|
On January 12 2014 01:45 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 14:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 11 2014 11:14 cLAN.Anax wrote:Game will be strictly 6v6, but include A.I. "fodder" players. Source. That's because of the particular design of Titanfall. When not in their Titans, pilots aren't really meant to walk or even run along the ground, they're meant to traverse maps by wall running. And the more a player wall runs, the faster they move.
Combine that with the fact that players can essentially create their own approach into a building, up a building or around a building, and toss in those mammoth Titans, and suddenly a player's brain has a lot more to think about than in a typical shooter.
The increased speed that comes with wall running and with being in a Titan also means that players can find one another much faster than in your typical shooter, so player count doesn't have to be inflated to create action. The action is always seconds away.
So player count, while important, became less about delivering a number to match other online shooters and more about finding what felt the most fun and the least overwhelming.
Throughout development, Hendry said, the team played around with a wide variety of team sizes. The game started with 8 or 12 players per side and slowly drifted down to eight, seven, five even two per side before the team eventually settled on six versus six, he said.
"It's been this number for months," he said. "We are pretty avid players in the studio. People speak their minds and we listen and make changes. This is the number that felt best.
"The game is essentially built to be six on six."
And that headcount won't impact map size, he said; Titanfall has all sorts.
"There are at least two maps that are really big, one of those is huge," Hendry said. "The map size isn't a technical limitation, it's what felt best. It's, 'How do we make this thing feel good?' Some maps are smaller, some are medium size and some are bigger.
"I think the only thing that the player count does is really affect the overall chaotic level of the game."
Number of players also won't impact the sorts of modes the game has, though Hendry declined to say what they'll be beyond the two publicly shown.
The reaction to the game's player count, announced in a tweet earlier this week, didn't necessarily take the team by surprise. There seems to be an understanding at the studio that Titanfall isn't quite understood yet by people not directly involved in its creation.
By design Titanfall is meant to be a game that while easy to drop into, is hard to master and understand the nuance of.
"When people start playing Titanfall like Titanfall, the player count becomes a non-issue," he said.
Take the game's AI-controlled characters. They aren't there to fill in the roster or load out a map that only supports six players per side.
They're meant to serve several different functions. On one level, the AI characters are there as fodder for players who simply aren't good enough to kill other player-controlled characters. They also serve as an easier way to load up on the experience needed to call in a Titan. And they're meant to provide a sort of backstory and narrative to a game lacking any sort of single-player element.
Essentially, they're there so everyone has a chance to feel like a hero, no matter how good or bad they are.
Then there's another type of AI in the game, the one that can control your Titan. While the Titan is a walking tank that players can board and directly control, you don't have to. Instead, a player can put a Titan in guard mode, hop out to capture a hardpoint, and then return when they're done, knowing that the Titan will mop the street of enemies while you're gone. You can also place the Titan in follow mode, either to have it find you after you respawn, or to be your building-sized back-up as you make your way through a map.
All of this, the player count, the variety in play, the AI, the Titans, is also designed to be welcoming to both hardcore shooter fans and folks just dipping their toe into the often daunting genre. There are even gadgets and weapons designed specifically for those players not as dexterous as long-time fans of the genre.
"I've watched people come in and play the game that just don't have the twitch reflexes," Hendry said. "They'll get in the Titan and have fun."
The team at Respawn understand some of the reaction to the player count. In this particular genre, traditionally, more was often argued to be better.
"It just comes back to what makes the game fun," Hendry said. "If you're making a game and you're making decisions that's not based on fun because you're trying to please someone or trying to match numbers, you're not doing the right thing.
"Why not make Call of Duty 256 players, or Battlefield 256 or 512? Maybe that would be awesome. Maybe that would be awesome for that type of game built around that, but you can't just jam players into a game and say this is what is ordained."
Hendry points to games like Gears of War and Left 4 Dead, both titles that had relatively low player counts, as titles that succeeded without having to go big.
So the team is quite confident in their decision to cap the player max to six per side and they're not reexamining that decision based on this week's reaction.
"It all comes back to the same thing," Hendry said. "I can see why it's hard for people, why it's hard for it to make sense. But it's up to the developer to make the best choices and create the best experiences." Brilliant. I was worried they were going to destroy their own game by taking away what makes it special with absurdly high player counts. I can't exactly put it into words why it's the case, but a game size of around 6v6 with AI creeps is perfect for maintaining the power trip. Pilots are supposed to be the best of the best and capable of all kinds of cute parkour tricks and clutch plays. Titans are supposed to be tanks with legs. Both need fodder to live up to their reputation and both need the low player count to turn bullet hail clusterfucks into organized skirmishes and even duels, where both parties receive ample opportunity to show just what they're made of. I guess to use a comparison of sorts to describe what I'm thinking, imagine DOTA 2 with 5 players per team... and then imagine it with 12 on each team. Then imagine it with 32 on each team, because that's around where a lot of standard FPS games max out, and that's what some of the team-size complainers are looking for. I just hope they manage to execute the idea well enough for what I'm envisioning to actually pan out. The devil's in the details. Anyone whose ever played cs knows this. The way pubs are played with maybe 10 players on each team vs a competitive match that is 5v5 plays much differently. It's a lot easier to showcase your skill when the map isn't overrun with people.
Same thing in Battlefield games imo. Games are best when it's 12v12 max. Anything more and the game just becomes a clusterfuck.
|
On January 11 2014 14:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 11:14 cLAN.Anax wrote:Game will be strictly 6v6, but include A.I. "fodder" players. Source. That's because of the particular design of Titanfall. When not in their Titans, pilots aren't really meant to walk or even run along the ground, they're meant to traverse maps by wall running. And the more a player wall runs, the faster they move.
Combine that with the fact that players can essentially create their own approach into a building, up a building or around a building, and toss in those mammoth Titans, and suddenly a player's brain has a lot more to think about than in a typical shooter.
The increased speed that comes with wall running and with being in a Titan also means that players can find one another much faster than in your typical shooter, so player count doesn't have to be inflated to create action. The action is always seconds away.
So player count, while important, became less about delivering a number to match other online shooters and more about finding what felt the most fun and the least overwhelming.
Throughout development, Hendry said, the team played around with a wide variety of team sizes. The game started with 8 or 12 players per side and slowly drifted down to eight, seven, five even two per side before the team eventually settled on six versus six, he said.
"It's been this number for months," he said. "We are pretty avid players in the studio. People speak their minds and we listen and make changes. This is the number that felt best.
"The game is essentially built to be six on six."
And that headcount won't impact map size, he said; Titanfall has all sorts.
"There are at least two maps that are really big, one of those is huge," Hendry said. "The map size isn't a technical limitation, it's what felt best. It's, 'How do we make this thing feel good?' Some maps are smaller, some are medium size and some are bigger.
"I think the only thing that the player count does is really affect the overall chaotic level of the game."
Number of players also won't impact the sorts of modes the game has, though Hendry declined to say what they'll be beyond the two publicly shown.
The reaction to the game's player count, announced in a tweet earlier this week, didn't necessarily take the team by surprise. There seems to be an understanding at the studio that Titanfall isn't quite understood yet by people not directly involved in its creation.
By design Titanfall is meant to be a game that while easy to drop into, is hard to master and understand the nuance of.
"When people start playing Titanfall like Titanfall, the player count becomes a non-issue," he said.
Take the game's AI-controlled characters. They aren't there to fill in the roster or load out a map that only supports six players per side.
They're meant to serve several different functions. On one level, the AI characters are there as fodder for players who simply aren't good enough to kill other player-controlled characters. They also serve as an easier way to load up on the experience needed to call in a Titan. And they're meant to provide a sort of backstory and narrative to a game lacking any sort of single-player element.
Essentially, they're there so everyone has a chance to feel like a hero, no matter how good or bad they are.
Then there's another type of AI in the game, the one that can control your Titan. While the Titan is a walking tank that players can board and directly control, you don't have to. Instead, a player can put a Titan in guard mode, hop out to capture a hardpoint, and then return when they're done, knowing that the Titan will mop the street of enemies while you're gone. You can also place the Titan in follow mode, either to have it find you after you respawn, or to be your building-sized back-up as you make your way through a map.
All of this, the player count, the variety in play, the AI, the Titans, is also designed to be welcoming to both hardcore shooter fans and folks just dipping their toe into the often daunting genre. There are even gadgets and weapons designed specifically for those players not as dexterous as long-time fans of the genre.
"I've watched people come in and play the game that just don't have the twitch reflexes," Hendry said. "They'll get in the Titan and have fun."
The team at Respawn understand some of the reaction to the player count. In this particular genre, traditionally, more was often argued to be better.
"It just comes back to what makes the game fun," Hendry said. "If you're making a game and you're making decisions that's not based on fun because you're trying to please someone or trying to match numbers, you're not doing the right thing.
"Why not make Call of Duty 256 players, or Battlefield 256 or 512? Maybe that would be awesome. Maybe that would be awesome for that type of game built around that, but you can't just jam players into a game and say this is what is ordained."
Hendry points to games like Gears of War and Left 4 Dead, both titles that had relatively low player counts, as titles that succeeded without having to go big.
So the team is quite confident in their decision to cap the player max to six per side and they're not reexamining that decision based on this week's reaction.
"It all comes back to the same thing," Hendry said. "I can see why it's hard for people, why it's hard for it to make sense. But it's up to the developer to make the best choices and create the best experiences." Brilliant. I was worried they were going to destroy their own game by taking away what makes it special with absurdly high player counts. I can't exactly put it into words why it's the case, but a game size of around 6v6 with AI creeps is perfect for maintaining the power trip. Pilots are supposed to be the best of the best and capable of all kinds of cute parkour tricks and clutch plays. Titans are supposed to be tanks with legs. Both need fodder to live up to their reputation and both need the low player count to turn bullet hail clusterfucks into organized skirmishes and even duels, where both parties receive ample opportunity to show just what they're made of. I guess to use a comparison of sorts to describe what I'm thinking, imagine DOTA 2 with 5 players per team... and then imagine it with 12 on each team. Then imagine it with 32 on each team, because that's around where a lot of standard FPS games max out, and that's what some of the team-size complainers are looking for. I just hope they manage to execute the idea well enough for what I'm envisioning to actually pan out. The devil's in the details.
Even if they had servers that allowed more you aren't forced to play on it. So allowing more players or allowing the option wouldn't affect you anyway unless for some reason you felt inclined to do it. it's same as in other FPS, BF4 allows 64 players (I love 32 vs 32 :D), but a lot of people hate it, if you hate it don't do it. There are plenty of servers to fit people like you who don't enjoy it.
|
On January 12 2014 02:01 Jswizzy wrote:
Well it's Respawn the same team that lied about removing features from MW2 when they worked at IW and lied to Activision when they were working out a deal with EA behind their backs. I'm skeptical that 6v6 is actually based purely on balance. Esp' since Titanfall will sell the most copies on 360 a system that probably would not be able to handle larger player counts. IW has has gimped their games in the past for similar reasons.
6 human + 18Ai. vs 6 human + 18 Ai.
I don't think that's the reason they easily could do 8 v 8 or 12 v 12 human, they probably avoiding the cluster fuck effect with large player counts and make the game feel tighter by adding ai's to help players feel more like they are doing something.
It's probably also have something to do with map sizes etc, it's a gambit make the game feel big but give a more sense of power to the players but restricting player sizes leads to backlash. It's more of a we know better than you, we make the game not you.
They probably had in mind if people wanted to use a titan they should be able to jump in one. As opposed to battlefield where there are very few jet's heli's tanks and in larger games you can't give everyone, one. And if you're new to the game and not good at using those people bitch. Also likely looking for a niche between COD and BF trying to get the bigger feeling out of bf but the tight closer high pace combat of COD. Basically looking to take up space where MOH failed.
|
On January 12 2014 04:53 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 02:01 Jswizzy wrote:
Well it's Respawn the same team that lied about removing features from MW2 when they worked at IW and lied to Activision when they were working out a deal with EA behind their backs. I'm skeptical that 6v6 is actually based purely on balance. Esp' since Titanfall will sell the most copies on 360 a system that probably would not be able to handle larger player counts. IW has has gimped their games in the past for similar reasons. It's probably also have something to do with map sizes etc, it's a gambit make the game feel big but give a more sense of power to the players but restricting player sizes leads to backlash. It's more of a we know better than you, we make the game not you.
Yes, almost as bad as all those gamers who think they know better how to make a game then the developers.
|
On January 12 2014 03:11 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 14:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 11 2014 11:14 cLAN.Anax wrote:Game will be strictly 6v6, but include A.I. "fodder" players. Source. That's because of the particular design of Titanfall. When not in their Titans, pilots aren't really meant to walk or even run along the ground, they're meant to traverse maps by wall running. And the more a player wall runs, the faster they move.
Combine that with the fact that players can essentially create their own approach into a building, up a building or around a building, and toss in those mammoth Titans, and suddenly a player's brain has a lot more to think about than in a typical shooter.
The increased speed that comes with wall running and with being in a Titan also means that players can find one another much faster than in your typical shooter, so player count doesn't have to be inflated to create action. The action is always seconds away.
So player count, while important, became less about delivering a number to match other online shooters and more about finding what felt the most fun and the least overwhelming.
Throughout development, Hendry said, the team played around with a wide variety of team sizes. The game started with 8 or 12 players per side and slowly drifted down to eight, seven, five even two per side before the team eventually settled on six versus six, he said.
"It's been this number for months," he said. "We are pretty avid players in the studio. People speak their minds and we listen and make changes. This is the number that felt best.
"The game is essentially built to be six on six."
And that headcount won't impact map size, he said; Titanfall has all sorts.
"There are at least two maps that are really big, one of those is huge," Hendry said. "The map size isn't a technical limitation, it's what felt best. It's, 'How do we make this thing feel good?' Some maps are smaller, some are medium size and some are bigger.
"I think the only thing that the player count does is really affect the overall chaotic level of the game."
Number of players also won't impact the sorts of modes the game has, though Hendry declined to say what they'll be beyond the two publicly shown.
The reaction to the game's player count, announced in a tweet earlier this week, didn't necessarily take the team by surprise. There seems to be an understanding at the studio that Titanfall isn't quite understood yet by people not directly involved in its creation.
By design Titanfall is meant to be a game that while easy to drop into, is hard to master and understand the nuance of.
"When people start playing Titanfall like Titanfall, the player count becomes a non-issue," he said.
Take the game's AI-controlled characters. They aren't there to fill in the roster or load out a map that only supports six players per side.
They're meant to serve several different functions. On one level, the AI characters are there as fodder for players who simply aren't good enough to kill other player-controlled characters. They also serve as an easier way to load up on the experience needed to call in a Titan. And they're meant to provide a sort of backstory and narrative to a game lacking any sort of single-player element.
Essentially, they're there so everyone has a chance to feel like a hero, no matter how good or bad they are.
Then there's another type of AI in the game, the one that can control your Titan. While the Titan is a walking tank that players can board and directly control, you don't have to. Instead, a player can put a Titan in guard mode, hop out to capture a hardpoint, and then return when they're done, knowing that the Titan will mop the street of enemies while you're gone. You can also place the Titan in follow mode, either to have it find you after you respawn, or to be your building-sized back-up as you make your way through a map.
All of this, the player count, the variety in play, the AI, the Titans, is also designed to be welcoming to both hardcore shooter fans and folks just dipping their toe into the often daunting genre. There are even gadgets and weapons designed specifically for those players not as dexterous as long-time fans of the genre.
"I've watched people come in and play the game that just don't have the twitch reflexes," Hendry said. "They'll get in the Titan and have fun."
The team at Respawn understand some of the reaction to the player count. In this particular genre, traditionally, more was often argued to be better.
"It just comes back to what makes the game fun," Hendry said. "If you're making a game and you're making decisions that's not based on fun because you're trying to please someone or trying to match numbers, you're not doing the right thing.
"Why not make Call of Duty 256 players, or Battlefield 256 or 512? Maybe that would be awesome. Maybe that would be awesome for that type of game built around that, but you can't just jam players into a game and say this is what is ordained."
Hendry points to games like Gears of War and Left 4 Dead, both titles that had relatively low player counts, as titles that succeeded without having to go big.
So the team is quite confident in their decision to cap the player max to six per side and they're not reexamining that decision based on this week's reaction.
"It all comes back to the same thing," Hendry said. "I can see why it's hard for people, why it's hard for it to make sense. But it's up to the developer to make the best choices and create the best experiences." Brilliant. I was worried they were going to destroy their own game by taking away what makes it special with absurdly high player counts. I can't exactly put it into words why it's the case, but a game size of around 6v6 with AI creeps is perfect for maintaining the power trip. Pilots are supposed to be the best of the best and capable of all kinds of cute parkour tricks and clutch plays. Titans are supposed to be tanks with legs. Both need fodder to live up to their reputation and both need the low player count to turn bullet hail clusterfucks into organized skirmishes and even duels, where both parties receive ample opportunity to show just what they're made of. I guess to use a comparison of sorts to describe what I'm thinking, imagine DOTA 2 with 5 players per team... and then imagine it with 12 on each team. Then imagine it with 32 on each team, because that's around where a lot of standard FPS games max out, and that's what some of the team-size complainers are looking for. I just hope they manage to execute the idea well enough for what I'm envisioning to actually pan out. The devil's in the details. Even if they had servers that allowed more you aren't forced to play on it. So allowing more players or allowing the option wouldn't affect you anyway unless for some reason you felt inclined to do it. it's same as in other FPS, BF4 allows 64 players (I love 32 vs 32 :D), but a lot of people hate it, if you hate it don't do it. There are plenty of servers to fit people like you who don't enjoy it.
Yeah you have a point there. Still, this is also a bit of a game design decision. It forces them to focus on this specific team size and design their game accordingly. Although I'm never one to side against giving people the ability to make their own choices, there is something to be said for optimization and "the way it's meant to be played", whatever that happens to be for the game at hand.
Also, excuse the incredible ignorance if I turn out to be wrong, but I think it wouldn't be incredibly difficult to introduce different game modes later on. Once 6v6 is all polished and stuff, they could add in some other, less balanced modes with maybe more players, no AI, arena maps or maybe even co-op. I've played several games (Tribes comes to mind) where the "official" game mode is the one you start with and has the best game design and balance. Then, once you get a bit tired of the official game mode, there are alternate game modes for you to play that exchange refinement and game balance for changing everything up and making things a little bit crazy.
In those cases, it's nice to start out with the "best" mode with the most depth and balance and have other for-fun modes be like a complementary side dish, like fries to your hamburger. Also helps with the community backlash when everyone bitches about how your 32 vs. 32 mode is such a clusterfuck. Guess what, the game was built for team sizes more than five times smaller than that, you thought it was going to be balanced? Hohoho.
|
On January 12 2014 02:01 Jswizzy wrote:
Well it's Respawn the same team that lied about removing features from MW2 when they worked at IW and lied to Activision when they were working out a deal with EA behind their backs. I'm skeptical that 6v6 is actually based purely on balance. Esp' since Titanfall will sell the most copies on 360 a system that probably would not be able to handle larger player counts. IW has has gimped their games in the past for similar reasons.
I doubt that was the fault of Respawn's members.... Infinity Ward had some internal issues going on. Respawn's guys probably didn't get the whole or correct message. Or, stuff could have changed after they split from IW.
Never heard of the "deal with EA." o_O
|
|
|
Holy shit this game looks like alot of fun. The 6v6 with AI at first seemed a little weird, but its basically like AI fodder to make the map feel full which is fine.
That looks like almost ready to release, not alpha footage >.<.
|
The 'time-to-kill' (I dunno where that term came from) looks very similar to Planetside 2, which has issues with weird gimmicks absolutely annihilating people relying on their normal weapons (especially the anti-vehicle weapons). From that clip, it seems like the anti-titan weapons that don't require a lock-on don't do extreme damage to infantry; there was one point at 3:30 where the recorder loses a 1vs1 fight with someone using one of those anti-titan MGs, but it was very close.
Those pistols were just instagibing people, though O_o
|
I'm just happy to know they're testing it in the community first before shipping it. Too many goodness-awful releases lately. -.-'
|
On January 20 2014 12:41 dae wrote:
Holy shit this game looks like alot of fun. The 6v6 with AI at first seemed a little weird, but its basically like AI fodder to make the map feel full which is fine.
That looks like almost ready to release, not alpha footage >.<.
Considering the game comes out in 2 months, I'd hope it looks almost ready.
Played some at PAX mid last year, was pretty good even back then.
|
This Game looks like Call of Kiddy with Mechs... /not impressed -__-
|
I know it shouldn't bother me, but it does. The game is using The Source Engine. Now, i love Source, i think it does a lot of things well, but seriously? They are using a 10 year old engine, for the "next gen" of consoles, its shallow of me to say that it bothers me, but im sick of getting the same recycled engine, over and over. None of the videos, or screenshots look impressive at all, im sure they've done it because it would cost far less to use a pre-made engine, rather than building a new one, or rather, buying a license from Crytek or Frostbite for example. The gameplay doesn't even seem that great in the 1st place, and we're supposed to play it with an outdated engine? It shouldn't surprise me tho, since the lead Dev's are former CoD devs, so they probably love to recycle. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Im kind of a stickler when it comes to game engines. I can play games like Terraria, or Minecraft, which really have no graphical fidelity, graphics don't make good games, but im sure there a certain limitations imposed on using these old, and tired engines. As broken as something like BF4 is, at least its graphically stunning, and has tonnes of physics at play all the time. Apparently this game doesn't even have Ragdolls, which we all know is easily supported by the Source Engine. Seems all very lazy to me.
|
On January 20 2014 18:29 rebuffering wrote:
I know it shouldn't bother me, but it does. The game is using The Source Engine. Now, i love Source, i think it does a lot of things well, but seriously? They are using a 10 year old engine, for the "next gen" of consoles, its shallow of me to say that it bothers me, but im sick of getting the same recycled engine, over and over. None of the videos, or screenshots look impressive at all, im sure they've done it because it would cost far less to use a pre-made engine, rather than building a new one, or rather, buying a license from Crytek or Frostbite for example. The gameplay doesn't even seem that great in the 1st place, and we're supposed to play it with an outdated engine? It shouldn't surprise me tho, since the lead Dev's are former CoD devs, so they probably love to recycle. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Im kind of a stickler when it comes to game engines. I can play games like Terraria, or Minecraft, which really have no graphical fidelity, graphics don't make good games, but im sure there a certain limitations imposed on using these old, and tired engines. As broken as something like BF4 is, at least its graphically stunning, and has tonnes of physics at play all the time. Apparently this game doesn't even have Ragdolls, which we all know is easily supported by the Source Engine. Seems all very lazy to me.
1) Engines cost money
2) Newer engines cost more money
3) Better Graphics cost more money
4) Gameplay > graphics
5) Games take time to develop
|
On January 20 2014 18:29 rebuffering wrote:
I know it shouldn't bother me, but it does. The game is using The Source Engine. Now, i love Source, i think it does a lot of things well, but seriously? They are using a 10 year old engine, for the "next gen" of consoles, its shallow of me to say that it bothers me, but im sick of getting the same recycled engine, over and over. None of the videos, or screenshots look impressive at all, im sure they've done it because it would cost far less to use a pre-made engine, rather than building a new one, or rather, buying a license from Crytek or Frostbite for example. The gameplay doesn't even seem that great in the 1st place, and we're supposed to play it with an outdated engine? It shouldn't surprise me tho, since the lead Dev's are former CoD devs, so they probably love to recycle. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Im kind of a stickler when it comes to game engines. I can play games like Terraria, or Minecraft, which really have no graphical fidelity, graphics don't make good games, but im sure there a certain limitations imposed on using these old, and tired engines. As broken as something like BF4 is, at least its graphically stunning, and has tonnes of physics at play all the time. Apparently this game doesn't even have Ragdolls, which we all know is easily supported by the Source Engine. Seems all very lazy to me.
I don't think you understand what an engine is supposed to do.
|
It's a shame that the dude doesn't know how to wall jump or utilize the other advanced movement options.
|
The source engine the game is running on isn't 10 years old...
|
I don't care if the game happens to run on an "ancient" engine: still looks excellent.
On January 20 2014 23:21 xDaunt wrote:It's a shame that the dude doesn't know how to wall jump or utilize the other advanced movement options.
I noticed this as well. Would love to see how those mechanics play out in something other than a preconceived demo.
|
On January 20 2014 23:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:I don't care if the game happens to run on an "ancient" engine: still looks excellent. Show nested quote +On January 20 2014 23:21 xDaunt wrote:It's a shame that the dude doesn't know how to wall jump or utilize the other advanced movement options. I noticed this as well. Would love to see how those mechanics play out in something other than a preconceived demo.
The map that he was on was just begging for him to do it, but he played the game like a CoD/Battlefield player. There's gonna be some serious newb stomping in this game.
|
On January 20 2014 18:29 rebuffering wrote:
I know it shouldn't bother me, but it does. The game is using The Source Engine. Now, i love Source, i think it does a lot of things well, but seriously? They are using a 10 year old engine, for the "next gen" of consoles, its shallow of me to say that it bothers me, but im sick of getting the same recycled engine, over and over. None of the videos, or screenshots look impressive at all, im sure they've done it because it would cost far less to use a pre-made engine, rather than building a new one, or rather, buying a license from Crytek or Frostbite for example. The gameplay doesn't even seem that great in the 1st place, and we're supposed to play it with an outdated engine? It shouldn't surprise me tho, since the lead Dev's are former CoD devs, so they probably love to recycle. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Im kind of a stickler when it comes to game engines. I can play games like Terraria, or Minecraft, which really have no graphical fidelity, graphics don't make good games, but im sure there a certain limitations imposed on using these old, and tired engines. As broken as something like BF4 is, at least its graphically stunning, and has tonnes of physics at play all the time. Apparently this game doesn't even have Ragdolls, which we all know is easily supported by the Source Engine. Seems all very lazy to me.
The game looks good.
It runs smoothly.
The gameplay looks like alot of fun.
The opinion that graphics need to be absolutely top of the line for each new "big" release is actually very damaging for the gaming industry, since it costs so damn much for things that are completely unrelated to gameplay, which is what games should be about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
