[H]Titanfall just 6v6

[JumBie]

You keep using words like 'revolutionary' and 'innovation', but I don't think you actually know what that means.

I think maybe you don't know what those words mean. I used them both correctly I think maybe you believe that they have one standard meaning which by all accounts is wrong. I will break it down for you and make it simple.

Bad Company 2 was revolutionary to the battlefield series because it provided a multi-platform game that had great graphics, great multiplayer, and destructive environments(better than bf3). It made you play as a squad and want to stick together and help your team mates. It was such a change for the franchise, it took the good of bad company 1, kept it and changed the rest. A hit in my books.

When I spoke about people obviously not caring about innovation it was in reference to shooters. There is no innovation in Titanfall, it took parkour from brink, and mechs from everything else and tossed it into the cod formula. In other shooters you get the same thing from all of them, each kill zone is the same, each cod is the same, each battlefield is the same etc...

Oh, and just in case you need some brushing up.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innovating
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revolutionary

 

[JumBie]

I like COD, and I am looking forward to this game. This style game may not require a lot of thinking but they sure as hell are fun. That's usually why I play games. Different people like different things. I don't think that means some are stupider than others.

Does the beta have an NDA? Or can people actually discuss it before the game launches? I'd be interested to see what people who have played the latest version of the game think.

You are right, I did take it a little far and might have called COD players stupid, to each his own.

 

[dougp]

I think maybe you don't know what those words mean. I used them both correctly I think maybe you believe that they have one standard meaning which by all accounts is wrong. I will break it down for you and make it simple.

Bad Company 2 was revolutionary to the battlefield series because it provided a multi-platform game that had great graphics, great multiplayer, and destructive environments(better than bf3). It made you play as a squad and want to stick together and help your team mates. It was such a change for the franchise, it took the good of bad company 1, kept it and changed the rest. A hit in my books.

When I spoke about people obviously not caring about innovation it was in reference to shooters. There is no innovation in Titanfall, it took parkour from brink, and mechs from everything else and tossed it into the cod formula. In other shooters you get the same thing from all of them, each kill zone is the same, each cod is the same, each battlefield is the same etc...

Oh, and just in case you need some brushing up.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innovating
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revolutionary

BC2 wasn't the first multi-platform game in the Battlefield series - sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_(series)

Also, it wasn't the first multi-platform game to provide "great" graphics across all of them - you're overlooking Call of Duty (yes, I know, for stupid people - but hey - CoD 2 was multiplatform AND came out 5 years before your beloved BC2, Medal of Honor (which had multiplatform in 2007, 3 years before BC2 AND had a game changer in providing non-linear gameplay in singleplayer.)

That innovative destruction? Red Faction had that. In 2001. Oh crap, that one was multiplatform as well!

I can do this all day, seriously. The only innovative game in the Battlefield series was 1942. That doesn't make any of the other games bad, or un-fun or anything like that.

 

[sushiwarrior]

I think maybe you don't know what those words mean. I used them both correctly I think maybe you believe that they have one standard meaning which by all accounts is wrong. I will break it down for you and make it simple.

Bad Company 2 was revolutionary to the battlefield series because it provided a multi-platform game that had great graphics, great multiplayer, and destructive environments(better than bf3). It made you play as a squad and want to stick together and help your team mates. It was such a change for the franchise, it took the good of bad company 1, kept it and changed the rest. A hit in my books.

When I spoke about people obviously not caring about innovation it was in reference to shooters. There is no innovation in Titanfall, it took parkour from brink, and mechs from everything else and tossed it into the cod formula. In other shooters you get the same thing from all of them, each kill zone is the same, each cod is the same, each battlefield is the same etc...

Oh, and just in case you need some brushing up.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innovating
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revolutionary

"Revolutionary" or "innovative" would mean something never done before. Many games before BC2 had destructive environments, squad play, good graphics, and multiplatform play. It sounds like what you're looking for is the exact opposite of revolutionary, since BC2 wasn't innovative in any aspect but simply well tuned and fun to play because each individual element wasn't original but it was just a good implementation of each.

 

[JumBie]

BC2 wasn't the first multi-platform game in the Battlefield series - sorry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_(series)

Also, it wasn't the first multi-platform game to provide "great" graphics across all of them - you're overlooking Call of Duty (yes, I know, for stupid people - but hey - CoD 2 was multiplatform AND came out 5 years before your beloved BC2, Medal of Honor (which had multiplatform in 2007, 3 years before BC2 AND had a game changer in providing non-linear gameplay in singleplayer.)

That innovative destruction? Red Faction had that. In 2001. Oh crap, that one was multiplatform as well!

I can do this all day, seriously. The only innovative game in the Battlefield series was 1942. That doesn't make any of the other games bad, or un-fun or anything like that.

I said revolutionary TO the BATTLEFIELD SERIES...

For innovation I was talking about all shooters, you need to re-read what I wrote.

 

[JumBie]

"Revolutionary" or "innovative" would mean something never done before. Many games before BC2 had destructive environments, squad play, good graphics, and multiplatform play. It sounds like what you're looking for is the exact opposite of revolutionary, since BC2 wasn't innovative in any aspect but simply well tuned and fun to play because each individual element wasn't original but it was just a good implementation of each.

Actually no, revolutionary and innovative can mean, new to (a series/game), completely new to anything. It doesn't have to be relative to something else.

Here is what I was trying to say, certain things were "new to"/changed the battlefield series.

And new shooters do no add anything completely new or never done before to their game. They simple rehash something from somewhere else.

 

[futurefields]

This game looks unremarkable. Why is it getting so much hype?

Made by COD developers, check. Distributed by EA, check. It's like bizarro world people actually looking forward to a game by those people...

Is the marketing really that effective? I honestly don't get it heh...

 

[VulgarDisplay]

This game looks unremarkable. Why is it getting so much hype?

Made by COD developers, check. Distributed by EA, check. It's like bizarro world people actually looking forward to a game by those people...

Is the marketing really that effective? I honestly don't get it heh...

I think the current state of FPS games is the reason for the hype. COD4 marked a turning point in FPS games. Not in a good way.

We're all grasping at any game that may be in the slightest way a competitive FPS.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

According to neogaf the PC version has a FPS cap of 60.

 

[Veliko]

This game looks unremarkable. Why is it getting so much hype?

Made by COD developers, check. Distributed by EA, check. It's like bizarro world people actually looking forward to a game by those people...

Hang on, you're onto something here.

CoD required a system with RAM and a CPU... and so does Titanfall!

My God, they're virtual clones!

Can anyone confirm if both games require use of a colour graphics adaptor of some kind...?

 

[BrightCandle]

According to neogaf the PC version has a FPS cap of 60.

If I get into the beta I will at least play it and test for rubbish like this. If they are honestly trying to create a competition shooter then that is an epic fail on their part, and its equally not joining my collection if its true.

 

[cmdrdredd]

According to neogaf the PC version has a FPS cap of 60.

Woah...that is quite odd because the source engine can be easily pushed to 100+ fps minimums which creates a better experience. If this true I can't wait for the excuse they come up with.

 

[dougp]

Woah...that is quite odd because the source engine can be easily pushed to 100+ fps minimums which creates a better experience. If this true I can't wait for the excuse they come up with.

Silly question.

If you're on a monitor locked at 60hz, what difference does it make?

Not saying I agree with it, but they'll probably blame consoles somehow.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Silly question.

If you're on a monitor locked at 60hz, what difference does it make?

Not saying I agree with it, but they'll probably blame consoles somehow.

You can feel it. When you run without vsync to eliminate all the input lag you can every extra bit of fps can create a smoother gameplay experience. The delay between frames is lessened so your aim and movements can be quicker.

Someone else can probably explain it better but it is something you can feel on a pc. On a console with the limitations of analog movement and TVs, not such an issue.

 

[dougp]

You can feel it. When you run without vsync to eliminate all the input lag you can every extra bit of fps can create a smoother gameplay experience. The delay between frames is lessened so your aim and movements can be quicker.

Someone else can probably explain it better but it is something you can feel on a pc. On a console with the limitations of analog movement and TVs, not such an issue.

I understand that - hell, I did it in BF3. Though, this will technically put everyone on an equal playing field.

We'll have to see - wonder what their response is when they see some outcry because of it.

 

[dougp]

Here's the PC video options panel:

And some 4K gameplay:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5fIAKj4MPM&feature=youtu.be&a

 

[spaceman]

"finding teammates"
lol

 

[Nintendesert]

I'd really love to know why this game gets people in both camps so butthurt. I mean, it must be marketing in some way that is driving the haters and the fanbois to such epic levels of butthurt before the game is even released.

I signed up for the beta just to see what it's all about, but man... it's insane in this thread and other places.

 

[dougp]

I'd really love to know why this game gets people in both camps so butthurt. I mean, it must be marketing in some way that is driving the haters and the fanbois to such epic levels of butthurt before the game is even released.

I signed up for the beta just to see what it's all about, but man... it's insane in this thread and other places.

It's best not to post about things you don't understand. :sneaky:

 

[davie jambo]

You can pick this up on the cd keys sites for £25 by the way. Will probably buy it at the end of the month

Strange how it's using the source engine. Should be able to get 100+ frames though. Can't work out how they can't get this 1080p 60fps on xbox one , it's the source engine not cry engine 3!

 

[jimrawr]

This game looks unremarkable. Why is it getting so much hype?

Made by COD developers, check. Distributed by EA, check. It's like bizarro world people actually looking forward to a game by those people...

Is the marketing really that effective? I honestly don't get it heh...

The makers of Titanfall made the best versions of COD.

COD2, MW1, and MW2. MW2 ended up being a disaster due to IWNET, but I think that had more to do with activision then the developers, I could be wrong though.

These guys really know how to make a FUN FPS game, and thats why the anticipation exists.

COD2 and MW1 were arguable some of the best FPS games ever created

 

[Arsinek]

This game looks unremarkable. Why is it getting so much hype?

Made by COD developers, check. Distributed by EA, check. It's like bizarro world people actually looking forward to a game by those people...

Is the marketing really that effective? I honestly don't get it heh...

COD actually has a lot of good aspects but theyre all secondary attributes. At its core, its primary attributes, its the same game re-released every year. Its a cash cow for them that continues to print money without having to come up with anything new so they dont do anything new.

So when I see a new FPS, like Titan Fall, enter the arena I hope its a game that is more than instanced games of team death match and capture and hold. But so far thats all Ive seen from Titan Fall.

Do you guys really still enjoy team death match and the rest of the regurgitated FPS formula?

 

[Lil Frier]

How is this even related to EA? What game doesn't require you to register an account to potentially participate in a closed beta?

The reason it's related to EA is that EA is the publisher. It's EA's Origin crap. I had no problem registering for TESO, because I don't want Bethesda to burn to the ground, like I do EA. It's 100% about EA. It's the simple matter that I get they have the right/desire to run things their way, and I have the right/desire to turn away from them as a result.

I would have been fine with entering my e-mail alone, but having an account annoys me.

 

[smackababy]

So when I see a new FPS, like Titan Fall, enter the arena I hope its a game that is more than instanced games of team death match and capture and hold. But so far thats all Ive seen from Titan Fall.

Do you guys really still enjoy team death match and the rest of the regurgitated FPS formula?

I don't understand what you want out of a multiplayer FPS. Because that "formula" is in every single one. Literally, every single FPS with multiplayer has those modes except maybe Left 4 Dead, which has some strange combination of all the modes together.

 

[Lil Frier]

COD actually has a lot of good aspects but theyre all secondary attributes. At its core, its primary attributes, its the same game re-released every year. Its a cash cow for them that continues to print money without having to come up with anything new so they dont do anything new.

So when I see a new FPS, like Titan Fall, enter the arena I hope its a game that is more than instanced games of team death match and capture and hold. But so far thats all Ive seen from Titan Fall.

Do you guys really still enjoy team death match and the rest of the regurgitated FPS formula?

So I guess the easy question to ask is: How would it be made better, really? Are you really complaining that TDM exists? Which shooter(s) have done something "innovative" with their game types, and had it actually become popular? Most objective-based games (CoD's Domination, for example) just end up being TDM with objectives nearby.

You're calling this and that bad, but how about suggestions for improvement?