Titanfall - Respawn Entertainment's first game

EA did the same thing to Vince and his crew ~12 years ago when they finished MoH : Allied Assault, now they left Activision and went back to them, karma's a bitch
 
Plague_Injected said:
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
Click to expand...

Well its probably a combination of two factors, as you say it lets even shitty players feel some sense of achievement by being able to take down retarded AI bots, but the other factor is that no CoD has ever exhibited decent AI (hoards of respawning enemies which run directly at you) so its no surprise that they were unable to create something more organic and human like. Amazing that on today's hardware devs still can'timprove upon let alone match the AI found in old games like HL2, UT, Quake 3, etc.
 
thanks for the link, the rest of ya : go back to bugfield 4 and farmville
 
Droc said:
Wow, looks fucking horrible. Even from the first video I thoughts it looked like shit, and it still does. Cod with mechs.
See that ai? Guy runs into a room with 10 enemies and they just stand there.
Click to expand...

Hopefully that isn't the AI they were play testing with when they determined the game was fun.

That Titan fight looked stupid, maybe the full game will have a heat mechanic so you can decide you want to go crazy and kill the other bastard RIGHT NOW even if it makes you vulnerable afterwards or if you miss.

Looks like the Titan can't walk through a branch at one point too.
 
Have to agree that the AI looks incredibly primitive right now. I really hope that they vastly improve it because the games will not be interesting 6v6 when they are loaded with half-brained AI that just stand there.
 
See, just like I said, AI can not compare to human players.

Why on earth they went for 6 vs 6 and thought "hey, lets throw in a bunch of AI enemies instead of having a higher player count,t hat will make it more fun for the players!" is beyond me.

Just watching those videos only confirms that like most mp focused games, I would HATE playing against bots/AI.

A game I might have actually enjoyed if they allowed you to have 32 vs 32 REALplayers with no bots.
 
MavericK96 said:
Game's not even out yet, so "what you said" still doesn't really mean anything.
Click to expand...


Name an AI bot in a multiplayer experience that was realistic and challenging. Were all of those previous developers just not trying hard enough? If so, what is the source of your faith in which Titanfall will get it right?
 
MavericK96 said:
Game's not even out yet, so "what you said" still doesn't really mean anything.
Click to expand...

It is fairly well established that people like shooting other people in the face when they play video games. That is the whole point of multiplayer games after all. There is no point at which AI is going to behave like a human in a team based game like this.

I think the game will be good, I just doubt anyone is doing to declare that shooting AI was more fun than shooting people. No one posts replays online of a sick botmatch they did.
 
Last edited:
Looks pretty good so far. Can't really judge until you see some real matches. That looked pretty lean.
 
SilverSliver said:
Name an AI bot in a multiplayer experience that was realistic and challenging. Were all of those previous developers just not trying hard enough? If so, what is the source of your faith in which Titanfall will get it right?
Click to expand...

Someone already asked this exact question in the FPN thread about this. My answer was ArmA series and to some extent the early Battlefield games. Others mentioned Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament, and some Call of Duty MP modes.

I never said I had faith they would get it right, I'm just saying that we should actually see final code to get reviews and/or play the game ourselves before we write it off as crap.

Most developers don't put much effort into AI these days because games like Call of Duty are essentially MP only and they still sell like hotcakes, so what incentive is there for them to make MP-capable AI? Whereas developers like Bohemia Interactive put a lot of effort into realistic AI for the ArmA series because co-op is one of the primary game modes (next to DayZ/Wasteland type PvP, which is a relatively new thing for the series).
 
MavericK96 said:
Someone already asked this exact question in the FPN thread about this. My answer was ArmA series and to some extent the early Battlefield games. Others mentioned Counter-Strike and Unreal Tournament, and some Call of Duty MP modes.

I never said I had faith they would get it right, I'm just saying that we should actually see final code to get reviews and/or play the game ourselves before we write it off as crap.

Most developers don't put much effort into AI these days because games like Call of Duty are essentially MP only and they still sell like hotcakes, so what incentive is there for them to make MP-capable AI? Whereas developers like Bohemia Interactive put a lot of effort into realistic AI for the ArmA series because co-op is one of the primary game modes (next to DayZ/Wasteland type PvP, which is a relatively new thing for the series).
Click to expand...

You could make bots that were CHALLENGING, but not realistic. UT2003 for example, play with some high accuracy bots on an insta-gib server and you would get handled. They were challenging, but not realistic.
 
MavericK96 said:
Game's not even out yet, so "what you said" still doesn't really mean anything.
Click to expand...

Game is releasing in 8 weeks, unless they plan on delaying I doubt there is going to be much difference between the build currently being played and the retail version apart from bug squashing.
 
Stiler said:
See, just like I said, AI can not compare to human players.

Why on earth they went for 6 vs 6 and thought "hey, lets throw in a bunch of AI enemies instead of having a higher player count,t hat will make it more fun for the players!" is beyond me.

Just watching those videos only confirms that like most mp focused games, I would HATE playing against bots/AI.

A game I might have actually enjoyed if they allowed you to have 32 vs 32 REALplayers with no bots.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. Too much running around looking for people only to find bots, oh wait I mean AI since they don't want to call them bots, and short gun fights.

It looks like everything I hated about COD after COD4.


Have we heard yet what if any PC options there are? Also is it matchmaking or server browser?

Also it doesn't classify under Origin's Great Game refund policy so I see no reason to buy it at launch.
 
Blade-Runner said:
Game is releasing in 8 weeks, unless they plan on delaying I doubt there is going to be much difference between the build currently being played and the retail version apart from bug squashing.
Click to expand...

There's potential for huge changes. Games don't often resemble final products until the last two or three months before pressing discs. Final graphics, AI, and features don't get put in until the final crunch. Plus, those videos are being called "alpha" footage. Which means it really is a build of early stuff that doesn't include stuff from the daily builds.
 
chameleoneel said:
There's potential for huge changes. Games don't often resemble final products until the last two or three months before pressing discs. Final graphics, AI, and features don't get put in until the final crunch.
Click to expand...

I have participated in enough alphas and betas over the year to know otherwise, as much as hyped fanboys will try to apologize for crappy builds most of the time the alpha/beta is indicative of the final product.

Which of course is consistent with your perplexing statement that games don't resemble the final product until the last two months before pressing discs....did you miss the part in my post which refers to the fact that the game is due for release in 2 months?

Lead in time for pressing of discs and production of cover art is what, 2 to 4 weeks in advance of retail availability? So in reality Respawn has 4 to 6 weeks to finalise the retail build....yeah, I don't see much changing between now and then.

chameleoneel said:
Plus, those videos are being called "alpha" footage. Which means it really is a build of early stuff that doesn't include stuff from the daily builds.
Click to expand...

No, those videos are not of early builds, that is captured footage of the public alpha test being conducted RIGHT NOW...the label they apply to the build is entirely irrelevant, they could call it the pre-pre-alpha demonstration tech demo but that wouldn't change the reality that if they are having a public test that they are probably testing something close to a final retail release.
 
This is smelling like a Brink to me. Trying to do something different but.....

Hope they get things together but it doesn't look good does it?
 
Blade-Runner said:
No, those videos are not of early builds, that is captured footage of the public alpha test being conducted RIGHT NOW...the label they apply to the build is entirely irrelevant, they could call it the pre-pre-alpha demonstration tech demo but that wouldn't change the reality that if they are having a public test that they are probably testing something close to a final retail release.
Click to expand...

I agree with this guy.
 
Lol this company charges people to alpha test ?!? And people actually pay to do it ? hahaha they should be paying the testers ! The majority of humans on this planet have lost their minds. Going to be funny when the game is very late and a total p.o.s. and I will love every minute of it laughing at all the people that actually fell for this scam.
 
chameleoneel said:
There's potential for huge changes. Games don't often resemble final products until the last two or three months before pressing discs. Final graphics, AI, and features don't get put in until the final crunch. Plus, those videos are being called "alpha" footage. Which means it really is a build of early stuff that doesn't include stuff from the daily builds.
Click to expand...

The game comes out in seven weeks, they are in crunch time right now.
 
yelsewshane said:
Lol this company charges people to alpha test ?!? And people actually pay to do it ? hahaha they should be paying the testers ! The majority of humans on this planet have lost their minds. Going to be funny when the game is very late and a total p.o.s. and I will love every minute of it laughing at all the people that actually fell for this scam.
Click to expand...

I think it will end up being another console hit and hated on the PC.

All the console alpha players seem to love it and call it the next Halo 2. Personally I never saw the appeal of any of the Halo games and hated the multiplayer. I think with so few games out on the Xbox One and not a long coming soon list this game will do well regardless of how it turns out.
 
ocellaris said:
The game comes out in seven weeks, they are in crunch time right now.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. That's my point.

Blade-Runner said:
I have participated in enough alphas and betas over the year to know otherwise, as much as hyped fanboys will try to apologize for crappy builds most of the time the alpha/beta is indicative of the final product.

Which of course is consistent with your perplexing statement that games don't resemble the final product until the last two months before pressing discs....did you miss the part in my post which refers to the fact that the game is due for release in 2 months?......


.....No, those videos are not of early builds, that is captured footage of the public alpha test being conducted RIGHT NOW...the label they apply to the build is entirely irrelevant, they could call it the pre-pre-alpha demonstration tech demo but that wouldn't change the reality that if they are having a public test that they are probably testing something close to a final retail release.
Click to expand...

I have also participated in several public betas/alphas/etc and know people in the industry. They USUALLY are NOT based on daily builds. Lacking final graphics and features. Development doesn't stop, when a playable build is made. Everyone keeps crunching on a more current version of the game, while the alpha/beta gets played by whoever. A lot of devs are NOT organized enough to keep daily builds playable. They usually can't just dump a build and send it off for play testing. A playable build often specifically must be made. So you have split threads between what the daily builds are doing, and the older, playable build. Also, playable builds most of the time are meant to be lightweight. So again, light on graphics, light on features, to save space and minimize complexity. so that they can focus on specific things to test. Not indicative of the final product. Titanfall is showing off a payable build right now. It's playable. This does not mean it has every possible feature and graphical asset that had been made, at the time the playable build was made or every possible feature/asset that is intended for the final game. What people are playing in these builds, does not match the daily builds at respawn. The fact the game releases in two months and that the alphas are being played RIGHT NOW doesn't change any this. That build is not final. and for something like A.I., which has been talked about a lot in this thread, I'm sure that can be patched with a zero patch on day 1. I'm not saying that game is going to be awesome or that respawn is the best and blah blah. I'm just saying that people should never make final decisions about a game, until they are playing/seeing final game code.

I mean, do you really think that when Bad Company 2 had its public alpha, that people really believed the final game had only 10 weapons? Or that texture quality was worse than Bad Company 1? Or how about Guild Wars when there wasn't any PVP in the tests? Or when I played Halo 2 at PAX, about 2 months before the game released and the maps had been changed by release. Or how Siege of Shanghai in the BF4 beta had a lot of basic textures and effects in it and several features and weapons were missing or broken. and people were saying it looked like shit and what a disappointment that many of the textures and effects looked worse than BF3 on medium, Only a month or two before BF4 released. Or when official screenshots of Dark Souls were were released for PR, before the game was out. and some of those screenshots show things that don't ever happen in the game.
 
Last edited:
Chameleon, most of your examples are art assets, and in the case of guild wars an extremely early test.

What about the things that people were peeved about in BF3/BF4 that weren't fixed by release? What about the countless MMO's that were released and were exactly the same (sometimes worse!) than the state they were in beta?

In this day and age, you are far more likely to be correct being a cynic than an optimist when it comes to alpha/betas of games. ESPECIALLY when its EA or ActiBlizz.
 
lilbabycat said:
Chameleon, most of your examples are art assets, and in the case of guild wars an extremely early test.

What about the things that people were peeved about in BF3/BF4 that weren't fixed by release? What about the countless MMO's that were released and were exactly the same (sometimes worse!) than the state they were in beta?

In this day and age, you are far more likely to be correct being a cynic than an optimist when it comes to alpha/betas of games. ESPECIALLY when its EA or ActiBlizz.
Click to expand...

Valid points.

But, we don't actually know what's going on at Respawn and/or how these playable builds compare/will compare to the game on day 1. Judge the game on final code. it's worthless and somewhat poisonous to set around being sour about something that isn't final. Hell, for all we know, the A.I. is purposefully scaled back. To get a sense of how difficult the game might be for someone just picking up the game. It's all a big question mark. Just wait for the final answer.
 
chameleoneel said:
Valid points.

But, we don't actually know what's going on at Respawn and/or how these playable builds compare/will compare to the game on day 1. Judge the game on final code. it's worthless and somewhat poisonous to set around being sour about something that isn't final. Hell, for all we know, the A.I. is purposefully scaled back. To get a sense of how difficult the game might be for someone just picking up the game. It's all a big question mark. Just wait for the final answer.
Click to expand...

This is what people said when everyone was bitching about the BF4 beta.
 
I'm only going to give my opinion here, frankly I didn't know this game had this much hype, the only trailer I saw for it was at Microsoft's press conference in E3 and I was like meh, following the news about it being 6v6 I started to realize this game actually had a hype surrounding it and it surprised me so I went on YouTube and watched the trailer AGAIN and still found it to be bad.

and btw the only reason they gone 6v6 is just so you can survive in the titan for more than 2 seconds because in a 32vs32 environment your titan wont survive for a second going by the alpha footage and because they are pushing the titan idea, they want you to feel like you did something in it which is kill AI anyway that's my 2 cents.
 
SilverSliver said:
Then why have them? Are the 10 bots that guy was able to kill with them barely turning around worth having 1 less actual, real player?
Click to expand...

So nubs can get points and have fun, probably. There's no single-player campaign so I guess the developers need something to coax in people who are primarily single-player gamers.
 
lilbabycat said:
Chameleon, most of your examples are art assets, and in the case of guild wars an extremely early test.

What about the things that people were peeved about in BF3/BF4 that weren't fixed by release? What about the countless MMO's that were released and were exactly the same (sometimes worse!) than the state they were in beta?

In this day and age, you are far more likely to be correct being a cynic than an optimist when it comes to alpha/betas of games. ESPECIALLY when its EA or ActiBlizz.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I didn't think I had to spell that out but it seemed to be going over his head. We are not talking about art assets or trivial features, we are talking about the core gameplay mechanics of which AI bots appear to be integral.

I am yet to play any alpha/beta so close to release where there has been a significant overhaul between how the demo played as compared to the retail version apart from spit and polish and maybe slightly improved graphics, and that is true of all of the examples he cited (lawl at the BF4 analogy where the retail client turned out to be FAR FAR FAR worse and buggy than the beta build!).

And patching AI after release in a meaningful way other than minor tweaks....yeah, I'll believe it when I see it.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Oh god, there's cloak in it...
Click to expand...

Cloak doesn't bother me being in game. We have early working proof of concepts right now in real life. It isn't that far off from being in the field if it isn't already. I'll have to get my hands on it to actually give a fair evaluation but it looks like a fun game. I only worry about the AI what effect it will have on the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top