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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Selnor1983 Titanfall Review

I haven't been here long, but I can't take anything Selnor says seriously at all. There have been massive contradictions and just plain poor thinking in much of what I've read from him.

Guess I can't make this statement without proving it.

Well, here he says that he only gives a score based on fun. But I also just read his Ryse review and the "best console graphics ever" certainly influenced his score there. It's just very sad that he lives in this little cloud up in la-la land and thinks people take him seriously. Oh well.

~ Mod Edit ~

This user was warned by TruckOSaurus.



Around the Network

Nice review Selnor. It reads a lot better, grammatically, than some of the 'professional' reviews I have seen. Agree with the score too. It's a game you need to play to appreciate, so I can understand why some people who haven't played it are questioning your rating.

I've played over 40 hours and 99.5% of that has been on attrition. Still have all the other modes to try out and the 2 campaigns to play but having too much fun on attrition. Longevity is not a problem for this game.



Shaunaka said:
I haven't been here long, but I can't take anything Selnor says seriously at all. There have been massive contradictions and just plain poor thinking in much of what I've read from him.

Guess I can't make this statement without proving it.

Well, here he says that he only gives a score based on fun. But I also just read his Ryse review and the "best console graphics ever" certainly influenced his score there. It's just very sad that he lives in this little cloud up in la-la land and thinks people take him seriously. Oh well.

Some games are story driven. Visuals help these types of games tell stories. Why does praising visuals in a cinematc game mean that doesnt add to the fun of the game.



After being here for 3+ years and lurking before that, I expected nothing less from Selnor.



selnor1983 said:
Shaunaka said:
I haven't been here long, but I can't take anything Selnor says seriously at all. There have been massive contradictions and just plain poor thinking in much of what I've read from him.

Guess I can't make this statement without proving it.

Well, here he says that he only gives a score based on fun. But I also just read his Ryse review and the "best console graphics ever" certainly influenced his score there. It's just very sad that he lives in this little cloud up in la-la land and thinks people take him seriously. Oh well.

Some games are story driven. Visuals help these types of games tell stories. Why does praising visuals in a cinematc game mean that doesnt add to the fun of the game.

You stated that you rate and give scores based on "fun" alone.

Yet you rated and scored Ryse because of graphics.

The point certainly stands.



Around the Network

^ contradictory as always



It has no Single player for a start! Can we take this review seriously when the individual in question has strong X1 leanings???? The PC version is still the best version by far!



Ashadian said:
It has no Single player for a start! Can we take this review seriously when the individual in question has strong X1 leanings???? The PC version is still the best version by far!

And? Every game doesn't need a SP, just like every game doesn't need a MP.



I have the game on my XB1. I like it, but I am not a shooter fan and don't last long. My son (he's 15) really likes shooters and he plays it quite a bit. I have been thinking of getting the 360 version so that I can get time on the XB1. Either that or get him Infamous:SS and a PS4, he loved the first 2 games on the PS3. Either way, I have watched him play 4-5 hours of Titanfall. Even just watching, you get so immersed and the action is just tiring to keep up with.

As far as a 10/10 score, my son thinks so.

For those that say a game can't be perfect: Why not. Based on all of the games that are multiplayer shooters, if it is the best, it is 10/10. If the score of 10/10 can't be achieved, then why even have a 10/10 possible?

For those who believe that the game should receive a lower score because it is missing something(Single player or some feature that is in another shooter): Why would a game designed to be an online only multi player game have to have that? That is like saying that Gran Turismo or Forza need to have rocket launchers on the cars because Spy Hunter or Mario Kart does. This is the fundamental flaw made in most reviews that I read for games or movies or whatever. The review should be about the item your reviewing and what its intentions are and how it sells itself to create a certain expectation. So, if it sells itself as a online only multiplayer shooter, then that is what the review should be about.

For those that think the graphics or effects should be involved in the score/rating: This I agree with to a point. Like others have said, I think this should matter if the graphics are so good that they actually add something to the game(better immersion or something). But if a game is moving so fast and the action is so good that you never get to spend time counting the pixels on the clock tower off in the distance, then it doesn't affect the score.

If I were to rate the game, it looks like a 8 or 9 out of ten. I think the visuals could have been a bit better and that there could have been a large player arena mode(12 vs 12 or even 16 vs 16) with little to no bots. But, that is what the sequel is for...



It is near the end of the end....

I was smiling as soon as I saw the title. Love Selnor



PSN: Saugeen-Uwo     Feel free to add me (put Vg Chartz as MSG)!

Nintendo Network ID: Saugeen-Uwo