Titanfall - Respawn Entertainment's first game

If anything the lower player count and AI capability makes me more likely to buy this. Why would I want to play another Battlefield clone?
 
deff said:
I'm not sure I understand that mentality either... I just want a game thats fun to play and isn't broke as fuck (I'm looking at you BF4).
Click to expand...

Because a lot of the times the maps ar elarge enough that more players would feel "better."

I mean the maps in this aren't tiny, they are freaking built for mechs and all the other "ai" soldiers. So why not get rid of hte AI crap and let more real people in a single match? I would much much rather have a 24 vs 24 REAL human players then "6 people and 6 AI vs 6 people and 6 AI."
 
MavericK96 said:
If anything the lower player count and AI capability makes me more likely to buy this. Why would I want to play another Battlefield clone?
Click to expand...
Agree. If they use the AI in unique ways (to augment story/immersion rather than competition), I could see it ending up a really cool/different experience. I don't see any reason not to take a wait and see approach here.
 
AceCR42 said:
I don't know why a lot of posters here have an obsession with huge playercounts, regardless of map sizes or the type of game it is.

If you want a game with a higher max playercount then play a game that actually accomodates it well, like Battlefield.
Click to expand...

I enjoy playing with more people. I don't enjoy bots. When I still played COD after Modern Warfare, I only ever played Ground War since it was the only way to get more people in a match.

6 vs 6 just feels way too small for me. I want to be tripping over people. I find it more relaxing compared to running around looking for someone to get into a shooting match with.

I will probably still end up with the game since my brother gave it to me as a Xmas present, but any excitement and interest for the game has gone away.
 
AceCR42 said:
I don't know why a lot of posters here have an obsession with huge playercounts, regardless of map sizes or the type of game it is.

If you want a game with a higher max playercount then play a game that actually accomodates it well, like Battlefield.
Click to expand...

Because most of the players here on [H] are the guys that you see camping in spawn with Recon kit fail sniping in BF4. I had this discussion already in the BF4 forum about teamwork and playing the fucking objective to no avail.

6v6 if done right is going to be great -- especially for those coming fro CS. For the rest of the BF4 players that like to sit in a corner this probably wont be a game they will enjoy.:D
 
Last edited:
naticus said:
I had this discussion already in the BF4 forum about teamwork and playing the fucking objective to no avail.
Click to expand...

nah. you entered the BF4 discussion on your Counter Strike:Unicorn lambasting everyone in the thread with nuggets of wisdom like 'scrubs' and 'terribads'. we dismissed you as a scorned wannabe elitest.
 
Porter_ said:
nah. you entered the BF4 discussion on your Counter Strike:Unicorn lambasting everyone in the thread with nuggets of wisdom like 'scrubs' and 'terribads'. we dismissed you as a scorned wannabe elitest.
Click to expand...

Lol yeah sure. It has nothing to do with the overall lack of quality players that play BF4 -- they got butt hurt when I gave them shit about how they played. 98% of the BF community is full retard, period. Hell even COD has more teamwork. You know there is a reason why people will still be playing CS,CSS,CSGO while BF4 then BF5, etc. are long gone. It's called skill and team-play, especially in the ladder/leagues which BF will never have.:rolleyes:

Anyway back on topic I hope they don't screw up this AI portion of the game and I am interested to see how strong the mechs are as far as being OP and such.
 
naticus said:
Lol yeah sure. It has nothing to do with the overall lack of quality players that play BF4 -- they got butt hurt when I gave them shit about how they played. 98% of the BF community is full retard, period. Hell even COD has more teamwork. You know there is a reason why people will still be playing CS,CSS,CSGO while BF4 then BF5, etc. are long gone. It's called skill and team-play, especially in the ladder/leagues which BF will never have.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

i suppose this proves my point.
 
naticus said:
Lol yeah sure. It has nothing to do with the overall lack of quality players that play BF4 -- they got butt hurt when I gave them shit about how they played. 98% of the BF community is full retard, period. Hell even COD has more teamwork. You know there is a reason why people will still be playing CS,CSS,CSGO while BF4 then BF5, etc. are long gone. It's called skill and team-play, especially in the ladder/leagues which BF will never have.:rolleyes:

Anyway back on topic I hope they don't screw up this AI portion of the game and I am interested to see how strong the mechs are as far as being OP and such.
Click to expand...

No its called small teams = easier to send to lan events. TFC use to be 9v9 or 8v8.. Now look at it.. 6v6.
 
Dion said:
No its called small teams = easier to send to lan events. TFC use to be 9v9 or 8v8.. Now look at it.. 6v6.
Click to expand...

As far as I know the standard has always been 5v5 as per CS,COD 1+2. L4D was an exception at 4v4 but was still very good for comp. I can't wait for L4d3 -- maybe with Source 2?
 
I don't mind the 6v6 as much as I will mind getting shot by a bot controlling a Titan in a multiplayer match.
 
The biggest thing for me is it's gonna use source engine for graphics, I mean.. Really.. Source engine.. Really.. It's gonna have great texture and a 10 years lightning engine. Unless they modify it heavily, then it will sucks the performance out of it like a mofo
 
Ryoohki360 said:
The biggest thing for me is it's gonna use source engine for graphics, I mean.. Really.. Source engine.. Really.. It's gonna have great texture and a 10 years lightning engine. Unless they modify it heavily, then it will sucks the performance out of it like a mofo
Click to expand...

Hey, at least Zampella & Co finally moved on from idTech3. :D
 
Ryoohki360 said:
The biggest thing for me is it's gonna use source engine for graphics, I mean.. Really.. Source engine.. Really.. It's gonna have great texture and a 10 years lightning engine. Unless they modify it heavily, then it will sucks the performance out of it like a mofo
Click to expand...

That why I'm hoping. Some of the gameplay videos look like the graphics engine is being pushed to its max. I'm going to wait for the reviews. No preorder for me.
 
Ryoohki360 said:
The biggest thing for me is it's gonna use source engine for graphics, I mean.. Really.. Source engine.. Really.. It's gonna have great texture and a 10 years lightning engine. Unless they modify it heavily, then it will sucks the performance out of it like a mofo
Click to expand...

Go start up your own game development studio from scratch and do better.
 
Ryoohki360 said:
The biggest thing for me is it's gonna use source engine for graphics, I mean.. Really.. Source engine.. Really.. It's gonna have great texture and a 10 years lightning engine. Unless they modify it heavily, then it will sucks the performance out of it like a mofo
Click to expand...

The Source Engine is probably the best engine ever made along side the Unreal Engine in regards to what you can do with it. I have seen some amazing things done with the Source Engine over the past decade. It has the best facial animation technology still to this day. The fact that they are still making new games with it after a decade is a testament to its worth.
 
I have to disagree somewhat. Source still can look very good, yes, but it pales in comparison to engines like Frostbite 3 and CryEngine 3, even heavily modified.
 
MavericK96 said:
I have to disagree somewhat. Source still can look very good, yes, but it pales in comparison to engines like Frostbite 3 and CryEngine 3, even heavily modified.
Click to expand...

Well yes, in the looks department Frostbite and Cryengine are superior, no doubt. But how many games have you seen that use those engines beside the games that they debuted on? I bet you could count on your hand how many. And what are the odds that those two engines will be around a decade from now and still making triple A titles?

Sure if you want looks , go with Cry & Frost, if you want versatility , ease of use , lifespan and community support I would go with Source every time.
 
I really think this whole debate is going to be a moot subject anyway. I highly doubt the limitation has anything to do with gameplay design (it might, but i am not buying it until I see it). As has been the case with just about every single similar incident for the past several years, this is most likely a preemptive damage control cover story. The game probably is not designed to involve the AI as effectively as they claim - they probably just require significant more development time to properly support large amounts of players, and EA is rushing it out the door.

I really do not understand why PC Gamers bash console gamers so much for putting up with with the poor practices of the console industry and then turn around and constantly defend/support and throw money at the PC companies involved in equally and sometimes worse practices.

I am not saying this is definitely the case with Titanfall, but I just find it hillarious that so many on both sides of this argument are debating about whether the stated reasons for this decision is right or wrong while automatically assuming that the reasons they gave are the truth.
 
MavericK96 said:
I have to disagree somewhat. Source still can look very good, yes, but it pales in comparison to engines like Frostbite 3 and CryEngine 3, even heavily modified.
Click to expand...

It can still look good, but its still none-the-less outdated, it's time for an updated engine.
 
GearChoices said:
I really think this whole debate is going to be a moot subject anyway. I highly doubt the limitation has anything to do with gameplay design (it might, but i am not buying it until I see it). As has been the case with just about every single similar incident for the past several years, this is most likely a preemptive damage control cover story. The game probably is not designed to involve the AI as effectively as they claim - they probably just require significant more development time to properly support large amounts of players, and EA is rushing it out the door.

I really do not understand why PC Gamers bash console gamers so much for putting up with with the poor practices of the console industry and then turn around and constantly defend/support and throw money at the PC companies involved in equally and sometimes worse practices.

I am not saying this is definitely the case with Titanfall, but I just find it hillarious that so many on both sides of this argument are debating about whether the stated reasons for this decision is right or wrong while automatically assuming that the reasons they gave are the truth.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that Respawn's defense of this is trying to tell people that the game will be sssooo awesome because they play tested it 6v6 with bots. People generally don't buy multiplayer games to play against bots, it sort of defeats the purpose.
 
I'm not going to judge either way at this point. Smaller and more intimate (tactical?) or larger and more spectacular; as long as it's fun I'll be happy. So far all the hands-on impressions from people are extremely positive, even from those going into it assuming it will be COD: Mech edition. RPS wrote up their impressions, if I recall correctly it was an enjoyable read.
 
Why don't we all wait and see how things turn out instead of condemning something that doesn't yet exist!
 
Ok, I was reading the front page post and comments, and instead of making yet another post on there (that I will eventuallyt want to edit due to some minor spelling mistake, but can't), I'll post here.

Titanfall is exclusive to XBone and PC, but EA has said that this isn't necessarily true of sequels (they like $). Titanfall is going to be MP only, 6v6. So my theory is that EA pushed the resources meant for a proper title to an immediate sequel, and that what we're getting now is just a barebones, satisfy the exclusivity agreement, cash grab. It gives the devs a chance to play around with rough gameplay aspects that they aren't 100% sure of, they get to throw in small unit AI into the matches to test that, they get to beta test Titanfall2 basically.

Titanfall2 (or likely something with a subtitle like Titanfall: Earth Conflict, or w/e) will be a full fledged, multi-platform, epic release. The title titanfall was meant to be in the first place.

I also believe this is what happened with AC3 and AC4. AC3 had all this naval battle stuff which was surprisingly polished, yet the rest of the game was kind of a mess. Fast forward a bit and AC4 comes out with a focus on the ships, is a far better title overall, and has that proper polish a big name title should.

Just a theory.
 
Last edited:
how can you say that. EA would never do that to its loyal customers "cough" sim city "cough"
 
lilbabycat said:
Ok, I was reading the front page post and comments, and instead of making yet another post on there (that I will inventively want to edit due to some minor spelling mistake, but can't), I'll post here.

Titanfall is exclusive to XBone and PC, but EA has said that this isn't necessarily true of sequels (they like $). Titanfall is going to be MP only, 6v6. So my theory is that EA pushed the resources meant for a proper title to an immediate sequel, and that what we're getting now is just a barebones, satisfy the exclusivity agreement, cash grab. It gives the devs a chance to play around with rough gameplay aspects that they aren't 100% sure of, they get to throw in small unit AI into the matches to test that, they get to beta test Titanfall2 basically.

Titanfall2 (or likely something with a subtitle like Titanfall: Earth Conflict, or w/e) will be a full fledged, multi-platform, epic release. The title titanfall was meant to be in the first place.

I also believe this is what happened with AC3 and AC4. AC3 had all this naval battle stuff which was surprisingly polished, yet the rest of the game was kind of a mess. Fast forward a bit and AC4 comes out with a focus on the ships, is a far better title overall, and has that proper polish a big name title should.

Just a theory.
Click to expand...

Well damn.
 
lilbabycat said:
Ok, I was reading the front page post and comments, and instead of making yet another post on there (that I will inventively want to edit due to some minor spelling mistake, but can't), I'll post here.

Titanfall is exclusive to XBone and PC, but EA has said that this isn't necessarily true of sequels (they like $). Titanfall is going to be MP only, 6v6. So my theory is that EA pushed the resources meant for a proper title to an immediate sequel, and that what we're getting now is just a barebones, satisfy the exclusivity agreement, cash grab. It gives the devs a chance to play around with rough gameplay aspects that they aren't 100% sure of, they get to throw in small unit AI into the matches to test that, they get to beta test Titanfall2 basically.

Titanfall2 (or likely something with a subtitle like Titanfall: Earth Conflict, or w/e) will be a full fledged, multi-platform, epic release. The title titanfall was meant to be in the first place.

I also believe this is what happened with AC3 and AC4. AC3 had all this naval battle stuff which was surprisingly polished, yet the rest of the game was kind of a mess. Fast forward a bit and AC4 comes out with a focus on the ships, is a far better title overall, and has that proper polish a big name title should.

Just a theory.
Click to expand...

If this is a theory, color me purple. Its about as close to reality as possible.

We may get a good SP experiance out of titanfall (1), but I think your right, we are going to see the big MP release in titanfall (2) and those of us buying 1 will probably just be beta testing like we already are for Battlefield 4 (which I dont mind, I like BF4)
 
^ Hard to believe many posters here are excited for yet another generic console shooter...
 
This comment on that video makes me lol:

"Steve Bollmeer 1 hour ago

this is the future of bideo games! only on XBox One by Microsoft. If you do not yet have XBox One by Microsoft then LOL@U ... I showed it to my brother and he was like "wow bro now i've seen titanfall i'm off to bestbuy to get me one of those XBox One by Microsoft, hope there are still some in stock!! holy moley!"


Blade-Runner said:
Wow that AI is just so awesome :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's probably so the lowest of the low in terms of skill can still get kills and have fun. Because COD was too hard, you see. :D
 
Last edited:
It def plays like COD. But it also feels like a natural evolution of it. The way you are able to traverse the landscape changes everything. It means that the game is no longer about twitch shooting, but requires more skill and more action to battle. You can actually escape from your enemies in this (as compared to COD, which is very much you die, respawn. You die respawn). The Titan battles are epic, and again..just add more overall strategy. It's basically a race to rack up as many points (and as quickly as possible), so you can get a Titanfall.

The Titan fights are a nice struggle, and aren't just over in 10 seconds. So it becomes this thing where you want to get as many Titans on a map as possible (so you want your team to have 2 or 3 Titans so you can overcome battles and take down the other teams Titans). It doesn't really play like Titan's running around and killing a bunch of humans and racking up kills (sort of how Killstreaks feel in COD). There is always that check and balance, because the other team is going to get a Titan. So they are always battling. But the struggle is teams getting more Titan's quicker so that tides turn in their favor in Titan battles.

What feels like COD, is the speed and hectic nature of the game. But there is a lot more things that add strategy to it, and make it different. Maps are more on the medium side (I guess some would say small). The 6 vs. 6 is actually a really great balance. You won't notice it tbh.
Click to expand...

day 1 if you ask me, and I haven't bought a retail game in 3 years ( APB reloaded doesn't count )
 
lilbabycat said:
Titanfall is exclusive to XBone and PC, but EA has said that this isn't necessarily true of sequels (they like $). Titanfall is going to be MP only, 6v6. So my theory is that EA pushed the resources meant for a proper title to an immediate sequel, and that what we're getting now is just a barebones, satisfy the exclusivity agreement, cash grab. It gives the devs a chance to play around with rough gameplay aspects that they aren't 100% sure of, they get to throw in small unit AI into the matches to test that, they get to beta test Titanfall2 basically.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons all these people left Activision and formed Respawn was because of what Activision was forcing down there necks. They will not make the same mistake again. And if they do they are truthfully a retarded company.

But its funny how quick people are to blame EA for everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top