Not really. Some game types, unintentionally I can only assume, make camping viable. Bounty Hunt is a perfect example. Hard point to an extent has always been somewhat campish, but your are trying to control points. Play style for that can play into it.
I don't get how bounty hunt encourages camping. Sure you can overlook an area, but I never did as well as when I was running around. You have to run to bank your cash, you have to run to the enemy spawns, and you won't end up with the largest amount of cash within each wave window if you just sit on a rooftop the entire time.
I was top or second place on the team, in every match I played aside the first (where I did not understand the objective), and not once did I camp out, and sit on top of a roof top or anything like that. Hardpoint is much worse, and was in the original TF, since as you say, you control objectives, and don't need to move. It sounds like you're just giving the mode a free pass, because it was in the original TF.
I have never said that the game that is titanfall 2 is bad. What I have argued is it is not titanfall. It is its own thing, not a titanfall game. If they wanted to make this they need to rebrand it as something else, not titanfall 2.
A sequel should build on what made the first one great. Not completely change the formula.
Not to put the OP down or anything, but as soon as he said he didn't put much time into titanfall I realized that I couldn't change his opinion because he doesn't understand. He doesn't have the history that actual titanfall players have.
It's not about having a history or not though, it's about being able to put that history to one side. It's about how the game can be enjoyed, on its own merits, and it shouldn't be dependent on whether you've played the first or not, to determine whether you can see that.
I liked Starhawk after Lightbox radically changed Warhawk. Liked Resistance 2 after Insomniac radically changed Resistance, I liked Resistance 3 after Insomniac again.... radically changed Resistance 2. I liked Street Fighter IV after Capcom killed the pace of the game set by Street Fighter 3.
I played enough of Titanfall to observe its differences to the sequel, but I'm pretty convinced it wouldn't affect my feelings here. I'm not adverse to playing a different game, with different mechanics. Plenty of games make radical shifts and I haven't had a problem with those shifts. I play almost everything under the sun, so that helps, because even if I don't enjoy a game for one reason, I will usually enjoy it another, but that aside I don't think it benefits anyone to be this resistant to change.
For me it's okay for a sequel to vary quite a bit. Some do, some don't. For instance, fighting games like Blazblue are the same pretty much every time, minor variation with each game and a couple of new characters. Street Fighter on the other hand, it's radically different every time, with a very significant complete overhaul of the games systems. It's interesting how change is more accepted in some genres over others.
