Why are there No Destructible Environments in Titanfall?

Was Respawn sandbagging when they designed Titanfall? GamerzUnite looks at the choices made in Titanfall and why the lack of anything truly new could help the inevitable sequel be an even more successful title. Does the success of Titanfall mean that innovation isn't even necessary in AAA game development?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
mhunterjr1363d ago

I don't see how destructible environments would positively effect the meticulous balancing act they pulled between the pilots and titans. Instead, it would make the titans overpowered as they would be able to cut off any means for pilots to travel or hide.

kudos for Respawn for making decisions based on how the game is to be played , not for the sale of having a check on the box.

GSKerns1363d ago (Edited 1363d ago )

They claimed that non-destructible environments were for game balance... and at the same time hinted they aren't ruling it out for the sequel.

So why not keep the buildings indestructible but at least be able to blow up a tree or knock some leaves off? Why not be able to scan your face onto a character with your kinect? Why not be able to customize the look of your Titan?

If the game is so well balanced and gameplay focused... how come MLG and no other eSports outlet has added the game to their roster yet?

Pilots already have the ability to be entirely invisible to a Titan... I'm not buying it was so they could be able to hide.

mhunterjr1363d ago (Edited 1363d ago )

Well you could ask why any feature isn't in any game. Developers can always choose to try to squeeze in more, but at some point they have to draw the line and release the game. It's going to boil down to cost/benefit analysis. Would the time and money it takes to add X feature into a game be worth it in the long run? Would tree destruction and face capture be worth missing the release date? I doubt it.

Pilots can turn invisible IF you choose that tactical ability. Their are several othe abilities folks might want instead of invisibility. And the cloak only lasts log enough for you to get from the open to a place of cover. Besides, the pilots true weapon against the titans is the ability to attack from above. Take that away and there's no balance. What about the fact that the maps are intricately designed so that pilots can get to one end to the other in mere seconds? How would they do that if there were no walls and billboards to run on once the titans fall? How would the epilogue play out? What about the fact that the other perks like Stim and Radar would now be pointless because there are no walls to run on or hide behind? What about the fact that there is a clear intention is to have areas that only pilots can access?

Is your argument that the game is poorly balanced because MLG hasn't picked it up? If I had to guess, it's because of the fear that the grunts might sway the outcome of a match. Doesn't change the fact that the dynamic between the power of the titans and the finess of the pilots is expertly balanced.

GSKerns1363d ago

Sure on every game they could always do more... but Titanfall isn't every game. Not every game has a multi-million dollar console exclusivity deal. Not every game is the first Xbox One bundle at a very crucial time to get consoles in living rooms.

There are plenty of solutions to having an environment destroyed but keeping balance to a pilot. Add tactical abilities like a shield that only works against a titan, add an ability that creates a decoy character only visible to a titan.

Why build the game on the Source Engine that Half-Life 2 ran on 10 years ago? Not even Source Engine 2? They had the money and resources from EA... Frostbite 3 was available to them.

If gameplay and competitive play were a priority... why not the option to turn off spectres and grunts? It's not just MLG, not a single eSports outlet has added the game... not one.

URNightmare1363d ago

I would say it is something to do with the old engine as no COD has destructible environments either. And the attempt on destructed maps in Ghosts is very very poor and mediocre.

I truly believe it's the engine.

Bennibop1363d ago

I think titanfall was all about minimal financial risk as it was an unknown entity. Hence why they used a 10 year old engine. Maybe now it's proven titanfall 2 will introduce some of these features.

malokevi1363d ago

Why is the sky blue? Why do turkeys sing? Why anything?

Small team, first outing, new hardware, old engine. Dont wrack your brain over it too hard. I would be willing to bet you can smash some concrete in Titanfall 2.

For everything Titanfall doesn't do, there's a million more things that it does do. Enjoy your videogames, and stare longingly at the horizon.

Menech1363d ago

You realise Titanfall was built on the Source engine right? Something that doesn't actually do destructible environments well.

It isn't running Frostbite like Battlefield 4, although that is a good thing. Source engine has always offered better & tighter feeling gun combat. It keeps Titanfall from feeling like all the other generic shooters out there, because gameplay is actually good.

Graphics aren't bad either, I play on 2560x1440 which is almost double the resolution of 1080p & it looks excellent.

Mikeyy1363d ago (Edited 1363d ago )

I don't get how you can say the shooting mechanics are bad in battlefield.

Dice at least tries. You have bullet physics and recoil. All cod and titanfall have is hitscan laser guns.

Yes the old gen 30 fps versions feel sluggish but the next gen battlefield plays awesome at 60ish fps.

Menech1363d ago (Edited 1363d ago )


I don't care how realistic the shooting mechanics in Battlefield 4 are, I don't play video games for realism. The aiming aspects of Battlefield 4 are simply sluggish compared to Titanfall.

The game is also pretty much a flop commercially, it sold far less than Battlefield 3 & felt just like it with a new coat of paint & more bugs.

PS, I play on PC around 80 FPS with my current rig. I still think the Battlefield 4 shooting mechanics are poor, last Battlefield that felt right was Battlefield 2.

mhunterjr1363d ago (Edited 1363d ago )

Sure there are ways balance the game if there were destructible environments, but would that result in a better game? The formula they have now works very well, and tons of people enjoy it. Why come up with a completely different formula just for the sake of being able to say you can blow up walls. Their task was to come up with a gameplay loop, and then implement features that compliment it. Not to implement features, and then try to build a game around it. Parkour and elevation are central parts of the way the game was designed to be played. So why would they implement a feature that would ruin those central aspects.

Why use a modified source engine? Because they determined that they could customize the engine to suite their needs. The frostbite engine is known for its visuals and destructible environments. But not for low latency input. Again, they chose the engine that suited their needs.

Gameplay was a priority, and the general consensus is that they have delivered on that front. It's fun. The game is also competitive, better players always win, but it's clear that accessibility was their main focus. They designed this game for consumers to purchase, not for it to become an esport. Their goal was to create a game that casuals and hardcore consumers would enjoy, one that would lay the foundation of a franchise . They've clearly succeed in that, despite the lack of destructible environments and e-sport backing. They have their priorities in order , that other stuff can come later.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1363d ago
cyguration1363d ago

Really? So now we're praising companies for last-gen graphics, last-gen (or rather, two-decade old) player counts, and now we're praising them for NOT including destructible environments when just about every new open-world indie game coming out on PC has destructible environments?

Dear word, wtf did you pay for then? You've effectively supported moving BACKWARDS in the gaming industry.

IcicleTrepan1363d ago

As it is, the game is fun. I enjoy it. I don't need for them to tick all of the boxes in some bureaucratic spreadsheet for me to suddenly say, OK now I am officially allowed to have fun with this game.

Irishguy951363d ago

Yeah, Killzone SF was great, BF4 was not broken, Cod ghosts was not a repeat. Lets all Rip on Titanfall for being the first FPS in a long time that feels different. Because hey, gimmicks aren't in it.

Baka-akaB1363d ago (Edited 1363d ago )

it's not necessarily a praise . But i dont see many game that are as fast paced shooter with a bit of acrobatics lately . Outside of a few pc games , and i missed that .

They can definitively improve , but there is more a need for this , than for yet another clone pushing the Cod or BF pseudo realistic , or "full-on" realistic envelop . I'd leave that to other . Especially when Cod got so much to catch up with in thoe areas .

Gohadouken1363d ago

Really ? that's funny i could swear i've seen a lot of you guys rejoice when a game choose not to include multiplayer , probably at the expense of the Sp . A sentiment i agree with . It's up to the vision of the creators and what they can fullfill .

Why should we pretend here they HAVE to include every new tech influence and gameplay feature for Titan Fall , yet cherry pick for example like MP missing ?

Ducky1363d ago

I hear CounterStrike is the most popular FPS game on PC because of its breath-taking visuals, large 64 player battles, and completely destructible environments.

I wouldn't know, I haven't played CS.
Personally, I refuse to buy any game with less than 1000 players in it because Planetside 1 could do it in 2003. I also demand fully destructible environments like Red Faction 2.
Come on people, the industry has to move forwards.

mhunterjr1363d ago

Destructive environments don't equal more fun... Moving forward doesn't mean just making games prettier... It means finding new ways to capture audiences.,. Titanfall is technically impressive in ways other than visuals.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1363d ago
firelogic1363d ago

Because Battlefield games are unbalanced right?

Gohadouken1363d ago

Because Battlefield's balance fits with battlefield . Doesnt mean it will with every frickin' fps out there .

3-4-51363d ago

I don't know anybody who plays Battlefield 4, who actually plays it FOR the destructive environments.

They play it for the Gameplay.

firelogic1362d ago

The point he made was having titans crashing through buildings unbalances the game. BF has destrucible environs with large vehicles and the balance is just fine.

The ACTUAL reason TF doesn't have it is because their engine is so freaking old, it can't do it.

cyclindk1363d ago

Performance, enough said.

They could have at least had mini-set pieces, crate, fence, light weight stuff breakable...

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1362d ago
Christopher1363d ago (Edited 1363d ago )

They said a long time ago that there isn't any so that mechs can't overpower pilots outside of mechs by just destroying walls and hitting the unprotected people without much issue.

It also ruins the design of parkour and wall jumping environments if you can just destroy them.

GSKerns1363d ago

So that excuses them from making any effort to add in next-gen elements to the game? They can't still leave a building frame that a pilot can still run on even after a wall has been destroyed?

What does Titanfall do that currently isn't possible on last gen tech? I guess we'll find out when the 360 version comes out next month and it's identical gameplay-wise.

Christopher1363d ago

I'm explaining why they said it wasn't in there.

And, just because it's "next gen" doesn't mean it needs to have environments that can be destroyed. That sort of thing is a game design decision, not a current generation requirement.

Fireseed1363d ago

Answer me this, what exactly does Killzone do that isn't possible on previous gen systems in terms of gameplay?

ShowGun9011363d ago

people are just pointing out something "next gen" thats missing, just like how people pointed out that infamous SS didn't have dynamic lighting. THAT would add so little to the game, imo, that i really don't care its not there. but blowing chunks off of a building with my titan WOULD be awesome, and i think its not in the game for 2 reasons, source engine being old, and the inclusion of a 360 port that couldnt handle it. they could have made it purely asthetic, not affecting gameplay at all.

its not just infamous and titanfall, look how much people were complaining about watchdogs' graphical "downgrade", heck, it still looks great! or Ground Zeroes being completely awesome, but too short. people are gonna want everything for every game. forever.

_FantasmA_1363d ago

Cause it wasn't cloudy outside. The forecast for the rest of the year: Sunny with no chance of clouds or rain.

Baka-akaB1363d ago (Edited 1363d ago )

Wait a min , this a fast paced game where you climb , jump , scale upon building WITH the occasional Mech actions .... but you guys want them to included background destructions ? And you wonder how it could f*ck up the game's balance and fun ?

Either its pretty but pointless destruction on the side that dont impact the game , then it's useless .. or it's actually effective and ruins it potentially .

Adds in some people's wishes for gigantic map BF and mag style , and 32 vs 32 or 64 vs 64 actions ... and i'll wish your game never exists ... at least not within titan fall . just ask Dice for a sequel to BF 2142 .

Summons751363d ago

Easy, Call of Duty creators are LAZY. They've taken shortcuts left and right to make this game as simple and stupid as you can possibly get. It would have been funny to blow the wall out from someone when they were running on it, it would have been a nice balance and gotten rid of repetitively dry gameplay.

Not saying its required for every game but when the difference between this and call of duty is some robots and wall running that everyone complained about in Brink, it would help to do everything to make it different.

Dudebro901363d ago

Someone clearly hasn't played titanfall.

Summons751363d ago

or you haven't...

Go read some player feedback and you will see how mediocre this game is. It's not bad, it's average, the hype for this game is over hyped. Only people who are happy with it are people who are new to gaming or are unable to practice and become good at a game.

Sorry the truth hurts you but facts are facts. It's an perfect 10 for the candy crush casual players but for real gamers the game is very poorly designed and lost potential.

MelvinTheGreat1363d ago


How is you're opinion of a game you clearly havent played a fact? If you had even played 1 match you would know that this game is perfectly balanced. People who say they want more PVP and drop the AI have no idea what they are talking about. Respawn has created the an almost perfect formula. Just add more content and features and you have one of the greatest fps series of all time

Show all comments (50)
The story is too old to be commented.