By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Will Titanfall have the same impact as Call of Duty 4?

manny10032 on 10 April 2014

Call of Duty 4's impact on the industry was something serious. As of right now, Titanfall is no where near that level.



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 10 April 2014

It will have the same impact as Brink.



UltimateUnknown on 10 April 2014

Titanfall can't, not when it is only on Xbox. It's not even on the console that has the greatest marketshare this gen.

I don't think EA thought about the long term effect of TF on the market, opting for the quick cash from MS rather than setting it up as the go to FPS on all consoles.



 

Captain_Tom on 10 April 2014

OMG no. Not even close. It is just another shooter that will sell well.



Angelv577 on 10 April 2014

it doesn't look like it considering it's a multiplayer only game and been launched on the less popular console.



Around the Network
lt_dan_27 on 10 April 2014

COD4 was far more original and far better. No, titanfall won't have nearly as much impact.



ironmanDX on 11 April 2014
leyendax69 said:
If you are talking saleswise, the comparison might not be fair. Cod 4 launched on 360 and ps3 with a bigger userbase in 2007. Titanfall is actually doing pretty good taking in count the low userbase of X1, but certainly is not the revolution that supposed Modern warfare in its time.

This.... 

 

 

Also OP, Halo and Unreal Tournament were king before CoD 4 hit the scene. Quake still had a strong following also. Give it time people... Jeez.



J_Allard on 11 April 2014
fps_d0minat0r said:
J_Allard said:
Arkaign said:
Honestly, I think that Titanfall could have been that game, but it needed a few more checkboxes :

(1)- A great SP campaign. Sure, not everyone cares, but plenty of people DO care. They also make terrific showcases for graphics, as you can turn settings up even higher than MP modes. The futuristic setting could have made been pretty awesome for a SP game, and the design would have lent well to co-op.

(2)- It needed a better engine. The Source engine is older than dirt, and no amount of patching will bring it up to speed starting with those bones. It just doesn't load cores well, and the XB1 (PS4 would have been similar, but with higher visual settings) would have done so much better with an engine that works better with quad and hex core setups. On PC, a $50 celeron + 750ti plays Titanfall @ 1080p nicely. Yes, a $50 DUAL CORE + $150 entry-level GPU. Most of that is due to terrible engine. Also, a fantastic engine would have let you have immense destructive powers. When I play it, I'm always struck by how these massive Titans with their crazy weapons can fire away at buildings, and much of the time not even leave so much as a scratch really. The maps should look like smoldering rubble at the end of a good match, not shiny and in the same condition as the beginning of the game.

(3)- It needed a bit more time. I feel they rushed it, probably at EA/MS behest, and that the launch product is unfinished in terms of content. Another 3-4 months of round-the-clock content would have really been incredible. How about another class of Titan past the ogre that could have a 2nd pilot location for a rear turret + directed shield control system? How about small/midsize vehicles and installations? How about an 8v8 or 10v10 mode exclusive to the next-gen console(s) and PC? As the X360 can easily run 6v6 + hordes of drones, the XB1 with a better engine could have run more players. Even a 2v2 mode with the mega-titans would have been pretty sweet as a duel mode.

(4)- It needed simultaneous launch on all relevant platforms. Moneyhatting this was always going to doom it to less total sales, but even without moneyhatting, it was really sacrificed at the altar of the XB1. Rushed to release with low content and less than perfect performance, and on a console platform that maybe 1% of global console players owned at that point in time. Same-time launch of 360+XB1 with cross-platform co-op would have been much more epic. But now the hype has died off largely, and the 360 version may not even sell that well, which is criminal considering how well done that port is.

If it had those checkboxed, and had the same level of hype, I could see it being just insane sales (like GTAV sales).

You know I'm right, if all that had happened, they'd be killing it right now beyond belief.

And if the sequel checks all of those boxes, then it CAN be the GOTG without a doubt. Reply and tell me I'm right, and that I should be hired as the head of development for Titanfall 2, hahaha. :D


#1 and #4 are pretty much common sense if you arr looking for mass market penetration. I disagree with #2 and the jury is still out on #3.

CoD has proven you dont need an uber high tech brand new engine. And fuck destruction. The game is perfectly balanced as it is. Allowing buildings to be leveled gives Pilots nowhere to run.

 

The time factor, they can always add new modes to the game. I will take less but perfectly balanced content over more but wildly unbalanced content any day of the week. 


The reason it didnt need a high tech engine is because of how far it was compared to its competitors to begin with.

Titanfall isnt anywhere near as big as COD and using the same engine TF2, is not going to rival the next COD or BF. I know its not ALL about graphics, but most people with chose a game which has nice gameplay and nice graphics over a game which has nice gameplay and average graphics.


It didnt need the engine because it had the gameplay. It continued to blow away more "advanced" shooters because of gameplay. Activision has refused to invest in a new engine because they know they dont need it. Titanfall got all that amazing hype even though everyone knew about Source beecause of gameplay.

We all know Titanfall isnt as big as CoD, its a new IP and on limited consoles. The first step to achieving that level is launching on all consoles.



Arkaign on 11 April 2014

That's a fundamentally silly attitude to have. It's effectively dismissing all technical progress and saying 'gameplay' like a mantra.

Well if that's the case, why have next-gen consoles at all? Why have new engines at all? Titanfall has been shown to play just fine on the 360 after all, with only differences being some graphical detail really. It's the same gameplay right? And graphics don't matter at all. Heck, they should just cancel the XB1 and PS4 and refund everyone's money, and no engines newer than 2004 should exist. :P

Nope, sorry.

Graphics AND gameplay work together, and Source is a horrible engine for a slow 8-core CPU. The right optimization and modern engine could have the same great TF gameplay that you love, but running much smoother with better modeling, better textures, better effects, and so on. Better.



J_Allard on 12 April 2014

Thanks! Gameplay is a mantra to gamers. Or, at least, most of them.

You need next gen consoles because they open up more gameplay possibilities. A cross gen game like Titanfall might run "just fine" on 360 but how would Forza 5, Ryse, Dead Rising 3, or BF4 and its 64 players fare on last gen consoles? Not well. And yet at the same time the best selling game on both consoles is a cross gen port of Call of Duty which would run the same gameplay wise from the PS4 all the way down to the Wii. And even CoD4 did nothing that you couldn't run in much uglier, muddled fashion on PS2 or Xbox. Like Titanfall on 360.

We all know graphics and gameplay work together. But if you have top notch gameplay, gamers aren't going to mind if you don't have a state of the art engine. And on the flip side you can have the most advanced engine in the world and it won't mean shit if your game is boring. And isn't the thread about CoD? Is anyone going to try and say CoD had a balance or something? The id engine they were using was dated from CoD2 and on.