Not unplayable; 9/10
~Arthur Gies
I think this should be the banner-quote for the GOTY edition.
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.
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.
Still no update from those reviewers sitting on scores? The game works, servers are fine and nothing has gone wrong. Basically, everything went great.
Actually, most of them already did update their reviews. I believe Giant Bomb is the only major outlet that hasn't done so yet.
Still no update from those reviewers sitting on scores? The game works, servers are fine and nothing has gone wrong. Basically, everything went great.
If luck doesn’t go my way, I still walk out of the match feeling like a hero. If I’m on my game, Titans are no match for my agility, and the opposing team will have difficulty tracking my Pilot as I weave my way around buildings at blazingly fast speed.
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.
we finally made it! what do you guys think of the layout?
http://www.vgnetwork.it/recensioni/titanfall/
Eurogamer have updated their score.
8/10
At some point in the future, the cloud servers could be taken down or reassigned elsewhere and Titanfall will cease to be playable.
About what I expected, but I don't understand the concern about taking down the servers in the new column on the left.
Why would they be reassigned? The whole benefit of Azure is being able to spin up servers and reduce them when necessary.
EA and Microsoft have both shown an extreme willingness to try to coerce upgrades. Titanfall2 comes up and there's still a modest amount of people playing Titanfall 1? No problem, shut down the servers. This really messed up logic seems to be the way these companies think and there is literally 0 reason to not expect them to do this. Every single action they've both taken over the past months to recent years tells you they will. The fact your disk (or download) will likely be as good as a brick in a few years has definitely decreases its inherent worth. It certainly destroys any notion of collecting.
EA and Microsoft have both shown an extreme willingness to try to coerce upgrades. Titanfall2 comes up and there's still a modest amount of people playing Titanfall 1? No problem, shut down the servers. This really messed up logic seems to be the way these companies think and there is literally 0 reason to not expect them to do this. Every single action they've both taken over the past months to recent years tells you they will. The fact your disk (or download) will likely be as good as a brick in a few years has definitely decreases its inherent worth. It certainly destroys any notion of collecting.
EA and Microsoft have both shown an extreme willingness to try to coerce upgrades. Titanfall2 comes up and there's still a modest amount of people playing Titanfall 1? No problem, shut down the servers. This really messed up logic seems to be the way these companies think and there is literally 0 reason to not expect them to do this. Every single action they've both taken over the past months to recent years tells you they will. The fact your disk (or download) will likely be as good as a brick in a few years has definitely decreases its inherent worth. It certainly destroys any notion of collecting.
I don't believe MS has this tendency. Can you cite some examples? I am genuinely curious about this. I know for sure EA is a big culprit of forcing upgrades, but the servers aren't EA servers in this case. I feel EA and Sony are the suspects in this category. Also, this is an online-only game, so if MS suddenly took down the servers three years from now (which makes no sense given the Azure setup) they would get a ton of bad rep for it.
The examples are plethora.
1. XBox 360 is released late 2005. In early 2010 Microsoft kills all online access for all original XBox titles.
2. Games for Windows Live - launched in 2007. Microsoft revealed (and then removed the notice) that it will be going offline in July this year. Even if temporarily delayed it's pretty obvious that every single GFWL game is now on death row.
3. OS's:
XP was supported for 8 years.
Vista for 5 years.
Windows 7 without SP1 support was 4 years. With SP1 you can add 2 to that.
4. APIs:
DirectX 11.1 is now going to Windows 8 exclusive because... whatever - screw you buy Windows 8.
Those servers are going to be dead the second it's profitable to do so.
About what I expected, but I don't understand the concern about taking down the servers in the new column on the left.
Why would they be reassigned? The whole benefit of Azure is being able to spin up servers and reduce them when necessary.
Really? EA is definitely guilty of doing so but I think MS has been better than average in supporting their OS and gaming server support. OS support isn't even analogous to server support since it's not like Windows XP all of the sudden stopped working.
I was more going for a character pattern rather than directly comparing OS's to games which I agree is pretty silly. Everything under Microsoft is showing a fairly clear trend of iterating out just about everything faster and it seems to be increasingly primarily for commercial reasons. This is actually the kind of softball question (Will all XBox one's servers stay up during the life of the XBox one?) something like a tweet to Major Nelson could get a response to if disabling the servers is not something they're considering.
The fact your disk (or download) will likely be as good as a brick in a few years has definitely decreases its inherent worth.
Yeah that "concern" is lame, keeps promoting the idea video games are possessions instead of experiences. Plus you may die, the world may end, a new job may not let you play... Worrying so much about the future is pointless. Buy the game, get your fill, stop worrying, Make it seems like spending 50-60 on a videogame is such a big deal.
You experience them, then they are just a bunch of data, not sure why would you want to posses that, it has no longer value.
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.
You wrote this...
FACT!!! You also provided no examples in the case of gaming or games as service. Nice FUD.
Why would they be reassigned? The whole benefit of Azure is being able to spin up servers and reduce them when necessary.
EA and Microsoft have both shown an extreme willingness to try to coerce upgrades. Titanfall2 comes up and there's still a modest amount of people playing Titanfall 1? No problem, shut down the servers. This really messed up logic seems to be the way these companies think and there is literally 0 reason to not expect them to do this. Every single action they've both taken over the past months to recent years tells you they will. The fact your disk (or download) will likely be as good as a brick in a few years has definitely decreases its inherent worth. It certainly destroys any notion of collecting.
I don't believe MS has this tendency. Can you cite some examples? I am genuinely curious about this. I know for sure EA is a big culprit of forcing upgrades, but the servers aren't EA servers in this case. I feel EA and Sony are the suspects in this category. Also, this is an online-only game, so if MS suddenly took down the servers three years from now (which makes no sense given the Azure setup) they would get a ton of bad rep for it.
The examples are plethora.
1. XBox 360 is released late 2005. In early 2010 Microsoft kills all online access for all original XBox titles.
2. Games for Windows Live - launched in 2007. Microsoft revealed (and then removed the notice) that it will be going offline in July this year. Even if temporarily delayed it's pretty obvious that every single GFWL game is now on death row.
3. OS's:
XP was supported for 8 years.
Vista for 5 years.
Windows 7 without SP1 support was 4 years. With SP1 you can add 2 to that.
4. APIs:
DirectX 11.1 is now going to Windows 8 exclusive because... whatever - screw you buy Windows 8.
Those servers are going to be dead the second it's profitable to do so.
You wrote this...
**Obviously this was not what as written, but including it for your convenience** The fact your disk (or download) will likely be as good as a brick in a few years has definitely decreases its inherent worth.
FACT!!! You also provided no examples in the case of gaming or games as service. Nice FUD.
It sucks for some people, but games as service is where things are headed. Even the big multiplatform titles are starting to head that way (Destiny, The Crew, The Division etc...). Fortunately in MS's case, the servers can be adjusted based on population, so I don't think there should be a real fear of servers suddenly being taken down. Smart Match should also help with the smaller communities as you can just play or watch something else while waiting for a match.
i personally think it is sweet. I love how when you scroll down it brings the picture and text together. with that said, I have no idea what the text is saying
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.
The discussion was not about "games as service" but coercing upgrades in general. Though I'm still not sure what you're even on about there. XBox Life for originals was killed, they've already inadvertently revealed the impending death of Games for Windows Live, and coercing upgrades for DirectX is obviously targeting gamers. In any case - grow up. Obviously a lot of what I'm saying can be argued against. Do that instead of misquoting and acting like a tool and we might actually be able to get somewhere!
There is no way anyone is keeping servers online in perpetuity for any game. I dislike that aspect but could live with it if the platform holder/publisher would find a way to allow individuals to host their own servers to compensate for the loss of the game.
You are correct though. Every publisher wants to move towards games as a service, I'm sure DOTA among other games really created the path on that movement. It's disappointing as I've always preferred single player experiences but something I could accept if the experience didn't have an expiration date.
This whole topic though is fairly off-topic so I'll try not to say more on it
Yes, I don't see why expiration date for some experiences is such an outrageous thing. This is an on-line experience by very definition a interaction between people that happen on the internet, By the time people stop caring about such experience it will die, and that is perfectly normal.
No one is gonna be selling Titanfall at $60 in 10 years. This is technology, things change, facebook is not the same it was 10 years ago, and it wont be the same in 10 years for now. There are records, archives, and probably someone is going to be running a reverse engineer private server for Titanfall in 20 years if that is what you worrying about.
In the meanwhile just enjoy there is a fucking good videogame out there. Bunching a score because of theoricals seems rather un-professional and overly paranoic.
Hmm people still care about every incarnation of counterstrike so it hasn't died? Thus if any single person still cares about titanfall it won't die or what are you actually trying to say? That it should die when the companies in question see no value in keeping it online?
Cool? Why would I care what Titanfall sells for in 10 years? Why would that impact me as a consumer in such a way for me to care about EA's or Respawn's bottom line?
Facebook is not a game? It is entirely a service. It is free unless something has changed of late?
Cool someone may figure out how to run their own server for Titanfall 20 years from now. That is so encouraging. Honestly to keep people like me happy all they have to say is that they will offer a switch to private hosted servers in 8 years/ 10 years whatever. Just build in the hooks needed to do so at a later point. Maybe it won't be as compelling a solution but the game wouldn't simply disappear entirely
You are worrying over nothing, this game is gonna have long legs. By the time the population is minimal there would be a Titanfall 5, If you for some weird reason insist on ONLY playing Titanfall 1 there is gonna be a private server for you to join.
You answered your own concern, WHY are you worrying about stuff that is NOT Happening RIGHT now? Game has a huge population and you can enjoy the full experience right now, that worths 60.
Titanfall, COD, Battlefield, Diablo, Dota2, CS... this are no longer games in the traditional sense, They are services, a online entertiament service: with updates, changes, evolution. Change is a good thing.
They are not going to say that now because they are more worried about fixing tearing issues and matchmaking, They have no time to worry about whats this game gonna be standing in 20 years for now.
I want a burger too. Titanfall is more than a console seller. It's a burger seller too.Damn it now I want a burger.
Also I realize I am fairly crazy when it comes to this sort of thing. Doesn't make me stop worrying about it.
And it wouldn't stop me from playing a game I really wanted. It would just make me devalue that game while I play it as it might not have a future.
So from the Joe thread earlier, someone said how can the game's multi deficiencies hurt. I'll explain:
1) can I play the game in a clan?
2) can me and some buddies play a private game?
3) can me and some friends create a private lobby before jumping into the game?
4) can we vote on map rotation?
https://twitter.com/mauliksharma/status/445945651915137024
Just to share. He's entitled to his opinion but I respectfully disagree.
https://twitter.com/mauliksharma/status/445945651915137024
Just to share. He's entitled to his opinion but I respectfully disagree.