Top
200°
9.0

Titanfall Review | InsideGamingDaily

Rob Smith - "A few rules about videogame reviews: 1) you always review what’s there, and not what’s missing or what you wanted; 2) you never, ever change the score; 3) you judge it ultimately on one fundamental question: is the game fun? All these elements are relevant with Titanfall, simply the most important game that will be released this year (and yes, I realize it’s only March)."

Read Full Story >>
insidegamingdaily.com
The story is too old to be commented.
AngelicIceDiamond1539d ago

Another great review. I say keep'em comin.

4Sh0w1539d ago

Yep, Titanfall is indeed a badass game.

It's gonna be a loooooooong night.

christocolus1539d ago (Edited 1539d ago )

Glad to see its doing so well with the critics.

Shadonic1539d ago

agreed loved the beta would buy it if i werent trying to save money for infamous and watch dogs

lolCHILLbro1539d ago Show
komp1539d ago (Edited 1539d ago )

I saw this, thought it was funny.... so in the most non fanboy way... http://2.media.dorkly.cvcdn...

Enjoy your game.

(sincere)

Septic1539d ago

Lol that is brilliant.

Alan_Shore1539d ago

Woke up to read all the reviews game is doing damage! (in a good way). Congrats to respawn for sure.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1539d ago
Anon19741539d ago

"Always review what’s there, and not what’s missing or what you wanted."

What? That's ridiculous. If you're reviewing a game, of course you're going to compare how it stacks up to other games in the same genre. You mean to tell me if you're reviewing 10 $60 multiplayer, similar fps games, and 9 of those games have 25 maps and one game has 2 maps, as long as the 2 map game was fun you wouldn't feel any obligation to mention to your readers that it was a little light on maps compared to the what's out there?

Right there you've told me I can't trust you as a reviewer, because that's carpet chewing mad.

4logpc1539d ago

I think you have to review a game for what is there. If you just spend your time reviewing everything and comparing it to everything else you would always have a certain game score higher. Especially if you have a reviewer that is partial to a certain genre.

If you were reviewing Call of Duty and you liked the ranking system, but you also reviewed battlefield but werent a fan of their progression because its not like Call of Duty, is that really a fault of battlefield? No, its just a different design.

You have to review a game for what is on the disc, and if what is on the disc is worth the time and money people spend on it.

Anon19741539d ago (Edited 1539d ago )

I agree. There has to be a line there when your comparing different and contrasting different features, but that's not what we're talking about here. It's hard to look at games in the same genre at the same price, and not compare MAJOR features, or lack thereof, like no offline, no SP, no splitscreen, etc. If they made up for it with double the maps, or more gameplay modes than the others...or if one game was value priced compared to the others, you could understand a reviewer overlooking some of these things but, oddly, that's not what we're seeing here.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not coming down on Titanfall. I think it looks like a blast for what it is, I just find it odd that we're seeing so many reviewers simply turning a blind eye to some glaring omissions.

I guess the moral here is if you don't want reviewers to pick apart things like a short single player mode or lackluster offline co-op campaigns and lower their review scores...just don't include them! Problem solved!

Again, this is nothing against Titanfall. It's just an observation on how reviewers are treating their reviews of Titanfall different from how they would normally review a game in this genre. If you reviewed a $60 racing game with only one track, even if that racing game was fun as hell I think you'd be remiss as a reviewer if you didn't mention how the game compared to similarly priced games from the same genre. If it's so much fun it completely overshadows what's missing, great! Discuss that in your review.

Seriously, have you seen one review that states "It has no offline, no SP, no splitscreen and some screen tearing and framerate issues which sets it apart from other games in this genre, but it's just so damn cool in what it does right it makes up for all this"? I haven't. If I did see that, it'd have no problem with that because they'd be explaining and justifying their review. Instead, the majority are ignoring the shortcomings and pretending they don't exist and that bugs me. What other game can you think of where we've seen this behaviour on such a wide scale?

4Sh0w1539d ago (Edited 1539d ago )

darkride you are trying too hard, the bottom line is its the reviewers opinion, if you disagree with his opinion that's fine but its obvious you are trying to force your opinion down everyone elses throat.

Yeah, see its easy to nitpick a review and say "Why didn't they rate it lower for 》insert your reasons《 but at the end of the day if the reviewer thought it was a helluva game worth $60, then he should score it accordingly.

Take a look at how MAG is treated by ps fans on n4g when MAG got a 9/10 from 1up:
http://n4g.com/news/468114/...

Look shockingly no complaints for lack of SP from the ps community, no xbox fans trolling the review because they gave a online only game a 9. Most reviews like Edge for example didn't rate the game lower for reasons like no SP, the game itself just wasn't enjoyable for other reasons, MAINLY GAMEPLAY:

"Occasionally, you get a glimpse of this epic scale as the squads surge upon the final objective, but MAG all too often fails to communicate the size of the battle or your significance in it. Only part of this problem can be blamed upon incompetent superiors; the game itself lacks a coherence to its ideas, or even the structure of its levels, which the player struggles to intuit. Being so large and dispersed, the sprawling battlefields reject clear defensive lines in favour of scrappy, muddled affairs in which attackers bundle in from all angles, and defenders respawn right in the thick of it"
http://www.edge-online.com/...

maniacmayhem1539d ago

@Darkride

I don't understand why the sudden need to review THIS particular game so harshly. All of a sudden a reviewer should take into account what the game DOESN'T offer? Not only that but to take off points for things that were never intended for the game to have.

How does that make any sense?

If that is the case we should apply that logic to every game in existence. Should single player games priced at $60 and offer no multiplayer, co-op, extra missions, extra maps or anything else found in other games be judged as harshly?

I find it strange that for some people they can't just believe that the game is fun with what it has and is being sold for $60. I have seen other games that offered way less at the same price, and not once was there a call to arms for reviewers to judge the game as harsh as people want them to judge Titanfall.

PrinterMan1539d ago

I guess by that line of thinking every game is a 10? It can look like an atari 2600 game but it's really fun so it should be a 10? When a game is just as fun and has absolutely amazing never before seen graphics??? Absolutely amazing AI?

I say rate games in categories and forget all this 10 out of 10 crap. it can be so misleading.

Anon19741539d ago

@4Sh0w. The issue I have is with this reviewer's arbitrary rules for reviewing. They don't make any sense. Obviously if a racing game has 1 track and one car and the industry norm is 10 tracks and 50 cars for a full priced game, I want the reviewer to explain how it stacks up within the genre if it doesn't or if it exceeds expectations.

I've got no idea why you're going on about "PS fans." Forum chatter has zero bearing on if reviewers are doing their job or not. MAG was absolutely slammed by reviewers for it's lack of modes, lack of single player, 9 maps and for having not having enough content to justify the $60 price tag. That was reviewers doing their job. Sure, some reviewers chose to overlook the deficiencies. Those are what I like to refer to as "lousy reviews".

@ maniacmayhem. No no no. Reviewers should ALWAYS take into account what a game doesn't offer compared to the norm, just as they should take into account when it goes above and beyond. This goes beyond the reviews for this game, it's just this game is a great example of game reviewers suddenly all with their blinders on (with the exception of that one review from the Globe and Mail who clearly didn't get the memo).

And judging single player games on lack of multiplayer..blah blah blah..that's just a cop out. Clearly there should be standards within genres that reviewers should consider when offering a review like I mentioned in my racing game analogy above. I'd be pretty pissed if a racing game charged $60 and only came with a handful of cars and a couple of tracks because that's not the standard I've come to expect from the genre.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1539d ago
kewlkat0071539d ago (Edited 1539d ago )

Could you imaging if you reviewed games like "Mario bros" based on what is possible and what is not there?

whats price got to do with it? I could of sworn the latest Mario game cost $60.

Should Infamous Second Son be dinged because of no day/night cycles? and others effects missing other games might have?

Anon19741539d ago (Edited 1539d ago )

Could you imagine if Mario Bros cost $60?
(Edit: Thought we were talking original Mario Bros. Moot point though. The price isn't what matters, it's the price/feature comparison relative to what the norm is for the genre)

Could you imagine if there were 5 other Mario Bros type games on the market right now, each at $60, and one of them only had one level compared to 10 levels of the same size for each of the other games? And then, could you imagine if the reviewer simply didn't bother mentioning this fact? That particular Mario Bros game could be fun as hell, but don't you think it's a reviewers job to at least consider how it compares to similar games, similarly priced in that genre?

As I pointed out above, if that one level is so damn fun it makes up for there only being one, fine! Explain that in your review, but you're not doing your job as a reviewer if you don't inform your readers of such deficiencies.

2nd Edit: Should Infamous Second Son be dinged for no day/night? Maybe. What's the norm for the genre? How important is the day/night cycle to the overall product offering?

starchild1539d ago

@darkride66

I simply don't agree. Games should always be reviewed on what they offer, not judged against some preconception or expectation the reviewer has in their head.

For example, some reviewers expected Thief to be an action/stealth hybrid like Dishonored or Assassin's Creed and they scored it more harshly for not living up to that expectation. I think that is wrong.

So many games have multiplayer modes these days, but does that mean that games that don't offer multiplayer modes should be given lower scores?

If a review properly covers what the game offers then people can assign their own value judgments to those things. The actual scores are less important and I personally don't even care about them. They are just a convenient way to see at a glance what that person's subjective opinion of the overall game was.

Team_Litt1539d ago ShowReplies(1)
QuickdrawMcgraw1539d ago (Edited 1539d ago )

Why is it the most important game it be released this year?

JokesOnYou1539d ago (Edited 1539d ago )

darkride, there is no "industry norm", you're just trying to make up some fictional standard based on your bias, in fact MAG is a key exclusive from sony that didn't have a SP= but you never complained, plus 2 of the highest rated, best selling FPS's for the last few years has had a SP campaign that gets shorter and shorter and contribute so little to the actual games themselves that many people don't bother playing them and many, many more never even finish the SP. lol, the consensus for over 5 yrs is that the SP in those games are the worst part of the experience. Yet COD and BF franchise is loved by millions regardless because of the strong multi. I mean other than Halo and maybe Gears to some extent the SP in many FPS has taken a backseat to the multi and its apparent in many reviews that brush over what little story is there and OUTRIGHT SAY "BUT LETS GET TO THE MULTIPLAYER WHICH IS WHAT GAMERS REALLY BUY BATTLEFIELD FOR".

It seems your soap box rant is conveniently fixated on Titanfall now yet, you never trolled MAG for the same reasons, which is why nobody here takes you seriously. Titanfall will provide countless hrs of fun that many SP games don't so if we are talking bang for the buck its easily worth $60, hell Knack was a game that could have easily been a download title on the same level as an Arcade game but again you are conveniently absent from ranting about sony charging $60 for it or asking why reviewers who didn't mention it didn't rate it much lower for the same reason.

Speaking of "industry norm" lets talk about why in 2014-2015 when many SP games are offering online components for longevity/increase value/playtime/variety why sony is putting out games like infamous SS where the dev is limited in resources to even TRY to make some type of online like GTA5 did, and why is the Order featuring other characters that are ripe for a co-op mode once again limited to 1 player experience as if you can't give that "option" on the 2nd playthrough?

lol, I could go on, but the point is your logic is flawed and one-sided. Titanfall is not the failure you and your ps crew were hoping for, the more you talk the more butthurt you sound.

Anon19741539d ago (Edited 1539d ago )

Of course there's industry standards. Don't be obtuse. You wouldn't buy a racing game for $60 with 1 track and 5 cars, for example. Pretending there aren't genre norms and certain, accepted standards for games doesn't somehow magically make it so.

I didn't complain about MAG? That's funny. Because actually I was quite vocal about not paying full price for a multiplayer only game. I have always maintained that multiplayer only games should either have extra content in their multiplayer or be budget priced. I have never wavered in that opinion.

Downplay the lack of single player all you want, it doesn't change for a second that it's inclusion in this particular genre is the standard and it's omission, unless it's made up for with extra maps or something, is less game for your gaming dollar.

But let's get to the gist of your little rant. "Titanfall is not the failure you and your ps crew were hoping for." Right there you reveal your fanboy, console war agenda right there. To you, this has nothing to do with value for gamers or review standards. This, like all your posts, has zero to do with actual gaming and everything to do with trolling others in your perpetual console war nonsense.

I think Titanfall looks like an absolute blast. I've said that over and over again. I have no desire to see this game fail, and why would it? It looks awesome and according to every review coming in, it is awesome. It does multiplayer right and I can't wait to play it myself.

My issue, as I've stated about as plainly as I can and you still managed to twist into some console war malarkey, is with reviewers who don't think games should be held up to any sort of genre standards when being reviewed. It's nonsense and if you were at all honest with yourself you'd know I'm correct. Again, you wouldn't put any faith in a review of a racing game with 1 track and 5 cars that was negligent in mentioning how the game stacked up against other, similarly priced offerings in the genre, would you?

Or let me guess...it wouldn't be an issue as long as it was on your console of choice? Your ability to twist any gaming argument into us vs them fanboy nonsense is really quite unbelievable. But hey, I don't want to be too hard on you. With your particular set of delusions it can't have been an easy six months for you and it's not looking like it'll get much better. Keep fighting your ridiculous fight while you can.

Welcome to the ignore list. Enjoy this console gen!

4Sh0w1538d ago (Edited 1538d ago )

darkride jokes is right you are full of it. This game has 15 huge maps and more replay value than Knack or even KZ SF that has a story, which goes to show having a story doesn't make the game better. That in no way reflects your bogus comparison of a racer with 1 track.

You pretend not to be a fanboy under the guise of "I think the game is a blast" but really you are here to take a dig at anything microsoft related, nobody has to love micro and being critical of them is fine but you have a history of trying to prove xbox division is a failure and micro is evil oppose to sony sounding like your god. Call jokes what you want sure he might love xbox but I don't see him all over ps threads trolling any ps4 news or games threads.

You say SP only games has always been something you were against so let's see where's a link to your rant about MAG on one of its reviews??? I'm betting you won't post 1 link with quotes of you ranting about this in a MAG REVIEW, asking why reviewers are overlooking it has no SP? You won't, you'll continue to divert attention with silly arguement like a racer with 1 track because you are making up reasons to troll Titanfall or prove me wrong?????

maniacmayhem1538d ago (Edited 1538d ago )

What 4Show and the rest of us are trying to tell you is were you this adamant when MAG was released that all reviewers need to review this game based on it not having a SP campaign?

Titanfall was never meant to have a SP, it was designed for a MP gameplay ONLY and it should be reviewed as such. You make no sense with your 1 car, 1 race track analogy because in no sane, logical way does it apply to anything related to Titanfall. In fact you claim SP with no MP is a cop out and yet you are doing the exact same thing with you insane rationale. What standard are you looking for? What standard are you expecting for only this game to follow? Because you are only upset at this "standard" when it comes to Titanfall.

Are you not a game developer? How can you say something that foolish and be a developer yourself?

It seems every great review of this game to you, are being blind and the other reviews (like the Globe you mentioned)that score it low are the ones you feel are making sense. If this isn't a perfect example of pure salt and bias then I don't know what else there is. Lord forbid that the reviews for this game even before the initial launch mostly all praised the game for being fun. Even youtubers like Maximillion and Angry Joe loved the game, are they also blind?

Again, you can't fool the people that have been on this site long enough and know your post history Darkride. Me and others have already posted your obvious and plain bias towards MS and the 360.

http://n4g.com/news/467226/...

Comment 1.7

http://n4g.com/news/463261/...

Comment 1.33

As 4Show and Jokes said, where was this 1 car, 1 track and call for video game journalists to review MAG harshly for it being a MP only game? No complaints for how many maps were in MAG? Did MAG have splitscreen, did you mention that anywhere? No, for MAG you were not concerned in the least bit, but now you expect us to believe you always felt this way and now flex this opinion when one of X1's biggest title is being released?

Sorry Darkride, but its obvious no one is buying what you are trying to sell.

Anon19741538d ago (Edited 1538d ago )

"Titanfall was never meant to have a SP, it was designed for a MP gameplay ONLY and it should be reviewed as such."

Yeah, you keep saying that but it doesn't mean it's going to happen. It's ultimately going to be compared to it's competition, as it should.

I haven't the faintest idea why you're bringing my comments regarding MAG into this. First comment...I didn't think MAG would sell but I said people would probably like it and that's what's important. OMG! Shocking...I know. The second quote is me asking why there'd be a bunch of ads for a game that wasn't yet available, and basically saying I don't want to see ads for games months in advance. Again, is there a problem? Honest question, what's your problem with either of those statements and what does that have to do with anything, whatsoever?

Must have taken you some time to track down those comments of mine from 4 years ago that don't do a damn thing to support your narrative. That must suck, huh? :)

I think Titanfall looks like a blast, as I've stated..over and over again. I couldn't be more clear on this. And nowhere have I condemned anyone's high review score of Titanfall (nice try though). Why would I? They're entitled to their opinions. If they think it's a 10 out of 10 game, more power to them! My point is reviewers never seem to have a problem pointing out how games stack up to their competition and yet here they seem unable to bring it up for the most part. Why is that?

If a reviewer thinks Titanfall is a perfect 10 and a value compared to what's out there, fantastic! But explain why. That's my beef. Don't pretend the game doesn't have any competition or isn't going to be measured up against titles out there.

You, among others, seem to be having this make believe argument where you feel you need to defend Titanfall, defend it's high review scores and defend it's decision to not include features commonly found in the genre against the "Darkride attack!". The problem with that is it's completely once sided. I'm not attacking Titanfall. I've not said one bad thing about that game. You're having about as one sided an argument as you possibly could. Find me one place where I've ever said Titanfall didn't look fun, or wasn't deserving of the review scores it's been receiving. Just one.

While I personally won't be paying $60 for a game that doesn't come with single player, that's my personal choice. I'm a single player gamer. I wish Titanfall had a single player campaign, but nowhere have I ever condemned the game or suggested its not fantastic at what it does. Also, I play split-screen co-op and that's important to me. I didn't buy MAG, I won't by Titanfall. Not my thing. Again, get this through your thick skull.

I can't state this more plainly. I AM NOT ATTACKING TITANFALL.

I'm simply pointing out these reviews are for the most part, not directly comparing Titanfall to it's competition and, I believe, a reviewers job is to comment on a not only where a game stands out among those of it's genre, but where it's lacking. Only you nutters could take that to be an attack on your precious, despite the fact that I've repeatedly praised this game and have been posting positive Titanfall review articles to this site for 2 days now. I wish it had more that appealed to myself personally. That's not a condemnation.

Console fanboys... Jeez...

maniacmayhem1538d ago (Edited 1538d ago )

http://n4g.com/news/1124727...

Comment #1

You have an issue with this reviewer comparing PS Allstars to Smash Bros. Why is it not okay for this review to not compare those two games? Didn't you just complain to all of us that every game should be reviewed against their competition?

I'm going to quote you Darkride from the very same article:

****

I like the way Destructiod approached their review. "Most of you probably just want me to outright tell you whether or not All-Stars is as good as Smash Bros. and be done with it. Nope, I'm not going to answer that -- All-Stars should be judged on its own merits. And based on those merits, it excels."

That's the approach every game review should take. That's a lesson 1UP should take to heart.

*****

Interesting, you even say yourself that every review of a game should be based on its own merits...But now this has all changed for Titanfall. Why is that Darkride? Why the sudden change of heart for a well received game for the Xbox One?

And then you wonder why we are calling you bias, and almost a borderline troll. These comments were easy to find too, Darkride, MAG+Darkride+Google, so simple to do. :)

Stop pretending you are some neutral gamer with no hidden agenda. As I have said before most of us have been on here long enough and know you past comment history. It's no surprise that you hold unrealistic expectations for MS games but turn a blind eye for everything Sony.

It's too bad you ran out of bubbles would have loved to here what sort of deflecting comeback you would have had. PM me if you like.

4Sh0w1538d ago (Edited 1538d ago )

lol, good one maniac= darkride is contradicting himself so much that the spin is making him so light headed he's trying to save face by saying he's not attacking the game when that's exactly what he was doing, trying to backpedal a bit because his own comments are so contradicting it's embarrassing.

He said right there in that link you posted that every review should be based on its own merits, now he changed his own beliefs cause he's so jealous of Titanfall.  Typical hater, he doesn't know what he stands for, he will just say anything to take a dig a popular game that's not on ps4 and he will flip flop when convenient to support a ps game. EXPOSED= those links are very telling, I won't bother even trying to have retional discussion with him in the future, and any xbox fan looking for honest criticism of anything xbox related should ignore hypocrites like him, but just like he made up that statement about being vocal and never wavering in regards to a game with no SP, which he clearly did since not only was he silent on reviewers rating it lower for SP only because of "industry standards" but his comments on those articles are very supportive of MAG as if the game should have been rated higher= lol imagine that for a guy who never wavers on online only games, so this just shows why trying to engage in a sensible way with people liks this is pointless but either way but no doubt some people will just continued on or just stealth troll with another account.

XboxFun1538d ago

Wow Maniac, what a way to expose the hypocrisy of the sony fanboys on this site. He agrees in the PS All Star review that games should be reviewed by their own merits, but for Titanfall he changes his tune. How convenient.

this is the same guy who posts a bunch of MS is selling Xbox articles every chance he gets and then gets so upset when someone calls him out.

I like all the ducking and dodging he was doing when folks were calling him out on those stupid analogies too. 1 car, 1 track?? What the hell does that even mean and how does that relate to a complete game like Titanfall.

Shame that obvious stealth trolls like Darkride get bubbled up for posting nonsense. But as I was told from a certain mod, the bubble system is flawed.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1538d ago
TheFallenAngel1539d ago

Great score. So far the game has had good scores. But I was expecting 10s or really close to 10s from everyone after the insane hype the media gave it.

B-radical1539d ago

Even with the 9s and 8s be be be believe the hype.

i expect an 80+ on metacritic easyily

TheFallenAngel1539d ago (Edited 1539d ago )

I played the beta and it's a solid 8 in my opinion. Nothing revolutionary and certainly not the second coming. I expect 86-88 on metacritic, which is a great score for a new IP

ger23961539d ago

Agree, one question. How long did reviewers have the game prior to giving it a score?

firefly691539d ago (Edited 1539d ago )

Well the game can be fun and indeed every reviewer reviews the game diferentlly the game can be a 10 in some reviewer mind i dont care its is way of seeing the game but this guy is no reviewer!No one that reviews games and its actually a reviewer and fundamentally a gaming reviewer is a gaming fan,and in no way this line is acceptable "" All these elements are relevant with Titanfall, simply the most important game that will be released this year (and yes, I realize it’s only March)""This is BS this is a bias review from the moment this so call reviewer makes a sentence like that one!Indeed its March and there are still lots of games that will be released so why say such a bias comment...shit journalism!

Tedakin1539d ago

Hey look, another high score...... Whadya know?

Tedakin1539d ago

You disagree that it's another high score? How do you disagree with a fact?

Show all comments (43)