theres currently 26,000+ viewers on CoD Ghosts while Titanfall only has 2100 viewers. SO SAD

They could be the most fun games on the market...doesn't mean they aren't in the wrong for it.

It's about right and wrong...not how good/fun the game is.

"It's about right and wrong...not how good/fun the game is"

I'm just saying: this is probably the exact opposite of how most people playing this game right now are thinking.

Here we go Septic to Titanfall's and Microsofts resuce....making it seem like a fanboy thing, twisting peoples comments to try and start a massive argument.

" If this was another game it would be overpriced? "

another HYPED UP game.....learn to read instead of twisting peoples comments.....AGAIN.

" Look at the reviews...oh ni wait...MS paid for them right? What about the people enjoying the game? Oh no wait...you know better. "

How immature. I never once said anything about the game it's self in my comment or called the people who play it. I just talked about the practices.

"When Quake 3 launched, its complete focus on multiplayer was a non issue. But of course people with agendas won't remember that."

LOL...Quake 3....the market has changed a lot since those days mate

"So much energy wasted coming into Titanfall threads desperately trying to downplay it...its just so sad and petty."

Oh yeah I forgot Septic to you NO ONE can criticize a game you are sticking up for in every article. Only one sided opinions are allowed on a free for all commenting website.....my mistake.

"A MP only game has FAR more longevity than a single player only game (for many people). But no..lets not talk abot that. Double standards yeah?"

....in YOUR opinion. Stop making out like everything you say is fact man.

Why do you have to twist peoples comments, even the simplest ones just so you can argue. Honestly you are so sensitive when it comes to this game.

@DragonKnight

"Guess what I can do with my SP game when my internet goes out?"

Oh Snap...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-S...

"A MP only game has FAR more longevity than a single player only game (for many people). But no..lets not talk abot that."

Guess what I can do with my SP game when my internet goes out?

An online only game for $60 usd ? Come on man, you can try to justify it all you want , but it's a load of crap. The game shouldn't have been more then $40 usd, just another example of EA sticking it to the consumer. Hopefully the game is a success and the servers stay up for more then a few years.

No I don't have an xbox nor will I ever, but I do game on PC. And I can tell you that I am very unimpressed with what was released at the cost of a full game for only half a games worth of content.

If there was a single player campaign and an offline mode , then you could justify a $60 price tag. Titanfall in this state is overpriced!

What big criticisms

The main thing about the Last of Us was the AI, in MY opinion, didn't seem as good as it was when it was shown off at E3

GTAV....easy one, the horrible launch of the online and the god awful micro transactions.

I've talked about these things a lot in the past and I'm doing the same here with Titanfall.

The thing is though at the end of the day GTAV and The Last of Us offer us WAY more content then Titanfall.

... are you saying that immersion-breaking AI and flawed online are not big criticisms?
Those two games got plenty of perfect scores and their fair share of GOTY awards.
We can go further back and look at games like Skyrim... or everyone's favorite beating toy: GTA4.
The double standards for hyped games have been there for a long time, and that was my point.

What you're looking at is the raw quantity of content, which is not a big deal in multiplayer games. In the long run, the community picks out the few good maps while the rest are forgotten, and everyone uses the few good weapons while the rest are only used by enthusiasts.
A game like CounterStrike is still popular after a dozen years and maps like de_dust2 are still played despite their small size and long age. Meanwhile, a game like Battlefield 2142 had much more content, yet the game pretty much died in 6 years.
Why? Because the quality of that content matters. (Admittedly, I'm being a bit sly here by ignoring the modding component of CS)
Adding content willy-nilly isn't always a positive. Compare UC2's multiplayer vs UC3's. Wouldn't you agree that the simplicity of UC2 was a positive?

That being said, I don't think Titanfall will live that long, mainly because EA is ultimately behind it. It'll likely last until the sequel hits in two years. I also only paid $40 for it, but, aside from a good SP component, I haven't felt anything really lacking in the MP side (which is what the article is about).

It brings the game to life. Infamous SS & The Order 1886 both have destructable environments & The Order 1886 has a cover system so it could work but hey the devs wont add it because it would slowdown the game pace with all the destruction. U cant even admit it so no, u stop defending overhyped games.

It wouldn't be like cod. The pilots can wall run and climb stuff how is that anyway like cod? Its also set in space the game is set on different planets!

The 6v6 is just too low. A 10vs10 pilot game mode would be awesome.

Does every damn game mode have to have titans and bots to enjoy the game?