E3 critics apparently did see Titanfall

Title E3 critics apparently did see Titanfall
Author Nick Diamon
Posted in Games
When July 2, 2013

One of the more fun lists to discuss every year after E3 is the Game Critics Best of E3 winners. This year, a lot of votes went to Titanfall, the mechs versus pilots shooter being developed by Respawn for the Xbox One and PC..

Read the full article

This smacks of some sort of corporate underhandedness, or some blind media flogging. Don't get me wrong; I love Zampella and West and I fully support their efforts at Respawn. Hell, I have $60 that I saved away back when I decided never to buy another Call of Duty and to instead buy the first game that Respawn puts out, so Titanfall will enter my collection regardless. But, honestly, Titanfall looked like just a samey shooter with some mechs and parkour thrown in.

What about The Division, the game that singlehandedly blew everyone away without any forewarning? Or the increased content revealed for Watch_Dogs, which looks increasingly good each reveal? I even found Destiny more interesting than Titanfall; at least there were some features that differed from the norm there, even if the dialog was a bit on the underwhelming side.

I know that the mass public loves a good Call of Duty but sometimes I'm a bit distressed at how far one has to go searching for some innovation in the industry. I can't be the only one sick of shooters with blockbuster set-pieces?

You're not the only one. We lose more and more old school gamers as the years go by. This industry is shedding customers almost as fast as they are gaining them. Is it growing? Honestly, I don't think it will grow anymore than it already has unless truly innovative games hit the masses and draw them in again. We used to look forward to a new challenge in each game but today we only have improved visual effects coupled with a 1 step forward 2 steps backward mentality from the developers.

Only Zampella is still at Respawn, West quit.

Pilots vs Mechs? Pffft. I liked that the first time when it was called G-nome. Actually , I didn't like it.

I agree, it seems like a lot of the games these days have some lowest-common-denominator mantra behind the veil of improved graphics. I'm glad we have games like The Last of Us to push the boundaries, at least as far as story goes, but it seems like there haven't been very many truly innovative gameplay decisions for quite a while. It's a crying shame.

Not to say that all games these days are bad, of course. There are plenty of games that I absolutely adore, corridor-shooters included. It's just a shame that we have the same experience delivered in different packaging time and time again.

I wasn't aware, thanks for sharing!

I don't mind these E3 awards as long as everyone understands what they actually are: awards for the best commercials/presentations.

Well titnafall was call of duty with mechs, but with no singleplayer its all in the multiplayer. DRM!!!

Destiny was borderlands as a shooter, also always online DRM.

Division was a third person cover based rpg, like you picked future solidier and gave it rpg mechanics. Also always online DRM.

Funny how ms is atleast honest with xbox one, titanfall, Division and destiny were all DRM in disquise claiming that those games are either mmos or multiplayer experiance rather admiting they are COOP games that could very well be played offline or with bots but noooooo They are mp experiances and thus DRM in disquise

Agreed, so here they show off Multiplayer and always online games, that pretty much play alike. This so called "next gen' aint gona go anywhere unless games innovate or become more complex. Consoles dont have the upper hand to graphics, pc is far ahead, so they cant just sell graphics games.

Hell their awful dlc and milking practices and desperate effort to dumb down games and apeal to more peopoe is ruining games.

Lets see

Ea had mass effect 3 which sold well and people hated how poorly the game was released with bugs and a bad ending. Synidcate flopped badly, under a million sales along with resistance 3.

Crysis 3, moh warfighter, dead space 3 all did not meet their required salaes goals

THQ is dead. Darksiders 2 did not meat its goals either.

DMC, resident evil 6 and remember me didnt hit their goals either. So thats it for capcom's line of games.

Now square enix had low sales with hitman absolution, tomb raider and sleeping dogs. Neither reached its goal. Sleeping dogs sold a whooping 1.5 million copies.

Ubisoft did well with creed 3 and far cry 3 (cant say the creed franchise will be alive for long though)

Bethesda did very well with skyrim and good with dishonored.

Basicly games are lossing sales.

Had it not been for pc, the survival horror genere will be abdandoned completly.

They use them as advertisement though. Check bioshock infinite E3 demo, it got 80 awards, yet nothing of what you saw was in the actual game, still they thought it was ok to use false advertizement sand put "WINNER OF OVER 80 AWARDS" on the godamn box, apparently games get awards before they are even finished.

Why it didnt flop like rage is beyond me.

I didn't realize that Titanfall was an only-multiplayer game. Maybe I haven't done enough research on the subject but, with all the cutscenes and so forth, it certainly appeared to at least have a singleplayer component. If it truly is multiplayer-only, I may have to rethink my investment.

As for the multiplayer vs. DRM argument: I certainly see the the argument that always-online components equate to an unspoken DRM, and I can't say that I disagree with it entirely, but I think there's a very intrinsic difference between utilizing an online connection to create multiplayer content to requiring an online connection in order to play the game. It's just broken down into whether the online connection is 100% necessary or not.

In the case of Destiny, there is no defense; the developers have already stated that the game will need an internet connection in order to be played. Reference: http://www.computerandvideogam...

Same story with The Division: http://www.playstationlifestyl...

Though people could split hairs and say that the online connection is necessary just to access the content, not to check if you have the rights to play the game, it equates to the same thing: without the internet, you aren't playing either game. Which, really, is a crying shame.

There are exceptions, though. Watch_Dogs utilizes an online connection with subtle multiplayer aspects but does not necessitate such a connection in order to play.

That's the industry we're in these days, it seems. Gamers put more and more emphasis on multiplayer so developers are looking for new and interesting ways to deliver an experience that is equal parts multiplayer experience and story-driven campaign. Despite the outcry from us vocal minority folks (which I suppose is the sad reality of the issue), people are yelling in dollar bills that they approve of the industry's new standard. It's a crying shame, really, because it's sending innovation in a very particular direction that not everyone enjoys.

It's nice that there are still some devs who appreciate the more personal experiences, though. The Last of Us delivered an amazing performance, regardless of what people thought of the gameplay, and games like Beyond: Two Souls and Transistor look to deliver interesting and compelling singleplayer experiences. (Say what you will about Quantic Dream, they create great performances in their games.) It's just a shame that they are so few and far between these days.

"Unfortunately, the game that won the most awards in 2010 was Rage."

What's unfortunate about a great game receiving the most E3 awards?

The game is multiplayer and it somehow gives you cutscenes as you play and scripted events, somehow like brink. I thought its gonna have a campaign but apparently not.

Borderlands and l4d can classify as only mp games yet they can be played online. For those games not to be able to be played offline, they must be MMO, however if they are somehow like the Old republic with a campaign and secondary mmo gameplay, well its gonna be bad. The annoying party will be when they release dlcs instead of updating the game like a mmo. Showing that they are pretentious.

I dont think gamers focus more on mp, i think developers are headless chickens that saw the sucess of call of duty and decided to tailor not only their mp but their sp experiance around that. Most singleplayer games are basicly linear 2 weapon shooters with health regeneration, very simplistic gameplay and alot of focus on narrative. Also short.

They essentially destroying singleplayer to sell us a MMO type of game. Its sad and it scares me because it seems all "innovation" in the industry is about screwing the consumer rather improving gameplay.

Then you see developer of division saying "all games were tech demos, i would like to see more emphasis on narrative" Because apparently thats where games are heading, towards being interactive movies and not actual games.

I'll have to disagree; the fact of the matter is that gamers do focus more on multiplayer than singleplayer. Even if the vocal components of the internet cry out for compelling singleplayer experiences and gnash their teeth at the overwhelming number of multiplayer-centric games, there are ten times as many gamers out there who only care about their kill/death ratio or who has the biggest killstreak. Consumers speak with dollar bills and the big money is in multiplayer video games; there's no wonder that developers are pumping out more and more video games.

It's kind of 'six-of-one, half-a-dozen-of-the-other' though because, even if the developers are giving us more multiplayer games because the majority likes it, minority consumers are then forced into multiplayer situations. That increases the size of the majority and tells developers that gamers want more multiplayer, so they give the gamers less choice and force multiplayer onto them, and so on. Mark my words; in ten years, all games -- narrative-centric or not -- will be multiplayer!

Nope, you are talking about casuals and non gamers who found cod and play cod and just cod. Its the equivilant fifa players. Also the singleplayer experiances are ruined so they stick to mp.

Thats the majority you are refferign and ironicly 2-4 games get the mp experiance while all the others fail. So because 20 million people play cod and bf and 40 more play mmos, sp has to suffer. When in reallity most of them dont play anything else, they basicly selling mp to a diffirent audience that plays sp instead.

Once more again casuals destroy gaming, thanks casuals.

Yeah, I never understood the hate-on that people have for Rage. My only complaint -- and, admittedly, it is a very huge complaint -- was that it was a very short game; the plot was only half-finished and I was expecting so much more from it. I guess there might be something said for the whole "left you wanting more" argument but the way they did it was wholly disappointing. It smacked of expecting a sequel, honestly, and I (and many others, I'm sure) didn't appreciate that.

The gameplay was fantastic, however, with really solid controls and interesting enemies to deal with. Beyond the issues with the ending, I don't see what the hate is about.

[Cue people to explain what the hate is about.]