Talk:Titanfall (video game)/Archive 1

PS4
There's talk the game is gonna come out on PS4 also. Totally not true? -- T V i p p y  19:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a one-year console exclusivity deal with Microsoft. After that, who knows. --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * EA secured exclusivity for "the life of the title", now sourced in the article. It's possible for future titles, though. czar  ♔  15:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Makers
I think it's fine to remove this from the lede, especially since it's a vestige of when the page was much less detailed, but I think it's worth adding the dev team's association with Call of Duty/Infinity Ward because it's mentioned incessantly in the RS and ostensibly a big influence. I suggest putting it near "Respawn's debut game" but I'm not sure how to phrase it. Thoughts? ? czar  ♔  15:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Czar, sorry for my late reply. The way it currently looks seems great to me, in the dev section. --Soetermans. T / C 10:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Kuchera quote
Imported from email thread:
 * Remember to check whether the source is deemed reliable by the video games community at WP:VG/RS. (For example, a forum like NeoGAF and sites like N4G are not considered reliable.) czar  ♔  04:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Source Engine?
In the citation link for the Engine field in the info box, the developer in the interview states: "Drew McCoy: At this point I hate to say that it's the Source Engine."

and then:

"Drew McCoy: Yeah, I mean we've replaced... it's a whole new renderer, all-new audio code, all-new net code, all-new input code for gamepad. There's some stuff that we've just improved but we've done massive changes. We have our own level editor, we have our own lighting, the way that maps are compiled..."

So is it still Source? Or should it be "Titanfall Engine" Or "Source Based"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.149.210.164 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. The infobox used to say customized or modified Source (or something like that) but it was removed as unnecessary (I personally don't care). The cited source and the source used with the prose Source mention both check out. We prefer secondary analysis from reliable sources over the developer's feelings, and certainly over our own neologism. We will call it Source until the sources start saying otherwise. (Aside: WP cares more about verifiability than truth. This idea is best described in this article, particularly ¶11.) czar  ♔  05:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Does it have couch coop?
86.46.68.12 posted this comment on 15 February 2014 (view all feedback).

"Does it have couch coop?"

Couch coop could ostensibly be splitscreen or local coop, but I clarified based on the former since an online multiplayer-only game would not have the latter. czar ♔  03:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

PS3/PS4 categories
Per BRD, bringing this edit here. The editor added Category:Cancelled PlayStation 3 games and Category:Cancelled PlayStation 4 games on the basis of this article, which appears to be a reliable source (even though it's not listed in WP:VG/RS) that says a NeoGAF user found "references to the PS4 and PS3 in [Titanfall] files, meaning that Respawn may have been developing Titanfall for PS4 and PS3 before Microsoft managed to secure Titanfall as an Xbox One and Xbox 360 console exclusive." Operative word is "may". There is no substantive evidence that this game ever was produced for PS3/PS4 and even still, the game was never announced for PS3/PS4, so it's impossible for it to be canceled. Let's keep this encyclopedic and not aggregate rumors, please. czar ♔  22:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Its March 11, 2014 and the wiki page still shows that the title is "upcoming"
Someone please remove the lock on edit or update the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.57.129.119 (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated czar  ♔  12:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014
Remove the clarification tag on the word ponderous please. Replace ponderous with lumbering or hulking if anyone is actually confused, but having the tag there is just silly. If anyone really doesn't know what ponderous means, they can look it up, and if someone really doesn't understand how the word pertains to the ogre after looking it up, they can watch the trailers for each Titan class. It is an appropriate adjective.

76.28.113.145 (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed and done. Also removed the "rewrite section" tag since it is unclear what needs to be rewritten. czar  ♔  22:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reviews
I think that the current look at the review section should be updated. Metacritic is an aggregated review website, in reality the game has received critical acclaim with about 24 review sites giving it a 9 and 2 review sites giving it a 10/10 or 5/5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.145.146 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2014‎ (UTC)
 * I'll be updating the reviews section and fixing the recent edits most likely over the weekend. As for Metacritic, we rely on reliable sources for their opinion over our original research for exactly this reason: we can debate over whether the game has critical acclaim, but this RS definitive says the reviews were "generally favorable" in this case (rated 87 with 36 reviews). Metacritic considers "universal acclaim" above 89. czar  ♔  22:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

edit protected
First sentence of the second graph in the wiki has the phrase "war-town planet" which probably should be "war-torn planet"

logan chancellor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganchancellor (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Done, though the lede needs to be reverted to a version that's actually sourced within the article anyway czar  ♔  21:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sequel
The source makes it clear that this is not a rumor. Do you have some further substantiation for your revert and comment? czar ♔  21:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I completely forgot to reply to this so apologies for that. The problem is that you've effectively sourced from a site which is publicising a rumour. Unless there is an official announcement from EA that there is: a)that there is a sequel and b)that it will be a Microsoft and pc exclusive, the information shouldn't be added to this page. Kindest regards and apologies again, Mythical Curse (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC).
 * If it's published by a reliable source and explicitly says that it was fact-checked, there is no reason to classify it as a rumor (especially when naming the reporting site). As for PR announcements, we trust the secondary sources before all else, helpful as an explicit announcement may be. czar ♔  20:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Czar, I agree that secondary, reliable sources are often preferred and usually deemed more reliable than primary sources. However, in situations like this, we typically discourage early reports that are not being publicly commented on by the primary sources involved. If you search the net right now, you will see multiple reliable sources reporting this as "Rumor", most notably from Metro and Joystiq. Since it's not universally accepted yet, I wouldn't recommend including it in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Those sites both mention the credibility of the two reporting sources and I still think an attributed mention is worthwhile, for completeness. Anyway, I'll leave this be unless consensus changes. If you find the page that lists the "discourage early reports" precedent, I'd like to see it. czar ♔  23:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there's not a particular "page" or "rule" that will settle the debate. I was speaking from personal observation in a few past discussions, so feel free to disregard that comment. I should also mention that I'm not entirely opposed to including the statement. I'm just leaning in the other direction at the moment, mainly because its presence doesn't seem to add significant value, and its absence doesn't really seem to damage it either. After all, it's primarily about Titanfall and not the unconfirmed sequel. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
Is the Reception section neutral? It only seems to praise the game without mentioning some reviewers' negative views about the game. Why didn't all of the reviewers give Titanfall 100%? There are some gamers who have complained about some of the features of the game, such as networking connections inhibiting the campaign, or the "smart pistol". 99.187.224.122 (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources in order to justify inclusion. If there are numerable reliable sources remarking of these claims, then we can add them. Ging287 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was only able to find statements about the campaign: Gamesradar noted, "Though wholly inoffensive, the multiplayer-online campaign is basically a one and a half hour playlist of multiplayer matches sandwiched between 20-second audio clips..." and, "win or lose, the story still moves forward, making your battles feel meaningless, and you feel like an NPC in someone else's story." (http://www.gamesradar.com/titanfall-review/) Trustedreviews.com stated that the campaign is "effectively little more than a pair of ready-made playlists" (http://www.trustedreviews.com/titanfall_Games_review) and IGN stated, "Trying to stay alive in a brawl with human-controlled bad guys is too distracting, and without controllable lulls in the fighting, most of the story is reduced to background noise." (http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/10/titanfall-review-2). The "smart pistol" issue has passed since it was "nerfed". Overall, however, most reviewers praised Titanfall. 99.187.224.122 (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There wasn't really a Reception section before, but I finally got around to writing one. I think you'll find it balanced to your liking, but let me know if you think there's something lacking czar ♔  01:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Lede
Re: "restoring some recent modifications to lead that were reverted without explanation, discuss on talk page if needed": the modifications in question were modifications to the original lede that were reverted per bold, revert, discuss. I disagreed with them then and I disagree with them now, so it's time to discuss. Here are my main objections to the edit: I highly recommend restoring the previous version with the most recent updates: 605927638, or at least I'd like to know what is wrong with it. czar ♔  16:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The important aspect of the game's pedigree is not Infinity Ward, but Call of Duty. The founders of Respawn are important for the article, but the main mention for the concise lead is that the CoD team was imported, not just the Infinity Ward founders. Unless the RS talk about Vince specifically, it's always mentioned as the team behind CoD.
 * I don't see the importance of mentioning that the release was in North America first, or for Xbox One/PC first (though see Xbox One comment below). Maybe it would matter if the game went multiplatform over a prolonged period. It would suffice to say the release date and move on.
 * The gameplay should be mentioned before the development, otherwise a reader doesn't even know what's being discussed.
 * There is undue coverage of the development process—how the idea was formed (covered by the "second suit" mention, which is the core reference), that Respawn did not have Titanfall or even a FPS in mind at the beginning of development. Just listing the game's supposed inspirations isn't enough.
 * The Reception gave heavy consideration to the game's relation to launching the Xbox One—to not cover this is undue weight.
 * The Reception sources gave heavy consideration to the exceptional amount of publicity ("hype") surrounding the game's pre-release and launch (marketing), many referring to it in their opening lines. It would be undue weight to not mention it.


 * I have no issues with your good intentions to revert some of the changes I made a while back, but doing so without at least a specific explanation in the edit summary goes against the very policy you cited. That is the main reason for the recent revert. It's also worth noting that I retained some of the changes that were made – it wasn't a blanket revert. Now that I've looked over your concerns in detail, you may be surprised that I agree with some of the points you've raised:
 * Respawn founders – I took another look at that line and would be fine with changing it back. When I modified it a couple weeks ago, it was in a lot worse shape. I understand the desire to keep Infinity Ward's name out of it, as well as specifying "team" instead of "two".
 * Release date – I'm indifferent regarding how the date is introduced. Perhaps going with a similar format used in other articles would be a good compromise. I should point out this was a change by Y2kcrazyjoker4.
 * GP before Dev – It doesn't sound confusing to me, considering the fact that discussing a game's development before getting into its gameplay makes sense chronologically. However, seeing that the Gameplay section typically comes first in these articles, I wouldn't be opposed if you really feel the need to reverse it.
 * Undue – In this brief summary about development, these are very general statements. It is simply stating when development began and what inspired it. To focus on how a specific part of the game came to be, should really be left up to the detailed section in the body. I'm just not seeing how this is undue in any way, considering none of the ideas are being specifically addressed in the proposed revision of the lead.
 * Reception – Perhaps when reviewing the diff, it appeared that the "reception" part was being wiped out, but look again. It is still there. As for the amount of publicity, I simply changed that from "abundant" to "a great deal", a minor change. The entire statement was removed in the aforementioned edit from Y2kcrazyjoker4, not me. I would tend to agree it should be put back in.
 * I don't recommend going straight back to the way it was before, but it seems we share many of the same concerns. Reaching a compromise shouldn't be that difficult at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Two consecutive sentences saying that the game was, respectively, "highly anticipated" and then received "abundant publicity", are redundant. It would be much less repetitive (and demonstrates tighter prose) to make this point in one sentence. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, at first glance I thought it was removed as Czar mentioned, but now that I see you merged into the previous sentence, I don't think it will be an issue. As for the sentence that reads, "It was first released for Windows and Xbox One in North America on March 11, 2014", is it necessary to specify "first released"? Also specifying the platforms here seems a little redundant to the previous line, although I understand you are making the point that Xbox 360 wasn't included on that release date. Perhaps that clarification isn't necessary for the lead. I'm thinking we could probably just merge, "It was released on March 11, 2014", into another sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we don't need that level of detail - I know a lot of articles suffer from "release date" creep (x version in region A on date 1, y version in region B on date 2, etc) where all major release dates get represented. I thought it best to mention on what console and where the game was first available on the initial launch date, and then try to leave it at that in a way that others won't be tempted to add more and more dates. Maybe I didn't accomplish that 100%? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions)
 * Thought about it a little more, and I think it sounds fine the way it is. If anything, perhaps "in North America" can be removed. As I said before, I'm indifferent regarding this piece. I'll leave that up to you and anyone else that wants to chime in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Drafts
Here's my draft taking the above into account. Feedback? Objections? czar ♔  20:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "online multiplayer" needs to be before "first-person shooter" - the closest thing to the words "video game" should be the genre. Also, it think putting the release date in the 2nd sentence instead of the 3rd reads much more naturally. Ending the opening paragraph by mentioning how highly anticipated it was seems to be a better way to conclude the thought. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 03:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that first suggestion makes the most sense if "online" is removed (which it should anyway since System Link multiplayer isn't necessarily online). Made the other changes. Should it be "multiplayer-only" or just "multiplayer"? And is "for its pedigree" redundant? czar ♔  04:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * While you have addressed some of the concerns in the first paragraph, you have reverted everything else in the lead to its previous form ignoring proposed changes. I wouldn't exactly consider that a compromise. Here is a better blend of the two:


 * There are several reasons why I feel this version is more concise and easier to read:
 * In the opening line, separate links shouldn't be to right next to each other per WP:SEAOFBLUE. That's a moot point, because when you have two adjectives describing a noun, you should separate them with a comma anyway.
 * "...debut title from the successful Call of Duty franchise's former development team" isn't accurate, as it implies that the entire team came over to Respawn. We can reword this further if needed, but the point that it's a subset of the former team needs to be retained.
 * Gameplay and Development can really be merged into one paragraph. I felt the phrase "second skin" was a little too confusing for the lead, and that generalizing the concept surrounding the human-sized suit's evolution made it easier to read and understand.
 * The last line about the Xbox One's "killer app" seemed out of place and not something that would be easily understood by the non-technical reader without elaborating further (should be left to the body of the article instead).
 * I'm open to further improvements, so please share your feedback. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I had outlined why I didn't add the changes that I believe you're calling ignored. The game is not set on a single planet as far as the sources are concerned, so multiple colonies is a more apt way to put it. It isn't necessary to separate adjacent adjectives with commas and the linked MoS page example doesn't apply here (it's perfectly fine to have two links next to each other)—this said, I'm fine with the comma (for clarity). The "scale, verticality, and story" is important for the development because it outlines Respawn's key objectives (not just for the game but for the genre) concisely. Rephrased the killer app part to the important information. Other points accommodated. Proposed:

czar ♔  03:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty acceptable at this point. I would have preferred the "65-person project" line to mention what forms of media the examples came from – there will be plenty of readers who haven't heard of all 4 – but I suppose it's not absolutely necessary in the lead. I definitely like the proposed change of the last line, but just as a minor suggestion, I would remove the comma or add "they" before "did not agree" to make it a compound sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * One last minor suggestion I left out... "first-person shooter multiplayer genre" could use a little less complexity. Why not drop "first-person shooter" altogether? I think doing so wouldn't retract from the comparison being made. Either that or perhaps change it to "multiplayer aspect of the first-person shooter genre". --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All right—here we go czar ♔  05:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Exclusively" and "multiplayer-only"
Two questions about the opening sentence: Should it be "multiplayer-only" or just "multiplayer"? And is "exclusively" worth keeping? I thought multiplayer-only was odd for the first sentence and not really in-keeping with precedent, though we could do it anyway. And exclusively was due to the whole "for the life of the title" conversation where there was interest in seeing a PS4 version only for EA to say that it's never happening with this title. I think that situation is different from just releasing on a few platforms and saying nothing about its future exclusivity. Thoughts? czar ♔  13:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "multiplayer-only" is arguably necessary. Definitely not standard, but I don't know. Thought of the first multiplayer-only game I know of, which was Warhawk (a good article) and it just says multiplayer. I think it's optional, but I'm leaning towards just multiplayer. I'm also getting rid of the comma after multiplayer, it isn't necessary. As for exclusively, I agree that the PlayStation 4 potential release should be included, but I don't think it's notable enough to be in the lead. It's not like this was a huge thing in relation to the whole topic. I'm thinking it should be removed, as it's clear the game was only released to the consoles listed.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in the camp that doesn't think "multiplayer-only" is needed. It's already implied. If a game has both single-player and multiplayer options, you wouldn't be going out of your way to mention multiplayer in the first place.
 * As for the comma, I wouldn't say it's unnecessary, but it is optional. It depends on how you interpret "first-person shooter video game". To some, first-person shooter is a cumulative adjective that pairs with video game to form a new unit. Then multiplayer modifies that unit. No comma is needed in that case. However, if you're in the camp that thinks first-person shooter is a coordinate adjective, meaning it doesn't pair with video game but modifies it, then it makes sense to use a comma. Two or more coordinate adjectives are usually separated by commas, and a good test is inserting the conjunction "and" in place of the comma (e.g., Titanfall is a 2014 multiplayer and first-person shooter video game). If it makes sense to do so, then the comma should remain. After looking at this more closely, I'm not sure it really matters either way. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , what about "exclusively"? czar ♔  01:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with your recent revert. I believe it is important to mention that it was exclusively released for these platforms, as that point has been addressed in quite a few sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Plot
Ok, the game has been out for half a year now and we don't have a plot section. I know it is a multiplayer game, but it still has a plot for the campaign portion. Between voice overs and transmissions during the game, there is definitely a plot. Should we add a plot section to the page?Rprince418 (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP requires that the article's coverage be weighted according to its coverage. There was nearly zero coverage of any major plot arc in any major Titanfall review. Its current cursory coverage in the article should be satisfactory. czar ♔   17:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Czar, and whatever plot that's there is moreover a setup for the faction-warring gameplay than a scripted, sequential narrative, such that it can be summed up quite nicely within the gameplay section without wandering into triviality. CR 4 ZE  (t &bull; c) 12:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

10m
, always better to discuss on the talk page than to revert back and forth. The 10m figure means nothing right not and should not be added until a secondary source can explain what it means. That a source has been unable to do so shows that the figure is not trustworthy. Please revert your change. czar 14:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a gamespot article that discusses it, is that sufficient? If not, I will go ahead and remove it. Osh33m (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Last I checked, the GameSpot article reported that they were celebrating "10m" and that no one knew whether it was players or copies. It's essentially non-info unless someone clarifies. czar  16:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah, but that much has been specified in the sales section. there is some sort of 10 million milestone involved with titanfall, so it should be noted even if it is unclear. Osh33m (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be news if Respawn announced actual sales figures, but notice that his has no other secondary source coverage precisely because it is a non-announcement. There's nothing to note. czar  02:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * IGN is taking it as sales figures, which should be good enough.Osh33m (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Usually, yes, go with the sources, but the sources are inconclusive so we should hold off. Otherwise we're still presenting non-information: "IGN reported that Titanfall sold ten million copies as of October 2015, but other sources wrote that they could not conclude whether the Vince Zampella source tweet meant ten million units sold or unique players." Either way, IGN's not saying that they have any info apart from the tweet... which would be a pretty bad journalistic lapse on their part if they didn't.  czar  19:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright. Osh33m (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Respawn Entertainment team photo at E3 2013.JPG