Post by Eorl @ 12:51pm 13/03/14 | 66 Comments
Crafted by one of the co-creators of Call of Duty and other key developers behind the Call of Duty franchise, Titanfall is among the most highly anticipated games of 2014, having been shrouded in mystery for nearly three years. The visionaries at Respawn have drawn inspiration from their proven experience in first-person action gaming, and are building on that pedigree by taking a new approach to game design and creating an all-new universe with Titanfall.As is with most modern online games launching of late, a bunch of known issues with the game have appeared — so if you’re running into any troubles while trying to play, check out this page for help from Respawn on your particular problem.
Sadly Titanfall has launched without local servers at this time, meaning Australian and New Zealand players will be suffering a dreaded high ping until we hear further words on where EA and Respawn stand. Previous reports have suggested we should be hearing some "good news" soon enough, but hopefully it isn't left too late that our local playerbase suffers.
Check out the launch trailer below, and you can find our recent review of our thoughts on Titanfall over here.
Buy now from ozgameshop.com Only AUD$14.99!
Latest Comments
66 Comments
Show
Follow Us
Advertisement
Log In
Posted 02:12pm 13/3/14
Critics are giving it high results.
Posted 02:20pm 13/3/14
Posted 02:29pm 13/3/14
Posted 02:40pm 13/3/14
Posted 02:40pm 13/3/14
Posted 02:46pm 13/3/14
For instance some games are really awesome for a niche group, a lot of people outside of that group wont like it, but the ones in it do like it a lot. The critics give those types of games an average score, however in general the users reviews are done by the people that care and enjoy it.
Goes for shows too, check out Firefly. Critic review score of 63, but the user score is 9.3 I totally agree with the user score on that one.
Posted 02:53pm 13/3/14
Posted 03:03pm 13/3/14
Posted 03:11pm 13/3/14
It's on PC too and PC got the same user score.
Posted 03:23pm 13/3/14
Posted 03:57pm 13/3/14
"blizzard5314 Mar 12, 2014
0
The fact that this game lacks a single player option is why I can't even call this a game."
A user review for the PC version of Titanfall.
There are a s***load of 0 scores because the game has no singleplayer component. The same people probably whined that Battlefield had a tacked on singleplayer campaign when it didn't need one.
Posted 04:21pm 13/3/14
But the most important thing to focus on here is if im pleased. Which is no. No im not. When you don't have local servers for a MP FPS game that intentionally (as in not because of budget / time constraints but by design) has no SP campaign because its supposed to be all about the MP what do you think a game like that should score from an Australian gamer perspective?
I would score it a 0. Or a 1 if they don't allow scores of 0.
Im not pleased at all. Its harsh but without a SP campaign you cant even say "play the SP until they sort out servers". Ive also heard it has guns with added aimbot for FPS people who cant shoot (we used to just try to get better but hacks work too right?) and classes that get gear that gives them wallhack (because situational awareness and battlefield skills are so 90's). What is up with that? So not only is it insulting to Australian gamers due to the disregard for local servers on launch its also a crappy game for kiddy gamers who like FPS but cant FPS and like wallhacks and aimbots, so now its making me agitated and im starting to feel hungry for a good Mexican meal.
This game needs local servers and a Promod version to remove all the useless "next gen" aimbot wallhack... erm "features" before id consider paying for it.
Posted 04:36pm 13/3/14
Posted 04:36pm 13/3/14
Monetising the system at its best.
Posted 04:46pm 13/3/14
Vince Zampella @VinceZampella · 10m
Aussie servers coming online, starting Friday morning and building capacity each day! Combined EA/MS/Respawn effort to make it happen!
Posted 04:53pm 13/3/14
Posted 04:53pm 13/3/14
Posted 05:04pm 13/3/14
and a f***load of critics gave spec ops the line reduced scores because its multiplayer was s*** despite it being the only fps since doom 2 worth playing from a single player perspective. critics and users of videogames are f*****g stupid by and large.
Posted 05:53pm 13/3/14
wow. i wonder what was the catalyst for getting that done? Was the bad press what got to them or the grass roots gamers grumbling? Or should we not ask and just accept that something bad has been made good? Prob the last one,,,
Now about that promod ;p
Posted 06:26pm 13/3/14
Spec Ops The Line was crap and the whole world is insane to put it on a pedestal the way it has been. So much of what people enjoyed about it was just people reading way into things that weren't there.
Also it wasn't a FPS and Deus Ex came out between Doom 2 and Spec Ops the Line.
I talked to Vince at the review thing and it was the negative reaction to the beta pings.
Posted 06:40pm 13/3/14
you are a f*****g idiot. your english teacher failed you, but that doesn't stop you from getting the f*** away from video games long enough to read a book not.
Posted 07:02pm 13/3/14
So because I didn't enjoy a half-hearted rip-off of Heart of Darkness I'm an idiot? looolllllllll
Posted 07:09pm 13/3/14
Posted 07:25pm 13/3/14
Posted 07:28pm 13/3/14
Posted 07:35pm 13/3/14
so, as an olive branch, if you wouldn't mind telling me what 'things' weren't there and why it was given too much credit. you can assume i have a thorough understanding of conrad's work and have talked at length with sufferers of ptsd pre and post treatment.
Posted 07:43pm 13/3/14
For instance I have an embarrassingly large 900+hours in Chivalry, that game just keeps on giving. It's pretty much the only multiplayer game I play.
DOTA2, for example, has an excellent learning curve and a very high skill ceiling, allow for excellent length of gaming.
Does Titanfall have that? Or will you quickly bring yourself to the upper reaches of the skill tree that only the very dedicated push at best a little further?
Posted 08:07pm 13/3/14
Posted 08:45pm 13/3/14
Posted 08:56pm 13/3/14
Posted 12:22am 14/3/14
Posted 12:28am 14/3/14
Seriously, even with high latency during beta, I had zero trouble spraying people in the face from the other side of the map. There's basically no skill required in aiming beyond normal twitch.
The recoil is almost non-existent and the grouping is actually pretty close to a laser when ADS. If you have any experience in games such as BF4 and CS, you will get bored and hit your skill ceiling pretty quickly.
The redeeming feature was the parkour elements, but even those got a little stale after a while because they just got in the way of headshotting that guy from the other side of the map.
Posted 01:04am 14/3/14
The maps are not great at all and as I mentioned in the other thread I used origins game guarantee to get my money back because it lacks content massively. There are little to no guns, little to no perks copy pasted maps and 3 titans. They made it out in the beta that we should be excited for "all the other titan chasis" and there's 3..... cool.
I'm just let down. I wanted to love it.
Posted 01:12am 14/3/14
Posted 06:48am 14/3/14
Posted 08:49am 14/3/14
I think Titanfall will sit in-between CoD and BF. You'll have folks playing it who want a mixture of the fast-paced nature of CoD with the Titan's acting as "vehicles" like in BF. It won't please everyone, but it is definitely a hell of a lot of fun. I do hope they add in further character customisation to the player and the Titan ala Hawken, but for a first title in a brand new series its done exceptionally well. The complaints about no single-player are hilarious though, considering its always sold itself as a multiplayer only title.
Posted 09:54am 14/3/14
The chief praise given to Spec Ops The Line was that it beautifully satirised modern day shooters. By using wonky mechanics (seriously, Gears of War has nailed cover shooting for over a half a decade and they couldn't do it right?) they failed to hold a mirror up to anything, but the problems are deeper still. It's not a satire of anything.
Here we have a game that presents, on a platter, the horrors of the things you have done. How could you use the Willy Pete on all those survivors!? Look at their charred corpses, frozen in place. You're a monster! Except, of course, that you never really had a choice. It was required of you to kill those civilians to progress. You can do the mission a million times, deliberately not hitting the civs with mortar shells all you like - but until you kill them, you won't move on. I heard people say this was a deep message, War Games style, but it's not. It's s***** design. If Walker was hallucinating his balls off there's no reason why they couldn't just make the huddled masses of civilians into soldiers and then confronted you with the collateral damage.
Then, in the very next battle, after Walker basically falls apart with horror at his actions he goes right back to screaming GOT ONE! and other awful bulls***, reverting directly back to the pre-programmed bro he was supposed to be initially. So much for the horrors of war.
You've also got the Burj Khalifa standing tall, a beacon shining in the distance and the ever present representation of your goal in the game. A common aspect in many games, but people treated its use here like it was the first time they'd seen it done. As if the Citadel didn't exist in City 17 or something.
You've got the MGS3-esque moment after the helicopter crash, the line "deep down you knew we all had to die" and I could almost be swayed here. Apart from being a sucker for Kojima's own brand of (usually) clever satire, I also appreciated the way the game points out that everyone's death was an inevitability. Literally everyone in this city had to die because MODERN SHOOTERSSSSS.
Except that immediately following this sequence you find a hanged Lugo. This man, who'd just been in a helicopter accident, who had terrible wounds, who could communicate with the civilians who would murder him... he died and practically no reason was given. And despite what the game just told you, despite what it showed you before when you had to burn the huddled masses alive - no one has to die in this scene. You're given the motive and opportunity to carry out the mission statement "deep down you knew we all had to die", but if you shoot over the heads of the civilians they'll disperse. They throw the whole thing away.
Then there's the Fight Club ending, where Konrad is Walker and Walker is Konrad and Finkle is Einhorn and blah blah blah. This was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Here we have the ultimate separation from the source material. Heart of Darkness tried to tell us that (most of) Kurtz's madness was only relative to our own understanding of how people should live - that the way absolute power corrupts is not a defensive sort of power-hungry attitude but through the bearing that power has on a person's mind and soul.
In Spec Ops The Line Walker is just a crazy person. From the very beginning, he is a crazy person. He's not corrupted, not made crazier. He arrives crazy and he leaves (or doesn't leave) crazy. His companions, one of them a master of six languages, accompany him as he commits warcrime after warcrime apparently incapable of realising that he's crazy (or just unwilling to do anything about it) and the player is absolved of any wrongdoing they might have done because, well, f*** it. Walker was a crazy person. An unreliable narrator. Who knows what he actually saw, what was real or not. Who knows how many dead bodies he shot.
Posted 10:59am 14/3/14
you don't like the game mechanics. ok. but its gameplay was definitely not the focal point of the satire.
you didn't like that the literal turning point of the game's story was unavoidable, despite the fact that on your first play through there is no way you could tell that the dots on your radar were civilian. this is retarded.
you don't like that he (you) can continue killing while screaming stereotyped phrases after committing an atrocity and you presumably know what satire is. this is retarded.
you don't like symbolism because it's been used before. this is retarded.
helicopter crash, something, you didn't like the satire but like metal gear solid... i don't know man this paragraph made nearly no coherent sense.
you are aware lugo was killed because he was, in the civilian's eyes, a mass murderer who had basically condemned them to die of thirst in the desert? that's a reason. and you hate that after committing an atrocity you can still choose not to shoot unarmed civilians despite the fact that 'cognitive dissonance' is explained to you in the loading screen? this is incredibly ignorant. and retarded.
there's some words about heart of darkness here but i can't understand if there's a point to do with the game in this paragraph.
the fact that your companions follow you after walker decides to change the mission is unrealistic. but the player is never, ever absolved from wrongdoing. you are missing the entire satire. you choose to keep playing when you know in the back of your mind that everything is wrong and getting worse. you are not a hero, you are a killer running from checkpoint to checkpoint like a mouth breathing autist that can't stand someone making fun of his runny gunny pointy shooty.
you've heard of the word satire before, but you don't understand it. you're stupid, but it's the type of stupid you can fix.
Posted 11:30am 14/3/14
Not what I said. I said it had bad mechanics and that made it difficult for the game to hold a mirror up to anything.
Attacking my English teacher's abilities is hilarious considering you don't capitalise words at the beginning of sentences. Using the word retarded makes you feel like your intellect is superior to mine, but I was able to clearly identify the civilians as civilians on my first playthrough (tracer fire shows up hot on the thermal cam image, you can clearly see them huddled and not firing, they're very immediately obviously not enemy combatants) and you couldn't.
Yes, solid argument. The problem isn't that the player character reflects the player attitude, the problem is that it exists in stark contrast to the player character seen in the Willy Pete scene. The two things - the WP scene and the screaming stereotyped phrases - are contextually linked in my argument so breaking them up is probably a very easy way for you to pick at my argument, but it's not really appropriate.
Not what I said. I was giving an example of an element people held the game up for and I was explaining that it had been done much better before. You asked for me to do this. Pay attention.
The words, the grammar, the language... it's all consistent with other things I've said. The idea that it's beyond you might be more telling than you think.
You should really attempt to read what I've actually written and not what you think I've written.
Sorry, you said I was to assume you had read the book but you don't understand what I said about it?
So you're saying the point of the game was in fact you shouldn't be playing the game. That's what you think the message of the game is? You think the message really, actually, factually was the f*****g catchphrase from War Games. I'm not even mad. That's amazing. And you think that's good? That's good satire? You're all "wow no game has ever spoken to me that way before, i love it and if anyone thinks otherwise i'm going to call them stupid dozens of times because my idea of making a persuasive argument is the same as a 12 year old's."
That's solid.
The way you argue for your favourite game of all time is terrible. I gave you enough respect to offer my arguments as to why Spec Ops The Line is bad at satirising anything and despite your claims of olive branches you've instead gone for Ad Hominem attacks and you've split my arguments into pieces to remove the context. It's pretty obvious I'm not going to convince you, and I don't really care to convince you, but it's a shame that any one person could be so rigid in their belief about a game. Especially one you (and others) claim is supposed to make you step back and really consider how you feel and what you think about games.
Posted 11:32am 14/3/14
The most surprising thing about the game is how unoriginal it is. All this crap about innovation, where is it? It added Mechs, but eh... Not really that new, just moved them more to the front.
This game is COD, right down to the s***** out of date graphics and horrible textures. They then just added some game play mechanics from Crysis 2 / 3.
Posted 12:00pm 14/3/14
But I also haven't had any issues with BF4, people talking about how buggy and laggy it is etc....... I've no idea what they are talking about as I've had nothing but a good experience with it. Or maybe I've gotten so old and slow now that lag just makes me feel like I have the reflexes of a 16yr old?!
Posted 12:52pm 14/3/14
you said a bunch of other dumb stuff but thanks for summing it up nicely in one paragraph. yes. that is the satire. you are playing a delusional psychopath who is making bad decision after bad decision instead of an apple pie eatin' all american tough guy with a massive, throbbing erection for killing. you play these games to feel like the big tough hero you are not. you are a (probably) obese fairy (probably) who has never made an important decision in his life (definitely) and here you are making life and death calls and get upset when a video game forces you to be a c*** instead of a hero. that is the satire. congratulations on being a retard and sorry about your autism.
fyi, it's not even in my top 10, but it is the only fps i've ever played where the single player campaign is worth s***. all fps's in my eyes are terrible, with literally one exception.
Posted 01:15pm 14/3/14
At least it's a condemnation delivered by someone nobody will listen to because the herald of videogames worthlessness has taken the form of a person so profoundly lacking in basic communication skills. One who doesn't know what the "first person" part of first person shooter means (but still feels capable of insulting the intelligence of others).
Posted 01:18pm 14/3/14
I don't get how anyone can say this. The game is full of bugs. Netcode aside, most of the maps don't load with sound for the first 5 - 10 seconds.
In some maps and mode the sound drops out for everyone part way through maps.
The game used to constantly crash.
traded kills, instant kills, problem with kill screens, vehicles displaying as having an enemy after they've left, unbreakable glass randomly, invisible walls and clipping, throwing nades which fly far away and then kill yourself because on the servers end it went else where and bounced back.
To name a few.
Posted 01:23pm 14/3/14
i appreciate that you tried to articulate why you feel the way you do. it was all stupid as hell, but you're an unfortunate result of the plethora of shoot-em-ups, so it's only really your fault insofar as you made the decision to play so many terrible games and place importance on having played and enjoyed them. that is to say it's entirely your fault. good luck in your future endeavors, peace.
Posted 01:46pm 14/3/14
And you Ha? You jsut seem to be a backwards loudmouth troll. thats how its coming across. You seem to not understand what a first person shooter is and seem to think that because you can throw the heftier insult and act like some kind of biggest ass you will "win" some internet fight. Valid net tactic granted but not worthy of those whom have a shred of dignity.
From what I see it looks like Joaby has been very patient with you - has taken the time to chat with you about things you questioned him about 1st. He is doing you a solid here by not just ignoring you and actually trying to discuss this in a reasonable manner. It looks to me like you are just trolling now for lack of argument or for an apparent inability to concede or even allow a point of contention.
Posted 02:08pm 14/3/14
they will probably release some titans as DLC.
Posted 02:52pm 14/3/14
So far the feels I'm getting from the internet is saying is underwhelmingly above average. Good for maybe 50-100hours of gameplay before it gets stale.
Posted 03:16pm 14/3/14
I think if you want something innovative and genre redefining, you're not going to get it, but as far as fun goes I personally find it to be a lot of fun, maybe in part due to its accessibility and simplicity even (which may in turn drive others away). I like that instead of 10 different machine guns or shotguns or whatever that I have to remember the different stats of, the weapon loadout is simplified; if I want an SMG I pick the SMG, if I want a shotgun I pick the shotgun, etc. Then you can mod them with extra bits and pieces anyway which gives you that bit of flexibility. I dunno, that appeals to me more I think.
Posted 03:42pm 14/3/14
Solaris
Goldeneye
Mario64 and sequels
Mario Kart and sequels
Various Zelda titles
Descent: Freespace
WarCraft2
WarCraft3
StarCraft
StarCraft2
Diablo
Diablo2
Diablo3
Dota2
Dragon Age
Baldur's Gate + Sequel + EE (all 50+ prolly 75+)
Myst
Civ titles
Sim City titles (bar that last heap of s***)
Skyrim
There are prolly many more ...
Posted 03:49pm 14/3/14
its hard work being a PC gamer and you have to be willing to put in the long hours ;p
i desperately want a new FPS to waste,,, erm spend 1000 hours on but unfortunately i dont think Titanfall is what im looking for and so far the lackluster comment have not changed my mind
Posted 03:54pm 14/3/14
That said, it does closely resemble the COD formula (not surprising, as it came from the team who wrote that formula) and so some might find the game initially stale.
Posted 04:02pm 14/3/14
I think if you want innovation, the action-shooter genre isn't a place you'll usually find it. These games are made to be easy enough that you can jump into a match for 15-30 minutes, get some kills up and enjoy the gameplay without worrying about learning ridiculous mechanics. Those who want to take it further will learn how to better manoeuvre themselves around the map using parkour.
Posted 04:10pm 14/3/14
Come play some Lottery D.
Posted 05:20pm 14/3/14
I can see people have droped similar times and then some into DOTA2.
Counter Strike easily had 1000+ hours, probably higher than 2000 hours.
Tekken 3 probably about 1500+hours.
Battlefield 3 I maybe sunk in about 300 hours
Battlefield 1942 easily had 500+ hours.
So you get the idea.
These sorts of hours content doesn't mean a great deal, as it is the mechanics that allow you to keep growing, sometimes those mechanics hit a sweet spot and just make for a very continually rewarding experience.
Does Titanfall have this?
I'm hoping to god Star Citizen does, that would be epic.
edit: O warcraft 3, that had a good 200 hours in it, Warcraft was similar. WC3 had to compete with Counter strike time so it was a good effort to get that.
last edited by Tollaz0r! at 17:20:12 14/Mar/14
Posted 06:00pm 14/3/14
Yeah, thats what sold me on it tbh. Maybe I'm just getting old and impatient but I just don't want to spend that long getting deeply involved in a game's complex mechanics anymore, I just want to blow s*** up in bite sized chunks of fun. I can see it turning people off though for the exact same reasons. I think it strikes a good balance though between offering enough depth for people to get their teeth into, and offering up those quick cheap thrills.
Posted 06:01pm 14/3/14
Posted 07:07pm 14/3/14
Posted 07:47pm 14/3/14
Hey Joaby, I think your spot on with this. Nice work pointing it out. I always kind of knew there was this element to good games but you really nailed it. I'm hoping titanfall has really considered this in mind
Posted 08:00pm 14/3/14
the only revolutionary FPS games will be ones that are designed for Oculus Rift, that's where the future is at, immersion.
I hate it when people do this... what is the f*****g exception?
Posted 08:20pm 14/3/14
Cos its fun? I don't get why something has to be revolutionary and innovative, surely the point of it is just to be a good game. Granted, what makes a 'good game' is a very personal thing and is going to be different from person to person, but if its fun to play, thats a large part of it. If they manage to take a bunch of existing mechanics, from disparate games, and mesh them together in cool and interesting ways and come out the other end with a solid, fun product, thats enough for me.
Calling it 6 v 6 with a heap of bots is just misrepresenting it though, Left 4 Dead was 4 players with a heap of bots after all. Player count by itself isn't much of a metric. This game isn't trying for the scope of something like Battlefield, its much tighter and faster paced and built from the ground up in a way that embraces the 6v6 gameplay rather than be shackled by it.
Posted 08:34pm 14/3/14
Plus you can't compare this to L4D. L4D was a Co-op game (4 humans vs special and normal zombies), and it also was multiplayer versus (4 humans vs 4 special zombies (controlled by humans) plus normal zombies. This worked really well.
If you want to compare apples to almost apples it would be like 2 humans + 2 bots and 2 Special zombies (controlled by humans) and 2 special zombies (as bots)... I played L4D heaps and this was a retarded arrangement and I would normally just quit the server..
Posted 09:00pm 14/3/14
Posted 09:04pm 14/3/14
Posted 09:17pm 14/3/14
..
o wait.
Posted 09:35pm 14/3/14
Thanks dude!