Ken Masters
Banned
Review MP only games at review events and when consumers get their hands on the 9/10 game it's unplayable
Gaming journalism
Gaming journalism
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Titanfall Review Thread
- Thread starter VisceralBowl
- Start date
I'd score the game a solid 7. It's fun, but that's about all it's got. It's not a graphical marvel, the gameplay feels too much like CoD. And it's campaign is really lame. It's almost like they didn't know what to do with it.
I'm enjoying playing with friends, but I don't think I'll be playing in two months.
I'm enjoying playing with friends, but I don't think I'll be playing in two months.
Is it suddenly a bad game if it has some server issues at launch?
I hate it when that happens, only fun, what a joke.
rakkadakka
Member
Before any hyperbole about servers being down and the game unplayable.. they were down for a few hours.
86 is a great score, I bet they are ecstatic.
constantstatic
Member
The servers had been up already I don't think this game was reviewed at a launch event.
Anyways servers work fine for me on xbone north central server with 17 ms ping. Only issue I had was a 5 minute wait to connect on launch night. I'm level 35 or so now and played all day starting around noon eastern yesterday. I had a friend say live went down but everything worked great for me.
Sucks those things are missing as they're genre standard features at this point.
The game shows it's console centric development and the size/budget the team had to work with.
I think we'll get a lot of the functionality we want at some point and I think we will see something special when TF2 comes.
In the real world it is a good score. On the 8-10 scale reviewers used the last 8 years it's pretty average. It's certainly not the score I thought it would get , though I agree that it's probably an accurate score for TF.
Who knows , maybe reviewers are just going to give better scores this gen rather than throwing 9's and 10's about willy nilly.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Yea, since when did such a high average become "bad"? Its a great score.
gamechanger87
Member
As private matches are coming, I think we should expect to see some changes on the backend. Online only enables them to push a lot out through the patches.
User reviews on metacritic are worthless for big titles. You have guys out there who try to tank the score, and then others who overrate it to build the score back up.
Respawn should be happy, but based on the MS hype machine an 86 metacritic score cannot be considered great. 90 and above is always the goal for these mega hyped games. Personally, I hate the metacritic culture in gaming, but it is what it is.
Glass Shark
Banned
Really sad I can't plaster my Titan with a bacon texture. 4/10
Their goal was probably over 90 based on how many rewards they got at e3.
Most polarizing game in a decade.
Here is how to avoid this in the future. If it's an Xbox game, keep it exclusive. No PC. Why? Because if it's on PC as well, the message boards and will be fully shit up with "PC!" "GET IT ON PC" "MASTER RACE". This happens to every game that has this Xbox/PC release. I don't know why, maybe it's the Microsoft hate, (So play it on their other platform, the PC). Another way to avoid it, is to release it on every platform. Then no one group will feel the need to crow and snarl online. You'll still get the platform spec war, but it will be much more mild and it dies down once people start playing the game can counting frame rates and pixels.
I doubt it. I'm sure they would know full well, that they would take a small hit due to lack of content compared to competitors and because of performance issues.
I once believed that server / launch issues shouldn't be a part of it but after so many games have been released and haven't been fixed have still have server / connection / fps issues I flipped my opinion. Now I don't trust reviewers who go to controlled review events to play mp based games because they are getting the optimal Lan experience that most of the player base will never see.
It doesn't make it a bad game, it just means that sometimes the high review scores aren't indicative of the experience the consumer will have the day the game comes out. As this is an EA published game and EA has a terrible track record I can see consumer doubt playing a large part in peoples opinions beforehand.
I'm speaking in general terms about reviews that come out before the game is released. The only thing I have seen in Titanfall is some serious fps drops in overcrowded fights. Titanfall is a fantastic game.
lmao. And wow at peeps indicating an 86 average as disappointing. SMH....
Glass Shark
Banned
Well, in this case, the PC version is objectively better because you can mitigate the screen tearing and slowdown issues that plague the Xbox One version.
constantstatic
Member
What server issues are you referring to? I got the game at midnight release and have had zero issues playing on xbone. I got about 15 hours played now. I have had to wait to connect once on launch night for 5 to 10 mins and not a single issue since.
I don't know, I feel it is that way with Dark Souls 2 right now. If there happens to be a PC version of a game, there's always a group that is insistent on the PC version.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
So, did reviewers that held off scores add them yet? My brother and I had zero issues last night. Might have been the smoothest launch of a big title, ever.
LOL people would still call the PC version the best if it were on every platform, including the PS4, and they would be right. That's just how it is for FPS games.
EDIT: Actually, not just FPS games. Almost any game is better on PC.
And they would be right too, the PC version of Dark Souls 2 will be much better than the console version. I got the console version because I want to play the game right away, but I'm double-dipping.
I don't have this game on X1, but Is the tearing and slowdown that bad? I watched the Giant Bomb quick look, and it was horrible, but then watched friends playing on twitch last night and it was fine, with just a few glitches here and there.
TheCanisDirus
Member
Does anybody really care about review scores... especially if you enjoy the game yourself?
After playing he game for a fair few hours, I've come to the conclusion that Titan fall is plenty of fun, but I regret spending $60 on it. For a game with laziest campaign I've played in a while, textures that are far from impressive, and a very modest amount of content, I would happily have paid $40 for the game. But I'm having trouble justifying my $60 purchase, especially on PC where I haven't bought a $60 in ages.
Also why the hell does Origin charge sales tax? It's 13% where I live, and I've never paid sales tax on steam or PSN.
Also why the hell does Origin charge sales tax? It's 13% where I live, and I've never paid sales tax on steam or PSN.
Reviewing online multiplayer games at a controlled event isn't fair. But trashing them for temporary day one server issues isn't fair either.
So many places selling it below full price so you only have yourself to blame.
So you want to keep games away from PC, because of some "witty" remarks on the internet?
People tend to go for the definitively better version of things. I mean, the fact that the pc version is always superior isn't in dispute is it? Because it's not just opinion, it's indisputable.
Where do you live? Ontario?
I don't think that's up for debate. I just don't think the "Get the PC version!" crowd is exclusive to PC/Xbox games; I feel I see it with every game that has a PC version.
You missed on all those TF deals? Like 20% off? I agree at 60$ its not worth it but I don't remember the last time I bought a PC game for 60$.... I'll point you towards slick and cheapgamer (don't know if I'm allowed to link to those sites please let me know).
Glorified G
Member
So what is the definition of bloat? Having the option to play with your friends locally offline? The option to play with bots? A SP campaign? Are options and "fun" somehow mutually exclusive?
If you're going to charge $60 and a release a product with several missing features that has been in other titles than those resources should be directed somewhere. It's not in the production values, it's not in the content of maps (CoD has the same), they took away features like local multiplayer, splitscreen and offline bots away for no reason despite it being featured in other multiplayer only FPS like Unreal, Counterstrike, etc.
Titanfall for the most part is being treated with kid gloves with only a handful of publications even mentioning any of this
It's one of the least polarizing games I can think of. Seems like everyone agrees that it's good. The people who give low meta scores are not rating the game, they're just trying to make XB1 look bad.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Didn't Microsoft promise "Smart Match Making" apart of their live justification? I have seen this alot in reviews and it really just shows how much bull that is as well. Why aren't these 300k servers doing something?
I'll concede to it being my fault for not looking anywhere else, but I still believe that it shouldn't change my point about the game not having $60 worth of content, which is the standard price.
Yep.
Seems to be the case so far this gen. I also think multiplayer games get reviewed harsher than singleplayer in general anyway. I don't think there was a single multiplayer game with an average review score over 90 in the last year.
I think Respawn just wanted to make a fun little multiplayer title and everyone got swept up in their pedigree and their potential role in the console war.
86 is about right, the game is pretty solid although really bare for a $60 package.
EA has offices in Canada, while Valve doesn't, so that's probably why then.
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
Lol.. some awesome stuff. Now a game averaging an 86 is an "average" game. And someone said that the only thing the game has is that it's fun when you play.
Ha ha ha...
Ha ha ha...
What's up with all the defensiveness? The fact is, the review system is fucked up. So many AAA games are reviewed on a scale of 8 to 10, and with the crazy hype and all, I think most people were expecting a Metacritic score of like 95.
And with the guy who said it was "just fun", he probably meant that he doesn't think it's the multiplayer shooter revolution some people call it, or a coming of the christ or anything like that, just a fun online shooter. No need to jump on his throat, jesus christ.
Next gen is here in more ways than one it seems.
Jigolo
Member
almost every call of duty
Wii Sports?
Nah, I'm talking about the reasons why forum/comments are shit up so much about Titanfall. I was just talking about situations where this sort of toxic response is lessened.
Especially considering how lean on content and options this game is, with the same modes you've already played to death in other shooters, and many of the same weapons.
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
This post is dramatic. In no place was my post full of "defensiveness" and in no place did I "jump on his throat, jesus christ".
I had a good laugh of someone calling an 86 average and another person saying the game was just fun and that's about all. Those were amusing reads. Sorry that upset you. IMO, a 7/75 is an average scoring game.