After my first few rounds of Titanfall, hearing the “Your titan is now ready” notification began to induce a Pavlovian adrenaline-rush response.
Well deserved for a great game.
Great score and very fair review. Cons were few modes and no private groups, otherwise Titanfall score would be much higher. lol the good news is those will be added soon. I've been playing the last 2 days every free minute I get, despite a few personal gripes (burn cards don't add much to the game imo, and more diverse weapons are needed, I mean damm it's a Sci Fi shooter) other than that I'd give it a 9/10.
the difference between a score of "8.9" and a round "9" is a click
I'd say that's a fair score. IMO, I'd rate it around an 8.5 due to the weakness of the story in the campaign, but that wasn't Respawn's main focus anyway. They wanted to make a great multiplayer shooter, and that's exactly what they did.
No private matches? Only 6 vs 6? No next map vote? No snipers and where are the perks like call in a chopper/nuke/jet fighters? No way this is better then COD. Man I say 8.9 is still to high. 8 is better.
Should of been marked down on it's dim graphics and frame rate drops.
Good review, here's hoping they add large parties and more game modes soon.
@Blackbeld It has snipers, the game isn't for everyone but I think it is a more fun and different experience from CoD. I tried to play Cod after playing it last night and couldn't do it
@blackbeld Go play call of duty if you want a call of duty style game,ie kill streaks and such. The rest are valid arguments but you do sound a bit stupid wanting jets nukes and choppers... Where the hell have you been since the announcement ??? Dam COD fanboys
Maybe this is where reviews will trend now that Xbone has issues with performance. Instead of focusing on graphics and frame rate the reviews will be centered on the games themselves. Titanfall seems to be an above good, but not great, game with issues minor enough to be ignored. Hopefully other games get the same treatment. HA! Who am I kidding. I'll call it now. Infamous will be marked down for only being 30FPS, having a frame drop here and there and not being a full game because of no multiplayer.
Yeah I was surprised by this review. it is very balanced and covers all areas. Game got a fantastic score, if you like shooters buy it it is pretty simple :) I just need to upgrade my pc and ill be able to jump in. Dunon if i will yet though WarThunder has been calling me ;)
8.9.... Reminds me of another score they gave to another online only game.
@blackened dude I like COD as much as anyone. Between all of the cod games I've sunk about 2 or 3 months of game time into them. But this is waaaaaaayyyy better then ghosts. They have already said private matches will be in dlc for sure. Most likey a free one. Which apparently there is dlc comjng in 1 month from what other sites have reported in the past few weeks. And yes there are snipers. So ur pretty much telling everyone u haven't played TF
The burn card of all burn cards is the one that makes your mech blow up in a bigger nuclear explosion than usual.
@Biggest - You nailed it. I also have a feeling that Infamous SS will be ripped apart for every tiny little thing wrong by a lot of the mainstream review sites. Reviewers like IGN will give an easy pass for games like COD and TF (even if they have glaring problems). But when it comes to a PS exclusive game, they put it under the microscope and nit pick every little detail then magnify that detail as if it is game breaking. Details which they coincidentally ignored on those 'other' games.
I don't pay for content that should be in the game, but isn't, even if there's a free patch for the update. I pay for a finished game. Finish the game before releasing it. Feels like Killer Instinct all over again. Sigh...
@legionsoup Right? I agree, it's like ea is getting a free pass for unfinished games. It's sad gamers buy into it. TFs longevity is hindered because I can't make a private match and dick around with my friends... a feature in every other game.
there sure was allot of screen tear. I'd like to see the sequel come to PS4 as well. Have to say that this is a game that I'm going to enjoy playing on my PC.
In my opinion the no map vote thing is a good thing. Ever played Halo or CoD? Id rather play all the maps than just 2 thank you very much. :D
I finally got to install and play it a bit last night and bumped all my pc setting to max and game looks good. Not as good as I initially set my expectations at but happy and as some comments above on the whole chopper and jet killstreaks. to me that's what ruined COD for me, way to many and jet after jet after chopper after missle gets OLD. So far Titanfall is a nice change and makes me think if EA was do another Battlefield 2142.
@ Popeye Thats actually a very vaild point. Playing Ghosts and Halo 4 recently i feel players always choose the same 3 maps.
I hope it's good on the PC and the xbone; after all of that drama it deserves a little praise for what it does right instead of what it doesn't do right.
IGN gave it something more noble than I expected
Microsoft's IGN review check didn't clear?
The check that arrived with the Titanfall special edition xbox one bundle for the review??? Just kidding...(evil voice)or I'm I?????
Of course, 10/10 IGN would give it a 8.9/10. Pay cheques are a thing of beauty.
6-v-6 with bots!? No thanks:)
You don't have a Xbox :S
I have a high-end PC and I have zero interest in paying 60$ for this game. No way I would pay 500$ to play this in 720p and the worst version of every game released this gen. Sry, just the truth!
What's the player count on PS4? O vs 0? No thanks! Let me know how good the infamous MP is. The jealousy is rampant
Killzone 24v24 no bots lol, Battlefield 4 32v32 no bots. Planetside 2 2000 in 1 map. Anthing els??
Heaven forbid that a game not coming out on ps4 makes everyone jealous? Seriously, I don't (and I bet there are many more like me) understand why the comments like, "0vs0 on ps4" and "your just jealous because it's not on xbox" exist. These comments are (many times) from the same xbots that say stuff like, "psn4g" and that n4g is Sony heavy. Honestly, there's a ton of xbox news AND ps news and there are trolls and fanboys in each from both sides. Yes, 99% of the time I bubble down miku and sasuke and more of the ps fanboys, but you self righteous xbots are just plain a##-holes. Simply because of the slang you make up and use. Sorry, I don't need a Damn xbox to play this game, and if you use that argument about TF, then you lead way for Sony fanboys to claim warframe, black light, don't starve, contrast, outlast, awesomenauts, and many more to claim them as ps4 games. Just stop with your S###, someone saying, "I don't like 6 vs 6 with bots" does not give you the ability to say, "and it's 0 vs 0 on ps4." Period. It's an actual qualm with the game, not the system.
the excessive screen tearing was driving me crazy! not only does it not maintain a stable 60fps, it also tears like crazy, WTF is up with that? coupled with the last gen resolution and anyone who isn't biased can see that this game is lazy!!! The sequel should be allot better, with more players, human ones, and more modes, and proper next gen graphics! dont get me wrong graphics dont make a game on their own, but when a new generation of hardware has just launched come off it? These games should all clearly show the big difference between the newer consoles and the old! Instead this game has rushed written all over it! Why on earth respawn chose to use source is beyond me! That and the fact that its not even a locked 60fps with vsync enabled, i dont care even if its native 720p, as long as its locked 60fps with no tearing, but alas they failed to even give us that! People need to take off their fan boy goggles and see that this game is not next gen. This is just my opinion people no need to get all defensive, and i hate how the media has been hyping this game up so much. It is average at best, with last gen graphics and performance. The only redeeming factor is the game play which i will bet my bottom dollar on will get boring pretty quick with only 6 v 6 human combat!
So does it tear a lot like when you disable the framerate lock on BioShock Infinite? (console version). Cause that drives me crazy, sure it has a higher framerate but the tears are insane every time you look left or right quickly.
for a multiplayer game yes, they were to lazy and cheap on single player campaign or out of ideas, maybe low budget and they don't want to risk it with the first game since their studio was created who knows. in the end i am disappointed with the lack of sp, it could have potential.
lmfao why did you get so many disagrees just for saying that?
Very nice. The way IGN's been hyping it Im not surprised. I'd say that's a very fair score.
Look, I'm not trying to troll, but is it fair because it had a "wow factor" or because it genuinely provides a game of the year experience? My opinion is that it's missing a longevity factor, while being infused with new ideas of a stagnating genre (fps). Yes, I'm glad they tried to bridge mobas like league of legends and dota with cod, but that doesn't mean the hype is worth it.... Honestly, an 8 (because 5 means average on a scale of 1 - 10) is high for many games, and this game is graded on a different scale from games like last of us (because TF has no single player... Seriously, if a game had no multiplayer, people downgrade, why not with no single player?).
Why do they never just round the scores up if they are like 8.9, if you want it to be a 9...give it a 9. It's like "I could give it a 9....but nah" How do these reviews scores actually work Anyway it's expect with how much IGN how been hyping it up, if it wasn't they'd look like idiots.
I actually thought they start rounding off a long while back...made me like their reviews more...guess not
They did then they changed the system back.
I don't see a point in making a .1 increment scale. Is the difference between an 8.9 and a 9 really significant enough to merit a difference? It only reinforces the stereotype that game reviews are just a numbers game.
It could be done like how children are levelled in English at school. The work may be a really high 2B but it is missing certain things to give them a 2A level (and so they cannot be given that 2A and must be given a 2B). Same with this. IGN may think this game is very good but not good enough to slap a 9 (i.e. that next level) onto it as it is missing something that would make it eligible to be a 9 standard game (despite being 8.9. It shows it is a very high 8 game)
Ya the only thing I can think of is that the reviewer felt it was just not quite a 9? By a smidgen? Seems odd indeed
If you're going to give review scores from 0-100 (essentially what they do if they break each whole point into 10 parts), why not score out of 100? 9.3/10 and 93% may mean the same thing but it just makes sense. You should start at 100% and knock off marks for each problem you find. Taking 0.9 of a point off for an issue you find seems silly whereas taking 9% off for that problem makes more sense to me. Essentially if you score a game on a 100 point score system (10 points plus decimal point), score it out of 100, Otherwise use a 10 point scoring system.
@Fox Probably because there's just a few things that's keeping it from getting a 9. Like the lack of private matches and shallow game varieties. Its still a very good score nonetheless.
This could very well be. For instance most people don't know that the stars in hotel ratings were based on the number and quality of amenities so a very clean and great hotel can be three stars but may not have a pool, spa, fine dining, lounge etc.. Maybe the options or lack in the game brought it down a couple points...
They like giving anything a strange .x rating lol. I read their tv show and movie reviews and they're usually the same way.
An 8.9 is more for it's metacritic score the game is sitting at a solid 87 so the 8.9 keeps it there instead of inflating it. This is my opinion though. I feel most reviewers do this nowadays lol.
It dropped to 86 today. The 87 wasn't so solid.
Personally, I've always liked doing that since it's akin to grading papers. For a game with a high 8's score, it can translate to me saying "this is what I call a very great game, yet still short of being considered exemplary for these reasons." Maybe that's a similar rationale with IGN here.
That's a problem because that means anything below a 60/100 is an F, which means it's a failure. That implies that over half of a rating scale is reserved entirely for video game failures.
@PostMesmeric Using every score between 0-100 like school papers doesn't mean sites also have to follow the school system's determination of what is/isn't a "failure." Whatever a score less than 60/100 translates to is up to the site's rating system they have in place. Oftentimes, stuff like 5's constitute mediocrity or 'middle of the road' when it comes to having equal good and bad qualities.
They don't round because games in 8's are Great and games in 9's are Superb. For instance Titanfall is averaging an 8.7 so it's Great. Dark Souls 2 is averaging a 9.2 and it's Superb. Rounding up diminishes the distinction.
it seems that you care enough about how much better a 9 is than an 8.9. if they thought it was 9 (amazing) worthy, they would've given it one. instead, an 8.9 let's them say it is really great. not quite amazing, but really great.
how about we round down a score of 9.4.
I was expecting a 10 from ign after all the hype they gave it. 8.9 is nowhere near a bad score but after all that "believe the hype" I was really expecting a 10. I played the beta and it's a solid 8. It's not the next big thing or revolutionary but it's good. Seems like lack of single player and different type of modes hurt it. Call of duty has zombies and spec ops on top of the single player and multiplayer. That in my opinion brings out the value in call of duty.
I was expecting a 10 simply because Ryan was reviewing it. Biggest fanboy at IGN. Gregg and Colin are fanboys as well, but Ryan takes the cake with his semi-hidden bias.
Well you need to be more specific. Ryan is an Xbox fanboy. Gregg and Colin are PS fan boy. Ryan just happen to be able to much more objective, that's why you are seeing a hidden bias.
I don't think Ryan hides his bias at all he was at OXM for years and years and had coverage videos that would be on Xbox dashboard often.
@BigPappy Ryan is flatout bias. Colin only plays PlayStation games, rarely XB exclusives. Gregg play mostly PlayStation games, plays a few XB games. I can't recall Ryan ever playing a PlayStation game, or saying he enjoyed one without having to take a jab at some aspect of the game, meanwhile everyone else is talking positively of said game. He's always pessimistic on PS anything, then optimistic on XB everything and it's why he's one of the people who's rarely on any other show such as Game Scoop when the topics are non XB related. Gregg shows up for Nintendo multiple times, Brain shows up for PlayStation multiple times, Ryan fanboy.
Not disagreeing with any of you, but I was surprised by Ryan's impressions of both consoles. I can't recall specifically, but I think I remember Ryan criticizing the Xbox One launch-weekend, saying that he was no one near as upset to leave his Xbox One home-alone as he was with his PS4 the previous weekend. Ill look for the clip, now. BAH! Found it (I believe, I couldn't re-watch it all) http://www.youtube.com/watc... - turned out being MitchyD that said it, but a IGN Xbox fanboy saying he liked the PS4 more still (on first weekend)
@BattleTorn Yeah Mitch is cool. He works on the Xbox section, but at the end of the day he's a gamer. He enjoys both consoles, and the PS4 is his console of choice so far this gen. Gregg and Colin can be considered fanboys to an extent (Colin moreso), simply because they run the PS division and most of their gaming is done on PS hardware, mainly because of preference, and trophy hunting. Gregg plays all 3 consoles but prefers PS, Colin will RARELY dabble but prefers PlayStation. Ryan; however, ........
What is an 8.9? Makes no sense. Is it an 8 or a 9?
You are aware that non-whole numbers do exist, correct? Perhaps he believed that it should receive a more granular score than a simple 8 or 9. So, how tall are you? Four feet tall or five feet tall?
Ever heard of common sense? Of course I know decimal numbers exist. But why did he took away that 0.1? It's negligible.
That .1 means that it's just enough not to be a 9. It's missing something to make it that 9 or 9.+
"What is an 8.9? Makes no sense. Is it an 8 or a 9?" What is an 8 or a 9? Makes no sense. Is it a 0 or a 10? See what I did there?
Technically it is an 8, as 8 goes 8.0-8.999999999999.
Maybe because it's not call of duty.