I know Half-Life wasn’t the first shooter to tell a story completely through the eyes of the player, but it stands out to me as the first very successful attempt. Since then, the FPS genre has been doing a balancing act of telling a compelling narrative without sacrificing gameplay. Some games have been more successful than others, but the formula is starting to get a little stale. What makes Titanfall’s campaign mode unique is that we’re giving players the production value of a finely crafted cinematic experience they’re used to from current-gen shooters, but within the framework of competitive multiplayer. We’ve designed the game in such a way that the narrative never obfuscates the goals or objectives, but only gives them more impetus.
We’re telling a story through a first person perspective in ways that are both traditional to single player campaigns and very new for multiplayer at least for first-person shooters. Without going into too much boring detail about client/server logistics, asynchronous scripting, and other buzzwords, I can tell you that from the end user experience it feels both familiar and groundbreaking at the same time.
Titanfall will most definitely have an ending. It’s not a story if it doesn’t have an ending, but there are multiple sides to that story. It’s told from both the Militia and IMC perspectives, and to fully grasp Titanfall’s campaign, you’ll need to play it from both sides. And as with any good story, we’ve hopefully peppered it with enough detail and nuance that you’ll notice something new every time you replay it.
I was severely disappointed too.
And it's all the software I'm used to from Windows, such as LibreOffice, VLC, Firefox, Chrome, Inkscape, Gimp, so there's no problems with relearning the apps or using the same files across any platform for me.
A comprehensive list of many other arguments, viewpoints, and information has been collected by Huib Schoots. Opponents of ISO 29119 have even started a petition aimed at suspending publication of the standard. Even so, this might be an losing battle. Gil Zilberfeld thinks that companies will take the path of least resistance and accept ISO 29119.
So, where do you stand? What constitutes a consensus? Can a standard be honored without consensus? Can an inherently sapient activity, such as testing, be standardized, at all? What is the real purpose of a standard? Will companies acquiesce and adopt the standard without question?