[H]Titanfall just 6v6

[smackababy]

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?

People always try and use "innovation" as a substitute for "I like this feature". There has been very little innovation within genres in the past 20 years. You could argue Crysis' engine was innovative, but their game wasn't in the least bit. Unless you're creating a new genre or blending old ones together in a new way, your game isn't innovative. There are very few new ideas (same as in music), just good and bad execution.

 

[Lil Frier]

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

That's greatly a matter of opinion. I thought that MW2 was great at the time, but after playing Black Ops, I went back to MW2 and absolutely HATED it. While the core of MW and MW2 had nice things, they both had things that threw off the balance pretty badly. The biggest thing was the existence of Stopping Power, which was borderline REQUIRED to play online. It made the M16 capable of 1-hit kills in the lower body, and that was just dumb.

MW2, it was a solid set of maps, but nothing else (in hindsight). It kept the Stopping Power, not a good thing. The shotguns were WAY too strong (that damned AA-12). Commando took the broken knifing physics of all CoD games, then took it to the extreme, with guys basically flying up the stairs to stab you.

So I'll give you CoD 2 and CoD 4: MW, but I'd say that MW2 was one of the most-broken of the franchise.

That Respawn came from Infinity Ward basically told us what this was going to be, though. Why people are surprised it's a CoD clone, in some ways, I don't get. It's the style of play they worked in for years, so it's obviously what they are going to lean on. Though Destiny doesn't seem to borrow from Halo AS MUCH as this comparison, the fact that Bungie made both will always keep the two titles in the realm of comparison (especially since Bungie decided to follow a sci-fi shooter with a sci-fi shooter).

My problem won't be copying things from their CoD days. It will be a question of whether or not they can minimize the garbage from CoD (the knifing, the excessive Perk system, the piss-poor Target Assist that needs to die, etc.).

 

[Lil Frier]

People always try and use "innovation" as a substitute for "I like this feature". There has been very little innovation within genres in the past 20 years. You could argue Crysis' engine was innovative, but their game wasn't in the least bit. Unless you're creating a new genre or blending old ones together in a new way, your game isn't innovative. There are very few new ideas (same as in music), just good and bad execution.

Hence the quotation marks.

 

[smackababy]

That's greatly a matter of opinion. I thought that MW2 was great at the time, but after playing Black Ops, I went back to MW2 and absolutely HATED it. While the core of MW and MW2 had nice things, they both had things that threw off the balance pretty badly. The biggest thing was the existence of Stopping Power, which was borderline REQUIRED to play online. It made the M16 capable of 1-hit kills in the lower body, and that was just dumb.

MW2, it was a solid set of maps, but nothing else (in hindsight). It kept the Stopping Power, not a good thing. The shotguns were WAY too strong (that damned AA-12). Commando took the broken knifing physics of all CoD games, then took it to the extreme, with guys basically flying up the stairs to stab you.

So I'll give you CoD 2 and CoD 4: MW, but I'd say that MW2 was one of the most-broken of the franchise.

That Respawn came from Infinity Ward basically told us what this was going to be, though. Why people are surprised it's a CoD clone, in some ways, I don't get. It's the style of play they worked in for years, so it's obviously what they are going to lean on. Though Destiny doesn't seem to borrow from Halo AS MUCH as this comparison, the fact that Bungie made both will always keep the two titles in the realm of comparison (especially since Bungie decided to follow a sci-fi shooter with a sci-fi shooter).

My problem won't be copying things from their CoD days. It will be a question of whether or not they can minimize the garbage from CoD (the knifing, the excessive Perk system, the piss-poor Target Assist that needs to die, etc.).

I watched a good bit of gameplay yesterday and it seems like a mix between Halo and COD so far. It was on Xbox One and there were a few framerate hiccups, but it looked pretty good. The maps are pretty well designed so the Titans don't just vehicle rape BF style and they are pretty vulnerable if you let people get close to you (hijacking and such). They work as a killstreak type of thing, looking like a timer based thing that goes down with kills.

 

[Arsinek]

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?

We could go on forever about possible new game types.

You could turn a MOBA into an FPS. There are bases, they spawn NPCs that head for the other teams base and attack things on the way. And you have your players in the battle just the same as you do in MOBAs except instead of the typical over head click target style combat its FPS.

Do you really think there are no other ways to make games other than TDM and capture and hold? Just sit and think for a second its not that hard.

 

[sushiwarrior]

People always try and use "innovation" as a substitute for "I like this feature". There has been very little innovation within genres in the past 20 years. You could argue Crysis' engine was innovative, but their game wasn't in the least bit. Unless you're creating a new genre or blending old ones together in a new way, your game isn't innovative. There are very few new ideas (same as in music), just good and bad execution.

To be fair, Battlefield has had 2 somewhat innovative game modes - Conquest and Rush. The ticket based system of Conquest was new, and nowadays doesn't work so well (see: Planetside, etc. where people just run around on fast vehicles and trade caps) and the Rush game mode was pretty damn great when it came to map design.

COD hasn't had so many innovative game modes, but to be honest how on EARTH can you complain about deathmatch? Games like Quake and UT were doing DM long before COD, it's not like COD was the first to use it. Battlefield still has DM, this game will have DM along with other modes, it's not something to judge the game off of.

Personally, I don't want to judge the game until I play it. Things like balance will determine whether it's a good game much more so than the preferred game mode. I just hate seeing shortsighted and prejudiced fools jumping on the bandwagon of saying "OMG IT HAS GUNS AND TDM AND CLASSES IT'S COD". Infinity Ward made the most revolutionary FPS of the 21st century so far. Modern Warfare was so good that Activision did copy the formula over and over again for so many games. They did so because it was THAT good. Now, it quickly became a stale and stupid money grab, but that doesn't take away from how good of a game COD4 was when it came out.

Either way, I'm glad the "real" IW is making another game and I hope that people can reserve their stupid comments until the game actually gets closer to release. Or they have played it in beta.

We could go on forever about possible new game types.

You could turn a MOBA into an FPS. There are bases, they spawn NPCs that head for the other teams base and attack things on the way. And you have your players in the battle just the same as you do in MOBAs except instead of the typical over head click target style combat its FPS.

Do you really think there are no other ways to make games other than TDM and capture and hold? Just sit and think for a second its not that hard.

This game has NPCs that spawn and work against the enemy NPCs.... Please think about what you're saying for a second.

 

[BrightCandle]

Based on the initial announcement that it was 6v6 I figured it would be a competition slant game, a competitive focussed FPS. While there are elements like double jumping and wall running that require some practice the guns still have a lot of random fire in them and this will probably mean its not a good competition game. None of the game mods really say "competition" either.

There rumours flying around that its lock to 60hz on PC as well, that it doesn't support 120hz+ at all. FOV is locked to a maximum of 90 and we have no idea what the situation with servers is, the interview at RPS suggested it might be player hosted and not dedicated servers, and there certainly wont be custom player servers.

None of this is speaking competitive FPS to me, its actually sounding like a classically poorly ported console game in technical features. I like the look of the gameplay to an extent, although I doubt it would hold me long with such small maps. Everyone is making noises like this is going to be a big success, but I can't see why it should be.

 

[smackababy]

To be fair, Battlefield has had 2 somewhat innovative game modes - Conquest and Rush. The ticket based system of Conquest was new, and nowadays doesn't work so well (see: Planetside, etc. where people just run around on fast vehicles and trade caps) and the Rush game mode was pretty damn great when it came to map design.

Conquest wasn't even some new gametype. It was king of the hill and TDM combined. It wasn't exactly innovative.

We could go on forever about possible new game types.

You could turn a MOBA into an FPS. There are bases, they spawn NPCs that head for the other teams base and attack things on the way. And you have your players in the battle just the same as you do in MOBAs except instead of the typical over head click target style combat its FPS.

Do you really think there are no other ways to make games other than TDM and capture and hold? Just sit and think for a second its not that hard.

Have you played a MOBA? It is literally TDM and capture and hold.

 

[smackababy]

Based on the initial announcement that it was 6v6 I figured it would be a competition slant game, a competitive focussed FPS. While there are elements like double jumping and wall running that require some practice the guns still have a lot of random fire in them and this will probably mean its not a good competition game. None of the game mods really say "competition" either.

There rumours flying around that its lock to 60hz on PC as well, that it doesn't support 120hz+ at all. FOV is locked to a maximum of 90 and we have no idea what the situation with servers is, the interview at RPS suggested it might be player hosted and not dedicated servers, and there certainly wont be custom player servers.

None of this is speaking competitive FPS to me, its actually sounding like a classically poorly ported console game in technical features. I like the look of the gameplay to an extent, although I doubt it would hold me long with such small maps. Everyone is making noises like this is going to be a big success, but I can't see why it should be.

Reason it will be a success: it is a AAA shooter made by the king's of COD on a next gen console. Simple as that. If you actually think this game will fail, you probably think every COD would fail as well.

 

[Lil Frier]

We could go on forever about possible new game types.

You could turn a MOBA into an FPS. There are bases, they spawn NPCs that head for the other teams base and attack things on the way. And you have your players in the battle just the same as you do in MOBAs except instead of the typical over head click target style combat its FPS.

Do you really think there are no other ways to make games other than TDM and capture and hold? Just sit and think for a second its not that hard.

Wait, aren't people in here complaining about the presence of A.I. in Titanfall? Not sure how leaning MORE-heavily on A.I. characters is the solution on that front. It's also debatable if you're still in the core FPS genre, or if you're just playing a strategy game in an FPS format, like Sanctum or something.

Your suggestion really doesn't sound like an improvement on it, is my point. The main theme here has been that these competitive FPS games should focus on human-versus-human combat. There have been loads of variants of games over the past 20 years, so I think the point I'd have to make is that if you don't like Capture and Hold or Team Deatchmatch, every single shooter comes with alternative games galore.

In Halo, you have CtF (1-flag and 2-flag). They used to have Assault, which was a lot like CoD's Search and Destroy. There's Grifball, multi-team, Regicide, Oddball, Flood, and Crazy King (King of the Hill, but the hill moves around periodically) CoD also has their Party Games. They have several game types as well, though they're mostly similar to the Halo options.

Just because those aren't the most-popular game types (which TDM and Domination are in CoD, for example), it does not mean that they don't exist. There are plenty of variants, but they stick to the main ideal of FPS encounters, where the better player (or the person with the better positioning) will win the battle. Throwing a bunch of A.I. into it just makes the game more randomized, and not in a good way, in my opinion.

 

[Lil Frier]

Based on the initial announcement that it was 6v6 I figured it would be a competition slant game, a competitive focussed FPS. While there are elements like double jumping and wall running that require some practice the guns still have a lot of random fire in them and this will probably mean its not a good competition game. None of the game mods really say "competition" either.

There rumours flying around that its lock to 60hz on PC as well, that it doesn't support 120hz+ at all. FOV is locked to a maximum of 90 and we have no idea what the situation with servers is, the interview at RPS suggested it might be player hosted and not dedicated servers, and there certainly wont be custom player servers.

None of this is speaking competitive FPS to me, its actually sounding like a classically poorly ported console game in technical features. I like the look of the gameplay to an extent, although I doubt it would hold me long with such small maps. Everyone is making noises like this is going to be a big success, but I can't see why it should be.

That sounds more like doomsday complaining than real concerns. I mean, don't all Xbox One games run on those dedicated Azure servers Microsoft touted? I thought we were done with the idea of player-hosted multiplayer. And if that's the case for the Xbox One, are we REALLY suggesting that the console version would have this, but not the PC version?

 

[Arsinek]

Wait, aren't people in here complaining about the presence of A.I. in Titanfall? Not sure how leaning MORE-heavily on A.I. characters is the solution on that front. It's also debatable if you're still in the core FPS genre, or if you're just playing a strategy game in an FPS format, like Sanctum or something.

Your suggestion really doesn't sound like an improvement on it, is my point. The main theme here has been that these competitive FPS games should focus on human-versus-human combat. There have been loads of variants of games over the past 20 years, so I think the point I'd have to make is that if you don't like Capture and Hold or Team Deatchmatch, every single shooter comes with alternative games galore.

In Halo, you have CtF (1-flag and 2-flag). They used to have Assault, which was a lot like CoD's Search and Destroy. There's Grifball, multi-team, Regicide, Oddball, Flood, and Crazy King (King of the Hill, but the hill moves around periodically) CoD also has their Party Games. They have several game types as well, though they're mostly similar to the Halo options.

Just because those aren't the most-popular game types (which TDM and Domination are in CoD, for example), it does not mean that they don't exist. There are plenty of variants, but they stick to the main ideal of FPS encounters, where the better player (or the person with the better positioning) will win the battle. Throwing a bunch of A.I. into it just makes the game more randomized, and not in a good way, in my opinion.

Lol, like you were going to say anything I said was a good idea.

Hey, if the same old thing keeps you entertained good for you. But Im tired of endless games of team death match.

This game has NPCs that spawn and work against the enemy NPCs.... Please think about what you're saying for a second.

Do they march across the map and attack an enemy base and the match ends when one of the teams bases is blown up? If so cool.

Have you played a MOBA? It is literally TDM and capture and hold.

Really? Ive never played a TDM or capture and hold that spwaned NPCs that fight with you and involved blowing up the enemies base. But then again I havent played every game ever made.

 

[Arsinek]

...

 

[slag]

I think it looks fun. I don't care if its a clone of a clone of a clone or whatever, it looks fun, I'm signed up for the beta, and I'll buy it on the PC.

Thanks for the information.

 

[Kev]

Just skimmed this thread. Seriously how are there 3 pages of people arguing about a game that isn't even out yet? Holy shit.

If it doesn't interest you, don't buy it. Simple as that.

 

[JumBie]

Just skimmed this thread. Seriously how are there 3 pages of people arguing about a game that isn't even out yet? Holy shit.

If it doesn't interest you, don't buy it. Simple as that.

I don't think that's the issue at hand. I think people are wondering why a game that is almost exactly the same as another game can become so popular and highly anticipated.

 

[smackababy]

I don't think that's the issue at hand. I think people are wondering why a game that is almost exactly the same as another game can become so popular and highly anticipated.

Because that "exact same game" is incredibly popular. And, as has been pointed out, the only people saying it is a copy of an existing game are people who are looking at only the most superficial aspects. Seriously, one "argument" is that it has TDM and not a MOBA gametype.

 

[sushiwarrior]

I don't think that's the issue at hand. I think people are wondering why a game that is almost exactly the same as another game can become so popular and highly anticipated.

I think people are wondering what kind of criteria one must apply to consider this game "almost exactly the same" as any other game. It's gotta be the guns. Yes, it's an exact copy because guns. Why should anyone be excited about a game with guns? We've had games with guns for like 30 years. Guns are old news.

 

[Kev]

I don't think that's the issue at hand. I think people are wondering why a game that is almost exactly the same as another game can become so popular and highly anticipated.

Because different people like different things. Go figure.

 

[KeithTalent]

Just watched some of the live game play on Youtube and it definitely does not look my type of game. Looks the same as any other shooter, just with a bit more crap flying around.

KT

 

[cmdrdredd]

Based on the initial announcement that it was 6v6 I figured it would be a competition slant game, a competitive focussed FPS. While there are elements like double jumping and wall running that require some practice the guns still have a lot of random fire in them and this will probably mean its not a good competition game. None of the game mods really say "competition" either.

There rumours flying around that its lock to 60hz on PC as well, that it doesn't support 120hz+ at all. FOV is locked to a maximum of 90 and we have no idea what the situation with servers is, the interview at RPS suggested it might be player hosted and not dedicated servers, and there certainly wont be custom player servers.

None of this is speaking competitive FPS to me, its actually sounding like a classically poorly ported console game in technical features. I like the look of the gameplay to an extent, although I doubt it would hold me long with such small maps. Everyone is making noises like this is going to be a big success, but I can't see why it should be.

It'll be a success...on the Xbox 360 and XB1. Not necessarily on PC. Similar to how CoD isn't as big on PC as consoles.

That sounds more like doomsday complaining than real concerns.I mean, don't all Xbox One games run on those dedicated Azure servers Microsoft touted? I thought we were done with the idea of player-hosted multiplayer. And if that's the case for the Xbox One, are we REALLY suggesting that the console version would have this, but not the PC version?

No, they don't all use those dedicated servers. The developer has to rent space on them. Some developers get free space in exchange for exclusivity or whatnot. In the case of Titanfall on PC, it may not have those servers to use while it probably does on the XB1. MS would like you to buy an XB1 to play this instead I'm sure. This game is developed with the console in mind, and EA got some money from MS to make it a big exclusive for their platform. The developers weren't happy that EA kind went behind their back and made that deal but they did. I think the developer was kind of hoping they could build it for PS4 as well and widen the audience. They hinted at something like that, that they would like to work on the PS4 too but I believe they are obligated not to say it outright.

 

[BrightCandle]

The interview with RPS just plain didn't answer the question about dedicated servers at all. They talked about using the xbox cloud service for the xbox so that players didn't have to exclusively host it on their own, which really isn't clear at all. They didn't say how it would work for PC at all. I don't know what the plan is but the entire interview is the PR man dodging the question. We don't know how its going to work anywhere really based on his answers. Does anyone have beta access yet and can determine the answer?

Ref: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/02/13/respawn-on-titanfalls-pc-version-modding-dlc/

 

[TeknoBug]

Not bothering it considering EA has their stinking dirty hands on it. As well as it being developed by people responsable for turning CoD into a console trash it is today.

 

[TheSlamma]

I think the concept sounds really fun, but I just feel the source engine is going to limit the game a lot and the 6v6 is really weak. I think 24-32 players is perfect. Not enough people you are being fired on all teh time, but enough targets to cause distractions and get some good flanks in.

 

[futurefields]

I think the concept sounds really fun, but I just feel the source engine is going to limit the game a lot

Why does it being on Source matter that much? They said they tweaked the engine to suit their game. Engines change over time. Just because its on Source engine doesnt mean the assetts are going to look like Left 4 Dead.