I was saying I literally do not see the changes you are saying are there and was hoping you could elaborate
But now yeah we should probably just drop it because like
Movement is not slower, I have no idea where that comment is coming from
So I guess I agree there's no point in discussing when we are apparently talking about different games
Yes, this is what I am essentially saying.
You clearly do not see the game as I see the game.
I don't have the time, nor do I think it would be productive, to try and spell out in minutia why I feel the way I do about the game when our views are clearly so unaligned.
Which is why I made the post that I made, as to save us both some time.
I mean, I think it should be pretty obvious at this point in our talking to one another that you and I simply do not see the same things in FPS games as I don't think we have ever once agreed about any point about any FPS game ever.
Which is fine! Different strokes and all that.
Inquisitor on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
The movement was slower but they sped it up after feedback.
It might not be exactly TF1 level but its still pretty fast.
The first Titanfall was a unique taste of hyper mobility in a genre of shooters where mobility was not the focus. It also has a ton of mechanics and gameplay/match flow features people found brilliant. The game existing purely in a multiplayer environment meant it can only be played when the player base is large enough. Several market decisions dulled that for the first game.
Wanting the second game to fulfill the success of the first while maintaining more of a player base and adding some content is reasonable. Saying this is not that game is inherently disappointing to expectations from the first game.
+1
LasbrookIt takes a lot to make a stewWhen it comes to me and youRegistered Userregular
I don't really feel the Swiss cheese/lanes comment is meant as a comment towards taking away mobility/wall running and more towards just better clarity of map design so it's easier to tell what's going on.
Watching those FrothyOmen videos showed me you can be mobile as hell in this game, certainly to a better degree than I ever will be. I think the only comments he had to make is it takes two wall runs now to get up to full speed and ejecting from your Titan is way more certain death now. Also did you see phase shift on both pilots and the Ronin Titan? That shit looks nuts.
Maps may emphasize long range combat a bit more now but maybe that's because almost nobody rolled with a sniper rifle before. I spent almost the entire second test weekend rolling the shotgun and did just fine for myself.
Also, I never played much last Titan standing but kinda like the risk/reward of having to get out and scramble for a battery before some other Titan turns you into dust.
I don't really feel the Swiss cheese/lanes comment is meant as a comment towards taking away mobility/wall running and more towards just better clarity of map design so it's easier to tell what's going on.
But I don't want clarity of map design, I don't want it to be easier to tell what is going on. I enjoyed the chaos of the scrum that was the first titanfall. In comparison the beta I played for TF2 felt lifeless and stale.
Now that I'm home and can watch these trailers I feel weirdly angry at EA Marketing?
The devs releasing statements on all the negative press because people made assumptions on the very limited beta tech test rang hollow because they could just fucking say 'oh yeah, attrition is not in this build.' Did they need to keep that nugget a huge secret for this planned media reveal? What did they gain from keeping that under wraps and uncertain? If you give us a limited tech test and remain hyper cagey on basic information like attrition of course people are going to assume the worst. This reveal isn't more impactful or going to build more hype because attrition is some sort of surprise. It's Titanfall, it's the most played game mode. Of course it's in you would have to be a crazy person to remove it. The fact that a significant number of people were suspecting the devs had gone crazy feels like a fai-
wait, SHIT
the last several games I purchased because reviews missed huge glaring parts of games in their faces and I had to do the game justice
those fuckers are trying to get me to hate-buy this!
Ah come on, I think we are better than communicating through memes here.
There is nothing wrong with wanting clarity of map design and wanting it to easy to tell what is going on. But it's not the only way to build a shooter and it's not the "right way" (or "wrong way" for that matter) to make a shooter.
It's a deliberate design choice that has pros and cons. Lots of games make very deliberate choices to make it intentionally harder to tell what is going on in a map. Things like dynamic lightning, fog effects, winds throwing around trash to create movement, etc. Adding visual clutter and distraction makes target acquisition, especially of fast moving targets, harder, and especially at long ranges. One of the reasons why sniping is less of a thing in Titanfall is that it is hard to tell instantly, at a distance, at a glance, if something is a pilot or an AI grunt. That design choice pushes combat in towards closer range.
Similarly, having maps with lots of tiny, obscure paths, with weird street orientations, interlocking structures, at a variety of heights, promotes gameplay with an emphasis on movement, staying hidden, outflanking, and ambushing. Which happens to be a play style I personally highly enjoy. Moving towards a less convoluted map structure, with clearly defined lanes and the like, promotes a style of play that is more about locking down those lanes and area control. Again, nothing wrong with either style of play.
Or, for a different example, one multiplayer shooter I enjoy is Red Orchestra 2, which is a multiplayer shooter with a very robust suppression system. If bullets start whizzing by you the game forces your screen to blur, forces your camera to move around, and makes your gun jerk around. It directly makes it harder to tell what is going on and control your character. It's an important part of the balance and mechanics of the game. One player suppresses a window so other players can move up. Is it the right or wrong way to make an FPS? That's a silly question. But it is a mechanic I enjoy that some other people will not.
From a competitive perspective, you generally want everything to be as clear as possible, which is why competitive players go in to games and tweak .ini files to turn off things like fog, and lighting, and bushes, and if allowed alter player textures to make all opponents a violent neon green, and things like that. But building for competitive play isn't the only way to build a game.
So yeah, come on, use your words. Conversations are more interesting than memes.
There's nothing wrong with using am image or gif to communicate your feelings quickly, and long paragraphs are not "better" or above easier communication because there are lots of words
Call of Duty, but with big robots—if you'd asked me to guess what Titanfall 2's campaign would look like before I played it, that would've been my gut reaction. It's partially correct. The basic act of shooting feels as twitchy and instantaneous as any Call of Duty, and there are giant robot exoskeletons to pilot, but Titanfall 2 isn't nearly that simple.
You shoot bad guys, sure, but you also have branching conversations with a robot companion and Super-Meat-Boy your way through challenging platforming gauntlets, all set in a cohesive, mysterious science fiction world. It’s one of the most surprising action shooters I’ve played in recent memory, a planetary tour that gets more mileage out of experimenting with level design and traversal than no-scoping enemy infantry.
[...]To go from an intricate underground Aperture Science-esque platforming gauntlet to piloting a massive robot on a screaming battlefield within the same two hours illustrates the surprising breadth of Titanfall 2’s campaign. I expected Titanfall 2 to be a whack-a-mole shooter tour through a few linear levels—a silly blockbuster robot fantasy. If what I played is any indication, we might be in for the most creative shooter campaign this year. The inverse of Doom, an FPS that went for intense, focused gunplay, Titanfall 2 is aiming for variety, to be an amusement park of playful shooter and platforming experiments.
Well, Polygon put up a review of the full multiplayer, but the DDOS means nobody can read it
So I guess I'm just gonna stare at this Facebook link to the nonexistent story until it's real
I can read it
I don't think I can just rehost another sites content here but I'll post their concluding paragraph
The end result is a multiplayer component with fantastic mechanics that often feels hamstrung by difficult-to-understand design choices. Titanfall 2’s multiplayer is fun despite that — Bounty Hunt mode takes the enemy AI component of Attrition from Titanfall and adds a great active element to scoring that leads to exciting matches with the potential for big turnarounds — but the dynamics are thrown off enough to make for something that doesn’t click together as well as it did before.
Most of the time, [Titanfall 2's campaign] feels like a set of mechanics in search of a game. To be fair, occasionally it finds one. There's a few points in the game — such as a level demanding platforming through a series of rotating landscapes being "assembled" for a maniacal robot's combat trials, or navigating through the bowels of a communications facility that wasn't designed for human interaction — where it finds its footing, no pun intended. It might be surprising to hear that Titanfall 2 is the most fun when you're doing the least shooting — when Respawn lets it feel more more like, say Portal, it's considerably more fun.
[...]Consistency is a problem for Titanfall 2 in general, and it's a game that seems to struggle with a confident direction for its changes. The end result is a collection of fantastic mechanics across its campaign and its multiplayer that often feel hamstrung by difficult to understand design choices. There's clearly more here than before, and the package is offering something more "complete" by today's standards. But Titanfall 2 throws the series' dynamics off enough to make for something that just doesn't quite click together as well as it did before.
Most of the time, [Titanfall 2's campaign] feels like a set of mechanics in search of a game. To be fair, occasionally it finds one. There's a few points in the game — such as a level demanding platforming through a series of rotating landscapes being "assembled" for a maniacal robot's combat trials, or navigating through the bowels of a communications facility that wasn't designed for human interaction — where it finds its footing, no pun intended. It might be surprising to hear that Titanfall 2 is the most fun when you're doing the least shooting — when Respawn lets it feel more more like, say Portal, it's considerably more fun.
[...]Consistency is a problem for Titanfall 2 in general, and it's a game that seems to struggle with a confident direction for its changes. The end result is a collection of fantastic mechanics across its campaign and its multiplayer that often feel hamstrung by difficult to understand design choices. There's clearly more here than before, and the package is offering something more "complete" by today's standards. But Titanfall 2 throws the series' dynamics off enough to make for something that just doesn't quite click together as well as it did before.
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
I was kinda ambivalent on this after the Tech Test. I already bought and am enjoying BF1.
But man, some of the stuff I'm hearing about the single player coupled with my love for GIANT ROBOT BATTEL! has me really thinking about getting this now.
Still not sure I'm going to get this. Wasn't a fan of any of the maps I've played, and sure that's only 3 (of 9) but why would they put the three worst maps in the tech test??
Man, this was my most anticipated game of the year before I played it.
I'm more interested in what Austin Walker has to say about it, he came away from the betas pretty cool on it, and he loved the first game
I definitely understand the complaints about the changes to Titans, but I play the game because the Pilot movement is so so so good, the Titans come like, 4th down the line in important mechanics to me
So that doesn't sway me as much, and I know Austin's all about them mechs
I'm more interested in what Austin Walker has to say about it, he came away from the betas pretty cool on it, and he loved the first game
I definitely understand the complaints about the changes to Titans, but I play the game because the Pilot movement is so so so good, the Titans come like, 4th down the line in important mechanics to me
So that doesn't sway me as much, and I know Austin's all about them mechs
Pilot movement was my favorite part of 1 and what they showed off so far in 2 has felt like a huge step backwards to me.
I'm more interested in what Austin Walker has to say about it, he came away from the betas pretty cool on it, and he loved the first game
I definitely understand the complaints about the changes to Titans, but I play the game because the Pilot movement is so so so good, the Titans come like, 4th down the line in important mechanics to me
So that doesn't sway me as much, and I know Austin's all about them mechs
Pilot movement was my favorite part of 1 and what they showed off so far in 2 has felt like a huge step backwards to me.
I cannot take part in this conversation, because I for real don't know what people are talking about
I'm more interested in what Austin Walker has to say about it, he came away from the betas pretty cool on it, and he loved the first game
I definitely understand the complaints about the changes to Titans, but I play the game because the Pilot movement is so so so good, the Titans come like, 4th down the line in important mechanics to me
So that doesn't sway me as much, and I know Austin's all about them mechs
Pilot movement was my favorite part of 1 and what they showed off so far in 2 has felt like a huge step backwards to me.
I cannot take part in this conversation, because I for real don't know what people are talking about
The beta felt the same to me
Not better, not worse, actually identical
This is where I have been as well re: pilot movement
Posts
Is pretty much my feedback and what feels like a whole bunch of players feed back from the betas and footage is.
Which I mean, I guess this is where we get to make a joke about EA and not being able to have nice IP's stay nice.
Yes, this is what I am essentially saying.
You clearly do not see the game as I see the game.
I don't have the time, nor do I think it would be productive, to try and spell out in minutia why I feel the way I do about the game when our views are clearly so unaligned.
Which is why I made the post that I made, as to save us both some time.
I mean, I think it should be pretty obvious at this point in our talking to one another that you and I simply do not see the same things in FPS games as I don't think we have ever once agreed about any point about any FPS game ever.
Which is fine! Different strokes and all that.
It might not be exactly TF1 level but its still pretty fast.
Wanting the second game to fulfill the success of the first while maintaining more of a player base and adding some content is reasonable. Saying this is not that game is inherently disappointing to expectations from the first game.
Watching those FrothyOmen videos showed me you can be mobile as hell in this game, certainly to a better degree than I ever will be. I think the only comments he had to make is it takes two wall runs now to get up to full speed and ejecting from your Titan is way more certain death now. Also did you see phase shift on both pilots and the Ronin Titan? That shit looks nuts.
Maps may emphasize long range combat a bit more now but maybe that's because almost nobody rolled with a sniper rifle before. I spent almost the entire second test weekend rolling the shotgun and did just fine for myself.
Also, I never played much last Titan standing but kinda like the risk/reward of having to get out and scramble for a battery before some other Titan turns you into dust.
Steam
But I don't want clarity of map design, I don't want it to be easier to tell what is going on. I enjoyed the chaos of the scrum that was the first titanfall. In comparison the beta I played for TF2 felt lifeless and stale.
The devs releasing statements on all the negative press because people made assumptions on the very limited beta tech test rang hollow because they could just fucking say 'oh yeah, attrition is not in this build.' Did they need to keep that nugget a huge secret for this planned media reveal? What did they gain from keeping that under wraps and uncertain? If you give us a limited tech test and remain hyper cagey on basic information like attrition of course people are going to assume the worst. This reveal isn't more impactful or going to build more hype because attrition is some sort of surprise. It's Titanfall, it's the most played game mode. Of course it's in you would have to be a crazy person to remove it. The fact that a significant number of people were suspecting the devs had gone crazy feels like a fai-
wait, SHIT
the last several games I purchased because reviews missed huge glaring parts of games in their faces and I had to do the game justice
those fuckers are trying to get me to hate-buy this!
Was CTF in the first game?
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
There is nothing wrong with wanting clarity of map design and wanting it to easy to tell what is going on. But it's not the only way to build a shooter and it's not the "right way" (or "wrong way" for that matter) to make a shooter.
It's a deliberate design choice that has pros and cons. Lots of games make very deliberate choices to make it intentionally harder to tell what is going on in a map. Things like dynamic lightning, fog effects, winds throwing around trash to create movement, etc. Adding visual clutter and distraction makes target acquisition, especially of fast moving targets, harder, and especially at long ranges. One of the reasons why sniping is less of a thing in Titanfall is that it is hard to tell instantly, at a distance, at a glance, if something is a pilot or an AI grunt. That design choice pushes combat in towards closer range.
Similarly, having maps with lots of tiny, obscure paths, with weird street orientations, interlocking structures, at a variety of heights, promotes gameplay with an emphasis on movement, staying hidden, outflanking, and ambushing. Which happens to be a play style I personally highly enjoy. Moving towards a less convoluted map structure, with clearly defined lanes and the like, promotes a style of play that is more about locking down those lanes and area control. Again, nothing wrong with either style of play.
Or, for a different example, one multiplayer shooter I enjoy is Red Orchestra 2, which is a multiplayer shooter with a very robust suppression system. If bullets start whizzing by you the game forces your screen to blur, forces your camera to move around, and makes your gun jerk around. It directly makes it harder to tell what is going on and control your character. It's an important part of the balance and mechanics of the game. One player suppresses a window so other players can move up. Is it the right or wrong way to make an FPS? That's a silly question. But it is a mechanic I enjoy that some other people will not.
From a competitive perspective, you generally want everything to be as clear as possible, which is why competitive players go in to games and tweak .ini files to turn off things like fog, and lighting, and bushes, and if allowed alter player textures to make all opponents a violent neon green, and things like that. But building for competitive play isn't the only way to build a game.
So yeah, come on, use your words. Conversations are more interesting than memes.
Like I understand not understanding someone's point of view if you want different things from the game. But it isn't worth a Seinfeld gif.
Heck, I might play it then.
Steam: MightyPotatoKing
If you get a sort of Smart Rifle somewhere in the campaign that would sinch it
So I guess I'm just gonna stare at this Facebook link to the nonexistent story until it's real
I can read it
I don't think I can just rehost another sites content here but I'll post their concluding paragraph
Solid counterpoint
cute
"...only mights and maybes."
As long as they added some longevity to the multi, I'm in.
And Arthur Gies is the worst
So my excitement is maintained
But man, some of the stuff I'm hearing about the single player coupled with my love for GIANT ROBOT BATTEL! has me really thinking about getting this now.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
if anything arthur gies not liking it has me more excited
The only thing that had me worried was Bounty Hunt was not a good Attrition replacement
But since it isn't one, I have very few concerns, it still handles how I love it to
That's weird.
It probably just unlocks at like 11 pm
Man, this was my most anticipated game of the year before I played it.
I definitely understand the complaints about the changes to Titans, but I play the game because the Pilot movement is so so so good, the Titans come like, 4th down the line in important mechanics to me
So that doesn't sway me as much, and I know Austin's all about them mechs
It was so much worse than the first game.
Pilot movement was my favorite part of 1 and what they showed off so far in 2 has felt like a huge step backwards to me.
I cannot friggin wait to play this you guys
Edit: especially hearing Jeff and a bunch of other people saying it 'feels' right
I cannot take part in this conversation, because I for real don't know what people are talking about
The beta felt the same to me
Not better, not worse, actually identical
This is where I have been as well re: pilot movement
it feels great as ever