• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Titanfall 2 isn't that bad

Feb 17, 2013
4,004
0
0
United Kingdom
There's an astounding amount of negativity on the game, and most of what's positive tends to get lost within that, and so I thought it might be alright if this had its own thread. Especially as there's a thread of its own dedicated to the negative feedback.

My background

I'm not ashamed to admit that I didn't spend much time with the original Titanfall, no more than a few games, as I didn't own the game, but played it on the PC of a friend. With that said I feel that allowed me to enjoy the technical test for what it is, rather than what I wanted it to be, based on my experience with the first game.

That aside, I play anything and everything from Uncharted 4 multiplayer and Rainbow Six Siege, to Battleborn and Garden Warfare 2. I tend to enjoy all of them, for their own reasons, at least to some degree, and I'm sure I would have enjoyed the original TF if I had spent more time with it.

In either case, I enjoyed Titanfall 2, and the awkward thing is that reading the comments here on neogaf, and on reddit made me feel almost ashamed for having fun on it. People talk about components like the movement system as if they're objectively worse, and the only reason you would enjoy things as they are now is if you wanted them dumbed down... but for me, I didn't care, I was just having fun with what I had.

I'll just run through a few of the reasons I like the beta, and why I'm looking forward to the full game. Some of these issues will be in reference to what people dislike, and present a counter-argument and others will emphasise smaller areas of the game that I enjoyed, that perhaps other games often neglect. Obviously, you're more than welcome to disagree, I'm not saying your feelings are wrong.

Movement

One of the beta's biggest criticisms in the beta regard the games movement systems. For many players the movement in Titanfall 2's technical test wasn't fast enough, and this - and the map design - are the particular issues that people tougt as having 'dumbed down' the experience. For me, the movement felt liberating - I felt as though the movement systems played sufficient a role to enable me to swiftly navigate wherever I wanted on the map, without feeling that they were going to be the sole crux of everyone's playstyle. I didn't feel that I was set to die if I stopped moving (like what happens on games like Tribes) but I did feel that the movement systems gave me ample traversal options when considering getting from A to B, and considerable flexibility when engaging in gunfights, or seeking to outsmart my opponent.



In either case, the notion that Titanfall was objectively a better game with faster movement is difficult to consider. It's a different game, and I appreciate that many people, especially fans of the original game would not like that - familiarity is a very powerful effect - however it's as I say, different, not better, or worse. Slower gameplay infers it's own set of advantages, orientating gameplay more towards strategy and positioning than it once was, and less towards dexterity, but at the same time, it's worth bearing in mind that the game is still one of the fastest paced shooters on the market. It's still considerably faster and more flexible than games like Advanced Warfare, Black Ops 3, or even Lawbreakers. It's not at the level of the original Titanfall, but again, it still provides more movement flexibility than any other shooter on the console market (excluding the original TF), and most on PC (Tribes etc).

Respawning

As someone that doesn't have Call of Duty in my daily routine, I often feel that excessive mobility can cause an experience to be overly chaotic. The aggressive respawning of that series is my biggest gripe, and this alone, made me enjoy Titanfall 2 much more than I have a Call of Duty game. Unlike most modern first person shooters the respawning algorithm in TF2's technical test felt like it was predictable, and I didn't need to continually react to people spawning all around me. The problem with many modern shooters is although you can develop a good sense of enemy awareness based on where engagements are occurring, that enemy awareness is continually interfered with by respawns that feel almost random. It's interesting how something relatively small can make a considerable difference to me, and it's the same reason why I don't like modern Call of Duty titles, but I did like Call of Duty 4. I felt as though my mental-map of where everyone is wasn't being messed with in that game every time someone died, it was more controlled, predictable, and fair.

Titans

In my time with Titanfall I enjoyed the Titans significantly. I know many were complaining that they weren't seeing their Titan enough, but for me I was getting between 2 and 4 Titan's per match, and spending between 30 and 50% of each game within my Titan. A big issue that people have seems to be the titan spawn timer, and I imagine I was just getting my Titan quickly because I was getting kills quickly. Considering the nature of the game, I do agree that everyone should be able to access their Titan, it would be nice if it shifted towards a system similar to Destiny or Overwatch's super and ultimate abilities, where score speeds up the process but the abilities are passively generated with a set timer so that everyone get's a relatively regulated amount.

Once in the Titan however, gameplay felt great. I felt as though the Titan's were appropriately balanced against one another, and against each other. Titan on Titan fights were enjoyable, and infantry went down quickly, but at the same time could avoid Titan's quite easily. Unlike the first TF, I did not feel that my Titan was able to easily one-shot enemy Pilots, and I liked that. I liked that Titan's weren't able to immediately pull pilots out of their gameplay experience and when I did kill a pilot it felt fair. It felt that their death resulted from their mistakes, rather than simply a difference in our equipment. At the same time, while pilots could avoid Titan's with relative ease, it wasn't easy to kill a Titan alone, incurred a large enough amount of risk to the pilot and making Titan's feel powerful, as if they offered a battlefield advantage.

I also loved unique 'hero' Titan's. I know this was different in Titanfall 1, where you could customise the Titan's abilities and weapons, but having them uniquely identifiable meant that both pilots and Titan's alike meant that you could accommodate the enemy Titan's kit into your playstyle when attacking. When fighting scorch you could take advantage of the fact that he was optimum at close range, avoiding the floor to evade his scorching AoE effects, while the opposite was true for Ion, where he was weaker at close range, struggling to hit you with his more precision orientated fully automatic rifle. It felt more competitively valid than the customisable alternative. The same is true for the pilots too as they are all uniquely identifiable based on their ability, though I felt that this mattered far less, as they could use any weapon, and engagements are quite quick, often finishing before you recognise the class.

Rodeoing Titan's for batteries is also fun strategic element that makes the interplay between pilot and allied titan feel more meaningful, while also encouraging hopping in and out of your own titan, an interesting gameplay concept that infers quite a bit of risk. I enjoyed it.



Map design

Although the map design didn't stand out to me, I didn't quite feel the hate that many others appear to. It's true that you cannot take full advantage of all of the movement systems across the entire map. The Swiss cheese design of the original Titanfall is gone on the maps present in the technical test, however for me, that did not necessarily feel like a terrible thing. I did not feel that I needed all of the movement options available to me at any one time, and I enjoyed the adaptive style of gameplay enforced by the variance from one portion of the map to another. As I moved from packed, to open areas, I appreciated the adjustments required of my playstyle, and the affect that had on the games pacing. Sure, I wasn't able to run across a wall, all of the time, but that did not prevent me from using the environment and my movement to my advantage in combat, especially if equipped with the grappling hook.

Hopefully the game does include more inner city maps that feature a 'Swiss cheese' design that's a little closer to the original Titanfall, but I would not want this to be all of the maps in the game. I like the fact that they are different, and the various components of the maps are different, I did not feel like the game suddenly fell apart when I wasn't running off a wall. The gunplay is solid and enjoyable, and that's constant throughout.

Gunplay

Appropriately, the gunplay in the game is very good. I played the technical test on PS4, and the controls felt great, very easy to aim and acquire targets (though I was still getting used to it, and getting better at the game with time) and the weapons provided sufficient feedback to feel impactful and fun to use. Significantly, I really liked the enemy health bars. Most games don't feature health bars for enemies with relatively low HP, like those in Titanfall, but it goes a long way to providing the player feedback on every bullet fired and making encounters feel fair. Often in games like Uncharted or Call of Duty I will feel like the player I was shooting escapes on a sliver of health, with a sense that they 'should have died' but as you can't see their health, it's unclear what actually happened, was it lag? did I miss? Titanfall 2 provides the visual feedback to reconsile that much of that debate with the health display and it makes the gunplay feel better as a result.

Networks are neat

The network feature is neat, not enough games facilitate clan-esque features, let alone provide a platform for communication that is specific to your clan. While it wasn't working properly in the technical test it's a fantastic idea that will bring communities and players together in game, more titles should be doing things like this, because for me, it's quite a big deal.

The controls are great

While this kind of goes with gunplay I thought I'd feature it in its own section as so many games actually manage to mess up the feel of shooters on consoles. Games like Overwatch and Killzone are big name titles that have had control issues in the past, with atypical deadzones being a common issue. It's almost condescending to have to praise a game for controlling well, but either way, Titanfall 2 felt great.

What I didn't like

While I had a lot of fun with the technical test overall, there were of course some elements of the game I didn't like. I didn't like either of the game types that much. It seemed as though Titans were admittedly less frequent on hardpoint, which was a little less interesting, and I found the ruleset for 'bounty hunt' to be a little convoluted and generally, not especially competitively valid. Losing half your score because you're killed by an enemy pilot? It's a nonsense mechanic that rewards random chance more than anything else. It isn't as if enemies can see the amount of score you have and hunt you based on that, it's just sheer luck if they kill someone with a large amount of cash, or not. Pilot versus Pilot and Amped Hardpoint were okay aside for the lack of Titan's, serviceable modes, if unremarkable. I'm surprised that the developers haven't included something like the Warzone gametype that featured in the Killzone series. I liked the dynamic objective there, and it seems it would suit the large open environments, and interactivity with AI very well.

I also thought the time to kill could be just slightly higher, and amped damage should be removed. It's hard to tell someone's using it before you're dead, and it allows even guns like the SMGs to kill in just a couple of bullets. It's a silly mechanic that reduces the skillful gunplay to nothing more than target acquisition, and I really feel that it shouldn't feature in the game. The overall time to kill feels okay. I'm inclined to say everyone should be able to take one or two more bullets but then that would mean snipers would probably still remain as a one-shot-kill, thereby receiving a buff overall, which I do not think they need. Either way, it's not my job to balance the game, the time to kill could be a little better and amped damage is devoid of competitive validity, it's a facet of the game I would consider poorly designed.

Summary

I really enjoyed my time with the beta, and reading everyone's comments I can see that my lack of time with the original Titanfall has perhaps helped with that. With that in mind, that doesn't make Titanfall 2 any less of decent game. Just because it doesn't offer the same vein of gameplay as its predecessor doesn't make the mechanics on offer here, inherently bad. It's clear that this isn't a sequel developed with fans of the original at the forefront, and given that it's mainly these fans that clambered to give the beta a go I can understand the negativity, but components of the game like the movement systems aren't inherently, poorly designed. They're simply not what you wanted. Disappointment in this regard is quite common within the industry. Expectations shape how people frame their experiences and in many cases those expectations are intentionally cultivated by the developer, leading to inevitable disappointment (see No Man's Sky) however here the developer has been quite open about the changes they're making, and given you an invitation to give their new systems a go, before you buy.

To use an analogy (stay with me here...), if games were board games, then No Man's Sky pretended it was chess up until launch, but when it released it turned out it was a game of checkers, a different game, not the game that consumers were set on buying, but not inherently a bad game in and of itself. Titanfall 2 on the other hand, inferred it was chess from its title, then ended up being a game of backgammon. A wholly different game, but again not an inherently bad game either. Either way, if backgammon was releasing in 2 months it would be difficult to turn it into chess 2, so perhaps the best option would be to try the second beta with a more open mind.

If you don't like it, that's fine and I'm not saying your wrong. Whether a game is good or bad is inherently quite an individual thing, and if you're not having fun then you're right, the game isn't good, not for you. However in most cases I've always found that the best thing to do is to try and go into it with an open mind, and perhaps consider what it is that other people like. It's easy to get caught up in negativity and assume that your perspective is the objective truth because no one else is enjoying it either, but I like what I played of the Titanfall 2 tech test, and like to think I'm not all together alone.
 

Hasemo

(;・∀・)ハッ?
Jun 3, 2011
10,324
0
830
Tokyo
twitter.com
I'm not ashamed to admit that I didn't spend much time with the original Titanfall, no more than a few games, as I didn't own the game, but played it on the PC of a friend. With that said I feel that allowed me to enjoy the technical test for what it is, rather than what I wanted it to be, based on my experience with the first game.
Pretty much where I'm at (didn't spend that much time with TF1 because the servers here died, loved what I played etc.). Went in blind before I read all the negative comments, enjoyed the few matches I played and can't wait for the full version. That said, if they decide to change the speed/movement/ttk etc. based on the feedback, I'll be okay with that too.
 

Maximo

Member
Jun 23, 2014
8,077
0
0
Great quote to put on the box.
Edit: Yeah its not bad but its not what made the original *Great*
 
Feb 17, 2013
4,004
0
0
United Kingdom
Pretty much where I'm at. Went in blind before I read all the negative comments, enjoyed the few matches I played and can't wait for the full version. That said, if they decide to change the speed/movement/ttk etc. based on the feedback, I'll be okay with that too.

Same, if they did I wouldn't dislike it, but there are some that would I'm sure.

Personally I don't think they will change anything like that at this stage. Heck, even the singleplayer and tutorial content is built on you being able to move at a certain speed. Increasing it to Titanfall 2's levels would require at least another round of playtesting, a redesign of the tutorial, etc. I don't see that happening for launch, and it's not the type of thing you can change post-launch without an outcry from the fans that liked it as it was.

So they either change it for launch, which I don't think can happen in time, don't change it, or delay the game and then change it. I'm not too concerned which of the latter two options occur, especially if it can mean enhancing other areas of the game if it were delayed. I personally doubt they would delay the game however.
 
Jul 21, 2011
18,092
0
0
www.youtube.com
It has great gunplay and fluid movements (especially sliding), but... it probably doesn't have a lot of things if you were a fan of the original; i.e. Titan timer, better maps with more ways to traverse, plus being able to pick up speed as you move, and of course: the Titans that were much more customizable and enjoyable to use. I had some fun with the beta myself, but I will echo a lot of the same thoughts from TF1 players: they stripped down what made the first game so great, despite people never really complaining about the way the player moved, or how Titans worked.
 

SwolBro

Banned
Jun 21, 2015
3,387
23
0
Great quote to put on the box.

problem is people read negative comments from people that are disgruntled and automatically think the game isn't worth the money when in fact despite it's changes pissing some people off the tech test showed it's going to be a hell of a fun game with great potential.
 

RichiRamjag

Member
Nov 6, 2014
6,910
0
0
No its not, its pretty good. Thats the thing though, its pretty good, while the original is fantastic.

This pretty much. It's good, just not good as it was and that's a real bummer. I can only dedicate myself to so many shooters at once, that tech test made this one a hard sell.

problem is people read negative comments from people that are disgruntled and automatically think the game isn't worth the money when in fact despite it's changes pissing some people off the tech test showed it's going to be a hell of a fun game with great potential.

Well that's on them, isn't it? Though you obviously feel otherwise, it isn't our job to glorify the game so folks won't read negative comments and think the game isn't worth the money. If the game is good enough, it'll stand on its own.
 

Hasemo

(;・∀・)ハッ?
Jun 3, 2011
10,324
0
830
Tokyo
twitter.com
Same, if they did I wouldn't dislike it, but there are some that would I'm sure.

Personally I don't think they will change anything like that at this stage. Heck, even the singleplayer and tutorial content is built on you being able to move at a certain speed. Increasing it to Titanfall 2's levels would require at least another round of playtesting, a redesign of the tutorial, etc. I don't see that happening for launch, and it's not the type of thing you can change post-launch without an outcry from the fans that liked it as it was.
That's true. I forgot that TF2 is supposed to have SP content, this definitely makes any changes harder to implement, given that it's tightly designed around what you can/can't do.

I'm really curious what the current breakdown is regarding the changes from TF1 or the game in general. We know that most people who posted in TF2 test related threads didn't like them, but for all it's worth it might be a vocal minority within a minority (GAF isn't that big). Sadly, there's no way to check this aside from a mandatory survey or something.
 

Ninjimbo

Member
Nov 11, 2010
6,190
1
0
Good write-up. I'm actually more excited to play Titanfall 2 now. Hearing the news about the single-player and some impressions on multiplayer have made me consider getting the game.

I'm neutral on the changes. Ultimately I just want to play a good game and I think with Titanfall's mechanics, they could achieve that.
 

Foxxsoxx

Member
Dec 6, 2015
2,652
0
0
I do agree that it isn't bad, though I am disappointed in the map design and movement being slowed down when wallrunning and the gimped double jump.

The game is fun and enjoyable and has some great features like the slide, grapple, battery mechanic, and Networks which are definite highlights

However there are some flaws that really get in the way more than I'd like.


The titans are slow, like real slow.

The TTK is a little too fast.

Amped weapons are a horrible idea.

The grapple feels mandatory to be able to maintain flow.

Amped hardpoint makes no sense, it's a campy mode in a fast game.

Despite that, the game is fun but it just feels like scattershot development.
 

x24hrs2livex

Banned
Oct 28, 2014
1,283
0
0
There's an astounding amount of negativity on the game, and most of what's positive tends to get lost within that, and so I thought it might be alright if this had its own thread. Especially as there's a thread of its own dedicated to the negative feedback.

My background

I'm not ashamed to admit that I didn't spend much time with the original Titanfall, no more than a few games, as I didn't own the game, but played it on the PC of a friend. With that said I feel that allowed me to enjoy the technical test for what it is, rather than what I wanted it to be, based on my experience with the first game.

That aside, I play anything and everything from Uncharted 4 multiplayer and Rainbow Six Siege, to Battleborn and Garden Warfare 2. I tend to enjoy all of them, for their own reasons, at least to some degree, and I'm sure I would have enjoyed the original TF if I had spent more time with it.

In either case, I enjoyed Titanfall 2, and the awkward thing is that reading the comments here on neogaf, and on reddit made me feel almost ashamed for having fun on it. People talk about components like the movement system as if they're objectively worse, and the only reason you would enjoy things as they are now is if you wanted them dumbed down... but for me, I didn't care, I was just having fun with what I had.
I'll just run through a few of the reasons I like the beta, and why I'm looking forward to the full game. Some of these issues will be in reference to what people dislike, and present a counter-argument and others will emphasise smaller areas of the game that I enjoyed, that perhaps other games often neglect. Obviously, you're more than welcome to disagree, I'm not saying your feelings are wrong.

Movement

One of the beta's biggest criticisms in the beta regard the games movement systems. For many players the movement in Titanfall 2's technical test wasn't fast enough, and this - and the map design - are the particular issues that people tougt as having 'dumbed down' the experience. For me, the movement felt liberating - I felt as though the movement systems played sufficient a role to enable me to swiftly navigate wherever I wanted on the map, without feeling that they were going to be the sole crux of everyone's playstyle. I didn't feel that I was set to die if I stopped moving (like what happens on games like Tribes) but I did feel that the movement systems gave me ample traversal options when considering getting from A to B, and considerable flexibility when engaging in gunfights, or seeking to outsmart my opponent.



In either case, the notion that Titanfall was objectively a better game with faster movement is difficult to consider. It's a different game, and I appreciate that many people, especially fans of the original game would not like that - familiarity is a very powerful effect - however it's as I say, different, not better, or worse. Slower gameplay infers it's own set of advantages, orientating gameplay more towards strategy and positioning than it once was, and less towards dexterity, but at the same time, it's worth bearing in mind that the game is still one of the fastest paced shooters on the market. It's still considerably faster and more flexible than games like Advanced Warfare, Black Ops 3, or even Lawbreakers. It's not at the level of the original Titanfall, but again, it still provides more movement flexibility than any other shooter on the console market (excluding the original TF), and most on PC (Tribes etc).

Respawning

As someone that doesn't have Call of Duty in my daily routine, I often feel that excessive mobility can cause an experience to be overly chaotic. The aggressive respawning of that series is my biggest gripe, and this alone, made me enjoy Titanfall 2 much more than I have a Call of Duty game. Unlike most modern first person shooters the respawning algorithm in TF2's technical test felt like it was predictable, and I didn't need to continually react to people spawning all around me. The problem with many modern shooters is although you can develop a good sense of enemy awareness based on where engagements are occurring, that enemy awareness is continually interfered with by respawns that feel almost random. It's interesting how something relatively small can make a considerable difference to me, and it's the same reason why I don't like modern Call of Duty titles, but I did like Call of Duty 4. I felt as though my mental-map of where everyone is wasn't being messed with in that game every time someone died, it was more controlled, predictable, and fair.

Titans

In my time with Titanfall I enjoyed the Titans significantly. I know many were complaining that they weren't seeing their Titan enough, but for me I was getting between 2 and 4 Titan's per match, and spending between 30 and 50% of each game within my Titan. A big issue that people have seems to be the titan spawn timer, and I imagine I was just getting my Titan quickly because I was getting kills quickly. Considering the nature of the game, I do agree that everyone should be able to access their Titan, it would be nice if it shifted towards a system similar to Destiny or Overwatch's super and ultimate abilities, where score speeds up the process but the abilities are passively generated with a set timer so that everyone get's a relatively regulated amount.

Once in the Titan however, gameplay felt great. I felt as though the Titan's were appropriately balanced against one another, and against each other. Titan on Titan fights were enjoyable, and infantry went down quickly, but at the same time could avoid Titan's quite easily. Unlike the first TF, I did not feel that my Titan was able to easily one-shot enemy Pilots, and I liked that. I liked that Titan's weren't able to immediately pull pilots out of their gameplay experience and when I did kill a pilot it felt fair. It felt that their death resulted from their mistakes, rather than simply a difference in our equipment. At the same time, while pilots could avoid Titan's with relative ease, it wasn't easy to kill a Titan alone, incurred a large enough amount of risk to the pilot and making Titan's feel powerful, as if they offered a battlefield advantage.

I also loved unique 'hero' Titan's. I know this was different in Titanfall 1, where you could customise the Titan's abilities and weapons, but having them uniquely identifiable meant that both pilots and Titan's alike meant that you could accommodate the enemy Titan's kit into your playstyle when attacking. When fighting scorch you could take advantage of the fact that he was optimum at close range, avoiding the floor to evade his scorching AoE effects, while the opposite was true for Ion, where he was weaker at close range, struggling to hit you with his more precision orientated fully automatic rifle. It felt more competitively valid than the customisable alternative. The same is true for the pilots too as they are all uniquely identifiable based on their ability, though I felt that this mattered far less, as they could use any weapon, and engagements are quite quick, often finishing before you recognise the class.

Rodeoing Titan's for batteries is also fun strategic element that makes the interplay between pilot and allied titan feel more meaningful, while also encouraging hopping in and out of your own titan, an interesting gameplay concept that infers quite a bit of risk. I enjoyed it.



Map design

Although the map design didn't stand out to me, I didn't quite feel the hate that many others appear to. It's true that you cannot take full advantage of all of the movement systems across the entire map. The Swiss cheese design of the original Titanfall is gone on the maps present in the technical test, however for me, that did not necessarily feel like a terrible thing. I did not feel that I needed all of the movement options available to me at any one time, and I enjoyed the adaptive style of gameplay enforced by the variance from one portion of the map to another. As I moved from packed, to open areas, I appreciated the adjustments required of my playstyle, and the affect that had on the games pacing. Sure, I wasn't able to run across a wall, all of the time, but that did not prevent me from using the environment and my movement to my advantage in combat, especially if equipped with the grappling hook.

Hopefully the game does include more inner city maps that feature a 'Swiss cheese' design that's a little closer to the original Titanfall, but I would not want this to be all of the maps in the game. I like the fact that they are different, and the various components of the maps are different, I did not feel like the game suddenly fell apart when I wasn't running off a wall. The gunplay is solid and enjoyable, and that's constant throughout.

Gunplay

Appropriately, the gunplay in the game is very good. I played the technical test on PS4, and the controls felt great, very easy to aim and acquire targets (though I was still getting used to it, and getting better at the game with time) and the weapons provided sufficient feedback to feel impactful and fun to use. Significantly, I really liked the enemy health bars. Most games don't feature health bars for enemies with relatively low HP, like those in Titanfall, but it goes a long way to providing the player feedback on every bullet fired and making encounters feel fair. Often in games like Uncharted or Call of Duty I will feel like the player I was shooting escapes on a sliver of health, with a sense that they 'should have died' but as you can't see their health, it's unclear what actually happened, was it lag? did I miss? Titanfall 2 provides the visual feedback to reconsile that much of that debate with the health display and it makes the gunplay feel better as a result.

Networks are neat

The network feature is neat, not enough games facilitate clan-esque features, let alone provide a platform for communication that is specific to your clan. While it wasn't working properly in the technical test it's a fantastic idea that will bring communities and players together in game, more titles should be doing things like this, because for me, it's quite a big deal.

The controls are great

While this kind of goes with gunplay I thought I'd feature it in its own section as so many games actually manage to mess up the feel of shooters on consoles. Games like Overwatch and Killzone are big name titles that have had control issues in the past, with atypical deadzones being a common issue. It's almost condescending to have to praise a game for controlling well, but either way, Titanfall 2 felt great.

What I didn't like

While I had a lot of fun with the technical test overall, there were of course some elements of the game I didn't like. I didn't like either of the game types that much. It seemed as though Titans were admittedly less frequent on hardpoint, which was a little less interesting, and I found the ruleset for 'bounty hunt' to be a little convoluted and generally, not especially competitively valid. Losing half your score because you're killed by an enemy pilot? It's a nonsense mechanic that rewards random chance more than anything else. It isn't as if enemies can see the amount of score you have and hunt you based on that, it's just sheer luck if they kill someone with a large amount of cash, or not. Pilot versus Pilot and Amped Hardpoint were okay aside for the lack of Titan's, serviceable modes, if unremarkable. I'm surprised that the developers haven't included something like the Warzone gametype that featured in the Killzone series. I liked the dynamic objective there, and it seems it would suit the large open environments, and interactivity with AI very well.

I also thought the time to kill could be just slightly higher, and amped damage should be removed. It's hard to tell someone's using it before you're dead, and it allows even guns like the SMGs to kill in just a couple of bullets. It's a silly mechanic that reduces the skillful gunplay to nothing more than target acquisition, and I really feel that it shouldn't feature in the game. The overall time to kill feels okay. I'm inclined to say everyone should be able to take one or two more bullets but then that would mean snipers would probably still remain as a one-shot-kill, thereby receiving a buff overall, which I do not think they need. Either way, it's not my job to balance the game, the time to kill could be a little better and amped damage is devoid of competitive validity, it's a facet of the game I would consider poorly designed.

Summary

I really enjoyed my time with the beta, and reading everyone's comments I can see that my lack of time with the original Titanfall has perhaps helped with that. With that in mind, that doesn't make Titanfall 2 any less of decent game. Just because it doesn't offer the same vein of gameplay as its predecessor doesn't make the mechanics on offer here, inherently bad. It's clear that this isn't a sequel developed with fans of the original at the forefront, and given that it's mainly these fans that clambered to give the beta a go I can understand the negativity, but components of the game like the movement systems aren't inherently, poorly designed. They're simply not what you wanted. Disappointment in this regard is quite common within the industry. Expectations shape how people frame their experiences and in many cases those expectations are intentionally cultivated by the developer, leading to inevitable disappointment (see No Man's Sky) however here the developer has been quite open about the changes they're making, and given you an invitation to give their new systems a go, before you buy.

To use an analogy (stay with me here...), if games were board games, then No Man's Sky pretended it was chess up until launch, but when it released it turned out it was a game of checkers, a different game, not the game that consumers were set on buying, but not inherently a bad game in and of itself. Titanfall 2 on the other hand, inferred it was chess from its title, then ended up being a game of backgammon. A wholly different game, but again not an inherently bad game either. Either way, if backgammon was releasing in 2 months it would be difficult to turn it into chess 2, so perhaps the best option would be to try the second beta with a more open mind.

If you don't like it, that's fine and I'm not saying your wrong. Whether a game is good or bad is inherently quite an individual thing, and if you're not having fun then you're right, the game isn't good, not for you. However in most cases I've always found that the best thing to do is to try and go into it with an open mind, and perhaps consider what it is that other people like. It's easy to get caught up in negativity and assume that your perspective is the objective truth because no one else is enjoying it either, but I like what I played of the Titanfall 2 tech test, and like to think I'm not all together alone.


The bolded portion is the issue. You didn't spend much time with the original so you don't really know how great it was. 2 isn't necessarily a bad game its just very different than the original.
 
Feb 17, 2013
4,004
0
0
United Kingdom
The bolded portion is the issue. You didn't spend much time with the original so you don't really know how great it was. 2 isn't necessarily a bad game its just very different than the original.

Why is that an issue though? Spending time with the original doesn't make the sequel any better or worse. It shifts your frame of reference, your expectations. Experiencing faster movement doesn't make slower movement worse, it makes it less familiar, it's different, no doubt, but it doesn't change the merits and disadvantages of either.

PS: You probably shouldn't have quoted the entire OP, it's quite long.
 

SwolBro

Banned
Jun 21, 2015
3,387
23
0
it isn't our job to glorify the game so folks won't read negative comments and think the game isn't worth the money. If the game is good enough, it'll stand on its own.
Well it sure is peoples jobs to take a dump on it. The endless single line posts of "ok, i'll get battlefield 1 now" with nothing else contributing to a thread about a pre-alpha does make it seem that way.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Jun 8, 2004
28,904
1
1,645
Why is that an issue though? Spending time with the original doesn't make the sequel any better or worse. It shifts your frame of reference, your expectations. Experiencing faster movement doesn't make slower movement worse, it makes it less familiar. It doesn't change the merits and disadvantages of either.

It does matter though, because it's a game with an existing fan base and expectations that come from being a sequel.

Fair or not, totally reinventing your game is going to cause certain issues.

As an extreme example, lets say Last of Us 2 turns into the best dating simulator ever made. Does that make it a bad game? I mean, probably not. Best dating simulator ever made!

Do I expect a shitload of bitching? Absolutely.

You are right that Titanfall 2 can be a totally fine game while having drastic departures from the first. But, my opinion is for an established franchise the frame of reference of the first game is at some level very relevant to how you should expect the sequel to be measured.

So, you aren't wrong to say "but it doesn't matter if it's different, it can still be good", but then I point to my absurd dating simulator example.
 

pelican

Member
Apr 16, 2007
3,848
0
0
Death Star
I agree.

There are aspects of the game I don't like, but I have to admit I've been rolling my eyes at some of the reactions found in the other thread.
 

Dash_Riprock

Member
Sep 12, 2015
9,352
1
405
OP in other thread listed his grievances in a few succinct bullet-points.

This OP wrote paragraphs that basically amount to "I liked it, and at least its better than No Man's Sky!."
 

a.wd

Member
Mar 16, 2007
3,886
0
0
uk
Why is that an issue though? Spending time with the original doesn't make the sequel any better or worse. It shifts your frame of reference, your expectations. Experiencing faster movement doesn't make slower movement worse, it makes it less familiar, it's different, no doubt, but it doesn't change the merits and disadvantages of either.

PS: You probably shouldn't have quoted the entire OP, it's quite long.

Well, yeah? That frame of reference is the important thing, they're selling a sequel, do you think it makes sense to appeal to the original players? The people who bought it and raved about it and hyped it to their friends?
 
Feb 17, 2013
4,004
0
0
United Kingdom
Good write-up. I'm actually more excited to play Titanfall 2 now. Hearing the news about the single-player and some impressions on multiplayer have made me consider getting the game.

I'm neutral on the changes. Ultimately I just want to play a good game and I think with Titanfall's mechanics, they could achieve that.

This is all I was going for, really. A little positivity helps frame an experience, I like the game and I'd be neat if others liked it too, and I don't think all the negativity surrounding it, makes that very easy at times.

I also think an issue is that the beta was not made very public. It was not well advertised, it's brief and not on the main page on the store, so very easy to miss. I could see that resulting in the attention of the original Titanfall players being grabbed, but missing newer audiences.

Well, yeah? That frame of reference is the important thing, they're selling a sequel, do you think it makes sense to appeal to the original players? The people who bought it and raved about it and hyped it to their friends?

I mean, it's a valid concern but personally I wouldn't let a lack of familiarity get in the way of my enjoyment of a game.

It's the same thing that happened to the Resistance series. Every Resistance game is mechanically, completely different to the last, different pacing, different reward structure, differen't weapon mechanics, even if it has a loose aesthetic veneer to suggest it offers a similar experience. The problem with that series is that they had a tendency to alienate fans of the previous. Many fans of Resistance didn't like the changes in Resistance 2, so the boards and whatnot were rife with complaints as much of the audience liked the way R1 played, not R2. Then the same thing happened with R3, and the fans of R2 found themselves alienated by the new mechanics.

I stuck through all 3 games and enjoyed them for what they were. With Titanfall it's a little different, because Resistance captured the same audience 3 times in a row, Respawn assumed that in large part that Titanfall 2 would capture a new audience, so that new audience will be open to fostering their changes. I think part of the issue with that is that the beta didn't capture a new audience because most of the people interested enough, and aware of the beta, were fans of the old game.

In either case, I guess the answer is yes and no. I think provided a sequel is thematically similar then it can be a sequel without being similar in style, and I can still enjoy it. Kind of reminds me of Mad Max. A lot of people hate that film just because it takes a very different style to its predecessors, though critically it's incredibly well received. Still, it asks that fans stead their expectations and enjoy a new experience. Perhaps Respawn are asking too much too soon, but in either case I feel there's a fun game underneath everyone's missed expectations, a game that it'd be a shame to miss out on purely because it's not similar enough to its prequel.
 

Foxxsoxx

Member
Dec 6, 2015
2,652
0
0
Why is that an issue though? Spending time with the original doesn't make the sequel any better or worse. It shifts your frame of reference, your expectations. Experiencing faster movement doesn't make slower movement worse, it makes it less familiar, it's different, no doubt, but it doesn't change the merits and disadvantages of either.

PS: You probably shouldn't have quoted the entire OP, it's quite long.

I didn't play T1 at all, but I'm pretty sure most peoples issues are that they wanted Titanfall 1 but streamlined with better graphics and more content.

What they got was a spinoff of sorts, it took a detour with map design being much different than what they want and movement flow along with titans feeling slower than the original.

Imagine wanting to play a new mainline MGS game but they throw Survive at you instead. No one asked for it, but they thought we wanted it, that's what I feel like they thought with the core design of TF2. They changed in the ways the fans didn't want it changed.
 

predalien27

Member
Sep 29, 2015
246
0
0
You pretty much hit the nail on the head explaining why I liked TF2.

One thing I'll mention is that the more I played, the more I started recognizing how much parkour options were actually in the maps. After about 4 hours of play and then recognizing two Titan sized flat target dummies set up as a wall jump lane onto a important high point was great. I felt like I was starting to really take advantage of my move set. It showed too as I started coming in first pretty damn consistently.

Overall, my favorite change from TF1 was that there were certain advantages for using more than the standard assault rifle. ( I also liked how there was no smart pistol in the tech test. God, that thing is infuriating. )
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Jun 8, 2004
28,904
1
1,645
Well it sure is peoples jobs to take a dump on it. The endless single line posts of "ok, i'll get battlefield 1 now" with nothing else contributing to a thread about a pre-alpha does make it seem that way.

Yeah, but they put out a demo of their game less than 2 months from release. You can't do that and not expect people to form an opinion of the game framed by their own expectations. So, I would expect lots of people who are disappointed by the changes to voice those, and then people who are fine with the game or like it to voice that opinion.

I get that it can be frustrating if you like something and a ton of other people don't. But, it's like their opinion man.
 

RichiRamjag

Member
Nov 6, 2014
6,910
0
0
Well it sure does seem that it's peoples jobs to take a dump on it. The endless single line posts of "ok, i'll get battlefield 1 now" with nothing else contributing to a thread about a pre-alpha does make it seem that way.

You mean discussing a game and their issues they had with it on a gaming forum? If folks decide BF1 is for them, then so the fuck what? Sorry that the tone isn't what you prefer, but no one owes anything to Respawn or any other dev to hide their ire at what they played.

You're being ridiculous. A lot of people didn't like it, get over it.
 

SwolBro

Banned
Jun 21, 2015
3,387
23
0
As an extreme example, lets say Last of Us 2 turns into the best dating simulator ever made. Does that make it a bad game? I mean, probably not. Best dating simulator ever made!

.

Weird analogy. Respawn didn't take Titanfall 2 and turn it into an RPG. They made some changes to the game.
 

NateDrake

Member
Dec 12, 2010
13,717
76
885
Titanfall 2 is going to be an interesting release. Those who never played TF1 seem to be loving the Tech Test, while TF1 veterans are feeling disappointed by the changes. Unfortunately it seems we have each side trying to convince folks that the other is wrong. TF2 plays well, but the changes made to the Titans and movement are not for the better.

Weird analogy. Respawn didn't take Titanfall 2 and turn it into an RPG. They made some changes to the game.
Fine; think of it as Smash Bros. Melee to Smash Bros. Brawl. The changes made from Melee to Brawl were not for the better. The hardcore community showed their disgust over these changes and went back to Melee. Adding tripping, slowing down characters, etc...didn't appeal to series veterans. Now, if you have no frame of reference, you could say Brawl is a great game, and Melee fans will disagree.
 

Hasemo

(;・∀・)ハッ?
Jun 3, 2011
10,324
0
830
Tokyo
twitter.com
Imagine wanting to play a new mainline MGS game but they throw Survive at you instead. No one asked for it, but they thought we wanted it.
I'm under the impression that people are mostly complaining about the changes to movement - didn't all MGS games have different approaches to movement etc.?
The way it takes to activate a Titan is such a turn off. But hey... if you want the game... go for it.
I'd completely agree if the progress bar was being reset after you died. Since it's not, it still took me about the same time to get one as in TF1.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Jun 8, 2004
28,904
1
1,645
Weird analogy. Respawn didn't take Titanfall 2 and turn it into an RPG. They made some changes to the game.

Sure, it's an extreme example, as I stated. The reason for the extreme example is it's hard to articulate that Titanfall *was* a game about stringing together wall runs and constant movement so you flew all over the map. So, you can say "well, it's the same in 90% of the game design", but the 10% they changes is the 10% that probably mattered the most.

I don't know, it would be like getting rid of the ability to Rocket Jump in Rocket Arena. Like, it's still a game with cars and a soccer ball, but it's not the same game.

Or JSRF (a game I preferred over JGR, despite having loved JGR) is another good example. It went from a game about making patterns to tag things and grinding to a game about extreme speed and platforming and no patterns at all, and all the combat was totally different. Lots of people didn't like that change either. I loved it, but it was a huge departure from the formula.

But Respawn did make fundamental changes to the gameplay loop and formula that make the game play much much differently than the first game. That is relevant.

It might not make it "bad", but it makes it something of an unexpected departure from the original game.
 
Mar 21, 2010
3,550
0
0
Belgium, Ghent
The controls, aiming and movement are so well done in this game I couldn't put it down. Everything is so god damn well fine tuned. Nothing else on console controls like this. That the gunplay nothing short is of amazing is also helped.
I play almost exclusively fps so I really appreciate this game
 

RichiRamjag

Member
Nov 6, 2014
6,910
0
0
The controls, aiming and movement are so well done in this game I couldn't put it down. Everything is so god damn well fine tuned. Nothing else on console controls like this. That the gunplay nothing short is of amazing is also helped.

It's not trash, that's for sure. Certainly an alright game. There are some positive changes. Gunplay feels nice and network-wise, it ran damn well.
 

Foxxsoxx

Member
Dec 6, 2015
2,652
0
0
I'm under the impression that people are mostly complaining about the changes to movement - didn't all MGS games have different approaches to movement etc?

It's a horrible analogy, but it's not the movement of an MGS game that I'm getting at.

TF2 just feels like getting a spinoff instead of a sequel. Instead of more complexity we got less with slower mechanics, it doesn't make it bad, it just makes it different than what people were expecting.
 

SwolBro

Banned
Jun 21, 2015
3,387
23
0
Sure, it's an extreme example, as I stated.

But Respawn did make fundamental changes to the gameplay loop and formula that make the game play much much differently than the first game. That is relevant.

It might not make it "bad", but it makes it something of an unexpected departure from the original game.

You will honestly tell me that if they dropped down Attrition next weekend that the game will play fundamentally different than how it is played right now? Or how the bulk of attrition has been played since the launch of Titanfall 1?

I'd say people might traverse the maps even more with grapple and the new stim because not a lot of people parkoured, and even less bunnyhopped in the original. People are over-exaggerating and i don't see a lot of the backlash as justified, at least not yet.
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Jun 8, 2004
28,904
1
1,645
You will honestly tell me that if they dropped down Attrition next weekend that the game will play fundamentally different than how it is played right now? Or how the bulk of attrition has been played since the launch of Titanfall 1?

I'd say people might traverse the maps even more because not a lot of people parkoured, and even less bunnyhopped. People are over-exaggerating and i don't see a lot of the complaints as justified, at least not yet.

I've been playing Attrition all week, and almost everyone is parkouring their way all over the place. Not 100% of players are for sure, but the bulk seem to be doing it. Bunny Hopping was always above my pay grade.
 

SwolBro

Banned
Jun 21, 2015
3,387
23
0
I've been playing Attrition all week, and almost everyone is parkouring their way all over the place. Not 100% of players are for sure, but the bulk seem to be doing it. Bunny Hopping was always above my pay grade.

See, this triggers me lol. What exactly would you have to complain about then? You do a straight line parkour, foot it then straight line parkour again? How the hell will the changes to the movement speeds effect your overall satisfaction of the game? And for that matter a majority of the people that play like this and are complaining about the perceived ruining of the Titanfall experience?

I've attempted to lure a few people that are complaining into some attrition matches so i can see exactly how much of the movement they take advantage of. Because if i follow someone and see them not hopping off walls and shooting, not stimming and flying across the map, or chaining parkour runs properly i will lose my shit. Why would any of the changes effect these people?

You following me?
 
Feb 17, 2013
4,004
0
0
United Kingdom
I didn't play T1 at all, but I'm pretty sure most peoples issues are that they wanted Titanfall 1 but streamlined with better graphics and more content.

What they got was a spinoff of sorts, it took a detour with map design being much different than what they want and movement flow along with titans feeling slower than the original.

Imagine wanting to play a new mainline MGS game but they throw Survive at you instead. No one asked for it, but they thought we wanted it, that's what I feel like they thought with the core design of TF2. They changed in the ways the fans didn't want it changed.

I get why, but I'm also encouraging people to give it a chance and try to judge it for what it is, rather than what they expected.

As for Metal Gear, I'm open to MGS survive being fun. It's not my type of game, so it might not be, but I'll give it a go, and I won't stop my familiarity with previous MGS titles from allowing me to enjoy the newest spinoff. After all, it is a spinoff.

Imagine if people hated MGS Acid purely because it wasn't in line with MGS' typical gameplay. Ironically, the old MGS Acid review on gaming age is exactly that "Metal Gear Acid is a decent tactical card battling game, but it is not a true Metal Gear title, and for me I expect no less."

The full article isn't available anymore, but that quote alone suggests it was disliked at least in large part because it wasn't a traditional MGS game, despite being a decent tactical card battling game. Where's the sense in that? Allowing your rigid expectations to sour your experience of something that could otherwise be, rather enjoyable?

Maybe they should have been brave enough to give Titanfall a new title, but ultimately that would have been EA's decision, as they would have wanted a larger return on the sunk costs of the original Titanfalls marketing. Either way, the lack of a different title doesn't change what it is. I'm afraid this is an experience people are just going to need to try and be more open minded with, and if they are, and they still don't like it, then that's fair enough.
 

Foxxsoxx

Member
Dec 6, 2015
2,652
0
0
I get why, but I'm also encouraging people to give it a chance and try to judge it for what it is, rather than what they expected.

As for Metal Gear, I'm open to MGS survive being fun. It's not my type of game, so it might not be, but I'll give it a go, and I won't stop my familiarity with previous MGS titles from allowing me to enjoy the newest spinoff. After all, it is a spinoff.

Imagine if people hated MGS Acid purely because it wasn't in line with MGS' typical gameplay. Ironically, the old MGS Acid review on gaming age is exactly that "Metal Gear Acid is a decent tactical card battling game, but it is not a true Metal Gear title, and for me I expect no less."

The full article isn't available anymore, but that quote alone suggests it was disliked at least in large part because it wasn't a traditional MGS game, despite being a decent tactical card battling game. Where's the sense in that? Allowing your rigid expectations to sour your experience of something that could otherwise be, rather enjoyable?

I agree, I think people should try it to see if they at least like it. I enjoyed the alpha for the first hour, then proceeded to dislike it for the next 3-4 hours. I woke up the next day and it just clicked once I figured out how to use the grapple and I was going fast like Sonic and getting 1st constantly. However I do recognize the problems the game has, mainly with the varied speeds you move (you move slower in the air which makes wallrun chains feel weirder than it should).

It's a lot different than TF1, but for some people I'm sure that might be a good thing. Though if I was a TF1 lover I might be upset by the radical change in philosophy.

---

As for MGS Survive, it was more of an example, but I don't plan on completely dismissing it as it could be fun. I just don't have high hopes for it because Konami somehow decided to market this as if it was trying to be serious with the most unserious concept I've ever heard lol. They didn't seem to try to have any fun with that trailer when there was loads of potential.
 

razzel

Member
Aug 28, 2015
127
2
0
I'm gonna make this super clear for people who don't understand the complaining.

People who loved the first game are upset because most of the features that made it great have been toned down, altered and made worse, or flat out removed.

A lot of people who didn't play or didn't like the first game generally seem to enjoy Titanfall 2, and love the changes or at the very least don't see the big deal.

Boom, that explains most reactions.

What's even more irritating for the first group though? That the developers themselves are primarily invested in winning over the second group and seemingly couldn't care less about the existing fan base.

I mean c'mon, you gotta admit it sucks to be a Titanfall fan lol. Still, if there was anybody out there actually asking for this reboot, congrats and enjoy.
 

cHaOs667

Member
Oct 27, 2014
405
102
425
The bolded portion is the issue. You didn't spend much time with the original so you don't really know how great it was. 2 isn't necessarily a bad game its just very different than the original.
There we go. Thank you, I feel the same.

But i cancelled my preorder anyway - I lost the faith in TF2 as I think it's the inferior game...
 

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Jun 8, 2004
28,904
1
1,645
See, this triggers me lol. What exactly would you have to complain about then? You do a straight line parkour, foot it then straight line parkour again? How the hell will the changes to the movement speeds effect your overall satisfaction of the game? And for that matter a majority of the people that play like this and are complaining about the perceived ruining of the Titanfall experience?

I've attempted to lure a few people that are complaining into some attrition matches so i can see exactly how much of the movement they take advantage of. Because if i follow someone and see them not hopping off walls and shooting, not stimming and flying across the map, or chaining parkour runs properly i will lose my shit. Why would any of the changes effect these people?

You following me?

So, how good I am now dictates what I enjoy about the game and what I want out of a sequel?
 

Complicated

Banned
May 12, 2015
1,323
0
0
It's not terrible. It's not Titanfall though, and I have no interest in recent Call of Duty games. Titanfall was my favorite multiplayer game of the past decade. I'm not getting Titanfall 2 at this point.
 

SwolBro

Banned
Jun 21, 2015
3,387
23
0
So, how good I am now dictates what I enjoy about the game and what I want out of a sequel?

No, but if you aren't using the mechanics that are being changed how do changes to those mechanics effect your enjoyment? that's my question.
 
Jun 13, 2014
7,301
3
460
Respawn/EA's problem is that Titanfall 2 is way closer to Call of Duty than being anything new really, and in that matchup they are going to lose and lose badly.

Infinite Warfare $80 version comes with a SP campaign thats co-op, an entirely seperate, massive co-op Zombies game, a massive MP game with tons of modes, guns, features, competitive play, ranked play, e-sports leagues already setup, and as a huge bonus you get Modern Warfare remastered along with 10 MP maps. Why would anyone buy the inferior Titanfall 2 lane-path shooter compared to this? If you hate modern/future combat, well, then you got Battlefield 1.

I do hope they tweak the games so that Titans are much more prominent, robust, and accessible (to everyone) and of course we haven't seen all the game modes or maps so maybe they can still surprise everyone. I still think though they would be better off delaying the game 3-4 months, let Battlefield 1 and Infinite Warfare slug it out this holiday season and when people get bored of those two games bring in the Titans in early 2017.
 

Papercuts

fired zero bullets in the orphanage.
Sep 1, 2007
30,406
0
1,015
Pennsylvania
www.neogaf.com
No, but if you aren't using the mechanics that are being changed how do changes to those mechanics effect your enjoyment? that's my question.

It's the maps in the beta. You can just chain wall rides and double jumps together on a map like angel city and not touch the ground for a long time.

I actually noticed quite a few people talk highly of the training grounds, which also points me towards thinking those are the biggest culprit.