Main Titanfall Thread

Toggle sidebar
Is anyone here still playing this game? I have fun every time I play it and I even got so I was near the top of the leaderboards after almost every match. I am usually near the middle of the pack in most online shooters but in Titanfall I was consistently finishing first or second on my team.

This game just never got it's hooks into me the way past online shooters did in the past. Maybe it's just me that has changed. On the original Xbox and the early days of the 360 all I wanted to do was play online shooters. I would still play through the campaign but then I would put hundreds of hours into online multiplayer in games like Counter Strike, Halo 2, and Star Wars Batllefront 2 on the original Xbox. I did the same thing with Gears of War, Halo, Battlefield, and COD on the 360.

I thought Titanfall was going to bring me back to those days when I was playing 2-3 hours a night in those first couple weeks. As soon as inFamous showed up I lost interest though. I used to be all about competitive multiplayer games but the last few years I have shifted more into single player campaigns and online co-op. I think the novelty of playing online has just kind of worn off for me.

What about you guys? Is anyone here still racking up hours in Titanfall? Is it the go to game for Xbox fans that it was hyped up to be? For me I think it's a very good game but as of right now I probably wouldn't buy the inevitable Titanfall 2.
 
yourbeliefs said:
Titanfall's Unfinished State is Insulting to Players
Click to expand...

I just read that article but I would disagree with his assessment that the game is in an "insulting, unfinished state." Yes, it is a multiplayer only game but it came with 15 maps in the base game, which is more than most console shooters. Sure I would rather not pay $60 but I pay $60 every year to play COD online with my old roommates too. I haven't touched a single player campaign in those games for years. The fact that they still have single player is a meaningless bullet point on the back on the box to me.

I have heard many people wonder why Activision and EA keep wasting resources on single player for Battlefield and COD for a few years now. Yes, some people enjoy the single player campaign in those games but most people buy them for online multiplayer. I'm against shoehorning multiplayer into single player games when it means that resources that could have went into improving the campaign are wasted on it. I'm more of a single player guy but I don't know why that same logic can't be used for multiplayer games. Instead of making follow up to COD Ghosts crappy campaign, why not use that time and money to give us more multiplayer levels?

I only played Titanfall for about a month before I got my hands on inFamous Second Son and kind of lost interest in it. It wasn't because the game was unpolished or boring though. It was because I like story based campaigns and sinking hundreds of hours into online multiplayer prevents me from playing those campaigns. I think they did a pretty great job making a fun, multiplayer experience, especially considering this was the first attempt from a brand new studio and a pretty unique game. Well, unique as far as FPS multiplayer shooters go. I didn't see the glitchy experience he was describing.

Also, he complains that the game favors keeping party members on the same team instead of splitting them up to make even numbers and speed up matchmaking. I think that's just a silly complaint to make. First, I have never seen matchmaking take a long time. It's usually a few seconds. Second, if I'm playing with a party I want to be on their team. That's the whole point of joining a party.

Maybe things have drastically changed since I last played but this feels more like a click-bait, non-story than anything else to me.

Edit: All that being said, I likely won't buy Titanfall 2. The hype train for Titanfall hooked me even though I know I prefer campaign based games. I don't spend much time with multiplayer unless my friends are playing with me and most of them stuck with their COD.
 
I do agree with the sentiment that the game feels unfinished based on the massive amount of tweaks and fixes that are being made. I mean, private matches are still in BETA.. Really? Could you imagine Battlefield or CoD shipping without private matches? Also, adding game modes post launch is rather annoying as well.

I think the author's main point was that this game was not finished, yet it was shipped out anyways just to get the most money as soon as possible, as opposed to delivering a good, finished product. This is a VERY big problem in the AAA gaming industry nowadays: Get a halfway stable product out there and then just fix it afterwards. Yes, some stuff can't be detected early on without the large playerbase banging on it as opposed to a small QA team, but nowadays it feels like generally accepted good software development practices are being ignored for the sake of getting something out there ASAP. Finally, this isn't exactly a brand new studio. Respawn was founded by the 2 former heads of Infinity Ward, and took quite a bit of that talent with them when they went. That and they also had the resources of EA behind them, so they had the time and resources at their disposal to deliver a proper game that didn't need to constantly be patched over what are really silly issues. Also, these guys are basically RESPONSIBLE for the FPS market as it is now. A number of these issues should not be coming up for a company with a pedigree such as theirs.

Not to derail this too much but Jim Sterling did a good video about how AAA companies have gotten into the habit of doing something bad, saying that what they are doing isn't bad (even though EVERYONE is saying it is) and then a few months later they come back and say, "Yeah, that was bad, we're sorry, we won't do it again, please forgive us" and then do something else stupid soon afterwards.

NSFW due to language.
 
As for private matches, I can see how some people would want that. I just don't know 12 people with an Xbox One who I could set up a private match with if I wanted to. It does seem like that should have been easy enough to implement for those that want it. I can't even imagine trying to set up a 64 player private match in battlefield.
 
Last edited:
yourbeliefs said:
I do agree with the sentiment that the game feels unfinished based on the massive amount of tweaks and fixes that are being made. I mean, private matches are still in BETA.. Really? Could you imagine Battlefield or CoD shipping without private matches? Also, adding game modes post launch is rather annoying as well.

I think the author's main point was that this game was not finished, yet it was shipped out anyways just to get the most money as soon as possible, as opposed to delivering a good, finished product. This is a VERY big problem in the AAA gaming industry nowadays: Get a halfway stable product out there and then just fix it afterwards. Yes, some stuff can't be detected early on without the large playerbase banging on it as opposed to a small QA team, but nowadays it feels like generally accepted good software development practices are being ignored for the sake of getting something out there ASAP. Finally, this isn't exactly a brand new studio. Respawn was founded by the 2 former heads of Infinity Ward, and took quite a bit of that talent with them when they went. That and they also had the resources of EA behind them, so they had the time and resources at their disposal to deliver a proper game that didn't need to constantly be patched over what are really silly issues. Also, these guys are basically RESPONSIBLE for the FPS market as it is now. A number of these issues should not be coming up for a company with a pedigree such as theirs.

Not to derail this too much but Jim Sterling did a good video about how AAA companies have gotten into the habit of doing something bad, saying that what they are doing isn't bad (even though EVERYONE is saying it is) and then a few months later they come back and say, "Yeah, that was bad, we're sorry, we won't do it again, please forgive us" and then do something else stupid soon afterwards.

NSFW due to language.
Click to expand...

I don't think tweaks and fixes are necessarily a bad thing for an online shooter. I certainly think that's better than stopping all support for a game once it's out the door. Lots of these tweaks have to do with competitive balance more than glitches. If everyone is using a particular gun because it's overpowered compared to the rest, I don't see anything wrong with balancing it out.

Adding game modes can go either way for me. I would rather more content be added to the game I already bought for free than being forced to buy a sequel or DLC to get it. In that sense I can't complain about game modes being added post-launch. If it's something that should have been in the game from the start it's a little annoying that it didn't make the original launch date but getting it late is better than never getting it. If you just don't like a new game mode that's added in you can always choose to keep playing the old ones.

For the record, I do agree that putting out a broken, unfinished game just so you can hit a date and then patching it later sucks. I just don't feel that it's as prevalent as most gaming websites make it seem. Most single player, offline campaigns I have played don't feel unfinished or broken. I haven't played a single player game that felt that way for a long time. I think quality control is pretty good in the single player market.

Now, most of the games that have problems either rely on servers that can't meet demand like SimCity or are multiplayer shooters that require perfection to keep competitive balance like Battlefield. I agree that both of these problems need to be prevented as much as possible. Most of the games I play don't require the online component so maybe it just doesn't hit me as hard as other people.

Still as someone who actually put quite a few hours into Battlefield 4 and Titanfall online near each games respective launch I feel that most articles talking about how broken they are tend to exaggerate the problem. I did experience a sound glitch with Battlefield 4 a few times but most of the issues IGN kept telling me to be so upset about never once happened to me. I wouldn't have even known they existed without reading those articles. In Titanfall's case I don't remember ever experiencing a crash or game-breaking glitch. I thought they actually had a pretty smooth launch considering how heavily they relied on cloud servers.
 
After having 48 hours to play the entire product it looks like Titanfall for me is going to fall in the same category as fantasy football, sky diving, and S&M: Activities that are not bad but simply do not appeal to me. I suppose one could argue I didn't give TF enough of a chance, but quite frankly I shouldn't have to keep giving a game chances in order to like it. It should ideally be "caught" early on, or at least earlier than it has. And if nothing else, it sure didn't justify taking up over 20% of my SSD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
stimpson

Watch Dogs Trailer With Release Date

  • stimpson
  • Replies: 85
Kraven

Manuel Noriega not a Fan of CoD

  • Kraven
  • Replies: 5

Similar threads

yourbeliefs
Facepalm thread
Replies
110
Views
13K
yourbeliefs
yourbeliefs
yourbeliefs
Nintendo Switch Thread
Replies
264
Views
22K
Derwin0
Derwin0
yourbeliefs
Overwatch Thread
Replies
289
Views
22K
yourbeliefs
yourbeliefs
yourbeliefs
No Man's Sky Thread
Replies
78
Views
9K
yourbeliefs
yourbeliefs
Ramy
Titanfall Beta
Replies
17
Views
2K
Ramy
Ramy

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top
Back