Char, his LOL!! has two exclamation points. Get it right.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
6v6 with boatloads of bots. Subpar graphics and fps. Generic overplayed and overhyped gameplay. This game has been paid for courteously by the deep pockets of MS. It is not what most are hoping it will be. If I am wrong then I will eat a double helping of crow... however, I wont be. Servers will be dead within 2 months.
This game looks less interesting than MAG, and MAG bombed.
MAG was a pretty sweet game to be fair. 256 battles were incredible, if a little chaotic.
MAG was boring as hell...
I disagree, if you were in a good squad and co-ordinated yourselves (which after the initial rush died down, was a lot easier), it was exhilarating to play.
Tried it, it was boring, and the lack of any actual community on PSN at that time killed the game's main draw. But eh, each to his own.
This game looks less interesting than MAG, and MAG bombed.
MAG was a pretty sweet game to be fair. 256 battles were incredible, if a little chaotic.
I never played it, but it did sound pretty cool for an online only game.
I'm not saying it'll be easy to dominate. I'm saying it's fair complaint in the realm of FPS and presented an example as to why.
Also, people say it looks like CoD with Titans because that's what the gameplay has shown so far. CoD (with the occasional jetpack to reach a higher level) style when playing the regular soldier and then Titan segments (which does look fun). The bots were clearly on super dumb mode for testing purposes, but unless they become super pros that can kill you as easily as you kill them, they won't add much to the whole equation (the unfortunate curse of bots in most games really). Sure, playing it things can be very different but we are going by what we have so far. Otherwise this whole board has no purpose lol
As for what the devs say, something deep down tells me it's a justification for a lack of engine optimization. I'm 99% sure the biggest improvement for the sequel (which we all know is gonna happen unless this thing sells like 2 copies) will be a bigger player count. They are introducing a lot of foreign elements and have loads of AI to manage (and be concerned about), therefore it's understandable they decided to cut down the player count. Logic behind is more than likely "more bots, fewer players=dumber AI", "fewer bots, more players=better AI". And trust me, doing any sort of proper AI is hard as f*ck. Especially for a MP game. Plus they have only so much resources and time to develop for 2 platforms (X1 and PC). I think this is biggest reason the game is what it is right now.
Feel free to point at me and laugh if that does not happen :P
I can somewhat agree with your first point if we go by what we've seen.
I don't know about the 2nd one. Not saying you're wrong, but it's just something we're gonna have to wait for. I just don't like seeing people downplay a game based on the player count. Especially one that hasn't been released yet. Nor does it have anything to do with the value of a game.
This game looks less interesting than MAG, and MAG bombed.
MAG was a pretty sweet game to be fair. 256 battles were incredible, if a little chaotic.
MAG was crap.
@chaz. i had to pay for Warhawk and Starhawk. They weren't FREE. No one is forcing you to buy Titanfall. Just like I wasn't force to pay $60 for the terrible Knack. If a game isn't up to your standards. Don't buy it.
This game looks less interesting than MAG, and MAG bombed.
MAG was a pretty sweet game to be fair. 256 battles were incredible, if a little chaotic.
MAG was crap.
@chaz. i had to pay for Warhawk and Starhawk. They weren't FREE. No one is forcing you to buy Titanfall. Just like I wasn't force to pay $60 for the terrible Knack. If a game isn't up to your standards. Don't buy it.
Warhawk and Starhawk also had single player content. You know? And offline content.
Oh, and as for Knack, why bring that up? Did you see me ever praise it, even once?
Actually, why bring any of the Sony games that you have so far up? Have you ever seen me say anything good about a single one of them?
You seem to be under the impression that I am a cow, apparently.
I'm not saying it'll be easy to dominate. I'm saying it's fair complaint in the realm of FPS and presented an example as to why.
Also, people say it looks like CoD with Titans because that's what the gameplay has shown so far. CoD (with the occasional jetpack to reach a higher level) style when playing the regular soldier and then Titan segments (which does look fun). The bots were clearly on super dumb mode for testing purposes, but unless they become super pros that can kill you as easily as you kill them, they won't add much to the whole equation (the unfortunate curse of bots in most games really). Sure, playing it things can be very different but we are going by what we have so far. Otherwise this whole board has no purpose lol
As for what the devs say, something deep down tells me it's a justification for a lack of engine optimization. I'm 99% sure the biggest improvement for the sequel (which we all know is gonna happen unless this thing sells like 2 copies) will be a bigger player count. They are introducing a lot of foreign elements and have loads of AI to manage (and be concerned about), therefore it's understandable they decided to cut down the player count. Logic behind is more than likely "more bots, fewer players=dumber AI", "fewer bots, more players=better AI". And trust me, doing any sort of proper AI is hard as f*ck. Especially for a MP game. Plus they have only so much resources and time to develop for 2 platforms (X1 and PC). I think this is biggest reason the game is what it is right now.
Feel free to point at me and laugh if that does not happen :P
I can somewhat agree with your first point if we go by what we've seen.
I don't know about the 2nd one. Not saying you're wrong, but it's just something we're gonna have to wait for. I just don't like seeing people downplay a game based on the player count. Especially one that hasn't been released yet. Nor does it have anything to do with the value of a game.
I respect what you are saying Freedom,
though I think it's the cumulative problems that people are picking on, just using the 6v6 as an example, or at least that's what it is in my case:
I see it has dodgy visuals, online only, no splitscreen, and so I then see it is also only 6v6 and it's like the final straw in a way? If that makes sense, hopefully it does; but basically to me the 6v6 on it's own is not a problem, but when tied to everything else, it just seems there are a lot of odd design choices.
This game looks less interesting than MAG, and MAG bombed.
MAG was a pretty sweet game to be fair. 256 battles were incredible, if a little chaotic.
MAG was crap.
@chaz. i had to pay for Warhawk and Starhawk. They weren't FREE. No one is forcing you to buy Titanfall. Just like I wasn't force to pay $60 for the terrible Knack. If a game isn't up to your standards. Don't buy it.
Warhawk and Starhawk also had single player content. You know? And offline content.
Oh, and as for Knack, why bring that up? Did you see me ever praise it, even once?
Actually, why bring any of the Sony games that you have so far up? Have you ever seen me say anything good about a single one of them?
You seem to be under the impression that I am a cow, apparently.
Blackace is under the impression anyone who says anything negative about an XBO game is a cow... that's just how he rolls...
He will probably call me a cow in a minute too...
It's 6vs6 Cod with mechs, made by EA with no single player and either requires Origin or Xbox live.
My question for the TC is. What The $%#@ Were You Expecting??????
You do realize it's published by the same company that just released the consumer buttrape that is Dungeon Keeper right?
The mobile market clearly expects and accepts scams like Dungeon Keeper, so fine, good on them for trying to exploit that. The console and PC market, however, does not, so if EA tries to bring that business model to those markets, where I am invested, I will fucking take a stand.
You sound like you're unaware that mobile scams haven't leached their way into PC gaming already. Day Z ring any bells. Hell I'd say the only difference at this point is mobile Scams are also in incomplete games like early access. The only real place where publishers are really getting slapped for this type of behavior is on consoles but even that hasn't stopped them from constantly trying.
DayZ was great. You are probably talking about WarZ, which was a scam, but a completely different kind of scam from what mobile gaming scams are.
Yeah i meant War Z Micro-transactions are still rampant in PC gaming tho.
It's 6vs6 Cod with mechs, made by EA with no single player and either requires Origin or Xbox live.
My question for the TC is. What The $%#@ Were You Expecting??????
You do realize it's published by the same company that just released the consumer buttrape that is Dungeon Keeper right?
The mobile market clearly expects and accepts scams like Dungeon Keeper, so fine, good on them for trying to exploit that. The console and PC market, however, does not, so if EA tries to bring that business model to those markets, where I am invested, I will fucking take a stand.
You sound like you're unaware that mobile scams haven't leached their way into PC gaming already. Day Z ring any bells. Hell I'd say the only difference at this point is mobile Scams are also in incomplete games like early access. The only real place where publishers are really getting slapped for this type of behavior is on consoles but even that hasn't stopped them from constantly trying.
DayZ was great. You are probably talking about WarZ, which was a scam, but a completely different kind of scam from what mobile gaming scams are.
Yeah i meant War Z Micro-transactions are still rampant in PC gaming tho.
I wouldn't say rampant...
They're present sure, but not really visible in majority of pc games.
It's 6vs6 Cod with mechs, made by EA with no single player and either requires Origin or Xbox live.
My question for the TC is. What The $%#@ Were You Expecting??????
You do realize it's published by the same company that just released the consumer buttrape that is Dungeon Keeper right?
The mobile market clearly expects and accepts scams like Dungeon Keeper, so fine, good on them for trying to exploit that. The console and PC market, however, does not, so if EA tries to bring that business model to those markets, where I am invested, I will fucking take a stand.
You sound like you're unaware that mobile scams haven't leached their way into PC gaming already. Day Z ring any bells. Hell I'd say the only difference at this point is mobile Scams are also in incomplete games like early access. The only real place where publishers are really getting slapped for this type of behavior is on consoles but even that hasn't stopped them from constantly trying.
DayZ was great. You are probably talking about WarZ, which was a scam, but a completely different kind of scam from what mobile gaming scams are.
Yeah i meant War Z Micro-transactions are still rampant in PC gaming tho.
In games that are usually free to play (like TF2, DOTA 2, LoL), and they are always done right.
This game looks less interesting than MAG, and MAG bombed.
MAG was a pretty sweet game to be fair. 256 battles were incredible, if a little chaotic.
MAG was crap.
@chaz. i had to pay for Warhawk and Starhawk. They weren't FREE. No one is forcing you to buy Titanfall. Just like I wasn't force to pay $60 for the terrible Knack. If a game isn't up to your standards. Don't buy it.
Warhawk and Starhawk also had single player content. You know? And offline content.
Oh, and as for Knack, why bring that up? Did you see me ever praise it, even once?
Actually, why bring any of the Sony games that you have so far up? Have you ever seen me say anything good about a single one of them?
You seem to be under the impression that I am a cow, apparently.
Warhawk didn't have single player game. It was online only. Starhawk had both. I still had to pay for them. That was my point of mentioning those games. I brought up Knack because it was $60 and had lots of faults I didn't care for. Similar to what you are doing with Titanfall. You see a LOT of faults with the game. If that's how you feel, don't buy it. I don't care if your a Cow or not. I haven't seen you say anything good about anything. lol!!
This game looks less interesting than MAG, and MAG bombed.
MAG was a pretty sweet game to be fair. 256 battles were incredible, if a little chaotic.
MAG was crap.
@chaz. i had to pay for Warhawk and Starhawk. They weren't FREE. No one is forcing you to buy Titanfall. Just like I wasn't force to pay $60 for the terrible Knack. If a game isn't up to your standards. Don't buy it.
Warhawk and Starhawk also had single player content. You know? And offline content.
Oh, and as for Knack, why bring that up? Did you see me ever praise it, even once?
Actually, why bring any of the Sony games that you have so far up? Have you ever seen me say anything good about a single one of them?
You seem to be under the impression that I am a cow, apparently.
Warhawk didn't have single player game. It was online only. Starhawk had both. I still had to pay for them. That was my point of mentioning those games. I brought up Knack because it was $60 and had lots of faults I didn't care for. Similar to what you are doing with Titanfall. You see a LOT of faults with the game. If that's how you feel, don't buy it. I don't care if your a Cow or not. I haven't seen you say anything good about anything. lol!!
Warhawk had offline multiplayer. Split screen. And you know what, **** Warhawk too, really.
Again, why bring up Knack as if you were trying to accuse me? it has nothing to do with what I had to say.
You haven't seen me say good about anything? Jeez, I could have sworn I'm known for hyperbolizing any game I remotely like with fucking insane superlatives. Are you sure you are talking about the right poster here? Lol??
@Heil68: I can't remember, but was it you that has Battlefield 4, and played the single player but not really much of multi player?
Yes, I Gamefly'd it and beat the SP campaign and sent it back. Didn't play 1 MP match. Same with COD Ghosts
Fair cop, well I certainly don't blame you for CoD Ghosts, the multiplayer was just beyond awful...
This game looks less interesting than MAG, and MAG bombed.
MAG was a pretty sweet game to be fair. 256 battles were incredible, if a little chaotic.
MAG was crap.
@chaz. i had to pay for Warhawk and Starhawk. They weren't FREE. No one is forcing you to buy Titanfall. Just like I wasn't force to pay $60 for the terrible Knack. If a game isn't up to your standards. Don't buy it.
Warhawk and Starhawk also had single player content. You know? And offline content.
Oh, and as for Knack, why bring that up? Did you see me ever praise it, even once?
Actually, why bring any of the Sony games that you have so far up? Have you ever seen me say anything good about a single one of them?
You seem to be under the impression that I am a cow, apparently.
Warhawk didn't have single player game. It was online only. Starhawk had both. I still had to pay for them. That was my point of mentioning those games. I brought up Knack because it was $60 and had lots of faults I didn't care for. Similar to what you are doing with Titanfall. You see a LOT of faults with the game. If that's how you feel, don't buy it. I don't care if your a Cow or not. I haven't seen you say anything good about anything. lol!!
Warhawk had offline multiplayer. Split screen. And you know what, **** Warhawk too, really.
Again, why bring up Knack as if you were trying to accuse me? it has nothing to do with what I had to say.
You haven't seen me say good about anything? Jeez, I could have sworn I'm known for hyperbolizing any game I remotely like with fucking insane superlatives. Are you sure you are talking about the right poster here? Lol??
You mad bro. lmao!! Doesn't seem like you even read my post. Read it again. Maybe you'lll get it the 2nd time around. Take a Xanax while you're at it.
Warhawk didn't have single player game. It was online only. Starhawk had both. I still had to pay for them. That was my point of mentioning those games. I brought up Knack because it was $60 and had lots of faults I didn't care for. Similar to what you are doing with Titanfall. You see a LOT of faults with the game. If that's how you feel, don't buy it. I don't care if your a Cow or not. I haven't seen you say anything good about anything. lol!!
Warhawk had offline multiplayer. Split screen. And you know what, **** Warhawk too, really.
Again, why bring up Knack as if you were trying to accuse me? it has nothing to do with what I had to say.
You haven't seen me say good about anything? Jeez, I could have sworn I'm known for hyperbolizing any game I remotely like with fucking insane superlatives. Are you sure you are talking about the right poster here? Lol??
You mad bro. lmao!! Doesn't seem like you even read my post. Read it again. Maybe you'lll get it the 2nd time around. Take a Xanax while you're at it.
I don't see how he sounds mad? lol!!
He was correctly pointing out that you keep bringing irrelevant games into your argument, to try and prove your losing point. lmao!!
Also Warhawk may not have had single player, but at least it could be played offline with friends locally, which TF cannot...
Look at all the lems going defensive n shit rofl. This is what happens when your system has nothing coming out but a multiplat (which isn't on ps4 so=exclusive!!!) and a person calls your one game a crappy f2p cod clone. Lems butthurt continuation.
Look at all the lems going defensive n shit rofl. This is what happens when your system has nothing coming out but a multiplat (which isn't on ps4 so=exclusive!!!) and a person calls your one game a crappy f2p cod clone. Lems butthurt continuation.
Well they're especially mad because even sheep are pointing out how flawed their game is.
There are currently only three Titans but there are several classes to choose from in addition to the model, same goes for the pilots.
Warhawk didn't have single player game. It was online only. Starhawk had both. I still had to pay for them. That was my point of mentioning those games. I brought up Knack because it was $60 and had lots of faults I didn't care for. Similar to what you are doing with Titanfall. You see a LOT of faults with the game. If that's how you feel, don't buy it. I don't care if your a Cow or not. I haven't seen you say anything good about anything. lol!!
Warhawk had offline multiplayer. Split screen. And you know what, **** Warhawk too, really.
Again, why bring up Knack as if you were trying to accuse me? it has nothing to do with what I had to say.
You haven't seen me say good about anything? Jeez, I could have sworn I'm known for hyperbolizing any game I remotely like with fucking insane superlatives. Are you sure you are talking about the right poster here? Lol??
You mad bro. lmao!! Doesn't seem like you even read my post. Read it again. Maybe you'lll get it the 2nd time around. Take a Xanax while you're at it.
I don't see how he sounds mad? lol!!
He was correctly pointing out that you keep bringing irrelevant games into your argument, to try and prove your losing point. lmao!!
Also Warhawk may not have had single player, but at least it could be played offline with friends locally, which TF cannot...
Every other sentence he's swearing like a drunken sailor. LOL!! I already said my piece and proven my point. Opinions will vary obviously. There have been online only games in the past without single player modes. That's a fact. M.A.G., WarHawk, FF XI, etc.. He has his own complaints for Titanfall. I don't.
Warhawk didn't have single player game. It was online only. Starhawk had both. I still had to pay for them. That was my point of mentioning those games. I brought up Knack because it was $60 and had lots of faults I didn't care for. Similar to what you are doing with Titanfall. You see a LOT of faults with the game. If that's how you feel, don't buy it. I don't care if your a Cow or not. I haven't seen you say anything good about anything. lol!!
Warhawk had offline multiplayer. Split screen. And you know what, **** Warhawk too, really.
Again, why bring up Knack as if you were trying to accuse me? it has nothing to do with what I had to say.
You haven't seen me say good about anything? Jeez, I could have sworn I'm known for hyperbolizing any game I remotely like with fucking insane superlatives. Are you sure you are talking about the right poster here? Lol??
You mad bro. lmao!! Doesn't seem like you even read my post. Read it again. Maybe you'lll get it the 2nd time around. Take a Xanax while you're at it.
I don't see how he sounds mad? lol!!
He was correctly pointing out that you keep bringing irrelevant games into your argument, to try and prove your losing point. lmao!!
Also Warhawk may not have had single player, but at least it could be played offline with friends locally, which TF cannot...
Every other sentence he's swearing like a drunken sailor. LOL!! I already said my piece and proven my point. Opinions will vary obviously. There have been online only games in the past without single player modes. That's a fact. M.A.G., WarHawk, FF XI, etc.. He has his own complaints for Titanfall. I don't.
Butthurt as usual. -----------LOL!!---------------
This game looks less interesting than MAG, and MAG bombed.
MAG was a pretty sweet game to be fair. 256 battles were incredible, if a little chaotic.
MAG was crap.
@chaz. i had to pay for Warhawk and Starhawk. They weren't FREE. No one is forcing you to buy Titanfall. Just like I wasn't force to pay $60 for the terrible Knack. If a game isn't up to your standards. Don't buy it.
Warhawk and Starhawk also had single player content. You know? And offline content.
Oh, and as for Knack, why bring that up? Did you see me ever praise it, even once?
Actually, why bring any of the Sony games that you have so far up? Have you ever seen me say anything good about a single one of them?
You seem to be under the impression that I am a cow, apparently.
Warhawk didn't have single player game. It was online only. Starhawk had both. I still had to pay for them. That was my point of mentioning those games. I brought up Knack because it was $60 and had lots of faults I didn't care for. Similar to what you are doing with Titanfall. You see a LOT of faults with the game. If that's how you feel, don't buy it. I don't care if your a Cow or not. I haven't seen you say anything good about anything. lol!!
Warhawk had offline multiplayer. Split screen. And you know what, **** Warhawk too, really.
Again, why bring up Knack as if you were trying to accuse me? it has nothing to do with what I had to say.
You haven't seen me say good about anything? Jeez, I could have sworn I'm known for hyperbolizing any game I remotely like with fucking insane superlatives. Are you sure you are talking about the right poster here? Lol??
You mad bro. lmao!! Doesn't seem like you even read my post. Read it again. Maybe you'lll get it the 2nd time around. Take a Xanax while you're at it.
the irony
I wonder how much the season pass will be, since you know there's going to be an ass load of dlc released. I'm fairly ambivalent when it comes to this game, I think it looks like a ton of fun but I'm not big on online multi.
I reckon $50.
Titanfall looks really bad indeed. They say Titanfall 2 is coming to the PS4, I wonder if they can finally upgrade those stone-age graphics by then
Then again I won't be playing Titanfall 2 anyway, not my cup of tea
@kuu2: It's "hated" in the same amount as lemmings praise it to the heavens (without playing it). It's how SW rolls brah!
Actually the ones praising it to the heavens is everyone that has played it. The people hating it are the peasants here on SW that have not played a single moment of the game. Oh well I guess, I will be enjoying it day one. The game would be getting very little praise if it had not had such amazing reviews so far.
Just gonna drop this here again since people don't seem to understand the reason it has been hyped.
Pretty damn sure the lemmings here didn't play the Beta. So yeeeeaaah. SW rules brah.
Shouldn't be long until they either have A) Another bragging right or B) Another flop (assuming of course they'll the guts to make a hype thread).
At this point, if it gets anything less than 10 on Gamespot, then it's a flop.
Oh really, one of the biggest lemmings had ONLY good things to say about Titanfall? Why am I not surprised? LOL!! Regardless, it's not only been him making dumb threads about the game left and right. So like I said, SW giveth and SW taketh. It's just how it rolls! Lmao!!
Make it brah! Get dem photoshop skills and make it happen! :P That or ask Slashkice or AdobeArtist for help with it ;) They usually make some badass threads! LOL!!
Fixed. ;)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment