Kibbles
Member
And DLC is paid which absolutely blows my mind. My copy from Amazon will be here today though...This need more love:
Titanfall Review Thread
- Thread starter VisceralBowl
- Start date
When I said attractive, I meant a more attractive prospect for purchase, not a more aesthetically pleasing image.
Who's settling? In the blurb that you quoted, Baker explained we're shooting to eventually get to or beyond 900p:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...e-xbox-one-titanfalls-792p-resolution-likely/
Congrats on the release! Can't wait for mine to show up this morning.
Also, great to hear it straight.
RukusProvider
Banned
I give you major props for posting on here but really, your best focus would be around sharing information in the official threads vs catering to individuals who genuinely believe their fanaticsm makes a difference.
Forza 5 has a Metacritic 10 points lower than its predecessor. Ryze's Metacritic is a 60. If they're moneyhatting all the reviews, they're doing a pretty poor job.
I would have to say that if the media are completely in MS's pocket then they're not getting very good value for their money.
After TLOU (a Sony made, PS3 exclusive) swept the GOTY awards last year, after their lead Xbone game (the one that most people were anticipating 11/10s for because of their belief in the conspiracy) gets a sub-90 metascore, and after a major game publication can put out a cover informing you, months before launch, that PS4 'is your next console', I think MS should get their pets on the phone and reign them a bit, they're clearly getting rowdy. The sad thing is that if SS does well with reviewers (and every indication is that it will), that wont provide any 'evidence' that this monolithic MS-press illuminati is largely a figment of some peoples' imaginations, which is exactly how conspiracy theories work: ignore all counter-evidence and cherry pick the facts to fit the theory.
I agree that there's worrying things like Machinima. That's slimy as hell. But you can't move from a dodgy deal like that to 'MS owns the press they'll trash a Sony game as revenge'. That's pure tinfoil hat. And of course the whole thing depends on the idea that only EA and MS never advertise anything, ever, or that if other companies do, it doesn't have the same effect (Sony was one of Polygon's backers when the site started; this is usually ignored, too).
Yes there are fanboys who work for the gaming press, yes there are people who are, to put it kindly, 'mercenary', who work in the gaming press (remember Shane Bettenhausen?). Does the gaming press favour MS? I don't see it, personally, although they should have been far more critical of their original DRM policies etc.
I just went to IGN and a Second Son advert started playing on my browser. Yeah, I'm really sure they're gonna shred it.
I had tons in the beta, never thought to try this though.
breakfuss
Member
Good, good...just in time for the press (and Polygon) conspiracies. As an added bonus, we're now preemptively attributing Second Son's potential middling reception to said conspiracies? BWAHAHAHA. Step away from the Lawry's. Congrats to Respawn. The game may not be the most cutting edge graphically, but it's one of few that finally feels next gen to me. Can_I_Run_It says it would melt my laptop, and I ain't re-upping on Gold for my 360, but I do wish it a successful launch.
Fixed2BeBroken
Member
yup
UGH....fanboys are so stupid
DryvBy
Member
I'm curious to see if this actually pushed units though. I'm not seeing it happening. I'd think most of the people that wanted Titanfall on console probably already bought the console.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
It was this.
http://yourtitanisready.com/
Once again, GAF getting hyped for no reason.
http://yourtitanisready.com/
Once again, GAF getting hyped for no reason.
Holyyyyyy shitttttt! I'm getting a blood clot just reading this shit, lol.yup
Freeman
Banned
Is this the first time we have a big game going live with no reviews? (Titanfall PC)
Goes to show how much game reviewers respect big publishers instead of consumers.
That's what you get when you money-hat games. You are more likely to piss off your potential consumer than to convince them to buy your box.
Goes to show how much game reviewers respect big publishers instead of consumers.
yup
That's what you get when you money-hat games. You are more likely to piss off your potential consumer than to convince them to buy your box.
Alx
Member
Isn't it about a live action show in the Titanfall universe ? I think Polygon had an article about it.
Marauder Shields
Member
yup
Thank you based Sony fan boys. So good.
This need more love:
Amazing that some many reviewers don't seem to take 'value' into account when discussing the game. (Not saying TF doesn't justify the scores, I'm just not seeing many people discuss it.)
DangerousDave
Member
Reviewers don't usually think about the price of a game, when reviewing it. That's because they got usually the game for free.
& this is why Jeff Gerstmann's "review" is about as genuine as they come. No review score without playing in a launch environment, discussion about value, and pure honesty when it comes to the game's inspirations.
4 out of 5 stars seems right to me after 4-5 hours of campaign.
If they don't get PC review copies, there's not a lot they can do.
It might also have something to do with the fact that value is highly subjective.
I would think that a good portion of the COD players value the multiplayer part of the game much higher than the single player, for instance. I would also think that quite a few of those don't actually value the single player campaign at all - to the point where they won't even play it.
You could also argue that by far the biggest value comes from the multiplayer in any case, with most people getting tens if not hundreds of hours of gameplay out of it while they only get, what, 10 hours or so out of the single player?
Even if none of that were the case, the value of a game is still subjective either way and to keep arguing about it as if it was a clearly defined thing makes no sense and also seemingly has an element of grasping at straws to it, at least in some cases.
I would think that a good portion of the COD players value the multiplayer part of the game much higher than the single player, for instance. I would also think that quite a few of those don't actually value the single player campaign at all - to the point where they won't even play it.
You could also argue that by far the biggest value comes from the multiplayer in any case, with most people getting tens if not hundreds of hours of gameplay out of it while they only get, what, 10 hours or so out of the single player?
Even if none of that were the case, the value of a game is still subjective either way and to keep arguing about it as if it was a clearly defined thing makes no sense and also seemingly has an element of grasping at straws to it, at least in some cases.
Nydius
Member
I just wrote a 4300 character missive on the PC User Reviews at Metacritic. I'll just copy paste my TLDR at the end for here. More detail can be found there.
TL;DR/Recap: It's fun for all skill levels but, yes, a touch mindless as these games often are. It exists somewhere between CoD and Battlefield with some hints of the old Unreal Tournament in here which can all lead to jaw dropping moments of "holy crap did that just happen?!". Graphics will require tweaking to achieve stable framerates but don't be surprised if some maps still cause frame drops. Could have used a few more maps out of the box. Overall, I give it a solid 8.
I think 8.5 to 8.7 is about on par with the game as it stands. That's still a really good score, it's just that 9s and 10s have been way overused in the last few years.
Edit:
I haven't looked at the XBO reviews, but the user reviews for PC are killing me. There's one who gave it a zero simply because it's an EA title. Never played it, admits that he'll never touch it because it's EA, and gives it a zero. That's the kind of shit that irks me about metacritic. For every player who takes the time to write a review, there's a half dozen people who either create fake accounts to purposely shill for the game or people purposely smearing shit just for the express purpose of making the room brown.
TL;DR/Recap: It's fun for all skill levels but, yes, a touch mindless as these games often are. It exists somewhere between CoD and Battlefield with some hints of the old Unreal Tournament in here which can all lead to jaw dropping moments of "holy crap did that just happen?!". Graphics will require tweaking to achieve stable framerates but don't be surprised if some maps still cause frame drops. Could have used a few more maps out of the box. Overall, I give it a solid 8.
I think 8.5 to 8.7 is about on par with the game as it stands. That's still a really good score, it's just that 9s and 10s have been way overused in the last few years.
Edit:
yup
I haven't looked at the XBO reviews, but the user reviews for PC are killing me. There's one who gave it a zero simply because it's an EA title. Never played it, admits that he'll never touch it because it's EA, and gives it a zero. That's the kind of shit that irks me about metacritic. For every player who takes the time to write a review, there's a half dozen people who either create fake accounts to purposely shill for the game or people purposely smearing shit just for the express purpose of making the room brown.
just read the story campaign reviews. if you were interested in the pc version you probably got into the beta. checked out how the game played. and if you liked that. then that's all. Just read the reviews for campaign review and what not.
Glad the game is getting decent scores. Globe and mail raised a valid point. But it's a point made in a city where vidya gaems are getting really expensive. You won't see the point being made elsewhere. MP only game being charged such price, in my opinion, is ridiculous. I do hope it does not become a trend. But glad it's getting good scores. Liked the beta on PC. Not my thing. But I can see it being the next COD if properly executed and the franchise is not tarnished.
Some do. However, if a multiplayer game is strong enough, the lack of a single player campaign shouldn't factor in to the score.
I think about all the Battlefields, SOCOMs, etc. that I've played over the years. Either didn't touch or tried 15-20 mins of the campaign, yet I put over 1000 hours into some of those games.
I'd say I got my money's worth. On a multiplayer focused game, I don't want reviewers mucking up the score with single player garbage, unless it is a significant part of the package, eg Gears of War.
digoutyoursoul
Member
Think people who are buying the game should just play it and enjoy it. All this conspiracy talk won't make any difference whatsoever and what disappoints me is adults acting like kids in a playground.
Freeman
Banned
I didn't think of that. So they were not sent review copies then? MS really trying to hide that the 360 and PC version exist.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Where do you draw the line. There are games that came out in November that people are saying they can't play online anymore because of lag, should they scores be changed?
breakfuss
Member
I don't mean to call you out, @moo, but someone could say the exact same of Tearaway - an absurdly short game that we both championed. I don't recall reviewers docking it while it retailed at $39. And I'm glad they didn't. Value is totally subjective and, honestly, I enjoyed it more than most games with "500x" the content. Sometimes I just want games to do what they do well, without all the fat.
TheCanisDirus
Member
Exactly. Why does a FPS have to have a single player campaign? Why should it be expected in this day and age? On the other hand... why should some single player shooters etc. be expected to have multiplayer.
I believe the eSRAM is a limitation of the framebuffer footprint, of course, but that goes no way to explaining the performance at the current resolution.
The XBO has far more impressive software, I don't believe it's responsible at all.
Nobody is pissed off. Its just pathetic fanboy nonsense.
It depends. If EA want to charge $60 for Battlefield 6 months after launch, and the online is still broken, then it absolutely should be downgraded in score. Same with COD and any other big hitter that's going to be charging full whack at retail for a fairly long time.
The point about Titanfall is that, as other reviewers have shown, it's the simplest thing to put up a review saying what's great about the game, but hold off on scoring it until it's been proven the online infrastructure is up to scratch (and mentioning that this is what's happening in the review itself, I should add). That's significantly different to saying a game is great at launch and encouraging people to buy it, and then saying 4 to 6 weeks later "actually, we were wrong, it's a bit shit because x, y and z".
DryvBy
Member
Why are people complaining about the price tag? $60 for a MP only game isn't always bad. Honestly, BF2 is one of my favorite old shooters and it was MP only. Retailed at $50 originally.
The reason I don't want to spent $60 on it is because after playing the beta, I didn't feel I'd get $60 out of it. I've played this type of game before throughout my life. But that's just me. I'd say it's a good 7/10 for me (still average a "good score"). But if you haven't played games like this, it might absolutely be worth the $60.
People's wallets will judge if it's worth $60. Reviewers should only dock the game for being that price point if the game only has 3-4 modes and no replay value.
The reason I don't want to spent $60 on it is because after playing the beta, I didn't feel I'd get $60 out of it. I've played this type of game before throughout my life. But that's just me. I'd say it's a good 7/10 for me (still average a "good score"). But if you haven't played games like this, it might absolutely be worth the $60.
People's wallets will judge if it's worth $60. Reviewers should only dock the game for being that price point if the game only has 3-4 modes and no replay value.
disastermouse
Banned
Dark Souls 2 Metacritic: 91
Titanfall Xbox One MC: 87
I was certain that a niche game like DS2 would get creamed by a massive mainstream launch like Titanfall. Certainly it will sell more...but after all the hype, I thought Titanfall would get a lot more 10/10s or 5/5s.
Titanfall Xbox One MC: 87
I was certain that a niche game like DS2 would get creamed by a massive mainstream launch like Titanfall. Certainly it will sell more...but after all the hype, I thought Titanfall would get a lot more 10/10s or 5/5s.
digoutyoursoul
Member
Some sites haven't given TitanFall a final score/grade yet
Astro Monster
Banned
I don't get why Sony fans are upset. Surely they have a PC that can run it. It's not that demanding of a game.
In fact, Sony fans should be happy that the Xbone version is the shittiest version.
In fact, Sony fans should be happy that the Xbone version is the shittiest version.
Why would you own a PS4 if you have a PC you use to play games with?
njean777
Member
I had a feeling DS2 wouldn't be creamed, it is weird, but since the start of 2013 a lot of former haters of Dark Souls have jumped in and ended up loving the game after actually sitting down and getting a grasp of it instead of just hating it because they "didn't get it".
Exclusives, and maybe you have friends that only play on consoles...
Astro Monster
Banned
Exclusives?
digoutyoursoul
Member
Lol you must be taking the piss...right ?
yup.
and yup.
Nobody should be surprised that there is blowback from the hardcore shooter crowd who have chosen not to buy into the Microsoft ecosystem this time around. Rightly or wrongly, many feel that MS has paid money to prevent them from playing the game. It will be interesting to see how much damage it does to the long term health of the franchise.
EA management is shortsighted sometimes. But then again, they don't own the IP, so why would they care about its long term health?
there are always lots of angry people.
Similar threads
- Poll