Home » General » Is Resistance 3 Wasting Its Potential?

Is Resistance 3 Wasting Its Potential?

Is Resistance 3 Wasting Its Potential?

Resistance 3, from what we’ve played, is in no way shaping up to be a bad game. Its shooting mechanics are solid and the weapons are interesting. Best of all, the alternate history storyline is far more engaging than your usual FPS fare.

Insomniac, however, isn’t using this backdrop anywhere near as well as they should. This thought struck us when we happened upon the human faction’s grenades: old bean cans stuffed with nails and propellant.

They’re low-tech to the extreme, representing the dominion that the Chimeran race now holds over Earth. In every presentation for the game you’ll hear the developers talk about how this represents the plight of the humans, how they have to scavenge for supplies etc. Which is true, in the narrative.

In the game however they’re just reskinned grenades. That’s all. There’s no sense of their rarity or importance because, hey, it’s a grenade, right? Just throw it and move on.

But it’s thinking like this that keeps the whole series from reaching its potential. Think how much more important (and therefore engaging) it would be if you had to actually source the materials needed to use this weapon. Better yet: what if there were common parts you could forage for that represented a tactical trade off?

For example what if you find the parts for the grenade easy enough, but the propellant is actually a key ingredient of a much better weapon that you might not get until later on? Do you use the grenade now, or save it for a better upgrade?

The above is a simple example, but it is one that if expanded upon could put a whole new spin on the series’ ‘scavenge to survive ethos’. It begs the question however: is Resistance wasting its potential?

Similar posts

  • HankBizzle

    Sorry but I don’t agree at all. If it were like that it would take too much away from the game that it is and start becoming more like a FPS/RPG. I don’t want to hunt around for bits of grenade parts in a shooter, I’ll do that in rpg’s.
    Part of me just thinks that you guys don’t like this game, simple as that, you haven’t really had anything positive to say about it ever.

  • It’s a nice thought, but I don’t see many FPS players really wanting the hassle of having to collect the parts of a grenade before they can use it. That’s bordering on RPG territory, like assembling Nuka Cola grenades in Fallout 3.

  • eelay

    having played the demo, on BATTLE: LOS ANGELES blu ray i wasn’t that impressed, however i do like the story and the setting is pretty good. the first game was/is under appreciated in my opinion but the second failed to live up to the first, concentrating more on the multiplayer side of things. insomiac are severing there ties with sony and RESISTANCE 3 will be there last one and i fear it will go out with a whimper rather than a bang!

  • David

    The problem Resistance 2 had was that it changed things that really didn’t need changing; the improved health system needed doing, but other than the set-up was pretty good. What did it for me was the loss of story co-op. Don’t get me wrong, the other co-op mode is very good and wish more games would follow suit, but i’m not a huge fan of single player games and Resistance 2 has never had enough presence to make me bother playing it. The news that Resistance 3 has story co-op again has peaked my interest again, but I having missed most of the story from Resistance 2, I’m sure if it’s worth picking up.