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

Forums - Gaming - Will Metacritic be Titanfall's Rise or Fall ?

I'm sure Titanfall's getting a 10 from IGN and Polygon because McCaffrey and Gies are doing those.

Overall, it's not named Call of Duty, and that's what matter to most, originality be damned.

High 80s, around 86/87 sounds right.



Around the Network

If they are consistant they will knock a couple points off for being MP only and not reinventing the wheel (Judgment and Ascension). However, we know reviewerd arent consistant so 90+ is what im banking on



TomShoe said:

I'm sure Titanfall's getting a 10 from IGN and Polygon because McCaffrey and Gies are doing those.

Overall, it's not named Call of Duty, and that's what matter to most, originality be damned.

High 80s, around 86/87 sounds right.


Ok then. But what about the new announced Titanfall bundle. Will that kill sales from now to launch ?



Max King of the Wild said:

If they are consistant they will knock a couple points off for being MP only and not reinventing the wheel (Judgment and Ascension). However, we know reviewerd arent consistant so 90+ is what im banking on


Wow. 90's seems kind of high. Has there ever been a multiplayer only game that has scored that high ? 



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 think this gen developers are going to bank on this singleplay vs multiplayer only game allot. Plants vs Zombies is also multiplayer only and again, only on XBOne.......



Around the Network
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.



sabastian said:
Max King of the Wild said:

If they are consistant they will knock a couple points off for being MP only and not reinventing the wheel (Judgment and Ascension). However, we know reviewerd arent consistant so 90+ is what im banking on


Wow. 90's seems kind of high. Has there ever been a multiplayer only game that has scored that high ? 

I don't think so no, its a pretty unrealistic expectation.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Reviews can make or break a new ip. Sequels are less susceptible



End of 2009 Predictions (Set, January 1st 2009)

Wii- 72 million   3rd Year Peak, better slate of releases

360- 37 million   Should trend down slightly after 3rd year peak

PS3- 29 million  Sales should pick up next year, 3rd year peak and price cut

You can be certain that the Respawn guys know how to make accessible FPS multiplayer.

I think it may not live up to the hype, but the hype is pretty through the roof, so that still gives it room to score well with the critics.

This won't be a repeat of Ryse.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

My guess is 86 - 91. Should be good