• 80 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Lumley (945 posts) -
#2 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

Polygon said the review was going to be "the longest in polygon history". So already fil in a 10/10 there

#3 Edited by Lumley (945 posts) -
#4 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -
#5 Edited by Ravelle (1192 posts) -

@darji said:

Polygon said the review was going to be "the longest in polygon history". So already fil in a 10/10 there

There isn't really a polygon history, they only have been around since 2012 ;p

#6 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

The really strange thing is this:

Chris Watters played Titanfall for two days straight at a review event run by EA, where he encountered server issues allegedly caused by small player population.

Hey we have this MP only game with all these awesome dedicated server but you still must take part in an review event of an MP only game. How can anyone give this game a score based on this? I think the Giantbomb and Eurogamer way of doing it are much better here. Edit: Edge does the same. Really nice to see these sites still have credibility left.

#7 Edited by jkz (4003 posts) -

I still think reviews of multiplayer shooters that are based on experience gleaned solely from playing those shooters against other reviewers are really weird. Like they weird me out more than most anything else in this industry, if only because reviewers aren't the ones who are truly going to test the balance of a game. Not that it's their fault (obviously as a reviewer I wouldn't expect you to dedicate the same amount of time others may to this ONE game), but given the way so many shooters seem so promising and then come out and crumple under the weight of millions of people throwing themselves at them, it still seems real weird. I'm not just talking server load here, although that's an issue too, but balance issues and odd glitches and such as well. it's still shocking how much weight people will put behind their experiences with a (mainly/purely MP) game played only against other reviewers.

#8 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5339 posts) -

I only read reviews that include the word "staid."

#9 Posted by TurboMan (7414 posts) -

Good for Respawn for coming out swinging in their first game (assuming that the servers don't explode)

#10 Posted by gerrid (298 posts) -

When even IGN refuse to give a score you have to wonder why the other outlets haven't learnt the lesson yet. The fact that Polygon is willing to a 9/10 after what they've been through - who knows.

Definitely more included to pay attention to the sites that refuse to give a score pre-release.

#11 Edited by SlashDance (1804 posts) -

$60 though...

#12 Posted by joshwent (2134 posts) -

@jkz: Jeff has talked about this a lot. These sites have the numbers and statistics about people viewing their reviews, and what they've learned is that like 2 or 3 days after a game comes out, they might as well not exist. So if a site that gets a lot of its page views from reviews decided to wait until they can play a MP game under the situations that the general public will play it, they've really just screwed themselves out of tons of money and readers have gone elsewhere to find the coverage.

GB has that luxury because these days they produce more random video content than reviews, so waiting doesn't impact them nearly as much as some more traditional sites.

Basically, it's as much the reader's faults as it is the reviewers.

---

Anyway, I don't really care at all about Titanfall personally, but it's nice to see people like it so much. Smallish team successes should always be big news. Now we'll just have to see if its sales mirror its hype.

Online
#13 Edited by jkz (4003 posts) -

@joshwent:

Oh no I'm aware. I just fall on the side of honesty and service to your readers, but that's the exact reason I stopped with my forays into journalism: it's really hard to be successful and also purely honest to your readers, because what they WANT a lot of the time isn't so much the wholest and fullest version of the truth, but instead what's considered the truth AT THAT VERY MOMENT. One of those contradictions that I acknowledge but still makes me feel...a bit weird? I dunno. It's awesome that places like GB have found a niche that gives them the luxury to be more honest with their readers, though.

But yeah don't get me wrong, I'm happy a new, small team (even if it's one with some more built-in credibility than most) could put out something so seemingly solid on their first run, even if I've little interest, and I hope it IS balanced and awesome for all the people who are excited for it. If nothing else I'd like to see a fire lit under COD's ass

#14 Posted by falserelic (5333 posts) -

#15 Edited by jarowdowsky (206 posts) -

Anyone else find Polygon's design just about unreadable on a desktop - realise it's optimised for tablets but hell, it's like every line of text is SHOUTING at that size.

#16 Edited by Chaser324 (6331 posts) -

@joshwent said:

@jkz: Jeff has talked about this a lot. These sites have the numbers and statistics about people viewing their reviews, and what they've learned is that like 2 or 3 days after a game comes out, they might as well not exist. So if a site that gets a lot of its page views from reviews decided to wait until they can play a MP game under the situations that the general public will play it, they've really just screwed themselves out of tons of money and readers have gone elsewhere to find the coverage.

GB has that luxury because these days they produce more random video content than reviews, so waiting doesn't impact them nearly as much as some more traditional sites.

Yeah, it sucks a little bit for some of us that are attuned more to the content of a review and not just the score, but the bottom line is that it's business. Not getting a review out alongside a game at the same time as other outlets is throwing away a ton of page views. That's the reason why you occasionally see people like Adam Sessler freaking out when some outlets get exclusive or early reviews. I know that there's a certain element of it that's ludicrous, but it isn't the systematic collusion/conspiracy/corruption or endemic incompetence that some people make it out to be (...I really loathe those sorts of posts).

GB is luckily setup in a way that doesn't make them as reliant on that sort of day one review traffic.

Moderator Online
#17 Edited by JJBSterling (168 posts) -

I understand the argument and the different lifestyles everyone has, but complaining about a mere $60 always seems crazy to me.

#18 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5339 posts) -

@jjbsterling: I've said this before but in terms of statistical significance (0.05%) you have to make 1.2 million dollars per $60 purchase for it to be negligible relative to $30.

#19 Posted by Chaser324 (6331 posts) -

Anyone else find Polygon's design just about unreadable on a desktop - realise it's optimised for tablets but hell, it's like every line of text is SHOUTING at that size.

Yeah, while I occasionally really like the way some of it looks (that CtOS article, PS4/Xbox One launch content), the graphic design is typically so bloated and overdone that it makes it damn near impossible to read.

Moderator Online
#20 Edited by leftie68 (215 posts) -

The beta was outstanding fun for the first 10 hours or so (law of diminishing return). However, from my experience and these reviews I just don't see enough to warrant a $60 purchase for me (a gamer who isn't entirely committed to the FPS multiplayer genre).

#21 Edited by BRich (431 posts) -

@jjbsterling said:

I understand the argument and the different lifestyles everyone has, but complaining about a mere $60 always seems crazy to me.

Agreed. People complain about this game being multiplayer only, but anyone who gets into it will get 100s of hours of playtime at the bare minimum. Plenty of us seem willing to buy single player games that are over in 8 hours, which we have no intention of ever playing again.

Would throwing in a 4 hour traditional COD single player campaign suddenly give this game $60 value? (It does have a "campaign mode" by the way).

#22 Edited by leftie68 (215 posts) -

@brich: Again this is assuming that people will spend 100s of hours on the game. Again, some people just aren't into FPS multiplayer games. I commend Respawn for devleoping a great FPS multiplayer game, and for me, the beta was a fun distraction, but for many people out there, that is all multiplayer shooters are...a short, albeit fun distraction.

#23 Posted by HistoryInRust (6274 posts) -

Not picking it up, but I'm really glad it's reviewing well. Good to see some more widely-accessible content on the next-gen consoles.

#24 Edited by BRich (431 posts) -

@leftie68: Seems like you got more playtime out of a free beta than almost any $60 single player campaign..

I agree though, if you don't enjoy competitive multiplayer or first-person shooting, this doesn't seem like the game for you.

#25 Posted by leftie68 (215 posts) -

@historyinrust: Same here, I love the concept of the game, but I am a story and lore wh*re when it comes to games, and was really hoping the campaign mode was something special that I could sink my teeth into and justify a $60 purchase. I guess I will just wait for the steam sale in the summer.

#26 Posted by Chaser324 (6331 posts) -

@leftie68 said:

[...] I just don't see enough to warrant a $60 purchase for me (a gamer who isn't entirely committed to the FPS multiplayer genre).

That's the distinction that a lot of Titanfall detractors seem to not typically hit upon. If the lack of single-player or $60 price point are what's holding you back, the reality of it is that you probably aren't the type of person to get into this game regardless of the price point. For people that have lost hundreds of hours playing Modern Warfare or spent an entire year of college engrossed in Halo 2, then it's really just a matter of deciding if you're up for a new flavor of that.

Moderator Online
#27 Posted by kishinfoulux (2256 posts) -

Sort of off topic, but somewhat related did that Twitch update hit yet for XB1? Or is that later today?

#28 Posted by Chaser324 (6331 posts) -

@kishinfoulux: The updated Twitch app is supposed to launch tomorrow (March 11) alongside Titanfall.

Moderator Online
#29 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

It's all about the time you'll spend with the game. Considering I'll easily play Titanfall for over 60 hours, I don't mind paying it 60 bucks. For me, 1$ an hour is fine. Even if I play 40 hours of a 60$ game, it's still passable in my opinion.

#30 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (5259 posts) -

I bought the game solely off my time with the beta, so I'm glad to see it translates well to reviewers. The $60 price tag doesn't really bother me as I know I'll get enjoyment out of the game, although I can understand why others would be wary.

#31 Edited by Aviar (414 posts) -

I think what I'm more interested in, is what platform becomes the most popular platform for this game. Tomorrow the PC and Xbone get it, but the 360 is several weeks behind.

I know this game has legs to make it last more than a couple of weeks, but after seeing and playing it on my PC, I don't think I'd want to play this on a console.

#32 Posted by avenlaya (59 posts) -

Anyone else feel uneasy with some reviews not mentioning the very limited modes and the frame rate here and there? The lack of Private Matches, ect. Adam Sesler gave it a 5/5 and didn't mention the modes once, except saying TDM and Capture the Flag is good. No mention of the frame rate either. EGM even gave "mode variety" in "The good" summary at the end.

#33 Posted by decko5 (148 posts) -

Will be the first FPS I play on my computer with a 360 controller. Loved it on the Xbox One.

#34 Edited by SomeJerk (3147 posts) -

About that EGM 10/10 review

Not seen: Youtube trailer of Titanfall loading before the actual site, requiring you to click to skip

So many sketchy-ass reviews of this out there that don't mention anything negative, in fact many of them don't act trustworthy at all. Jeff's route of waiting with the score is also taken by IGN and GI, after Battlefield 4 and so many other games I think that's a good idea.

#35 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5259 posts) -
@somejerk said:

About that EGM 10/10 review

Not seen: Youtube trailer of Titanfall loading before the actual site, requiring you to click to skip

So many sketchy-ass reviews of this out there that don't mention anything negative, in fact many of them don't act trustworthy at all. Jeff's route of waiting with the score is also taken by IGN and GI, after Battlefield 4 and so many other games I think that's a good idea.

I think waiting for the game's release to see how the actual servers hold up before applying a score is a really smart choice. I could easily see everything going a bad way and most of the review scores getting modified because of it. It's a really weird situation, but that's where we're at with more and more multiplayer focused games coming out these days.

#36 Posted by joshwent (2134 posts) -

@somejerk: You know GB has had those exact same banner ads, right? Not trusting reviews that don't mention anything negative is probably a good idea. But implying that those reviews are intentionally skewed to appease advertisers is just kind of lame. You don't need a conspiracy to explain shitty criticism.

Online
#37 Edited by steelerzfan101 (270 posts) -

Reviewing online-only games before they even release is a big no-no. I will be interested to see if any of those sites that have already uploaded their reviews upload an article or something later about their online experiences. I kinda feel like Titanfall is going to catch on fire once everybody hits the servers...

#38 Edited by Chaser324 (6331 posts) -

@somejerk said:

So many sketchy-ass reviews of this out there that don't mention anything negative, in fact many of them don't act trustworthy at all.

I really hate this attitude that the entire video game media is corrupt and colluding with game developers/publishers. I can certainly understand where it comes from (and sometimes I think it's totally valid to question someone's ethics), but it's absolutely ludicrous the blanket level of mistrust that some people have for all editorial content.

Moderator Online
#39 Edited by shinjin977 (748 posts) -

@joshwent said:

@somejerk: You know GB has had those exact same banner ads, right? Not trusting reviews that don't mention anything negative is probably a good idea. But implying that those reviews are intentionally skewed to appease advertisers is just kind of lame. You don't need a conspiracy to explain shitty criticism.

I agree but I am also not going to trust a movie critic's advice who also happen to be sponsored by the movie he is telling me to see. The reason I trust GB is because they put themselves out there and let us judge for ourselves if we trust them or not. No one in gaming, as far as I know, do what they do. Even if jeff were to do a live stream with a titanfall shirt, an X1 jacket and a doritos hat, I would still trust him over pretty much any site because I feel like I, as part of the GB community, trust him enough.

edit: Not to say I dont believe this game is good. I think it is. I was talking about trusting review in general.

#40 Posted by spraynardtatum (2614 posts) -

@joshwent said:

@somejerk: You know GB has had those exact same banner ads, right? Not trusting reviews that don't mention anything negative is probably a good idea. But implying that those reviews are intentionally skewed to appease advertisers is just kind of lame. You don't need a conspiracy to explain shitty criticism.

I agree but I am also not going to trust a movie critic's advice who also happen to be sponsored by the movie he is telling me to see. The reason I trust GB is because they put themselves out there and let us judge for ourselves if we trust them or not. No one in gaming, as far as I know, do what they do. Even if jeff were to do a live stream with a titanfall shirt, an X1 jacket and a doritos hat, I would still trust him over pretty much any site because I feel like I, as part of the GB community, trust him enough.

I really really hope that @jeff does a live stream wearing a Titanfall shirt, X1 jacket, and a Doritos hat...that would be so damn funny to me.

#41 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (2572 posts) -

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/gaming/review-everything-about-titanfall-is-gigantic-but-it-left-us-wanting-more/article17392517/

Best Quote: "...It’s not just a single-player campaign that’s missing, it’s the ability to play the game alone or offline in any way. If something happens to your internet connection or to EA’s servers, Titanfall is simply unplayable, which seems inexcusable for a game with so much functioning AI."

I have to agree. It not that they had to put in a single player campaign, but not even an offline mode with bots? Not even a practice mode that you could play offline? Sorry that stinks of 'always on' to check-up on gamers, not for any game play reason but just to put you under their thumb. Moreover, I think a multiplayer only game should at least be robust with modes of play, yet only four modes of play appear.

#42 Edited by SomeJerk (3147 posts) -

@monkeyking1969 said:

not even an offline mode with bots? Not even a practice mode that you could play offline?

Didn't you try the beta? The AI is powered by the cloud in this not-coming-on-360 game according to Engadget who has an author who just freaked out due to people proving him very wrong about it not coming to 360.

1) Spawn
2) Follow preset path of nodes around map
3) Trigger scripted event if a player comes near
4) Don't shoot unless a player stands afk for a minute
People only perceive the follow-mode titan AI as smarter because it's more lethal, it has more lines of code to it.

Titanfall is a ripoff compared to the F2P titles that are around.

#43 Posted by GERALTITUDE (2959 posts) -

Interesting that ign is amongst the legitimate reviews.

If they have the balls to wait what's up with the other big sites? Pretty embarrassing I think, as the logic we get thrown at us is always that for the bigger sites the first few days is what matters most.

#44 Posted by xyzygy (9899 posts) -

Interesting that ign is amongst the legitimate reviews.

If they have the balls to wait what's up with the other big sites? Pretty embarrassing I think, as the logic we get thrown at us is always that for the bigger sites the first few days is what matters most.

What do you mean "legitimate"? So the current reviews are illegitimate because it's a day early and they all gave the game really high scores?

#45 Edited by GERALTITUDE (2959 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

@geraltitude said:

Interesting that ign is amongst the legitimate reviews.

If they have the balls to wait what's up with the other big sites? Pretty embarrassing I think, as the logic we get thrown at us is always that for the bigger sites the first few days is what matters most.

What do you mean "legitimate"? So the current reviews are illegitimate because it's a day early and they all gave the game really high scores?

Any review for an online only game that is not based on at least the first week of actual live play, is, to me, 100% illegitimate.

Beta environments and reviewer only events where they play 2 days straight at a building that is networked (or even online) are not legitimate.

How many Battlefield 4s and Sim Cities do we need to have to all agree on this?

edited for wonky italics/bolding...

#46 Posted by AgnosticJesus (542 posts) -

Hey guys I got a PS4 too, where's the line to shit on a game that's obviously good but we say sucks because we can't play it? Oh wait, fuck that, I have both systems. I'll wait and get in line tomorrow at Best Buy and enjoy the game because I'm a fan of good video games, not corporations that manufacture consoles.

#47 Edited by bigjeffrey (4805 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

@geraltitude said:

Interesting that ign is amongst the legitimate reviews.

If they have the balls to wait what's up with the other big sites? Pretty embarrassing I think, as the logic we get thrown at us is always that for the bigger sites the first few days is what matters most.

What do you mean "legitimate"? So the current reviews are illegitimate because it's a day early and they all gave the game really high scores?

Any review for an online only game that is not based on at least the first week of actual live play, is, to me, 100% illegitimate.

Beta environments and reviewer only events where they play 2 days straight at a building that is networked (or even online) are not legitimate.

How many Battlefield 4s and Sim Cities do we need to have to all agree on this?

edited for wonky italics/bolding...

They still waiting on the check

#48 Posted by Chaser324 (6331 posts) -

I have to agree. It not that they had to put in a single player campaign, but not even an offline mode with bots? Not even a practice mode that you could play offline? Sorry that stinks of 'always on' to check-up on gamers, not for any game play reason but just to put you under their thumb.

I don't buy into this concept that every game has to have offline content, and if it doesn't it's just keeping gamers online as some form of DRM to inconvenience them. Why can't a game just be an online multiplayer FPS? There's certainly no lack of a proven audience for it. Would you make the same claim against an MMORPG?

Also, why bother developing the complex AI required to make a meaningful human substitute just for a very small subset of people that might on a few very rare occasions actually use it?

Moderator Online
#49 Posted by PSNgamesun (395 posts) -

I get the why review it when the servers haven't been put to the test but in a way it's as if the reviews it's getting is an indication if the servers hold up it's what we will be playing.

#50 Edited by GERALTITUDE (2959 posts) -

@chaser324 said:

@monkeyking1969 said:

I have to agree. It not that they had to put in a single player campaign, but not even an offline mode with bots? Not even a practice mode that you could play offline? Sorry that stinks of 'always on' to check-up on gamers, not for any game play reason but just to put you under their thumb.

I don't buy into this concept that every game has to have offline content, and if it doesn't it's just keeping gamers online as some form of DRM to inconvenience them. Why can't a game just be an online multiplayer FPS? There's certainly no lack of a proven audience for it. Would you make the same claim against an MMORPG?

Also, why bother developing the complex AI required to make a meaningful human substitute just for a very small subset of people that might on a few very rare occasions actually use it?

I agree with this. I think the pain we feel is there isn't any recourse when something that is always online goes down, and that's a feeling we're still getting used to. At least Origin will give you a full refund if you go back within X days, so if you feel that, on your end, online isn't working, you can do something about it.

It's just nice when you live in places that have bad internet or even if you just don't trust a company to provide stable connection to fall back on something like bot-match, or, in the case of Titanfall, a lan-party.

It may be 2014 but it's still hard to swallow the idea of paying 60 bucks for something that only exists online, and may not exist in, for example, 5-10 years. Other games we can play forever, and they don't depend on anything external. The idea of a game with a limited, dependent shelf-life, can definitely scare people.

Hopefully I communicated that straight. I have no problem with Titanfall's release model, but I absolutely see the other side of it.

The MMORPG question you ask is fascinating to me. I don't know why I feel like this but back when I was in a state of mind to spend 15 bucks a month, it made a lot of sense to me that it could shut down one day. The thing is that MMOs are massive operations that really, really need to be always online.

This just isn't true for other genres. You could have offline/lan Titanfall. Yes there is development cost and vision, but mechanically and technologically it is not necessary for it to be online all the time.