@razkazz said:
This is one of those things that is always going to irk me, I guess. There's a whole lot of Brink in Titanfall. The fundamental difference is that in Brink, kills were more a means of suppressing the enemy so objectives could be completed, rather than the primary objective themselves. It introduced the parkour aspect and story bookends to matches to the multiplayer shooter but doesn't get any credit, while Titanfall does it and gets praised as revolutionary. I'm sure it brings it together in a nicer, more polished and accessible package, but Brink was a fine game. Unfortunately, people expected a lot more because Zenimax hyped it as having a full singleplayer campaign. It's really the spritual successor to the classic niche multiplayer Enemy Territory games and selling it as universally appealing new shooter for the masses is what lead to the enormous backlash. It's a fine, even great, game for what it was intended to be, just not what was promised. It's just unfortunate that it won't be remembered that way and Titanfall will take the glory for its innovations, as well as its own. History totally is written by the victors. It's how Gears Of War invented the cover shooter.
Yeah, in many respects I think Brink did the multiplayer campaign much more interestingly - the objectives and you performing them were better tied to the story, and I certainly got more invested in the story that was playing out there than I've been so far in Titanfall. That said, I think Titanfall does succeed in making the parkour feel right, whereas it was pretty hit and miss in Brink, and the gunplay is a lot better.
I'd also like to mention Battlefield 2 in here, as lots of people don't even seem to realize it had a multiplayer campaign (something I imagine may have been Kaos Studios' idea, since they seemed to try to do similar things in Frontlines and Homefront, whereas DICE ditched it in the sequels). It didn't shove it down your throat though - the story was told primarily in text during the loading screens, the map progression changed depending on who won, I'd maybe compare it to the screen progression in Nidhogg - both teams started in the middle east maps, and depending on which side was winning, the game would progress towards the US or China mainland, culminating in a Conquest Assault battle (a battle where one side starts out owning all the flags, and the other side have to capture them, instead of the regular mode where both teams start with one flag each and have the capture neutral flags across the map).
Sadly, most servers ended up just running one map 24/7 or using set playlists, rather than running the campaign.
Log in to comment