Support NeoGAF

[Spades]

There are plenty of great games that have an 87 metacritic, but putting stock into a metacritic's score without reading any reviews is pretty dumb. Multiple reviews have mentioned performance problems, even someone like Arthur Gies. You can be willfully ignorant because you want to be, but performance with the circumstances for this game in mind, is damning.

Who said anything about not reading reviews?

If you go in and read the thread about frame rate dips, you'd think you were reading about a 1/10 game. Having played the beta, like many on here, that's clearly not the case.

The real ignorance is people claiming that they no longer want Titanfall because of it.

 

[Goodacre0081]

man where are the 360 reviews? that will be the one me and my friends on XBL will be looking at. are these publications going to do another review for that version?

 

[shandy706]

Great scores and game.

As expected.

 

[purpletentacle]

Lol.. what the hell is The Globe and Mail (Toronto)? Giving the game a 70 out of 100? Lol.. metacritic letting any website up there these days? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...-but-it-left-us-wanting-more/article17392517/

The reviewer is playing a game it seems he has no idea the point of. He's complaining he can't play it by himself or no SP. Ya.. it's MP only for a reason. Crazy review.

Great review, addresses many of the issues I've had with the title ( mainly selling half a game's worth of content for 60 bucks). But also acknowledges it's a good game despite of this. I think this is what you call not drinking the Kool-Aid.

 

[Spottiettiedop]

The back and forth about reviews is entertaining. I'm curious, has GAF ever issued official review grades for games? Like 3 or 5 people review the game and post their feelings on the game?

 

[Bsigg12]

Who said anything about not reading reviews?

If you go in and read the thread about frame rate dips, you'd think you were reading about a 1/10 game. Having played the beta, like many on here, that's clearly not the case.

The real ignorance is people claiming that they no longer want Titanfall because of it.

They never wanted it to begin with, they just wanted something to complain about.

 

[Crackity Jones]

Probably the only review that was out of the hype loop and reviewed it for what it was.

This makes me think it is actually written by someone who doesn't have much of a clue.

And let’s remember, there is a non-zero chance of server failure: Early purchasers of the game should be aware that EA has on several occasions experienced server issues with new titles at launch (SimCity and Battlefield 4 come to mind). I reviewed Titanfall through a downloadable Xbox One code provided by Electronic Arts. Servers for the game were not up and running until late Saturday evening, with intermittent connection problems occurring on Sunday.

The total lack of single-player capability is at odds with most other FPS games. If the likes of Call of Duty or Halo can provide both single- and multiplayer modes for the same price tag, it doesn’t seem right that Titanfall can’t. While Respawn and EA are cutting down on the price of development by foregoing single-player, those savings aren’t being passed on to gamers, which is the concerning part of the game. At the very least, including an offline AI bot mode would seem to be a no-brainer, but it’s not here for whatever reason.

MS are doing the servers, not EA.

And why should a game that has always been marketed as 'online only' be marked down due to it lacking single player?!?

Did WoW get marked down because of that, or any other MMORPG?

 

[puffyshirt]

man where are the 360 reviews? that will be the one me and my friends on XBL will be looking at. are these publications going to do another review for that version?

360 isnt out out till the 25th. And absolutely no one has heard anything about it (or is allowed to say).

 

[iJudged]

PC - Metacritic -not live
Xbox One - Metacritic - 88

Standby for reviewfall.
OXM 8.5/10
OXM UK 9/10
Venturebeat 82/100
Polygon 9/10
EGM 10/10
Gamespot 9/10
Giantbomb's Not review No score yet
Rev3 5/5
Edge No score yet
IGN Norway 8.1/10
Videogamer 8/10
Gamereactor 9/10
Gamersglobal 8.5
Gamesradar 4/5
Joystiq 4.5/5
Gameinformer No score yet
Gameblog 4/5
Metro GameCentral 9/10
Gametrailers 9.3/10
Ausgamers 8.7/10
PC Gamer No score yet
Vandal Online 9.2/10
Machinima 9/10
Jeux Video 17/20

Wow, impressive.

 

[Kyzon]

man where are the 360 reviews? that will be the one me and my friends on XBL will be looking at. are these publications going to do another review for that version?

It's probably gonna be closer to launch when they review that.

(The 360 Difference)

 

[jayu26]

No. Why would I. I already knew the game wasn't launching in South Africa :/

You should click it...

 

[Dragon]

Who said anything about not reading reviews?

If you go in and read the thread about frame rate dips, you'd think you were reading about a 1/10 game. Having played the beta, like many on here, that's clearly not the case.

The real ignorance is people claiming that they no longer want Titanfall because of it.

I've been reading the thread. They're making fun of the game for having framerate issues with its graphical prowess, or lack thereof. What exactly is wrong about that?

I've made the mistake before of just being concerned about overall review scores. They're meaningless for informed consumers. Fun is a subjective quality, framerate is not. It can be measured tangibly and as such negating it the way you have indicates to me that you really aren't into looking at this game the way other people are.

 

[Sandy Nipples]

South African Titanfall Review.

Solid (MINUS) -10/10

http://g3ar.co.za/review/review-titanfall/

Gotta add this minus ten to the OP. Good show.

 

[Glass Shark]

The back and forth about reviews is entertaining. I'm curious, has GAF ever issued official review grades for games? Like 3 or 5 people review the game and post their feelings on the game?

This would be kind of a mess to organize and not all that useful in the end. For example, I think Dark Souls is stupid and poorly designed and plenty of people on here think it's the best game ever made. I don't think those opinions benefit anyone any more than reading a professional critic's review, and not just looking at the score.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Lol.. what the hell is The Globe and Mail (Toronto)? Giving the game a 70 out of 100? Lol.. metacritic letting any website up there these days? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...-but-it-left-us-wanting-more/article17392517/

The reviewer is playing a game it seems he has no idea the point of. He's complaining he can't play it by himself or no SP. Ya.. it's MP only for a reason. Crazy review.

I knew this thread would deliver once that review showed up.
Please tell me more how someone's subjective review is wrong or why some outlets should be disregarded because you don't know them personally.

 

[ultron87]

For the Giant Bomb review you can put "a 4-star game unless the online is completely jacked".

 

[system11]

Those scores all seem ... wrong. It's like it's getting a free pass for the very real frame rate problems despite one of the core selling points being 60fps.

Well, unless these scores apply jointly to PC/One.

 

[Vizzeh]

SHooters in the west kind of remind of me JRPG's in the east. I have to take reviews with a grain of salt but after playing the beta I don't necessarily think it's a 9 but you can't discount the fun factor. That being said, I will judge it more when I play the full game.

Yeah that's a fair point, I guess it can be only rated in full merit against what its trying to achieve. Based on a multiplayer only game its rated with that in mind, it must do really well at it/plenty of fun factor

- If it is a fantastic multiplayer game and it deserves a 9, thats great, my curiousity leads me to ponder is it fair to put it in the same category as games that require 5 x more assets/acting/story/Game engine tech etc, if its to be rated against with them it needs to be judged against them.

Would COD be rated a 9 if it had no SP content? judging by its popularity and atleast the MW 1+2 Would have got 8 or 9s. a SP rating + MP rating going forward would add more clarity.

Just my opinion - (again well done Respawn, they got the rewards they set out to achieve)

 

[Einbroch]

South African Titanfall Review.

Solid (MINUS) -10/10

http://g3ar.co.za/review/review-titanfall/

Best review. :lol

 

[Forgottonone]

The game isn't even launching in South Africa.

Region free brah

 

[FiggyCal]

You should click it...

Okay.

Oh look, it's not a review.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

Genuinely curious how the press will treat it.

They've been ball washing this game since it was announced. I don't expect that to change.

 

[Donos]

This would be kind of a mess to organize and not all that useful in the end. For example, I think Dark Souls is stupid and poorly designed and plenty of people on here think it's the best game ever made. I don't think those opinions benefit anyone any more than reading a professional critic's review, and not just looking at the score.

Better take shelter. Or ask Bish where the nice bunker's are.

 

[Zyae]

Those scores all seem ... wrong. It's like it's getting a free pass for the very real frame rate problems despite one of the core selling points being 60fps.

Well, unless these scores apply jointly to PC/One.

Or maybe the game is just really fun and worth it regardless of some fps drops?

 

[farisr]

Lol.. what the hell is The Globe and Mail (Toronto)? Giving the game a 70 out of 100? Lol.. metacritic letting any website up there these days? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...-but-it-left-us-wanting-more/article17392517/

The reviewer is playing a game it seems he has no idea the point of. He's complaining he can't play it by himself or no SP. Ya.. it's MP only for a reason. Crazy review.

He knows what the point of it was. To him, that point is not worth the $60 and hence, as a $60 the game is worth 7/10. If the game was priced lower, it may have been rated higher. People have different methods of scoring, which is essentially why metacritic is flawed imo.

One outlet giving a 7/10 could mean that the game is above average according to their rating system, while another outlet's 7/10 the game could mean the game is average or below average to them.

 

[exostar]

wow their some amazing scores. Congrats respawn.

Really surprised their all so high for a multiplayer only game. To put them in the same category as some top story based games makes me wonder should Multiplayer have its own rating system. Games with multiplayer + SP rated separately.

I guess the multiplayer must be worth its full price in $£

The way I look at things is that games are games. Some people will complain about "$60 for MP only?!?!" or whatever, but in my world, I'll play a GREAT online game as much as or probably moreso than a single-player one.

I love both single-player and multi-player games. I believe that games should be reviewed for the content they deliver, not what modes are or are not there.

In terms of Titanfall, I can see why a new company wouldn't want to spend a bunch of money and time to develop a single player mode when a lot of folks go straight to the multi-player and never look back. Multiplayer is the draw. It's what will make this game huge, not the single player. Using Call of Duty as the example -- How many people here have skipped the single player and stuck strictly to the multi? I'd imagine a lot - myself included.

Nobody goes around saying "Yeah man, I can't wait for the new CoD game because the single player will be amazing."

/endrant

EDIT: redundancy

 

[jayu26]

Okay.

Oh look, it's not a review.

What's with this jaded attitude man... Have a little laugh.

 

[polyh3dron]

Lol.. what the hell is The Globe and Mail (Toronto)? Giving the game a 70 out of 100? Lol.. metacritic letting any website up there these days? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...-but-it-left-us-wanting-more/article17392517/

The reviewer is playing a game it seems he has no idea the point of. He's complaining he can't play it by himself or no SP. Ya.. it's MP only for a reason. Crazy review.

Many game review sites had similar gripes with the multiplayer-only Warhawk for the PS3. I wonder why those very sites no longer have that view.

 

[Glass Shark]

Better take shelter. Or ask Bish where the nice bunker's are.

I'm a big boy, I can handle someone disagreeing with me.

 

[ComputerMKII]

Innovation and risk-taking pay. Congratulations Respawn, you deserved it.

 

[fi1ip]

After playing beta I expected this kind of great scores.

The game is really good.

 

[Doran902]

Or maybe the game is just really fun and worth it regardless of some fps drops?

Yep, and most people care a lot less about fps (assuming game is playable) than the vocal minority on the internet.

 

[rain elbows]

Or maybe the game is just really fun and worth it regardless of some fps drops?

10/10 - One point for each frame displayed

 

[chickdigger802]

off topic, but I don't get why people post 'well deserved' in review threads. Unless you personally know employees there or work there yourself.... just seems weird.

 

[lem0n]

PC - Metacritic -not live
Xbox One - Metacritic - 88

Standby for reviewfall.
OXM 8.5/10
OXM UK 9/10
Venturebeat 82/100
Polygon 9/10
EGM 10/10
Gamespot 9/10
Giantbomb's Not review No score yet
Rev3 5/5
Edge No score yet
IGN Norway 8.1/10
Videogamer 8/10
Gamereactor 9/10
Gamersglobal 8.5
Gamesradar 4/5
Joystiq 4.5/5
Gameinformer No score yet
Gameblog 4/5
Metro GameCentral 9/10
Gametrailers 9.3/10
Ausgamers 8.7/10
PC Gamer No score yet
Vandal Online 9.2/10
Machinima 9/10
Jeux Video 17/20

88 Meta, calling it now

Woot!

 

[Garrett 2U]

The way I look at things is that games are games. Some people will complain about "$60 for MP only?!?!" or whatever, but in my world, I'll play a GREAT online game as much as or probably moreso than a single-player one.

I love both single-player and multi-player games. I believe that games should be reviewed for the content they deliver, not what modes are or are not there.

In terms of Titanfall, I can see why a new company wouldn't want to spend a bunch of money and time to develop a single player mode when a lot of folks go straight to the multi-player and never look back. Multiplayer is the draw. It's what will make this game huge, not the single player. Using Call of Duty as the example -- How many people here have skipped the single player and stuck strictly to the multi? I'd imagine a lot - myself included.

Nobody goes around saying "Yeah man, I can't wait for the new CoD game because the single player will be amazing."

/endrant

EDIT: redundancy

Besides that last part, I completely agree.
Some people do look forward to the COD campaigns

 

[MHWilliams]

The way I look at things is that games are games. Some people will complain about "$60 for MP only?!?!" or whatever, but in my world, I'll play a GREAT online game as much as or probably moreso than a single-player one.

Yeah, as I said in my review, I think $40 would be easier to swallow for multiplayer-only, but I still had (am having) a ton of fun with it.

Those scores all seem ... wrong. It's like it's getting a free pass for the very real frame rate problems despite one of the core selling points being 60fps.

Well, unless these scores apply jointly to PC/One.

I found that the game seemed to hover around 50-60, except when a number of Titans get into it. Then the framerate begins to drop. I had a big stutter in one pretty big Titan battle.

Also had a disconnect in the middle of the campaign.

But, hey... still had fun with the game.

 

[Phire Phox]

Awesome reviews! Even more hyped for tomorrow.

 

[Bsigg12]

Those scores all seem ... wrong. It's like it's getting a free pass for the very real frame rate problems despite one of the core selling points being 60fps.

Well, unless these scores apply jointly to PC/One.

Framerate problems I've seen maybe twice in the 15 hours I've played in the Xbox One versuon? Yep, they're all wrong.

 

[farisr]

Woot!

It's at 87 right now. LOL.

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

Woot!

You failed by one point though, as of right now.

 

[NathanMcMahon]

Gotta say, I was going to get an Xbox One tomorrow but the technical issues have me concerned. Didn't think I would fall into that category but I've changed my mind. PS4 it is.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Innovation and risk-taking pay. Congratulations Respawn, you deserved it.

The most hilarious post of the thread, right here.

 

[system11]

Or maybe the game is just really fun and worth it regardless of some fps drops?

Have fun with your control responsiveness at single digit frame rates.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Lol.. what the hell is The Globe and Mail (Toronto)? Giving the game a 70 out of 100? Lol.. metacritic letting any website up there these days? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/tech...-but-it-left-us-wanting-more/article17392517/

The reviewer is playing a game it seems he has no idea the point of. He's complaining he can't play it by himself or no SP. Ya.. it's MP only for a reason. Crazy review.

Why, because it's not in the 90s?

 

[Donos]

Aside from the tech issues, the two Campaigns are 2-hours long each and follow the same exact storyline, with no user-decisions affecting any outcomes or even the current scripting situations.

You could kill every single enemy on a mission map, and the story will continue as if you are in retreat due to heavy losses...

Well, that's a bit silly but then again it was stated very clearly from the beginning that it's a multiplayer title. Like Unreal Tournament or Quake 3 Arena.

 

[lem0n]

It's at 87 right now. LOL.

You failed by one point though, as of right now.

Shit. LOL

 

[makeitawkward]

I find it fascinating that people are completely OK with singleplayer only for $60, in fact, they praise it, and completely bash multiplayer only.

10-hour singleplayer only = OK
1000-hour multiplayer only = too expensive, should be $30.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Coolwhip]

Innovation and risk-taking pay. Congratulations Respawn, you deserved it.

Riding the CoD train is taking risk? What do you mean exactly?

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

Shit. LOL

Despair not, it can rise up again!