Played the beta version on PC. Fun, but vastly overrated. While we all know companies hype stuff, the hype for this game is so unrealistic. Phil Spencer is quoted as saying..
TF will set a MP look/feel/gameplay bar the rest of us will be trying to match for some time.
Graphics wise it uses the source engine (think Valve/Steam and Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead). So basically the graphics are pretty crappy. The art direction is quite nice, which make the last gen feel a bit better. There are some cool little nooks and crannies to jump onto with some interesting pathways around the map, so that's pretty good. So if you can stand 'next' gen looking like last gen at slightly better graphics and resolution then previous gen consoles, that's what this is. But if you've played a PC game from 2008 or newer you've seen much, much, much better looking graphics.
The PC version has better graphics, but again, since it uses the source engine, it still looks like a game from 2007 or so. It has higher resolution options, better framerate, and an 'insane textures' option. You won't need a powerful computer to run this game at some level.
This game will run on this sort of PC, which is really old tech.
According to Zampella, Titanfall will run on Windows PCs equipped with and AMD X2 2.8GHz or Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz, 4GB of RAM, 512MB of video RAM, and a Radeon HD 4770 or GeForce 8800GT graphics card.
The Xbox One version runs the game at 792p (most likely 1408x792), medium textures, and has some pretty serious framerate issues. When the beta was tested it ranged from 34-60 FPS, and some are reporting that the final version was seen having rare moments of framerate drop in or near the singe digit territory. An absolute travesty of a performance considering the dated engine and being on a new console, but the Xbox One will never be confused as powerful by anyone and you know what you get if you buy one.
Digital foundry will probably do a framerate analysis like they did with the beta, so if you're interested watch their video on this when they've done it. But if 60 FPS is necessary for you in a competitive first person shooter game, and for many it is, and with reason, then the PC version is the only option.
Unfortunately because it uses a modified version of the 2004 Source Engine, there are no destructible environments. Which is a big bummer. Also you can't shoot through walls (like think bullet penetration in CoD...none of that), but can shoot through holes or openings and hit people inside.
There are also issues with the 'cloud' as sometimes there are hitches in the AI and they appear and disappear in different locations from time to time...at least I saw it fairly often in the PC beta. The cloud is very unimpressive at least with the beta.
They promised wall-running, but it isn't wall running but parkour like Mirror's Edge where you run up the side of the wall sideways like for a max of a couple of seconds. This was a big letdown. But there are uses and you can chain the parkours together along with a double jump and get to those nooks and crannies I mentioned earlier. But this isn't Saints Row, Assassin's Creed wall running/climbing in any way.
They promised maps with lots of verticality, but that's simply not the case. You can get up on buildings and such but it's more like buildings that are 2-3 stories high, maybe a tad higher, (so basically like any other last gen shooter) but nothing like say Battlefield 4 where you can get up on huge buildings, which also are destructible (and planes/choppers fly above those even).
So compared to BF3/BF4 maps, the buildings are like 1/10th the height with no areas to fly planes or anything like that. So again this was a letdown. If you are on top of the buildings you can use the buildings (and how they're indestructible) to more easily kill titans with your solider's anti-titan weapon.
So I can see what they were saying, and by running up high you are less likely to killed by titans or even confront other players, but it should've been worded differently because the maps are not big or have much height. Again this was a big let down as I was expecting some big buildings an environments, and it simply isn't.
The mechs don't hover. Yeah that was another big letdown. So you walk or run (boost) around a map and can't hover over buildings or anything. Most games with mechs I've ever seen have them with either outright flying capability or at least some sort of boost, so this part sucks. Hawken has better mechs and more of them and it's a free to play game.
You can imagine when I heard wall running, verticality, and mechs the game was completely different and inferior to what I and many people were thinking as each of these aspects is quite different then advertised.
They ripped off the rodeo (jumping on a Mech and damaging it) from Binary domain, but it's a cool feature nonetheless and helps keep pilots on foot another ability to take out mechs. So it's a cool addition.
The AI is dumb as dirt, and then suddenly with your back turned they start shooting you after standing around doing nothing for a long time. There is an aspect that if you have a hack tool you can hack one kind of them. They can then help you.
But for the most part the AI is utterly useless and completely stupid in a game like this. Lots of times you'll be shooting them, and someone real sees you and you die a cheap death. Or vice versa you see someone distracted by them and you get a cheap kill. They're a distraction and absolutely dumb as dirt. In the end you'll try to simply learn how to spot them quickly and just avoid them. But sometimes that too gets in the way because you'll ignore a human. They keep saying the AI is only possible with the power of the cloud, and that's just complete nonsense. (especially again the hitches in gameplay caused by the cloud lagging and bots not being where they should be all of a sudden)
6v6 is also not good. I can like big and small games. I like 32-64 in Battlefield but prefer the smaller amount of players like in Killzone. But in a game such as this the low playercount really hurts as if most players are in titans, you have a venerable wasteland of few human players on the ground.
Many times during the beta I went running around capping hardpoint after hardpoint and no one stopped me. Eventually someone in a Titan might show up to spoil the party, but it seemed quite lifeless many times and this game would have been much better served with a higher playcount that limited the number of mechs at any given time. So like 10v10 or 12v12 but only 6v6 max Titans at any given time.
So it sucks when people are farming bots, some are setting up as snipers, and others are in mechs, it really does sometimes leave a wasteland. Perhaps some of the other maps make this less of an issue, perhaps even more so. We'll see.
Also the Xbox One version suffers from screen tearing, which is absolutely horrible. Screen tearing makes it really hard to see, but the PC version has vsync which stops this. This too is a big reason to get the PC version.
The reviews are absolutely padded horsecrap. It's like they feel sorry for XB1. It's like they feel it's good to get people who gave up on first person shooters another chance to enjoy the genre and are rewarding them. It's sad though these fake journalists don't mention or don't discount the game's review scores and overlook these MAJOR issues and flaws with the game, whereas in other games they will crucify the score of other games for any ONE of these issues, and Titanfall has a bunch as I've laid out. Double standards aren't good.
Respawn said 'framerate is king', but a first person shooter that can't maintain 60 FPS, especially with such a dated engine and unimpressive visuals should easily be discounted because not having 60 FPS in a competitive multiplayer game is the biggest sin there is. They are even still saying there might be a 1080p patch for the XB1, but that is a pipe dream when it doesn't even run well on at 792p on the XB1.
Also the game is online-only with no multiplayer, yet at full $60 price, and no one docked it for this as well.
This game is a 5-6 on Xbox One and a 7 tops on PC (because the screen tearing, the crappy framerate, and higher resolution and textures aren't there if you have a decent system build in the last five years). Not to mention all the flaws and limitations by utilizing the Source engine when other FPS use much more modern engines that add quite a bit to the gameplay that this game lacks.
But that doesn't mean it's not fun. It is sort of fun, and in some ways quite good. I enjoyed the beta. I bought it. I am preloading it now for PC, but it's sickening people are either willfully ignorant of the issues or are outright lying for one reason or another about the game being 'the best ever', 'revolutionary', and 'setting a new bar'. Complete bs. I enjoyed BF4, CoD, and KZ alot more then Titanfall, but since I like FPS/TPS it's worth a spot in the rotation.
Games can be 4-5 and I/others can enjoy them, and yet the reviews are rightly critical that they are 4-5, and this game should be one of those games that is decent fun, but has yet to be viewed or scored critically.
Groupthink based on hype is influencing the scores. This game is rightly a 5-7 depending on platform. With such a score, it can still be very enjoyable for some people, but when you look at the game and all its warts, its warts should be graded like any other game is. It's false to have a double standard and this game has one. Because yes, this game could of been a lot better, and a lot more fun if they didn't have so many things holding it back.
It's also on the 360 but we haven't seen any screens. Is that because it's a far poorer version? Maybe. Is it because it might not be that much more inferior from the XB1 version? Perhaps. We'll find out in a couple of weeks what's up with it.
There are some good things with the game as well. Mech combat is pretty satisfying. I mentioned the nooks and crannies you can get to, which is nice. There are nice sightlines, especially with the mechs in mind.
Maps are creative and nicely laid out, (the beta ones at least), but the 10 year old tech running the game REALLY holds them back. There's 15 maps, and that's a nice number of maps these days, but with no single player there should be extra maps. There's supposed to be dinosaurs or monsters, but they weren't in the beta. This could be cool. There's ziplines and stuff, so that's cool. Mechs still have some decent things going on with them, and mech battles are generally fun. Shooting out of a mech and landing on another and rodeo'ing them is pretty cool.
I like how if your team loses you try to evacuate, and I guess there is supposed to be maybe some more aspects of that.
This game definitely can improve in later iterations if they fix what's wrong and make the sequel on Source 2 engine or Frostbite 3 or Cryengine 3 or Unreal 4 Engine. It's a good first outing, with some pretty major quirks and drawbacks, but it definitely will be a new IP that has a number of sequels coming after it. The best is yet to come, it's just sad they over-promised and under-delivered, and reviewers are ignoring reality.
Overall if you have an XB1, and no PC. Buy the XB1 version. If you have a choice. Get the PC version. If all you have is an 360, well, we'll see. But if it ends up being not much worse, just buy it on the 360.
The game is decent fun, but in no way revolutionary. BF3 was a major leap forward compared to CoD, and Titanfall simply can't compete with it on so many levels. But it's fun and worth a purchase on some platform. I just don't suggest buying a new console specifically for it. This is no Halo game.
Enjoy the game though, and if you play the PC version, perhaps we'll play against each other some time
(oh and if you have an Nvidia card, the new 335.23 drivers are out and are the first ones that officially support the game, so don't forget to update them)
