Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

TitanFall: Respawn Entertainment

126 replies to this topic
Sgt. Foley
  • Sgt. Foley

    Big Homie

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2011

#31

Posted 22 June 2013 - 03:51 AM

http://www.thetechga...ngleplayer.html

QUOTE
Titanfall doesnít contain a single-player campaign because only a small percentage of players will finish the mode. Speaking with GI International, Respawn studio head Vince Zampella said it takes a seperate team months to create such a campaign, and if no virtually one will finish it, thereís no point. Plus, the studio is rather ďsmall startup,Ē with only ď60-some developers. ďWe make these single-player missions that take up all the focus of the studio, that take a huge team six months to make, and players run through it in eight minutes,Ē said Zampella. ďAnd how many people finish the single-player game? Itís a small percentage. Itís like, everyone plays through the first level, but 5% of people finish the game. ďReally, you split the team. Theyíre two different games. Theyíre balanced differently, theyíre scoped differently. But people spend hundreds of hours in the multiplayer experience versus Ďas little time as possible rushing to the endí [in single-player]. So why do all the resources go there? ďTo us it made sense to put it here. Now everybody sees all those resources, and multiplayer is better. For us it made sense.Ē Titanfall is coming to PC, Xbox 360 and Xbox One in early 2014.

tuareg
  • tuareg

    Goodbye, John Marston. It's been a great pleasure!

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2006
  • None

#32

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:10 AM

Sucks for those who don't have live for whatever reason, but i can understand this. Why put so much effort into the SP campaign when the majority of players don't even touch it?

simonp92
  • simonp92

    Whodunit?

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009

#33

Posted 22 June 2013 - 02:15 PM

Games like this and CoD are the only where the singleplayer is tacked on for a change.

I do not get the appeal, it is just CoD with Mechs and jetpacks, it rethreads ancient ground.

UtricularEwe001
  • UtricularEwe001

    I am a Pirate

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • None

#34

Posted 24 June 2013 - 06:57 PM

QUOTE
Letís talk about the Xbox Live Cloud
Posted by Abbie Heppe on Jun 24, 2013

Hi everyone! Iím Jon Shiring, and Iím an engineer working with the Cloud technology that youíve heard about for Respawnís game Titanfall. I have seen a lot of confusion online and I think itís worth explaining more about what weíre doing on Titanfall and also more generally about Cloud computing and dedicated servers.

First, letís take a step back and dive into the common multiplayer design and talk about why Dedicated Servers are better.

Player-Hosted Servers

The vast majority of games will pick a player and have them act as the server for the match. This means that all of the other players talk to them to decide what happens in a game. When you shoot your gun, the server decides if that is allowed and then tells everyone what you hit. Letís agree to call this system ďplayer-hostedĒ for simplicity.

What kinds of problems do you get with player-hosted servers?
What if one player has great bandwidth, but itís laggy? Games are having to choose between different player hosts, and have to make hard decisions about which one should be the host, with two different measurements Ė bandwidth and latency. Sometimes it will pick a host who has good bandwidth, but whose latency isnít ideal. But we donít want the game to make compromises on lag and we really want the game to feel the same every time we play. We really donít want to worry about this stuff Ė we just want to play and have the game feel good.
What about host advantage? The player-host has the game running locally on their machine, so they get super low latency access to the game world. Youíve probably seen this in action as some player seems to see you long before you get to see them or their bullets hit you before yours hit them. That sucks. Nobody should have an artificial advantage in a competitive multiplayer game.
What if the player-host is a cheater? Since the host gets to make decisions about kills, XP, and unlocks and such, itís really bad if they abuse their power to wipe out your stats, or they cheat by flying around maps and insta-killing people. Itís infuriating, in fact.
What if the host disconnects? In the ďbest caseĒ for this, you can do host migration if thereís another player who has enough bandwidth and everyone else can talk to them. If you hit that jackpot, you can migrate from the old host to the new one, which pauses the game and then unpauses when the new player-host is ready to start acting as the server. This isnít a fun process, and it can fail.
What if the hostís bandwidth disappears? The game tested the hostís bandwidth at some point and decided that they had enough to host. But someone at their house is now torrenting files and their roommate is streaming Netflix. That ďgreatĒ bandwidth the game detected earlier is now awful bandwidth, and the other players are lagging halfway through a match.
What if some players canít talk to the host? You know all that ďOpen NATĒ stuff? Your home internet router is generally trying really hard to keep bad people out, and games are sort of a weird case where the game is trying to get your router to cooperate and let other players create connections INTO your network. Games need to check if every player can talk to the host and if one canít then that host wonít work. It makes matchmakin slower, and we hate that. Also, by telling you to open up your router, the game is asking you to reduce the security of your home network in order to make the game work. It would be great if you didnít have to compromise your security in order to play games.
What if nobody has enough bandwidth? You got a great group of players together, but nobody has enough bandwidth to actually host a game. You can work around this by compromising your matchmaking a little to make sure that each lobby has a player in it that can be a host. But we donít actually want compromised matchmaking, so this isnít a good fix.
What about players who are paying for their bandwidth or have bandwidth caps? If you have a bandwidth cap on your home internet connection, or even worse, youíre paying for your bandwidth, what happens when you play a game and later find out that the game thought you were an awesome host? Your home internet connection is now slow or you have a huge bill waiting.
So if Iím hosting, my machine is doing all this extra work on behalf of everyone else? Yes! You are doing more work on your CPU than all of the other players are. This means the game isnít as cool looking as it could be and everyone else has extra CPU just sitting there. Or worse, their game actually looks better than yours! We think the game should be consistent on every machine in a match. Donít punish the host with a worse game or leave all of that extra CPU sitting empty on the other players machines.
Okay, so player-hosted servers have a lot of downsides. So why do so many games use them? They have one really big upside Ė it doesnít cost money to run the servers! Running hundreds of thousands of servers can be extremely expensive. EXTREMELY expensive. Like ďoh my god we canít afford thatĒ expensive. So your player experience gets compromised to save (large amounts of) money.

Dedicated Servers

Dedicated servers are when a computer sitting out on the internet handles all of the host duties, leaving every client free to just be a client.
You can get even more CPU on your dedicated servers to do new things like dozens of AI and giant autopilot titans!
Suddenly you have no more host advantage!
Bandwidth for the servers is guaranteed from the hosting provider!
You can use all of the available CPU and memory on the player machines for awesome visuals and audio!
Hacked-host cheating isnít an issue!
Matchmaking can be lightning fast since itís guaranteed that everyone can connect to your servers.
And since the servers arenít going to go disconnect to watch Netflix, you donít need to migrate hosts anymore!
The player experience is so much better. This sounds awesome!

But it costs a LOT of money.

This is something I have worked on for years now, since coming to Respawn. A developer like Respawn doesnít have the kind of weight to get a huge price cut from places like Amazon or Rackspace. And we donít have the manpower to manage literally hundreds-of-thousands of servers ourselves. We want to focus on making awesome games, not on becoming giant worldwide server hosting providers. The more time I can spend on making our actual game better, the more our players benefit.

I personally talked to both Microsoft and Sony and explained that we need to find a way to have potentially hundreds-of-thousands of dedicated servers at a price point that you canít get right now. Microsoft realized that player-hosted servers are actually holding back online gaming and that this is something that they could help solve, and ran full-speed with this idea.

The Xbox group came back to us with a way for us to run all of these Titanfall dedicated servers and that lets us push games with more server CPU and higher bandwidth, which lets us have a bigger world, more physics, lots of AI, and potentially a lot more than that!

What is the Cloud?

Amazon has a cloud that powers websites. Sony has a cloud that streams game video so you can play a game that you donít have on your machine. Now Xbox Live has a cloud that somehow powers games. Cloud doesnít seem to actually mean anything anymore, or it has so many meanings that itís useless as a marketing word.

Let me explain this simply: when companies talk about their cloud, all they are saying is that they have a huge amount of servers ready to run whatever you need them to run. Thatís all.

So what is this Xbox Live Cloud stuff then?

Microsoft has a cloud service called Azure (itís a real thing Ė you can go on their website right now and pay for servers and use them to run whatever you want). Microsoft realized that they could use that technology to solve our problem.

So they built this powerful system to let us create all sorts of tasks that they will run for us, and it can scale up and down automatically as players come and go. We can upload new programs for them to run and they handle the deployment for us. And theyíll host our game servers for other platforms, too! Titanfall uses the Xbox Live Cloud to run dedicated servers for PC, Xbox One, and Xbox 360.

But itís not just for dedicated servers Ė Microsoft thought about our problem in a bigger way. Developers arenít going to just want dedicated servers Ė theyíll have all kinds of features that need a server to do some kind of work to make games better. Look at Forza 5, which studies your driving style in order to create custom AI that behaves like you do. Thatís totally different from what Titanfall uses it for, and itís really cool! So itís not accurate to say that the Xbox Live Cloud is simply a system for running dedicated servers Ė it can do a lot more than that.

How is this different from other dedicated servers?

With the Xbox Live Cloud, we donít have to worry about estimating how many servers weíll need on launch day. We donít have to find ISPs all over the globe and rent servers from each one. We donít have to maintain the servers or copy new builds to every server. That lets us focus on things that make our game more fun. And best yet, Microsoft has datacenters all over the world, so everyone playing our game should have a consistent, low latency connection to their local datacenter.

Most importantly to us, Microsoft priced it so that itís far more affordable than other hosting options Ė their goal here is to get more awesome games, not to nickel-and-dime developers. So because of this, dedicated servers are much more of a realistic option for developers who donít want to make compromises on their player experience, and it opens up a lot more things that we can do in an online game.

Wrapping upÖ

This is a really big deal, and it can make online games better. This is something that we are really excited about. The Xbox Live Cloud lets us to do things in Titanfall that no player-hosted multiplayer game can do. That has allowed us to push the boundaries in online multiplayer and thatís awesome. We want to try new ideas and let the player do things theyíve never been able to do before! Over time, I expect that weíll be using these servers to do a lot more than just dedicated servers. This is something thatís going to let us drive all sorts of new ideas in online games for years to come.

I know this got pretty technical and long-winded, so I thank you for reading this far. Hopefully Iíve cleared some things up, and you can see why Iím so excited about what Microsoft has done here and how it is letting us do awesome new things for our game. Iíll see you online in the spring to play some Titanfall on our dedicated servers!


http://www.respawn.c...box-live-cloud/

Dat Cloud Power!

theomenofficial
  • theomenofficial

    Muslim

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Mar 2012

#35

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:11 PM

QUOTE (simonp92 @ Saturday, Jun 22 2013, 15:15)
Games like this and CoD are the only where the singleplayer is tacked on for a change.

I do not get the appeal, it is just CoD with Mechs and jetpacks, it rethreads ancient ground.

How can the single player for this be tacked on if there is no singleplayer? angry.gif
And CoD has great storylines sometimes.

Jake
  • Jake

    Vagina Mine

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2003

#36

Posted 24 June 2013 - 10:38 PM

I'm glad they don't have a campaign. Usually lackluster filler anyway. A heavily focused MP is where the time goes to good use for the Devs. I think CoD needs to take this route. Double down on maps and gameplay. f*ck the campaign.

kudoboi
  • kudoboi

    HI

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Nov 2009

#37

Posted 09 July 2013 - 01:44 PM Edited by kudoboi, 09 July 2013 - 01:49 PM.

as expected, the game is only on Origin ( for now at least. its not on steam yet)

http://store2.origin...uctID.283626300

user posted image

Daz
  • Daz

    Pirandello/Kruger

  • Feroci Racing
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2001
  • None

#38

Posted 11 July 2013 - 06:58 AM

I really don't know why people are going crazy over this game, the only things I thought looked good were the running and jumping animations, but those are completely redundant in an fps.

I hear it is online only and it just looks like more CoD sh*ttyness to me.

Can anyone tell me what makes this game truely unique or worth giving two sh*ts about other than there is "lol mechs lol"?

Ibrahimhassounah
  • Ibrahimhassounah

    Li'l G Loc

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2012

#39

Posted 08 August 2013 - 01:49 AM

The box art is sweat ;
http://www.ign.com/a...ox-art-revealed

Android
  • Android

    -

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#40

Posted 08 August 2013 - 02:21 AM

The box art looks great!

iiConTr0v3rSYx
  • iiConTr0v3rSYx

    Warning.... Warning... Controversy

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2012
  • United-States

#41

Posted 19 January 2014 - 10:34 PM Edited by iiConTr0v3rSYx, 19 January 2014 - 11:19 PM.

This game is leaking all over Youtube now.

 

Gameplay looks solid and the parkour movement is smooth.


Pat
  • Pat

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2006

#42

Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:16 PM

The grunt AI for this game is... unimpressive, to say the least. Skip to 1:40 to see what I mean:

 

 

I seriously hope that's just part of the alpha and that it will be better in the final release.


OnceAgainYoungFitzpatrick
  • OnceAgainYoungFitzpatrick

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2013

#43

Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:19 PM

The grunt AI for this game is... unimpressive, to say the least. Skip to 1:40 to see what I mean:

 

 

I seriously hope that's just part of the alpha and that it will be better in the final release.

I didn't see anything wrong?


Pat
  • Pat

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2006

#44

Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:19 PM

You don't see anything wrong with ten or twelve bots in front of him completely unable to hit him? I mean, bot AI is bad in any game, but this is the worst bot AI I've personally ever seen.


FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#45

Posted 19 January 2014 - 11:35 PM Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt, 19 January 2014 - 11:41 PM.

It's because he is a fanboy and is blind.


 

QUOTE (simonp92 @ Saturday, Jun 22 2013, 15:15) Games like this and CoD are the only where the singleplayer is tacked on for a change.

I do not get the appeal, it is just CoD with Mechs and jetpacks, it rethreads ancient ground.
How can the single player for this be tacked on if there is no singleplayer? angry.gif
And CoD has great storylines sometimes.

 

COD has great stories? WTF are you smoking? There hasn't even been a "half half sh*t" storyline since MW1 and 2. COD is garbage. Same with Battlefield and all other FPS games. Killzone 2 has the best story ever made in an FPS game, try it out.

 

Also, this is just another generic ass FPS game with a different universe and same objectives just like COD and Battlefield. Companies are starting to run out of ideas and have bat sh*t skills for these games. FPS is the worst genre in the history of gaming.


OnceAgainYoungFitzpatrick
  • OnceAgainYoungFitzpatrick

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2013

#46

Posted 20 January 2014 - 04:09 AM

It's because he is a fanboy and is blind.


 

QUOTE (simonp92 @ Saturday, Jun 22 2013, 15:15) Games like this and CoD are the only where the singleplayer is tacked on for a change.

I do not get the appeal, it is just CoD with Mechs and jetpacks, it rethreads ancient ground.
How can the single player for this be tacked on if there is no singleplayer? angry.gif
And CoD has great storylines sometimes.

 

COD has great stories? WTF are you smoking? There hasn't even been a "half half sh*t" storyline since MW1 and 2. COD is garbage. Same with Battlefield and all other FPS games. Killzone 2 has the best story ever made in an FPS game, try it out.

 

Also, this is just another generic ass FPS game with a different universe and same objectives just like COD and Battlefield. Companies are starting to run out of ideas and have bat sh*t skills for these games. FPS is the worst genre in the history of gaming.

Killzone 2 having the best story in a FPS? Um... try BioShock.


iNero
  • iNero

    Black Tiger Sex Machine

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • Germany

#47

Posted 31 January 2014 - 11:08 AM

do we know if there will be a SnD like mode?


Omnia sunt Communia
  • Omnia sunt Communia

    Tierra Y Libertad

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2008
  • None

#48

Posted 01 February 2014 - 01:49 AM

I don't have a Xbox One or a Xbox Live account, but I'm still really excited about this game! I think I'm more excited by the concept that actually playing it (because I probably never will). It seems to be a really fresh, interesting idea for a FPS in a time when they're all starting to get a little stale (in my opinion).

 

Plus mechs, you can't beat a game with mechs.


UtricularEwe001
  • UtricularEwe001

    I am a Pirate

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • None

#49

Posted 01 February 2014 - 10:59 AM

^
You don't need a Xbox One to play the game. Its on 360 and PC too!

UtricularEwe001
  • UtricularEwe001

    I am a Pirate

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2012
  • None

#50

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:10 PM

Digital Foundry (Eurogamer) analysis!

Based on some extended edge-counts from the game's stark tutorial section, our best guess right now is that 1408x792 is pretty close to Respawn's chosen rendering resolution. The overall effect is pretty similar to 720p overall though, and the implementation of an overly sharp filter across the entire image suggests that the Xbox One hardware scaler is used to blow up the image to 1080p. We're not exactly impressed by that and, we suspect, neither was DICE - hence the move on Battlefield 4 from Microsoft's scaler to a bespoke software solution between the preview and final code we played


In the era of post-process anti-aliasing - which doesn't work particularly well on sub-native resolutions - the good news is that Respawn has opted for the tried-and-tested 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) in order to make the image cleaner, eliminating sub-pixel pop and resolving long-distance detail more effectively


http://www.eurogamer...ox-one-at-60fps

792p/60fps.

tuareg
  • tuareg

    Goodbye, John Marston. It's been a great pleasure!

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2006
  • None

#51

Posted 12 February 2014 - 07:19 PM

I'll pick it up for the pc probably. I need me an arcadey shooter and cod is kind of out of the question. I just hope it's more balanced than their last game was.

 

Wasn't a big fan of that absolute CLUSTERF*CK of a screen though. I'm used to see some huge clutter having played consle shooters for so long, but that screen clutter that was in the beta was horrible.


FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#52

Posted 12 February 2014 - 08:03 PM

Digital Foundry (Eurogamer) analysis!
 

Based on some extended edge-counts from the game's stark tutorial section, our best guess right now is that 1408x792 is pretty close to Respawn's chosen rendering resolution. The overall effect is pretty similar to 720p overall though, and the implementation of an overly sharp filter across the entire image suggests that the Xbox One hardware scaler is used to blow up the image to 1080p. We're not exactly impressed by that and, we suspect, neither was DICE - hence the move on Battlefield 4 from Microsoft's scaler to a bespoke software solution between the preview and final code we played


In the era of post-process anti-aliasing - which doesn't work particularly well on sub-native resolutions - the good news is that Respawn has opted for the tried-and-tested 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) in order to make the image cleaner, eliminating sub-pixel pop and resolving long-distance detail more effectively


http://www.eurogamer...ox-one-at-60fps

792p/60fps.

 

Well, that is one overhyped piece of sh*t as expected. Lol at people who actually got excited over another generic ass boring fps. With no campaign too.


OnceAgainYoungFitzpatrick
  • OnceAgainYoungFitzpatrick

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2013

#53

Posted 12 February 2014 - 08:37 PM

 

Digital Foundry (Eurogamer) analysis!
 

Based on some extended edge-counts from the game's stark tutorial section, our best guess right now is that 1408x792 is pretty close to Respawn's chosen rendering resolution. The overall effect is pretty similar to 720p overall though, and the implementation of an overly sharp filter across the entire image suggests that the Xbox One hardware scaler is used to blow up the image to 1080p. We're not exactly impressed by that and, we suspect, neither was DICE - hence the move on Battlefield 4 from Microsoft's scaler to a bespoke software solution between the preview and final code we played


In the era of post-process anti-aliasing - which doesn't work particularly well on sub-native resolutions - the good news is that Respawn has opted for the tried-and-tested 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) in order to make the image cleaner, eliminating sub-pixel pop and resolving long-distance detail more effectively


http://www.eurogamer...ox-one-at-60fps

792p/60fps.

 

Well, that is one overhyped piece of sh*t as expected. Lol at people who actually got excited over another generic ass boring fps. With no campaign too.

 

You do realize that graphics don't mean everything in a game? The game is not even out yet and you're already insulting it. I guarantee you, if this was a Sony exclusive, you'd be sucking Titanfall's D so hard right now. But, since it's not coming out on the PS4 but the Xbox One, that means you HAVE to insult and put it down. You're a disgrace. How can you look at yourself in the mirror? You probably have no friends.


FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#54

Posted 12 February 2014 - 08:58 PM

 

 

Digital Foundry (Eurogamer) analysis!
 

Based on some extended edge-counts from the game's stark tutorial section, our best guess right now is that 1408x792 is pretty close to Respawn's chosen rendering resolution. The overall effect is pretty similar to 720p overall though, and the implementation of an overly sharp filter across the entire image suggests that the Xbox One hardware scaler is used to blow up the image to 1080p. We're not exactly impressed by that and, we suspect, neither was DICE - hence the move on Battlefield 4 from Microsoft's scaler to a bespoke software solution between the preview and final code we played


In the era of post-process anti-aliasing - which doesn't work particularly well on sub-native resolutions - the good news is that Respawn has opted for the tried-and-tested 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing (MSAA) in order to make the image cleaner, eliminating sub-pixel pop and resolving long-distance detail more effectively


http://www.eurogamer...ox-one-at-60fps

792p/60fps.

 

Well, that is one overhyped piece of sh*t as expected. Lol at people who actually got excited over another generic ass boring fps. With no campaign too.

 

You do realize that graphics don't mean everything in a game? The game is not even out yet and you're already insulting it. I guarantee you, if this was a Sony exclusive, you'd be sucking Titanfall's D so hard right now. But, since it's not coming out on the PS4 but the Xbox One, that means you HAVE to insult and put it down. You're a disgrace. How can you look at yourself in the mirror? You probably have no friends.

 

I'm not directing at graphics. But FPS like Battlefield are enjoyable because of the graphics which is one part of it. Anyway, I've seen the gameplay and it's sh*t. And I don't actually care if its coming to PS4 because it's a sh*t game. Why would I defend EA's wannabe title even if it comes to PS4.


DarthShinobi
  • DarthShinobi

    100% Natural awesomeness in every post.

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2012
  • United-States

#55

Posted 12 February 2014 - 08:59 PM

Saw gameplay of this and it looks absolutely dog sh*t. I was expecting more from the team that made COD 4. The AI is beyond sh*t, they literally jut sit there looking at you. No idea why they thought having a bunch of AI soldiers running around was a good idea.

FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#56

Posted 12 February 2014 - 09:02 PM Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt, 12 February 2014 - 09:03 PM.

How could anyone expect this wannabe garbage came to end up good? For god's sake, EA are controlling the developers. It's OBVIOUSLY going to be sh*t. But as I expect, an Xbot defending the piece of sh*t game. LOL. Microsoft's dick is going deeper inside your ass every minute. This is directed at OnceAgainFitzYoungPatr.


OnceAgainYoungFitzpatrick
  • OnceAgainYoungFitzpatrick

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2013

#57

Posted 12 February 2014 - 09:05 PM

Saw gameplay of this and it looks absolutely dog sh*t. I was expecting more from the team that made COD 4. The AI is beyond sh*t, they literally jut sit there looking at you. No idea why they thought having a bunch of AI soldiers running around was a good idea.

You do realize that was an early beta, right? Obviously, everything isn't fleshed out yet. Don't judge the AI until the game is released.


How could anyone expect this wannabe garbage came to end up good? For god's sake, EA are controlling the developers. It's OBVIOUSLY going to be sh*t. But as I expect, an Xbot defending the piece of sh*t game. LOL. Microsoft's dick is going deeper inside your ass every minute. This is directed at OnceAgainFitzYoungPatr.

Are you serious right now? Out of any member here, you are the BIGGEST fanboy. I'm not even going to resort to your inappropiate language that you love using. You seriously must still be in HIgh School. If you are even still enrolled in school.


DarthShinobi
  • DarthShinobi

    100% Natural awesomeness in every post.

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2012
  • United-States

#58

Posted 12 February 2014 - 09:07 PM Edited by DarthShinobi, 12 February 2014 - 09:11 PM.

Saw gameplay of this and it looks absolutely dog sh*t. I was expecting more from the team that made COD 4. The AI is beyond sh*t, they literally jut sit there looking at you. No idea why they thought having a bunch of AI soldiers running around was a good idea.

You do realize that was an early beta, right? Obviously, everything isn't fleshed out yet. Don't judge the AI until the game is released.
Betas are there to iron out the last few bugs in the game. Not much is going to change.

Still don't see the point of the AI Bots. I would not feel satisfied playing a competitive multiplayer game knowing that the majority of the combatants are bots.

FranklinDeRoosevelt
  • FranklinDeRoosevelt

    32nd President of Los Santos

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2013

#59

Posted 12 February 2014 - 09:11 PM Edited by FranklinDeRoosevelt, 12 February 2014 - 09:14 PM.

 

Saw gameplay of this and it looks absolutely dog sh*t. I was expecting more from the team that made COD 4. The AI is beyond sh*t, they literally jut sit there looking at you. No idea why they thought having a bunch of AI soldiers running around was a good idea.

You do realize that was an early beta, right? Obviously, everything isn't fleshed out yet. Don't judge the AI until the game is released.


How could anyone expect this wannabe garbage came to end up good? For god's sake, EA are controlling the developers. It's OBVIOUSLY going to be sh*t. But as I expect, an Xbot defending the piece of sh*t game. LOL. Microsoft's dick is going deeper inside your ass every minute. This is directed at OnceAgainFitzYoungPatr.

Are you serious right now? Out of any member here, you are the BIGGEST fanboy. I'm not even going to resort to your inappropiate language that you love using. You seriously must still be in HIgh School. If you are even still enrolled in school.

 

Ok, please point out how I'm being a fanboy when you are using the excuse, "IT'S A BETA". Beta is close to the final stages of development, therefore the final game is going to be as sh*t as this is. We're talking about EA here. They are clearly making the developers rushing the game, otherwise it had potential.

 

http://www.ibtimes.c...re-stay-1554932

 

Haha, now EA are going to milk this to death.


iiConTr0v3rSYx
  • iiConTr0v3rSYx

    Warning.... Warning... Controversy

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2012
  • United-States

#60

Posted 12 February 2014 - 09:17 PM

Yes, lets blame EA, a publisher not the developer on how good a game is. Good logic.

 

Anyways, the beta gameplay(Hardpoint on Angel City) was quite good. Gameplay looks fluid and simple, as a FPS should be.

 

The 2 minute timer on the titan respawn seems to be too short. Still waiting on the next Halo! C'mon 343!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users