I'd just like to point out that the game randomly picks which side you'll start as when you first play the campaign so there's actually no guarantee that the other side will be higher level. The carbine you start out with is pretty much the best weapon anyway (in that it's better than most weapons in most circumstances).
Skeleon said:
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.
80 Australian dollars is standard retail price for a video game.
Mahoshonen said:
Daaaah Whoosh said:
Come on Yahtzee, if we were talking about Battlefield you'd be saying they SHOULDN'T have made a single-player, and I don't think anyone would complain if Battlefield went back to charging full price for a multiplayer-only experience.
Judging by the responses in this thread, it sounds like a lot of people would complain about paying full price for multiplayer-only.
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.
Whatislove said:
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.
Robots and jump-packs, and they make a world of difference. It's like the difference between a standard racing game and a kart racing game (
Mario Kart is just
F-Zero with weapons - ground breaking).