Titanfall is the latest succumber to the Battle Royale

[sXeth]

And the game doesn't even have Titans. Which makes it a bit of weird choice to use Titanfall.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-02-04-titanfall-developer-respawn-to-reveal-new-game-today

EDIT - https://blog.us.playstation.com/2019/02/04/apex-legends-a-free-to-play-battle-royale-from-the-makers-of-titanfall-2-launches-today/?fbclid=IwAR2ZiRVKc_YrL-VPY1Lo-ZkhmSct03a_DD4-XlLt5Z-mQ5t2HWx5ueGXMq0


The obvious pedantry response aside. I guess it could be vaguely interesting if they can keep the mobility/verticality (actually having to race up a skyscraper complex away from a rising death whatever would be amusing) and maybe even the NPC involvement in (cause god knows player-only BR combat is pretty tapped out at this point, and devolves into sniper hide'n'go'seek).


Its EA though, so mostly just expect over-monetization schlock and PUBG with some light sci-fi touch.

 

[Hawki]

Huh. Turns out "succumber" is an actual word. 0_0

That aside, I don't get this. Not so much a battle royale set in the Titanfall universe, but rather why EA would invest in it when they've already got a battle royale in Battlefield V.

 

[BrawlMan]

Huh. Turns out "succumber" is an actual word. 0_0

That aside, I don't get this. Not so much a battle royale set in the Titanfall universe, but rather why EA would invest in it when they've already got a battle royale in Battlefield V.

Because, the industry never learns its lesson about playing follow the leader. Remember last gen where everyone and their mother on both sides of the East and West were trying to copy Gears of War or COD4 in some way. Regardless if it made sense or not. I've said before, and I again, I am glad that part of gaming has died off. With that said, this nothing new to gaming. In the 90s we had mascot platformers and tournament fighters, the 2000s gave us games wanting be GTA (happens again with an obsession with open world starting in 2014) and many God of War clones, and Sony games taking influences from the Last of Us. It always been in gaming.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

That aside, I don't get this. Not so much a battle royale set in the Titanfall universe, but rather why EA would invest in it when they've already got a battle royale in Battlefield V.

Because Respawn doesn't have one and as a general business practice, it pays off not to have all your eggs in one basket. If Respawn could show a decent business plan along with a strong gameplay concept, why wouldn't EA funnel money to them? Keep in mind that Respawn has a really strong track record as a developer of first class, innovative, competitive FPS games and you've seemingly got a match made in heaven if they could put some of their previously amazing concepts into a fast paced Battle Royale game.

One could argue the sense in chasing trends, of course, but at the same time, it is quite obvious that the BR-genre isn't quite tapped for all its potential yet.

 

[meiam]

Well at first I though it made moderate amount of sense since I figured they would just re-use asset to make a quick F2P variation of the last titan fall, so that even if it didn't work very well it would turn a profit quickly. But this sounds like there going to make something new, which means it'll come out after the battle royal craze will have pass...

 

[Squilookle]

Succumber? You're implying Battle Royale is a game mode to 'fall' under? That's like saying Half-Life succumbed to Capture the Flag when it adopted Team Fortress. Or Battlefront 1 succumbed to Conquest mode back in 2004. Or Doom succumbed to shooting from the first person.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

EA want that fortnite cash.

EA own Respawn and their IP now.

Respawn do what EA want.

Until Respawn fail to meet EA cash expectation.

Then Respawn die.

EA keep IP forever.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Succumber? You're implying Battle Royale is a game mode to 'fall' under? That's like saying Half-Life succumbed to Capture the Flag when it adopted Team Fortress. Or Battlefront 1 succumbed to Conquest mode back in 2004. Or Doom succumbed to shooting from the first person.

Well it is. And in Half Life's thing, there wasn't a huge genre boom when Team Fortress came out.

A better example would be Elder Scrolls Online, succumbing to the MMO boom

 

[sXeth]

Trailers and such

https://blog.us.playstation.com/2019/02/04/apex-legends-a-free-to-play-battle-royale-from-the-makers-of-titanfall-2-launches-today/?fbclid=IwAR2ZiRVKc_YrL-VPY1Lo-ZkhmSct03a_DD4-XlLt5Z-mQ5t2HWx5ueGXMq0

So generally standard Battle Royale fare. Hero, oh excuse me "Legend" classes.

The cardinal questions for a BR. Is there any an incentive for actually engaging, and how is the RNG effect curbed go prettymuch unanswered.

Towers that let you go back into the air drop, and revive team mates.

Still random loot based, so I doubt I'll find much to do with it. Might give it a spin if the downloads not too obnoxious though.

Succumber? You're implying Battle Royale is a game mode to 'fall' under? That's like saying Half-Life succumbed to Capture the Flag when it adopted Team Fortress. Or Battlefront 1 succumbed to Conquest mode back in 2004. Or Doom succumbed to shooting from the first person.

Lol.

The first entry in an IP couldn't apply in the same way because its literally an undefined brand at that point?


If Doom 3 had been a third person cover shooter, or Doom16 was an open world survival game, that would've raised a few eyebrows. Even more so if they stripped defining elements like the Titans in TITANfall. "Here be Doom. Just without shotguns. Or demons. or the BFG."

Counterstrike and Team Fortress were released as standalones, as that goes. I actually had to scratch my head to remember that Half Life did in fact have multiplayer. As Capture the Flag goes, it'd be tough to call it a trend, entire games certainly weren't based around it. It was by miles the most popular mode in the Unreal Tournament 99. Even TF Classic had two other modes (the more synonomous at this point King of the Hill one, and the escort one).

 

[Worgen]

Could be neat, but its ea so it would require origin which I am not dealing with. Plus it probably wouldn't be as good as CSGO Deadzone.

Edit: Nevermind. I watched some vids of it and it looks it just plays like Realm Royal. They didn't do anything interesting with the movement or robots.

Still looks like the Battle Royal game that mixed things up the most aside from Fortnight is CSGO Deadzone.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

I tried it but it's squads only and I don't want to be forced to play with randoms. Will try again if I can get some friends with me or if they ever make a solo playlist.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

That aside, I don't get this. Not so much a battle royale set in the Titanfall universe, but rather why EA would invest in it when they've already got a battle royale in Battlefield V.

I'd completely forgotten about that. Did BF5 battle royal mode release at launch? I havent seen a single person talk about it.

OT: It's not Titanfall, just set in in the Titanfall universe (which is cool). After all, you can't wall run or double jump, which is actually really disappointing. Titanfall 2 is one of the best feeling FPS games I've ever played. The gameplay here looks like a watered down version. I mean the gunplay and basic movement from TF2 is still there which is nice, but that's not enough for me to want to invest in the game.

It's good that its free to play tho, as an Asian, the success of games like these depends on how accessible it is, meaning that more people can play the game in internet cafes or on low end hardware. PUBG died out fairly quickly where I live after so many other cheaper, less demanding games came out.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Tale old as Triple As. It happened during the spunkgargleweeweemodern military shooter period, it happened when MOBAs where the hot shit, it happens now, when Battle Royale reigns.
Still, sad to see Titanfall having its mechanics sacrificed for... what exactly?
https://twitter.com/Sabbo233/status/1092570759686483968

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I'd completely forgotten about that. Did BF5 battle royal mode release at launch? I havent seen a single person talk about it.

Coming out in March, apparently.

Still, sad to see Titanfall having its mechanics sacrificed for... what exactly?

In the brief two hours I've had with the game? One of the most polished Battle Royale games so far. The gunplay is great and the dynamics of a three person team with unique skills really mix up the tired rotes of BR games. On top of that there are tons of quality of life features that you never knew you needed in a BR until Respawn brought them. The Ping system is simple to use and quite flexible, allowing random squads to organize beyond shooting at loot and enemies, the long trails that indicate where teams are going when they drop in, the respawn function and the balloons that allow you to re-drop if you need to reposition far and fast and much more just makes Apex Legends play great.

Now, I've put down over 200 hours in PUBG, so I'm obviously something of a fan of the BR-genre. I tried Fortnite but bounced right off because of how floaty it felt. For me Apex Legends hits the sweet spot between PUBGs attempts at realism and Fortnite's fast paced shenanigans. In its current state AL is an incredibly well-designed game, not that you'd expect anything less from Respawn.

 

[Hawki]

Because, the industry never learns its lesson about playing follow the leader. Remember last gen where everyone and their mother on both sides of the East and West were trying to copy Gears of War or COD4 in some way. Regardless if it made sense or not. I've said before, and I again, I am glad that part of gaming has died off. With that said, this nothing new to gaming. In the 90s we had mascot platformers and tournament fighters, the 2000s gave us games wanting be GTA (happens again with an obsession with open world starting in 2014) and many God of War clones, and Sony games taking influences from the Last of Us. It always been in gaming.

Yeah, but usually it isn't a good idea to compete with yourself. There's a reason why Epic hasn't made another battle royale game' for instance.

Because Respawn doesn't have one and as a general business practice, it pays off not to have all your eggs in one basket.

Which Respawn isn't doing since they're also making a VR game and a Star Wars game.

Respawn, in theory, is free to make whatever game it likes, just strikes me as a bit odd that EA would even commission them to do a battle royale game when in theory, BF5 should be covering that niche. Course EA has multiple FPS games, but usually battle royale games operate on the principle of "games as a service" so...

Keep in mind that Respawn has a really strong track record as a developer of first class, innovative, competitive FPS games

You mean the grand total of two games it's produced, the former of which was lacking in singleplayer, the latter of which was a financial disappointment?

I'm not ragging on Respawn, but even if those games were the best thing since sliced bread, I'm not sure if only two games is enough for "a really strong track record."

Oh, and fun fact - Apex Legends is indeed being made as an alternative to Titanfall 3.* So while I may not lose too much personally, it's another case of narrative being ditched for multiplayer-only stuff (though the website states that the IMC-Militia war is over, so...yay?).

*See https://www.polygon.com/2019/2/4/18211246/apex-legends-titanfall-3-respawn-entertainment /

 

[BrawlMan]

Because, the industry never learns its lesson about playing follow the leader. Remember last gen where everyone and their mother on both sides of the East and West were trying to copy Gears of War or COD4 in some way. Regardless if it made sense or not. I've said before, and I again, I am glad that part of gaming has died off. With that said, this nothing new to gaming. In the 90s we had mascot platformers and tournament fighters, the 2000s gave us games wanting be GTA (happens again with an obsession with open world starting in 2014) and many God of War clones, and Sony games taking influences from the Last of Us. It always been in gaming.

Yeah, but usually it isn't a good idea to compete with yourself. There's a reason why Epic hasn't made another battle royale game' for instance.

Hence, why I said "because the industry never learned its lesson". Especially EA. This isn't the first time they competed with themselves. Does Titanfall 2 and Battlefield 1 ring any bells?

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Which Respawn isn't doing since they're also making a VR game and a Star Wars game.

Respawn, in theory, is free to make whatever game it likes, just strikes me as a bit odd that EA would even commission them to do a battle royale game when in theory, BF5 should be covering that niche. Course EA has multiple FPS games, but usually battle royale games operate on the principle of "games as a service" so...

I was not talking about Respawn as much as EA in terms of business practice. Having products in the same category but with different target demographics is a time-tested success recipe, no matter if you are selling detergent or video games.

So if Respawn said they wanted to do a BR-game and showed EA a good business plan, it makes sense for EA to throw some cash to Respawn, as to minimize the risk of totally missing out on the BR market in case BFV's BR mode ends up a bust.

You mean the grand total of two games it's produced, the former of which was lacking in singleplayer, the latter of which was a financial disappointment?

I'm not ragging on Respawn, but even if those games were the best thing since sliced bread, I'm not sure if only two games is enough for "a really strong track record."

It was also formed on a core of veterans from Infinity Ward, a majority of who had worked on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (ie. the game that defined the modern military FPS for a decade). The Titanfall duo are showcases of great FPS design, even if neither game was particularly successful commercially. It is obvious that EA understood this or Respawn would be sitting next to Bullfrog and Westwood right now.

Oh, and fun fact - Apex Legends is indeed being made as an alternative to Titanfall 3.* So while I may not lose too much personally, it's another case of narrative being ditched for multiplayer-only stuff (though the website states that the IMC-Militia war is over, so...yay?).

I noticed, but I can't say I care. Apex Legends is way more up my alley then Titanfall 2 ever was and I only cared for Titanfall because of the multiplayer. So for me, this is a win/win situation. One of the premier FPS developers are making a game in a genre I wanted a good game in (because oh boy have I burnt out on PUBG), I win!

 

[Something Amyss]

Huh. Turns out "succumber" is an actual word. 0_0

That aside, I don't get this. Not so much a battle royale set in the Titanfall universe, but rather why EA would invest in it when they've already got a battle royale in Battlefield V.

I mean, is there any level ofthis that's actually surprising, though? I can't remember exactly when it started but EA's played "chase the fad" for at least as long as Call of Duty's been a popular thing people buy. EA gets a rap for bad ideas not so much because they came up with them, but because they make them popular. Well, most of the time. Ubisoft's been trying to one-up them on the bad ideas front.

Before that, well...there's been GTA clones longer than there's been a GTA, there's been Street Fighter clones almost as long as Street Fighter, Doom clones almost as long as Doom, and let's not forget mascot platformers.

Something becomes popular, and people say "me too," and that's not just video games or we wouldn't have every movie now trying to be the MCU.

As for why Respawn and why Titanfall? At a gfuess it's because Respawn was available and because a lot of companies try and "me too" with existing properties. Look at that Metal Gear survival gameor the numerous MMOs that were just [franchise] but with more people stealing ur killz.

I mean, there might be a better brand to cash in on, but...this is EA. They don't necessarily make the best decisions.

Which Respawn isn't doing since they're also making a VR game and a Star Wars game.

There's no details on the VR game, and depending that could be as few as a handful of staffers working on it. Studios often employ multiple teams, and Respawn's not putting out Fallen Order for another 9-10 months.

The best counter I see here is that EA might compete against itself, but everything I've seen about the two games makes it look like they're chasing different elements of the market with each. I'm not even saying they're doing it well, but BFV's Firestorm appears to be taking a more down-to-earth approach, while Apex looks like it's trying to cover the colourful "hero shooter" style of game.

 

[Lufia Erim]

Apparently it's really good. A fresh(Ish) Take on Hunger games Battle royale.

I suggest everyone give it a shot.

 

[laggyteabag]

I've heard that it is really good, but the fact that you are forced to play in squads kind of bums me out. None of my friends are interested, and I really dont feel like playing with randoms.

Im just bummed out that they killed off Titanfall 3 for this. I loved 1, and 2 was fantastic - its just a shame that the franchise has turned into another BR cash cow, when the only fault of Titanfall 2 was EA's release date sabotage.

Maybe I will play it one day, but I will be mourning the loss of TF3 quietly.