Can we run some kinda Man-God campaign for Sean Elliot? Dude's awesome.
Every bit of Resistance that I played was entirely mediocre--AI, pacing, level layouts, objectives, interactivity, you name it.
Where's the bias? In the fact that I was somewhat surprised at Shane and Bryan's extreme anticipation of Resistance 2 when I'm not sure either has played the first game? Or that I suggested it might be possible that much of the hype surrounding Resistance 1 was a result of its status as system launch software? Am I not biased against Wii, as well? No More Heroes isn't my favorite game. And which 360 games am I going easy on?
These things only count for bias in a fucked up, insular world where people somehow build identities on their preference in videogame platforms. That specious reasoning has no hold on me. Why should I take sides when all that ever matters is quality games? Likewise I don't care which platform sold 50,000 more units in a given month. Whatever.
12 pages or so into this thread and, surprisingly, not one person who is arguing that Resistance's campaign was a first rate affair has taken the time to explain to the rest of us why this is so. Rather than create a strong case to spark interest, perhaps using the game's best moments as examples and then comparing these to other standout segments in other first-person shooters, we have two dozen iterations of "you hate Sony! You hate fun! Resistance is too amazing!"--each adding momentum enough for another rotation of the bullshit wheel to take us back to where we began. This is not discussion, its irritating schoolyard prattle. I'm not beyond convincing. It's not as if I'd turn a deaf ear to say, a Robert Ashley, Skip, etc., should they make a persuasive case for sticking with Resistance.
