By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Official Titanfall Review Thread: Metacritic 86

Anfebious said:
Great scores! I am pretty sure this game will give the Xbox One a sustained boost. The next Call of Duty is here.


It won't come close to COD, it will give x1 a small boost then go back down.



Around the Network

From the Arthur GIES Polygon 9/10 review:

"If there are complaints to be had, I'd point to performance. Titanfall sits at 60 frames per second most of the time, but when three or four Titans are on the screen at once, firing rockets and arc blasts, things take a dive. It's never not playable, but it is noticeable"

Taking a dive means the framerate drops to the 30s like he said in a tweet:



But not a word in his review about the screen tearing abundant in the game? I am abashed at that because many reviewers are disappointed about the screen tearing problem. More people will be disappointed when they see such quantity of screen tearing in a next gen game.

Remember when Gies scored COD on PS4 0.5 less because it had occasionnal framerate drops and it created (only for Gies of course ) an important gameplay problem on PS4? But here frequent 30s drops with abundant and awfull screen tearing (when it matters the most!) but it's 9/10 OK?

Bullshit.



Where is that guy that liked to compare The Last of Us to everything?

I think it was Allard J or something...



FlamingWeazel said:
Anfebious said:
Great scores! I am pretty sure this game will give the Xbox One a sustained boost. The next Call of Duty is here.


It won't come close to COD, it will give x1 a small boost then go back down.


What kind of reasoning do you use to arrive to such conclusion?



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

BMaker11 said:
AZWification said:
tbone51 said:


lol from gaf

I wonder if this gif would have been used if Titanfall was a PS4 exclusive... Hmm. I guess I will never find out!

You realize that gif is pretty old and that people use it (in jest) for most EA games, right? Exclusivity had nothing to do with it. Hell, it has ME3 in it

Yes. I simply poked some fun because it was taken from GAF.



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Around the Network

In today's review climate, 85-87 (which I presume is the range this will end up in) is very good. Especially for a multi-player only shooter which is kind of gimped in its review range by its very nature.

I don't think this is the game Microsoft needed it to be for the Xbox One's sake, but it's going to do a decent job of sustaining it through Q1/Q2 I suppose.

Will check this out when it's discounted on PC down the line. The video reviews have convinced me.



If you look at other games that Toronto guy has reviewed, he doesn't harp on SP only games because they have no MP. It's a strange double standard that exists, where a MP game s viewed as less worthy because it has no SP, while a game with no MP gets no such penalty in review scores. His review reads like a high 8 or even a 9 score, but it's a 7. It's too bad that such a flawed review is bringing the meta down, but oh well. Those of us who have experienced the game were never too invested in review scores anyway.



Rychussnik said:
a game gets 87 on meta, and people think it's average, dafuq?


That ALWAYS happened to hyped up games. The first non 10 score and if/when it drops below 90. I expect TF to sit in the low-mid 80s when it's all said and done.



globalisateur said:

From the Arthur GIES Polygon 9/10 review:

"If there are complaints to be had, I'd point to performance. Titanfall sits at 60 frames per second most of the time, but when three or four Titans are on the screen at once, firing rockets and arc blasts, things take a dive. It's never not playable, but it is noticeable"

Taking a dive means the framerate drops to the 30s like he said in a tweet:



But not a word in his review about the screen tearing abundant in the game? I am abashed at that because many reviewers are disappointed about the screen tearing problem. More people will be disappointed when they see such quantity of screen tearing in a next gen game.

Remember when Gies scored COD on PS4 0.5 less because it had occasionnal framerate drops and it created (only for Gies of course ) an important gameplay problem on PS4? But here frequent 30s drops with abundant and awfull screen tearing (when it matters the most!) but it's 9/10 OK?

Bullshit.

At least Gies didn't lied this time... there are performance issues and tearing in the game.



selnor1983 said:


And not everyone is satisfied with shelling out £50 with a 20 hour singleplayer. I know Im not yet these games get 10's across the board. Ill poor over 1000 hours into Titanfall. Worth more than any SP game to everyone that buys it. And should be reviewed as is.

Regardless Ttianfall will have a huge following. MP fans can add points to any review marking it down for SP.

The beta was phenominal.

Im surprised a MP only game is metaing at 88 so far. And could rise.

Why would you be surprised? There are multiple online only FPS with similar scores. Some even with higher scores. 

Regardless, Titanfall being online only is irrelevant. FPS are often scored down for having a half arsed SP. It could just as easily argue from that point that Titanfall is actually being reviewed above series like COD and BF because of that.