Insomniac has theories as to why Resistance wasn't Sony's Halo

[keefy]

Its all about brand recognition.
Halo has Master Chief who is easily recognised just by the shape of the helmet and the visor alone, Halo is also very colourful unlike Resistance 1+2 then we have the theme tune which is catchy and can be recognised by only a few notes plus a great orchestral and at times harmonic soundtrack, its surprising how much sound plays a part in what we like doing.

And of course the game play of Halo is good and whats more, Fun, I cut my teeth on it in PC land.

The box art of Halo games has Master Chief on them

The box art of Sony's AAA shooters (Resistance and Killzone) has the bad guys on them.

[three3-times]

Erm, no. Halo is a bigger game and probably the 2nd biggest fps ever after code. No new fps ip from sony will ever touch halo et al.

[Two4DaMoney]

maybe if they were as dedicated as bungie then they would have atleast a 5million seller on their hands. Insomniac needs to get their shit together. All that split team, putting a game out each year shit has to go. They're likely making money but not as much as they could be if they just fuckin focused a bit more on one project.

Sony needs to give these devs 1 more year to work(3 year cycle). They surely have enough 1st party studies to fill the voids.

[Fon]

Sony needs to give these devs 1 more year to work(3 year cycle). They surely have enough 1st party studies to fill the voids.

They did with, Resistance 3 and yet the game didn't perform as well due to the terrible multiplayer. They could have done better with a richer single player experience and an enhanced multiplayer co-op campaign.

[Bigdoggy]

the reason why Resistance wasn't all that great was because the multiplayer part of it lacked everything about it. compared to HALO of course Resistance can't even be compared, Halo was way better because it did more things right then what Resistance did. However, even though a lot of people playing consoles on the 360 bought Halo, the PC FPS games still were better regardless of sales, the quality was far superior then what the halo series offered, but again that is if you played FPS on the PC.

If they want to make resistance a great multiplayer game "competition wise", they have to look at what the PC games did back in 1999 up to 2005.

[Blacksite]

Its all about brand recognition.
Halo has Master Chief who is easily recognised just by the shape of the helmet and the visor alone, Halo is also very colourful unlike Resistance 1+2 then we have the theme tune which is catchy and can be recognised by only a few notes plus a great orchestral and at times harmonic soundtrack, its surprising how much sound plays a part in what we like doing.

And of course the game play of Halo is good and whats more, Fun, I cut my teeth on it in PC land.

The box art of Halo games has Master Chief on them

The box art of Sony's AAA shooters (Resistance and Killzone) has the bad guys on them.

That's true. Marketing is important but, as we all know, it's never been one of Sony's strong suits. That isn't to say that Resistance and Killzone weren't good games but they didn't have anyone as iconic as Master Chief, nor was the experience ever as fresh amongst shooter fans.

[TGO]

Marketing.
regardless of how big Halo is, its Marketing makes it out to be bigger which obviously works
dam I expect MS to put a statue of Master Chief next to lady liberty for Halo 4 launch.
other then that.....Resistance just wasn't that good

[robvandam111]

I had written this from another thread before. I've spoken to an insomniac employee before that usually hangs around playing Fall of Man. They took the franchise business wise changing the gameplay mechanics. At that time it was probably engaged by CoD. Resistance 2's mistake brought nostalgia of Fall of Man. Heck, Ted Price even said it on the aricle. No need to debate about this, if Resistance 2 continued the pace that made Fall of Man successful. Resistance would be juaggernaut at this point. By the way, not saying that Resistance 2 sucked, is that it wasn't the same as Fall of Man. Single player was cut short and online was disorganized despite the fact that gameplay mechanic was changed.

[Two4DaMoney]

They did with, Resistance 3 and yet the game didn't perform as well due to the terrible multiplayer. They could have done better with a richer single player experience and an enhanced multiplayer co-op campaign.

I know it was 3 years BUT Insomniac didn't have a full team working only on resistance 3. They were working on ratchet and clank at the same time. Their engine wasn't built around being a fps engine only. Bungie focused on halo only; engine was built specifically for halo titles.

All I'm saying is Insomniac should have slowed it down and focused more. They were moving too fast and spread too thin(tho I enjoyed the 1st two r&c released this gen).

[Fon]

I know it was 3 years BUT Insomniac didn't have a full team working only on resistance 3. They were working on ratchet and clank at the same time. Their engine wasn't built around being a fps engine only. Bungie focused on halo only; engine was built specifically for halo titles.

All I'm saying is Insomniac should have slowed it down and focused more. They were moving too fast and spread too thin(tho I enjoyed the 1st two r&c released this gen).

They had an adequate team but you're right about resources. I'm sure that if Insomniac Games was first party, their games might of looked and performed a whole lot better or maybe it's the direction they took - A gritty brutal universe like, Resistance was never their cup of tea. Fuse seems to be right up there with their style.

[mickice]

Ill tell you why, Resistance 1 was too long, Resistance 2 tried to copy COD and changed the formula then Resistance 3 had no fan base to sell too.

I own all 3 games including R3 survivor edition.

[robvandam111]

Ill tell you why, Resistance 1 was too long, Resistance 2 tried to copy COD and changed the formula then Resistance 3 had no fan base to sell too.

I own all 3 games including R3 survivor edition.

Indeed, they wanted me money. And it back fired on them.

[Vulgotha]

Here's my theory:

It wasn't anywhere near as fun, interesting or '(r)evolutionary' as Halo was. Nor did it exactly set any kind of technological benchmarks.

It was run of the mill to me. High quality, but run of the mill. Never stood out.

[Shibby]

I think Price hit the nail on the head with the comment about how they changed (er.. CODified) R2. I loved R:FoM, but 2 completely turned me off the series, and I didn't get it. I know they wen't back to more of a R:FoM feel with the third game, but I never got it either and can't see myself ever getting it really.

[Zswordsman]

WTF i never once thought of Resistance as a Halo Killer it was completely different. I will say though, what killed Resistance was the drastic change in style that R2 had thanks to its COD influences. R3 tried to recover but failed in major areas (had an abrupt ending and poor multiplayer compared to the other games in the series).

[Shibby]

We're not talking Halo killer. Just a series that could have been as big for Sony as Halo was/is for MS. It's not Resistance vs. Halo.

[LegendaryAim]

TBH I always accounted it to the difference in userbase....Sony offers a more diverse catalogue of games then MS does.

[mynd]

TBH I always accounted it to the difference in userbase....Sony offers a more diverse catalogue of games then MS does.

Myth.
Especially when this was launched.

[Beast of Bourbon]

R2 should have improved upon the features / "feel" of R1 instead of trying to be another game (more "codish").
Oh and in the end they put Hale to sleep like a sick animal.

I think the R series had alot of potential

[Soldier 95B]

Sony offers a more diverse catalogue of games then MS does.

Uh, no.

[Sir_Scud]

I didn't get to play R3, but to me the biggest problem in R2 wasn't necessarily the changes in general, but the lackluster MP. It boiled down to m203 and rocket spam for the most part. A lot of the other weapons were just useless. Basically people rolling marksman, sniper, and assault rifle. It just got boring to get into the battlefield to only have constant spam of explosions. If only they would've expanded upon the amazing Co-op mode in R2...

[radgamer420]

People don't buy a PS3 to play games online. They buy one for the best single player experiences and then they play online with it. PSN is just a bonus to most PS3 owners. Killzone wasn't a launch title like Halo. It's never going to have as strong a following as Halo does. It's like comparing Mario to Blinx. The PS3 has more exclusives overall to choose from. So gamers are moving from one game to another at a rapid rate. Unless it's called Call of Duty it's probably not being played on the PS3 with regularity like the shooters on the 360 are. Halo, Gears, and Call of Duty. The 360 gets less releases per year which leads to gamers sticking to the few releases that do get released. So it's a combo of things that keep Killzone from really thriving. If Sony shipped it in a green box it would sell just as many copies as Halo or more. That's a given.

Oh please. Best sp experience is subjective and if people dont buy a PS3 to play online then why has COD sold more copies than any PS3 exclusive? Also Halo wasnt a launch title for the 360 and lastly its really hard to take anything you say seriously here when you say stuff like this over on TXB. http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread...8#post13783818

[admartian]

Oh please. Best sp experience is subjective and if people dont buy a PS3 to play online then why has COD sold more copies than any PS3 exclusive? And secondly its really hard to take anything you say seriously here when you say stuff like this over on TXB. http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread...8#post13783818

I think he's right to an extent (i'm referring to online).

COD sells because it's COD - marketing, name brand. I'm sure there are just as many people who buy cod for the sp. And yeah, they'll jump on to play mp for a while. but im sure the majority (read: not all) do not use it for mp gaming as a the major driving force.

i agree with the notion that it's a bonus.

meaning that people do play, but not so much.

[radgamer420]

I think he's right to an extent (i'm referring to online). COD sells because it's COD - marketing, name brand. I'm sure there are just as many people who buy cod for the sp. And yeah, they'll jump on to play mp for a while. but im sure the majority (read: not all) do not use it for mp gaming as a the major driving force. i agree with the notion that it's a bonus. meaning that people do play, but not so much.

I disagree. Its a known fact that online play is a huge deal this gen. Sony even added multiplayer to Uncharted which started out as a sp only ip. So if online play was no big deal on PS3 then why would Sony bother? Then you've got online only exclusives like Dust 514 and online focused games like Warhawk, Starhawk and Socom for example. So I think your theory doesn't hold water. In fact I would even say the free online service drives more PS3 sales than its exclusives do.

[Pez_555]

Oh please. Best sp experience is subjective and if people dont buy a PS3 to play online then why has COD sold more copies than any PS3 exclusive? And secondly its really hard to take anything you say seriously here when you say stuff like this over on TXB. http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread...8#post13783818

that cant be him seriously....?

funny stuff, i assume hes being sarcastic with his posts on here then?