sdgundamx wrote on Dec 1, 2015, 20:24:
I dunno... I enjoy the game on the PS4. It scratches a certain itch for me, especially after playing a much more refined shooter like Destiny: TTK for like the past month and a half.
I don't get the complaints about it not being the next Battlefield though... I mean, the goal of any game company--particularly EA--is to make money. How could they possibly take that franchise and market it only to the niche hardcore shooter crowd?
It's pretty obvious why they chose the arcadey feel--they're hoping people who don't normally play FPS will pick this up and give it a go and be able to have fun. They didn't want new players to be constantly getting pub-stomped by some clan of 13-year olds. And it's not like this should be surprising--the devs have been publicly saying for months the kind of experience they were going for and the beta gave everyone a pretty good idea of what the final game would be like. People who bought it after all that and expected some kind of high skill ceiling FPS game are idiots IMO.
In terms of the Star Wars experience, the game delivers. I've had tons of "cinematic" moments in the game, like last night when I strode into a rebel-controlled bunker on Endor as Darth Vader, killed two rebels by deflecting their shots back at them and then mowed down four more with a single saber throw. Force-choked a guy who was late to the party, then strode out of the other side of the bunker with 5 or 6 stormtroopers at my back and waded into another group of rebels.
There are definitely some wonky bugs that detract from the experience though (spawning in the middle of enemies or spawning in the middle of nowhere, the invincibility bug that pops up occasionally, etc.). But I don't get the hate for the game. I'd give it a 7/10 (possibly 8/10 once they push out more maps and fix the bugs). It's not GOTY or anything but it is entertaining enough that I'll get my money's worth out of it (got it on sale for around $50 after tax).
Slick wrote on Dec 1, 2015, 09:38:ZeroPike1 wrote on Dec 1, 2015, 03:56:
Also slick Titanfall was not a great fps game. It was a flash-in-the-pan success at best and is now just a Shiny P.O.S. game. If you disagree, tough, cause thats my permanent view on it.
You're entitled to your view. However mine isn't impeded by how many copies it shipped. I'm not concerned with quarterly reports when it comes to how enjoyable a game is to me.
- fast-paced arena combat with hitscan weapons. check.
- best implementation of parkour in a game IMO, wallrunning, doublejumping all perfectly weighted. check.
- motherfucking mechs, somehow balanced against infantry, yet totally beast. check.
- AI is fun, and a good start. adds intensity to the game feeling like a badass, and the feeling in your chest when you come across an enemy pilot amidst the AI, to fear them. check.
Notably all of the mechanics are in the category I'd call "fun". it's not trying to be anything else. Yes it did lack the content to be a deep experience, it was shallow, that I'll admit. but what they delivered knocked it out of the park as far as i'm concerned , and spoke to every fiber of my quake-loving being. If 13 year old me knew that eventually after quake we'd have Titanfall, I'd have a raging 13-year old boner.
Creston wrote on Dec 1, 2015, 08:46:CJ_Parker wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 22:38:Steele Johnson wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 21:42:
it's almost 2016 and online FPS devs are still struggling with # of players? Every 3d game wihether it be pve or pvp should have no problem supporting hundreds of npc and pcs with very minimal lag. the tech has been there for years now so use it!
What "tech has been there for years" to eliminate lag? Gaming is a global affair. Publishers can't really choose their audience and they can't economically offer servers for every single geographical region.
So you end up with broadband people physically close to the game servers who ping in at <20ms and then you have some maggot from Bumfuck, OH on LTE pinging in at 250+ms.
Due to the complexity of modern game engines, the advancements in 3D tech have actually had a detrimental effect as you can see by the lower player numbers than a decade ago because there is much more data that needs to be processed, checked and updated in "real-time"... well, or as close as you can get to that with the 200ms maggot.
This is not an issue of CPU/GPU processing power at all but an issue of not being able to predict latency. You need to get data from A to B and back to A while also calculating what C, D, E, F, G... and so on are doing at the same time.
This is a physical limitation of online. There is no tech to work around those limitations except hooking up every single gamer home with fibre but even then there'd still be limits to what you can do.
If only there was some way where players could see their latency to a server, and then pick which server they want to play on based on that latency.
We could call it... I dunno, like a server picker!
Creston wrote on Dec 1, 2015, 08:46:This deserves another quote!
If only there was some way where players could see their latency to a server, and then pick which server they want to play on based on that latency.
We could call it... I dunno, like a server picker! :P
ZeroPike1 wrote on Dec 1, 2015, 03:56:
Also slick Titanfall was not a great fps game. It was a flash-in-the-pan success at best and is now just a Shiny P.O.S. game. If you disagree, tough, cause thats my permanent view on it.
Creston wrote on Dec 1, 2015, 08:46:CJ_Parker wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 22:38:Steele Johnson wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 21:42:
it's almost 2016 and online FPS devs are still struggling with # of players? Every 3d game wihether it be pve or pvp should have no problem supporting hundreds of npc and pcs with very minimal lag. the tech has been there for years now so use it!
What "tech has been there for years" to eliminate lag? Gaming is a global affair. Publishers can't really choose their audience and they can't economically offer servers for every single geographical region.
So you end up with broadband people physically close to the game servers who ping in at <20ms and then you have some maggot from Bumfuck, OH on LTE pinging in at 250+ms.
Due to the complexity of modern game engines, the advancements in 3D tech have actually had a detrimental effect as you can see by the lower player numbers than a decade ago because there is much more data that needs to be processed, checked and updated in "real-time"... well, or as close as you can get to that with the 200ms maggot.
This is not an issue of CPU/GPU processing power at all but an issue of not being able to predict latency. You need to get data from A to B and back to A while also calculating what C, D, E, F, G... and so on are doing at the same time.
This is a physical limitation of online. There is no tech to work around those limitations except hooking up every single gamer home with fibre but even then there'd still be limits to what you can do.
If only there was some way where players could see their latency to a server, and then pick which server they want to play on based on that latency.
We could call it... I dunno, like a server picker!
CJ_Parker wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 22:38:Steele Johnson wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 21:42:
it's almost 2016 and online FPS devs are still struggling with # of players? Every 3d game wihether it be pve or pvp should have no problem supporting hundreds of npc and pcs with very minimal lag. the tech has been there for years now so use it!
What "tech has been there for years" to eliminate lag? Gaming is a global affair. Publishers can't really choose their audience and they can't economically offer servers for every single geographical region.
So you end up with broadband people physically close to the game servers who ping in at <20ms and then you have some maggot from Bumfuck, OH on LTE pinging in at 250+ms.
Due to the complexity of modern game engines, the advancements in 3D tech have actually had a detrimental effect as you can see by the lower player numbers than a decade ago because there is much more data that needs to be processed, checked and updated in "real-time"... well, or as close as you can get to that with the 200ms maggot.
This is not an issue of CPU/GPU processing power at all but an issue of not being able to predict latency. You need to get data from A to B and back to A while also calculating what C, D, E, F, G... and so on are doing at the same time.
This is a physical limitation of online. There is no tech to work around those limitations except hooking up every single gamer home with fibre but even then there'd still be limits to what you can do.
CJ_Parker wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 22:38:Steele Johnson wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 21:42:
it's almost 2016 and online FPS devs are still struggling with # of players? Every 3d game wihether it be pve or pvp should have no problem supporting hundreds of npc and pcs with very minimal lag. the tech has been there for years now so use it!
What "tech has been there for years" to eliminate lag? Gaming is a global affair. Publishers can't really choose their audience and they can't economically offer servers for every single geographical region.
So you end up with broadband people physically close to the game servers who ping in at <20ms and then you have some maggot from Bumfuck, OH on LTE pinging in at 250+ms.
Due to the complexity of modern game engines, the advancements in 3D tech have actually had a detrimental effect as you can see by the lower player numbers than a decade ago because there is much more data that needs to be processed, checked and updated in "real-time"... well, or as close as you can get to that with the 200ms maggot.
This is not an issue of CPU/GPU processing power at all but an issue of not being able to predict latency. You need to get data from A to B and back to A while also calculating what C, D, E, F, G... and so on are doing at the same time.
This is a physical limitation of online. There is no tech to work around those limitations except hooking up every single gamer home with fibre but even then there'd still be limits to what you can do.
Kxmode wrote on Dec 1, 2015, 02:08:NotOneOfUs wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 20:11:
Forty players, eh? Keep it up, and we might reach 1998!
That's significant when you factor in the level of fidelity in Star Wars Battlefront. People are playing in 4K native resolution over Broadband. That's gotta be murder on the SWBF servers.
nin wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 22:48:
So titanfall, then evolve, and now this. Wonder how many more flops before someone gets a clue? These games have no longevity, and you see everything in the first half hour.
CJ_Parker wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 22:38:Steele Johnson wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 21:42:
it's almost 2016 and online FPS devs are still struggling with # of players? Every 3d game wihether it be pve or pvp should have no problem supporting hundreds of npc and pcs with very minimal lag. the tech has been there for years now so use it!
What "tech has been there for years" to eliminate lag? Gaming is a global affair. Publishers can't really choose their audience and they can't economically offer servers for every single geographical region.
So you end up with broadband people physically close to the game servers who ping in at <20ms and then you have some maggot from Bumfuck, OH on LTE pinging in at 250+ms.
Due to the complexity of modern game engines, the advancements in 3D tech have actually had a detrimental effect as you can see by the lower player numbers than a decade ago because there is much more data that needs to be processed, checked and updated in "real-time"... well, or as close as you can get to that with the 200ms maggot.
This is not an issue of CPU/GPU processing power at all but an issue of not being able to predict latency. You need to get data from A to B and back to A while also calculating what C, D, E, F, G... and so on are doing at the same time.
This is a physical limitation of online. There is no tech to work around those limitations except hooking up every single gamer home with fibre but even then there'd still be limits to what you can do.
NotOneOfUs wrote on Nov 30, 2015, 20:11:
Forty players, eh? Keep it up, and we might reach 1998!