cloaking is silly in the game...you can still see other players even when they're cloaked...they just appear as a ghostly type of image...I think the cloak is only supposed to work against Titans but even then you can just follow the bullets
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Titanfall - Respawn Entertainment's first game
- Thread starter Blade-Runner
- Start date
cloaking is silly in the game...you can still see other players even when they're cloaked...they just appear as a ghostly type of image...I think the cloak is only supposed to work against Titans but even then you can just follow the bullets
D
Deleted member 174368
Guest
I once got a triple kill on three cloaking players who for some reason were running together in a tight group. Don't do that. 
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
True, though it's still hard to see against certain backgrounds, especially when you are inside a building and they are moving around quickly. So I mean, it's not foolproof by any stretch but it does help. It would make more sense if only certain "classes" could use cloak...or the smart-pistol, or anti-Titan weapons, or any of that for that matter...
It's quite obvious people are complaining to complain and not thinking things through. It's their nature to do so, especially on a forum open to discussion.
True, though it's still hard to see against certain backgrounds, especially when you are inside a building and they are moving around quickly. So I mean, it's not foolproof by any stretch but it does help. It would make more sense if only certain "classes" could use cloak...or the smart-pistol, or anti-Titan weapons, or any of that for that matter...
Why? Would there being an anti titan class all of a sudden mean more "skill"?
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Fair enough. Though I will say that I went several rounds in a row where I was 5+ Pilot kills ahead of the next closest person on either team. And this is against several Rank 14s as well.
Whereas, if I would play a game like Counter-Strike nowadays I would typically get dominated. I didn't even do that well when I was playing BF3. So definitely there's seems to be something going on where skill is not as vital so far in the game to do well.
It would mean Titans would be far less weak and that everything wouldn't feel nearly as generic, since right now everyone is basically the same as everyone else with a few weapon tweaks.
Why are you so aggressive about defending this game?
Why do you keep putting so much emphasis on the points and scoreboard?
the ranks mean nothing due to the relative ease of the game...a Level 1 player can be just as good as a Level 14...the Lvl 14 guy just spent more time playing
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
I actually could care less about score, to be totally honest. But what other metric would one use to judge how much skill the game requires to succeed? How would you define "success", even, if not by score?
I'm just presenting my findings based on my own experience with Titanfall so far, compared to my experience with other FPS games.
the ranks mean nothing due to the relative ease of the game...a Level 1 player can be just as good as a Level 14...the Lvl 14 guy just spent more time playing
Yeah, I know.
Right now that's all we have to go on, though, and you would assume that if you've played that much you would have gotten at least marginally better than when you started.
D
Deleted member 174368
Guest
Meh, it only takes like 15 games to reach max rank in the beta. I don't think that's enough time to get any better for most casual players.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
How else would you know if your teammates are doing well or just slacking?
Scoreboards have always been apart of FPS games and the main reason why we play them.
Who won and score/stats at the end of the round is the purpose of the FPS game.
Ok. So here's what I think on the titans. They are about perfect.
Again read any of the books like Battletech tech or look at how the modern armies fight. Single tanks etc will get straight raped by infantry. The same with Mechs in Battletech....now have 2 or more watching each others backs and working together or good infantry support and your almost guaranteed to win.
Last night me and 2 of buddies DOMINATED the other teams because we'd wait till we all had Titans and called them in at once. We straight raped the other team and 9 out of 10 teams blew their escape transport out of the sky.
Again read any of the books like Battletech tech or look at how the modern armies fight. Single tanks etc will get straight raped by infantry. The same with Mechs in Battletech....now have 2 or more watching each others backs and working together or good infantry support and your almost guaranteed to win.
Last night me and 2 of buddies DOMINATED the other teams because we'd wait till we all had Titans and called them in at once. We straight raped the other team and 9 out of 10 teams blew their escape transport out of the sky.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Yeah, that's cool and all...if you have 2+ buddies that you are playing with on the same team. For the rest of us that are pubbing it, that rarely seems to happen.
Speaking of the transport, though, that thing takes a TON of damage. I have been unloading on it for 30 seconds or so with a Titan before, along with a couple other Titans blasting on it, and I have still never seen one get shot down before it flew away.
Not true really.
Even back in Quake 1 TDM personal score often meant dick. If one of your players locked down every weapon spawn to toss them to others, and guarded every quad damage and armor for your better fraggers, their score would suck. Especially compared to the kill machine you kept feeding quads to who memorized every single spawn point on the map and where a kill would force a spawn.
If you looked at score, one sucked. But that's not the entire story, the guy with the negative kill ratio let the other push 30+ kills to no deaths. Especially in team games where you usually had two positional players, 1 roamer to lock weapons/items, and one dedicated pummel the shit out of them player. Which still remains the defacto team layout in fast TDM style games like Quake or UT. Usually your team captain and the strongest player overall has the crappiest score because they are on map lock duty and calling all the shot, they aren't there to frag. Your strongest scoring player was also usually picking off the wounded, not engaging in 1v1 duel offs vs full health and fully equipped opponents.
Unless it's a 1v1 match, personal score doesn't mean all that much.
A middle ground? As in, easy to pick up, difficult to master.
Amazing how foreign and hardthink a concept this has apparently become among so-called gamers these days (no offense and I mean in general, not you)
Last edited:
LeviathanZERO
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 6,496
I've never seen it go down with less than 2 titans unloading everything on it.
But, I've also seen it blow up in less than 5 seconds too.... I don't know why, but this game makes me feel like I'm playing ET:quake wars again....
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
Acoustique
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Messages
- 941
EA check
Origin check
5 x $15 map packs fracturing the community check
Origin check
5 x $15 map packs fracturing the community check
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,092
http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/02/18/titanfall-may-feature-npc-monsters-according-to-official-art-book/
Who's ready to battle some dinosaurs!
Who's ready to battle some dinosaurs!
So I stand corrected about the engine... which only reinforces my point about the outdated graphics.
What's my goal? To discuss the damn game. I gave my impression of the beta. It's remarkable that as soon as someone says something negative about a beta, people will cry "it's only the beta," but when something positive is pointed out, it's fair game for discussion. Screw your double standards. I think the graphics are shit and I doubt they will change when the game ships.
I just seriously think people are just plain negative. This whole thread is full of people contradicting themselves over and over and they do not even realize it.
Really?? You think you mastered this game already?
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Really? Please feel free to point those out, as personally I've been pretty consistent with my opinion as far as I know.
If people don't like the game, they don't like the game. It doesn't mean they are being negative for the sake of being negative. If they come in and are just like "game sux lolol" then yeah, okay, not contributing to the discussion. But I think the majority in here have pretty clearly pointed out what they dislike about the game so it's not just meaningless talk.
The graphics are fine, jesus fucking christ dude. You bitched about the low res textures and I provided citation to prove how wrong you were (retail, not beta textures).
You're not "discussing the game," you're nitpicking because you have nothing else to do and you love complaining about video games.
Last edited:
the graphics are not all that fantastic outside of the mechs themselves and some facial animations...
Tech analysis: Titanfall beta
it's unfortunate that once you stop to have a look around at the arena that the environment appears so clinical...Much of Fracture, for example, is built to a very strict and rigid wireframe, with no evidence of next-gen technologies such as tessellation to round off the more egregious corners...Shading is also largely missing, outside of baked-in shadows and ambient occlusion that fades in we near objects...The two maps shown so far are vibrant and well-suited for the wall-run-and-gunning gameplay, but without these extra layers of detail the whole world come across as a little plain, lacking in dynamic destruction and enhanced environmental detail and animation...It's clear where the emphasis is: Titanfall relies upon the sheer intensity of its action for its measure of spectacle
Visually, PC gamers looking for an edge over the console release in terms of lighting, shadows, effects or model detail may be disappointed...Even at the "insane" texture quality setting on PC, the oil rig structures around the Fracture map still share precisely the same washed-out mapping as the Xbox One, while floor mapping is also like-for-like... Much of the game's assets and rendering tech are shared in this sense, right down to the distance of the shadow filtering cascade...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-beta-tech-analysis
EA and Respawn know this game is being evaluated in a demo capacity, regardless of the "beta" marketing. They're trying to put their best foot forward. The notion that the graphics are going to suddenly be better when the game ships in less than 4 weeks -- or that they are using lower res textures "to keep download size low" - when download size is 13GB - is laughable. By and large what we see is what we'll get in a few weeks.
In other news I was disappointed to hear developers reiterate today "No pilot-only mode". SMH.
http://mp1st.com/2014/02/18/titanfall-developers-live-stream/
I don't like pizza. I go to the new pizza joint in town to try it. I criticize it. About sums up a lot of the complaining I see in this thread.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Sooo your argument is that no one here likes FPS games? Or what?
Some of you act like it. Heck, what was the last FPS game you thought was worthy of your highness? CS like some of the people in here have said? How old is that game? Same with CoD 4. How old is that game? UT? Quake?
Meanwhile, I enjoy a lot of games that have come out while others just complain about every game that comes out and reminisce about the good ol' days of CS when there was actually "skill" involved. It's called nostalgia. Getting older. Some are good at moving on and enjoying new games. Some aren't.
I lived Battlefield 1942 and all of the mods, but I'm not going to sit here and say that it's a better game than Battlefield 4. It clearly isn't. No contest. If both were released today right now, which game do you think would be the favorite? BF 4 by a large margin. But go read the Battlefield 4 thread on here. People act like it's a piece of garbage. It's all funny to me.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
Uhh...Not really even sure how to respond to this...
All I can say is that I've played a LOT of FPS games, and this is pretty fun but it's far from one of the best I've played, in the large scope of things. They have time to tighten up the mechanics before launch, though, so there's a possibility.
I think in a lot of ways BF1942 is way better than BF3/4. It seems you are only looking short-sightedly at what is "new and shiny" and not at the actual gameplay mechanics, server mechanics, modding capabilities, etc. Fancy graphics and newer weapons do not necessarily make a game better than its predecessors. What exactly does BF3/4 bring to the table, mechanically, that is better than BF1942? A better question would be, what did it not bring to the table that BF1942 had in the past?
This is all pretty off-topic but hopefully you get the point. If "moving on" means playing potentially dumbed-down, console-centric games with fancier graphics for you, then more power to you. Don't invalidate anyone else's opinion as flippant, though.
A LOT of people better than you and I at making games have been making games/shooters since 1942/CS/UT/Quake came out. They've done a decent job of it, but people who don't make games seem to think they can make a better game.. if only they, the developers, would listen to them right?
Yes?
Call all your titans at the same time and try to logic your loadout before you join a map instead of taking the defacto best... as mixed works better.
I've done rounds with my friends and all our loadouts are tweaked to work together. We stack titans and then all drop them straight on the enemies and then burst in to hold ground.
Is it as technical... no because any game post DX 9.0c and the SLI graphics craze has fuck all for game play and skill, and those PC games and their bullshit DLC, auto saves, and other horse shit has even made console games take less skill. So this falls into that toxic mess as well.
But it's still technical and there are still things you can do to crush your enemy without having to expend much physical input effort. Maybe if they made this before dx 9.0 it could have had real gameplay instead of GFX.
chameleoneel
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,602
First of all, for anyone that can't figure what to do/what the point is of the titans; watch the first 7 minutes of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8y0Z4F2frI
It will give you a few ideas for some of the strategies involving Titans. Yeah, Titans are glass cannons. You aren't supposed to be able to run around an entire match as a Titan. This is not BF3 where you go 73 and 1 in a chopper or Jet. Titans are simply momentary augmentation which allow a different set of tactics and if used effectively, can turn the tides. However, a well organized team can keep their Titans around for a surprising amount of time. As someone mentioned earlier, a real tank, by itself, is fodder for a group of soldiers with rockets. It's combined arms support that allows a tank's fire power and mobile cover properties, to become a feared tool.
This is a great post. What everyone is playing right now is a taste of the full game. It is not the full experience. It's enough for an idea at the core gameplay. and that core gameplay is fast, somewhat twitch based, and very movement based.
Not Titanfall, that's what. Strip away a game's identity and----you have nothing. Titanfall is not a massive scale game with 100 weapons, 2,000 end of round rewards, multiple overlapping kits, etc. It is a small,focused game style. If you don't like it, fine. I don't want every game to be like what Battlefield and Call of Duty have turned into. Where there are so many options it is beyond bloated and everything overlaps, removing most of the meaningful separation and asymmetric balance between kits, vehicles, guns, etc.
Call of Duty is a different game. CoD is all about the individual player and rewarding them for the singular focus of trying to be a one man army. Their reward? perks and special auto-kill tools that net them even more kills, for free. It's the complete anti-thesis of teamplay and team support. There's very little strategy in CoD other than being efficient with the weapons and knowing the maps.
According to the devs, it was chosen for it's toolset and the the fact that it is very modular. The Source engine is not a great engine. At least it isn't anymore, if it ever was. Valve marketed it initially as a versatile platform upon which great games can easily be made. That may or may not have been true. Nobody really used it. Valve doesn't really keep major upkeep on the engine. They've certainly branched it off for highly specific repurposing for newer games. But that's not in the core engine that devs get when they use it on their own games.
So getting back to Respawn: they chose Source because it is easy to drop something into it and see it in action very quickly. The tools are there and the modularity is there. Everything else had to be customized. It didn't run very well and a lot of custom features and graphics capability had to be added in. But they felt that was a better process, because they could be building the core gameplay all along.
Whereas many other engines take a lot of re-purposing to get any kind of gameplay running at all. So they would have spent a tone of time just getting it mechanically functional.
and the point of the grunts is to distract you. While you are shooting them, a real person could easily flank you, surprise you, or be standing right next to the grunt you are shooting and just return fire.
Maybe the game would be better with 12 VSx 12 no bots. maybe it wouldn't. The bots certainly serve a purpose and More real players isn't always better. I hated 32 palyer BC2 on PC. BC2 was designed with 24 players in mind. 32 killed it. I played on PS3 for the entire run of that game.
There are two things DICE's P.R. will tell you separates Battlefield from the rest:
1. vehicles
2. That certain something that has been quantified as "battlefield moments" where the game can often come together in any number of fun ways that is basically uniquely a "videogame thing". People cry all the time about how Battlefield isn't realistic and blah blah. It's not supposed to be a sim. It looks realistic. So yes, there should be some sense of reality somewhere in the mix. Because we can't suspend our disbelief quite THAT much. But ultimately, it is a videogame of incredibly abstracted mechanics that resembles nothing from reality.
I think your last paragraph there is key. Titanfall is a fast paced game that rewards twitch reaction and quick, calculated movement. This is completely unlike just about any mainstream FPS in the past 5 years. A lot of people, especially younger people, have never really played games like that. Certainly not at a reasonably high level. While your honed skills have faded, your knowledge of how to play a game like that doesn't really ever leave.
Titanfall may have source at its core, but it is HEAVILY modified. Moving it to Source 2 would likely be a huge undertaking. Practically like making another game. and the payoff would be what?----making a solid looking game look a little more stupendous?
man who cares about graphics anymore? I mean seriously, graphics are good enough. Yeah, the textures may not be super finely detailed and presented in 4K. As a whole, the art direction in this game is pretty darn good, the assets pretty darn good, and it runs quite well. I am more worried about game quality than I am graphics. Someone brought up Crysis 3. Comparing anything to Crysis 3 is pointless. DUH, Crysis 3 looks better than a lot of games. It has halfway competent art direction and has so many technical aspects to the graphics engine, that $500 GPUs have trouble running it maxed at 1080p. Crysis 3 is specifically designed to be a GPU killer.
Crysis 3 is just an OK game. So after a few screenshots, what is it worth?
Demon's Souls and Dark Souls were a step or two behind at game release, in the technical merits of their middleware graphics engine. Even by PS360 standards. Yet those are some of the best games I have played ever. Dark Souls 2 is about to come out, still on PS360. While everyone is still wondering what the heck to play on their next-gen consoles and $200+ GPUs.
I'm pretty interested to see how the industry responds, when 3 million people are spending more time on their PS360's than their PS4's and Xbones. and when Dark Souls 2 replaces Dark Souls as a daily top 30 game on Steam, even though it's a "last gen" title.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8y0Z4F2frI
It will give you a few ideas for some of the strategies involving Titans. Yeah, Titans are glass cannons. You aren't supposed to be able to run around an entire match as a Titan. This is not BF3 where you go 73 and 1 in a chopper or Jet. Titans are simply momentary augmentation which allow a different set of tactics and if used effectively, can turn the tides. However, a well organized team can keep their Titans around for a surprising amount of time. As someone mentioned earlier, a real tank, by itself, is fodder for a group of soldiers with rockets. It's combined arms support that allows a tank's fire power and mobile cover properties, to become a feared tool.
This is a great post. What everyone is playing right now is a taste of the full game. It is not the full experience. It's enough for an idea at the core gameplay. and that core gameplay is fast, somewhat twitch based, and very movement based.
Not Titanfall, that's what. Strip away a game's identity and----you have nothing. Titanfall is not a massive scale game with 100 weapons, 2,000 end of round rewards, multiple overlapping kits, etc. It is a small,focused game style. If you don't like it, fine. I don't want every game to be like what Battlefield and Call of Duty have turned into. Where there are so many options it is beyond bloated and everything overlaps, removing most of the meaningful separation and asymmetric balance between kits, vehicles, guns, etc.
Call of Duty is a different game. CoD is all about the individual player and rewarding them for the singular focus of trying to be a one man army. Their reward? perks and special auto-kill tools that net them even more kills, for free. It's the complete anti-thesis of teamplay and team support. There's very little strategy in CoD other than being efficient with the weapons and knowing the maps.
According to the devs, it was chosen for it's toolset and the the fact that it is very modular. The Source engine is not a great engine. At least it isn't anymore, if it ever was. Valve marketed it initially as a versatile platform upon which great games can easily be made. That may or may not have been true. Nobody really used it. Valve doesn't really keep major upkeep on the engine. They've certainly branched it off for highly specific repurposing for newer games. But that's not in the core engine that devs get when they use it on their own games.
So getting back to Respawn: they chose Source because it is easy to drop something into it and see it in action very quickly. The tools are there and the modularity is there. Everything else had to be customized. It didn't run very well and a lot of custom features and graphics capability had to be added in. But they felt that was a better process, because they could be building the core gameplay all along.
Whereas many other engines take a lot of re-purposing to get any kind of gameplay running at all. So they would have spent a tone of time just getting it mechanically functional.
I keep seeing people talk about the game they wanted or imagine----Titanfall is what it is. It's actually a pretty solid game with a lot of subtlety. If you don't like it, fine. But there really is quite a bit of meat, here.
and the point of the grunts is to distract you. While you are shooting them, a real person could easily flank you, surprise you, or be standing right next to the grunt you are shooting and just return fire.
Maybe the game would be better with 12 VSx 12 no bots. maybe it wouldn't. The bots certainly serve a purpose and More real players isn't always better. I hated 32 palyer BC2 on PC. BC2 was designed with 24 players in mind. 32 killed it. I played on PS3 for the entire run of that game.
There are two things DICE's P.R. will tell you separates Battlefield from the rest:
1. vehicles
2. That certain something that has been quantified as "battlefield moments" where the game can often come together in any number of fun ways that is basically uniquely a "videogame thing". People cry all the time about how Battlefield isn't realistic and blah blah. It's not supposed to be a sim. It looks realistic. So yes, there should be some sense of reality somewhere in the mix. Because we can't suspend our disbelief quite THAT much. But ultimately, it is a videogame of incredibly abstracted mechanics that resembles nothing from reality.
I think your last paragraph there is key. Titanfall is a fast paced game that rewards twitch reaction and quick, calculated movement. This is completely unlike just about any mainstream FPS in the past 5 years. A lot of people, especially younger people, have never really played games like that. Certainly not at a reasonably high level. While your honed skills have faded, your knowledge of how to play a game like that doesn't really ever leave.
Titanfall may have source at its core, but it is HEAVILY modified. Moving it to Source 2 would likely be a huge undertaking. Practically like making another game. and the payoff would be what?----making a solid looking game look a little more stupendous?
man who cares about graphics anymore? I mean seriously, graphics are good enough. Yeah, the textures may not be super finely detailed and presented in 4K. As a whole, the art direction in this game is pretty darn good, the assets pretty darn good, and it runs quite well. I am more worried about game quality than I am graphics. Someone brought up Crysis 3. Comparing anything to Crysis 3 is pointless. DUH, Crysis 3 looks better than a lot of games. It has halfway competent art direction and has so many technical aspects to the graphics engine, that $500 GPUs have trouble running it maxed at 1080p. Crysis 3 is specifically designed to be a GPU killer.
Crysis 3 is just an OK game. So after a few screenshots, what is it worth?
Demon's Souls and Dark Souls were a step or two behind at game release, in the technical merits of their middleware graphics engine. Even by PS360 standards. Yet those are some of the best games I have played ever. Dark Souls 2 is about to come out, still on PS360. While everyone is still wondering what the heck to play on their next-gen consoles and $200+ GPUs.
I'm pretty interested to see how the industry responds, when 3 million people are spending more time on their PS360's than their PS4's and Xbones. and when Dark Souls 2 replaces Dark Souls as a daily top 30 game on Steam, even though it's a "last gen" title.
Last edited:
you made some good points but that statement is wrong on an epic level
Blade-Runner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 4,366
1942 released today with all the original game mechanics intact, other than improved graphics and destructibility, with community hosted servers and modding?
Yeah, I'll take that hands down over Crutchfield 4 and its unfixable bugs, crap netcode, exploitative DLC model, terrible map design and gameplay mechanics revolving around grinding for unlocks.
I'm talking about the game themselves only. No gameplay or graphics updates to 1942 period. Not talking about DLC/mods/etc. Today's gaming as a whole with DLC, no mods, etc. piss everyone off. But that's where the market as a whole is. Not just BF4, TItanfall, etc.