MFTWrecks

I really wish Respawn would be allowed to push the envelope with Titanfall. Apex Legends just isn't it, imo.

The TF2 multiplayer was SO GOOD at making you feel like a small piece of a large scale conflict. Why are they not exploring more of that in the multiplayer space?

I honestly think something like a Titanfall: Warfare or something where the matches played almost akin to a MOBA (think Battleborn with mechs) or Battlefield's Rush mode would be BONKERS cool. You'd have the tight grunt skirmishes on the ground, building up to all out mania when Titans started being called in, at which point the battles would shift to mech on mech bananzas. Make it all about the push and pull of the battle over large spaces and... my goodness. I'd never play another shooter.

Looked more like a trailer for an anime than a game. Maybe they should try showing some game in their, uh, game trailer.

@Ward_ting I mean, I have never enjoyed a turn-based game whatsoever. I'm not sure "slightly more active turn-based" is worth it to me.

I wish, but I have never enjoyed turn-based games.

@B0udoir No, and defending the game with your anecdotal experience doesn't change the fact it's glitchy as hell on PS5 and has been for a while. There are loads of people who had issues with the cutscenes as I describe amongst other issues.

Sadly, it's not well optimized for the platform and if the dev can't support its game, it's not worth me supporting them imo. Not my problem nor yours.

@Lowdefal I can't forgive that stuff. It's every cutscene, every camera transition... Dropped frames, asset loading weirdness, etc. It's annoying and rips me out of things, especially since the game has so much dialog and mini cutscenes to go through. It's hard to ignore when nearly half the game literally highlights the least stable part of the package.

Actively playing it and it is a slog with all the visual glitches on PS5. Which sucks cause it's decent fun but all the glitches add up to a really subpar experience.

Between BG3 and this, I really wish I liked turn-based games.

@GoatFace04 It definitely didn't help that they didn't optimize the controls for controllers are launch and ended up with arguably the worst-feeling shooter ever designed. They shot themselves in the foot so hard with that game.

So was this show complete crap? I see literally no outlet posting any of the reveals. Must not have been good.

@Deadlyblack What's wild is that they sort of created the extraction shooter idea with Division's Dark Zone, if you think about it. And they have competent (if not great) multiplayer experiences in some of their shooters (like Ghost Recon), but instead of doing anything interesting and ahead of the curve, they waste millions of dollars and man loads of man hours just to show up late to the party.

They could have made a Division BR ages ago. Make it about regular people traversing an area and collecting loot and taking down NPCs for special "Division" tier gear. Matches would play out with great shooting and cover mechanics, and awesome sci-fi gear. It'd be like a BR with super powers, more or less. Plus, The Division's general TPS mechanics are some of the best in the business (if not the outright best), and the engine is pretty great.

They could have done something interesting in that space but they completely lack creative vision.

One of the most enjoyable things about BR games imo is that everyone is on an even playing field and that loot is randomized. I never once got truly deep into a BR game with hero shooter mechanics because of how awful they are at balance.

I think Apex got carried by the feel that Respawn brings to FPS games. They overcame the busted nature of hero balance, but only for so long.

It would be EXTREMELY on-brand for Ubisoft to be so damn late to the genre, though. Instead of creating ANYTHING new and exciting, they'll just copy someone else's homework, but do it worse and behind schedule.

And they wonder why they're failing so damn hard right now.

@Klone Those are two systems that don't really address a single point I raised, but thanks?

There's no way this approaches even Outlaws' sales numbers. Releasing this but not being able to put out a Mandalorian title is WILD to me.

The only thing that has me worried is the meta progression. I love the idea of an extraction shooter, but the brutal nature of not retaining ANYTHING when you fail is probably a huge part of why the genre has remained extremely niche.

I would have thought that, seeing that, and knowing how important player retention is, that Bungie would have done something to address that. Simply putting a colorful sci-fi coat of paint on a brutal gameplay loop is not necessarily how you grow a huge audience and push into untapped markets. It's like they're relying solely on their name/pedigree which... isn't as rosy as they probably think. What brings this game down may be the combined hubris of Bungie and Sony.

I would LOVE to see there be some sort of meta progression added, whether its a fraction of XP brought back to push some numbers higher or SOMETHING to make up for what will inevitably feel - to some - like an unfair or unforgiving round. No one truly likes wasting their time playing a game. If these matches truly result in next to nothing that pushes your account/character forward, than it means most players in-match will walk away frustrated. And there's a very small number of people who are okay with that long term. It'll be interesting to see how it FEELS to come close but fail, and whether they try and address that aspect of the game at all.

I think this looks dope. To each their own.

@Boxmonkey Same happened to me when I tried playing the one Warhammer arpg. I immediately uninstalled it. Never played a second of it.

It makes sense functionally when you are unlocking a feature like cross-save (like this will do in Marathon or that you see in Fortnite and many cross-atform shooters). But when a game functionally does not allow you to play AT ALL without creating a whole other account? F that noise.

Maybe Ubisoft didn't get ***** on because you could skip it and still play?

This makes sense, as Ubisoft has no clue how or why Siege is actually as popular as it is. So why try and make a sequel when they're incapable of recreating its magic?

I love the aesthetics for this so much I know I need to try it. I also really think the console space could use a solid extraction shooter. I REALLY hope they nail this and that they've learned from Destiny.

I am interested in this game because of its aesthetic. I hope they can nail a worthwhile extraction shooter for consoles.

They simply priced me out of consideration. I'm not going anywhere CLOSE to an $80 game. ***** THAT noise.

Too bad it's not very good. Lol

I mean, these weren't exactly heavy hitting franchises in today's day and age. It ALWAYS baffled me why these particular titles were chosen as the titles for Microsoft's proof of strategy. What did they expect? Did they think PS5 players were chomping at the bit for Penitent? (Was anyone, statistically speaking?)

You want to push units, then give PS gamers stuff they truly hunger for, the stuff that says, "Oh, wow. Xbox is taking this seriously." Give gamers Halo, Gears of War, and Forza. Those are the big IPs. Period.

If all they hand over are the titles Microsoft themselves don't put huge support behind, then why would PS gamers think they're getting anything of value?

You can vote with your wallet, surely, but you have to understand there were never many gamers in the market willing to open their wallet for these particular titles to begin with. It's like if Sony did this and the first games they ported were Patapon and The Order. It's a tepid release lineup and anyone saying otherwise is fooling themselves. A game can be critically well-received and still not have a place in the market. That's reality. Until we see Master Chief and Marcus Fenix on the PS Store, this will be half-assed/lackluster at best.

The fact they're releasing years-old titles at full price is another huge factor that they're not getting enough flack for.

I don't think people know what kind of game it is. Is it open world? What little they showed appeared to be supremely on-rails. That doesn't excite me as much, personally.

Any lack of buzz is on them for not being able to explain themselves.

@Absymbel Wait, for real? That game was awesome. This is even more exciting for me than before.

@Titntin Returnal was great, but the RNG elements for some of the trophies and stuff made it an absolute slog at times. I'm so proud of that Platinum, but MAN was it harder than it needed to be at times.

I love me some roguelites, and Housemarque rarely misses in my eyes, PLUS Returnal was an absolute banger of a game. My interest in this is higher than almost everything else PS Studios are developing.

I'm much more intrigued by Hyper Light Breaker, myself. But the art is definitely beautiful.

@nomither6 I stand by the fact that the gamelay of that series, had it been tied to something like military or scifi, would have proven massively more popular. It was so so SO tight and satisfying. But players saw the PvZ skin and wrote it off.

You take that moment to moment gameplay, the classes, the shooter feel and slap a different coat of paint on it and you'd have a perennial heavy hitter in the TPS space.

The most egregious thing is that it was a poor bastardization of two memes at once.

I only managed about 30 minutes in Steel Rising. I thought it played terribly.

I liked Outriders enough to finish it. Had some fun. The general mechanics were solid.

I could see them tackling any of Sony's dormant shooter franchises, really.

I must be the odd man out here, because did I not only hear of this game, I downloaded and played it.

The art style always intrigued me so I kept an eye on it. When it dropped, I was excited and gave it a few rounds. Even got a friend to try it.

The issue was it just wasn't very good. It was a CS clone decades too late. What it brought to the genre was basically what I'd call a tangible in-game second life by way of the little clone/disc thing you could toss around. That was it. It did nothing else.

And the game wasn't well designed for that critical gameplay element. They severely limited where your little disc thing could place your spectre (or whatever they called it). You couldn't put it on walls or weird places to create the sort of dynamic scenarios and matches you'd need to stand out and have "oh *****" moments that created positive word of mouth and, most importantly, a fun time.

It was as basic as you could imagine. You'd just stash your little extra life in a corner until you died or wanted to change where you were on the map. It wasn't cool. It was meh.

But... BUT! You certainly could buy extremely over-priced skins! There was a battlepass! And premium currency aplenty! It was VERY clearly a cash grab first and foremost.

THAT'S the problem with GaaS. They aren't good GAMES first. They are, above all else, designed as pipelines from the dev to a player's wallet. Then they slap a game over top that is almost always not remotely unique nor better than half a dozen games you've played before.

GaaS simply don't stand out right now. Fun multiplayer games can make it. But they need to be cohesive, fun, unique and well made. A lot of these failed GaaS titles fail that sniff test and players can tell.

People don't want a Fortnite clone when Fortnite exists. They don't want a CS clone when CS exists. They need something that makes them go, "Wow, that looks fun." They don't want, "Wow, that skin is only $20."

There's some nuance to be had regarding certain failures, but that's usually the biggest issue that goes unsaid.

I can't wait for this. I've had my eye on it since its first reveal. I've been tempted by the PC release since it released, but I don't like getting tired of a game before it's even at its best. EA just isn't for me.

Makes me feel like a little kid at the window of a candy store, though... I see the goodies and other people enjoying them, but I'm not allowed in the store. Lol

One of the elements of Titanfall multiplayer that I adored that doesn't get a lot of attention is how it made you feel a part of a bigger conflict by integrating NPC combatants into the battlefield. I wish more shooters did that.

My dream game would be something like Battleborn (I know!), but made by a team like Respawn who had slightly better shooting and movement mechanics. I think they'd rock the hell out of an FPS MOBA, which some of TF's modes felt somewhat akin to.

Have players in a heated battle, real and AI combatants all over, pushing back and forth, capturing objectives (of various degrees)... then once a certain power level was reached, they could call in big game-changing elements like vehicles or Titans.

In-match, players would accrue upgrades unto themselves and their team that could shift the tides back and forth. Really recreate that sense of a skirmish on the front lines being fought tooth and nail.

It'd be like a MOBA mixed with a roguelike mixed with an FPS or something... I dunno. Dream game right there.

@FEWGEE1 That's honestly my concern with Robocop and (oddly enough) Wanted: Dead. Sure, they're great prices... but they seem to be approaching "about to be dumped onto PS+" status. So even at these low prices I am very very hesitant.

@pyrrhic_victory Great game! One of my favorite open world titles. (And honestly one they could easily try and emulate with a "modern" TM if they didn't go the BR/MP-only GaaS route.)

I think tying the player account to a vehicle/chassis they keep updating over time would be a really great way to retain an audience. Let players build a connection to their specific vehicle and handcraft a killing machine that could stand proudly alongside the likes of Sweet Tooth and Grasshopper and Axel and everyone.

Part of TM's design genius (to me) was you could basically always see who you were about to get in a fight with. The characters had pretty distinct profiles you could read, despite the chaos of the match.

Try and recreate that for players and their personal vehicles. It'd be amazing to have top players build distinct machines that, if you encountered them in-match, you could instantly recognize. Shooting for THAT would be super cool and engaging.

People do not want a Twisted Metal where you get out of your car. The car is the ENTIRE "character" people care about.

What's sad is, a TM BR (as others have noted) could ABSOLUTELY have worked! There is a HUGE market for vehicle-based live service titles (see: World of Tanks).

They could have done some cool stuff with the BR formula by setting it within a destructible game world made to be driven around at high speeds.

Think...

Every player gets a generic starter car/chassis. Sedan, pickup, motorcycle, semi, SUV, minivan, etc. This is like the "skin" you drop into a BR match with. It's what you start the match looking like.

When you begin your account, that chassis will be rust and bolts.

You drop in just like Fortnite/PUBG by driving out the back of a plane F&F (or Dumbo Drop lol) style so you can pick your landing spot. The map is littered with towns and cities and POIs reminiscent of classic TM maps, connected by highways, rivers, mountains, etc. Think of a Warzone or GTA-sized map.

The map is WHOLLY DESTRUCTIBLE. With enough firepower you can destroy damn near everything. You could lay waste to cities, raze forests, the works (this would be like what they tried with the PS3-era TM).

You gather weapons that get bolted onto your car like classic TM. Except, like a modern BR, you have a 4-5 weapon "kit" you and weapons have rarities.

Around the map would be boss NPC cars... the classic TM cars we know and love. Like a Marvel season in Fortnite where completing killing Dr. Doom allows you to become Dr. Doom (or whomever), in TM, you'd BECOME that character for the remainder of your time in-match. Otherwise, that boss character would join the fray and interact with the rest of the match like any other player-driven vehicle. So if not taken out, they'd come hunting the players like The Butcher in Diablo 4. You hunt them down, or they hunt you down. Choice is yours.

Have in-game proximity-driven CB radio (aka voice chat) that lets players talk, or fire off voice lines and quips to each other. Funny phrases and sayings that would let you trash talk in case you don't want to ACTUALLY do any chatting.

The last human-driven vehicle left standing "wins," but if it ends up human vs AI/boss and the human loses, it's not a "full" win. Getting a "full" win nets you more XP or currency or whatever, while a "partial win" (the human lost to an AI/boss) nets less. Track the difference in the stats. Bragging rights would be getting the "full" win, like a "crown victory" in Fortnite.

As players play matches, they accrue currency (nuts and bolts or scrap) to unlock bumpers, doors, hoods, paint jobs, rims, etc. to customize their chassis. This collection of options (add items every season to fit the season) with a real cash store - the Black Market (nod to TM: Black, anyone?). The BM offers "premium" items/collections of items like nicer paint jobs/textures - candy paint anyone? - unique chassis items.

The core loop being: play huge, bombastic TM-meets-BR matches and then go back to your garage and create a unique vehicle that stands beside the TM characters. Have account levels/goals net you spots in your garage so you have additional vehicles/chassis at your disposal to take into battle akin to a loadout in COD.

Battle Pass items include additional cosmetics, weapon effects (like different color missile contrails and boost animations), songs for your radio, voice lines for your "driver", etc.

Boom. Banger.

Yes. More of this. Less COD.

What a pleasant surprise. Looks right up my alley!

How does this even benefit them at this point? All it will do is cast a further pale on the game and Bioware by way of the negative press/sentiment that will be associated with this move.

The game has no mtx (not a complaint) nor DLC. Giving it away will not in any way generate revenue besides the upfront $$ Sony is giving them. To settle for that is a sign the tail on the sales have dropped off a cliff and this is EA throwing in the towel.l full stop.

I'll be surprised if Bioware survives long enough to release ME 4. This is wild.

This speaks volumes about EA's meddling and strategy over the past decade+. They played their hand and they lost/eroded customer support HARD. Now they are reaping what they sowed. Sadly, this will cost many talented people their jobs and impact a lot of families while the suits suck up fat bonuses.

I didn't expect to like the first as much as I did. Great little rogue like. Looking forward to this and love the adaptation of the art style into 3D.

The Nemesis system is the coolest gameplay enhancement in videogames over the past 2, maybe 3 generations. The fact WB patented it and then not let anyone use it is borderline criminal. The fact they shuttered the studio who created it and now we will almost certainly NEVER see it appear in another game ever? Fire the suits into the sun.

WB is a detriment to the gaming (and film, fwiw) industry. Shut down, let the studios go independent, and just license the IPs.

The whole company would be better run by monkeys at this point.

@Deadhunter Activision has been selling COD players the same maps for years. You think any of their developers can count to 6?

@somnambulance Teamwork would be improved if Netease fully embraced the teamwork/team-up dynamics and didn't make them so limited.

Why do only very certain land-based characters get the ability to use Punisher's rope line? Why don't the Guardians characters ALL synergize with every other member? Why don't all projectile characters get some sort of offensive rebound-like attack when shooting their Cap's shield? Why does Cloak & Dagger's invisibility only work on like 2 characters? Why don't all tanks (and Magneto) have the ability to fastball special Wolverine? Why don't mutants all get some sort of "better together" or "X-gene" buff when working together? Why, as Punisher or Winter Soldier, can I not deploy/initiate my own infinite ammo reserve when working with Rocket, instead of relying on Rocket to decide when I need the boost?

If they made more characters synergize with each other, you'd have more opportunities for a variety of gameplay systems to link up. You wouldn't feel nearly as kneecapped when your team doesn't commit to what is currently an optimized roster and the other team goes full meta.

I love the game. I really do. But it baffles me how they have chosen to limit the character interactions so severely.

@Toot1st If you think companies will pass their savings on to us, consumers, instead of using it to pad their bottom lines and make their share prices tick up and their bonuses fatter, you are extremely naive. We will see no direct benefit. Guaranteed.

@LikelySatan And how does knowing how a multibillion dollar corporation defines its investment strategy helpful (or useful) to you or any other consumer in any manner whatsoever?

What does any of this matter to the end consumer? No one but business suits and fanboys cares about this.

THIS is how you do a retro game, with tongue firmly placed in-cheek. Holly hell does this deserve all the success.

NOW GIMME THE STREET SHARKS, DAMMIT!