• 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

slash3584

Member
Are people seriously complaining that some are giving the game bad scores?

Opinions, how do they work?

This happens for every exclusive.

If the game has an average score of 8 and some reviewer gives it a 10, it's because the reviewer loves this kind of games and everybody has an opinion right?

But on the contrary, if said game gets a 7 from another reviewer then it's a click bait article, the site it's a piece of crap and the reviewer should be fired.

It seems the only bad reviews are the ones that scores a game lower than the avg, not higher.
 

Toxi

Banned
This happens for every exclusive.

If the game has an average score of 8 and some reviewer gives it a 10, it's because the reviewer loves this kind of games and everybody has an opinion right?

But on the contrary, if said game gets a 7 from another reviewer then it's a click bait article, the site it's a piece of crap and the reviewer should be fired.
Or it's "10? Obviously paid off."

"7? Obviously a console fanboy."
 
Found the game underwhelming after beating the "campaign". Overall it feels like only half a game, and while the multiplayer can be fun, matches and combat feel far too short. Only a handful of weapons feel viable, and Titans are so easily destroyed it is better to put them in AI mode just to baby sit them.

Funny that a huge portion of the install is audio, I barely recall what happens in the story.
 

see5harp

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?

In most of the multiplayer games it is doing some of that stuff. If I'm in a party I'll get a notification that a game has been found. I wasn't actually doing something completely different because the population is so high, but I imagine you could sit and watch Netflix and wait for the notification to jump right back to your game.
 

aravuus

Member
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.

You are being defensive as hell, as are many others in this thread. I wasn't only talking about you. If you weren't, you wouldn't be wasting time posting this here, commenting on other people's opinions, you'd be playing the game. Like I am, in fact.
e: well, not right now obviously lol

It actually didn't upset me but hey, apology accepted!

e: also don't you dare comment on my way of posting, i'm gonna be as dramatic as i want to!
 
Yea, since when did such a high average become "bad"? Its a great score.

It depends on the interpretation. If people understand that Meta score is an average of all reviews out there, you really have to go into the site and take a look at the landscape. If you see a gazillion 9's a few 8 and maybe two bad, the average will never be 9 even if the majority of reviewers gave it a 9 and up. Now you end up with a meta of 86, but that doesn't mean that the game deserves an 86, that's the meta average, which in a way is flawed to look at by itself... unless you want to put a lot of weight on "The Globe and Mail Toronto" as a more reliable gaming source than the lines of GameSpot, GameTrailers, IGN, Joystick and others.

I personally like to read the bad reviews and why it got a bad score. I do this with movies or any review. Reading the bad reviews I get to see what flaws it may have that others ignored and were having too much fun to point out and didn't care, or what have you, but I like to know about these things. The Globe and Mail (Toronto) doesn't like the multiplayer only trend and didn't want to score it high because it felt that if it did, developers will start creating more MP only games. That's a fair thought, but what does that mean for someone who's ok to get a MP only game? That's why actually reading some of those reviews makes sense.
 

Darksol

Member
unless you want to put a lot of weight on "The Globe and Mail Toronto" as a more reliable gaming source than the lines of GameSpot, GameTrailers, IGN, Joystick and others.

Say what you will about one of our largest newspapers, but The Globe and Mail is probably the only one you've listed that hasn't taken a check to promote a video game :p
 
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.

Both console versions are at 720p, sub 30fps for PS3, 25-40fps with horrible tearing for 360. Saying the PC version would be the definitive one would be a no brainer, even if they put as little effort in as last time.
 

DryvBy

Member
It's weird seeing the reviews on Amazon. On Xbox One, all glowing reviews saying how amazing it is. On PC, not so much.
 

old

Member
I guess I shouldn't be surprised about the user score at metacritic, but damn. Anyone reasonable should be frowning upon this kind of behavior. It makes it easier to dismiss real criticism and conversation as fanboy console wars drivel when you can point to stuff like metacritic user score shenanigans.

It's embarrassing for the gamer community.

Effectively what it does is make the user score worthless.
 

DryvBy

Member
Origin sucks.

That's what I was thinking (although I haven't had Origin issues for a year) but no. It's this:

Top Rated PC Review
(-) No single player campaign. I've purchased and enjoyed other on-line only multiplayer games before, such as Left 4 Dead 2 and Team Fortress 2, but those were sold at low price points to make up for the fact that they offer limited experiences (in fact TF2 is free now). $60 for an on-line only shooter is asking a bit much in my opinion

(-) The graphics aren't good. In fact it looks like a last gen game that happens to have impressive art direction. Many of the textures look outright poor and muddy, and the lack of any kind of interactive environmental physics feels dated. The game grinds down to single digit framerates when several Titans get into close combat (i7-2600 3.4Ghz quad, 16GB DDR3-1333, two SATA IIIs mirrored, GTX 660 2GB OC, 75Mbps Internet connection)

(-) The maps are small and confined, particularly when there are giant robots stomping around with scores of bots (computer-controller characters) scurrying about underfoot. I find myself often spawning right next to enemies, or having only several seconds to get my bearings before being fired upon from above. And for a game featuring jet packs and parkour, the ceiling/height limit of every map feels really low

(+/-) Team sizes are very small: 6 players per. To offset the lack of human players, matches include a large number of computer controlled AI opponents along with the featured giant robots. This design decision helps in some ways: the AI bots serve as fodder for players, making it easier to call in the titular Titans, but also alleviating the frustration new players often feel when playing a FPS for the first time. Unfortunately the AI is rudimentary and often makes poor decisions

vs the Top Rated Xbox One Review

Let's cut to the straight dope on Titanfall as by now, if you don't already have it, you know what it is. It's for now, the killer app for the Xbox One (and PC) and it's supposed to re-invigorate the stale shooter market, which it does in varying degrees.

So rather bore you again with what it is and how it plays, I will just stick to my experience with the game.
So, of course you have a tutorial that you have to go through to access the rest of the game and while for some, it may seem like a pain to go through as many of us undoubtedly have played shooters, this one to me was very helpful considering there are small nuances that differentiate this over other shooters. If done correctly, you can be finished in about 15 to 20 minutes and from there, you can play the campaign.

The campaign itself is very forgettable and contrived and to be honest, I really don't remember much of it as I played. The thing is, the campaign itself makes us the player, more of the background for the main characters and the outcome of your match really doesn't change it one way or the other how you progress in the game. I mean if you lose the campaign, it's not like you have to start all over or suffer some kind of penalty for losing. I can say this, as a multiplayer campaign, the main thing I was worried about as far as system lag or dropout never affected my gameplay and my online experience was smooth. If I had any complaints about the campaign mode was how unbalanced the teams were. Rookies seemingly were always on the Militia side as more experienced players were on the IMT side. But I really don't think anyone cared. Not to mention, there wasn't a lot of variety in the matches played during the campaign as you mostly play attrition and 1 or 2 domination matches.
 

blazeuk

Member
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.

Were people really expecting metacritic score of 95? It had plenty of hype surrounding it but it was pretty obvious that while it's great fun to play there's some problems with it and there's also just not enough there to warrant it. Those comments have been talked about long before the retail release of the game and were realistically always going to have an effect on the score - the only people who thought it was getting anywhere near high 90's were simply caught up in the hype which is usually always a mistake.

The talk of it being a "shooter revolution" was MS PR trying to hype the game up too, that's what they do, it's how they earn their money. They'd say the same about any game to sell it. Reading the reaction to the beta most of the comments were actually talking about how it wasn't doing anything that would change the way we play FPS games but that it was a lot of fun nonetheless.
 
It depends on the interpretation. If people understand that Meta score is an average of all reviews out there, you really have to go into the site and take a look at the landscape. If you see a gazillion 9's a few 8 and maybe two bad, the average will never be 9 even if the majority of reviewers gave it a 9 and up. Now you end up with a meta of 86, but that doesn't mean that the game deserves an 86, that's the meta average, which in a way is flawed to look at by itself... unless you want to put a lot of weight on "The Globe and Mail Toronto" as a more reliable gaming source than the lines of GameSpot, GameTrailers, IGN, Joystick and others.

just an fyi, im 99.9% sure meta isnt a straight average, some sites are weighted more than others.
 

U-R

Member
After the ridiculous hyping I'm very pleased to eat crow and admit the reviews seems all pretty fair and the vote average does reflect the reviews content. I guess i can soften my views about the current status of game journalism at least for the actual reviews.
 

aravuus

Member
Were people really expecting metacritic score of 95? It had plenty of hype surrounding it but it was pretty obvious that while it's great fun to play there's some problems with it and there's also just not enough there to warrant it. Those comments have been talked about long before the retail release of the game and were realistically always going to have an effect on the score - the only people who thought it was getting anywhere near high 90's were simply caught up in the hype which is usually always a mistake.

Dunno man, I was certainly expecting an average of at least 90, probably a bit higher, and I had my reservations. Then again, I'm fairly optimistic when it comes to this stuff.
 

-tetsuo-

Unlimited Capacity
That's what I was thinking (although I haven't had Origin issues for a year) but no. It's this:

Top Rated PC Review


vs the Top Rated Xbox One Review

Maybe he hasn't played them all but a lot of the maps are pretty giant. The smaller ones give pilots all the chances in the world to deal with Titans. Perhaps a little too much. Maybe he should get from underfoot. Left 4 Dead 2 was regular retail price when it came and TF2 is Valve being better than everyone. 6v6 complaint lulz 1 out of 5 review do not recommend
 

vio

Member
Origin doesn't suck though. Does anyone honestly not like it for legitimate reasons like UI or functionality? Or are they just annoyed that it's not on Steam?

Functionality is fucked. Started Origin to play BF3 and what do i get?? No games owned anymore and friends list is empty.
 
UT99 came out with 41 great maps (not counting the tutorial maps).

I really don't understand why we are meant to be happy with 15 these days.

And that doesn't even begin to count the millions of excelent user created maps that came out over time.

and bots that didn't suck, and a server browser, and full mod support, and mutators , and demo recording and inventive fun to use weapons like the shock rifle

times have changed
 

-tetsuo-

Unlimited Capacity
Origin doesn't suck though. Does anyone honestly not like it for legitimate reasons like UI or functionality? Or are they just annoyed that it's not on Steam?

There has been an ongoing issue with seeing friends on your list since November. We have to do join/invite tricks to get everyone in a group sometimes.

UT99 came out with 41 great maps (not counting the tutorial maps).

I really don't understand why we are meant to be happy with 15 these days.

And that doesn't even begin to count the millions of excelent user created maps that came out over time.

Cmon, son. Half of those were good-classic. The other half were playable at best. Most of them were tiny. Not a comparison, really.
 
Origin is fine. It even has a few nice features that Steam doesn't have. People have a knee-jerk reaction to needing it because it's EA.

Origin doesn't suck though. Does anyone honestly not like it for legitimate reasons like UI or functionality? Or are they just annoyed that it's not on Steam?

Never really seem to be any true reasons. Just "I hate origin because EA"

It has always worked fine for me

There are some people whose last impressions of Origin were it being extremely bare, a little buggy, dragging through the entire hard drive looking for Origin related content due to it being unoptimised, and a paragraph in the EULA that somehow was exclusive to Origin according to many. The last two points combined made the program look like spyware and that EA was pulling NSA shit on their customers. Of course, after a while we found it wasn't uploading or doing anything of any note, just bad programming.

Which while those are somewhat valid arguments, aside from it being still a bit of an overreaction fueled by having to have games not on Steam and the Mass Effect 3/Battlefield 3 issues, it is not the current situation and hasn't been for a bit over a year.

Edit: I see people speaking of Battlefront 3/4, but isn't that more of an issue with Battlelog (as it was with 3) and DICE rather than the Origin program?
 
Origin doesn't suck though. Does anyone honestly not like it for legitimate reasons like UI or functionality? Or are they just annoyed that it's not on Steam?

As someone who spent at least as much time with Origin over the last 2 years, as on Steam (yeah we have played a crazy amount of fifa together...), yes it does suck.

I play mostly fifa (with a GAF club) and many of us has experienced the same issues with it, where origin will crash the whole program (especially the overlay has a tendency to crash games) and the friend list not working half the time (all friends being offline). It does have a few good sides, like download speeds, but overall I've hated it most of the time. Also at one point it had this weird thing where it would constantly forget my password, that got finally got fixed though.

It has gotten better, and I'm not totally against origin, but it still fucks up way more often than I would like.
 
Dunno man, I was certainly expecting an average of at least 90, probably a bit higher, and I had my reservations. Then again, I'm fairly optimistic when it comes to this stuff.

You have to get a fair few 100s to stay in the 90s. The amount that's reserved, for better or worse, to "emotionally, engaging" story-telling epic games.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
UT99 came out with 41 great maps (not counting the tutorial maps).

I really don't understand why we are meant to be happy with 15 these days.

And that doesn't even begin to count the millions of excelent user created maps that came out over time.

besides the fact that '41 great maps' is an exaggeration, we're 'happy' with 15 these days (i don't think we are?) because the time (hence, cost) to make those 15 maps these days is much higher than it was for UT99

unless you believe that respawn just sat on their hands for 2/3rds of the development time of titanfall
 
This makes absolutely no sense.

Do you have no sense of gaming history? Platformers ruled the world in early console times, and while Titanfall is a first person shooter, it has a lot of platforming elements. It feels like I'm playing an fps mario game at times because the controls are so good. That appeals to a lot of console gamers for sure.

You have to get a fair few 100s to stay in the 90s. The amount that's reserved, for better or worse, to "emotionally, engaging" story-telling epic games.

I agree with this. It's a shame really, but I can't say I'm not upset with Titanfall's multiplayer campaign. It's pretty weak.
 

blazeuk

Member
Dunno man, I was certainly expecting an average of at least 90, probably a bit higher, and I had my reservations. Then again, I'm fairly optimistic when it comes to this stuff.

You simply got caught up in the hype Microsoft put out there, it happens but that doesn't mean the current metacritic score can be considered anywhere near being bad, it's a good score but obviously anyone expecting near perfect scores were always going to be disappointed, that doesn't detract away from an otherwise good game though. Just look at something like Dark Souls, it's absolutely loved on here to the point where you'd consider anything less than near perfect scores would be impossible yet that "only" got a metacritic score of 89.
 
You have to get a fair few 100s to stay in the 90s. The amount that's reserved, for better or worse, to "emotionally, engaging" story-telling epic games.

So the tony Hawk Pro Skater series are all "emotionally, engaging" story-telling epic games now?

Just look at something like Dark Souls, it's absolutely loved on here to the point where you'd consider anything less than near perfect scores would be impossible yet that "only" got a metacritic score of 89.

Dark Souls II currently has a 90 (PS3) and a 92 (X360). Need to update your metacritic-fu
 

pixlexic

Banned
Are people seriously complaining that some are giving the game bad scores?

Opinions, how do they work?

yeah. I wouldn't give it a 9. But I can see why some would. But for me no matter how fun it is if you are REVIEWING it you have to take into account the flaws.

plus an 8 is not a mediocre game.
 

Etnos

Banned
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

You guys keep talking like if AAA development was a flourishing industry, not a one where studios are closing down in monthly basis. Developing those features take time and a lot of money, Why would they spend time in a bunch of stuff most people don't even play ?

I rather have them focusing in the stuff I know its fun and I'm actually going to play for a long time.
 
In most of the multiplayer games it is doing some of that stuff. If I'm in a party I'll get a notification that a game has been found. I wasn't actually doing something completely different because the population is so high, but I imagine you could sit and watch Netflix and wait for the notification to jump right back to your game.

I don't see how it's any different from the 360 other than notifying you when the lobby is full. they made it sound like you could be in a different game while it continues to search for more players.
 

DryvBy

Member
Maybe he hasn't played them all but a lot of the maps are pretty giant. The smaller ones give pilots all the chances in the world to deal with Titans. Perhaps a little too much. Maybe he should get from underfoot. Left 4 Dead 2 was regular retail price when it came and TF2 is Valve being better than everyone. 6v6 complaint lulz 1 out of 5 review do not recommend

Not to mention the backfire when L4D2 was announced. Everyone was ready to blow up Valve's HQ.
 
Top Bottom