Holy Crap, This Titanfall Trailer

By Jim Rossignol on October 23rd, 2013 at 7:30 am.


They’re just showing off now, right? Roll on March 2014.

__________________

« | »

, .

102 Comments »

  1. Jalaman says:

    Not to hate or anything, but you guys know this trailer is old right? It got uploaded to their official channel recently, but the trailer itself is months old.

  2. Keasar says:

    That’s the E3 demo.

  3. Megakoresh says:

    I don’t get it is this PvE or PvP?

  4. MercurialAlchemist says:

    As little tempted by FPS as I feel these days, the gameplay does look tantalising.

    • SomeDuder says:

      Shame that the actual game will play NOTHING like the action in this video. Too scripted and coordinated.

      • Sexy T-Rex says:

        While what they show in the trailer is a best case scenario the actual gameplay is fairly close to what you see in the trailer, it’s expanding on what Brink was trying to do with it’s pvp campaign mode by adding context to the matches. I sure hope it fairs better than Brink.

  5. CaspianRoach says:

    This isn’t new footage, they showed it quite a lot already.

  6. Rovac says:

    I remember it like yesterday when RPS can do 2 paragraphs just for a trailer..

    btw I got this Forced adds on page, the leftside is kinda cut halfway

  7. BrightCandle says:

    They don’t have anything new to show in 6 months? That is a bit of a concern.

  8. Jackablade says:

    Hm. I feel like I should be finding this more engaging than I actually am.

  9. Low Life says:

    One thing I wish they’d done is going full sci-fi with the weapons. Bullets are boring, I want lasers and plasma.

    • Edgewise says:

      Lasers would probably be invisible and silent. There would probably be a bright flash at the point of impact, and depending on the material and the intensity and duration of the beam, there could be all kinds of sizzles and bangs from whatever is hit. Plasma would probably just look like a bright flash – a plasma bolt would almost certainly be too fast to be seen except at very distant targets (and it’s hard to imagine a plasma bolt that wouldn’t disintegrate before it traveled very far). The plasma impact might be fairly spectacular.

      However, I would argue that the impact effects caused by modern weapons are similarly impressive. Of course, you could just go the pulpy route and they all just make varying pew-pew noises, but I feel that those kinds of concepts of futuristic weapons tend to lack the ‘oomph’ of contemporary arms, for lack of a better word. It feels like people are attacking each other with glowsticks and Christmas lights, like a rave that went horribly wrong. Of course, that’s just my own sensibility when confronted with that sort of thing.

      For what it’s worth (i.e. nothing), I’d be interested in seeing a hard sci-fi take on futuristic weapons and combat. I doubt the “slugthrower” is going away anytime soon – it will probably remain a relatively cheap and easy way to start some trouble for a long time to come. But some exotic technologies might find specialized roles, and all sorts of drones and outright robots would probably play a central role.

      • CookPassBabtridge says:

        My thoughts exactly. My favourite in game weapon of all time has to be the Doom 3 shotgun. The energy weapons in that, even the fabled BFG, never felt as satisfying as a point blank imp shotgun splode. Half life 1 – revolver 》》 tau cannon. Conventional firearms do seem more satisfying.

      • airmikee99 says:

        Your post reminds me of a subplot in Stargate SG1, when the Asgard have to ask SG1 for help because they’re ultra advanced beam weapons are inferior to human ballistic weapons in fighting the Replicators.

        • CookPassBabtridge says:

          You have to admit however that the P90 is much better in the Not Looking Like a Plonker While Using It department. Probably not the right race’s weapon, but a staff with the end shaped like a peardrop that you sort of point like a penis at people – this has something less of the X Factor.

  10. Cytrom says:

    I got two questions:

    Will it be origin exclusive? (Using origin as drm, no matter where you buy)

    Will it have a proper server browser, or battlelog?

  11. Dowr says:

    One line of text and re-posting an old trailer.

    Did someone have a bad nights rest?

  12. JellBro says:

    i think he meant: holy crap THIS NEW Titanfall trailer:

    http://tweakers.net/nieuws/92120/titanfall-ligt-op-13-maart-in-de-winkels.html

    yes text is dutch , but trailer isn’t

  13. Meat Circus says:

    Generic military shooter but has DOUBLE JUMP!

    OMG, 13/10!!! BEST GAME EVER!!!

  14. Fiyenyaa says:

    One little touch I really appreciate are the little lines which presumably denote the edges of the screens your pilot is looking at inside the titan. It doesn’t seem too big and obstructive, but I really like the way it looks.

  15. SuicideKing says:

    Jim, this is at least the third time you guys have posted this trailer this year. I even remember the thumbnail now.

  16. DonJefe says:

    That did nothing for me. Somebody please explain to me why this game is much more exciting than all the other FPS out there? To me it seems – apart from the mechs – very Call of Medalfield to be honest.

    I am not trying to be a dick about it. I am honestly curious.

    • Lars Westergren says:

      I’m also a bit puzzled. I just don’t feel it. Perhaps it’s the fast movement and vertical possibilities, reminding people of the Quake/Unreal days? But with purdier graphics.

      • DonJefe says:

        It especially puzzles me when I see a post like this http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/10/22/youll-never-believe-whats-in-cod-ghosts-launch-trailer/#more-173563 where Nathan sarcastically mocks CoD: Ghosts for making basically a Michael Bay trailer.
        Titanfall certainly seems Bay-ish. It is at best James Cameron material.

        • Moraven says:

          At least its a nice trailer showing various gameplay aspects.

          RPG on titans, calling a titan, leaving a titan and having it on follow mode, reentering a Titan, grabbing a pilot out of his Titan and tossing him like a ragdoll, Force stopping bullets in a Titan, ejecting from a Titan and continuing the fight, riding a friendly Titan.

          CoD – explosions, Eminem and third person observer cam.

          • GameCat says:

            Riding a titan probably sold this game for me. It’s so simple yet awesome thing to do.
            Also – imagine better players that aren’t just shooting titan till he explode but instead they’re doing awesome double-jetpack-jumps bouncing from wall to wall just to land in titan cockpit, get rid off with silly human piloting it and then jump behind the wheel and start killing enemies with motherfucking MECH.

    • PoulWrist says:

      Dunno, Battlefield seems to be the main mover on trying to do anything even slightly different these days.

      • Bull0 says:

        You mean like how they’ve made Battlefield 2 three times? 5 if you count the Bad Company games?

      • Baines says:

        I…don’t know.

        Battlefield 4 on the surface looks a lot like Battlefield 3. And “Levolution” so far looks to be standard setpiece destruction given a fancy new name and undeserved hype.

        FPS are probably at a point where you aren’t likely to be able to point to a single title and say it is a main mover for innovation. The big titles want to play it fairly safe, and largely take ideas that have already been tested in smaller and less successful titles. Smaller titles might try something amazing, but they aren’t going to have the success to move the industry and gameplay forward on their own. And anyone trying to start from scratch would have even the most amazing ideas go unseen because they are missing so much of the expected game structure. By the time those ideas trickle into the bigger games, they have just more of the same.

      • darkChozo says:

        Ehh? I’m pretty interested in where BF4 is going, but it’s most definitely not moving in any new directions. It’s pretty much the definition of an iterative sequel. Not a bad thing in itself (if there was anything BF3 needed it was a design overhaul), but certainly not new.

        • hotmaildidntwork says:

          I’m told the demo level does some interestingly crazy stuff with destruction. Like not just the skyscraper, but the map basically floods and it becomes a naval battle halfway through. If it didn’t have origin stapled to the side of it I’d be pretty onboard for that.

          • darkChozo says:

            I think they’ve shown three examples of Levelution (pffffft) thus far: the skyscraper falling, the ship crashing into the building on the island, and the dam breaking and flooding the city. Having played the beta, I can tell you that the skyscraper is mostly a gimmick, it going down affects the level flow a bit but is otherwise uninteresting. The dam is probably the most promising of the three, but ultimately it probably just means that you’ll be able to use boats and tanks instead of just tanks.

            They’re nice in a big spectacle kind of way, but they’re definitely not game-changing. Destruction as a whole is largely unchanged from BF3 otherwise, though.

    • Svant says:

      I guess the biggest change is the doublejump/wallrunning features of infantry as seen in the trailer which gives you a much wider range of movement and access to roofs/windows that most modern FPS does not.

    • squareking says:

      Thank you. I thought I was taking crazy pills or something. Looks like there’s some Mirror’s Edge-ish running about and everyone loves mechs forever, yes, but this is still brown-grey modern fps by EA. This is the opposite of something we should be excited about.

      • xao says:

        While I appreciate you taking the time to determine what I should be excited about, I must confess my errant excitement. Vertical movement for infantry, if well integrated, will completely change the gameplay from something like Call of Duty or Battlefield. This FPS isn’t “by” EA, it’s just published by EA. The fact that West and Zampella are releasing their first post-Activision title is worthy of note too.

        Oh, and Mechs? Fuck yeah!

        • squareking says:

          By all means, be excited for what excites you. People get really excited at the next CoD game, too, and I don’t know whether they’re deserving of so much praise, personally. I was speaking mostly to the RPS writers, who keep gushing about this for reasons unknown to me. The modern fps formula is fine and dandy for your drop-in unhook-brain shootingmans, and this doesn’t look like a far cry from that — or at least it’s not the type of game usually gushed over by RPS. It being the same trailer we saw months ago makes me even more disappointed.

          I hope I’m wrong and the parkour thing redefines the fps genre, but I don’t feel it will. And, oh, it’s not by EA? Fair enough. I know lots of people will play this thing.

          But mechs, fuck yeah. Agreed.

          • SystemiK says:

            “I was speaking mostly to the RPS writers, who keep gushing about this for reasons unknown to me.”

            Perhaps because some of them have spent time actually playing this game…and therefore would be privy to a number of things unknown to you?

    • darkChozo says:

      Mostly the parkour-ish movement, I’d imagine. People (myself included) love themselves some parkour.

      I think there’s also the underlying assumption that it’ll also end up being like CoD in the good ways (overall execution, tight controls, etc.) without being CoD part a billion and with some core mechanical mixups. Again, parkour can be a big thing for how the game plays if it’s not too gimmicky (ie. not a glorified mantle).

      Mechs are cool too, though I’m not sure if they’re the biggest a selling point per se.

  17. Blackcompany says:

    Guess some folks can still get excited for (yet another) multi-player, deathmatch, PVP shooter.

    I’m just not one of them.

    When I first saw this game I was excited. As a mostly former Firefall player who has given up on the mess that game has become, I saw sci-fi, shooting, big mechs and jetpacks, and was instantly excited.

    Then I saw that, once again, EA and company were terrified to do anything at all new or interesting with these things. That they just made yet another team vs team shooter, instead of, you know, something creative.

    Utterly uninterested. Which is sad, given the number of really cool things in this game.

    • Yosharian says:

      Yeah this basically

    • xao says:

      Now I’m confused. They included an unspecified number of really cool things, but didn’t do anything creative?

      Also, as a reminder, the game is only published by EA. Respawn Entertainment is an independent development company.

  18. Radiant says:

    Apart from the trailer failure I don’t see how you can’t be anything but excited for a shooter that looks as wonderful to play as this does.

    • Vandelay says:

      I suspect that those complaining just aren’t that interested in traditional FPS gameplay. That is not to say they are opposed to games that feature guns sticking out of the corner of the screen, but if you are looking for more Planetside here you are going to be disappointed.

      This looks like some of the most interesting MP shooter mechanics since Tribes: Ascend. The art style might not be anything interesting or much apart from the CoDs of this world, but to say the gameplay is no different sounds quite ignorant (and I wouldn’t say I was particular versed in FPS gameplay.)

  19. Scissors says:

    I am not ADHD enough to be interested in this.

  20. Kaeoschassis says:

    I cannot comprehend why there are apparently only four people on the face of the earth who are excited to play this game. Is it hugely groundbreaking? Perhaps not – it’s a shooter. You run around, you shoot things. That’s what shooters are. But it sure as heck looks like fun to play, and that’s enough to get me excited.

    You don’t need to re-invent the wheel, you just need it to turn smoothly and do its job. And have a good feel and controls. And satisfying explosions. And a sense of teamwork and consequence. And giant robots. And I think this analogy is falling apart around my ears.

  21. Faxanadu says:

    I absolutely love the anti-climax in the comments section so far.

    Let us hope we can sway others with our example and bring forth an era of smarter FPS games.

    …I’m not holding my breath, though.

    • SillyWizard says:

      Do “smarter FPS” games require that production cease on any FPSs that you decide aren’t “smart” enough?

      Also. smarter FPS? Seems pretty oxymoronic. FPS are twitch games. Chess and its ilk are “smarts” games. Obviously some thinking can come into play in your twitch games, but much like Gary Kasparov wouldn’t be a suitable football player, you don’t really want Paradox developing your FPS.

      • The Random One says:

        FPS are not twitch games inherently. There are a few that reward tactical thinking and attention to your mode of approach more than spraying and praying. I don’t think Titanfall is one such game, but a smart FPS can exist.

  22. Yosharian says:

    It’s just Battlefield 3 with Mechs… not sure what the fascination with this one is

  23. wesp5 says:

    Is it only me or does this game need destructible environments badly? I mean all this huge Mech-type weapons and around 3:10 min they fight through a bit of trees which all seem to be out of titanium too ;)!

    • Svant says:

      Indeed… hell every single shooter that tries to have any form of “realism/immersion goals needs destructible environments. It just feels so… bland without it.

  24. Waldkoenig says:

    It looks awesome, but I’m kinda disappointed that the environment isn’t fully destructible. I thought the “new generation” would finally deliver this as a standard.

  25. HisDivineOrder says:

    I watched this and I got this strong sense of deja vu. This is the only map we ever see. Ever. Isn’t it odd that they never show another level, another stage, another sequence other than this same sequence again and again and again and again? It’s always slightly different, sure, but it’s the same area.

    I just don’t know. I’m getting a bad vibe off the constant redux.

    • SillyWizard says:

      It’s the only map you ever see because, as has been pointed out in approximately 12 comments preceding this one, this is the same trailer that’s been making the rounds for months now, including something like 3 or 4 previous postings on this site alone.

    • darkChozo says:

      Most likely because they’re showing off one map at a time for technical (we’ll work extraaaa hard on this map so it breaks the least when we show it off to journalists) and marketing (NEW REVEAL: our third map is WAREHOUSE ON A DOCK) reasons. It’s pretty common with AAA multiplayer FPSs; BF4 and CoD do the same.

  26. Ahtaps says:

    I’m also one of the people who just doesn’t get the hype for this. Sure the movement is a lot more dynamic and verticality is something we need more of in games, but it just feels like Section 8 with elements of Mirror’s Edge. I can see the market they’re aiming for, and it’s going to probably pull in the Halo, Unreal and Tribes crowds, but it just doesn’t feel new and refreshing, just loud and flashy.

  27. povu says:

    I assume a multiplayer trailer like this involves a bunch of people standing in the right place at the right time for the perfect shot as the player character moves through the level. I’d love to have a behind the scenes look for one of these heavily scripted multiplayer trailers.

  28. SystemiK says:

    I can remember a time when people would actually play a game before declaring it to be hit or shit. Now days, these things are decided months or even years in advance. I swear, never before in history have there been so many people who can see the future…

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>