Respawn Entertainment's - Titanfall

[Sentura]

I'll buy 5 extra copies to make up for everyone here, jokes on you

[knj]

to be honest, it's not the Origin factor that pushed me away, but EA logo on this game.

[Sprony]

You know, some of you might have come across some posts I made where I'm talking about EA/Origin in negative way (BF4 thread). But to be honest, for me it's not the rushed games, alpha releases, dubious microtransactions, killing great franchises, destroying studios, forcing Origin or the lack of support. No, none of that. I tried it, believe me I did, but the fact is that I like to get kissed before I get fucked.

 

Edited January 17, 2014 by SpronyvanJohnson

[Em']

Ah ah true dat !

I registered to the alpha, hope i'll be able to try this before not buying it

[cincinnati]

this thread

[Pampers]

Remember when everyone hated steam?

 

[FMPONE]

Remember when everyone hated steam?

 

 

To be fair, this was like AOL days. It was also the first of its kind. 

 

Then again what annoys me about Origin really is ultimately the fact that its not Steam, not that there is any particular issue I have with it. I just found it weird and unwieldy in BF3 days, last time I tried it. Haven't been tempted to bother since.

[DrywallDreams]

Really, Origin itself isn't bad.  So long as Titanfall doesn't do what BF3 and 4 did with the awful web launcher, it will be fine.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Marcem

[Erratic]

The benefits of an out of game server browser far outweigh any of the positives (there are none) of having it in your in-game UI. I can't think of a single reason why it's better for the developer or the player to implement a server browser in game aside from people unwilling to accept anything at all different. 

 

But wait, Steam does this and has for 10 years and it's amazing and life changing, no more fucking around just jump into your MP match and you're good to go.

 

Battlefield does it and it's the worst thing that's happened to the human experience and gives you diarrhea also.

[FMPONE]

The benefits of an out of game server browser far outweigh any of the positives (there are none) of having it in your in-game UI. I can't think of a single reason why it's better for the developer or the player to implement a server browser in game aside from people unwilling to accept anything at all different. 

 

But wait, Steam does this and has for 10 years and it's amazing and life changing, no more fucking around just jump into your MP match and you're good to go.

 

Battlefield does it and it's the worst thing that's happened to the human experience and gives you diarrhea also.

 

I understand you're trying to curb the Origin hate, and that's fair, someone needs to at a certain point, but browser usage is really annoying. 

 

Why the need to reinvent the wheel? Isn't the entire point of having applications that they are seperate and distinct? Combining a bunch of different shit into a browser is just plain unintuitive. It's one of the only issues I had with Quake live, instead of neat and tidy update downloads, it always felt like it was trying to hijack your browser with strange plugins. It also really devalues the idea that Origin is a thing, instead of working on their UI and getting some reasonable facsimile of Steam, they put everything into a browser so that it feels even more cheap and weak-ass. It's also a lot like conceeding defeat: they knew people wouldn't want two balls-out gaming platforms on their PC, so they tried to do something differently from Steam since they knew people were not going to ditch Steam entirely. Unfortunately the method they pursued just gave up the game, it was whack. I guess Quake live recently wised up and moved things into an app. 

 

I'd have a more up to date opinion of things if my last impression of Origin wasn't BF3. I know I'm becoming a broken record, but seriously, Origin was a day late and a dollar short to the Steam party and everybody knows it. The lesson is innovate first, pretty much.

 

And now their fuck up de-rails the Titanfall thread. Sorry 

[DrywallDreams]

The benefits of an out of game server browser far outweigh any of the positives (there are none) of having it in your in-game UI. I can't think of a single reason why it's better for the developer or the player to implement a server browser in game aside from people unwilling to accept anything at all different. 

 

But wait, Steam does this and has for 10 years and it's amazing and life changing, no more fucking around just jump into your MP match and you're good to go.

 

Battlefield does it and it's the worst thing that's happened to the human experience and gives you diarrhea also.

I completely disagree.  It was so janky it was a little surprising.  I'll give DICE credit, the game was fairly lightweight when launching though.  It takes absolutely no time to actually get the executable loaded, but then there's the other issue: the game handled becoming the background so inconsistently.  Sometimes it would go windowed, other times it would minimize, sometimes it would return to fullscreen upon focus, other times it wouldn't.  To get into a game, I don't want to update Origin, the BF web plugin, and BF itself.  And if the overall low quality wasn't enough, it REALLY didn't help that it threw voice chat into the browser as if you were just loading teamspeak in the background.

 

I'm not giving steam anything here either, the steam integrated server browser is garbage.  To this day I don't actually know how it works (or IF it works).  Servers seem to not load at random, games are mixed together, and it's just plain confusing.  The only great thing steam does in terms of server browsing is the easy friends list "Join Server" button.

 

This isn't an issue with Origin though.  With BF3 basically being Origin's Counter-Strike: Source though, it wasn't in the best state to convert people.  Origin itself is a pretty decent program though.  It certainly gains a lot from being made after Steam, i.e. not being almost entirely based on a slow web browser (and now, as of the new steam downloads and community pages, extremely visually inconsistent).

[Rick_D]

so while you idiots are crying and speculating and generally making fuck all sense, there was this:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x19vjqc_titanfall-gameplay_videogames

 

looks like CoD, almost 100%. then you get the mech omg it's all gonna be so different! ..you just have a bigger gun and are taller.

 

top kek, blunder of the year?

Edited January 18, 2014 by Rick_D

[Em']

shiet

[Puddy]

I liked the looks of it. Let's not forget, there's nothing wrong with the "base" CoD-gameplay (CoD2, 4). It's just that recent CoD games haven't really been balanced and they've been bloated with lots of unnecessary things (150 million killstreaks, "cool" callsigns etc).

 

Just my personal opinion though.

[Vilham]

I agree with pud. The reason the new CoDs are shit is partly poor level design (levels designed for 1 mode but being used in all gamemodes, and some maps are just circles) and the other is balance. All the millions of perks, killstreaks and guns make the game an unbalanced piece of shit.