Resistance 2 News

For:PS3 Release Date: 28 November 2008

Bungie dev: 60-man Resistance 2 will be a "challenge"

NewsPosted 21/02/2008 - 5:14pm GMT

FPS rival "interested" to see whether Insomniac can keep Sony's Halo-killer from feeling like "running around in a chat room".

A Bungie employee has said Resistance 2 looks "interesting" but its ambitious 60-player multiplayer will be a "challenge".

Speaking on Bungie's latest podcast, Luke Timmins, multiplayer engineer on Halo 3, said that he was interested in how Resistance 2 developer Insomniac would keep 60-player multiplayer games from feeling like "just running around in a chat room".

The ambitious Resistance 2, touted by fans as Sony's Halo-killer, is scheduled for release on the PS3 exclusively some time in 2008. It will have an impressive eight-player campaign co-op and massive 60-player competitive modes which will focus on squad-versus-squad combat.

Speaking on the Bungie podcast, Timmins said: "Some of the stuff that Resistance is doing about trying to keep jacking up the number of guys in a game... I've played Resistance, and I'm a huge Battlefield 2 fan but I'm still interested in how do you keep that number of guys in a game and make it seem like you are actually playing together and not just running around in a chat room. It's real interesting and I wish them well but, yeah, it's a challenge."

Is Bungie's Luke Timmins right? Will Insomniac face a challenge making 60-player multiplayer games fun? Let us know in the comments section below.

New stuff to check out

View all 26 Comments

Comments

To add your comment, please login or register

User Comments

insomnia93

As for lag in halo...It is a lot more common than resistance. I get quite a few laggy games because of the whole host thing instead of dedicated servers. And halo and resistance are so different we shouldnt be comparing the sizes with gameplay. 60 player halo would be a nightmare. up to 60 player resistance seems pretty ok and normal to me, the 40 player games were pretty fun in the first game. What bungie did with halo that was just amazing though was all the custom options and forge. custom content and custom zombie games and race maps are amazing and fun breaks from shooting people. i think it would actually be really cool to see the two companies combined (i know it wont happen lol) because you could have insomniac who has the dedicated servers, buddy lists and clan systems, bungie with great physics and custom game content, and so much more! what i wish they had in halo that resistance has is custom game servers.

Posted 23:47 on 29 March 2009

Delete Post

Mendicant bias

You guys are so ****ing bias theres only some lag in halo because bungie didnt erelease dedicated servers. Its the players fault their ****ing connection sux and makes them lag. honestly i rarely get lag in hlao 3 so you dont need to go bashing bout bungie but honestly i believe 30vs30 games are gonna be a nightmare with people quitting and sh*t. also you will barely make a difference in team games like 30 ppl shoot at you with lets say like a pistol whicjh is usually weak iun video games it would basically be an instant death its gonna get outta hand.

Posted 02:46 on 30 October 2008

dudester

I was going to mention warhawk as well as part of the challenge is to get people working together. Just because there are 60 players in one room doesnt mean theres 2 many talking at same time either as in 1st resistance you can set mics to different channels so just you and your friends would hear you unless you pressed L3 to talk to whole team.

Also the way Resistance used parties meant they it could be easy to not have too many voices at once. I personally think they should be praised for trying to push the boundaries further. Yes smaller can be better but if everyone makes smaller games then who is pushing the games development?

Posted 19:37 on 22 February 2008

Delete Post

blin

of course its a challenge. But hey didnt insomniac said that the 60 players will be put into smaller 4-8 member squads each with its own objective?

Posted 17:06 on 22 February 2008

Delete Post

Anonymous

60 players online is not new, PC gaming had it for a long time now in Tribes and other multiplayer games.

i dont see where is the challenge, they already launched a 40 man-multiplayer game with no lag issues on the PS3 day one. an extra 10 player to each side is not a huge problem.

seems Bungie is feeling the heat after there extremely average over-hyped (Halo3),which no matter how many units it sold was overshadowed by COD4 as the main multiplayer game across-platforms.

Posted 11:47 on 22 February 2008

Delete Post

Anonymous

This guy from BUNGIE makes it sound like there's only gonna be 60 player matches. Come on, there will be a lot more to offer. There will be 8 and 16 and 32. There is gonna be way more diversity here than in Halo or any other game for that matter. If Resistance 1 was great online, imagine all the killer improvements there gonna make, plus they'll probably offer the old maps with the new games types and options. It's gonna be pretty sweet if there are 4 15 man squads fighting against each other.

Posted 10:02 on 22 February 2008

Delete Post

AllTheInfo

To all those who say "60 players is too much"...

You do know that you can always have less players if you want. 60 players is not a static number. It is up to 60 players. If you have agoraphobia (j/k) you can play with much fewer players.

And to those who say "maps will be too large, but with less players you won't find anyone"...

You do know, that with fewer players can play on a smaller part of the original maps. WARHAWK does that when you play on less than 32 players servers.

Posted 09:43 on 22 February 2008

FantasyMeister@ Anonymous

There's a demo on XBox Live at the moment with 16 vs 16 maps (Fuels of War). Personally I felt the gameplay was a bit sparse even in full rooms, I felt the maps were just too big despite the fact that you could traverse them quickly in vehicles and you were lucky to see more than 3 of the opposing side on your screen at any one time.

A typical team of 16 would consist of 5 people who knew what they were doing, 5 newbies who'd spend half the game learning where the jump button was then making the most of it when they found it, 2 people just running around doing their own thing, 3 afks and a spare spot for people who kept disconnecting.

I'm sure the gameplay would perk up a bit if you got 16 people who knew what they were doing, but what are the chances?

Now double the problem for 30 vs 30. Technically it'll be a fantastic achievement if they pull it off but I just can't envisage a scenario where it's going to work effectively, either the maps will be too large and squads will have to be seriously co-ordinated to get anything done, or maps will be badly designed and suffer huge framerate problems because 60 players are trying to focus on one specific area.

On the other hand if they switched genres and managed to get a 40-player raid scenario up and running in an mmorpg on the PS3, I'd probably buy it.

Posted 08:18 on 22 February 2008

Delete Post

Anonymous

Just because Halo 3 is 16 player doesn't mean Bungie CAN'T do it... jesus. You guys make it sound like Insomniac holds the only code for something over 16 players. Put the fanboyism aside and THINK about it. 60 players on a single large map. 60. It would have to be a large map. Now, what if the 60 players limit isn't reached. Now for example you have 10 players on the LARGE map. How freaking long will it be before you see another player? I really think they are stepping over the bounds between boasting player count vs. playability.

Posted 07:26 on 22 February 2008

Delete Post

Lulzbungie

They're funny, just because Bungie can't do more than 16 multiplayer after a decade of working with the Halo franchise. Size may not matter but R1 achieved 40 players and that's like after only a year of the PS3's debut. Plus what you people don't realize is having options is the key. You can make 16 player games or 60 player games and decide which one is best for you. Knowing Insomniac, I know the 60 players multiplayer will work out really well too.

I just can't help but feel that bungie, known for only FPSes..all of them halo, is a bit jealous and scared that Insomniac, a developer known for making platformers, will take away their limelight when they didnt even't care if Resistance is a halo killer or whatever. poor bungie..

Posted 03:17 on 22 February 2008

Delete Post

The Closing

Don't like bungie's games, but the dude is right on the money although their game fails in this same aspect too. 60 hell even 20 is too many people in a room. It's just totally mindless that way, and there is nothing personal about the kill. Smaller matches means you get to know your competition, and that makes killing them a million times more rewarding. Also if you have an unlimited respawn count then there is no consequences for dying. But I guess a lot of mindless people out there like mindless no strategy action.

Posted 00:19 on 22 February 2008

Delete Post

mprunty

I don't see no need to worry about Resistance 2. They did 42-player multiplayer with the first installment, so 60 isn't that big of a leap. I think Timmins is worried that Halo can be outshined by a game that wasn't necessarily built to be the "Halo-Killer".

No offense to those that like Halo (especially Halo 3 - I own all three games and Resistance), but Bungie can learn a lot about how to make a solid game from beginning to end.

Posted 20:55 on 21 February 2008

Delete Post

fuzz

Yeah,Bigbomber is right, bungie is ashamed of the 20+ million copies of Halo CE, Halo 2 and Halo 3 that they've sold. How many copies did resistance sell?

Don't get me wrong, I love Insomniac. Probably the only real reason I have a PS3. But don't even try and compare Halo multiplayer with Resistance - Resistance is cool and fun ,but not even in the same class.

Bungie is smart enough to realize that bigger doesn't mean better, it just means BIGGER. If Insomniac was right, why haven't they doubled the size of football teams in the NFL? Wouldn't that be more exciting? No, they realized that 11 players on a team on the field is the right balance for complex but managable play. Bigger can also mean, disorganized, confusing, unfocused, diluted - hence the "Chat Room" comparison. The more players, the less likely you can get everyone organized as a team.

Posted 18:54 on 21 February 2008

Delete Post