A very good first instalment, but the best is yet to come.
An evolution of the core Call of Duty concepts rather than a revolution for multiplayer shooters as a whole, Titanfall feels, in a way, like a hyper-budgeted mod that will only truly see its aims realised in the inevitable sequel. This is not necessarily a negative: it's a tremendously enjoyable game, and one that both expands upon, and strips back, some of the excesses of its spiritual predecessor.
Whereas Call of Duty is bloated and wobbling towards death by gluttony, leaning on cheap gimmicks (Michael Myers?), Respawn – and Zampella – know what the real appeal is. 6v6 is a smart move, allowing for (stupid) bots to keep you killing while giving the titans room to manoeuvre. It's a game of trade-offs, discarding the vogue for Yet More Unlockable Bullshit and instead confronting players with obvious choices: strength or speed, light or fast, yet still asking them to adapt to change when the hardware is called in. Unlike killstreaks, everyone gets a titan, choosing from three available types: how you plan for that eventuality is all-important.
As is how you decide to tackle the environment. Titanfall may be almost identical to CoD in terms of gunplay: ADS, pull trigger until someone falls over. But by introducing proto-jetpacks and parkour – and intricate running routes that can be exploited – Titanfall is even faster and more strategic than Activision's shooter. It's a game that prizes player agency and clever planning, with your mech often being used as a proxy or guard dog, and it encourages natural teamwork, even in defeat with the excellent dropship extraction 'epilogue'.
But for all its strengths, its reliance on tried and true modes and rigid maps stops Titanfall achieving its full potential. Capture the Flag, Attrition, and Domination are the best gametypes, but none of them show the same invention that's occurring elsewhere in the title, leading to a feeling of natural fatigue. Some of the maps also feel too similar to each other, lacking in distinction, and campaign multiplayer is sadly non-dynamic. A very good first instalment then, but the best is yet to come.
Version Tested: Xbox One. Played for 9 hours.
8 / 10
- Fast and addictive.
- A nice evolution of the Call of Duty formula.
- Maps aren't distinct enough.
- Game modes showing their age.










User Comments
Sharonturn123
tvr77@ Neon-Soldier32
cashonsteroids
Karlius
My thought process was. If it's like Call of Duty because it has guns and you shoot people then yep no sh!t Sherlock. But there is a gulf between the two games as far as game play goes and it's just a lazy ass comparison. The same will be said about Destiny and Halo and ultimately it'll be a load of balls.
Then I followed on and my thoughts on that opening statement changed I had read between words and come up with my own conclusion. It wasn't the same lazy ass comparison that others had drawn. What's different is your review shows off your Bipolar by classing it COD like and then explaining the differences and as you say it is an evolution up until the point where the game types are drawn where they are all too familiar. (Hopefully we'll see more creative types in the future)
The result one of my favourite reviews of the last two years.
I need this game in my life but it'll have to wait until next week (Cash Flow). I've not had such a "One more (last)game" feeling for a game since Gears of War 2. It may not be perfect but boy is it fun.
Out of interest I'd like to know where you rank this in relation to BF4. Obviously I can work out you think it's better than the latest COD as you reviewed that.
altaranga@ tvr77
pblive
Endless
UrzuSix
shaine350
TenBensons@ johnbbeta
Neon-Soldier32@ tvr77
The 300 word count does work for some reviews - mobile, indie etc. But for this review it didn't. Too much time was spent waffling about how it isn't gimmicky, how it's not quite CoD. I mean, this is 2014, we know how a FPS works by now, so there's no need to waste the word count about going ADS in a 300 word - or any - review. Instead it could have elaborated a little more on the 'campaign' element, or how much teamwork matters etc.
For me the opening paragraph could be condensed down to, 'It feels like a mod that improves CoD's multiplayer.
Also, did VG base it's review on playtime on private servers as other websites did?
tvr77@ Neon-Soldier32
BritishWolf
MJTH
On an some-what related note, will VG get round to doing an revised review of the 360 version when it comes out later in the month? I'm interested in the differences.
pblive
How does it look, though? Isn't this supposed to be the first big third party post launch game? I want to know if it's been cleaned up since the beta at all and of it looks better than other current gen games. Also, Is net code stable? Does it work to make you play as a team? Hoping this promotes more team spirit than COD.