Anyone who is putting up a final review with a score for a multiplayer game before the public is able to access the servers should be ashamed. It's as if they learned nothing from SimCity and Battlefield 4. Controlled review environments do not represent the final environment. Giant Bomb has put a review up but without a score and have reserved the right to alter it accordingly after the public release before locking it as final. Anyone who has done otherwise shouldn't be trusted.

Parallax Abstraction wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 19:28:
Anyone who is putting up a final review with a score for a multiplayer game before the public is able to access the servers should be ashamed. It's as if they learned nothing from SimCity and Battlefield 4. Controlled review environments do not represent the final environment. Giant Bomb has put a review up but without a score and have reserved the right to alter it accordingly after the public release before locking it as final. Anyone who has done otherwise shouldn't be trusted.

I would have to mostly agree. I thought the tutorial was well done but the game play from the tutorial alone turned me off to it. I believe though that this game should not have a final score prior to release...

Parallax Abstraction wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 19:28:
Anyone who is putting up a final review with a score for a multiplayer game before the public is able to access the servers should be ashamed. It's as if they learned nothing from SimCity and Battlefield 4. Controlled review environments do not represent the final environment. Giant Bomb has put a review up but without a score and have reserved the right to alter it accordingly after the public release before locking it as final. Anyone who has done otherwise shouldn't be trusted.

Well, just a quick look at the sites listed here tell you everything there is to know about the review quality.... reviewing a MP game before full release is a folly anyway, and it's extra bullshit to give it a score when you can't do proper MP games to assert the situation to begin with.

Except PC Gamer, which does not list a score. Which is the only valid way to review a MP only game before release.

The few reviews I read all mentioned that, while Microsoft claimed it was the retail servers, they played it in a controlled environment and reserve the right to change the score.

I think this is fine. I mean, people want a review before a game comes out, so it's a necessity, and people don't tend to click through to reviews without scores.

I don't think this is a huge deal. People want reviews. Sites need pageviews. Nothing overly dishonest going on here so long as, like Polygon, they begin with a nice disclaimer that basically signals to take the review with a bit of a grain of salt.

So this will be the first game not filled with hax, etc.? Are their private servers? Custom maps? etc.? If not then you can pan it already as another COD clone.

I really don't see what you guys are all butthurt about. Thousands of people got to play the Beta on the public servers and it was fun

While ya'll are sitting here being crotchety as fuck for no good reason I'm going to enjoy the best fast paced FPS I've played (in BETA) in years. If the other 13 maps are as fun as the 2 in beta where then this game is worth what I paid for it.

I think a lot of you have forgotten that games are about fun. Not bashing a game because of who developed it or published it because some guys reviewed it on private servers. Get over it. So disappointing to read any of the comment threads on here anymore.

Where the hell did "and people don't tend to click through to reviews without scores." come from?

That's a weird way to think imho.

Kosumo wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 20:14:
Where the hell did "and people don't tend to click through to reviews without scores." come from?

That's a weird way to think imho.

What's the main way people get to reviews these days?
Metacritic.

What won't list your review without a number it can attach?
Metacritic.

The other way people tend to get to reviews is the list of reviews on a site, and even then they tend to click through and read outliers.
I don't have any quotes for it, but ask any one working at one of the review sites and they'll tell you that, when they put a review up without a quantifiable score, the click throughs are reduced. There's a reason Endgadget, which got rid of numbers in an attempt to stop people from directly comparing and fighting hundreths of a point, has brought them back.

Yes the beta was fun as hell. I can't wait to play the full release.

Trevellian wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 20:08:
I really don't see what you guys are all butthurt about. Thousands of people got to play the Beta on the public servers and it was fun

While ya'll are sitting here being crotchety as fuck for no good reason I'm going to enjoy the best fast paced FPS I've played (in BETA) in years. If the other 13 maps are as fun as the 2 in beta where then this game is worth what I paid for it.

I think a lot of you have forgotten that games are about fun. Not bashing a game because of who developed it or published it because some guys reviewed it on private servers. Get over it. So disappointing to read any of the comment threads on here anymore.

QFT.

Also, if I recall correctly, the beta hit 2 million people.

Trevellian wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 20:08:
While ya'll are sitting here being crotchety as fuck for no good reason I'm going to enjoy the best fast paced FPS I've played (in BETA) in years.

But nobody really was doing that.

From the Gamespot review:

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.

From the Gamesradar review:

Listen, I know you're worried about Titanfall's servers, and… I actually don't know how well they'll work just yet. In my 20 odd hours with the game dropped connection a few times and had problems connecting with players, and most people who tried to play the beta with friends found they spent more time fighting the servers than they did enemy titans. How will it all shake out? No one will know for sure until it launches, but I don't blame you for waiting a week or two to see how the servers hold up.

So, nobody here was really saying anything that wasn't in the reviews that were linked here anyway.

It'd be a bad idea to just jump into another EA game without worries about the server stability; people get burned by it repeatedly, so taking a tentative approach with the next shiny thing that comes out instead of just saying "but I LOVE shiny things!" seems kind of smart.

I think it's interesting that of the reviewers who list that they played it at the EA event, only some point out the issues while others never mention them at all (Polygon, surprise).

Bucky wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 20:30:
Also, if I recall correctly, the beta hit 2 million people.

They opened it up to all of Xbox Live so I'm not surprised.

I think a lot of you have forgotten that games are about fun. Not bashing a game because of who developed it or published it because some guys reviewed it on private servers. Get over it. So disappointing to read any of the comment threads on here anymore.

People are talking about the review process for the most part, not the game. I thought the beta was ok but nothing special. If you're having more fun with it than I did then kudos. I think its pretty unfair to say that people don't like fun because they don't share your opinion on this game.

Redmask wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 20:49:

Bucky wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 20:30:
Also, if I recall correctly, the beta hit 2 million people.

They opened it up to all of Xbox Live so I'm not surprised.

I think a lot of you have forgotten that games are about fun. Not bashing a game because of who developed it or published it because some guys reviewed it on private servers. Get over it. So disappointing to read any of the comment threads on here anymore.

People are talking about the review process for the most part, not the game. I thought the beta was ok but nothing special. If you're having more fun with it than I did then kudos. I think its pretty unfair to say that people don't like fun because they don't share your opinion on this game.

It really has nothing to do with this game in particular. It just seems like news about every big game on Blues gets shit on by a few regulars who like to regurgitate the same lame jokes over and over. Usually directed at specific Publishers/Developers, without actually ever trying a game.

I'm well aware a lot of people aren't going to share my opinion on this game. But just because it's by the same guys who made Modern Warfare (And lets be honest the FIRST Modern Warfare was fucking awesome) is not a reason to instantly file the game under COD Clone. Because it's not.

This place used to be fun, is my point.

Parallax Abstraction wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 19:28:
Anyone who is putting up a final review with a score for a multiplayer game before the public is able to access the servers should be ashamed. It's as if they learned nothing from SimCity and Battlefield 4. Controlled review environments do not represent the final environment. Giant Bomb has put a review up but without a score and have reserved the right to alter it accordingly after the public release before locking it as final. Anyone who has done otherwise shouldn't be trusted.

True, nor do I think a single 8 hour gaming session is enough to base a review of a game like this on.

The servers did have some problems in beta. I got a temporary "Waiting to reestablish connection" screen so often during gameplay that I mistakenly though it must be peer-to-peer and migrating hosts. Plus there were some dropped connections, but I'd say I only had trouble in about 1 in 5 games. Otherwise pretty responsive, which you should expect from 6v6.

Trevellian wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 21:22:
It really has nothing to do with this game in particular. It just seems like news about every big game on Blues gets shit on by a few regulars who like to regurgitate the same lame jokes over and over. Usually directed at specific Publishers/Developers, without actually ever trying a game. This place used to be fun, is my point.

Just ignore them. Waxing nostalgia about the old days doesn't do anything, I've been reading a long time before commenting and it wasn't any better back then either. I think you will be hard pressed to find a website any different, it's the nature of public commentary. I would never let someone else ruin my enjoyment of something I like, whether it's a website or a video game.

I'm excited for it. I've wanted to jump back in ever since the beta went down. Got a few friends pre-ordering as well.

Looking forward to the map variety and fightin some monsters in MP

Will this have official servers? Or is it all peer hosted?

Half assed port, or developed with PC in mind?

Beamer wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 20:23:

Kosumo wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 20:14:
Where the hell did "and people don't tend to click through to reviews without scores." come from?

That's a weird way to think imho.

What's the main way people get to reviews these days?
Metacritic.

What won't list your review without a number it can attach?
Metacritic.

The other way people tend to get to reviews is the list of reviews on a site, and even then they tend to click through and read outliers.
I don't have any quotes for it, but ask any one working at one of the review sites and they'll tell you that, when they put a review up without a quantifiable score, the click throughs are reduced. There's a reason Endgadget, which got rid of numbers in an attempt to stop people from directly comparing and fighting hundreths of a point, has brought them back.

I think most don't even get beyond metacritic and youtube let's plays anymore... gaming news sites are about as useless as they come, reviews might as well be on someones personal blogs for all the relevance they carry. Bluesnews being different of course, because it's a gaming news aggregation site... the best there is.

But I am going to be honest with you, I haven't read an actual review of a game in months. It's much quicker to just look for a let's play with a current date.

JohnBirshire wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 21:45:
Will this have official servers? Or is it all peer hosted?

Half assed port, or developed with PC in mind?

Well
This says there are dedicated servers, but not player controlled ones

So it'd not be real servers. More like.. you randomly connect to some random server, maybe?

Doesn't fit with what I experienced in the beta though

JohnBirshire wrote on Mar 10, 2014, 21:45:
Will this have official servers? Or is it all peer hosted?

Half assed port, or developed with PC in mind?

It's official servers. It's all hosted on MS's CLOUD MAJICS! for the bone and the 360. I'm assuming the PC version will connect there as well. Edit: Apparently it's being hosted on EA's servers, so expect major fucking horseshit on launch. Why Respawn decided NOT to host on the Xbox servers (probably the best bit about the entire xbone environment) is a mystery for the ages.

As for the port thing, it's a game heavily, HEAVILY pushed by MS for their new console. Need you really ask what it was developed for?

This comment was edited on Mar 11, 2014, 01:22.