starcraft said:
Wagram said:
DakonBlackblade said:
Wagram said:
I'm expecting a meta score of 85-87 or so for Titanfall. I think it'll be a blast to play at the end of the day. However, it doesn't change the fact that the price tag is high for what you're receiving. I believe that will be a detractor. |
Why is the price tag high for what youre receiving ? Seriously ppl the game has to do whay it set out to do well, if it does it then tis worth the money, this stupid idea that every game needs singleplayer and multiplayer makes no sense, specialy because 99% of the time only one of the 2 realy works and the other is an oversight thats there just so ppl wont complain.
|
$60 frontal purchase + around a $15-20 purchase for access to online multiplayer if you're on consoles. That's expensive.
At the end of the day Titanfall is going to be a limited experience. It only has so many maps, so many guns, so many titans. The experience provided falls under a narrow scope due to the online only experience. Now i'm not stating that is a bad thing, but it does negatively impact the game in a manner.
|
I am sorry, but I really don't buy this line of thinking. I am a predominantly single-player gamer. As such, Titanfall has a limited appeal to me perhaps - but I am not its target market. With COD/Battlefield these days, it tends to be the single player that is limited, often the campaign is 4-6 hours...nowhere near the price of entry.
Titanfall looks to have an enormous amount of multiplayer content, and doesn't pretend to be anything other than a multiplayer game. It should rise or fall (see what I did there) on the strength of its multiplayer, and if that multiplayer is well put together, the game is worth the price of admission for multiplayer games.
On topic: Low-80's metacritic, there will be some horrendous click-baiting reviews.
|
I think this generation of developers are banking on multiplayer games more. They know that they can always extend the game with unlimited DLC packs....... And yeh, low 80's sounds about right.
