• 189 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#51 Edited by xaLieNxGrEyx (2605 posts) -

@super2j said:

Sooo, how much money down that they spin this as "part of the vision" and then in the sequel expand it to 24 or 36 (64 if we are really lucky) and talk about how "the players have spoken and we delivered".

I really don't think that's the case. If Respawn goes on to make a larger scale game, it will be a very different experience that's crafted with that in mind.

Personally, I've never understood why some people get caught up on large player count. If multiplayer matches are balanced to be fun on a smaller scale, that's perfectly fine and there's plenty of great games that have proven that. Yes, Battlefield is a fun game, but not everything has to be Battlefield.

People who aren't skilled at Multiplayer Shooters prefer larger player counts because it increases the effectiveness of camping and reduces the necessity of team work to enjoy the game. One of the reasons Gears Multiplayer has died out well a broken game like Battlefield 4 is still being played.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone, but I just wish people would stop condemning a game for a low player count when it could very well be a design decision to make the game competitive, controlled, and fun.

Someones going to say "but battlefield....." just don't.

#52 Posted by AMyggen (2578 posts) -

@darji: Thing is, Battlefield was a bad experience on the 360/PS3 because it's a game made for large scale battles, and they scaled it beck because of technical limitations without balancing it properly for a lower player count. There's a huge difference between that and a game made from the ground up for a lower player count, and balanced accordingly.

I don't see how a lower player count=a worse experience. If the game is balanced and made for fewer players, like the Respawn guys did with COD 4, that doesn't have to be a bad thing. Not every game has to be huge battles, Respawn is going for extremely fast paced battles, and fewer players can be better for such a thing.

Anyways, I reserve judgement until I'm actually able to play the game.

#53 Edited by Darji (5294 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

@darji said:

@xyzygy said:

Bigger player counts aren't better and never were.

@cramsy Yup, sometimes it's embarrassing how whiny and self entitled gamers are.

Yeah shame on people who want things because they want to have the best game possible.^^

There is a difference between wanting to play a good game/giving constructive criticism and whining on message boards about absolutely everything that you don't agree with in a game. My philosophy is, if you don't like something about a game enough to whine and bitch about it, don't play it or go make one yourself.

Valid complaints are fine and constructive but when you have people coming into a thread like this for example and going on about how the game will suck because of 6v6 when it's been in development for years by a studio headed by tried and true veterans of shooters on grounds of it being a balance issue, that SHOULD be enough to at least stop people from whining if people thought logically. Instead we have a ridiculous MORE=BETTER response. Not all multiplayer games need huge player counts. Each game should be its own game, not a cut-copy of another.

There are various facts playing into that.

1. The power of the XBox one. Many people think they do it because the XBox One can not do more. So everything which makes the One look weak people will currently complain about.

2. People have not played the game yet but had vision of crazy and huge mech fights and chaos pure and not a tactical game like Counter Strike for example.. Again next gen = huge scale and more players for most people.

It is just the normal way on the internet. People see graphics, numbers infos way before they have the chance to play these games so their first impressions are based on this. And to be honest from all the stuff I have seen from Titanfall I also would have imagined a huge player count with some mechs in it. You know like a real battlefield.

#54 Posted by MooseyMcMan (10519 posts) -

There's probably good reasons for that, but it does nothing for my interest in the game, which has been hovering around zero since it was announced.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong and that's key to making the game fun, I don't know. Just saying that I tend to prefer games with larger team sizes.

#55 Edited by AMyggen (2578 posts) -

@darji:

People who think this is because of some limitations with the Xbox One are fanboy-ish (like a lot of the people screaming in the GAF thread). Say what you will about how the game looks on the Xbone, it runs BF4 with 64 players. Titanfall runs on the Source Engine, it's highly unlikely that the Xbone wouldn't be able to run more than 6 v 6 matches even with AI running around. I just don't buy that at all.

And again, this is game is made by the COD 4 guys. People shouldn't be surprised that it's fast paced and small scale.

Also, from what I've read, all demos of the game (E3, PAX etc.) have been 6v6 max. So it's not like it's been Battlefield-esque in any gameplay footage, the people who are dissapointed by this are just dissapointed that the game doesn't live up to the game they'd built in their head. Not saying there's anything wrong by that, I'm just saying that it's a silly reason to be up in arms about this without actually trying it out. But if someone doesn't like small scale battles, fair enough.

#56 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@jayeh said:

Not really surprising since these are the Call of Duty guys

Meaning what? Call of Duty 4 had 16-24 players officially supported if I remember right. (and unofficially 64 players)

#57 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

Bigger player counts aren't better and never were.

Except the real answer is it's game design dependent, you sound just as idiotic as the people mindlessly saying more is better.

Battlefield 4 with its map sizes on conquest would be a waste of time with 24-32 players, you already spend enough time without people to shoot with 64 players.

#58 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

@amyggen said:

@darji:

People who think this is because of some limitations with the Xbox One are fanboy-ish (like a lot of the people screaming in the GAF thread). Say what you will about how the game looks on the Xbone, it runs BF4 with 64 players. Titanfall runs on the Source Engine, it's highly unlikely that the Xbone wouldn't be able to run more than 6 v 6 matches even with AI running around. I just don't buy that at all.

And again, this is game is made by the COD 4 guys. People shouldn't be surprised that it's fast paced and small scale.

Also, from what I've read, all demos of the game (E3, PAX etc.) have been 6v6 max. So it's not like it's been Battlefield-esque in any gameplay footage, the people who are dissapointed by this are just dissapointed that the game doesn't live up to the game they'd built in their head. Not saying there's anything wrong by that, I'm just saying that it's a silly reason to be up in arms about this without actually trying it out. But if someone doesn't like small scale battles, fair enough.

Silly? Yeah but understandable in my opinion since the One gets a ton of hate and fear because of Microsoft. And to make this an exclusive was a really bad PR move so Respawn also gets all the hate now. In the end we will see what comes out of it when its out. Making this a not next gen only title also helps to this kind of thinking that it was because the game machines could not handle more. I am really interested to see how the 360 Version looks and plays like. If its the same I imagine it had something to do with power and being on 2 total different platforms and not make them too different.

#59 Posted by Metal_Mills (2980 posts) -

@darji said:

@xyzygy said:

Bigger player counts aren't better and never were.

@cramsy Yup, sometimes it's embarrassing how whiny and self entitled gamers are.

Yeah shame on people who want things because they want to have the best game possible.^^

And that's what you're getting. They chose 6 vs 6 after testing all kinds of numbers and that was the sweet spot.

#60 Posted by SomeJerk (3147 posts) -

Not that it's going to matter because there's going to be a bunch of AI controlled bots in every single match of it you play because that's what we all want in our online shooters

#61 Edited by AMyggen (2578 posts) -

@somejerk said:

Not that it's going to matter because there's going to be a bunch of AI controlled bots in every single match of it you play because that's what we all want in our online shooters

If I'm not mistaken, you can play without AI if you want (edit: I can't find confirmation on this, I based it on some dude on GAF saying Respawn had confirmed this as a fact). And again, I wouldn't knock it before I tried it, but that's just me.

#62 Posted by Bollard (5276 posts) -

That's weird, when I saw it at Eurogamer they assured me that 6v6 was just for the story mode and there would be other modes with more players, because the story one has AI in it. I had presumed there would be other modes with no AI and all players, but if not...

#63 Posted by cmblasko (1133 posts) -

Titanfall player count could be locked at 2v2 and I would still be excited as hell for it.

#64 Posted by Brodehouse (9610 posts) -

The addition of presumably dumber AI running around in addition to humans probably results in the average-skilled player still coming out with a positive k/d ratio. You are able to have longer life spans and be more effective when 75% of the enemies you face are relatively easy AI, and it will also increase the drama of when two human players do come into contact.

It would also be interesting in that it could make battlefield commanding something fun to do; the AI will actually take an order. They might fuck up trying to follow it, but it's easier to get AI dudes to follow me and cover a control point than it is convincing xXBluntMasterSmokeDogXx to do anything I tell him. Or her. But let's face it; him.

#65 Edited by Trilogy (2645 posts) -

The 6v6 thing is a little startling to me, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. The thing that I'm more concerned with is this idea of a competitive shooter with bunch of bots running around. I'm not saying that automatically makes for a bad video game, but if I want a competitive game of any kind, bots are not usually what I'm looking for. It's kind of inherently the antithesis of the competitive experience. Again, I'll give em the benefit of the doubt, but I'll reserve my excitement a bit.

#66 Posted by JayEH (518 posts) -

@sooty: Ground War has 9v9, all the other game modes are 6v6

#67 Posted by Veektarius (4620 posts) -

Since it sounds like there are going to be bots who are easier to kill, this might make for a more rewarding experience than getting constantly fragged by pros like in their last games. It might be a problem they are consciously trying to correct.

#68 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (5259 posts) -

It'll be interesting to see how they've tried to balance the minute to minute gameplay. Maybe 6v6 will be just right for what they're going for.

#69 Edited by TrafalgarLaw (1042 posts) -

Clearly the first sign of "next"-gen console limitations. Titanfall could have 8v8 or 12v12 or 16v16 servers, for the enthusiasts, with most of the servers in 6v6. Now they spin it into "unbalanced" for more than 6v6.

#70 Edited by xyzygy (9899 posts) -

@sooty said:

@xyzygy said:

Bigger player counts aren't better and never were.

Except the real answer is it's game design dependent, you sound just as idiotic as the people mindlessly saying more is better.

Battlefield 4 with its map sizes on conquest would be a waste of time with 24-32 players, you already spend enough time without people to shoot with 64 players.

I'm talking about games in general. Everything is game design dependent. For example: Game A is a multiplayer game with up to 64 people in battle. Game B is a multiplayer game with up to 12 people in battle. Game A is not automatically better than Game B just because it has more people in a match.

No need to call me an idiot.

#71 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -
@somejerk said:

Not that it's going to matter because there's going to be a bunch of AI controlled bots in every single match of it you play because that's what we all want in our online shooters

I think the "bots" are going to be incorporated differently than what people seem to be thinking when it comes to traditional bots in FPS games. Titanfall may end up with the AI units serving a role similar to the creeps in League of Legends and other MOBA games, while the players are the "Champions".

#72 Posted by Chaser324 (6331 posts) -

@somejerk said:

Not that it's going to matter because there's going to be a bunch of AI controlled bots in every single match of it you play because that's what we all want in our online shooters

I think characterizing them as "bots" is a bit inaccurate. From what I've read, it seems like these AI controlled units aren't a poor replacement for human opponents but instead will be more akin to MOBA creeps.

Moderator
#73 Posted by Demoskinos (14578 posts) -

More like TitanFAIL right guys? Eh? Eh?.......okay I'll leave >_>

#74 Edited by ericdrum (404 posts) -

So this thread has turned into a mirror of the GAF thread. Great. I mean, I do expect to see the resident trolls in the thread, but... I digress.

Judging a multiplayer gaming experience by the amount of human players on each side and not even playing it is useless.

#75 Posted by Atwa (615 posts) -

I don't mind the player count, if the game is balanced around that number it won't be a problem.
I do however dislike the fact that AI will be in a multiplayer setting.

#76 Edited by EXTomar (4507 posts) -

Player counts should make sense for the match rules and environment so 6 v 6 can work and be fun. What might be a problem is that all modes they offer have to constrained like this which would be a disappointment.

#77 Posted by mak_wikus (507 posts) -

I agree with Danny O'Dwyer on this one:

So no, I’ve no problem with it. They’re doing something different and hey guess what, the internet knows fuckall about game design. And by their track record, these guys really do. In fact they have a track record of crushing pre-established conventions. So let them have at it.

Here's the rest.

#78 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3756 posts) -

Love the amateur game design in this thread though. More players is always better!

@ssully said:

With that said I look for that in games like Counter Strike, not Titanfall.

You have never played this game in your life. The game isn't finished and out, what are you talking about.

To me this makes some sense if there are more AI in matches then we think. The whole idea sounds MOBA like (what is the AI but creeps really) and seeing the player count around that isn't surprising to me.

@ericdrum said:

So this thread has turned into a mirror of the GAF thread. Great. I mean, I do expect to see the resident trolls in the thread, but... I digress.

Judging a multiplayer gaming experience by the amount of human players on each side and not even playing it is useless.

How not surprising stupid GAF would freak out about this. It's as if a 5 v 5 multiplayer game type isn't sweeping the internet, and they are the audience that continues to complain how FPS never change and are all the same...

#79 Edited by UnderWaterTree1 (10 posts) -

Thats odd if the maps are large this could be a issue

#80 Posted by Gargantuan (1881 posts) -

6vs6 sounds good. I prefer low count shooters since you can make a bigger impact on the game when there's fewer players. Never understood the charm with 30+ players in shooters...

#81 Edited by spraynardtatum (2614 posts) -

So it's 6v6 but there are also AI controlled bots playing with you? That's interesting and lame at the same time. I want to see it in practice. This could be cool but I have always felt that killing a bot is less satisfying than killing another player. I wonder how the kdr will be measured. I hope they break it up in some way to see how you're doing with actual players rather than players & bots.

#82 Posted by GaspoweR (2818 posts) -

@darji: Respawn also mentioned that they didn't close the door on possibly making a Titanfall game for more than the current platforms it supports. Since it is indeed confirmed that Titanfall is an MS exclusive and won't be coming to PS4, the next game two years from now would probably also come to PS4 as well. All in all, I also agree with your points in regards to how it's being presented through its gameplay videos and how this being a "next-gen" title (or should I say current-gen now that the consoles are out) has played into people's expectations of it being much larger than it actually is.

#83 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3756 posts) -

@spraynardtatum said:

So it's 6v6 but there are also AI controlled bots playing with you? That's interesting and lame at the same time. I want to see it in practice. This could be cool but I have always felt that killing a bot is less satisfying than killing another player. I wonder how the kdr will be measured. I hope they break it up in some way to see how you're doing with actual players rather than players & bots.

I'm sure they'll have those stats, just like any MOBA does.

And a thing to consider with this set up is yes, AI kills are less satisfying, but you'll be alive longer, the stakes will be raised, and fights with players will be very meaningful in a MOBA-like way. Where you need to really consider going up against two enemies if you're alone, for example, and coming out of that with two kills would be a much bigger deal.

#84 Posted by zombie2011 (4968 posts) -

@super2j said:

@chaser324 said:

@super2j said:

Sooo, how much money down that they spin this as "part of the vision" and then in the sequel expand it to 24 or 36 (64 if we are really lucky) and talk about how "the players have spoken and we delivered".

I really don't think that's the case. If Respawn goes on to make a larger scale game, it will be a very different experience that's crafted with that in mind.

Personally, I've never understood why some people get caught up on large player count. If multiplayer matches are balanced to be fun on a smaller scale, that's perfectly fine and there's plenty of great games that have proven that. Yes, Battlefield is a fun game, but not everything has to be Battlefield.

Personally, a big open map with lots of people means much more lively world with many things happening. It was amazing to turn to any corner and find action and people, join up with them and help out or maybe keep moving to some other interesting skirmish somewhere on the map. There was liveliness and discovery. Small player capped games cant exude that same aura. MMO's never gave me that same feeling either (people playing their own games near you, no real interaction). So basically, experiencing the larger player count shooters has broken me of being able to enjoy small match games. Of course the more unique the shooter is, the longer I can forget about this... but the thought always returns, "this would be amazing if there were more people in here". I have the same desire in other kinds of games, imagine a 32 vs 32 most wanted (or what ever that new one they released is), they already have huge empty maps, more players= more unique interactions with new people, map not so empty anymore.

Titan fall can be well made and fun with 6 vs 6 but will be able to justify why it couldn't be bigger and provide me with Mech war rather than Mech school yard fight?

Because MAG was awesome right?

#85 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3756 posts) -

@super2j said:

@chaser324 said:

@super2j said:

Sooo, how much money down that they spin this as "part of the vision" and then in the sequel expand it to 24 or 36 (64 if we are really lucky) and talk about how "the players have spoken and we delivered".

I really don't think that's the case. If Respawn goes on to make a larger scale game, it will be a very different experience that's crafted with that in mind.

Personally, I've never understood why some people get caught up on large player count. If multiplayer matches are balanced to be fun on a smaller scale, that's perfectly fine and there's plenty of great games that have proven that. Yes, Battlefield is a fun game, but not everything has to be Battlefield.

Personally, a big open map with lots of people means much more lively world with many things happening. It was amazing to turn to any corner and find action and people, join up with them and help out or maybe keep moving to some other interesting skirmish somewhere on the map. There was liveliness and discovery. Small player capped games cant exude that same aura. MMO's never gave me that same feeling either (people playing their own games near you, no real interaction). So basically, experiencing the larger player count shooters has broken me of being able to enjoy small match games. Of course the more unique the shooter is, the longer I can forget about this... but the thought always returns, "this would be amazing if there were more people in here". I have the same desire in other kinds of games, imagine a 32 vs 32 most wanted (or what ever that new one they released is), they already have huge empty maps, more players= more unique interactions with new people, map not so empty anymore.

Titan fall can be well made and fun with 6 vs 6 but will be able to justify why it couldn't be bigger and provide me with Mech war rather than Mech school yard fight?

Because MAG was awesome right?

hahah you win the thread.

People arguing more players are just crazy. and I'm a huge Battlefield fan!

I love how people are tired of same old FPS games but also want nothing new. Sad.

#86 Posted by VeggiesBro (117 posts) -

I'm still expecting it to be amazing. Those folks who have played it, have generally come away pretty impressed. And I am pretty sure it's always been 6v6.

#87 Posted by Corvak (906 posts) -

Bigger player counts are not a path to a better shooter.

Titanfall has marketed itself as a shooter with large scale battles, much like Battlefield, but also promotes filling the ranks with AI characters instead of players. I think this could be a nice compromise, as fewer players gives them a lot more leeway when it comes to netcode, especially on the Xbox 360 version.

Essentially, the most important aspect of a new shooter, is making itself different from what's out there. Done right, this could be the case for Titanfall.

#88 Posted by MildMolasses (3213 posts) -

@xyzygy said:

@sooty said:

@xyzygy said:

Bigger player counts aren't better and never were.

Except the real answer is it's game design dependent, you sound just as idiotic as the people mindlessly saying more is better.

Battlefield 4 with its map sizes on conquest would be a waste of time with 24-32 players, you already spend enough time without people to shoot with 64 players.

I'm talking about games in general. Everything is game design dependent. For example: Game A is a multiplayer game with up to 64 people in battle. Game B is a multiplayer game with up to 12 people in battle. Game A is not automatically better than Game B just because it has more people in a match.

No need to call me an idiot.

It's a known fact that the multiplayer in Spec-Ops: The Line is better than Street Fighter 4.

It's also a well established fact that a low player count mixed with AI fodder doesn't work either. Why do you think no one plays League of Legends or DOTA 2? As many people working on as many different goals independent of each other is the key to successful multiplayer. We've seen this time and time again.

6 x 6 X 720p = 25,920 (Titanfall)

25 x 25 x 720p = 450,000 (Frontlines: Fuel of War)

The numbers don't lie

#89 Edited by spraynardtatum (2614 posts) -

@spraynardtatum said:

So it's 6v6 but there are also AI controlled bots playing with you? That's interesting and lame at the same time. I want to see it in practice. This could be cool but I have always felt that killing a bot is less satisfying than killing another player. I wonder how the kdr will be measured. I hope they break it up in some way to see how you're doing with actual players rather than players & bots.

I'm sure they'll have those stats, just like any MOBA does.

And a thing to consider with this set up is yes, AI kills are less satisfying, but you'll be alive longer, the stakes will be raised, and fights with players will be very meaningful in a MOBA-like way. Where you need to really consider going up against two enemies if you're alone, for example, and coming out of that with two kills would be a much bigger deal.

Yeah, it could make the pvp that much more satisfying. It could be great. Like I said, it sounds interesting but right now it also seems restrictive. I think more intimate matches have their merits and I thing big crazy matches with tons of players are also great. Neither is objectively better but both are great. Maybe Titanfall with combine the two by having bots and it'll be the greatest thing since sliced bread! I still want to try the game out but 6v6 and ONLY 6v6 is strange.

#90 Edited by ArtisanBreads (3756 posts) -

Yeah, it could make the pvp that much more satisfying. It could be great. Like I said, it sounds interesting but right now it also seems restrictive. I think more intimate matches have their merits and I thing big crazy matches with tons of players are also great. Neither is objectively better but both are great. Maybe Titanfall with combine the two by having bots and it'll be the greatest thing since sliced bread! I still want to try the game out but 6v6 and ONLY 6v6 is strange.

I agree that just seeing 6 v 6 for a new FPS seems "strange" but as I said before, this is a genre that hasn't really tried to move beyond CoD 4 since it came out. Seeing anything different is a plus for me and should be to people who will play a multiplayer FPS.

#91 Edited by spraynardtatum (2614 posts) -

@artisanbreads said:

@spraynardtatum said:

Yeah, it could make the pvp that much more satisfying. It could be great. Like I said, it sounds interesting but right now it also seems restrictive. I think more intimate matches have their merits and I thing big crazy matches with tons of players are also great. Neither is objectively better but both are great. Maybe Titanfall with combine the two by having bots and it'll be the greatest thing since sliced bread! I still want to try the game out but 6v6 and ONLY 6v6 is strange.

I agree that just seeing 6 v 6 for a new FPS seems "strange" but as I said before, this is a genre that hasn't really tried to move beyond CoD 4 since it came out. Seeing anything different is a plus for me and should be to people who will play a multiplayer FPS.

That's a good point but we've seen 6v6 before. I'm torn over all of this. I can see how it seems new but it also seems like less and with no room for variation. I'm in regardless. I'll be getting this on PC when it comes out.

#92 Posted by Deranged (1837 posts) -

So six against six in addition to A.I. populating the matches? That could work I guess?

#93 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (4330 posts) -

Here's to hoping the AI picks up the slack

#94 Edited by TheHT (10911 posts) -

Them specifically saying the AI aren't just bots and throwing around the "single player multiplayer" thing makes me think it'll be like playing matches with dozens of allies and enemies that you'd see in a single-player campaign along with 5 human allies and 6 human enemies. Like they took two groups playing co-op and pit them against each other.

Could be really cool!

Uh... I mean... ONLY SIX V SIX?? MORE LIKE SUCKS V SUCKS. VIDEO GAMES ARE RUINED FOREVER.

#95 Posted by Pezen (1563 posts) -

Assassin's Creed has 4v4 I believe and that works pretty well in my opinion. It's a different kind of multiplayer, sure, but I could see how less human players could potentially make the overall experience better if the AI is good enough. That's however also the biggest issue, if it eventually turns into feeling like you're just playing a bot match if the amount of AI players far outnumber the amount of human players.

Either way, this isn't really a deal breaker for me.

#96 Edited by Pr1mus (3821 posts) -
#97 Posted by Nefarious_Al (129 posts) -

Should be 1v1 just give me a mech fighting game.

#98 Posted by Chaser324 (6331 posts) -

I think the problem here is that a lot of people have incorrectly correlated lower player count with less capable hardware, and they're completely dismissing even the suggestion that a first person shooter could be designed for 6v6.

Just because Titanfall is on more powerful hardware that can handle 64 player matches, it doesn't mean that it has to or should have 64 player matches.

I hate to invoke Dota as some paragon of game design, but it's a prime example of a game that is designed for a very specific number of players. Changing that number is tantamount to making a completely different game. Why can't that same level of care, restraint, and design be applied to the FPS genre?

Moderator
#99 Posted by slyspider (1157 posts) -

If this is the vision for the game then go ahead. Titanfall never looked like my type of game and this doesn't change that either way. A big mech game with lots of players will someday come out though... Someday....

#100 Edited by EXTomar (4507 posts) -

But even using Dota/Dota 2 as an example, there are other play modes besides 5 v 5. Some very popular modes are very different. Hell, the recent Wraith-Night stuff is some of the most fun I've had in Dota 2 that I have had in quite awhile and that wasn't 5 v 5. I can't wait to see if Pudge Wars comes back.

I am sure these guys can make a great mode that is a lot of fun tuned 6 v 6. What would be disappointing is that they can only make 6 v 6 modes. Why not a 20 player hold out mode? Why not a 2 player co-op scenario mode? I don't think they should throw out 6 v 6 but they shouldn't chain themselves too it either.