I'd play that game.
-
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 play that game.
Memorabilia
Member
Its smooth with low to moderate activity, but its a huge stretch to say its maintaining 60fps during heavy fire-fights. Targeting 60fps is one thing, but it regularly hits what feels like single digits during heavy firefights with multiple mechs onscreen, during ejection animations a fair amount of the time, etc....
Overall, very fun game and amazingly addictive, mostly brainless fun. The game screams out for more depth of narrative and a single player campaign to flesh out the story and world. Its a pity without it as it feels about as deep as a mud-puddle. Yet, I cant stop playing once I start. Id struggle with how to score this game, although for my tastes and preferences a 9 is too high. Id probably give it an 8 or so, which might go up as I become more skilled and would definitely go up if a high quality SP campaign DLC were released for a reasonable price....
BrLvgThrChmstry
Banned
Why is there not more complaining about the framerate on the Xbone? Do people just not notice? It's HORRIBLE. Not stable at all and seems to constantly drop to the 20s and occasionally lower than that. It's not smooth at all...whether titans are there or not.
Memorabilia
Member
Yep, especially during heavy firefights. Its a little depressing we are already seeing games with fairly significant framerate issues at the very start of this gen. The Source engine isnt exactly cutting edge (the art design looks good, if unspectacular). And when you consider Titanfall is only 6 vs 6 live opponents, it does make you wonder how much headroom is left for the Xbone. Still, despite its flaws, its an incredibly addictive game. Im not sure how much longevity it will hold for me, but Im having a blast with it for now.
Frayne Daddy
Banned
I'm not noticing it to much. Not a big deal to me I guess if it is happening.
Nydius
Member
Review inflation. It's why I have a hard time believing any reviews at all. If I give something a 7 or higher, i find that to be a damn good score. The idea that we've gotten away from the literal average of 5 in favor of a metaphorical average of 7 speaks volumes of the problems in the games industry. 10 is, as you said, perfection. Does anyone here honestly believe most of the games which got a 10 in the last 4 years were completely perfect in every way? 10's went from being meaningful to being clickbait and user reviews have simply followed suit.
I really wish the reviews would either go back to an out-of-five mechanic - which is harder to manipulate (no .25 of a star, just half star or full star) - or just get rid of the numbers all together and use a thumbs up/thumbs down system.
Nothing is more grating than reading a review that sounds like the game is a 6 only for the reviewer to get to the end and say "tada! it's an 8.5!".
HungryTurkey
Neo Member
The Source Engine is not intended for this type of hardware arrangement. Expect a monster 5 GB patch in the next 3 months to steady the framerate at 55+ vsync on and boost res to 1080p no AA. They have a much more modified code base that simply wasn't ready for launch. You have to remember that ReSpawn is not a giant shop. While they have awesome talent, this is the freshman attempt by a new company. Regardless, expect plenty of DLC and regular core game updates to keep it relevant at least up til Q4. The important thing is that it truly is damned fun. And 20 fps... Proof or it didn't happen. You may be seeing a screen tear frame skip, but the engine keeps it well above 35 at almost all times.
Maybe everything is just really great?
Seriously though, is the 7-10 scale really so common that 8.6 is a valid "fair"?
I didn't mean to sound wrong but by their opinion didn't sound like they cared for the game in the first place and that last paragraph was awkward. The game was planned for online without a big story from the get go. Why be mad about no story? Judge the game for what it was intended to be
Then price it accordingly.
Nydius
Member
Because reviews have been effectively compressed into the 7-10 range for AAA releases, an 8.6 is not a valid "fair" rating right now. The average is skewed by this. A reviewer might write the review thinking 7 but give it an 8 because 8 is the "new" average for high profile releases.
How many times do we see games get a score of 5 or so and then see the immediate reaction of the internet go: oh man that game must REALLY suck! These days, a 5 or below is as good as a 0, especially for AAA titles. Until the number system is revamped or discarded, there's no way to effectively gauge reviews on score alone.
Like I said, I've read many a review where it sounds like the game is above average but falling shy of being good or great, only for it to get a score that makes it sound like the greatest game to come out that year.
Spottiettiedop
Member
Does a player's internet connection effect the framerate with the online portion of a game?
When "crap" like Assassin's Creed 3 has an average of 85 it's because of review inflation.
Has anyone compiled a list to show how bad it's actually become? Would be interesting to read.
The reviews actually make it out to be pretty great for the most part though, so they seem in line with the scores. This doesn't seem like score inflation, it's not like the reviews are making it out to be average and they're awarding 80+.
TakeItSlowDude
Member
Gamerevolution Review:
?
?
How was the reviewer able to type out that paragraph with all the drool on his keyboard?
that's what my point was, his score and review was awkward. Titanfall isn't a book or movie or based off if any. Its a simple multiplayer game but he judged it on things it intended to not do.
come on man. People will spend 20s to over hundreds if hours in this game because it is that fun. Your saying it shouldn't be full retail? I'd rather have no campaign then a rushed job and then the multiplayer will suffer
uncledonnie
Banned
This is straight up nonsense. I have noticed one instance of single digit fps in all my hours of play so far, and it was when entering a building at the start of a round with nothing going on. It seemed almost like a loading glitch.
It does not drop to single digits during every multiple mech fire fight.
It is priced accordingly.
I guess no campaign wasn't an issue for PvZ.....or BF4.
Is it? There are plenty of mp only titles that get 1000s of hours online that don't cost as much. So the price is subjective. In my opinion it's not worth 60. But then in my opinion I guess you are ok way with free to play models where you spend hundreds of dollars on virtual clothing and better weapons. Lack of single player campaign is an issue for me. That's why most aaa fps cost as much. Actors/designing set pieces/art direction/actual direction of actors/script writing/etc etc etc. you pay for the work they've done even if it isn't as good (bf3/4 campaign as an example). As an mp only title you're paying for mp maps, mp campaign that I'm hearing isn't spectacular/model design/Titan design/ui etc. things that are common in mp only titles that already cost a fraction of Titan fall.
So yeah in my opinion the game isn't priced accordingly. It may be a good shooter... However it may be a yearly franchise and if it continues being 60, then what's to stop cods/bf/ and any game that includes an sp AND mp not go up in price? Why not charge 100 for the next cod and the next bf? They spent more money on sp and mp.
PvZ was cheaper, wasn't it? And yes, the BF4 campaign was shitty and buggy but it had one.
I wish I could take this review back in time, so I could use it as an example in my debate with SwiftDeath a few pages back, about games being less likely to score highly without being more narrative-driven
SwiftDeath if you're out there. This is kinda what I'm talking about.. just not usually as poorly written.
It is. That's within the range that most games score.
I'm getting really tired of people thinking that "average" should be 50. That's just not how reviewing works. Most games score within the 80s, so mid-80s is average.
SwiftDeath
Member
Sure? I still don't know why Super Mario 3D world is ignored in this context and what about Rayman Legends? Pretty sure that's not story driven as you're suggesting it is
I think it's more a case that people are expecting evolution from certain game types rather than just really polished versions of games they've been playing for the better part of 20 years. But we can argue back and forth on any such point I'm sure
fallingdove
Member
The game is definitely average. This isn't some incredible game that is is getting panned by click hungry websites - the game is fun but unremarkable. The matchmaking sucks, the graphics are average, and using perks/leveling requirements for classes and weapons is boring and derivative. mid-80s is exactly where this game needs to be.
I think that titanfall could have been a 90+ game if the campaign had been more realized and if respawn had been more innovative with the reward mechanics. Let's hope the sequel sees those adjustments.
http://www.metacritic.com/browse/ga...0/metascore?hardware=all&view=detailed&page=9
That is the list of games scoring in the 70s range on the 360. It's stuff like CoD: Black Ops - Rezurrection which was a $15 map pack of 4 maps used in a previous game and one new map which met with very mixed reception. So yeah that's a 7/10 product, at least when it's being released from a company with enough clout. If an independent developer tried to released something like that it'd end getting hammered to hell, and rightfully so, by the games media.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Bullshit. An 86 is a great score and can be indicative of a great game. Some of GAF's favorite games of all time are in the 80s. Does that mean they must be "average"?
As usual is the case, when something sounds absurd in a vacuum it was probably taken out of context. Read it in context here: http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/titanfall
It was a reference to his lead discussing the story of the game:
It was ostensibly Respawn's decision to include a campaign. If the story in it is bad or the implementation of it poor then it's a reviewer's job to mention this. Most of all players seem to have commented on the campaign as a relatively major weakness in the game, yet most reviewers were happy to give it a complete pass.
ethomaz
Banned
Quarter To Three give PC version a 5/5.
http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2014/03/13/titanfall-makes-giant-robot-cool/
Weird Metacritic added it to Xbone reviewers when he clearly says PC version.
http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2014/03/13/titanfall-makes-giant-robot-cool/
Weird Metacritic added it to Xbone reviewers when he clearly says PC version.
transformer
Member
I played about ten matches on the retail version and didn't see any noticeable problems on the xbox one. It seemed pretty smooth to me all the time. It probably isn't quite locked at 60fps, as so many others attest to, but it had no noticeable impact to me playing the game. Perhaps there are certain maps and/or situations where it is problematic that I haven't experienced.
VanCityGamer
Member
Yeah, they fixed it now; it's been removed from Xbox One and added to PC. Always find it unfortunate though that scores end up varying so much across platforms despite it being essentially the same game. This happens all the time on PS3/Xbox 360.
I don't normally like to bash reviews, but that Gamerevolution review is baffling. I literally do not understand what he's trying to say in the last sentence.
I actually really enjoyed the single player campaign in BF4. So it's certainly not valid to say it doesn't have a campaign.
SwiftDeath
Member
Because most people don't care?
Keep in mind, only a small loud minority care about things like resolution and framerate. Everyone else seems to be too busy actually playing video games and having fun.
SwiftDeath
Member
While your point is true you overstep. If the frame rate of any next gen hovered at 2fps for most of the game, you can damn well bet even the most casual of people would notice
Look at NBA LIVE 14 for instance
But yes so long as the framerate and resolution are in generally acceptable levels most people won't notice
Can't tell if she liked it or not...
Yes, I overstepped. Thanks for the correction.
SwiftDeath
Member
No worries. I'm a bit of a pedantic jackass when it comes to specifics lol
NoirVisage
Banned
Adam Sessler responded to why Rev3Games didn't do a review-in-progress for Titanfall, compared to other gaming outlets.
"I don't review servers."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VvBIFT_1Xw#t=56m40s
Fair points, and I appreciate his approach. Also, responds to other gaming press not respecting of people who gave scores...
He said way more than he needed to, all he had to do was post a picture in response.
worth a thousand words.
Now i see why Max scrammed.
NoirVisage
Banned
I'd imaging some of it is because you aren't the only one who added a post asking the same question?
Bright-Light
Member
Because there has been 2500 posts.
But in all seriousness, it's the most hyped game of new gen, it was never gonna be a short one.
Sure? I still don't know why Super Mario 3D world is ignored in this context and what about Rayman Legends? Pretty sure that's not story driven as you're suggesting it is
I think it's more a case that people are expecting evolution from certain game types rather than just really polished versions of games they've been playing for the better part of 20 years. But we can argue back and forth on any such point I'm sure
It's not so much that I'm ignoring those games, than that I see them as standout exceptions. If a team manages to reach the finals of the World Cup, despite playing every game with 8 men instead of 11, that isn't proof that they were playing under fair conditions, it just means that they had to be exceptionally great to have made it there. This is how I see Mario and Rayman, along with a few others.
For 3D platformers, I can think of Mario.
For 2D I can think of Rayman and Super Meat Boy.
For racers I can only think of Forza (and absolutely none for non-sim racers).
For fighters I can only think of Street Fighter.
For story-driven action games (a more broad category, but yea..) I can think of GTA, Red Dead, Batman, Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, God of War, Deus Ex, Killzone, Halo. Gears of War, Borderlands, Bioshock, Half-Life, Portal, The Last of Us, Call of Duty, Far Cry, Fallout, Metal Gear Solid.. and so on...
Before I listed a large group of non-sim racers that many cite as being amongst the best to have ever been created. Do you think that absolutely none of them, are doing as good a job of representing their genre, as any of the series mentioned above? Now with something like Titanfall, I can understand it not sitting in that group, as I can think of plenty that it could be doing to be a better game of the type of game it is (and can think of previous games to illustrate this, such as Unreal Tournament, or Tribes). Now something like Wipeout HD though? That's a lot more difficult to make that claim imo.
I don't think this is a case of " expecting evolution from certain game types rather than just really polished versions of games they've been playing for the better part of 20 years", as the two examples you listed are some of the most traditional offerings of their respective game type. Very polished offerings of course, but also very familiar. The same can also be said of many of the series that I've highlighted in my list. I also don't think that in terms of gameplay Uncharted, The Last of Us, Mass Effect actually offer experiences that far off what Gears kicked the generation off with. Hell, the majority of 90+ games I can think of right now that AREN'T story driven, happen to fall into the Sports or Rhythm categories... two of the most iterative categories in gaming.
Also, you're right, we probably could argue this forever.
I'll admit that giving it context does make it sound less ridiculous. It does still work as an example of Titanfall potentially scoring better, if more focus was placed on giving it narrative though. We are, after all, talking about a 3 star review for a game they cite as possibly having "the best experience of 2014 in your hands today" if you're playing for.. surprise, the main reason the game exists.
It would partially be because other loosely related topics, such as the discussion on user reviews, has spawned from the main topic. This has been the most interesting thread for me the past couple of days, whilst I haven't even bothered reading the OT, let alone posting in it.