Video Impressions: Titanfall’s Beta

By Nathan Grayson on February 12th, 2014 at 5:00 pm.

Titanfall‘s beta is officially kicking off on February 14th and lasting for, um, not very many days. Seems kind of odd in the year 2014 ADEA (Anno Domini Earlyaei Accessus), but oh well. Promotional beta or not, Titanfall continues to be worthy of a blinding, blip-blip-blipping spot on your radar. I got the chance to go hands-on with a very close to beta version for a couple hours, and not even an army of giant robots could stop me from recording a bunch of footage and word-vomiting insight all over it. The long and short of it? Titanfall continues to clomp along quite nicely, but I do have a number of balance/longevity concerns. Also, while NPCs add a new dynamic to battles, I’m not sure if they’re the perfect solution to the 6v6 issue. Check out the video below to see what I think (but not Wot I Think, obviously).

Note: Yes, I was forced to play the Xbox One version. No, that wasn’t my choice. EA and Respawn didn’t have a dedicated PC build on hand, so I had to strangle a loathsome gamepad until it enacted some semblance of my bidding. The beta launching on Friday will be on both Xbox and PC, however, so don’t let that scare you away.

, , , , , .

94 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola

Top comments

  1. CookPassBabtridge says:

    Nathan! Nathannnnn! I don't hear you going PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEWWWWWW in the background of he video. Why is this? Please can you rectify. "Pew density", in the units of Pew/s, is a direct measure of a games funnability level. Richard Dawkins said so and everything.
  1. mehteh says:

    yawn, another console focus shooter…

  2. Maxheadroom says:

    So is this a bit like Blacklight Retribution then? If I recall that had stompy robot-suits too
    I’m not adverse to some man-shooty fun but they’re all starting to blend together now

    • Premium User Badge

      DeVadder says:

      But Blacklight is kinda bad with everything else in my opinion. The movement is slow and has neither jet packs nor wall running. And more important, i hate the central mechanic of that wierd wall hack. Half of all kills on public servers are decided entirely by who used it more recently and thus knew better where the other guy was.
      Also boring guns.

      • StormTec says:

        I have to say, I am so bemused by everything you’ve said about Blacklight that I kind of wonder whether we’re thinking of the same game…

      • Cronstintein says:

        I have to strongly disagree with your assessment of the HRV. It’s a risk because you can’t shoot while you’re using it so if you pull it up right as someone comes around the corner, you’re in trouble. And it’s great for making camping snipers much less of a thing.

      • Deadly Sinner says:

        I hated the HRV as well, though in my case it was because I found it very tedious to have to keep turning it on and off. I think I would have liked it more if it was a sonar-style ping.

    • StormTec says:

      The mech suits in Blacklight were really crap, and not used often. For one, you gave up the use of the HRV and that is a massive disadvantage. For another, you had a randomly assigned body part which is your weak point where you would take 10x damage if shot at (and only visible to HRV). They are a fun thing, if you find you’re winning and have built up a lot of resources to call one down, but they weren’t exactly worth it. As such, they were not an integral part of the game as it appears to be in Titanfall.

  3. Loyal_Viggo says:

    EA… that’s so reassuring… really makes me want to pre-order two copies.

    • Meusli says:

      I don’t care if this game is the second coming, if it has EA’s name on it then I won’t pay for it. You can thank BF4 for that.

      • Leonick says:

        I just love how we do this. We being gamers.

        Battlefield 4 is ‘bad’ so people go on to hating on EA and promising to never buy another game published by them, even if it is a good one. Couldn’t possibly be that DICE made a bad game.

        I wonder, how many people vowed to never again watch a movie distributed by 20th Century Fox after hating The Phantom Menace? How many vowed not to ever watch a movie distributed by Paramount after hating the Star Trek reboot. How many people boycots a label because they hate an individual artist?

        • Premium User Badge

          darkChozo says:

          EA is not disliked for any single incident, BF4 or otherwise. EA is disliked for having a history of making decisions that are anti-consumer, destructive to beloved game series and developers, or both.

          I feel that the EA anti-fanboying tends to get a bit too ravenous sometimes, but that doesn’t mean it’s unfounded, and it’s certainly not just an issue of BF4 being buggy.

        • KDR_11k says:

          EA could have pushed the game back to get more bugfixes done.

        • PopeRatzo says:

          I wonder, how many people vowed to never again watch a movie distributed by 20th Century Fox after hating The Phantom Menace?

          I vowed never to see any movie ever again after hating The Phantom Menace.

        • Vin_Howard says:

          Yah! Just look at all the other great games EA has released recently like… err… help me out here…

    • Deadly Sinner says:

      I am optimistic, since EA doesn’t actually own Respawn. Not that I’m going to be preordering the game or anything.

  4. Chuckleluck says:

    Just looks like the overused Call of Duty formula to me. Mechs seem like they have the potential to be the overpowered mess tanks were in CoD: World at War. And having EA as the publisher doesn’t raise my opinion. Only thing that could make this worthwhile in my opinion is if the jetpacks are insanely fun.

    • Premium User Badge

      shaydeeadi says:

      Did you watch the video? The titan units look powerful but certainly not overpowered. Infantry have ways of forcing the pilots to eject and manfight, everyone has access to the titans on a timer system too.

      I actually played a fair bit of CoD:WaW and the tanks in that weren’t overpowered, they just required people to adapt, if my memory serves me correctly a single satchel under the tank (as in place it in a position they would drive over unawares) or 2 on the back was a quick kill.

      • KDR_11k says:

        People will quickly call vehicles OP, I recall the tank in Section 8 being called OP by the people who fought it and UP by the people who drove it. It actually depended on the skill of the driver, a well piloted tank was deadly but a badly piloted one was quickly torn apart. A skilled anti-tank player could deal serious damage to a tank in one life even solo, even if the tank was manned by a skilled player too.

        • P.Funk says:

          The vast majority of gamers come to define the result of skill gap as an imbalance because its imbalanced in how it allows better players to enjoy greater serortonin rushes in the pleasure centers of the brain than the crappier players who experience failure and death more frequently.

  5. subedii says:

    Interest or not, given previous history of release kerfuffles, it’s probably going to be a good idea to wait until at least a week or so after release to be certain they haven’t pulled another BF4.

  6. CookPassBabtridge says:

    Nathan! Nathannnnn! I don’t hear you going PEW PEW PEW PEW PEW PEWWWWWW in the background of he video. Why is this? Please can you rectify. “Pew density”, in the units of Pew/s, is a direct measure of a games funnability level. Richard Dawkins said so and everything.

    • frightlever says:

      Given his confrontational relationship with religion, I don’t think that’s likely.

      • Loyal_Viggo says:

        I don’t think he meant a church ‘pew’… but if the number of pews in a church was directly proportional to the amount of fun one has whilst in a church, then surely more ‘pews’ are better?

        Thus we could deduce that say, small rural churches can be rated from dull to mild to almost exciting, and then things like Westminster Abbey would be rated as high as wild abandonment to bring-a-change-of-underwear.

        Obviously this is a scientific measurement scale, in honour of Mr. Dawkins.

        • CookPassBabtridge says:

          Deepak Chopra also stated that “in the Quantum explosion of The Now that is consciousness, conscious quantum effects are clearly defined in the construct of the universal nature of pew, and so to eschew the materialist scientific construct, it is important to recognise the fact I once met someone famous with qualifications.”

  7. Premium User Badge

    Vandelay says:

    As ever, anticipating the many comments saying this is just Call of Duty, except futuristic. With robots. And acrobatic movement. And objective based gameplay. And MOBA mechanics. Besides that it is identical, so stop being interested in it!

    Not watched the video (on my mobile,) but looking forward to seeing more. I have never considered the 6v6 thing a “problem”, so curious to hear the thoughts of yourself, as you state it is. If it is balanced around that number then it should be no issue, but perhaps that was not always the intention.

    • killias2 says:

      The whole 6v6 problem thing is particularly funny given that 4v1 Evolve was reasonably positively received in the last couple days.

      • DatonKallandor says:

        Yeah the whole “6v6 Issue” is absurd. There’s no ISSUE there. It’s not a bog standard shooter – that’s not an issue, that’s a goddamn selling point.

        • Max.I.Candy says:

          Yeah I dont see any “issue” here either. I may even prefer this to the mayhem on bf4 servers.

      • crazyd says:

        Evolve didn’t announce itself with videos showing a ton of dudes fighting. It’s actually a game designed around a small number of players instead of a game with larger scale battles that are confusingly mostly populated by bots.

        • Premium User Badge

          Vandelay says:

          I should probably watch the video of actual gameplay before making any further comments on it, but my understanding is the bots are more akin to the creeps in DOTA and the like. You wouldn’t expect players to be controlling them.

          Have to see the game in play to really know the purpose of the bots though, as they might be there to make everything feel bigger, in which case more players (and bigger maps) would be more appropriate.

          • derbefrier says:

            i haven’t watched his video yet(stupid work blocks streaming crap) I did watch that “leaked” footage that surfaced a week or so ago and it looked like CoD with mechs to me for the most part. The wall running and jetpacking did look fun and with the mechs may be enough of a change in the AAA man shoot formula to warrant a purchase..after we wait a few weeks for them to fix all the inevitable launch issues that is. I don’t think the bots will add much other than making the game not feel so empty though, which i think is there entire reason they exist. I would love to be proven wrong and be shown they have some actuall tactical reason for being there other than bullet sponges.

    • KDR_11k says:

      It is kinda silly though that they limit it to 6v6 and then add a bunch of bots. Either six people are enough or they aren’t. Though the bots seem to be designed only to give easy kills so everybody can feel like they’re getting a K/D >1.

      • DatonKallandor says:

        That’s ridiculous. You could make the same claim about a MOBA “Why are there these AI controlled creeps, just have more players”.

        AI controlled enemies fill an entirely different role that a player does, both mechanically and technically. A 6v6 is much easier for a P2P matchmaking system. A 6v6 is also a lot easier to organize, and lets you get to know your opponents and teammates by name within the span of a single match.

        Then there’s the fact that there is no other small player count FPS with a large number of Bots on both sides in which the players are the factor that tips the balance of the fight.

        They’re making something NEW and getting called names by the games media for not doing something OLD – it’s completely absurd.

        • crazyd says:

          Having an option to have bots is not new functionality. I’d just prefer if we had the option to replace them with real opponents.

          • derbefrier says:

            and traditional bots only evger existed in first person shooter to ake up for a lack of real players. Do we really think the AI is going to be good enough to make them any more than that?

          • Premium User Badge

            darkChozo says:

            We already have plenty of games that do the lots-of-players-on-a-massive-battlefield thing, though. I’m very much a fan of the Battlefields and Planetsides of the world, but that doesn’t mean that every large-map FPS has to be Battlefield or Planetside. It’s nice that they’re trying to experiment a bit with the formula.

            The PvPvE hybrid is something that hasn’t really been explored much in FPS. L4D is the only example I can think of, and that resulted in a really interesting dynamic between the regular and special infected. I’m curious as to how much Respawn can do with it.

          • Crowley65 says:

            I think the reason for the infantry bots, is that while 12v12 Titans would be awesome, it’d also be a huge mess. With bots, the human infantry aren’t left completely bored since (from the sound of it) they don’t do very well against Titans, it doesn’t make the match feel so small, and it gives you something to step on inside a Titan. It’s actually quite brilliant to have some AI bots run around your feet fighting each other, as well as the Titans.

            I mean, is there really anyone who would rather run around as a tiny infantryman unable to pilot a titan for the sole purpose of being fodder and adding atmosphere?

          • crazyd says:

            I don’t see why 12v12 mechs would be a mess. I mean, mechs aren’t out all the time. Even if they were, sounds like more of a problem with map scale than something to be solved by mandatory bot usage. I’d rather play against real people who have as good a chance of killing me as I do of killing them.

    • Bremze says:

      Except that instead of being futuristic it’s “Modern” with a gray/neon skin. And the robots are poorly masked killstreaks. And the acrobatic movement amounts to a double jump(and the titular titans can’t jump at all). And the Moba elements are non-existent since the creeps can’t be manipulated and don’t take objectives serving only as point pinatas.

      • Premium User Badge

        xao says:

        Except that the Titans aren’t killstreaks at all. We’ve only seen a handful of modes thus far, and in one everyone starts with a Titan, and can’t call in another regardless of how many people they kill. In the others, the Titans are on timers. Everyone gets them, even if you don’t kill anyone.

        The additional movement is just a double jump of course. And wallrunning. And limited flight. And increased verticality. But otherwise, just a double jump.

    • Serpok says:

      This is 6v6 not because of some balance issue, but because they want there to be creeps.

      And they want there to be creeps so that every person can have “fun” shooting something no matter if he is good or bad.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      I don’t have a problem per se with 6v6. What bothers me is the devs are apparently limiting matches to 6v6 because they want to give unskilled players a more level playing field, and that’s where bots factor in: easier targets. More bots, less of a challenge for crappy players.

      We probably wouldn’t be seeing 6v6 if it weren’t for the developer’s “care bear” attitude towards its console playerbase.

  8. SupahSpankeh says:

    See, the problem here is that EA has precisely _zero_ credibility in my eyes (DA2, ME3, BF4, DK mobile, etc) and as a result I’m not going to pre-order or buy on launch.

    I’m a bit saddened that I don’t have the faith required to put down bucks on this, as the concept (6v6, mechs etc) is massively appealing. My other concern is that launchday sales will be utterly futtbucked by EA’s recent performance, and the all important metrics may suffer even if this is a decent title.

    In short, EA are miserable, have made their entire catalogue miserable, and sucked what little joy there was out of anticipating an otherwise awesome looking game.

  9. Ysellian says:

    Looks quite cool to be honest, just feels a bit empty to me. They need to add more bots I feel. (or more players)

  10. SpaceAkers says:

    I don’t understand the issue with 6v6. I’ve played tons of hours of 5v5 CS and low-player-count TF2 and it’s a blast. If the game is well-balanced for it, who cares? Not every game needs to be Battlefield or Planetside…

    With that being said, nothing in the gameplay videos has impressed me really. Looks visually noisy and I don’t see anything interesting about any of the weapons. Very COD-like in those regards which is not surprising. I don’t really get the hype except maybe from fans of the types of shooters that dominated the last console cycle. I am not one of those fans.

    Nevertheless, I signed up for the beta so maybe I’ll see for myself.

    • crazyd says:

      My issue with 6v6 is just that the “rest” of the large battles are populated by bots. I’d rather have small, tight maps designed around 6v6, or maps of the current size with more players. I don’t see the benefit of having large maps filled with bots.

      • SpaceAkers says:

        I understand that. At times the scale of the maps did not seem to match the size of the players at all. It’s hard to get a feel for that without playing tho. It did seem from this video that nathan was constantly engaged at least.

        I don’t have an issue with A.I. teammates on either side in theory. That sounds like an unexplored area of competitive shooting that you could do some interesting things with.

        I didn’t see anything interesting in that regards in the video however. If they are nothing more than cannon fodder to add chaos and scale to the battles, that sounds pretty lame.

  11. Hunchback says:

    Why are people talking about buying anything, i thought this was gonna be f2p?

    Also, as i’ve already stated in an earlier thread, 6v6 sholdn’t be considered an issue. It’s perfectly fine, to be honest anything more than 4v4 is too chaotic for competitive play anyway, so i don’t get the fuss.

    • crazyd says:

      Nope, this is a $60 full price purchase, not f2p.

      • Hunchback says:

        RLY? Oh…

        Ok then, nvm. Nowai i’d pay money for this thing, with all the quality free shooters out there at the moment. Especially not $60 o.O

        • KDR_11k says:

          “Free” shooters tend to have those nasty “micro”transactions to make the actual money, I’d rather pay up front and know that the developer balanced the game to be fun, not to convince me to buy stuff. 60€ for an MP-only shooter is fairly steep but a crappy token campaign wouldn’t really add much to the game anyway. I do hope that it has proper bot support though for those days when you can’t be arsed to play with real people (and I mean bots that are smart enough to be a threat, not the cannonfodder grunts).

          • crazyd says:

            I’ve heard the term “Unlimited Cost” used in place of “Free to Play”, and it sounds like a far more accurate descriptor to me.

      • PopeRatzo says:

        Thank god. I won’t play F2P games, but this looks like it might be fun. I’m fine paying $60 for a game if it’s really good. I am not fine getting something for “free”.

        Now, the “6×6″ stuff worries me. Am I going to have to find 12 friends who own this game in order to enjoy it? What the hell is the matter with making single-player games? Are there really no longer any gamers who like to play without needing a posse?

        • Hunchback says:

          60 bucks is a ton for a MP only game, sorry. Maybe 5 years ago it was ok, today just doesn’t cut it.
          You can get games like Natural Selection 2 for some 5-10 bucks, and it’s an awesome online experience with RTS elements and whatnot. Then there’s also L4D that is very cheap and great, TF2 which is (now) free, Loadout, Blacklight Retribution… All decent games, for no cost or close to no cost.

          I can’t stand “pay to win” games either, don’t get me wrong. But there ARE some devs that really only sell you cosmetic shit and you don’t have to pay a dime if you just want to play the game. All you gotta do is thank vane players who’d spend cash to wear a hat :D

          • crazyd says:

            I’d say $60 is ridiculous for any game, but I’d rather pay it for a multiplayer game than a single player one.

  12. Stevostin says:

    I am playing Survarium’s beta and in term of playing pace watching this video is like… well, let’s say “not very manly” for the lack of a better word. I realise it’s fast for a console man shoot, or even compared to a lot of PC ones, but in Survarium when one player sees another on of them typically die within 2 second (and very often, within 0.5 sec). The most geared up armor is still one shot with the first basic weapon you can buy. There is not one half second when you’re not scared to die (and if you’re not, well you’re gonna die because you have to be 100% focused all the time)(also move smartly, look for the tiny pixels).

    Not saying slower pace can not actually be for the best, but this looks… relaxing. I am not sure that’s the impression the game designer wanted me to have :P

    (I am guessing that what I am suggesting is that, as there has been a patch this week, posting on RPG to mention it would be neat. It’s a really nice man shoot, with overall good design decisions, fantastic looking maps that are also very interesting to play. Those russians knows how to make maps to shoot at other people!)

    • Premium User Badge

      xao says:

      So you’re saying that Survarium is slower-paced than the standard console manshoot? A half-second is an eternity in a game like CoD.

      I actually like to see a variety of times-to-kill in my shooters. High TTKs emphasize movement under fire and sustained accuracy. Faster TTKs emphasize tactical movement and the importance of getting the first round or two on target.

    • KDR_11k says:

      I’m against super-short TTKs because it makes defensive maneuvers practically impossible and negates a big part of all that customization stuff modern FPSes peddle. Like what’s the point of having an armor vs speed tradeoff when more armor does almost nothing?

  13. araczynski says:

    the video makes the titans look like they’re made out of cardboard, almost pointless to be in/have one, and trivial for them to even exist.

    • Hypnotron says:

      Augmented body armor for soldiers makes sense to a degree, but giant lumbering warrior robots never will. You either accept that aspect of the game or you find another game to play.

  14. Calculon says:

    EA Sucks

  15. Billzkrieg says:

    The bitching and pessimism in these comments is headache inducing. This is why we can’t have nice things.

    • KDR_11k says:

      It’s because all the journalists went crazy over the game, acting like it’s the second coming and always going “have you seen Titanfall” in any arguments about the consoles, especially on any topic where Microsoft fucked up in regards to the XBOne. It still feels like some kind of bullshit PR blitz.

    • Horg says:

      Shitty publishers are why we can’t have nice things.

    • CookPassBabtridge says:

      If you listen to the video, he talks a lot about how the game feels. So far, no one has played the thing and we’ve only seen footage. Maybe its possible journalists are raving about it because playing it feels way better than footage alone can convey?

      We’ll find out more with the beta, but maybe for now we can all take off our skiddy mark covered grumpy pants and have a FUCKING LOVELY cup of tea.

    • Premium User Badge

      darkChozo says:

      As long as we’re offering possible explanations, I think that part of the backlash is that the game’s being hailed as revolutionary when it’s really a much-needed iteration on the CoD model. To people who’ve been playing Modern Warfare and the Modern Warfarelikes for the past 7 years, that iteration is a big deal. To people who don’t care about the subgenre in the first place, it seems like unnecessary hype.

      In short, if your response to this is that it still looks like it plays like CoD, that’s the point. It plays like CoD, but it’s not the exact same thing as CoD, which is more than you can say for most of the market.

    • derbefrier says:

      i am not as hyped about it as i was initially but i do think it looks fun. If it gets decent reviews and minimal launch issues i’ll probably pick it up or if I get lucky and get in the beta I’ll get to try before I buy

  16. particle says:

    Will not support EA. Been holding strong with that ever since they put a knife into Ultima Online years ago. Seeing what they’ve done to games and dev studios throughout the years since then has only confirmed my stance. I was actually close to giving up on my dislike for EA because of this game but then I taken back when it was announced that Origin will be required.

  17. Shooop says:

    Is that an XP unlock system I see right out of the gate? How shit. What follows looks like a CoD clone, down to the red jelly covering your screen when you take damage.

    The only thing that got any kind of reaction from me was the ability to catch enemy missiles and have a match of tennis with them. Everything else is pure paint-by-numbers.

    Fucking hell, they’ve done it.. They’ve managed to make giant robots boring.

    • Premium User Badge

      xao says:

      Every person I’ve heard talk about Titanfall after playing it has been impressed. Then we have the folks who watch a trailer and dismiss it as a “CoD clone”.

      I’m curious as to what CoD game you’ve been playing that allows fluid vertical movement with jetpacks. Or a narrative multiplayer mode. Or active defensive abilities. Or, you know, giant mechs.

      But yeah, the wounded effect clearly makes it a CoD clone.

      • KDR_11k says:

        The combat makes it CoD and is the aspect that people who consider CoD-likeness a bad thing hate. I don’t like the way the actual combat works in CoD, changing map traversal or adding vehicles that behave like big footsoldiers doesn’t really alter that.

        • Premium User Badge

          xao says:

          I’m curious as to what you mean by combat. I would consider tactical maneuvering to be an essential element of combat. I would consider defensive and offensive skill employment to be part of combat and I would consider pacing to be a part of combat. Titanfall differs radically from any recent Call of Duty (say anything since MW3) in all of those particulars.

          According to the folks who’ve played the game (including some pretty well known CoDcasters), the Titans alter the gameplay significantly, and not in just the obvious Last Titan Standing game mode. They force you to change your entire approach to the game if you want to be successful.

      • Shooop says:

        I’m going to have to call some farmers and ask them if they need any strawmen.

        There’s more to why CoD isn’t a very good shooter than just the wounded effect. The floaty movement combined with awkward stabs at realism is a good reason – and something this game is showing.

        People were also impressed by Battlefield 4, Call of Duty Ghosts, and Gears of War 16. Sooner or later you have to realize people being impressed by games is setting the bar extremely low.

        • Premium User Badge

          xao says:

          You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. You claimed Titanfall looked like a CoD clone and provided precisely one argument in favor… a single graphical effect. I just went ahead and pointed out some significant gameplay differences between the two games. So, yeah, no real evidence that Titanfall is a CoD clone.

          If you want to make a case that Titanfall is a bad shooter (before you do something as mundane as playing it) because you think it has awkward stabs at realism or floaty movement, feel free. Personally, I think you’ll have a hard time making the case that a thoroughly futuristic shooter with jet packs and giant mechs is trying to be ‘realistic’, but I’m willing to listen.

  18. Low Life says:

    I’m not going to preorder this or anything, but if the reception from people other than RPS commenters is good and the PC version is handled well, I’ll surely check this out. Maybe I’ll even get into the pre-release beta so I can judge it better myself.

  19. Greg M says:

    Game looks really cool as a fresh FPS… but what really worries me, which was never really mentioned before the past few days, are those BURN cards… This sound very much like an EA plot to grab money from this game as it is extremely unlikely this wont be use in some monetary way at some point!… Not liking that in the slightest!

    • KDR_11k says:

      Jeff Gerstmann on GiantBomb said Respawn insisted that there will be no Microtransactions, only map packs.

  20. Moraven says:

    I have the sudden urge to play Heavy Gear II and Terra Nova.

    Also some Mechassault 2 only to be sad that the Elemental hacking Mechs is just QTE vs QTE. How does hacking work for this?

    • KDR_11k says:

      I don’t believe there’s any hacking in this.

    • Premium User Badge

      darkChozo says:

      If you’re talking about the pilot mantle thing, it looks like it’s timer-based. Pilot latches onto titan, if pilot isn’t shot off titan within X seconds titan goes boom.

      EDIT: Okay, from what I’ve read there’s a timed animation bit where the mantling pilot tears open a hatch on the back of the titan and exposes the wiring. After that, the pilot can fire into the hatch, which is what causes the explosioning.

  21. Jinoru says:

    Just finished watching Eurogamer’s videos of the game and all I can say is how I really am not liking what it looks like now.

    The movement is good enough but when you get shot, even when on foot, there’s no movement penalty at all, just a shake of the screen and a visual prompt telling you you’ve been hit. I mean, its easy enough to kill people but that’s not the issue. Even the explosions seem to have no effect on movement.

    I thought this game could be a good contender against Counter-Strike but this is going to just be another CoD affair.

    /jumps off hypetrain

    • Premium User Badge

      xao says:

      So damage not impeding movement turns a game into a CoD affair? Why doesn’t it turn it into a Doom, Quake, or Unreal Tournament affair?

      I mean if you don’t like the mechanic, that’s fine, but it’s a wee bit ridiculous to use a single, incredibly common gameplay element to write Titanfall off as just another CoD.

    • kevinspell says:

      “I thought this game could be a good contender against Counter-Strike…”

      You sir, were high on some heavy drugs if you thought a brainless mass marketed shooter designed for gamepads could in any way do what CS does.

      • Jinoru says:

        Definitely my mistake. I’ll just keep playing CS:GO and save my money.

  22. Radiant says:

    You didn’t have access to a keyboard and mouse?

  23. mhalemary says:

    my best friend’s step-mother makes $71 /hour on the laptop . She has been without work for nine months but last month her pay check was $17837 just working on the laptop for a few hours. why not try here

    http://WWW.jobsaa.COM

  24. fish99 says:

    Nice video. Game doesn’t look bad or anything, but I don’t see much depth and therefore longevity, and the movement/shooting looks relatively simple. I also don’t see the jetpacks featuring in the gameplay as much as I thought they would based on that video.

    Anyway, I’ve signed up for the beta to give it a try, but I think my time would be better spent in something like Planetside 2 with more scope and depth. Just seems like Titanfall will get dull quick.