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

DaViller

New member
Sep 3, 2013
172
0
0
Titanfall is the first truly fun shooter I have played in years and I applaud that. You have freedom of movement that rivals the golden age shooters like unreal or quake and the awesome feeling of stomping around in a big ass mech. Seriously killing other titans with an ogre mega punch is the most satisfying feeling I get out of any modern shooter.

I would gladly pay 60 bucks for that if I had an Xbone(only played in a friends house so far). Seriously why is this even a big issue?

There are more then enough people, me included, who play street fighter only for it's online mode and it's worth every buck I have spend on it (sf4 40 bucks, ssf4 30 bucks, ssf4 ae 15 bucks, fight stick 50-60 bucks and I am gonna get the ultra upgrade). Multiplayer games offer the same, hell in many cases more, longevity as singleplayer games and are crafted with the same care and effort (well the good ones at least are). I see no reason not to shell out the same amount of money for titanfall as I will for bayonetta 2.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Terminate421 said:
That is a pretty hard argument to break as the Hemlok is a fantastic weapon. Reminds me of the M16 from COD4, but without the bullet tracking.

Give it either the star-burst (Usually kills in one burst) or the extended mag and you're good to go.
I mean...you can rack up some pilot kills with it, but in every instance wherein I've used it I always found myself wanting the R-101C, the Shotgun, or even the Smart Pistol instead.

I'm not saying one can't use it, I'm just saying there isn't a single instance I can think of where one of the other guns wouldn't do the job better.

I might be wrong and just need to spend a bit more time with it. But from my experience this has been the case.
 

octafish

New member
Apr 23, 2010
5,137
0
0
Aaron Sylvester said:
From a purely content + variety point of view, Battlefield 4 completely blows Titanfall out of the fucking park offering vastly more weapons, vehicles, maps (bigger maps too), modes AND a 4-5 hour singleplayer campaign (shitty, but a campaign nonetheless).

Titanfall is an neat little game that's definitely fun to play, but it should NOT have cost more than $20-30 max because it comes across as more of a mini-game or a pet project with no long-lasting appeal.

The worst thing is that Titanfall has set the example that a multiplayer-only game lacking in content can sell for $60.
Watch what EA do with this. Just fucking watch.
Hopefully they will abandon the waste of resources campaign in all future Battlefield games. I don't buy Battlefield for a Campaign, nobody should buy Battlefield for a campaign. Even ignoring that it still seems like BF offers more content for your money. I'd be interested in Titanfall if it offered more variety in its multiplayer, and if BF4 wasn't still holding my attention. One day DICE/EA will wise up and we will get a Multiplayer only BF2143, and all will be right in the world.

Leave the Arse. Take the Cannoli.
 

Lovely Mixture

New member
Jul 12, 2011
1,474
0
0
josemlopes said:
So even if they actually start doing good things you still wouldnt buy anything from them because of what they once did? Why not just not buy when its tied with bad practices? Why all the time?
Their company is tied to bad practices. If they change their practices, I'd buy from them again.


josemlopes said:
If people hadnt gone into the pre-order bandwaggon and actually avoided buying Battlefield 4 because of how it was then maybe the lesson would go through. They care about money so if we dont give it to them when they fail they will learn not to fail. Titanfall wasnt a fail.
Here's the thing, if Titanfall HAD been a fail, it wouldn't have mattered. They would have gotten their money and nothing would have changed. People jumped on the Titanfall pre-order bandwagon just as much as the Battfield 4 one.

The two situations aren't comparable, cause you are blaming the customers for something they couldn't have realized.

mariomario said:
The cancerous point of Dark Souls fanboyism is when they start butting the game into conversations that had nothing to do with it. Clear to see where Yahtzee is now.
He made one mention in ONE video.
 

Sheo_Dagana

New member
Aug 12, 2009
966
0
0
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.
 

AstaresPanda

New member
Nov 5, 2009
441
0
0
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.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
The White Hunter said:
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.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
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
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
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.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
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.
 

leviadragon99

New member
Jun 17, 2010
1,055
0
0
If I ever happen to be at a convention Yahtzee is at, I shall make sure to bring along a Cadbury Crème 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.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
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.

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 ^^
 

Breywood

New member
Jun 22, 2011
268
0
0
I enjoyed the review, but the ending animation of mecha-cat following the laser dot inexplicably cracked me up.
 

Azuaron

New member
Mar 17, 2010
621
0
0
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.
 

frobalt

New member
Jan 2, 2012
347
0
0
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.
 

Eldritch Warlord

New member
Jun 6, 2008
2,901
0
0
Magmarock said:
Eldritch Warlord said:
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.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
frobalt said:
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.