KungFuJazzHands said:
Maybe I can clarify why many people who haven't played Titanfall (myself included) hold the view that it's not as innovative as a lot of others are claiming it is:
*The maps look like nothing but vertically expanded versions of the countless samey-same ones we've encountered time and time again in CoD. There's little to no appreciable variety in terrain, environment, or tactical possibilities when Titanfall's maps are compared on a one-to-one basis, much like CoD.
I think the maps actually allow for alot of tactical possibilitys because of the freedom of movement, the titan/pilot interactions and the map objectives (you can hack into automatic turrets and stuff). But this is something that I feel advanced players need to evaluate since my experience is limited.
KungFuJazzHands said:
*The mechanics and effects behind the weapons in Titanfall seem to be copied and pasted directly from CoD. They lack the same "real world" oomph as all the pea-shooters in CoD.
I agree
KungFuJazzHands said:
*Titans are nothing new. They've been seen countless times in countless other video games. Parkour isn't exactly fresh either. Also, Titanfall is a multiplayer FPS with guns, explosions, and a greybrown vomit color scheme, so you'll have to forgive people for thinking it's not that different from any of the other hundreds of militarized shooters that make up a huge portion of the video game industry's historical output.
Ok this is my main gripe with a lot of the, in my opinion unfair, critizism that Titanfall gets. Mechs and parkur have both been done in other games you are right, but they have never (as far as I know) been done in combination, in the way they where done here and in the context of this genre. The interplay of these mechanics gives the game some moments in wich even beginners (im taking about my experience with the game) go like "holy shit look at what I just did here", the kind of movement you see in this game is something that no other (primarly) console based shooter has ever had. It´s about the contrast of the nimble movement as a pilot to the hulking power of the Mech and the possibilitys this creates.
To just go "nothing new" is just ignorant to me. It´s like me going "so what there have been games with good storys before, this is nothing new".
KungFuJazzHands said:
*Burn Cards operate exactly like CoD's classic killstreak rewards.
Erm sorry they aren´t, in COD you get like a helicopter that shoots guys for you when you kill three dudes in a row. In titanfall you can chose 3 cards at the beginning of a round. If you use a card, and you can only use one at a time, it gives you a perk (longer invisibilty, a better version of the gun your using, faster movement you get the idea) for as long as you stay alive. When you die the card dissapears permanently and you lose your perk but you are awarded new cards at the end of a round. It´s a completly different system trust me on that (although im not a big fan of the burn cards either).
KungFuJazzHands said:
*And last but not least, Titanfall was heavily marketed towards fans of the CoD series. It's pretty obvious that Respawn were counting on a pre-existing base to sell more units of their premier flagship title. It makes sense that they would use some of the concepts (ease of access, low competitive barrier, arena-style maps, various game modes, relaxed playstyle, etc.) that made their older games so popular.
Thats a good point I´ll admit that. Still I think looking at the gameplay there are a lot of things this game does different then COD that are pretty obvious(well at least for me).
KungFuJazzHands said:
With all that said, I'm not sure how you're comfortable stating that Titanfall is such a unique product when you seem to have problems fathoming how Spec Ops is much farther from being a copycat of Call of Duty than Titanfall is. Spec Ops is a 3rd-person squad shooter, its plot is miles deeper than anything CoD will ever manage to come up with, it has multiple story branches and endings, and even its multiplayer portion operates differently from CoD's generic arena battles. The only similarity between them is their military setting. Are you positive you played Spec Ops and you're not just getting it mixed up with some other game?
Ok I might have gone a bit overboard with my last statement there(about the strider and ogre and stuff). But setting aside the story and atmosphere in spec obs heres what I remember.
I remember playing a soldier dude sitting behind a wall shooting other soldier dudes as they occasionally stick theyr heads out of cover. While some other soldier dudes who where on my side screamed stuff. Once all enemys are dead I moved to the next room where I did pretty much did the exact same thing. The squad aspect was something I barely ever utilized and I never felt like I had to utilizy. The compangions hold themselves up pretty well and I never felt like I needed to think up some fancy stratetgys.
So all in all the same thing I remember about playing a COD campaign (again in terms of pure gameplay) lacking the micheal bay setpieces. All the third person aspect changes is that I got to have a bit more overview wich didn´t change the way I played much. But ok based on that ima change it from "COD with a better story" to "gears of war with a better story and without molepeople".
Can´t commend on the multiplayer though I didn´t try that.
Again I´m not even trying to bash spec obs here(I think it sucks gameplay wise but the atmosphere and story make up for it), I´m talking about a certain dissmisive additude towards gameplay mechanics a lot of people seem to have (especially when it comes to primarly multiplayer titles).