zorlaczerohero
Banned
I don't know yet. Because...
....it's still unpacking 34917.21MB of Audio files.
What the hell happened to an installer with options.
Titanfall Review Thread
- Thread starter VisceralBowl
- Start date
What the hell happened to an installer with options.
GT is owned by Sony? I have no idea about GTA but as Nightengale explained I don't think FF was money hatted. Considering the PS2's install base it made sense that most Japanese devs and devs in general didn't bother with doing multiplatform releases.
Specialmias
Member
I don't know yet. Because...
....it's still unpacking 34917.21MB of Audio files.
What the hell happened to an installer with options.
That process has corrupted four times for me....
Last night I redownloaded the game 6 times and today 2 times because origin can't get the files without breaking.
I can't even imagine what it would be like if I didn't have a fiber connection without a bandwith cap.
Freeman
Banned
The fact that your are wrong, paints a clear picture of what is obvious here.
Seems like my understanding of what constitutes money hatting is different, so I'l just let it go, this isn't the topic for this discussion.
Vestal
Junior Member
yup Square did not receive a cent from Sony people not one fucking cent. Funny how as soon as the 360 and PS3 came out something happened and boom no more FF exclusivity. How curious. Why didn't that happen when the Dreamcast or gamecube came out. I wonder hmmm.
While we are at it, I have a bridge to sell you.
Because unlike the xb1, you can't get as many of Sonys exclusives on a PC? Not sure how that's missed. Its one of the big reasons to buying a PlayStation over an Xbox.
I agree that Metacritic user reviews are generally useless. However you implying scores of 10/10 are just as likely to be baseless fanboy reactions as scores of 0/10 sounds a little ridiculous to me.
I don't find the idea that someone who's played Titanfall (or any other reasonably well received game) for a while, could come to the conclusion that it is in fact better than essentially all of its competition, and so deserving of a 10/10 score. If EDGE were to decide to score this game a 10, I don't believe that would raise too many eyebrows, as they would probably be able to point to aspects of the game that led to their score choice. Now if EDGE on the other hand were to score this a 0/10, essentially claiming it to be worse than practically every game released in this genre in recent memory, then yea, I'd expect them to have a much more difficult time justifying how they arrived at that conclusion.
Personally, I'm not sure what I would score Titanfall yet based on the time I've played (almost certainly not a 10 though), however it is the first FPS game in years that I've picked up day one primarily for the multiplayer component. The last time that happened was UT2004 a decade ago... If I were to decide that I liked Titanfall enough to rate it a 10 (which is a score I'd give to both UT2004 and Quake 3 Arena) am I as likely to be full of shit as another player that chooses to score it 0/10? I sure as hell don't think so.
DryvBy
Member
Freeman
Banned
Sorry, weren't those games released everywhere?GTA 3, GTA Vice City
Vestal
Junior Member
The funny thing about this however, is that is precisely why my X1 is getting a ton of play, whilst my PS4 has been sitting packed away since I moved into my new flat. Obviously I expect this to change over time, but right now the PC is making the PS4 almost worthless.
Freeman
Banned
Certainly more honorable than going behind the developers back, that own the IP and were counting on it being on other platforms. When you put EA and MS together you cant expect an honorable thing to come out.
DryvBy
Member
I think people forget why BF4 getting amazing reviews was such a big mistake. Server issues were an issue but the biggest issue was how unstable Brokenfield was originally. There were times I couldn't even get into the menu without crashing. So how this slipped by reviews just made it feel like a paid-for-advertisement for BF4 from me.
I can deal with the game now. Most everything is fixed (still bad netcode). But that game never deserved another above a 1/10 originally. It didn't work.
Freeman
Banned
Can you be more clear please? I don't speak "?!?!?!?!?"
Why would Japanese game developers in the PS2 era need money from Sony to make games on that particular platform? Im not talking about GTA or GT(WTH do you mean with this lol), I am talking about FF from a Japanese developer whose home region embraced a console made by a Japanese company, kinda like how USA went head-over-heels for the 360. You make it sound like Sony had to pay SE to release the game on their platform, which is absolutely insane considering how they dominated Japan AND the world.
As for the loss of exclusivity? Well done to MS for getting that coup but it is also when the franchise started going downhill. At the end of the day FF will still be synonymous with the PS and the multiplat era for SE will always stand out as when they lost their way.
Nightengale
Member
Since I brought the matter up, I did put it in ??? that I don't know if FF is a money-hat. Maybe it wasn't, maybe it was. However, we do know that games like Yakuza and Tales on PS3 aren't results of moneyhats, they're simply the result of devs/publishers making platform choices due to fanbase. So, firstly, there's a precedent of games being exclusive not because of money changing hands.
Secondly, if we subscribe to the notion that Sony paid Square $$$, why hasn't it remained exclusive?
As for why it came to the 360? Why things changed last-gen? How about the simple fact that PS3 was not able to replicate the monstrous success of the PS2, while 360 was establishing itself as the preferred console in the western markets?
Again, maybe Sony paid a lot of money to Square. I don't know, because I don't have their account books. But things were definitely different back in those days. RE4 was almost a GameCube exclusive not because of Nintendo moneyhat, but because the main developer hated developing for Playstation...
That mentality wouldn't fly today, and RE4 eventually made it to PS2, but the fact that RE4 exclusive to GC almost materialising is a real thing.
GTA3 : Platforms released: PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox, PlayStation 3 (PSN), OS X, iOS, Android
GTA:VC : Platforms released : PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox, OS X, Android, iOS, PlayStation 3 (PSN)
GTA : San Andreas : Platforms released : PlayStation 2, Windows, Xbox, Mac OS X, Xbox 360 (XBLM), PlayStation 3 (PSN), iOS, Android, Amazon Kindle, Windows Phone
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
FF wasn't a money hat, FF was due to Nintendo being dumb.
Anyway. Read there were some server issues last night when the game unlocked. Cleared up?
Anyway. Read there were some server issues last night when the game unlocked. Cleared up?
Nicktendo86
Member
What? They were released on the PS2, Xbox and PC. Came out on PS2 as a timed exclusive but was released on other platforms, what's 'the fuck' about that comment?
DerZuhälter
Member
Quick question:
Does any review mention the 360 version? Feels like I still haven't seen anything from that version although it releases only 2 weeks later.
Does any review mention the 360 version? Feels like I still haven't seen anything from that version although it releases only 2 weeks later.
DryvBy
Member
The question was "timed exclusives?". The answer was "GTA 3, Vice City". His reply was "?!?!?!?!?!" wtf?!".
BrokenIcarus
Member
You should maybe watch out a bit with what you're saying, Junior bans are forever.
I have no clue why we're discussing Third party exclusitivity from 15 yrs ago in a TF review thread,
but the comparisons to modern day 'moneyhats' are extremly stupid.
back then porting a game cost almost as much as making it from scratch, it's simply not comparable.
Anyway, I thought the scores would be much higher judging from all the media hype. 87 still seems good and is probably in line to what I think about the game.
blame space
Banned
what's this thread about
I don't understand how this became a discussion about Final Fantasy, but some people need to take off their tinfoil hats. FF dominant on the PS2 because it was a japanese console with the largest install base of any other console in history. Nothing came close that generation. The Dreamcast didn't get it because it failed and only sold 8 million units. The Gamecube only got Crystal Chronicles because it only had a small install base and it used a proprietary optical media that had 1/4 the storage of a normal disc. There was no moneyhatting going on, it was just the smart business decision to stick with Sony.
Likewise, Microsoft did not moneyhat Final Fantasy onto the Xbox 360. It's install base was roughly the same as PS3 and it was actually ahead by quite a bit when FF13 was released. It was fairly easy to develop for and had roughly the same power as the PS3. Again, it was the smart business decision. The 360/XB1 would be getting FF14 right now if it wasn't for their bullshit rules about cross compatibility. Overall, SquareEnix will do what is best for SquareEnix, and there are no crazy conspiracies that prove otherwise.
Edit: Just wanted to add a bit about Titanfall. I am not surprised by the reviews, but I have actually gotten less excited about this game since its reveal. It seems fun, but I don't think it is enough to draw me away from Battlefield for my epic-battle fix, or Halo for my arcade-battle fix.
Likewise, Microsoft did not moneyhat Final Fantasy onto the Xbox 360. It's install base was roughly the same as PS3 and it was actually ahead by quite a bit when FF13 was released. It was fairly easy to develop for and had roughly the same power as the PS3. Again, it was the smart business decision. The 360/XB1 would be getting FF14 right now if it wasn't for their bullshit rules about cross compatibility. Overall, SquareEnix will do what is best for SquareEnix, and there are no crazy conspiracies that prove otherwise.
Edit: Just wanted to add a bit about Titanfall
. I am not surprised by the reviews, but I have actually gotten less excited about this game since its reveal. It seems fun, but I don't think it is enough to draw me away from Battlefield for my epic-battle fix, or Halo for my arcade-battle fix.Giving TF a 10/10 is certainly more plausible than giving it a 1/10, but those Metacritic user scores of 10/10 however are just as stupid and silly as the 1/10s. They contain very little information, and are just as bias as the negative ones. They have basic grammar issues which makes them sound like 14 year olds wrote them.
Its just like the beta thing:
If you say you disliked the beta or offer any criticism, people try to jump you and immediately tell you "You are just playing the beta, you dont know how the real game is!". Which is funny enough, precisely what Dark Faze told me, in this very thread, its super predictable.
But when you say the game is great and offer it a verbal blow job, nobody jumps in to say "You are just playing the beta, lets not get hasty with proclaiming it the second coming".
Its just like reviews, ignore the 9s and 10s and focus on the 1-2 score that is 6 or 7. The super positive reviews are never dissected, word-by-word, but the negative ones sure as hell are.
Everything that has happened to Titanfall will also happen to Infamous. You will get your 10s and 9s, as well as 0s and 1s. You will get the same "push" by fans that the game is flawless and great.
Come few months later people will be far more critical of Titanfall (and Infamous and every other major release), because that always happens.
Wow. This game is currently sat at 5.4 user reviews on Metacritic. With 155 Negative to 174 positive.
How is there so much animosity towards this game? Is it because it really is so good that people see it as the future of FPS and think that with TF the X1 is going to seriously make ground on Sony in the console race?
Or is it genuinely bad and every reviewer, insider, and gaming personality, beta tester, alpha tester and anyone who has attended a show in the last 2 years who has given this game a positive impression is a liar/wrong?
Is this more Console Warz stuff?
How is there so much animosity towards this game? Is it because it really is so good that people see it as the future of FPS and think that with TF the X1 is going to seriously make ground on Sony in the console race?
Or is it genuinely bad and every reviewer, insider, and gaming personality, beta tester, alpha tester and anyone who has attended a show in the last 2 years who has given this game a positive impression is a liar/wrong?
Is this more Console Warz stuff?
yankeehater
Member
Honor, I think.
Vestal
Junior Member
You should maybe watch out a bit with what you're saying, Junior bans are forever.
I have no clue why we're discussing Third party exclusitivity from 15 yrs ago in a TF review thread,
but the comparisons to modern day 'moneyhats' are extremly stupid.
back then porting a game cost almost as much as making it from scratch, it's simply not comparable.
Anyway, I thought the scores would be much higher judging from all the media hype. 87 still seems good and is probably in line to what I think about the game.
I never thought it would cross 90 at the end of the day simply because no sp.
breakfuss
Member
My point is that they're both means to achieve the same end. I'm sure Microsoft could buy any company it wanted to as well (including Sony?), lol. I don't know what their reasons are, but considering the alarming rate at which Sony closes studios and the lemon that is now Rare, they probably don't think it's worth it. Continue thinking it's about some fictitious honor code, though.
constantstatic
Member
Sony is so evil they money hatted deep down and I won't be able to play it on my xbone 😆
Probably console wars stuff. Lots of the reviews seem to read as if the reviewer hasn't even played the game.
I am pleasantly surprised that some of the major media outlets are waiting to see how the game plays after being released to the public before assigning a score. That, in my eyes, is a large step for the gaming press for what is a major release.
I glad they have fought the urge to put a number on the review and drive traffic.
I glad they have fought the urge to put a number on the review and drive traffic.
It is console wars stuff. Something about good news for Microsoft just stirs people here and elsewhere into a frenzy.
constantstatic
Member
Yeah I like this trend as well. The servers held up well last night on xbone atleast. it took me a few minutes to connect but once I got in I finished one side of the campaign last night and had to force myself to sleep or I would still be playing.
This should be a requirement for every review. Sadly it is not.
Mistwalker
Member
I'm still absolutely stunned at the number of outlets throwing up 8s, 9s, and EGM's (ridiculous IMHO) 10...all without having a single idea how this game is actually going to perform live. Honestly, I think every score posted ahead of launch for an online-only title like this is largely worthless.
I suppose all those gaming sites would rather chase early clicks than learn lessons from debacles as recent as Battlefield 4's.
On the other hand, the very select few sites that actually are holding off their final judgements really stand out here. Major props to Giantbomb, and I love how Eurogamer posts the review text with a disclaimer that it reflects the controlled review environment, with a final score to be determined after retail launch.
If you ever wanted to know which sites value their credibility, or care more about giving consumers an educated perspective than early clicks, you'll rarely have so clear a picture.
I suppose all those gaming sites would rather chase early clicks than learn lessons from debacles as recent as Battlefield 4's.
On the other hand, the very select few sites that actually are holding off their final judgements really stand out here. Major props to Giantbomb, and I love how Eurogamer posts the review text with a disclaimer that it reflects the controlled review environment, with a final score to be determined after retail launch.
If you ever wanted to know which sites value their credibility, or care more about giving consumers an educated perspective than early clicks, you'll rarely have so clear a picture.
Its due to the console wars. Period.
A lot of user reviews are poorly written, and don't do a very good job of explaining why someone should, or shouldn't purchase a game. That's what user reviews tend to be, and is why most of these people aren't being paid to do so.
However despite the hyperbole used in some of them, I don't really see anything questionable in the examples you posted. Only the second one stood out as being a retaliation to other fanboy reviews. There's certainly nothing too far-fetched in someone having the opinion that this is the most progressive fps since Halo Combat Evolved, because really... I don't think we made it very far at all since then (and would say that the genre has generally regressed even). I get what you're saying about people jumping over you for your impressions of the beta, and agree that's a little sad. I haven't played through all of TLoU yet, but I haven't been too impressed with what I've played up until now (just reached Bill's Town). This is a view I would generally not bother to divulge here though, because I know precisely what sort of reaction I can expect to receive from this opinion, and it's unfortunate when that happens. However, this is mostly unrelated to the topic you were responding to, which were the abundance of 0 score user reviews on MC. Unless of course your impression of the beta was that it did indeed deserve a score of 0, and you'd like to explain why all these scores are justified on MC for those posting them. If that's the case, then I apologise and the floor is yours!
So to sum up... A short review lacking in useful information, that however does honestly state what the player actually thinks of the game, is not equivalent to a short review lacking in useful information, that assigns the lowest score possible for the game, due to it not being on their chosen console. Seeing the two as being similar is a little worrying imo.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
A big part this, and then another part is just the knee-jerk reaction to games media pushing it down our throats. Expect similar animosity/fatigue towards Destiny from the hardcore crowd closer to release.
Still trying to figure that out also
Broder Salsa
Banned
....it's still unpacking 34917.21MB of Audio files.
What the hell happened to an installer with options.
Did they really just throw all languages in there, uncompressed and called it a day? lol.
Senor Kami
Banned
Everything is 32-bit/192kHz 7.1 WAV files. The average match is 20 minutes so they decided that rather make a 4 minute song and then have the engine loop it 5 times, they'd make a 4 minute song, loop that 5 times and export it as a 32/192/7.1 file.
Game bloat at it's finest folks. Street Fighter is 18 gigs on PS3, 4 gigs everywhere else (apparently those cutscenes that are literally a still image being panned across the screen were rendered as like maximum bitrate movie files). When I noticed that I wonder if it was a fluke or if game bloat would become the norm. I now have that answer.
Similar threads
- Poll