Looks like we missed these images of Resistance 2 during Sony's Gamer's Day a few days ago, so here they are now. These are all from the multiplayer mode.
this looks better visually then CoD4 MP and thinking that there will be 60 ppl running around, this looks really good ( the photos are definitely photoshoped , contrast and ect. )
Player count aint everything. I think it will be pretty solid though, and I think if they implement some of the systems that they're planning to use, they could properly manage large servers. That said I'm more interested in the single player game with this one, to be honest.. there's just something about the MP in RFOM that never really appealed to me. I'll keep playing COD4 and TF2 for the foreseeable future.
Commented on 2008-05-20 11:08:22 In reply to Kouzmich
Posted by Kouzmich
this looks better visually then CoD4 MP and thinking that there will be 60 ppl running around, this looks really good ( the photos are definitely photoshoped , contrast and ect. )
agreed.
but i dont like the idee that 60 morrons in my games.
the bigger defenetly aint better in online shooters.
Commented on 2008-05-20 11:10:30 In reply to hotkirby
Posted by hotkirby
agreed.
but i dont like the idee that 60 morrons in my games.
the bigger defenetly aint better in online shooters.
While this is generally true, there are systems that exist to make such a number manageable. They've already stated that multi-player will have squads, a la Battlefield, which made that game manage 64 player skirmishes without a hitch.
Bigger aint better, but there's no reason it can't be good.
Commented on 2008-05-20 11:57:56 In reply to Kouzmich
Posted by GriftGFX
While this is generally true, there are systems that exist to make such a number manageable. They've already stated that multi-player will have squads, a la Battlefield, which made that game manage 64 player skirmishes without a hitch.
Bigger aint better, but there's no reason it can't be good.
If with 12 players it lags I really don't want to think how it is with 60 players.
Posted by emet
It looks good, but... where is the self-shadowing from the first screens????
Commented on 2008-05-20 12:36:39 In reply to Reyals
Posted by Reyals
If with 12 players it lags I really don't want to think how it is with 60 players.
This won't be on Xbox Live. It will be on PSN with dedicated servers. Dedicated servers are how PC games manage to have 60 player games with zero lag, this will be no different, just like Warhawk can handle 32 players with no lag either.
Commented on 2008-05-20 12:44:34 In reply to Kouzmich
Posted by Kouzmich
this looks better visually then CoD4 MP and thinking that there will be 60 ppl running around, this looks really good ( the photos are definitely photoshoped , contrast and ect. )
I like cod4 better. It looks great, runs at 60fps, even during firefights in Ground War.
Commented on 2008-05-20 12:45:57 In reply to phantomistice
Posted by phantomistice
This won't be on Xbox Live. It will be on PSN with dedicated servers. Dedicated servers are how PC games manage to have 60 player games with zero lag, this will be no different, just like Warhawk can handle 32 players with no lag either.
Hey now, lets not act like PSN doesn't have p2p games and Xbox Live doesn't have game(s) with dedicated servers! Not that your point isn't mostly right.
Commented on 2008-05-20 15:03:20 In reply to Reyals
Posted by Reyals
If with 12 players it lags I really don't want to think how it is with 60 players.
12 player may lag on other games, but resistance 1 ran without a hitch with full rooms, so i really dont get what your talking about, 60 players will run fine. dedi servers FTW
looks great tho imo. and it does indeed look visually better then cod4 to me (not hard considering cod4's engine) but then the images could well be photoshopped. so who knows.
im just glad they've been posted here since i didnt get to see them back at sony's gamer day.
I think it looks fine but I really don't get the COD engine bashing. COD4 looks f'n fantastic, despite the texture assets looking a little muddy up close in the console versions. The PC versions textures are indeed quite a bit more capable (no small thanks to filtering, I'm sure) and the games overall look (in both versions) I would say is quite a bit more attractive than this. That gas station for instance reminds me a bit of the gas station in overgrown--only quite a bit more cartoon-like--and some of the surface textures look terribly detailed, while others just look sorta.. terrible.
It does look good though. Very clean, which I suppose is why people make the steam connection (which is uh, an ancient graphics engine ;)). Still, considering the fact that Call of Duty still has quake code in it, I think it's pretty impressive that it pushes the DX9 platform further than just about any other game on the market. Their engine tech is quite a bit more capable than id tech 4, even when followed all the way through to a game like ETQW.
What surpirses me is that some people say 'this looks good for MP'.. As if it's normal for MP to look not as good as the SP part of the same game.. As a veteran PC-gamer I'm used to games looking the same in SP and MP..
But then again it doesn't really surprise me.. Because it's the way consoles work.. Consoles are usually pushed to their limits in SP and then for MP things have to be cut to keep the performance on par because they simply don't have that spare power left to produce the same graphical level in MP as in SP.. On PC this is not a problem, MP just requires more power from your hardware.. And since no PC is the same some people will be able to run MP at the same graphics level because they have that extra power, and some won't..
But then I find it strange that most games on PC run with less fps in SP then in MP, so you would think that MP requires less power instead of more..
That's really not typically true at all. Call of Duty 4 for example, has more consistent performance in multi-player than it does in its campaign, and the graphics are equal on both sides of that fence, because IW reuses assets (entire levels in MP are taken from the single-player game) from the campaign. The same is true in the console version.
Some games have a slight quality gap between SP and MP simply because they use original assets for MP and they don't put as much manpower into multi-player as they do single-player during the development of the game. Halo has illustrated this in the past (and, present) by delivering additional content post release that is much nicer looking than the original content shipped on disc in multi-player.
Generally speaking, that's all there is to it. Many games look just as good in MP as they do in SP. Gears of War does, for example, although they do ramp up the visuals at the expense of the games frame rate during cut scenes. There are a few exceptions.. like R6V, but I'm pretty sure the disparity between assets would be equally represented in the PC version.
I'm a pretty big PC advocate, but that's a little.. crazy.
Posted by Inflatable
But then I find it strange that most games on PC run with less fps in SP then in MP, so you would think that MP requires less power instead of more..
Driftwood
Download is now functional again on Gamersyde. Sorry for the past 53 days or so when it wasn't. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Another (French) livestream today at 2:30 CEST but you're welcome to drop by and speak English. I will gladly answer in English when I get a chance to catch a breath. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
Patreon
All comments (41)
Commented on 2008-05-20 09:08:22
Commented on 2008-05-20 09:52:29
Commented on 2008-05-20 09:58:59 In reply to Tinks
Commented on 2008-05-20 10:19:46
Commented on 2008-05-20 10:53:22
Commented on 2008-05-20 10:56:04
Commented on 2008-05-20 11:08:02
Commented on 2008-05-20 11:08:22 In reply to Kouzmichbut i dont like the idee that 60 morrons in my games.
the bigger defenetly aint better in online shooters.
Commented on 2008-05-20 11:10:30 In reply to hotkirbybut i dont like the idee that 60 morrons in my games.
the bigger defenetly aint better in online shooters.
Bigger aint better, but there's no reason it can't be good.
Commented on 2008-05-20 11:57:56 In reply to KouzmichBigger aint better, but there's no reason it can't be good.
Commented on 2008-05-20 11:58:44 In reply to Reyals
Commented on 2008-05-20 12:04:47 In reply to Reyals
Commented on 2008-05-20 12:04:55 In reply to Haseo
Commented on 2008-05-20 12:07:34
Commented on 2008-05-20 12:10:32
Commented on 2008-05-20 12:32:44
Commented on 2008-05-20 12:36:39 In reply to Reyals
Commented on 2008-05-20 12:44:34 In reply to Kouzmich
Commented on 2008-05-20 12:45:57 In reply to phantomistice
Commented on 2008-05-20 13:41:53
Commented on 2008-05-20 14:49:29
Commented on 2008-05-20 15:03:20 In reply to Reyalslooks great tho imo. and it does indeed look visually better then cod4 to me (not hard considering cod4's engine) but then the images could well be photoshopped. so who knows.
im just glad they've been posted here since i didnt get to see them back at sony's gamer day.
Commented on 2008-05-20 15:16:02It does look good though. Very clean, which I suppose is why people make the steam connection (which is uh, an ancient graphics engine ;)). Still, considering the fact that Call of Duty still has quake code in it, I think it's pretty impressive that it pushes the DX9 platform further than just about any other game on the market. Their engine tech is quite a bit more capable than id tech 4, even when followed all the way through to a game like ETQW.
Commented on 2008-05-20 15:45:18But then again it doesn't really surprise me.. Because it's the way consoles work.. Consoles are usually pushed to their limits in SP and then for MP things have to be cut to keep the performance on par because they simply don't have that spare power left to produce the same graphical level in MP as in SP.. On PC this is not a problem, MP just requires more power from your hardware.. And since no PC is the same some people will be able to run MP at the same graphics level because they have that extra power, and some won't..
But then I find it strange that most games on PC run with less fps in SP then in MP, so you would think that MP requires less power instead of more..
Commented on 2008-05-20 15:56:12Some games have a slight quality gap between SP and MP simply because they use original assets for MP and they don't put as much manpower into multi-player as they do single-player during the development of the game. Halo has illustrated this in the past (and, present) by delivering additional content post release that is much nicer looking than the original content shipped on disc in multi-player.
Generally speaking, that's all there is to it. Many games look just as good in MP as they do in SP. Gears of War does, for example, although they do ramp up the visuals at the expense of the games frame rate during cut scenes. There are a few exceptions.. like R6V, but I'm pretty sure the disparity between assets would be equally represented in the PC version.
I'm a pretty big PC advocate, but that's a little.. crazy.