• 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

Synth

Member
I don't think those features automatically make a bad game good. More customization features would have provided a few more carrots on sticks but if the game weren't a fun experience, it's still a bad game. Clans mean absolutely nothing to me. Being able to see and compare stats with friends is way more important to me.

Yup. For example, being able to see and compare stats means nothing to me. These thing are nice to have but they don't go very far in determining the quality of a game.
 

flkraven

Member
What happens if someone wants to experience Titanfall in 10 years? 15? Why should an experience have an expiration date? If I want to play Ocarina of Time or Mario 64 or the original Halo I can still play it, still experience the experience. Why should we not expect the same ability from any game? What happened to MAG for instance is terrible. That game no longer exists in any playable state. It is gone from this world and that sucks.
I don't care about the score but trying to view the long term value a game may have to a consumer doesn't seem unprofessional in the least bit though
I do agree that performance patches should be top priority but its really not something you would dedicate resources to at this point but that doesn't mean you don't have some idea where it would end up.

I think the main point of contention is that discussing the far-future availability/playability of a game has no place in a review of a product, and shouldn't really influence it's score. The reason is because it then becomes a slippery slope. Where do we stop? Should we look at devs that carry the license to produce a game for a limited time, and should we rate accordingly, knowing that they may one day 'lose' the license.

Look at MvC, or most Marvel games. As the licenses expire, these games are removed from digital and physical market places. Should the score be revisited since it can no longer be purchased new? I know it isn't a perfect comparison, but it is a similar example. We don't review 10 year old games today and retroactively change the score, so why should we attempt to look 10 years into the future and rate a game today based on that perspective.
 
I think the main point of contention is that discussing the far-future availability/playability of a game has no place in a review of a product, and shouldn't really influence it's score. The reason is because it then becomes a slippery slope. Where do we stop? Should we look at devs that carry the license to produce a game for a limited time, and should we rate accordingly, knowing that they may one day 'lose' the license.

Look at MvC, or most Marvel games. As the licenses expire, these games are removed from digital and physical market places. Should the score be revisited since it can no longer be purchased new? I know it isn't a perfect comparison, but it is a similar example. We don't review 10 year old games today and retroactively change the score, so why should we attempt to look 10 years into the future and rate a game today based on that perspective.

To be honest I never really cared about the scoring aspect in that regard. Whether someone scores a game based on future availability or not wasn't really my main point. It is my selfish desire to have games and be able to play them whenever I like even in the future at such time that others might deem a game worthless etc.

My discussion was my opinion on what I wanted from a game, I did comment on the scoring but again that I can see being argued either way easily enough whereas my opinion on the topic just that.
 

mocoworm

Member
EDGE just posted their review:

http://www.edge-online.com/review/titanfall-review/ - 8/10

EDGE said:
For too long, obviously multiplayer-focused shooters have shipped with short, humdrum singleplayer campaigns, but while Titanfall’s shift away from that is commendable, the package as a whole is slight. In a multiplayer-only game, just five modes feels stingy. Attrition and Hardpoint are joined by Capture The Flag, mecha-centric brawl Last Titan Standing, and Pilot Hunter, in which only enemy foot-soldier kills count towards your team’s score. Yet while every mode puts you in a team, there’s very little teamwork on show during public matches on either Xbox One or PC, at least partially because of how individually powerful the rich toolset makes you feel. A well-organised group will almost always win, but omitting clan support and other community-minded features makes getting a team together harder than it should be, even given the arrival of Xbox One’s belated party chat system.

Yet when you’re in the thick of it, none of that matters. Where Halo sought to give players the same 30 seconds of fun again and again, Titanfall dishes out its thrills in five-second bursts that each feel markedly different to the last, all the while smoothing out some of the kinks that have dogged this genre for years. It’s a thoroughly successful evolution of the twitch shooter, broadening its scope both upwards and outwards as well as expanding its toolset. The genre’s focus on fast, responsive movement reaches bold new heights, too, letting you chain wall runs and double jumps into the sky before thundering back down in the cockpit of a giant robot. Titanfall might not be Xbox One’s killer app, or Azure’s proof of concept, then, but it’s a long-overdue adrenaline shot for a genre that seemed in danger of flatlining.
 
Top Bottom