Sadly, the fantastic Resistance 3 didn't sell all that well, and developer Insomniac has moved on to other things.

So when might we see another entry in the critically acclaimed franchise? Well, SCEE Online producer Daniel Brooke told OPM UK that right now, the series is on hold. "We have no definitive plans," said Brooke, who worked on Resistance: Burning Skies for the PlayStation Vita. It's likely that we'll see the "Resistance" name again somewhere down the road, but there's no knowing when, or what team might adopt it.

It's really quite annoying that this franchise never got the sales recognition it deserved, despite the high critical praise. There are a lot of great shooters out there, of course, but few delivered on the single-player front the way Resistance did. It was even a pioneer in the multiplayer realm, too, as the second title supported 60 players at once. I still remember first seeing Fall of Man , the one PS3 launch game that hinted at what that system was capable of…

Subscribe
Notify of
67 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
maxpontiac
maxpontiac
8 years ago

Some of you may or may not agree with this, but Resistance 3 should have taken an Action RPG route.

It would have re-invented the series, and I for one would have been in gaming heaven.

The atmosphere in R3 was so wonderful, I felt it was a shame to have it so linear. It didn't need to be Fallout 3 style with one big map, but it could have been a series of small open world maps in each of the locations you visited along the story mode.

Just a random thought I have, because I am very disappointed with this news.

Beamboom
Beamboom
8 years ago

Oh man that'd be so awesome, I love the atmosphere and setting in R3 too. A Resistance spin-off or something.

comicozi
comicozi
8 years ago

when this series picks back up i think they should just disregard r3 and start from where r2 left off.(r3 sucked imo) dont get me wrong, i love the resistance franchise, just not r3. it left so many questions unanswered.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
8 years ago

R3 was the pinnacle of FPS gaming to me, numerous genres inside the game, weapons that level up, classic memorable NPCs and astounding environments, pure sweetness.

So I'm saddened that it came to this and disappointed in the gaming community who wasn't up to appreciate a franchise that was before its time.

Jawknee
Jawknee
8 years ago

I felt this was mediocre franchise anyways. I could never get into any of them.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
8 years ago

Stop making console FPS, thank you.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
8 years ago

Why for?

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
8 years ago

Oh, don't listen to this wacko. 😉

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
8 years ago

You will pull my second-rate FPS favorites from my cold dead hands!

F.E.A.R. 4, make it happen!

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
8 years ago

LOL I'm a lunatic when it comes to RTS and FPS on consoles, bugs the hell out of me. I admit it's a narrow minded view!

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
8 years ago

Well, you're half right. RTS should really be PC-only.

But FPS…? Now come on. What year is this again? 😉


Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 6/25/2012 11:48:55 PM

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
8 years ago

I hate the lack of controls, lack of mods, and lack of community found in console FPS. I could write a thesis on why console FPS offer the worst form of gaming.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
8 years ago

And yet, they've given me some of the finest gaming experiences of my life.

…must be a disconnect somewhere. 😉

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
8 years ago

I equate it to my mother's enjoyment of burnt food. She refuses to eat steak that's pink or has any juices left.

I'm aware that there are people that enjoy FPS on consoles…I think those that do are enjoying a lesser product. I wish I could enjoy them but I've had something better and there's no going back.

firesoul453
firesoul453
8 years ago

I much prefer FPS with a controller.
But an RTS…

Must have a keyboard and mouse!

Also I am wondering, what FPSs are you talking about when you say things like mods and community? Something like Wolfenstein ET?

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
8 years ago

CS/CSS/TFC/TF2/BF2/BF3/Tribes/Quake series/L4D series

Beamboom
Beamboom
8 years ago

FPS is better with a m/k, that is true. In fact I do follow your argument, LV (and what a wonderful comparison with your mothers steak). I do miss the community aspect too. But that's not limited to just FPS, I miss the same for GTA and the mods and community "stunt videos" and all that crazyness.

However, I do think that FPS is good *enough* on the console to make them enjoyable there too. That can't be said about RTS.

But speaking of this, I'd prefer a keyboard for most RPGs too, simply cause shoehorning everything into the limited amount of buttons on a controller does put restrictions to the games that would otherwise not had to be there.
But again: It's good *enough* on the consoles, I think.


Last edited by Beamboom on 6/26/2012 2:35:39 AM

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
8 years ago

I've never been able to use a mouse and keyboard in an FPS, just doesn't work as easily as a controller.

Axe99
Axe99
8 years ago

FPS is more casual and accessible with a mouse/kb, but that doesn't necessarily make it better. I've got access to shooters on console and PC, and _far_ prefer them on console simply because of the gamepad (yeah, you can Xpadder up your gamepad for PC, but because everyone else is using the over-accurate office productivity interface, it'd be like racing GT5 with full physics against people playing on the simplified model with all assists on).

Note – I don't think it's wrong to play with mouse/kb – far from it. Just not my thing, as I prefer my shooters with controls that better suit the shooter genre :).

Top-down action (Dune2 model RTS) deffo belongs on a mouse/kb, but games like Endwar worked just fine on either platform, as do a few other RTS variants (RUSE with Move actually has better pointer control than mouse/kb, but lacks the kb shortcuts).

Axe99
Axe99
8 years ago

PS – not sure where the whole view of difference in community comes from – there's plenty of community on PS3 online, on heaps of games. Just like PC, the community is there if you want to look for it.

Beamboom
Beamboom
8 years ago

@Axe: The kind of community we talk about here goes much deeper. With the modding, the clans and the communities that arise around custom map creations and privately hosted servers makes a huge difference. Typically after a while the best maps for a game are *not* the official ones, but the community made.
Same goes with the servers, once you are a part of a community you only play on their servers, meeting the same guys, playing by the custom rules and custom maps on that server.

And what you say about things being "too simple" with a mouse says it all, really. To use a controller in FPS really is like sitting in a wheelchair.

@World: It takes a while getting used to either way. When I first got the PS3 I avoided FPS like the plague, cause I were completely unable to hit anything.
Seriously, I needed so long time to get the reticle where the target were located that the target had moved long before I were able to pull the trigger once.

After all these years I can now finally beat a FPS on a console and move pretty fluid around. But it's still nowhere as quick as I'd been with a mouse.

It's very well illustrated while surfing the web: Sitting with the analogue sticks in the browser on the PS3 is nowhere as fast or precise as using the mouse on a PC.


Last edited by Beamboom on 6/26/2012 3:39:47 AM

Qubex
Qubex
8 years ago

Love me some FPS!

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Axe99
Axe99
8 years ago

@ Beam – you're dead right with the modding communities – I've been involved in a couple (not for FPS games of course, given my preferences ;)), and they're definitely tighter-knit, as you'd expect from people that work together. But the vast, vast majority of PC gamers aren't in modding communities.

As for the controls, I'm biased because I've used actual rifles/LMGs in the past, and the ease with which you can swing 'em around with a mouse/kb means that firefights in PC FPS games play out far faster than anything that would ever happen IRL. Doesn't bother me for a game like TF2, but for a game like ArmA 2, which is supposed to be realistic, crippling the realism factor by not adding any meaningful inertia to the aiming mechanism (arguably the most important gameplay mechanic in any shooter) takes what should be a realistic game and makes it more arcade than almost any console shooter, simply by dint of how fast you can turn and aim. And I generally prefer my shooters to at least feel slightly realistic, and the ease of playing 'em with a mouse/kb strips away any semblance of realism.

Just a personal choice, but I'll always take issue with anyone saying that shooters on PC are "better" because of mouse/kb controls. Simpler, easier and therefore more accessible – yes, but necessarily better – no.

Beamboom
Beamboom
8 years ago

That real life comparison with rifles were an interesting argument Axe, if nothing else. One I've never heard before.

So what you are saying is that if there was a shooter simulator, a controller would better suited for that than a mouse? I'm not sure if I agree, but then again I've not fired many shots in the real life so who am I to judge.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
8 years ago

The analogy doesn't work, LV. I've played FPSs on PC, too, and they're just not this grand significant leap ahead of console FPSs that they used to be. In fact, I think they're lagging behind in a number of gameplay design areas.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
8 years ago

Here's the thing, LV, and I just have to add this for your own benefit:

I really think you're missing out. I've played every FPS in existence, basically. I've seen them on monster PCs, I've seen them on multiple consoles, etc. And I'm telling you right now that these days, besides the monster PC being able to make a few extra specks of dust or a brick in a building look a bit more realistic, I'm not impressed.

The difference is not even in the graphics or the community or whatever. The difference is in the overall design and creativity. PC shooters have been, in my eyes, extraordinarily bland. The weapons, enemies, and environments just aren't as imaginative or HUGELY impactful as some of the ones I've seen in the Resistance series, for example.

I'm only speaking in terms of design here, but in that capacity, PC developers have obviously been living far too much in the 90s. And as a result, I get the extra specks of realistic dust but I don't get modern-day creativity. Heck, even Singularity did things with design and concepts that are apparently too "outside the box" for PC shooters.

Temjin001
Temjin001
8 years ago

LV is looking at things from a multiplayer perspective. Every game he listed is a multiplayer focused game that has a relatively large competitive playing community. A playing community that gets into things like mods and mutators and all of those tweek it, cuztomize it, have it your way right away Burger King, things. Single player wise the story is much different and consoles have been on the fore since the dawn of this console generation. As far as I'm concerned, Half Life 2 and it's expansions were the last really progressive FPS games that introduced PC side, outside of the tech impressive feats by Crytek.

But to agree with LV on a point. Having spent many years with a mouse and KB for an interface on FPS, precision aiming is much better on with a mouse. The dpi and range of motion of mouse play is simply better than a thumb.

RTS is far and away better on PC. Once again, the mouse precision is a big reason for this, and so is the KB and all of it's hotkeys. I cant imagine WC3 with any other interface.


Last edited by Temjin001 on 6/26/2012 10:09:26 AM

Beamboom
Beamboom
8 years ago

LV is talking about the (lack of) controls, mods and community? Not the single player campaigns or gameplay.


Last edited by Beamboom on 6/26/2012 10:59:22 AM

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
8 years ago

I'm glad we're all able to hate one another politely, haha. (jk)

You make a good point Ben and I won't argue your point because I don't play console FPS. I do remember the wow factor Halo gave me when I watched friends playing it. But like Beam and Tem pointed out I'm just referring to the multiplayer aspect of FPS though I feel the controls also have a lot to do with the single player.

I'll never accept an autoaim, controller based, FPS.

As far as community you may think that there are similar communities on consoles but for how long till most people abandon for the next console game? Also have you ever tried to form a clan and have matches on a console FPS? I'd like to hear what that is like if even possible.


Last edited by LimitedVertigo on 6/26/2012 12:18:38 PM

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
8 years ago

You can turn off the autoaim

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
8 years ago

Not on all console games and even for those that do you're still using inferior controls.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
8 years ago

I haven't played any that have always on autoaim. KZ2 briefly had a snap-to problem but they fixed that. I guess controllers just make me feel more like I'm in the game controlling someone versus overseeing an operative.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
8 years ago

The interesting part about the "inferior" control concept is that when developers first set out to make FPSs with PCs in mind, they all stared at the keyboard and mouse setup going-

"Uhhhhhh…what are we supposed to do here?"

Logically speaking, it's the absolute worst form of control humanly possible. If someone invented it, they'd have to be legitimately insane. And yet, because certain people grew up with it, they think it's "superior."

hee hee

Axe99
Axe99
8 years ago

@ LV – and that's the attitude that gets my goat up. How does ridiculously over-simplified and over-accurate shooting mechanics (for a firearm – which is what you're using in shooters) make them superior?! PC shooters are easier, more accessible and better for casual FPS gamers (because of said accessibility), but that doesn't make them better.

@ Beam – when firing a rifle (and even more so an LMG, sniper rifle, or other heavier weapon), it takes time to turn and aim accurately. The longer time it takes to achieve this on console far better simulates realistic turning and aiming speeds than the ridiculous spectacle you get in games like Counter-Strike (the Steam blurb even calls it 'realistic', lol!). Gamepads aren't perfect, but they provide a better corollary of the kind of adjustments you make when moving and aiming, and just 'feel' better. A highly skilled person with a gamepad can aim and shoot at a similar speed to a highly skilled real operator. A highly skilled person with a mouse/kb can aim far, far quicker (because a mouse is easier and more accessible). Yes, it's far more accurate, but it's _too_ accurate if the game is about shooting firearms. As noted before, I have no worries with bubble-gum shooters like TF2, but for CS, ArmA, or anything even having some pretense of being modelled on real-world mechanics, by relying on mouse/kb control, they destroy any sense of immersion because of how damn easy it is. I have no trouble with this – not everyone wants immersion or realism, and many people prefer more casual and accessible interfaces. However, when said people call their more casual and accessible interfaces 'superior' or 'hardcore', then I raise an eyebrow ;).

I've played shooters on PC (I started on PC, and got turned off when they moved to mouse control (yes, I've been gaming a whiles) because it no longer felt like a 'shooter', but more a point-and-click adventure on speed), and on console, and for me, the more enjoyable, immersive MP experience is on console, and it's primarily due to the controls, not in spite of them. I was on CS on Monday night as well (running around with an LMG that had all the weight of a feather duster), so I'm not talking from distant memory.

/rant – meant in good spirits – everyone should enjoy what they enjoyed :).

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
8 years ago

Axe: That's my problem, too. Spinning around at MACH 3 and whipping off head shot after head shot because I can aim a mouse arrow with precision no human body could ever manage without being a cyborg…?

It's about as unrealistic and silly as possible. It really is.

LimitedVertigo
LimitedVertigo
8 years ago

A mouse offers far more realistic aiming than a thumbstick controller. There is no way a dualshock or any other console controller offers as realistic precision as a mouse.

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
8 years ago

It's only realistic if you're a cyborg.

Axe99
Axe99
8 years ago

LV – you're missing the point. _Real_ shooting involves controlling a human body controlling a 4-10kg firearm (in general, SMGs and pistols are lighter of course, and some heavier weapons heavier). A mouse/kb combo is _too_ precise to model this. If PC shooters included inertia (a la KZ2) into their aiming mechanics, it would go a long way to making PC as good at being as realistic a control mechanism for shooters as a gamepad, but as it stands it calling mouse/kb control in shooters realistic is like calling Burnout a driving sim. I have no issue with people preferring mouse/kb controls for shooters _because_ they are easier, accessible and less realistic. But then assuming this means better just shows how little most gamers know about how actual people handle actual firearms.

Note – I'm not saying one is better than the other (unlike yourself LV), nor that gamepad is particularly realistic – it's just orders of magnitude _more_ realistic than the point-and-click adventures on speed that PC shooters are. If you see two good FPS/TPS teams on gamepad play a competitive game on console, you can see it play out in a way you could imagine may take place IRL. If you see two skilled FPS/TPS teams on mouse/kb, you get to see something that just is not possible IRL. I just don't see how that makes it better.

(And don't start me on WASD movement and 2-3 speeds max – lack of analogue movement on PC is only acceptable because mouse/kb as a control mechanism can't cope with it, unless you get special gamepad/kb/mouse combos).

I'm yet to hear a convincing rebuttal from _any_ PC gamer as to why mouse/kb controls are 'better' beyond accuracy and precision*. Given this is precisely the weakness of the control method (if you're looking for realistic shooters – a la ArmA, and apparently CS, although if that was any less realistic (coming from a console FPS background) it'd be the shooter equivalent of Motorstorm RC).

* Beyond a "but we don't want it to be too realistic" – which given how unrealistic gamepads still are – people are hardly being expected to actually carry around Move attachments that have been accurately weighted ;)), is pretty weak.

Axe99
Axe99
8 years ago

PS – apologies if I sound a bit crusty, got a flu. Deffo mean this in the spirit of friendly debate :).

Beamboom
Beamboom
8 years ago

I think this whole line of argument is really, really strange.

In the gaming world, a controller that makes you perform better surely must per definition be a better controller? Not the controller who are best simulating the real world? Cause by that logic Move should be the best controller EVER?

Axe99
Axe99
8 years ago

@Beam – I wouldn't say it's strange at all – the issue is how the game translates movement, and the problem is that in the case of aiming, very very few games have a model that's anywhere near accurate (KZ2 is a notable exception), relying instead on someone's mouse or thumbstick speed to do the modelling for them. It's the equivalent of playing GT5 but with no inertia or weight to the car. Because game devs don't build the inertia in for us, and the physics of turning and aiming are effectively modelled by how well we do it with a mouse or thumbsticks, then the argument becomes absolutely valid.

I mean, no-one would take a racing game seriously (even an arcade one), if you could do a 360 spin with virtually no acceleration or deceleration on the turn and stop on a dime. But if we had racing game control that mirrored what we have in shooters, that's what it would be like.

In effect, because the vast majority of shooter devs (and almost all of them on the PC) are too
fearful of the reaction by fans that have been pandered too by decades to actually having to control a human being with a rifle, rather than a pointer, in their shooter games, people think that controlling aiming of a gun with a pointer with no inertia/etc is the 'most realistic' option. Guerilla have a lot of time for trying to break this mould, but the amount of flak they got for KZ2's handling model (notably, particularly from gamers that were used to playing with a kb/mouse) showed how ingrained gamers are into thinking that aiming a gun is as simple as pointing and clicking.

Thumbsticks on a gamepad aren't perfect, but they are significantly better. Move with the sharpshooter, unfortunately, is also flawed, because while it does a good job with the aiming mechanics (although gamers should really strap an extra couple of kilos to it for it to be close), it fluffs the movement (turning with move is actually overly difficult, unless you have zero deadzone (like a mouse)), but that's really hard to control because holding a rifle steady, even one that weighs just a kilo or so, is much harder than holding a mouse steady (just another piece of evidence of how oversimplified a mouse makes shooter gameplay).

As always, I'm not saying a gamepad is better, but I am saying its far more realistic, and strongly contesting the idea that it's a worse controller for a game that's supposed to be about weapon operators aiming and shooting. Mouse/kb rules for strategy and point-and-click adventure though :).

Beamboom
Beamboom
8 years ago

But now you are talking like there is a goal that all games should be a real life simulator. We don't want that at all! We want to be godlike, and twirl around, take 2000 bullets to the chest, jump three meters and do impossible acrobatics that has no place in real physics whatsoever.
That's what we want!


Last edited by Beamboom on 6/28/2012 1:05:32 AM

Axe99
Axe99
8 years ago

lol :). Well, it's what PC gamers want at least ;).

I'm deffo not saying that mouse/kb is a bad, or un-fun way of playing (I still enjoy myself when I'm playing Counter Strike, even if it doesn't feel like I'm playing a human with a gun but rather a disembodied inertialess bullet-spewer). Just that it's not necessarily the best just because its implicit model of aiming movement is overly arcadey and far too over-precise :).

Axe99
Axe99
8 years ago

lol :). Well, it's what PC gamers want at least ;).

I'm deffo not saying that mouse/kb is a bad, or un-fun way of playing (I still enjoy myself when I'm playing Counter Strike, even if it doesn't feel like I'm playing a human with a gun but rather a disembodied inertialess bullet-spewer). Just that it's not necessarily the best just because its implicit model of aiming movement is overly arcadey and far too over-precise :).

Temjin001
Temjin001
8 years ago

I wasn't a big fan of the series but I most definitely liked R3 a lot. I kind of wish they got the atmospheric vibe and narrative strength of the third game dialed in sooner with the first game. But as it was, I don't want to act all saddened. This was a strong trilogy for PS3 and I'd like to think of it that way. I sort of like the idea of most franchises running about 3 games long and then the devs move onto something fresh. Some games are an exception to that of course, but I think this one, among other FPS franchises, are good to take some time off, at least until some more capable hardware comes around to give us more of a reason to return to a franchise. I really beleive one of the reasons the MGS games carry on so well is because they aren't spammed every year. I know people have a lot of hope for AC3, myself included, but will AC3 just be the Black Ops of CoD?
They're both great franchises but both have seen many outings this gen.

BikerSaint
BikerSaint
8 years ago

There's an old saying that states: "Resistance is futile"……..

….but here's to hoping the Chimera make a worldly comeback.

firesoul453
firesoul453
8 years ago

Hmm, I really enjoyed the first one back in the day and really like the 3rd one's story.

I'd definitely like to see more in the future.

FM23
FM23
8 years ago

Not sure how to feel about this. Resistance 2 was the first PS3 FPS I played and I thought it was awesome even though I could careless for FPS's. But between that game and Resistance 3, I have experienced some great games. So by the time RE3 came out, I wasn't impressed. Yeah the atmosphere was top notch, but the gameplay (fun) and story were not in my opinion. It was just a very linear game with a story that was too straightforward for its own good and it left so many questions once it ended as if it was setting itself up for a sequel….oops. Definitely not the worse FPS I've played, but definitely a very underwhelming experience especially after I expected a great conclusion. But the fans or consumers have spoken, time for something new. I'm not mad.

Vivi_Gamer
Vivi_Gamer
8 years ago

I'm really not suprised, Resistance 3 was one of the biggest let downs this gen. There was no depth to it what so ever it was just a matter of reach the objective destroy, done. We learnt nothing new about the chimera, nor was there many new variety of chimera. In the demo it showed one of the new hoppers. I was hopping for more variation like that but got nothing.

I heard the Vita game was meant to be a flop too. It is a shame, as before R3 I regarded the series as a AAA series. But R3 knocked it of that status completely, if we get another one from a nother developer it will just go down the Silent Hill route – never recapturing it's original glory.

R.I.P. Resistance.

Lawless SXE
Lawless SXE
8 years ago

Disappointing indeed. Resistance 3 was utterly fantastic and easily among the best FPS games I've yet played because of the focus on story and the sublime gameplay. I think I've already extolled my love of the series too much though.

It makes sense though. Sony clearly needs to refine their focus in terms of the games they publish to improve the profitability of each. With that, it makes sense that they would choose to continue the series that they commissioned in the first place and has proven to be a better seller: Killzone. I don't much like the latter series, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.