Yeah, I'm getting old man, what can I say. I find that it takes a LOT to impress me nowadays.
You're right, Halo 3 is a bad example of what I'm trying to say because it is basically Halo 2.5. I can't really dispute that point, and in fact that's why I don't play it as much as other FPS's. Call of Duty 4 is probably a better example, since it's far above and beyond Call of Duty 3 (as far as I know...I haven't played CoD3, but it's not a phenomenon like CoD4) even though it's in the same series of games.
I guess that Resistance doesn't offer a "different" experience from other first-person shooters in the sense that yes, it is also a first-person shooter. But that's also like saying that Zelda doesn't offer a different experience from other 3D platformers. I think a lot of people would argue that point.
I could argue on the finer points of what will distinguish Resistance from Resistance 2, but that's for some other website. Let me just say that there are significant changes, especially to the multiplayer portion (example: introduction of classes, 8-player squads) that will make it quite a different experience from its predecessor.
That's my beef with Zelda. It's a good formula alright, but I feel like it's the same formula every time. I feel that it rigidly adheres to convention, if that makes any sense. I'd love to see them do something crazy, like have you fight a boss that's five screens tall, and is so big that you have to climb up it to get to its head. And also have bosses that you don't kill the same way every time.
I'm playing Okami and it's really refreshing because while it's a straight Zelda clone, it feels fresh because there are some **seriously** all-new game mechanics. Not just Link's sword slash mapped to the Wii Remote and arrow aiming with a pointer.