well i agree on a lot of points, six, but i maintain that Resistance and any other game that take more than 5 bullets to kill someone, take more skill because you have to keep your accuracy and the momentum of the fight in your favor. really, the chances are the same for both players but the one that can take more "heat" will ultimately win.
you also have to make the move to the particular part of the body if your looking for more damage, obviously for the edge.
play games like that and your situational awareness will go up for sure.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Six wrote:

I will never understood the "skill" debate when it comes to R2.
I still dont see how taking a little circle and putting on a pixelated body and shooting it takes any "skill".

It definitely takes skill, I couldn't give my mother a controller and ask her to get me a no one is safe. If anything she would be walking around looking either straight up in the air or stand still trying to figure out how to move her character (no offence to my mother, but it's true & funny XD).

Hands wrote:

well i agree on a lot of points, six, but i maintain that Resistance and any other game that take more than 5 bullets to kill someone, take more skill because you have to keep your accuracy and the momentum of the fight in your favor. really, the chances are the same for both players but the one that can take more "heat" will ultimately win.
you also have to make the move to the particular part of the body if your looking for more damage, obviously for the edge.
play games like that and your situational awareness will go up for sure.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I'm with hands on this one, and this is one of the reasons why I love the Resistance series soo much better than any of the Call Of Duty games and takes more skill to play them than COD or any other game which take 2-3 bullets to kill someone.

Rx: +1

Six: There is a definite difference between games in how much skill is required to kill & perform well between the games. I'll give a more articulated response later. I'm at work right now. (>_<)

Well i do agree with what eve and flight have both touched on. It is, like they said, one of the reasons I loved the resitance series so much too. You have to dance. You have to work for those kills a bit more.
I just didnt see the 4 or 5 hit loss between the two games to be so much of a deal breaker as many of those vets did.
really, what always got to me was seeing the r2 bashing by some saying it was a noob game and took no skill, and yet those same people ran around in MW2 hardcore game modes.

Its like.....which is it?

Six wrote:

Well i do agree with what eve and flight have both touched on. It is, like they said, one of the reasons I loved the resitance series so much too. You have to dance. You have to work for those kills a bit more.
I just didnt see the 4 or 5 hit loss between the two games to be so much of a deal breaker as many of those vets did.
really, what always got to me was seeing the r2 bashing by some saying it was a noob game and took no skill, and yet those same people ran around in MW2 hardcore game modes.

Its like.....which is it?

skill isnt dependant on bullets till death

I dont think so entirely either. But that seemed to be most everyone reason for hating R2. It took a whole 4 shots less with a carbine to kill someone.
At least, thats the argument I saw most.

I hated R2 and I didn't even know it took 4 less bullets to kill somebody.

i thought insomniac made each gun to be able to kill 3 people with one clip. or something like that.
So considering the carbine has the second(?) smallest clip, i would think that it did more damage than other guns.

I dont know about that.
My posts are in the convo Rx began with the "skilled" players who disliked R2 and why.
Im just saying when it launched, a lot of posting on my res was on about how loose the controls were, and how it took less shots to kill people, and that was why, as far as I recall reading there anyhow, why they felt it was a noob game.
I think the graphics and colors were biggest complaint number 3.

I loved the feel, colour and and the graphics in FoM more. And I'm really excited to see the 3rd's. So far i like it.
But the grenade smoke.. i.e its ultra super windy and you throw a grenade and it explodes, like its supposed to, and the smoke and debris just poofs into the air.

Wrong, there is a difference when you change the amount of bullets it takes to kill someone. A big difference.

In a game where weapons kill in 6 bullets, aim is required. You need to withstand recoil and keep your aim on the target for all 6 bullets. With 6 bullets, players are given a reasonable time to react and outgun the other player if they have the better aim/skill. A game where weapons kill in 6 bullets is based on aim and skill.

When weapons kill in just 3 bullets, aim is much less important. You only need to keep your aim on your target for half the time. Largely due to latency, the victim has nearly no time to react to you and will die instantly. Unless the victim has god-like reflexes and perfect internet, his skill is irrelevant to the outcome of the gunfight, which further decreases the amount of skill necessary to play the game. A game where weapons kill in 3 bullets is based on who sees the other first. It's the type of game that encourages a lot of camping and other cheap tactics.

There's a huge difference between the two. Bullet damage has a huge effect on how the game is played.

Having reduced bullet damage also reduces camping. A camper knows exactly where the other player is going to come from. The victim is clueless. When weapons kill in just 3 rounds, the victim will die long before he realizes what happened, no matter how skilled he is. The only way the victim can have a good chance of surviving is if he knows exactly where the camper is before he enters his sight, but that is rarely the case with campers. They hide.

When weapon damage is lower, the victim actually has some time to react and outgun the camper. It discourages camping because unskilled campers will not be able to control their aim long enough and consistently get outgunned by better players with better aim.

High bullet damage overall helps and encourages camping.

This is also one of the reasons why I love games which have (or had) weaker guns which took longer to kill people, R:FoM, R2 I personally didn't find it to be too bad, UC2 before I think 1.03 patch, Red Faction and MAG.

Excellent points, Flight.
That's what makes Resistance different from CoD and the like. There is a 'dance' when you encounter an opponent.
However, the reduction in bullet damage between R:FoM and R2 didn't drastically change the game for the worse like a lot of people used to complain. If anything it made it a bit more fair.
The amount of bullets it took to put someone down in R:FoM was obscene, even if they were headshots. Yes, the person who could maintain their aim the longest stood the best chance of winning. But remember too that the longer you're in a firefight, the greater the risk that it will stop being a 1 vs 1, with an outsider coming along to steal your kill, or if in an FFA, steal your kill and kill you too. Your effort and greater skill pay off for others as often as you.
Imho, R2 had that aspect nicely balanced. Dances lasted just long enough for one person to triumph and reload to prepare for the next encounter.
Of course, in game modes with a higher number of players, it often wouldn't matter because it was mostly one crowd at a choke point firing/'nading into another. The game had problems, to be sure, but the bullet damage wasn't one of them.

Less dance, less skill, more ability to play the clean-up game = R2. RFoM had the bullet damage down pat, IMO. You want to win? Get better at maintaining your aim in pressure situations & strafing.

Also realize with R2's introduction of bullet spread, it was much less likely for the more skilled individuals to drop people quickly with headshots. The Carbine didn't shoot 'straight' nor 'accurate' enough for people to aim at the head. Compound this with the increased damage of the bodyshots & you get a game that actually encourages less skilled kills. THIS was one of the biggest reasons hardcore fans of RFoM didn't care for R2. How does one actually get better at the mechanics within the game? What skills could you strive to obtain with the actual GUNS? People used to spend hours of their time on these things in RFoM because there was a clear benefit behind it & certain amount of pride when acquired & done in the heat of battle.

Another large beef I had with the game were the nades. The Frag was tossed like a 50 pound dumbell & didn't target bomb, often letting the opponent escape death even when hit IN THE CHEST with one! I mean, WTF. On the other hand, the Hedgehogs could be tossed across the map with ease, the blast radius was insane & people could spam/slop it at the ground just before their death in CQB & actually trade deaths. HUH? That is NOT skill. I just raped you with gun, strafing, positional & awareness skill...but we TRADE deaths. GTFO.

I like him ^

i agree with everything you said there.
But i think that frags are better off surprising someone and when enemies are behind cover..
maybe for a booby trap by dropping one around a corner or bank it off a wall.

But i still agree with you on everything

Six wrote:

R2 was its own monster, and like all games, (this is just my opinion btw) skill comes in situational awareness, knowledge of your maps and choke points, spawn locations, and experience and time in the game. You have to have an understanding of the basic mechanics behind the game. They werent skilled at it, because they didn't play it long enough to learn the things needed to be "skilled".

Yes, I agree. But they didn't play long enough because the skill that needed to be acquired from this game was
a different skill than that which was needed in the previous incarnation. That preivous knowledge was why they bought the game.
When the game turned on them, which I believe, strictly speaking, is what happened, they opted not to play.
Few make the more articulate points that Red is making, but were they to, I think that the consensus opinion among them (elite players) would be the same;
whether they made the effort to get as good with R2 as they were with rfom, R2 wasn't what they thought they were buying, and what they thought they
were buying, they really wanted. So, turned off from the game, they opt not to play.
I understand that COMPLETELY.

This isn't said to undermine anyone's opinion at all, of course. I loved the game. I don't mind adapting to what IG made. I did, I'll admit, have different
expectations than those that were realized, but I think the product was a blast once you came to the realization that simply being great
at the previous game was not going to mean that someone wasn't going to noob all over you. Even someone that you'd probably beat in a straigh up firefight.
I didn't mind b/c I'm just not that good, and my expectations were lower. But if I was, I'd have probably been a little more pissed. However, even then, I still
think I'd have had the same good time I'd had with the first one...but that's easy to say. You'd have to have gifted skill to know differently, and I don't, so I don't. Thus,
I have to respect Red's opinion.

Now that I've circled 'the point' like a shark, I can see why the old school fan base is interested in how the mp features of the new game feel. It must be the equivalent of what
was felt when R2 came out (and cheated them). But this time, with the real prospect of delivering.

I see maaaaany copies of this game being sold. I'm ok with that.

Lots of good posting going on in this thread.

I guess my view is a combination of both. I can understand after readings Red posts the whys. But I dont think it should have taken away from the exciting new things to learn.

They were so obviously different.

I don't know if I would say R2 was made to encourage
less skilled play. I always felt the goal was to make a more team based play, with less reliability on that individual player skill. Now, some of you know the actual IG guys much much better than I, but I thought that seemed to be the under laying factor in R2. No. You weren't going to do good all by yourself in the middle of a 60 player map with the weapons given to you. It was communication, berserk combination, and situational awareness.


Oh those grenades. I think they for me, go down as THE worst sets of grenades ever in a video game.

Six wrote:

I don't know if I would say R2 was made to encourage less skilled play.

I don't think that it was trying to encourage less skillful play, but more appeal to a wider audience because wider audience = more $, which is what all game developers are trying to achieve. This is something that the games which depend more on team work and have lower bullet damage don't seem to do well, but that's just the nature of the games. Whereas obviously Call Of Duty does very well pulling in a huge crowd including the casual market.

I mean look at Uncharted 2, originally in my eyes the online side of the game was brilliant (except the huge grenade radius) but a LOT of people complained about shooting enemies was like shooting sponges who never seemed to die. This resulted in a patch which increased bullet damage, which like I said in my previous post decreases skill. It however opens it up for less skillful players, because they don't have to keep as many bullets on target they actually can get kills. Meaning they stay on, recommend the game etc... I think this is something which Insomniac games tried to do, which in my eyes as much as I dislike it makes sense from a business point of view.

Six wrote:

Lots of good posting going on in this thread.

But I dont think it should have taken away from the exciting new things to learn.

They were so obviously different.

I keep quoting you, so it must feel like I'm picking on you. I'm not, of course. You keep making the good points.
It shouldn't take away from the excitment of leaning new things, you're right.
Unless you're a 17 year old, who's gifted at the first game, and who isn't here to learn new. He's here to buy what he knows, and pwn some more.
While that's not the gamer I enjoy playing with or against, if I was MAKING the game, I'd certainly want them to BUY it.
I think R2 proves that there is an appreciable percentage of that particular gamer who isn't going to 'get their lean on', and therefore, won't buy.
Yes, they were obviously different. Obvious once you played it. Not obvious based on what the prior version of the game was.
So, upon buying, they felt cheated.
Otherwise, I agree with everything else you said. You know I liked the game. But for a different reason.
I think you'll agree that as mature (ish) older (ish) gamers, we're in a distinct minority. I'd imagine there are 50 of 'them' to one of 'us'.
If I'm making a game, and know the first version outsold the second version (I don't know the numbers here, I'd assume by 2 to 1 would be safe), who
would you pander the third game to?
Believe me, they're (young elite gamer) interested in rfom v2. Which R3 might deliver.
Thus, excitement from that fanbase.
Probably also means that pre R3 release, there'll be a lot of people playing rfom again. That might be fun. USS Lexington anyone?

Are you calling me old?



Leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemings!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no doubt that R3 could be huge. I know lots of people that hated R2 but are hoping that R3 returns to a game that resembles RFOM. That isn't to say mirrors RFOM but puts the uniqueness back into the game that made RFOM special.

I think one of the other big problems as to why they felt cheated, was that in my opinion had R2 perfect in the beta, it was similar to R1 but made some good steps to being slightly different at the same time. The beta was how they had wanted the game to turn out, then a lot of people complained about the bullet sponge and plenty of other things which resulted in IG changing it, or at least trying to change it as a result of what people were saying on the forums. It was good of them to listen but complainers are much louder and persistent than praisers.

When you say that R1 sold many more copies than R2, I would agree, but you have different circumstances. Number one was released with a pack with the PS3, it also was one of the few FPS on PS3 and one of the few decent games released at launch, being a game releasaed at launch it was part of the marketing of the PS3. So I think that it has some larger advantages, which don't necessarily boil down to one game being better than the other in my opinion.

So overall what I hope is that they don't listen to the 17 year old gamers (which is me) because I would rather have a fun game which is made with IG own personal preferences.

FlightOfGrey wrote:

I think one of the other big problems as to why they felt cheated, was that in my opinion had R2 perfect in the beta, it was similar to R1 but made some good steps to being slightly different at the same time. The beta was how they had wanted the game to turn out, then a lot of people complained about the bullet sponge and plenty of other things which resulted in IG changing it, or at least trying to change it as a result of what people were saying on the forums. It was good of them to listen but complainers are much louder and persistent than praisers.

When you say that R1 sold many more copies than R2, I would agree, but you have different circumstances. Number one was released with a pack with the PS3, it also was one of the few FPS on PS3 and one of the few decent games released at launch, being a game releasaed at launch it was part of the marketing of the PS3. So I think that it has some larger advantages, which don't necessarily boil down to one game being better than the other in my opinion.

So overall what I hope is that they don't listen to the 17 year old gamers (which is me) because I would rather have a fun game which is made with IG own personal preferences.

I don't recall R2 being perfect in the beta. I recall it being verrrrry ok in the beta, and barely different, if at all, in the final game.
I think IG almost completely ignored data collected from the beta, actually, based on how little the game changed, and how few changes were implemented after release.
There were, based on my admitedly dim recollection, 7 patches to rfom. So patching the game, whatever the game, is something IG is willing to do. Except with R2.
Why? Dunno...

I recognize the differences in sales based on packaging. I also agree that it's hard to say what the final sales totals would have looked like absent the packaging
of the game with the system. My point is probably more articulately made that there were more copies of rfom acutally played, to a higher degree of satisfaction, and for much longer, than R2 achieved.
For the reasons I gave, and for the reasons you correctly point out.

I too would prefer a game that is fun. Particularly if I have to spend my money on it. I certainly hope they deliver that. I have significant faith in IG's vision with games,
and with this franchise.

My point (and I recognize I'm not being accused, I'm simply clarifying) isn't that one game is better than the other, though I have feelings on that matter, of course. The discussion
is/was focused on my commenting to Az about why all the chatter about the R3 MP, especially now. My comments were made so as to clarify my opinion on the matter. My point
wasn't a 'x is better' point, it was a 'here's why I feel the elite gamer is tuned in closely to this subject'. And for that particular sampling of gamers, there is no real doubt as
to which game THEY feel is better. I think that's what I was driving at, as that's what was being discussed.

I need to play FoM.

And I'm excited about teh private beta (if by chance there is one).

i hope it goes back to the Rfom routes,

Coz R2 to mee felt too COD like, and i hate COD, i wish Rfom was still busy with people and even though its 4 years old i can still enjoy playing it.
COD bores me after 5 mins now coz they've all been the same since MW1,

Rfom was soo different brilliant!

I realize I'm replying to this a bit late, but things have been busy. So, without further ado...

Six wrote:

R2 was its own monster, and like all games, (this is just my opinion btw) skill comes in situational awareness, knowledge of your maps and choke points, spawn locations, and experience and time in the game. You have to have an understanding of the basic mechanics behind the game. They werent skilled at it, because they didn't play it long enough to learn the things needed to be "skilled".

It's my opinion that some of the best players out there figure things out like 'maps, choke points, spawns' faster than the average gamer & is one of the defining factors in their ability (situational awareness seems to almost be inherent in some & experience is just that...experience). They are able to exploit these things faster than everyone else and/or have a greater understanding of them. I wouldn't put myself in that category, but I DO watch people and when I see something new or potentially useful, I research it in depth.

I will tell you, however, that I played the game on my main account to 27,000 kills & that was with a 3.0 kdr. Sure, there might have been some things I didn't 'understand' about the Wraith, Bullseye, Auger & Bellock cuz I didn't use them much, but I don't think you can tell me that I didn't 'play it enough' nor that I didn't 'learn the things needed to be skilled'.

The MP was crap. (>_<)

Six wrote:

what always got to me was seeing the r2 bashing by some saying it was a noob game and took no skill, and yet those same people ran around in MW2 hardcore game modes.

Haha! No.

Six wrote:

But I dont think it should have taken away from the exciting new things to learn.

Could you expand on this, please? What were these things that needed to be learned?

Six wrote:

I don't know if I would say R2 was made to encourage
less skilled play.

By 'encourage' I'm talking about what the build limitations & lack of depth within the actual game encouraged. I don't mean IG is all, "40mm everyone you see!" (though the pre-patch build in which you got a 40mm pack every time you 40mm-ed someone might have actually been that).

Six wrote:

I always felt the goal was to make a more team based play, with less reliability on that individual player skill. Now, some of you know the actual IG guys much much better than I, but I thought that seemed to be the under laying factor in R2. No. You weren't going to do good all by yourself in the middle of a 60 player map with the weapons given to you. It was communication, berserk combination, and situational awareness.

I honestly can't say what IG was trying to do. I only know that there was nothing to aspire to in the game. There was nothing to work towards that came from hard work & dedication. They dumbed EVERYTHING down. Sure, as FoG mentioned, it might have been in an attempt to cater to larger audience, but I & many others felt like what they gave us in R2 was akin to a stab in the back.

Six wrote:

Oh those grenades. I think they for me, go down as THE worst sets of grenades ever in a video game.

Officially endorsed by redhamuSLA.