Nice, always wanted to try the first one but don't like consoles, now i can see what the fuss is about, releasing the optional info about video settings is like the devs saying "hey look pc gamers, we care about you now, we know you like upping the sliders and checkng boxes in the display settings and whatnot" .

Nice, always wanted to try the first one but don't like consoles, now i can see what the fuss is about, releasing the optional info about video settings is like the devs saying "hey look pc gamers, we care about you now, we know you like upping the sliders and checkng boxes in the display settings and whatnot" .

Yeah first one was a bit of a let down unfortunately. We also like dedicated player run servers, wait I don't see dedicated servers with server browser in the min specs? Shouldn't that be there? Guess they didn't listen to the community for the first game bummerrrrr oO

Nice, always wanted to try the first one but don't like consoles, now i can see what the fuss is about, releasing the optional info about video settings is like the devs saying "hey look pc gamers, we care about you now, we know you like upping the sliders and checkng boxes in the display settings and whatnot" .

Ummm..... :bang: The first game was also on PC. Not sure what you missed. there wasn't much fuss except the usual hype then the game faded into oblivion a few months after launch. It's fun for the first 10 hours maybe, but very repetitive

Yeah first one was a bit of a let down unfortunately. We also like dedicated player run servers, wait I don't see dedicated servers with server browser in the min specs? Shouldn't that be there? Guess they didn't listen to the community for the first game bummerrrrr oO

We? I don't, nor do a lot of gamers. Player servers end up being a cluster **** and excluding a large majority of players, or making it hard to join due to passwords or just making it plain uneven due to silly settings. Official servers are always the way to go for games like this IMO

Honestly I don't even like server browsers in general. I guess having the option is OK, but games that forego match making for a browser, or put match making into the back seat - meh.

Initial feedback doesn't look good. Scanner Barkly ripped it a new one, essentially saying it was just another CoD clone now. Nice paycheck for the devs though. That Ferrari looks cool 🙂 Nice to see they are 'sticking to their guns' and ignoring everything about the first game in favour of lining their pockets, lol.

Huh? MM is the worst thing to have happened to mp gaming.

I disagree. I get home and I have 3-4 friends I play with. I hope on, invite them, a minute and 30 seconds later we are all in a game, on the same team and the teams are evenly matched in terms of skill and group layout. Back in the CS and old Battlefield/MW days - it took twice that time just to find a server with enough open slots - then you had to spend time getting everyone on the same team only to have the next map just completely split the team apart again. In games like CS, where it's highly competitive, getting scrims and stuff was usually just one sided garbage. UT4 for example, I spent so much time arguing on Epic's forums during the early Alpha stages about how critical it is they spend time getting a working MM up. Brizz and all the other UT99 people stuck in 1999 game design land all argued for browsers. I can't tell you how many people I know that won't even play the free alpha because of how crappy the server browser is. Coupled that with the fact that the game is just a poorly designed in general and its like impossible to find people to play with. To be fair, newer browser systems kind of fix some of these issues, like newer Battlefield games keep your friends together on the same team/squad and stuff or offer a mix a both MM/Browser - other then balance issues in competitive games. Like CS:GO for example offers a great mix of both. But if the choice MM or Browser I'll take MM any day of the week. It's just so much easier to hop in, play a few games and get out without having to deal with any of the crap that comes with custom servers and the browser and stuff.

Browsers are a nice addition, but automated skill-based matchmaking is a must for any modern competitive multiplayer game.

Who would want to play a mp fps at 60hz lol

Huh? MM is the worst thing to have happened to mp gaming.

Agreed mm have never worked in any game fact.....

Wheres if you go load MW1 on pc, jump into a server of choice or make your own, you can be playing even in less the amount of time and completely on your terms. Also, go tell players of SWBF how awesome MM is. But hey, whatever does it for ya man. Long as you're having fun. But good luck getting through to the peps on UT forums.

Yeah but you never know what you're going to get with that. I played CS 1.6/Source at a fairly high level. Unless I spent a few hours in IRC setting up scrims with the limited number of people willing to do that, I was in a dedicated server with a 20:1 KDR. Which isn't really fun for me, nor is it for the other people playing. I think the issue is that there is a separation between the people willing to play games more casually and someone like me who plays them competitively. I'm the type of person that plays Overwatch on the lowest graphic settings, despite having a 1080, because I feel the added visual clutter negatively impacts my play. When I play games like Siege/SC2/Overwatch/Dota2/Rocket League/etc - I'm looking to play ranked matches where I'm paired with people generally on my skill level, against people generally on my skill level. I don't want to have a server browser where I have no clue what I'm getting into. In game like Battlefield though, where I care a lot less about ranks and stuff, I feel like a server browser is fine - especially like said with the newer ones, it keeps friends on the same squads and stuff. As for SWBF, that game was doomed regardless to what type of multiplayer interface it had. It's just a bad game. UT4 is honestly probably dead. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they end up just scrapping it or something. The game was hijacked early on by UT99 fans that just want UT99 with better graphics. Which is a cool idea in theory, until you realize that game design continued progressing after 2000. Deathmatch and CTF just get extremely boring when there is no added depth to the mechanics outside of being able to aim and basic positioning/pickup timers. In fact even the UT99 guys are starting to quit it with excuses about the netcode and whatnot. There is just nothing interesting about it at all.

Ummm..... :bang: The first game was also on PC. Not sure what you missed. there wasn't much fuss except the usual hype then the game faded into oblivion a few months after launch. It's fun for the first 10 hours maybe, but very repetitive

Oh my mistake then, i was so sure it was only on consoles for some reason that i completetly erased all interest for it and never bothered to do more research. Well i'll wait for reviews and won't rush to buy it then. Probably not much will change but we'll see.

Who would want to play a mp fps at 60hz lol

really ? i don't know ...

These system requirements look good, it prompted me to pre-order the game just now! I loved/love Titanfall 1, I've put a ridiculous amount of hours into it pretty much since launch day, and ranked at Diamond IV right now (although that does vary!) - I've found the more I've played it the more I've understood the strategies & complexities, the game became more interesting the more I played it. The movement is incredible with the free running parkour, which is so much fun to combine a fast wall run and then jump to fly at your enemy and kill them while ADS'ing as you fly through the air - there's a great freedom to the movement & experience. Then you get in your titan and it's like a second different game, where strategy is more important. Titanfall 1 is an excellent game, I hope Titanfall 2 is just as good. Anyway, the system requirements look good, I'm a bit faster than their min spec GPU, and I like the fact that they show an average of 71fps for their min spec machine at pretty reasonable graphics settings, so I'm confident it will run well on my laptop. I'm a bit concerned about minimum framerates though, I don't want minimums below 60 really (78Hz overclocked laptop screen so 78fps would be ideal), it might prompt me to build a desktop, or upgrade the GPU in my laptop if the rumoured AMD 480 for laptops will be coming out soon and if it turns out to be compatible.

Browsers are a nice addition, but automated skill-based matchmaking is a must for any modern competitive multiplayer game.

Yes! however i'm not sure we can call it a "competitive" shooter? Some of us just want to have fun. But if that works for casual players too then it sounds like a good idea.

Who would want to play a mp fps at 60hz lol

Say what? Most people still play @ 60hz/60fps. We don't all have 120/144hz monitors, in fact only a minority of people do. No need to be a hz snob just because you have a 144hz monitor!

Oh I can see what this is. "I contributed to the death of FPS on PC a long time ago" - the post. Lol! This is literally the first time I see a person who claims to have played older FPS "competitively" complain about having the FREEDOM of choice of private servers and server browsing and instead praise garbage like Dota2 and Overwatch and their matchmaking system which is literally at the whim and mercy of the GAME PUBLISHER. I also find it extremely unlikely if not downright impossible that anyone used to playing fast paced FPS with properly sized weapon models and at 120+ FOV could ever deal with the mediocrity of games like Overwatch. Oh, and I'm one of those "UT99 guys" btw. Competitive on UT99, Q3 and RTCW.

That's weird, so not only did you not read my post (where I say having the choice is fine) but because you don't like Overwatch, competitive FPS is dead?... Right. It's only got like 10M+ active players. CS:GO has people making 100K a year in contracts. But yeah, I contributed to the death of FPS on PC.. OK. Also, I'm not even sure what the rest of your post is trying to address? You say that the MM system is based on the whim and mercy of the game publisher? What does that even mean? Like they can take it down? My fav game of all time is Dark Reign 2 (RTS) and it had dedicated servers - yet the master server is down and I can't play it online anymore. So how the hell does MM change anything or effect that anyway?

Makes the two fo us, and those games wouldnt of been possible with MM. The other issue with MM, is if the game loses popularity and the player base drops, then dlcs become pointless and often unplayable as it segregates the playerbase. An example of this is SWBF, look at how people felt burned by the base game, didnt buy the dlc and those that did, cant find games and now cant even play the games season pass/dlc they paid for. I thoroughly enjoyed MW2s mp, i cant play that game anymore because its pure luck to actually find a game.

The SWBF problem isn't a MM problem, it's a DICE DLC problem. I'm not sure why you're combining the two.

As for dedicated/server browsers resulting in lower skilled players entering the match... they'll either drop out due to being outskilled, or they'll get better. They've every right to play the game as much as you. Besides, who doesnt enjoy a bit of cannon fodder between intense standoffs with the more skilled?

How is this working in a game like Dota 2 or League, where having one bad person completely ruins the match for the team hes on? It's not like he can leave, because that also ruins the match. And honestly if you're enjoying "cannon fodder" between intense standoffs then you aren't playing the game competitively anyway. The entire point of ranked MM is to simulate a tournament bracket/ridged system and have a comparison to everyone else who plays the game. Having cannon fodder bads being able to join just like completely ruins that. It's like me showing up at an NFL game and just joining it as a WR because the stadium was open. Again, CS:GO handles it perfectly. It has MM for people who are looking for a ridged system and a browser for people like you guys. But also again, if I had to chose between the two - I prefer MM.

Wait, you don't need the absolute best i5 Intel makes just to run the game?!?!?! WHOA! ;)

Just answering the Hz snob that 60 fps gaming is totally enjoyable by the vast majority of people

Snob ?? high Hz gaming has been common for years. 20 years ago it was a case of everybody had a high Hz CRT then the 60Hz lcd's started poping up nice colours but total SH1T if your a gamer ! then around 3 or 4 years ago ? 100Hz+ korean panels started poping up mine is almost 3 years old so how does that make me a snob, 100Hz+ verses 60Hz the difference is black & white I spent years putting up with 60Hz SH1T !!!! ffs.....

Just answering the Hz snob that 60 fps gaming is totally enjoyable by the vast majority of people

Make your mind up is he a hz snob or a fps snob?

Make your mind up is he a hz snob or a fps snob?

Lol when it comes to gaming I'm an fps whore always have been its the only way to play 😉 .