considering it's opinion. If Tom Chick is the only reviewer out there who says R2 doesn't have a good single-player game, that doesn't mean that opinion isn't worth hearing.

On this particular game, I agree 100% with Tom. And believe me, I'm not happy about that; I don't get joy out of not liking a game I was looking forward to. I've been playing the single-player game for six or seven hours. It's uninspiring and I find I have to force myself to play it since I spent a good amount of money on it.

I'm assuming you think it's good (though I could be wrong) and most reviewers agree with you. Does that mean the one opinion who dissents should be ignored? If you want I guess. But personally, when a well reasoned, intelligent dissenting opinion surfaces on anything I'm interested in, I find value in listening, even if I don't agree. And I certainly don't shun it because two dozen other sources say otherwise.

ResistanceAddict

11-06-2008, 08:01 PM

From the guy who calls himself ResistanceAddict (who funnily joined the site soon before the release of the original game - as he was already 'addicted') - why am I not surprised?

I heard this guy called Zeal really liked Halo3 too.

LOL, another moron falls into the trap. Thanks for taking my name literally and completely questioning my judgment because of it. Fanboyism has people acting like complete idiots these days. Seriously, you people taking everything so serious and literal really need to open your fucking minds. My name mentions a game title! OH SHIT! HE MUST BE A RABID, MINDLESS FANBOY!!! FANBOOOOOIIIII!!!! Roffles. Anyone who pays attention to my posts realizes I judge games ona very technical standpoint, which is why I constantly argue that Halo 3 is a mess, COD4 is very good, Resistance is one of the most underrated FPS out there, and Timesplitters FP is an amazingly smooth FPS that plays like balls online. And I always back up my points with logic. If your name was "HaloNerd" or soemthing, I wouldn't be stupid enough to talk shit (which is pointless in teh first place) without finding some real fanboyism. And what would that be? Simply saying a game is good? I swear, you people are so paranoid. So do some research before you talk shit about a person because of a meaningless facet like his screen name, alright? kthx.

And yeah, while the game is awesome, the online spawning is THE worst I've ever seen in any online FPS I've ever played. You always spawn behind someone, in front of someone, between 2 people, in the middle of a 3-5 person gunfight and everything else. I'm constantly being spawned mere INCHES away from people/groups. Man, I hope they can release a patch sometime in the future that fixes this... it seriously ruins a lot of online games.

violentp

11-06-2008, 08:08 PM

There's nothing wrong with that. That you're saying there is, is amusing considering it's opinion. If Tom Chick is the only reviewer out there who says R2 doesn't have a good single-player game, that doesn't mean that opinion isn't worth hearing.

On this particular game, I agree 100% with Tom. And believe me, I'm not happy about that; I don't get joy out of not liking a game I was looking forward to. I've been playing the single-player game for six or seven hours. It's uninspiring and I find I have to force myself to play it since I spent a good amount of money on it.

I'm assuming you think it's good (though I could be wrong) and most reviewers agree with you. Does that mean the one opinion who dissents should be ignored? If you want I guess. But personally, when a well reasoned, intelligent dissenting opinion surfaces on anything I'm interested in, I find value in listening, even if I don't agree. And I certainly don't shun it because two dozen other sources say otherwise.

I don't mind his opinion at all. I'm a firm believer that anything that is up to perception allows for proper opinion regardless of what side of the spectrum it resides on. I'm more uneasy about the role of O'Reilly in this case completely negating a majority of the evidence on the table and deliver only the bits that support his agenda. Again, something that people have the right to do but unfortunately it has no place in the field of accurate reporting. This isn't about the opinions of the story but rather what is being reported. It's like giving Giuliani the presidential seat after the results of this recent election.

Mashidar

11-06-2008, 08:49 PM

The single player is what I expected, I've enjoyed what I've played so far and I've not really been let down by it. Perhaps I went into the title knowing what to expect?

As for multiplayer, so far it's one of the best games I've played multiplayer for in awhile. From the co-op that seems to scale with the amount of players, to the skirmish modes where I've had 30 on 30 matchs with no lag I can't really say I would regret buying the game.

If I only bought it for the single player story then I might of thought odd about it, but for the multiplayer alone I'm very happy.

player66

11-06-2008, 08:59 PM

I agree with all of Tom's points in the review. I bought the game at the SF Midnight event, but getting the game home and playing for several hours now has made me deeply regret my 1 hour of waiting in line in the cold. Oh yeah, and the $65. At least the multiplayer co-op is fun with a friend(s).

Hecubus

11-06-2008, 09:11 PM

I don't mind his opinion at all. I'm a firm believer that anything that is up to perception allows for proper opinion regardless of what side of the spectrum it resides on. I'm more uneasy about the role of O'Reilly in this case completely negating a majority of the evidence on the table and deliver only the bits that support his agenda. Again, something that people have the right to do but unfortunately it has no place in the field of accurate reporting. This isn't about the opinions of the story but rather what is being reported. It's like giving Giuliani the presidential seat after the results of this recent election.

You say you don't mind there's an opinion that differs from the group, but then you say you're uneasy about that opinion because it's the only dissenting view.

"Accurate reporting?" There's no such thing in opinion based writing. "Majority of the evidence" that the single-player game is good? That is a matter of opinion. There is no evidence what-so-ever that the game is good. It's opinion. There's no evidence what-so-ever that Citizen Kane is one of the greatest American films ever made. It's an opinion. Roger Ebert has maintained for years that video games are not art. That is an opinion.

I used Olby/O'Reilly as an example to illustrate that people, for the most part (especially video game fanboys and girls) only want to hear positive feedback on something they've invested in emotionally, which is what you seemed to exude from your initial comment. At the very least, you intimated that an opinion that differed from the whole didn't matter. If I'm mistaken, then I apologize. If you meant something else, then please feel free to explain further. Your original post appeared to clearly state that you gave no credence to Tom Chick's piece simply because he was the one "nay" in the sea of "yea's." And you would choose your sources based upon who agreed with your view. It appeared you expounded upon that in your follow up post--Chick's dissent was moot as it was solitary. Again, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted that.

ScottBravesFan

11-06-2008, 09:24 PM

I almost stopped at Best Buy to pick this up on the way home. Glad I waited. I'll just get it from Gamefly.

It's gotten really good reviews from everywhere else. I would pick it up for sure.

shadow763

11-06-2008, 09:31 PM

Moral of the story....who reads Variety for game reviews? Why is that even quoted on this website? Are people looking for a reason to trash the game? Every other game site that is reputable has praised the game.

I for one have been playing and the combat is exceptional. There are no cheap kills. The invisible chameleons give you multiple signals before attacking. If he died a lot its because he both sucks and has no ability to learn apparently.

Lame for Variety EVER being quoted for game reviews.

violentp

11-06-2008, 09:50 PM

You say you don't mind there's an opinion that differs from the group, but then you say you're uneasy about that opinion because it's the only dissenting view.

"Accurate reporting?" There's no such thing in opinion based writing. "Majority of the evidence" that the single-player game is good? That is a matter of opinion. There is no evidence what-so-ever that the game is good. It's opinion. There's no evidence what-so-ever that Citizen Kane is one of the greatest American films ever made. It's an opinion. Roger Ebert has maintained for years that video games are not art. That is an opinion.

I used Olby/O'Reilly as an example to illustrate that people, for the most part (especially video game fanboys and girls) only want to hear positive feedback on something they've invested in emotionally, which is what you seemed to exude from your initial comment. At the very least, you intimated that an opinion that differed from the whole didn't matter. If I'm mistaken, then I apologize. If you meant something else, then please feel free to explain further. Your original post appeared to clearly state that you gave no credence to Tom Chick's piece simply because he was the one "nay" in the sea of "yea's." And you would choose your sources based upon who agreed with your view. It appeared you expounded upon that in your follow up post--Chick's dissent was moot as it was solitary. Again, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted that.

You're missing out on the part that actually bothers me and that's how this site reported it. My issue here is much easier than you're making it out to be. It's about ignoring many and reporting the one. If this were an editorial then that'd be fine. Where is the news story that it's getting high marks? Surely that has proven itself to be more true at the moment than the idea of the single player being "miserable". You report the one negative opinion as news and ignore the majority that counter that one opinion. Again, it's not about what these opinions actually are, it's about what part of a story was chosen to be concentrated on.

ResistanceAddict

11-06-2008, 10:11 PM

I for one have been playing and the combat is exceptional. There are no cheap kills.

Too bad it's not the same online. After a couple more hours with the game online, I'm pissed that I now realize my favorite shooter has been turned into a Halo clone. First, there are NO words to describe how awful the spawning is. I'm CONVINCED the spawning is PROGRAMED to fuck you in the ass. I can't give enough examples. I'm playing one of the biggest fucking maps in the entire game, I kill someone, squat behind a box to recharge my health, someone spawns 5 feet directly behind me and kills me before I can recover. Spawn in between 2 people, spawn inches in front of someone, spawn in the middle of a gunfight, 3 people spawn within 10 feet of each other to start the game in a HUGE map, etc. etc. etc. over and over and OVER. I have NEVER spawned safely more than 3 times in a SINGLE MATCH. You can't tell me there's a FPS with a worse spawning system; NO WAY. And it takes away the skill factor from the game almost ENTIRELY.

And then there's the stupid shield thing that you can select AT ANY TIME that's basically Halo's overshield (one thing that truly takes skill way) x3. Forget about killing someone that has one of those. If you come across someone with that stupid thing, you are dead unless you can get away from him. Simple as that.

It's a shame. The game's controls, scheme, mechanics and everything are superb, yet the gameplay online completely BLOWS because of an ABYSMAL spawn system. This REALLY needs to be fixed. How a spawn system THIS bad was implemented into a released game is beyond my comprehension. Seriously... it fucking BLOWS!

So in the end, a great game... but at the same time a HUGE disappointment.

/end rant.

*Heavy breathing*

Hecubus

11-06-2008, 10:22 PM

You're missing out on the part that actually bothers me and that's how this site reported it. My issue here is much easier than you're making it out to be. It's about ignoring many and reporting the one. If this were an editorial then that'd be fine. Where is the news story that it's getting high marks? Surely that has proven itself to be more true at the moment than the idea of the single player being "miserable". You report the one negative opinion as news and ignore the majority that counter that one opinion. Again, it's not about what these opinions actually are, it's about what part of a story was chosen to be concentrated on.

I got your point, but the final comment in that original point is what threw me. You basically said you would look at the consensus as opposed to the, well... opposition. And the consensus would be your 'source.'

Everyone on EvAv is a gamer. Most likely they're 'hardcore' gamers who keep up with gaming news, previews, and reviews. To that I would assume they all knew that R2 has been receiving good to great reviews. Hell, maybe EvAv has even posted a story about all the positive reviews. I don't know. But I think it would be safe to assume that most people knew R2 was getting very positive reviews. Journalistically speaking, that's not news. What is marginally news is the idea that some one had a contrary view from the consensus. Is it important enough to have posted on the site as a news item? That's debatable (though I definitely think not.) What was likely in the mind of the original poster who runs this site is, "I bet I can get a lot of clicks if I post this story/forum topic," which is a legitimate reason to post an item. So to that, I see your point, but this site is a business and whatever he/she thinks can get click-throughs will be posted.

Like I said, it was just your last comment that threw me. I didn't mean to create a many-posts long discussion.

violentp

11-06-2008, 10:57 PM

I got your point, but the final comment in that original point is what threw me. You basically said you would look at the consensus as opposed to the, well... opposition. And the consensus would be your 'source.'

Everyone on EvAv is a gamer. Most likely they're 'hardcore' gamers who keep up with gaming news, previews, and reviews. To that I would assume they all knew that R2 has been receiving good to great reviews. Hell, maybe EvAv has even posted a story about all the positive reviews. I don't know. But I think it would be safe to assume that most people knew R2 was getting very positive reviews. Journalistically speaking, that's not news. What is marginally news is the idea that some one had a contrary view from the consensus. Is it important enough to have posted on the site as a news item? That's debatable (though I definitely think not.) What was likely in the mind of the original poster who runs this site is, "I bet I can get a lot of clicks if I post this story/forum topic," which is a legitimate reason to post an item. So to that, I see your point, but this site is a business and whatever he/she thinks can get click-throughs will be posted.

Like I said, it was just your last comment that threw me. I didn't mean to create a many-posts long discussion.

I understand your confusion but I don't believe I ever said I would blindly go with the consensus. I've been the only one against many in plenty discussions. I'm more adverse to posting one mans opinions as news over the consensus as news.

Perfect example, I'm of a handful of people that really see nothing in Halo in comparisons to the millions that do. I wouldn't want my opinion of "Halo is nothing special" posted as news on some site. It's purely my opinion. News would be "there are people that actually don't love Halo" or "Halo is the countries most beloved franchise". That's because it's describing what's actually going on. This story seems to get one factor from each equation. Opinion reported as news.

I hope I'm making sense here. I come from a place with very little patience for petty fanboy arguments and pissing contests. We are all entitled to our opinions and I embrace that. I do not agree with someone telling me* their(or any) opinion is the right one.

*I consider news to contain actual information.

vivafletcher

11-06-2008, 11:10 PM

Well, now don't I feel foolish. Reading the manual for the win! I'll try it later, if I can pull myself away from Gears of War 2 or Left4Dead. Heh! :eek:

Don't feel dumb. I didn't know either. I didn't even go online the first month I had the PS3. Playing online has always been a bit overrated to me. Then again, I find most people to be overrated so I guess I'm consistent.

Thanks for asking about it. I'm going to give it a try myself.

The Ligand

11-07-2008, 12:19 AM

The Ligand

11-07-2008, 12:33 AM

So, Evil, since we're talking about it: Why did you choose to post this particular review? Any response to the mini-debate in this thread?

TRiLoGY

11-07-2008, 12:51 AM

hmm, I didn't think the first one was that great so i might give it a miss to start with. I will probably try a Demo of it though..

JimmyDanger

11-07-2008, 01:22 AM

LOL, another moron falls into the trap. Thanks for taking my name literally and completely questioning my judgment because of it. .

Your name is ResistanceAddict. Think about that for a sec. Not an interesting play on words like say "ResistancePersistent" or "ResistanceAssistant". Like some dude who'd call himself "HaloHardcore" or "MarioFiend".

Fanboyism has people acting like complete idiots these days. Seriously, you people taking everything so serious and literal really need to open your fucking minds. My name mentions a game title! OH SHIT! HE MUST BE A RABID, MINDLESS FANBOY!!! FANBOOOOOIIIII!!!! Roffles.

Many people mention game titles in their titles - and some unashamedly plug their love of some games. But not many proclaim their "addiction" of such high profile launch titles in their title before spawning on EvAv close to release.

Anyone who pays attention to my posts realizes I judge games ona very technical standpoint, which is why I constantly argue that Halo 3 is a mess, COD4 is very good, Resistance is one of the most underrated FPS out there, and Timesplitters FP is an amazingly smooth FPS that plays like balls online. And I always back up my points with logic. If your name was "HaloNerd" or soemthing, I wouldn't be stupid enough to talk shit (which is pointless in teh first place) without finding some real fanboyism. And what would that be? Simply saying a game is good? I swear, you people are so paranoid. So do some research before you talk shit about a person because of a meaningless facet like his screen name, alright? kthx.

I've been around since before you showed up Tiger. Read your posts. "Resistance is one of the most underrated FPS out there" (should it have rated 95% on metacritic then?) kthx.

And yeah, while the game is awesome, the online spawning is THE worst I've ever seen in any online FPS I've ever played. You always spawn behind someone, in front of someone, between 2 people, in the middle of a 3-5 person gunfight and everything else. I'm constantly being spawned mere INCHES away from people/groups. Man, I hope they can release a patch sometime in the future that fixes this... it seriously ruins a lot of online games.

But I love it! Second most underrated FPS ever.

Dude - if you couldn't find the irony in a throwaway "wow - guy called ResistanceAddict defends Resistance 2" as was the content of my post (with some added "I heard some dude called Zeal likes Halo3") - and had to spend all that time defending your "position on the matter", "partisan neutrality" and "technical appreciation" accreditations - then you really are the shill account most of us thought you were when you signed up.

Or you could just - I dunno - have a laugh.

Or maybe launch another list of checkpoints where R2 disappointed its most fervent fans - to show your neutrality - and give us a fairer indication of the quality of the game.

ResistanceAddict

11-07-2008, 01:32 AM

Your name is ResistanceAddict. Think about that for a sec. Not an interesting play on words like say "ResistancePersistent" or "ResistanceAssistant". Like some dude who'd call himself "HaloHardcore" or "MarioFiend".

Many people mention game titles in their titles - and some unashamedly plug their love of some games. But not many proclaim their "addiction" of such high profile launch titles in their title before spawning on EvAv close to release.

I've been around since before you showed up Tiger. Read your posts. "Resistance is one of the most underrated FPS out there" (should it have rated 95% on metacritic then?) kthx.

But I love it! Second most underrated FPS ever.

Dude - if you couldn't find the irony in a throwaway "wow - guy called ResistanceAddict defends Resistance 2" as was the content of my post (with some added "I heard some dude called Zeal likes Halo3") - and had to spend all that time defending your "position on the matter", "partisan neutrality" and "technical appreciation" accreditations - then you really are the shill account most of us thought you were when you signed up.

Or you could just - I dunno - have a laugh.

Or maybe launch another list of checkpoints where R2 disappointed its most fervent fans - to show your neutrality - and give us a fairer indication of the quality of the game.

Think about what? Psychoanalyzing me and my name and BECAUSE of my name? Again, I get a kick out of people that constantly scream "FANBOY!" without any knowledge of the person simply based on a name or such.

So? And again... the fact that - like you mentioned - me having the title named before it came out should tell you something. Again, all this shit about my name, as funny as it is, gets SO stupid sometimes.

What I mean to say is that no one seems to give it due respect. People will always talk about Halo (overrated mediocre shooter IMO) or whatnot, yet Resistance never seems to get much credit. That's all I meant when I said "overrated." "kthnx" ;)

I did, and sure I will have a laugh... I already DID. It's just sad the whole thing comes into question in the first place. Guy with Resistance in his name talks about a game called Resistance and BINGO! We have a reason to criticize and yell "FANBOY!" and that amuses me. That's all. Was just making a point.

Emabulator

11-07-2008, 03:57 AM

So, Evil, since we're talking about it: Why did you choose to post this particular review? Any response to the mini-debate in this thread?When Evil posted this review he thought most people would know who Tom Chick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Chick) is. Tom has been known for shaking things up a bit now and then. ;)

Mojopin

11-07-2008, 04:51 AM

Too bad it's not the same online. After a couple more hours with the game online, I'm pissed that I now realize my favorite shooter has been turned into a Halo clone....

It's turned into a Halo clone because of the spawning?! That has to be the most short sided reason for calling a game a "Halo Clone" that I have ever read. Is that your diss for every game that pisses you off? You sound like a 14 year old kid with that comment, no wonder people don't take your seriously. Oh and if you are 14... no offense. ;)

Axiom

11-07-2008, 05:26 AM

When Evil posted this review he thought most people would know who Tom Chick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Chick) is. Tom has been known for shaking things up a bit now and then. ;)

Anyone who has been around PC gaming for a while ought to know who he is. Regardless of the publication he's writing for, Tom Chick has earned quite a lot of credibility over the years, so I'd be slightly more hesitant to dismiss one of his reviews as one man's misguided opinion.

Judas

11-07-2008, 06:04 AM

Sadly, i got this game yesterday. It lacks a real visual punch. it seems like it may have been rushed and the resolution never did get it's final polish. textures seem watery with blur. It's inexcuseable considering the ps3 can push MGS4 in a highly detailed environment.

The campaighn feels terribly uninspired! After playing fallout 3, I felt that this was a stupid game that lacks alot of polish and refinement.

I'd give it a 7.0 myself

Gorvi

11-07-2008, 06:36 AM

Since when was this Kotaku? That's kinda sad cherry picking a comment from one of the few bad reviews and posting it as news.

Torgo

11-07-2008, 07:37 AM

Huh, everyone that's written into us about the SP so far has raved about it. I'm digging-in to the SP this weekend, so I'll know for sure finally.

Evil Avatar

11-07-2008, 08:12 AM

Lutheran

11-07-2008, 09:09 AM

violentp

11-07-2008, 09:17 AM

I say go with the IGN review over the Variety review...to me thats a no brainer.

Personally, I don't mind what people think of the game. I'm enjoying the game and really, that's the best outcome and good review could expect. I have to admit though, I may not be familiar with the reporter in questions work on videogames but right now, he seems like a hack. It's a shame too because he might do good work. It's the way his story is being delivered that makes him look like a hack.

Lutheran

11-07-2008, 09:23 AM

Personally, I don't mind what people think of the game. I'm enjoying the game and really, that's the best outcome and good review could expect. I have to admit though, I may not be familiar with the reporter in questions work on videogames but right now, he seems like a hack. It's a shame too because he might do good work. It's the way his story is being delivered that makes him look like a hack.

I agree with the above , and Chick does good work normally. I disagree with his review but to each his own.

ResistanceAddict

11-07-2008, 10:28 AM

It's turned into a Halo clone because of the spawning?! That has to be the most short sided reason for calling a game a "Halo Clone" that I have ever read. Is that your diss for every game that pisses you off? You sound like a 14 year old kid with that comment, no wonder people don't take your seriously. Oh and if you are 14... no offense. ;)

Thanks for basically slandering me. I gave other reasons which you failed to quote. Yeah, no wonder nobody takes me seriously. I don't misquote people and try to slander them. What is WRONG with me? :rolleyes:

Podfork

11-07-2008, 11:14 AM

I love Evil Avatar's cherry picking of information. I also love how they proudly "no comment" any accusations of bias.

Tell you what else I love? I love the Metal Gear Solid series of games. I love Metal Gear Solid 4.

Here's something else I love: Tom Chick's review of MGS4 (http://www.crispygamer.com/gamereviews/2008-06-16/metal-gear-solid-4-guns-of-the-patriots-ps3.aspx)

Whether his opinion differs from mine is one thing, but that's a damn fine review of a game and no mistake.

Podfork

11-07-2008, 11:17 AM

modeps

11-07-2008, 11:24 AM

violentp

11-07-2008, 11:41 AM

Maybe Chick likes to poo-poo huge mega mainstream titles, maybe he just holds them under a microscope, but in all of his articles he always makes valid points... whether you agree with his ultimate outcome or not.

I'm sure he does. Unfortunately it's not his work that makes him look like an asshat which is rather unfair for the dude.

oldjadedgamer

11-07-2008, 12:09 PM

I say go with the IGN review over the Variety review...to me thats a no brainer.

IGN paid for exclusive rights to post the first review so their review is invalid because of that.

ResistanceAddict

11-07-2008, 01:13 PM

No edit button edit:

Just for the platform evangelists here's Tom Chick's review of Halo 3 (http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/news/365/)

I was going to do the selective quote thing that the original post in this thread did but, nah, I can't be arsed. :)

I dunno, last time I checked the general consensus kinda agreed that the single player experience was a little underwhelming. Are you saying that review is inaccurate?

The Ligand

11-07-2008, 01:52 PM

My concern here is that the story is posted in such a way as to imply (not state, but imply nonetheless) that the review posted was indicative of a larger consensus regarding the quality of certain aspects of the game. It appears that such a consensus doesn't exist, at least not among other reviewers of the game.

The problem is that posting so as to imply a negative consensus is misleading and, as such, seems to reveal a bias of some sort on the part of Evil Avatar (the person, not the site). Having a bias is not a problem, but failing to disclose it certainly is (if you are trying to be journalistic).

Highlighting a single review (which is subjective by its nature as a review) and making it seem like the views in it are widely held (thereby lending them greater objectivity) would appear to be either dishonest or misinformed. In either case, it erodes the integrity of the site.

Even mentioning the fact that many other reviews came to different conclusions regarding the game would have been enough and still would have allowed you to highlight the work of a reviewer you think is usually on the mark or at least worthy of a read.

TeeCakes

11-07-2008, 05:04 PM

Please. It's not so much that EvAv is trying to be subtle about the bias. Tom, on the other hand-- hell yeah. The part about a "miserable solo campaign" is in quotes, implying that EvAv was *shock* quoting somebody else. Somebody who clearly gets off on using their reputation as a maverick game journalist to make some more waves.

That comment from Mike Jones on the relationship between Microsoft and Variety should also ring some alarm bells for people who weren't expecting more editorial than objectivity.

This "review" is doing exactly what it's supposed to do-- dupe a few people who're deciding between GoW2 and R2 into going for the former over the latter, and otherwise preach to the 360 choir. Sure, it's Sensationalism 101 but godammit if it don't get a lot of attention (what 4-going-on-5-pages-now!) in the meanwhiles.

SpectralWolf

11-08-2008, 07:46 PM

I do think its pretty lame that evil avatar put this review up an none of the other 9/10 reviews out there.

It's pretty idiotic to post this as front page content and then completely ignore the fact that the majority of the reviews out there are overwhelmingly positive.

Since when was this Kotaku? That's kinda sad cherry picking a comment from one of the few bad reviews and posting it as news.

My concern here is that the story is posted in such a way as to imply (not state, but imply nonetheless) that the review posted was indicative of a larger consensus regarding the quality of certain aspects of the game. It appears that such a consensus doesn't exist, at least not among other reviewers of the game.

The problem is that posting so as to imply a negative consensus is misleading and, as such, seems to reveal a bias of some sort on the part of Evil Avatar (the person, not the site). Having a bias is not a problem, but failing to disclose it certainly is (if you are trying to be journalistic).

Highlighting a single review (which is subjective by its nature as a review) and making it seem like the views in it are widely held (thereby lending them greater objectivity) would appear to be either dishonest or misinformed. In either case, it erodes the integrity of the site.

Even mentioning the fact that many other reviews came to different conclusions regarding the game would have been enough and still would have allowed you to highlight the work of a reviewer you think is usually on the mark or at least worthy of a read.

The bias on this site is a real concern for me. I've been coming to site for years and have been finding several stories that contain a lot of bias, subtle or otherwise. Why? What has Microsoft done that is so special, that everything this site reports has to be colored in their favor?

donkeydrop

11-08-2008, 08:41 PM

Story: No worse that Half Life 1/2 which people seem to think is so great. The only sci-fi game that really had a well developed story was Advent Rising, and that got panned by most reviewers.

Cheap Deaths: I guess its cheap to all those rush in, guns blazing, twitch gamers. You can hear the invisible enemies coming in plenty of time, you just have to be listening and able to respond to the sound direction instead of a visual cue. This means moving a bit slower. Since they die from one or two shots it's not exactly difficult.

Visuals: There's some pretty epic shots and nothing that is remotely like Halo.

Well, this is the same fool that thought the original Deus Ex sucked, so what's new.

Bahamut

11-09-2008, 04:57 PM

I've played a little of Resistance 2 so far, and I stopped when I started encountering Chameleons (second level)...and I have to say that stuff like that is frustrating. In general, I haven't been impressed by single player at all though. I rather play Super Stardust HD some more really :( .

The Ligand

11-09-2008, 06:01 PM

The bias on this site is a real concern for me. I've been coming to site for years and have been finding several stories that contain a lot of bias, subtle or otherwise. Why? What has Microsoft done that is so special, that everything this site reports has to be colored in their favor?

Scores from metacritic, as of today:

100
96
95
92
91
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
86
85
85
83
80
80
70

Guess which one got front paged? :eek:

Emp Nu

12-18-2008, 11:59 PM

Hehe. For the.. shit, how long ago was "Wednesday's in Norrath"? Ah well, in the almost decade that I've been coming here I'm always amused when there's a reset on the forum members.

Is Evil Biased? Yes. Is his website? Yes.

Guess what fellers, the *majority of the function of the place has been about a community that trawls their own favorite news sites and points out interesting previews/interviews/screenshots. (I'm looking at you EvAvNovice. You're red now, stop being so damned underground, it's painful knowing my 40-hr, 6-day work schedule makes me miss most of your updates.) Yes there's in-house content, but that doesn't make this a capital N-ews site. Really, and that's not me attempting to besmirch the sites rep. If Evil wants to always point how the locally ubiquitous Mr. Chick, he's going to do that. If someone else finds a review of a game that they want to put up on the front page and is able to write an intro and exit paragraph that don't make the mods want to stab their brains, then those people are welcome and encouraged to do that. If 100 people bomb the mod's in-boxes with raving reviews about how R2 IS actually the siliconic incarnation of Jesus Christ, don't expect ANY of them to get greenlighted since everyone apparently is already aware of them.

Okay, I'm gonna step off today's soap box and back into my meat cooler. Seriously guys, this place really isn't serious business, it's the personal plaything of a chronic geek/nerd/cop with both too much and too little time on his hands.