"Resistance: Fall of Man Review - The Chimera has won... and so have we."

[GoatMother]

30 fps and NEVER drops.. 30-40 players online with no lag whatsover, Freaking sweet! Insomiac is delivering again:clap2

:

Click here for full review
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/745/745206p1.html

The framerate is locked at 30 the whole way through and doesn't falter anywhere... ever. In fact, regardless of how many enemies and moving objects were on the screen at one time, there wasn't a single frame hitch the entire way through. Oh, and since we're talking about enemies and objects, there are scores of them -- Chimera, British soldiers, tanks, VTOLs, debris, tracers, explosions, and plenty of other moving and stationary are everywhere with alarming frequency. Each and every environment is noticeably different from one another as well, and while the texture work isn't overly detailed, it still looks pretty good. Of course, being that Fall of Man is a first-person shooter, it's the gameplay that matters most and thankfully, Resistance has that in spades.

As strong as everything in Resistance is, the real standout factor in the experience is its multiplayer. Simply put, it's incredible. Jacked in from multiple locations (via broadband Internet connection) we were consistently able to enjoy 30-40 player games with no noticeable lag whatsoever (Insomniac did a fantastic job of hiding what little latency there appears to be). And while all these opponents made for crazy all-out wars, the multiplayer options are flexible enough to allow users to scale maps downward to accommodate smaller parties (40, 32, 24, 16 map types), choose Chimeran or Human sides (complete with unique abilities), and alter the rules to allow for a multitude of possibilities.

But match customization and excellent 40-person play isn't the only thing that Resistance has going for it -- it also has strongly-designed maps, a countless number of trackable stats, a Battlefield-like ranking system (60 ranks in total), clan creation support for up to 200 members, and several different modes that include standard Deathmatch, Meltdown (aka "Battle of the Node Control"), Breach ("Destroy your opponent's Base"), Capture the Flag, Team Deathmatch, and Conversion ("Last Man Standing"). Buddies can even team up on the same machine and play through the single-player game via split-screen, or go head to head with three other users for four-player versions of the online features....

...
From start to finish, Fall of Man is one hell of an outstanding roller coaster ride that every last PS3 owner needs for day one. Epic boss battles (the final few are crazy!), ever-changing scenery, addictive weaponry, and a unique thematic are just a few of the reasons Resistance stands out. But above all else, it's the multiplayer elements that truly ascend this one to the next level. It's a must have for sure.

Another Takefrom Chris Roper
Resistance: Fall of Man has everything that a flagship launch title should. It looks great and runs well, it has a compelling single-player campaign and its multiplayer aspect is not only fantastic fun but it shows off the PlayStation 3's online capabilities. This is the PlayStation 3's showpiece game through and through, and we're thrilled to get something this complete and expansive at launch.
Insomniac is well known for its weapon and character design, and the developer doesn't disappoint with Resistance. The creatures that come at you through the course of the game not only get bigger and stronger, but move, act and think differently, providing for ever-changing encounters. The weapons are wildly unique, each offering multiple modes of fire that challenges the player to come up with different strategies and think on their toes.

While the single-player game is good, multiplayer is likely to be what's most fondly remember about Resistance in years to come. To say it's big would be an understatement. With 40 player support, more than a half-dozen game types, the ability to play as humans or Chimera... I could go on and on. The point is that it's fun as hell and should keep us all glued to our systems for weeks if not months.

[D_Litch]

You Bastard!!!!! I was just about to post this!

Good to see Gears got a higher review though. I'm not getting a PS3 until next year, I don't want a "Game of the Decade" on a the console at launch.

[Jon Liu]

this is definitely good news for Sony! Steady 30FPS? That's good news! 30-40 people online without drops?! That's incredible news!

Looks like people are starting to have something to excited for!!!

[Kid Pyrrhic]

I'm leaning towards another "We're first to review. IGN is totally awesome for reviews"

Everyone else has sorta been ho-hum on the title. I know a couple of folks that played it first hand and said it was nothing extremely impressive. No online co-op? Maybe that was acceptable a year ago but with Gears of War upping the ante, it was a feature that should have been in. Hopefully with they can add it with a patch.

And I have some questions about the review. Were they playing on Sony's online network? Or just the developer one?

[Frodo 13]

Did someone put something in their pocket?

[KEEZY]

Yeah, I just read this too! It has me pretty excited... but I have a few issues:

I don't know much about how the PS3 online works, but I'm sure things will get worse when this hits retail. Playing online before the game comes out isn't saying much, because it's not real-world use. However, I'm hopeful that it will hold its own with 40 people online. IMO, it is a toss-up between which is better: Online co-op or a couple dozen people online. Having typed that... flash backs to playing BF:1942 online with a bunch of people running around made me smile. And then a flash of playing co-op Halo with a friend made me... well, nevermind.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to hear how this plays, and how the PS3 is in general!

[Frodo 13]

Anyway, I'm looking forward to hear how this plays, and how the PS3 is in general!

What he said.

[Quo]

Originally Posted by Kid Pyrrhic

Were they playing on Sony's online network? Or just the developer one?

Exactly. I find the "no noticeable lag with 40 players" thing totally ridiculous at this point. I bet they were playing on an internal network. Even if they weren't, you have to figure they were ALL on shibumi&crip-type phat pipe connections, and the game being played was the ONLY game going on the server. I mean, there have been multiplayer games online for years now. As far as I'm aware, there is not one anywhere with no noticeable lag. Gears is pretty dang sweet and pretty much lagless (at least I haven't noticed any) but it's only 8 players... You all know my skepticism right now with multiplayer... the way game companies tout great online play, release a game and then wait 6 months to patch it so that it's actually playable.

It's tough not to cry bullcrap on something like that. If they have pulled it off, however, now THAT's a serious breakthrough that will have other developers desparately trying to catch up.

[Crippler]

A dev can write the best network code ever, but it's all gonna come down to the connection of the player. If that person's internet connection sucks then so will the multiplayer. Plus, having tons of people in a game doesn't mean it's gonna be more fun either. It's been done since QuakeWorld back in '97 or so really. It also depends on the game type. If the game type lends itself to larger #s of peeps than cool. Something like a Battlefield game. But, Deathmatch type gaming? Not so sure. Gears is a great example of this player balance. The tactical, teamwork style play just wouldn't work well with say 32 players. Co-ordination between that many people would be tough. The game would lose it's team feel.