• 190 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#151 Posted by aurahack (2289 posts) -

@bigjeffrey said:

PS4 Player Count 0 vs 0

fuck the lack of appreciation in this thread towards this comment

#152 Posted by ArbitraryWater (12129 posts) -

Isn't 6v6 the player count for most of the modes in any given Call of Duty game? I don't see the problem, but then again I wasn't salivating over Titanfall anyways.

Online
#153 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

@aurahack said:

@bigjeffrey said:

PS4 Player Count 0 vs 0

fuck the lack of appreciation in this thread towards this comment

Stop being so entitled to appreciation of comments

#154 Edited by Ares42 (2799 posts) -
@nals said:

It just felt like a botmatch with occasionally more difficult bots in it.

Having a hard time pinning down exactly why I have a bad feeling about it, but I think this might be my biggest worry. I sorta understand the thinking behind it (having too many players would just lead to titans everywhere, so you replace them with bots to make it feel more alive), but it just feels like cheating. There's some other more complex angles about it too, like how the prevalence matchmaking has changed people attitudes towards online gaming and how things like Borderlands and Gears Horde mode has been really popular, that makes me wonder what this game really is at this point.

I'm just thinking at some point there's too many mash-ups and the game would be more enjoyable if they focused a bit more. At this point do I really want to have opposing players at all ? Would it be better as FFA without AI ? It might turn out great, but in some way I think I'd rather just have Horde, campaign or TDM each on their own rather than mashing them all up together.

#155 Posted by jsnyder82 (763 posts) -

Oh my God. Big fucking deal here, folks.

#156 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

Oh my God. Big fucking deal here, folks.

If you were wanting more players in a match, it would be.

#157 Posted by Andorski (5367 posts) -

Whether or not you think 6v6 is the appropriate size for TitanFall's gameplay, you have to admit that Respawn's idea of having the game feel like a massive battlefield clashes with the small player count.

They've been pushing the goal of creating a multiplayer game that encourages those who are not great at FPS games to keep playing; limiting the amount of people that can dome you from across the map can be a means to achieve that.

#158 Edited by jsnyder82 (763 posts) -
#159 Edited by Andorski (5367 posts) -
#160 Posted by valeo (88 posts) -

How can you even know if you want more players in a match before playing the game though?

#161 Edited by DFL017 (155 posts) -

Sounds fine to me. I'll play battlefield if I want large games.

#162 Edited by mlarrabee (3064 posts) -

If games benefitted from player counts that much, WoW would be the most fun there is. What is it, five grand to a server?

Balance is everything, and the pair that revolutionized FPSs have proven themselves enough, I think.

You know, I think a picture of this game's grand vision is starting to take shape: They're trying to create a Call of Duty-style game where you feel like you're going on a killstreak with every life.

Giving you a bunch of AI chumps to mow down (who they probably won't differentiate very obviously from human players, giving you the feeling that you're kicking everyone's asses even when you're losing), combined with the ability to call down killstreak-style heavy ordinance several times per match regardless of your performance--

It might explain why every member of the press who's played this game comes away with positive impressions, and you don't hear anyone complaining about how much they suck at it. Because the game is designed to make everyone think that they're good.

It's diabolically brilliant.

I haven't given Titanfall--or any other game released or announced in the past year or so, really--any thought but I think you hit it exactly.

#163 Posted by Hayt (341 posts) -

I'd be lying if I said this wasn't disappointing news but the proof is in the eating I suppose. My bigger worry is how this is going to make pubstomping super-duper easy. In Battlefield a squad (5 players) of clanners can totally swing a match and 5 people is only a 6th (more or less) of their team. If those 5 clanners get into Titanfall and join a game they will make up EIGHTY-THREE PERCENT of the team. Only 1 player wouldn't be part of their posse and against a team of 6 other people just pulled together at random I can imagine some seriously stacked encounters.

#164 Edited by AMyggen (3656 posts) -

@hayt: Is that a problem though? That's the case with literally every game with a low player count.

#165 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7100 posts) -

@amyggen said:

@hayt: Is that a problem though? That's the case with literally every game with a low player count.

Yep. Those people exist in every competitive game. It's an unavoidable constant.

#166 Posted by abara (230 posts) -

It bothers me when people say that gamers on the internet don't know anything about game design. That's a reductive smear. I thought Dannys quote was really good until that shitty little nugget. The internet is too big and there are too many smart people that play videogames for that to be even close to accurate.

You're right buuuuuuuut... The thing is that the "smart people that play videogames" are not the ones losing their minds over this, hence they are not the ones who prompted his comments.

#167 Posted by Hayt (341 posts) -

@amyggen: @mariachimacabre:

Yes they're in every game but their impact is far worse when they can fill an entire team with a handful of people when doing the same in games with even slightly higher playercounts like 12v12 is much rarer.

#169 Posted by VeggiesBro (148 posts) -

I'm kind of expecting a fast-paced action shooter, similar to what CoD is/was. Everything i've read seems to point to that, and so with that in mind I don't see why 6v6 wouldn't be fine. Having not played the game myself, I can only go on what i've heard form those who have played it have said, and it's more often than not, a positive outlook. I will say though, that the AI units puts a bit of a damper on my outlook, but as long as it's handled well, i'm sure it'll be fine.

#170 Posted by ChaosDent (234 posts) -

With the caveats that I haven't deliberately purchased a shooter for multiplayer since about UT 2003, I haven't been really into one since Counter Strike and Team Fortress Classic and I'm probably not going to even try Titanfall... I don't see what the big deal is.

#171 Posted by EXTomar (4951 posts) -

Actually, it is easier to hide or obscure sucky players in a larger group. It is easy to identify which 1 of the team of 4 was terrible compared to 1 terrible player out of 20 might not even effect the outcome either way. The drawback to a large group is it is much harder to have those "hero moments" in a team of 20 while it is pretty easy to identify who turned it around in a team of 4.

#172 Posted by Hayt (341 posts) -

With the caveats that I haven't deliberately purchased a shooter for multiplayer since about UT 2003, I haven't been really into one since Counter Strike and Team Fortress Classic and I'm probably not going to even try Titanfall... I don't see what the big deal is.

I don't mean to be rude but was "I don't play modern shooters so I wont play this modern shooter" a statement really worth making?

#173 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7100 posts) -

@hayt said:

@chaosdent said:

With the caveats that I haven't deliberately purchased a shooter for multiplayer since about UT 2003, I haven't been really into one since Counter Strike and Team Fortress Classic and I'm probably not going to even try Titanfall... I don't see what the big deal is.

I don't mean to be rude but was "I don't play modern shooters so I wont play this modern shooter" a statement really worth making?

Why wouldn't it be?

#174 Edited by Hayt (341 posts) -

@mariachimacabre: because of course he's not going to be interested in a genre he doesnt play. I haven't enjoyed a Final Fantasy game since the SNES so for me to go into a thread about FFXIII to say "I don't play these games and this doesn't look like a game I want to play" seems valueless.

#175 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7100 posts) -

@hayt said:

@mariachimacabre: because of course he's not going to be interested in a genre he doesnt play. I haven't enjoyed a Final Fantasy game since the SNES so for me to go into a thread about FFXIII to say "I don't play these games and this doesn't look like a game I want to play" seems valueless.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying "Keep in mind that I don't play these games, but this doesn't seem like a real controversy."

#176 Posted by Hayt (341 posts) -

@mariachimacabre: That makes sense I guess. I had read the "I don't see what the big deal is" as a reference to Titanfall rather than to the playercount thing. Although it's easy to be apathetic to something when you have no stake in it to begin with.

That said let's not mistake my own stance: the proof of the pudding is in the eating and we'll have to wait and see.

#177 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3998 posts) -

It's just funny to me everyone was down with this when it was 7 v 7 (didn't even bring up the playercount ever, at that) and now it's a huge deal.

#178 Posted by Yummylee (22575 posts) -

The Last of Us' 5v5 multiplayer is some of the most enjoyment I've had playing multiplayer in recent memory.

#179 Edited by PandaBear (1384 posts) -

Why not make it 12 or 24 a side and let six people use a Titian at a time and you get priority if you missed out in a round. I worry that all this stuff means the ground combat won't be that good as you can't not play a match without access to a Titan. Maybe Titan pilots have less close combat gear as they need to go minimal to pilot he mechs and you can sacrifice driving one of them in favour of better guns.

I know this is pie in the sky shit and I'm not cancelling my pre-order... but I want that layer count higher for sure.

#180 Posted by FoolishChaos (447 posts) -

@valeo said:

How can you even know if you want more players in a match before playing the game though?

Because every FPS is the same, and everyone who has played an FPS knows exactly the number of players any FPS should have

In all seriousness, as someone who loved GoW's low player count Multi, im sure this will be fine guys. chill

#181 Edited by davidwitten22 (1708 posts) -

@mildmolasses said:

@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

I know you're being condescending but you still deserve to be punched in the face for posting this drivel.

Now that I've been baited I'll post something less inflammatory. Comparing a competitive multiplayer FPS to a MOBA or an RPG (and all the other ridiculous comparisons in this thread) is very stupid. 6v6 seems pretty weak from a game that is multiplayer only (seems to me it would be nice to save the option for a game mode or two with large lobbies), but the game will still probably be fine. It's most likely a non-issue.

#182 Posted by Roboculus92 (534 posts) -

@yummylee said:

The Last of Us' 5v5 multiplayer is some of the most enjoyment I've had playing multiplayer in recent memory.

Yeah I definitely didn't see it coming but I ended up quite enjoying the multiplayer in that game.

#183 Posted by ThatOneDudeNick (760 posts) -

Didn't read all the comments. But there's AI, and you can get out of the mech and put it on patrol while you're running around. Potentially 12 people and 12 mechs seems fine to me. I'm shocked at how the internet lost their fucking minds over this. Everyone WANTS things to be bad, I think. We love to judge shit we've never played based on pure speculation. Calm down.

#184 Posted by Darji (5293 posts) -

@darji: I haven't played the game, but it seems like you might not be thinking about the AI controlled units in the right context. What I've read makes it seem like they're MOBA style creeps, and nobody in their right mind would want to play as a creep. It would be a horribly unpleasant experience.

Yeah maybe. I thought that if you leave your mech it will be AI controlled as well which if true could be totally a human player in my opinion.

#185 Posted by joshwent (2353 posts) -

People who already have a problem with this game which is specifically trying to do something new and unique in a multiplayer FPS, by comparing it to their own current multiplayer FPS of choice, are sort of missing the point by a mile.

#186 Posted by Captain_Felafel (1602 posts) -

@darji said:

@captain_felafel: This sounds like it would have been better to replace these by players instead of AI. So then we would have a 12 vs 12 situation right?

It seemed to me like there were more than 6 AI players per team. More like 12 AI players or something. There were a lot. I don't, however, think it'd be a better game with more real players. If it was 12v12, those maps would be way too hectic. I think 6 players per side is just enough. I like to use the Battlefield 4 analogy. Whenever you've got, like, ten or more people per side in a close area, it's absolutely chaos, and not the fun "this is awesome~!" kind either, more like the "how the hell did I just die?!" kind.

#187 Posted by Kazona (3097 posts) -

As long as The game is good and fun to play I couldn't care less about player count.

#188 Posted by e30bmw (356 posts) -

Why not make it 12 or 24 a side and let six people use a Titian at a time and you get priority if you missed out in a round. I worry that all this stuff means the ground combat won't be that good as you can't not play a match without access to a Titan. Maybe Titan pilots have less close combat gear as they need to go minimal to pilot he mechs and you can sacrifice driving one of them in favour of better guns.

I know this is pie in the sky shit and I'm not cancelling my pre-order... but I want that layer count higher for sure.

I'm sure they considered this and still came to their conclusion.

Now that I've been baited I'll post something less inflammatory. Comparing a competitive multiplayer FPS to a MOBA or an RPG (and all the other ridiculous comparisons in this thread) is very stupid. 6v6 seems pretty weak from a game that is multiplayer only (seems to me it would be nice to save the option for a game mode or two with large lobbies), but the game will still probably be fine. It's most likely a non-issue.

Like people have said, COD has always been 6v6 except for one game mode that is 3v3 and another that is 9v9. I bet you they looked at the numbers and the people playing the latter two constituted a very small percentage of the whole player base.

#189 Posted by spraynardtatum (3727 posts) -

@abara said:

@spraynardtatum said:

It bothers me when people say that gamers on the internet don't know anything about game design. That's a reductive smear. I thought Dannys quote was really good until that shitty little nugget. The internet is too big and there are too many smart people that play videogames for that to be even close to accurate.

You're right buuuuuuuut... The thing is that the "smart people that play videogames" are not the ones losing their minds over this, hence they are not the ones who prompted his comments.

His comment encompassed all gamers on the internet and also the rest of the internet:

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.

I agree that Respawn probably knows what they're doing here but this comment sucks. It basically smears all criticism of this decision by assuming that the people with concerns are idiots on the internet. And if this thread is any example I'd say that the smear worked pretty well! As someone who works on the internet Danny should have more respect for his audience. At least he didn't call us nuclear arms dealers like Sessler.

This bothers me because I keep seeing the gaming press, Danny has a "The Point" on it say that people on the internet should be more respectful and then they go and insult people on the internet.

#190 Posted by LucidDreams117 (422 posts) -

http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/9/5292474/titanfall-maps-can-be-packed-with-nearly-50-combatants-including-ai

Polygon just posted this. Basically Bigger is not better. I whole heartedly agree.

"It just comes back to what makes the game fun," Hendry said. "If you're making a game and you're making decisions that's not based on fun because you're trying to please someone or trying to match numbers, you're not doing the right thing.

"Why not make Call of Duty 256 players, or Battlefield 256 or 512? Maybe that would be awesome. Maybe that would be awesome for that type of game built around that, but you can't just jam players into a game and say this is what is ordained."

Call of Duty 4 was and still is the most innovative and fun shooter in years. I'm giving these guys the benefit of a doubt. Let's not all freak out because we think more players in better. Let's at least play the game. Read the article. A lot of good points.

#191 Posted by Vinny_Says (5721 posts) -

@darji said:

@vinny_says said:

@darji said:

@donpixel said:

@vinny_says said:

Lets just say this guy probably knows what he's doing. Not only because of his pedigree but also because they've been working on and testing this multiplayer only title for a while.

You mean professional game developers know best that a bunch of 12 year olds and basement "core" gamers!? Heresy...

Ok how often did people prove this bullshit wrong? Gamers know about games and gamers most likely know more about games than these journalists and most developers. Just because you are getting paid for something does not mean you know more about than people who are not getting paid.

Okay there Darji don't be stupid....you know jack shit about making games along with 95% of people who play them.

I know about stuff I like and other people like. For example dumbing down difficulty in games is one of these points. Developers also have to think about widen the audience and sacrifice gameplay for that. Kinect and motion control games are another of these examples. I know almost nothing about programming but this is not a programming issue. Even here Respawn has to think about what is more fun to the casual audience as well. How can we make this game more casual. These are thing gamers do not care about. They focus rather on gameplay mechanics and complexity.

Deciding the player count in a multiplayer focused game is something you know more about than an entire studio working on it? Seriously how many drugs do you consume/how old are you?

#192 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7100 posts) -

@darji said:

@vinny_says said:

@darji said:

@donpixel said:

@vinny_says said:

Lets just say this guy probably knows what he's doing. Not only because of his pedigree but also because they've been working on and testing this multiplayer only title for a while.

You mean professional game developers know best that a bunch of 12 year olds and basement "core" gamers!? Heresy...

Ok how often did people prove this bullshit wrong? Gamers know about games and gamers most likely know more about games than these journalists and most developers. Just because you are getting paid for something does not mean you know more about than people who are not getting paid.

Okay there Darji don't be stupid....you know jack shit about making games along with 95% of people who play them.

I know about stuff I like and other people like. For example dumbing down difficulty in games is one of these points. Developers also have to think about widen the audience and sacrifice gameplay for that. Kinect and motion control games are another of these examples. I know almost nothing about programming but this is not a programming issue. Even here Respawn has to think about what is more fun to the casual audience as well. How can we make this game more casual. These are thing gamers do not care about. They focus rather on gameplay mechanics and complexity.

Deciding the player count in a multiplayer focused game is something you know more about than an entire studio working on it? Seriously how many drugs do you consume/how old are you?

I'm inclined to think that this has more to do with Titanfall being an Xbox game. Darji has a history of trashing everything and anything Xbox-related (and, to be honest, Nintendo-related). They've earned the bruises that they've recieved, for sure, but he takes it to quite the extreme.

#193 Edited by Darji (5293 posts) -

@vinny_says said:

@darji said:

@vinny_says said:

@darji said:

@donpixel said:

@vinny_says said:

Lets just say this guy probably knows what he's doing. Not only because of his pedigree but also because they've been working on and testing this multiplayer only title for a while.

You mean professional game developers know best that a bunch of 12 year olds and basement "core" gamers!? Heresy...

Ok how often did people prove this bullshit wrong? Gamers know about games and gamers most likely know more about games than these journalists and most developers. Just because you are getting paid for something does not mean you know more about than people who are not getting paid.

Okay there Darji don't be stupid....you know jack shit about making games along with 95% of people who play them.

I know about stuff I like and other people like. For example dumbing down difficulty in games is one of these points. Developers also have to think about widen the audience and sacrifice gameplay for that. Kinect and motion control games are another of these examples. I know almost nothing about programming but this is not a programming issue. Even here Respawn has to think about what is more fun to the casual audience as well. How can we make this game more casual. These are thing gamers do not care about. They focus rather on gameplay mechanics and complexity.

Deciding the player count in a multiplayer focused game is something you know more about than an entire studio working on it? Seriously how many drugs do you consume/how old are you?

Here is the problem: Focus. They do focus test to reach a much wider audience. I as a gamer would never have the intention to dumb a game down. quite the opposite. So they would rather chose a more casual approach then a core approach. Again from the footage I have seen I thought it was a much bigger scale like many other people did. Also I already mentioned that one of the reasons why they are not doing 12 vs 12 at least is that people would be mad not having a titan while other do. They said themselves that there is so much going on and so many people running around but it is strange for me when out of lets say 50 people only 12 are actual players.

@mariachimacabre Grew up. First of all this is not console exclusive so If I want to play it if its good I would use the PC version over every other version even if it were on a PS4. This has nothing to do with consolewars and to bring this shit up over and over again is just stupid and harms any possible form of actual discussion. And for reference. I decided to buy a new PC before I get a PS4 so yeah, so much for Sonyfanboy. I love games and If Microsoft or Sony deliver what I want from games which for example are very story focused and interesting games I do not care at all who does this.