Titanfall Review Thread

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.

It's been a looooong time since Warhawk. The gaming landscape (specifically console landscape) has changed dramatically since then.
 
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 think it's a legitimate review for a $60 retail title. This isn't an DD-only game.
 
Innovation and risk-taking pay. Congratulations Respawn, you deserved it.

It's like the next era of FPS is among us. Quake then Goldeneye, back to quake engine with COD. Now we are seeing a new dawn of the creators using another engine, that made for me, a sense of freshness and positivity for the future of RESPAWN. More Dev's need to be under less publisher LAW they should make the LAW! .
 
Congrats to Respawn and EA. Very happy for them to see such great reviews across the board. The game looks like lots of fun, though it's just not my style of game.

Have to say that I did expect a little higher on Metcaritic - not that it really matters. I expected a Metcaritic in the low 90's. The reason for that really comes down to how much certain people in the press hyped the game. Some made it sound like an incredible game-changer. To me it sounds like an awesome game, but not quite at the level some were hyping it.
 
Have fun with your control responsiveness at single digit frame rates.

SALT-55555.jpg


Dat salt.
 
Genuinely curious how the press will treat it.

This game was never in any danger of getting less than an aggregate 85. Like other games before it that previewed and demoed well, what I'd really be interested in seeing is which outlets decide to shit on it simply for that contrast with other scores and reel in the clicks.
 
I was expecting higher....although this game is really interesting from a review perspective so anything higher might have been a faulty assumption on my part
 
I shudder to think what would situation be if the game processed AI for bots locally. They would have to reduce the graphics even more back... if such thing is even possible.

No. Because a calculator watch could easily perform the tasks of Titanfalls AI.

On topic, good score. Plan on picking this up later this year for PC. Gunna be good stuff.
 
Can't believe they didn't go for the obvious co-marketing of some ED drug.

"Tell her to prepare for titanfall"
This is the cheesiest thing I've read in ages.
I freaking love it. Just keep in mind that this stuff it berry-flavored and not just the normal product, since, you know, that always gets ladies in the mood and whatnot.
Spoiler to the youths reading: No it will not.
That's (seriously) a far better use of the license than just sticking it on some damn MtnDew bottles like Halo.

Semi-related; Less dubstep flying around regarding this game than I'd been expecting.

Seems quite a low Metacritic for something that was hyped up as much as it was.
I think there's a lot of caution this year regarding the big AAA stuff. Last year Bioshock Infinite--A totally fine game--Got 90+es across the board. But a month later it was shamed senselessly by The Last Of Us. Later, GTAV game and gobbled up an even higher average but led to general disappointment that after a weeks of playing shows to many the 10/10s were hardly deserved. Anyway, with hyper-hype stuff this year--This, Watch Dogs and Destiny namely--I think we'll see a lot of 9/10s and not 10s even if there's some consensus of incredible quality. No one wants another year of the thing that many sites gave the best reviews of not getting top honors. 85-90 for AAAs this year will be everyone playing it safe and few people wanting to take risks at 10 or 7.
 
There's air is a little salty in here. Wah wah no innovation. Anyone being a pedantic git can strip any game apart and point out a game that did it before. It's all about the sum of it's parts, and Titanfall adds up very nicely.

Hopefully the servers will hold up on launch day, not been this psyched for a game since...I can't even remember.
 
Really starting to feel like a ton of people at gaf don't even like video games (not just this tread but In general). Anyway the reviews sound great, had a ton of fun with the beta and can't wait until tomorrow.
 
Glad to see the reviews are so positive. I had a blast with the limited amount of time I had with the beta. I will definitely be picking this one up!!

Congrats, Respawn!
 
87 is a great average, I don't think you could be disappointed with glowing reviews like that. Anyone saying they 'need' over 90+ is speaking from vanity.
 
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

I do generally agree with you and can see why some people get more fun out of multiplayer than the SP game. The reason there is a comparison is because of the amount of Assets, textures, artwork, voice acting, mocap, programing, story scripts, directing, Next gen game engines that come into play with some games that definately are full value of $60.

Compare that against a fixed amount of player models/titans/random maps and a modified source engine all without the same quantity of resources + cost to make on some areas listed above.

Would be interesting to know Titanfalls budget vs GTA for example, both $60 games.

again will reiterate, its just food for thought, I do completely agree some people will see that this game is a full 60$ value to them and if you value it, its your perogative to pay for it, its just a discussion point as to why imo It should be slightly cheaper, around the $30-$45 range.
 
Seems quite a low Metacritic for something that was hyped up as much as it was.

Metacritic scores are much lower than they used to be and it's a multiplayer only title. There is still the stigma that a game is only half a game if it's multiplayer only. It doesn't seem to apply to singleplayer only games, though.
 
87 is a great average, I don't think you could be disappointed with glowing reviews like that. Anyone saying they 'need' over 90+ is speaking from vanity.

If the servers hold up fine after the first few days, the GIs and IGNs and PCGamers of the world will probably end up dropping some extremely high scores. It could still end up with a 90.
 
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.
I wonder if any of those reviewers still think the same, considering this game is more expensive and behind gold paywall unlike warhawk.
 
That has got to be the worst analogy I've seen in quite some time now.
This is a metaphor that doesn't even work on a superficial level, let alone beyond that.

Meh, I'm sure the case clearly states it's a online only title.
Fine, how about poorly reviewing a drama because you thought it was going to be a comedy. IDK.

My point is, it's just not a valid complaint if your a professional critic, IMO.
But of course, it's his opinion so I'm not going to try and discredit it for others, just it doesn't hold weight to me.
 
Sounds like a pretty good game.

The lack of modes is both surprising and disappointing, as is the half-assed campaign, but I kinda figured the latter would be a bit barebones. It's not like they were gonna create tons of new assets for a campaign.

Good job Respawn!
 
Metacritic scores are much lower than they used to be and it's a multiplayer only title. There is still the stigma that a game is only half a game if it's multiplayer only. It doesn't seem to apply to singleplayer only games, though.
Is this true? Genuinely curious. I look back at titles that managed 90+ and I don't even understand how it's done anymore. Unless you're a game that everyone's tossing themselves silly about (TLOU, GTAV, etc) I don't even see how it's possible.
 
Seems quite a low Metacritic for something that was hyped up as much as it was.
Multiplayer only games score very differently than sp games. Look at Dota 2 for example. It's got a score in the mid 80's yet there are people out there that will tell you it's the best game ever made.

MP is very subjective depending on the type of player you are and the people you play against.
 
Top Bottom