I thought thew game was an awesome concept, unique and fresh and a ton of fun. I thought the graphics were pretty good and the game was very playable. Also got on top of some buildings that were pretty high up on one of the maps.
I dunno, thats an in depth review but maybe you had too high of expectations or something, I thought it was a sweet game with great flow and feel and for sure mixed it up from a typical shooter which is necessary in the genre. I love the traditional shooter but its always nice to have something different ala Halo or Titanfall.
Yeah the graphics aren't ugly, especially if people only played PS3/360 the last few years. They are just really, really dated compared to the DX11 effects that have been in PC games since 2009. Tessellation, huge environments, destructible environments, etc.
You're right, I came back here to initially report my findings. It's true a couple of the maps have much more vertical nature then the beta maps. So I'm glad to see that. Those couple of maps are much more the vertical scale I was expecting.
My expectations were high, but everyone in power (Microsoft/Respawn) was pushing them up high with their extraordinary claims. They said specific things, and at least the vertical nature came true on a couple of maps.
The hype surrounding the game reminds me of the mania of the Seahawks fans after the superbowl, lol.
It's decent fun, and I can completely understand some people really loving it. Especially those usually turned off by other FPS because it rewards poorer players a whole lot more then other games. Like in CoD the good players get the killstreaks and then reign supreme over the round. Here anyone can get a titan and wreck shop.
I agree there's always room for something new. I like all types of first person shooters/third person shooters. It was definitely fun enough to purchase at full price for me, so I did.
It is fast paced. But there are the down times where last night I went a couple minutes in a couple of matches without finding anyone to shoot due to 6v6.
Glad I bought it though, it's a nice addition to BF4/KZ:SF/CoD.
@DarrenG
Yeah gameplay is definitely the key, but it isn't fair to say when a game is on multiple platforms, gameplay is the difference, because those are the same (well mostly). How the game runs is the difference, and yes gameplay can be better if on one version you can see things in the distance more easily or at all.
So if one game has 1080p/60fps/AA and one is 720p/45-60FPS/No AA that there is a stark difference. Especially when to get access to the better version, one only needs buy the cheaper console. Higher resolutions are a huge difference in competitive shooter games. Same with framerate.
I'm not loyal to any corporation. Sony or Microsoft. I owned both last generation. Will probably at some point own both this generation. But it is clear, console wise, that the PS4 will perpetually receive the better multiplatform games, has more power to run more advanced features as time goes on, and doesn't have the ESRAM bottleneck. Tiled resources won't make 32mb's into 128mb's of ESRAM, and can introduce a whole new area of bugs. Like RAGE, with it's streaming textures issues. That game sucked until I got a new videocard. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. If you don't know, here is one of many examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-od1QXnLOA0
Resolutiongate is extremely valid though. Again because we're talking about the same game, but different versions. It's apples to apples comparison, and higher resolution, steadier or higher framerate, and more effects for less is a massive difference.
I played most of my multiplatform games last gen on 360, because they were superior to the PS3 version. But this generation has differences 5-10x greater then last gen, and this time Sony has the lead. Both consoles will get better as time goes on, but the lesser specs and the ESRAM put a lower ceiling on the Xbox One, and Sony already has a major lead in actual game performance to begin with.
DX12 is rebranding the next version of DX 11.X as 12 for marketing reasons, and OpenGL and Sony's PSSL (playstation shader language) will get an update like the Xbox One will. But the problem is, the Xbox One already is having troubles running DX11 so adding more features that need alot of power won't help it catch up. Meanwhile Sony games sitting on 1080p, have the room to adopt these features without making sacrifices.
I fully expect Sony's power lead to widen during the generation. I see both as underpowered, just Sony's decisions make the higher resolutions and extra effects achievable. Meanwhile the ESRAM will most likely keep pushing XB1's resolution lower. The framebuffer right now are easily exceeding the ESRAM size, and by late gen the framebuffer of games will easily be in the 70-80-90 mb range at 1080p. Even with tiling, the only way to fit such more advanced next-gen quality is to lower the resolution.
The ESRAM bottleneck, when it bottlenecks, like it is already on many of its games, actually lower the effectual power of the Xbox One. Meaning even if the Xbox One had the same power as Sony, the ESRAM bottleneck would lead to poorer results and lower resolution.
Personally I wish both had waited another year or so as they both really needed something in the 3-5 TFlop range to really do justice for DX 11.
While it's true some people are going way overboard on their PC's and having 15 TFlops right now, such power in a single card for about $500 should come with the Volta line in the 2016-2017 timeframe. At that point some people will be pushing 45 TFlops or more in their PC's. Which is why 1.31 (1.29) TFlops with an ESRAM bottleneck is not going to be sufficient. These consoles might need to last to 2020, and I don't even want to know what will be out then on PC's. Before 2020, probably around 2017, 4k gaming will be the PC standard.
Sorry if it's long, it is complicated. I'm not trolling anyone, and hope everyone enjoys their respective consoles or gaming platform of choice. Hell I bought a Wii U, because I like Nintendo games. Doesn't mean it's not a dead console. It's toast. But as long as Nintendo supports it, I'm fine. The question is, how long will they?
I just like to understand the present to see the future. I don't like buying into hype, at least not, unrealistic massive hype.
Titanfall reviews were outrageously high that did overlook it's technical and design issues. That's because journalists as a whole suck these days. They're horrible. They don't know squat. I'm perfectly fine having fun with a game that scores a 5. Because 5's can still be fun. Massive fun. But they are indeed a 5.
The gaming industry at a whole has a really screwed up and non-universal grading system. Even systems that seem similar are vastly different. They also play the mob game, where if they score something too low, they'll feel the developer and fan backlash. Sometimes the same goes the other way. It's tough, but they often let their journalistic integrity falter. But it's hard when half the people think a 7 is mediocre, like a C in American school system, and other's think 5 is mediocre. Even on a 10 point scale their two different viewpoints. It's all screwed up. But I had a lot of fun last night in titanfall, I'll up the score I said earlier, only because they did include maps that were more vertical in the final game vs the beta. 6 or 7 on Xbox One. 8 on PC. But it's not worth a point more no matter what.
Judging lower based on technical flaw is not opinion, because technical flaws are not opinions. Not judging a game when they are present...THAT'S The opinion. I do have an issue when these same flaws can knock a 9-10 game down to 7, but now with Titanfall they are overlooked.
