Zero Punctuation: Titanfall - It's Got Big Stompy Robots

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

This is why I prefer Halo as a multiplayer shooter - there's a lot to do. I liked being able to bounce back and forth between the campaign, multiplayer, and other various game modes. I think that's why I have such an issue with Titanfall as a product - it thinks it can just walk in with it's pedigree and "If You Like Call of Duty" tag and suddenly be a defining moment in multiplayer as we know it. But you can't just DO that. I think that's why the lack of content for a full-priced product that is the first of it's name is going to be biting to the average consumer that maybe only casually approaches multiplayer modes after finishing a game's campaign. I know this game wasn't created with them in mind but the it sure has been marketed down everyone's throats.

a bland generic online shooter that seems so horrible that this week's ZP ranks as one of the most boring ever. Yes, not even Yahtzee could think of interesting things to say about this.

Oh but it has big stompy robots, so it's instagood <_<

not to mention it being ridiculously overpriced

What i dont get is why do they have tanks and other shit parked around the place ? but you cant use them? that would have been even better, BF Style big maps with titans and tanks and shit. Nope ? just there for show ? and a full price game.

The White Hunter:

1) Yeah it's mostly the effective range that's an issue, though it is annoying to be killed by it for obvious reasons.

Quite. But for me, through my use of the thing and getting killed by it, I've learned the ins-and-outs of it's uses and it's uselessness. I also used it as a lesson to always...ALWAYS...watch my back in Titanfall. It was a far better teacher than the few times I've had my neck snapped.

2) Both of those are largely pointless when the starting rifle outdoes them both in every aspect.

At long-mid to close, without a doubt. But the one-shot sniper rifle can be pretty devastating to a team on the right map.

Still, I agree. I'd rather have the R-101C.

3) I would say the range on leadwall is bullshit, it's a bit too far, but without leadwall you need a headshot pretty fast, most of the time I die to the omnipresent assault rifle though, so it's rarely an issue. If it's any consolation I just run the drum magazine with the parkour kit, very useful for getting about and defending objectives with wallhang.

I've found that it often only takes two good shots from the shotgun at close to mid range to drop someone. Three, if the pings are shite.

Admittedly, I do like going shotgun with the radar kit.

It's just me but revolvers should sound big.

No, it's not just you. That is a bit disappointing.

5) Stryders definately need a bit less armour, it's frustrating to die up close to them in an Ogre because of their dash abuse and higher-than-expected armour, when realistically once cornered the Ogre should crush them. They seem to take that one too many hits. I mostly use the Ogre as it fits my playstyle in titans better, I tend to be precise, flank, or in last titan standing I have been known to go for nuke kills when the opportunity to take a few enemy's down presents itself.

I tend to like the Stryder as it fits my play style. Stay back and snipe. Move in fast if needed. Provide fire support for the big'uns. Or dodge around like a madman in the middle of a group fight.

6) Yup, matchmaking seems to be being sorted out, I have had a few miserable matches against people who just destoryed us, and that's not really me sucking, I'm not amazing at the game but I'm pretty good and know my way around the maps pretty well. It also seems to always chuck in a couple of guys who will do nothing but die in attrition even when you do well, so yeah, hopefully it gets sorted.

I've had similar experiences with "useless" teammates, but primarily in CTF.

It almost always seems like I'm the only one actively attempting to cap or defend the flags. I've even had teammates ignore me entirely, whilst I'm carrying the flag, when I ask for a lift on their Titan. Some have even flat-out said, "No."

So yeah. The sooner better match-making and private lobbies get into the game, the better.

That, and I hope they fix some of the (at times severe) jitter issues on the US East data center.

dark souls 2 is 10 bucks cheaper on steam came out at the same time and offers more content

i give the devs credit for realizing people often dont play games such as CoD for the singleplayer, but you DONT have to still ask 60 bloody bucks for the game

"Mecha-Tom and Jerry"?

...yeah, that actually sounds about right.

I'm surprised just how spot on the review is given Yahtzee's known stance on modern military shooters and multiplayer in general. The biggest problem I have with Titanfall is the fucked up matchmaking. Seriously, I was lvl 1 and got set up against a full team of six that were between 37 and 48. It took something like 17 consecutive losses to level up enough to start winning. The "single player story told through multiplayer" is a joke. You can't hear half the talking because of, ya know, trying not to die. But once you get the hang of it and get some gear the game is pretty fun.

now that was unexpected. him reviewing a MP game? thats amazing and he even liked it. well, i personally still enjoy it a lot. sure has its flaws but which game doenst. lol.

If I ever happen to be at a convention Yahtzee is at, I shall make sure to bring along a Cadbury Crčme egg to give to him... and no doubt be the seven millionth person to do so, thus making him that much more heartily sick of them.

Meanwhile all the other internet reviewers are saying MGS Ground Zeroes, being a reasonable 20 bucks (if you're smart and buying it digitally on the reasonable consoles), is the one that's got too high an asking price for the 10+ hours of content in it, while in the same breath vomiting out perfect scores to Titanfall.

Used to be the days when people would say "Oh I do giggle at that Yahtzee fellow, but I would never take his videos seriously as a review." How naive and unsuspecting we all were back in those quaint days now that it seems like he's the only one who hasn't been bought and sold by the AAA publishers or brainwashed by the hype machine.

Whatislove:
I'll just sit here blissfully having never played it due to ignoring all of the hype.

I've watched a gameplay video here or there, CoD with robots - ground breaking.

I'm sure looking forward to CoD with robots 2: moderner robots that will be released in 9 months and I'll definitely be all in for the CoD with Robots: Black Robots in another 8 months after that.

Exactly my thoughts.

Ah well, at least there soon an expansion to FTL ^^

I enjoyed the review, but the ending animation of mecha-cat following the laser dot inexplicably cracked me up.

This whole "muliplayer-only isn't worth the price of a full game" is kind of ridiculous. I mean, does the "campaign" on CoD really add any value to it? Really? Does anyone really buy CoD for the campaign anymore? And there's also the flip side to that: does single-player only warrant the full price? Should Skyrim come out with $20 knocked off the price because there's no multiplayer?

As far as I'm concerned, games are worth "full-price" based on their own merits, not how many different "modes" they have, and shoe-horning additional modes into a game typically just waters down the whole thing. And I didn't see anyone complaining that WoW or SW:TOR was multiplayer only.

Maybe Titanfall isn't worth the price of admission for other reasons, and maybe some of those reasons are a lack of content, but is a 10-hour single-player campaign going to make it suddenly worth it? I think most players would prefer they focused on adding content to the multiplayer.

Full disclosure: I haven't paid more than $20 for a game in years (except for The Old Republic...), but I'm a cheap bastard.

This is a fucking terrible review of the game.

I don't mean because of the opinions in it, but because it get things wrong. Like for instance:

Sure, higher level players have access to more guns, but the guns aren't inherently better than the higher level guns. In fact, I find a lot of people still use the Carbine even at higher levels of play. So the whole 'higher level players killed me due to better guns' thing is bullshit.

Secondly, why does this review focus purely on the campaign? It doesn't touch on 'Classic' play at all. Don't complain about a game being skinny when you aren't even going to touch the meaty section of it.

What's this obsession with the game being multi-player only? Do people really buy shooter games like these (Call of Duty, Battlefield, Counterstrike etc) for the single player aspect? Probably only a minority of players. The biggest draw to games like these is going to be the multi-player aspect.

I've got 21 hours on the game so far (which is a lot for me) and I'm likely to get a good deal more hours out of it too. Sure, you could argue that the game-play is repetitive, but how many games can't you say that for? Besides, multi-player games have far more replay-ability due to playing against different people that use different tactics, causing you to need to use different tactics.

Magmarock:

Eldritch Warlord:

Typical Escapist members will complain. Anyone who actually wants to play a multiplayer shooter would applaud the decision though.

Too bad few people here are likely to accept that there's any hypocrisy in calling Titanfall "half a game" since it's multiplayer only when they'd never even dream of saying the same of a game because it's singleplayer only.

That's because a single player games only needs one play to be enjoyed. This is kind of a no brainier. One player buys one game and gets enjoyment out of it. For TitanFall multiple players have to buy it and play together. Even MP focused games such as UT had bots which made for some good single player fun.

$80 for a g same that can't even be enjoyed on it's own, are you serious. Developers are taking the piss.

That argument makes no sense. You can buy the game on your own and enjoy it because plenty of other people have bought the game and are playing it without you.

Also from a technical standpoint the sort of pathing players are expected to do as Pilots is basically the antithesis of AI pathfinding. It would truly be a programming marvel if Respawn managed to make serviceable bots for them.

frobalt:
This is a fucking terrible review of the game.

I don't mean because of the opinions in it, but because it get things wrong. Like for instance:

Sure, higher level players have access to more guns, but the guns aren't inherently better than the higher level guns. In fact, I find a lot of people still use the Carbine even at higher levels of play. So the whole 'higher level players killed me due to better guns' thing is bullshit.

Secondly, why does this review focus purely on the campaign? It doesn't touch on 'Classic' play at all. Don't complain about a game being skinny when you aren't even going to touch the meaty section of it.

What's this obsession with the game being multi-player only? Do people really buy shooter games like these (Call of Duty, Battlefield, Counterstrike etc) for the single player aspect? Probably only a minority of players. The biggest draw to games like these is going to be the multi-player aspect.

I've got 21 hours on the game so far (which is a lot for me) and I'm likely to get a good deal more hours out of it too. Sure, you could argue that the game-play is repetitive, but how many games can't you say that for? Besides, multi-player games have far more replay-ability due to playing against different people that use different tactics, causing you to need to use different tactics.

kind of missed that part. i guess i was more amused that he liked it. but true, even level 50 players still use the carbine. me as well. i tried other guns i have unlocked but in the end i still stick with the carbine.

and i still cant understand why people still keep saying that its similar to COD. its not. you dont call in any helicopter or other air support, or control any missiles or some little car with explosives. even angry joe said he doesnt see any similarities to COD.

Metalrocks:

kind of missed that part. i guess i was more amused that he liked it. but true, even level 50 players still use the carbine. me as well. i tried other guns i have unlocked but in the end i still stick with the carbine.

and i still cant understand why people still keep saying that its similar to COD. its not. you dont call in any helicopter or other air support, or control any missiles or some little car with explosives. even angry joe said he doesnt see any similarities to COD.

Itīs because some people just see a shooter and immediatly go "well itīs just halo/cod/gears with just one little thing added". They will basically ignore any changes made to a formular, even if those changes are freaking massive, if they did not like the original formular and denie that any actual innovation or progress was done.

Itīs probably the same kind of people who actually believe that all 2D and 3D fighers are the same thing, but then praise stuff like Spec obs: the line(litterally COD with a better story) or gone home(the amazing experience of walking around in someones house) for theyr enormous achievements of pushing games further.

Vigormortis:

lukesparow:
I didn't know they were asking $60 for this. That's absolutely ridiculous!
And people were pissing on Kojima for Ground Zeroes?
Why does Titanfall get a pass? It makes no sense to me.

Perhaps because Ground Zeroes is a $30 game with literally 10 minutes of game-play?

Well that's if you speedrun it. The same can be said for Titanfall.
You can play that game for 10 minutes just as well, but that doesn't mean there isn't more content there.
I never said Kojima should get away with Ground Zeroes, as I think this practice is despicable.

What I am saying however, is that Titanfall is basically doing the same thing.

DaViller:

Metalrocks:

kind of missed that part. i guess i was more amused that he liked it. but true, even level 50 players still use the carbine. me as well. i tried other guns i have unlocked but in the end i still stick with the carbine.

and i still cant understand why people still keep saying that its similar to COD. its not. you dont call in any helicopter or other air support, or control any missiles or some little car with explosives. even angry joe said he doesnt see any similarities to COD.

Itīs because some people just see a shooter and immediatly go "well itīs just halo/cod/gears with just one little thing added". They will basically ignore any changes made to a formular, even if those changes are freaking massive, if they did not like the original formular and denie that any actual innovation or progress was done.

Itīs probably the same kind of people who actually believe that all 2D and 3D fighers are the same thing, but then praise stuff like Spec obs: the line(litterally COD with a better story) or gone home(the amazing experience of walking around in someones house) for theyr enormous achievements of pushing games further.

good points. i guess it has also to do that the maps are smaller just like in COD so thats what sticks out for everyone.

GonzoGamer:

themutantlizard:

GonzoGamer:
Yea, I have a bad feeling that we're going to see a lot more multiplayer only games now that both the ps4 and xbone charge monthly for playing online. That's why everyone wants it to be a success. Then they can point at it and say 'look all the next gen players want multiplayer only games. Make more.'

any next gen game that charges monthly for playing online I'm not playing online and if its online only I'm not buying it pure and simple.

I hear ya but it's not just the games, all the consoles (except the wiiu) themselves require a monthly charge to play online now. I understand Sony has a lot more interesting features integrated into the online experience (like video capture, which is pretty cool) but they should lock all that behind a paywall instead of online play. If they did that, I might actually consider buying a ps4. Hell, I might even consider subscribing to plus if I don't feel like I'm being bullied into it.

I thought that PS4 had free online access someone at gamestop told me that.

Metalrocks:

good points. i guess it has also to do that the maps are smaller just like in COD so thats what sticks out for everyone.

Admittedly the gun mechanics are very similar to cod, this is probably what ticks people of. I myself was skeptic since I hate cod with a passion, but I never outright dismissed the game based on that.

Who keeps adding these stupid little subtitles? Is that supposed to be funny?

lukesparow:

Well that's if you speedrun it. The same can be said for Titanfall.
You can play that game for 10 minutes just as well, but that doesn't mean there isn't more content there.
I never said Kojima should get away with Ground Zeroes, as I think this practice is despicable. 4

I'd argue that, given the nature of online multiplayer[1], something like Titanfall has a greater level of inherent replayability than a purely solo, primarily linear game like Ground Zeroes.

This is not to speak on any given players preference for multi or solo gameplay, of course. And yes, granted, the ten minute run is a "speed run", but only in so far as the person doing the play-through only did everything needed for story completion.

With the side missions, and perhaps a bit of faffing about, the play time can be extended to something as long as two or three hours (so I've heard from friends who've played). But even so we're still talking about $30 for what amounts to a long movie.

Regardless, if Ground Zeroes is a(n)(overpriced) taste of what's to come, MGS fans are in for a treat. That, I believe, is not debatable.

What I am saying however, is that Titanfall is basically doing the same thing.

In a general sense, I agree. Absolutely. However, it really all depends on what new features, content, and other additions Respawn brings to the game down the road.

The more free content that's added, the more the price tag is justified. The more premium DLC that's added, the less justified.

[1] As in, the randomness and uncertainty present in any given match.

Vigormortis:

lukesparow:

Well that's if you speedrun it. The same can be said for Titanfall.
You can play that game for 10 minutes just as well, but that doesn't mean there isn't more content there.
I never said Kojima should get away with Ground Zeroes, as I think this practice is despicable. 4

I'd argue that, given the nature of online multiplayer[1], something like Titanfall has a greater level of inherent replayability than a purely solo, primarily linear game like Ground Zeroes.

This is not to speak on any given players preference for multi or solo gameplay, of course. And yes, granted, the ten minute run is a "speed run", but only in so far as the person doing the play-through only did everything needed for story completion.

With the side missions, and perhaps a bit of faffing about, the play time can be extended to something as long as two or three hours (so I've heard from friends who've played). But even so we're still talking about $30 for what amounts to a long movie.

Regardless, if Ground Zeroes is a(n)(overpriced) taste of what's to come, MGS fans are in for a treat. That, I believe, is not debatable.

What I am saying however, is that Titanfall is basically doing the same thing.

In a general sense, I agree. Absolutely. However, it really all depends on what new features, content, and other additions Respawn brings to the game down the road.

The more free content that's added, the more the price tag is justified. The more premium DLC that's added, the less justified.

I completely agree. The way Titanfall stands as of right now, it's not worth $60 at all though.
Maybe later down the line when, like you say might happen, more content is added.

[1] As in, the randomness and uncertainty present in any given match.

themutantlizard:

GonzoGamer:

themutantlizard:

any next gen game that charges monthly for playing online I'm not playing online and if its online only I'm not buying it pure and simple.

I hear ya but it's not just the games, all the consoles (except the wiiu) themselves require a monthly charge to play online now. I understand Sony has a lot more interesting features integrated into the online experience (like video capture, which is pretty cool) but they should lock all that behind a paywall instead of online play. If they did that, I might actually consider buying a ps4. Hell, I might even consider subscribing to plus if I don't feel like I'm being bullied into it.

I thought that PS4 had free online access someone at gamestop told me that.

Yea? That would be cool if they paid my cable bill but no.
Seriously though, it's only the online play that you need to subscribe to plus for. So it seems odd to me that the only thing that they lock up is half (or sometimes all) the content of the game you just bought separately. Did I say odd, I meant that it seems like a dick move.

Like I said before, I wouldn't be so pissed about it if they weren't also phasing local multiplayer out.

Yojoo:
I almost never play FPS and was going to avoid this game when I heard it was only multiplayer, but my roommate wound up buying it and I found it to easily be the best multiplayer FPS game I have ever played.

The balance between titan and pilot in combat is great, the freedom of movement you have as a pilot rivals that of parkour titles like Prince of Persia and Assassin's Creed, and piloting a titan is extremely satisfying. It's well-executed and very fun-centric multiplayer, and that's it.

Knowing what I know now, I would have been willing to pay full price for it.

I'd even say the parkour is even more fluid than Assassins Creed. I Just picked up Black Flag during a 50% off sale and have been playing that after several weeks of Titanfall and I keep getting screwed over by the different parkour. In TF you can scale any wall and one jump will scale most ledges that you can't AC, not to mention you have to look for specific sections of wall or tree to climb in AC. Both are great it's just TitanFall's free, fast, and unrestricted parkour takes time to unlearn and make other games feel slow and clunky.

On another note... Every new battlefield and COD game gets shit on by this same website for even HAVING a single player mode at all. people complain about them wasting time and money on a game that people only want for the multilayer... then we get Titanfall Multi only and people shit on it for doing what people shit on COD and battlefield for not doing. personally I dump more time into my multiplayer games than I do in single player only exception being Mass Effect. with most single player games I beat the story once and then go back to what ever multiplayer game I was playing before. If I wasn't playing COD, Battlefield, or Titanfall online I would be playing games once every few weeks instead of every day like I do now.

One more thing, the best gun in the game is available from lv 1 and that's the carbine. Level ups help with Titan load outs and some player perks but if your talking about people getting a gun that better than yours it's really not. the weapons are pretty well balanced. not perfect, but the most unbalanced guns are unlocked early. your team in campaign mode is selected randomly your first match can be on either side plenty of lv 1 players on both sides. And people need to remember this is the first game from a new studio and is a brand new IP there are going to be things not in it that you will find in a franchise that has been pumping out yearly games for 10 years. More Customization will probably be in the next game, and new game modes has been confirmed already and will be out when ever they think it's a good to to launch them, and yes they were announced to be free.

Nice review, totally agree on most parts. It's cool, it's fun and it's an overall solid multiplayer game. Reducing the total number of players per server was a pretty good desicion because even more experience players can't make much of a difference and gives new players enough freedom to experiment with and learn the mechanics of the game. The most important tools are given to you on a basic level so you don't feel left out for the early games because you lack all the fun tools (which is why I'm not too fond of Battlefield's unlock system). I'll probably pick it up for PC once it gets less expensive but until them, I've still got a few other games on my plate that need to be played. This game also reminded me that I still have to pick up a copy of KillZone Mercenary which I had a lot of fun playing during the pre-release multiplayer demo.

randomthefox:
Meanwhile all the other internet reviewers are saying MGS Ground Zeroes, being a reasonable 20 bucks (if you're smart and buying it digitally on the reasonable consoles), is the one that's got too high an asking price for the 10+ hours of content in it, while in the same breath vomiting out perfect scores to Titanfall.

Used to be the days when people would say "Oh I do giggle at that Yahtzee fellow, but I would never take his videos seriously as a review." How naive and unsuspecting we all were back in those quaint days now that it seems like he's the only one who hasn't been bought and sold by the AAA publishers or brainwashed by the hype machine.

I really don't see how a 5~ minute comedy bit on the escapist equates to an adequate review, but I'll take your word for it. Yahtzee is funny, and he gets some things when it comes to games (often better when he actually understands what's going on in the game), but he's not some end-all be-all to video game criticism. Doesn't mean he's bad at it, but there's only so much he can do being an entertainer that relies on cynicism and talking really fast 9 out of 10 times while making the videos. Making purchasing decisions solely based on these reviews would either leave you rather short on games, or disappointed by the realization that his tastes are actually not the most equitable when it comes to the average person. I'll still stick to legit critics and personal research. It hasn't let me down anytime recently, and I doubt it's going to unless all of the major sites get acquired by EA and sold off to India for outsourced reviews.

Also, Ground Zeroes, 10+ hours? Really? :P If you treat it like a particularly wet sponge, maybe, but even then that's pushing it.

Eldritch Warlord:

Magmarock:

Eldritch Warlord:

Typical Escapist members will complain. Anyone who actually wants to play a multiplayer shooter would applaud the decision though.

Too bad few people here are likely to accept that there's any hypocrisy in calling Titanfall "half a game" since it's multiplayer only when they'd never even dream of saying the same of a game because it's singleplayer only.

That's because a single player games only needs one play to be enjoyed. This is kind of a no brainier. One player buys one game and gets enjoyment out of it. For TitanFall multiple players have to buy it and play together. Even MP focused games such as UT had bots which made for some good single player fun.

$80 for a g same that can't even be enjoyed on it's own, are you serious. Developers are taking the piss.

That argument makes no sense. You can buy the game on your own and enjoy it because plenty of other people have bought the game and are playing it without you.

Also from a technical standpoint the sort of pathing players are expected to do as Pilots is basically the antithesis of AI pathfinding. It would truly be a programming marvel if Respawn managed to make serviceable bots for them.

"You can buy the game on your own and enjoy it because plenty of other people have bought the game and are playing it without you."

This confuses me, you buy a game and enjoy it because others are playing it without you?

i'll get the game if they give me a kitten mech xD

Yeah... I am skipping this one because of the lack of an offline single-player mode and the fact that by the time it hits the price I am willing to buy it at everyone will have stopped playing it anyway!

Magmarock:

"You can buy the game on your own and enjoy it because plenty of other people have bought the game and are playing it without you."

This confuses me, you buy a game and enjoy it because others are playing it without you?

It's quite straightforward.

There are currently many people playing Titanfall without you, therefore you can buy it yourself and play it. From your perspective as a buyer there's really no difference that the game is multiplayer only.

Skeleon:
Wow, full price for a multiplayer-only title that's in match format, not free-roaming/sandbox? Weak.
Wait, what? 80 bucks?! That's not full price! 60 bucks is full price, 80 bucks is full price XL!
I have little inclination to try this game. Sounds like it was mostly hype, as expected.

That could be an currency conversion thing going on there. I'm pretty sure I've seen Titanfall for AU$80 (where Yahtzee lives), whereas it could be more like US$60. Not certain on that one though.

On topic: Yeah I'm a little disappointed to let this one go, because it looks like a lot of fun. But I can't afford that much for a multiplayer only title, plus the Xbox Live subscription.

DaViller:

Metalrocks:

good points. i guess it has also to do that the maps are smaller just like in COD so thats what sticks out for everyone.

Admittedly the gun mechanics are very similar to cod, this is probably what ticks people of. I myself was skeptic since I hate cod with a passion, but I never outright dismissed the game based on that.

i hate COD as well. the gun mechanic otherwise doesnt bother me really. i hate COD for other reasons. but yes, i also never thought that titanfall is similar to COD. more a like a little breeze of fresh air with its gameplay as such. i have played the beta version and i just had a blast with it. dint even think i was playing COD.

$20 of content, marketed at $60, From EA of all people?

Gosh, what is the world coming to.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here