Player Count Locked at 6 v 6

What if this game sucks? Man, I hope not.

When I played this at PAX, it was difficult/impossible to tell if the person you were shooting was an AI or not. That was just one match though, and will probably change as you get more accustomed to the game, but I think this won't be as big of a deal as it sounds. Having a ton of AI makes the games very busy/chaotic.

Only 12 players can play at once, of COURSE it sucks!

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.

@cramsy: i give him a free pass just because of the Lemon of Troy avatar.

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and give the dudes what made the most influential game of the last generation the benefit of the doubt that they may have put some thought into the amount of players running around their maps. I mean, maybe they did, I don't know.

32 and 64 work great for Battlefield and large Battlefield maps. CoD had the right player counts for CoD and their maps. You need the context of the rest of the game design other than just a player count number.

i hear the next zelda will have player count locked at one :o

I don't think they're chaining themselves, especially since they arrived at 6v6 instead of starting off with it.

In either case though, I don't think there's any inherent value in having a variety of game modes and player counts if it's not in line with the game they're trying to make. If they don't think a 20-player horde mode or 2-player co-op mode or whatever other mode anyone can think of has a place, that's not them being unreasonably restrictive so much as it's just them realizing what they set out to create.

I see where you're coming from, and there's certainly a time and place to seriously consider different ideas, but sometimes it's more worthwhile to maintain rather than acquiesce.

@captain_felafel: Can you maybe talk about the ai's role and impact in the game? From videos they seem to be very little of a threat and kind of just fodder used to fill the screen. Are they even a danger?

Doesn't every player have a Titan? So if you are jumping around with your Titan in tow it's more like 12v12. . Maybe?

How do you know more is better? These dudes are developing a multiplayer game, they've had some pretty serious experience developing multiplayer-focused shooters, and they've come down on 6v6 as the magic number. Why do you think you know that more is better? Battlefield is all about beautiful chaos and insane shit going down because of tanks vs. infantry. vs. aircraft. vs. navy vs. tons of batshit insanity. Titanfall has a different focus, and with it, a different feel for multiplayer. More does not equal better, and you certainly aren't privy to any insider knowledge that says more would be better for Titanfall.

Yeah I'm going to trust that these guys know what they're doing.

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.

Oh for heaven's sake. A re you people really critiquing a game that isn't out and barely anyone has played, and certainly most of you haven't played because it isn't battlefield? I played the game a few times at PAX. They were full matches and they were intense, hectic, and action filled. And I had plenty of combat with players. More players would just make things TOO hectic IMO, especially with the Titans. Ya know, the big feature of the game. So please, stop assuming this is a horrible thing because of numbers. If you want a Battlefield style game, go play Battlefield. That's still a good game. This isn't that. Would you also complain that Dota 2 isn't 64 players online? No.

They very much are not. If that were the case they'd pull a every-other-major-cross-gen-fps and make it 6v6 on 360 and something higher on Xbone. It doesn't need to be higher. They aren't lying, the balance feels great, and I seriously don't think the game would be better with more players. It'd probably be too many players unless they really turned down the AI component. The game is super hectic even with 6v6. That isn't a lie, ask anyone who played it at PAX.

You have no reason to think this has anything to do with the power of the 360 beyond blind assumption, so don't get tricked into thinking that. The game is awesome how it is, and that's why it's being designed that way.

This isn't a case of things changing over time... It was always 6v6 from the initial reveal. And I can say for sure that more than one or two guys per team up from there and the game would be too busy and hectic. The map that they had at PAX at least wasn't especially big, especially with how easy it was to run around. You could always hear the action and it was easy to run into the fray. And half of the time it erupted out of an alley as two titans struggled across your path. The assumption that the 360 has anything to do with anything is hilarious considering every other example we've had where that might have happened, they just made the player counts different on different platforms. You seem to be operating under the assumption that the player count is "wrong." If it is wrong, it isn't by much or the game is just so fun it doesn't matter, because I never wished for more players or action when I played at PAX.

Not as big as you'd think. When I played it took me maybe 30 seconds to traverse the map. Granted it's likely not the biggest map, but they seem to be going for density on the map design. Lots of interiors and alleys and stuff all in a small concentrated area. I was never more than 15 seconds of leaping and sprinting from a big fight. Especially given the nature of the titan battles, which tended to have an ebb and flow, until one titan gained the upper hand and started hammering the losing titan back, which tended to take the battle across half of the map.

Plus, the AI kept things plenty occupied. And giant robots are easy to see/hear from nearly anywhere on the map so if you want action? Go towards the sound of chaos.

There's a difference between "Oh, shame, I'd maybe prefer higher counts" and "Well this game sucks because it doesn't have more players!" Also, if player count makes or breaks a game for you, you probably have some really bizarre tastes. It shouldn't be a defining characteristic beyond whether it fits the game in question or not. And I have every reason to believe it does considering my past experiences with the game.

As someone who liked the glory days of Halo's 4v4, I for one say: Bring it on! I'm fine with this. Hell, I'm more than fine. I'm ecstatic about this. This game keeps sounding better and better. From the lack of quick scopes in snipping to this. These guys know what's up. What the shooter genre needs right now.

Hell, I'm playing Battlefield 4 right now and I mostly play Team Deathmatch. I prefer low player counts.

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.

Just because every game that's released isn't perfect and a few writers are prone to fact checking errors, it isn't really enough to give you license to write off the entire field of work.

Don't discount how much easier it is to play armchair developer than it is to do the real thing. I can guarantee you that these guys didn't just pull a number out of a hat and decide that's what the player count would be.

@chaser324: I would never do that. But you still can have doubts about it. Again the Vision or the feeling I had were large battle scale maps and action and given this I think it is really strange how they do it. For example on Gaf a Respawn guy also said that it is 6 vs 6 because of the AI controlled mechs. And the reason for that was they are saying it is not fun for some people if there are mechs on the field which they can'T get into. So instead of doing it 12 vs 12 with 6 mechs on each side they decided to make it 6 vs 6 with AI.

Also the fact that it is such a hot topic right now is another evidence that people don't want a more like Counterstrike game but rather a fun and "wild" one.

ignorance + arrogance is a bad bad combo, also what about waiting a try the game

I think it totally can work. Especially when you play Counter-Strike-like game modes etc. which focus on tactics etc. I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

It is not what I am looking for in a shooter. I want massive scale, pseudo-"frontlines" of people crashing into each other and total chaos. Battlefield actually scratches this itch surprisingly well for me. It also runs ok lately (PC). All we need is a new Battlefield 2142 now.

@darji: Except that your complaints about it being more "Counterstrike" and less "wild and fun" aren't really backed up by the first hand accounts of people that have actually played it. I've heard almost universally positive things from people that have played it at PAX, Eurogamer, and other shows - and I don't think any of them complained about it being slow paced or not frantic enough. Without playing the game, the worst you could say right now is that it isn't what you expected. Making any sort of qualitative statement beyond that is pretty ridiculous.

Scale ain't everything. A game that isn't properly designed and balanced or that lacks solid core mechanics isn't going to be improved by cramming 24, 32, 64+ players into it.

But yeah, I'm sure everyone that has played it and enjoyed it is just a casual gamer that's never played an FPS and has a completely worthless opinion.

Maybe I'm just too optimistic and open to new experiences, but given that these are the guys that revolutionized the FPS genre seven years ago, I'm willing to give them a lot of room to experiment with doing something different.

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.

@chaser324: People also defended games like Sim City and even after Launch. Pres people at least many of them have no idea what gamers want anymore. If I hear a Garnett Lee for example talking about games I have to roll my eyes so often by his comments. So no I do not trust these people or at least most of them especially when they only played it for a couple of minutes.

On the other hand we have these gamers that had other expectations and just because a developer is saying that this is more fun, we do not have to trust them or believe that they know what is even fun for most people in these gamer forums when all these developer are trying to do, is to widen the audience more and more.

I think it is a fair reaction of these people. Who will be right in the end we will see when it is out but before I don't think we have the right to say that this is right or wrong in any possible way. So yeah be sceptical if you want to or believe into the developer if you want to. Both views are "right"

@theht:

I probably shouldn't have used "chain" is a harsh and loaded. I am kind of concerned about the variation available which is a problem plaguing modern online FPS games right now: You play one match, you've played them all. You see the same things happen over and over and over again where the outcome win or lose is meaningless.

As I have written and will continue to write I think they can make a "6 v 6" that is fair and fun. I am just concerned about a limited or restricted set of online matches where online games thrive when there is a high degree of "variance" between any particular match. The thing MOBAs have is that even though the PVP match size/map/etc is fixed, the combat parameters are exotic and wildly variant. I am not getting that same vibe from Titanfall where it will need more match modes to help achieve the "variance". They haven't specifically talked about other modes but if they are restricted in this way for design or technical reasons then that becomes a big hurdle to keeping players interested.

I think it's funny that everyone that hasn't played it yet is complaining.

@ssully said:

That's exactly what they're like. They were incredibly easy to pick off, which is doubly true when in a Titan. They're basically scenery, there to make the battle seem bigger without it actually being bigger. I wouldn't say them being in the match was a bad thing, in fact, it was nice as it gave me something to do whenever I was in a dead part of the map devoid of "real" enemies. I was never not shooting at guys, which felt like a nice change of pace from most multiplayer games where 70% of your time spent is running towards battles. But again, it was very one-sided. The only time I ever even remotely felt threatened by them was when it was myself versus a group of three or four of them. I wasn't able to take them all on, so I retreated. So in numbers they're threatening, but on their own...

@darji: Sure. You have every right to be skeptical, but I just fear that knee-jerk reactions like this only serve to further steer developers and publishers toward playing it safe.

And yeah, I don't like Garnett Lee or Sim City either, but I guess I'm willing to let that go and not hold that against everyone in the industry.

@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?

@chaser324 I never said anyone but I think most people. I trust certain people for example even I do not like the taste of games from Jeff I trust him more than I trust many other people. What me bothers the most is the AI thing that tags along. If they would be replaced by real players I think it would be a much better experience.

Sounds good. Funny how people bitch about FPSs never changing, yet complain when a game isn't just Battlefield with mechs. Looking forward to it.

@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.

In this case I feel some of it is probably console war bullshit, along the lines of "hurr durrr TitanFall on XB1 can ONLY do 6v6...lulz".

This game was never Battlefield. I know it's "next gen", but that doesn't mean every shooter has to have 100v100 or something. I like smaller experiences like this. And as others have mentioned this dude knows what he's doing.

Im very torn on this information. When I played this at eurogamer I think it was 6v6 but with a ton of AI in the actual map.

The map is quite large (as it has to accomodate quite a few large titans anyway) and as a result there were segments where I was not able to find anyone to shoot and i was just freerunning around. Equally so I guess in a parking lot i found a spawn area as the AI just kept on streaming out of an alley infront of my titan and i kept foot smashing them (not final build so I can accept that). After my playthrough I really thought they would bump it to at least 10v10 and reduce the AI count as a balance to having a similar amount of characters in the map at the same time (the amount of AI made it feel like it was a 32 player map but with a ton of bad people.

The AI itself was kind of bad (again not final build and not using the clouds infinite power) but could still at least shoot you so I guess they can kill you.

The only real response I guess is to accept this will be 6v6 and wait until it is released to get some reviews, maybe don't preorder this if you're not so sure on it anymore

edit: and pray for a battlefield 2143

CoD: Ghosts has shown it's not the player count that matters but the size of the maps... that game is straight ruined! The same with the 360/PS3 versions of BF4.

6v6 with the possibility of 12v12 if everyone has their mech in follow mode, plus whatever the AI creeps are going to be will be just fine on the right sized maps.

In the eurogamer expo build the mechs did not last too long and were staggered out (in a 12ish minute game I got 3 mechs but I assume that was pretty generous on the mech timer)

I have no problem with this. Everyone previewing the game has been raving about it, a smaller than imagined player count doesn't change anything.

I'm not really worried about the player count. I am a bit worried that they've already cut and run on this game though.

They already are talking about missing features to be added, and with the MS exclusive for Titanfall 1, why even go back and fix it later? Just push out Titanfall 2 ASAP with the fixes/improvements, since you can about double your prospective console audience.

@flippyandnod: Aside from LAN and mod features not being initially available at launch (which isn't much of a surprise), I haven't heard of any core gameplay stuff that has been cut from the game or is being pushed from launch.

I've played Titanfall a bit, and this is basically it.

You constantly feel good. You are the god of death, and are constantly dropping killstreaks/mechs on people and just straight wrecking them. You can't really tell if it's players or AI, it's all just things in your path. It's never challenging, and it never really feels like a multiplayer FPS, but it is fun. As you said, even when you die you feel like you accomplished quite a bit.

That isn't to say it didn't have problems. The maps are fairly large, but even with the AI feel a bit empty. I didn't even realize it was 6v6 when I played, but at the time figured it was just because they wanted to limit the strain on the beta build. Knowing it'll stay 6v6 does worry me a little, but we will see. And yeah, it was difficult to tell players/AI apart, so you couldn't pick out threats easily, meaning several times I ran into a group of baddies, assumed they were all AI, killed them, and then got killed by the player running with that group because he didn't look any different from the AI guys.

I also kind of started to get bored with it? Like in traditional smallscale multiplayer games like CoD/Counterstrike, I'm constantly on my toes due to other players. A single misstep could mean my death, so I'm basically forced to be in the game, and every kill just gives a boost of adrenaline. When I play stuff like Battlefield or Planetside it's the opposite, I'm constantly doing stuff, constantly fighting, constantly figuring out what I'm going to do next. In my short time with Titanfall it was great because everything was just dying to my guns, but I never really got that feeling of "oh christ I beat that guy before he shot me, whew" that I do from CoD, and never really got that "BAM SHOT THAT HELI DOWN WHOOP!" I do in Battlefield. It just felt like a botmatch with occasionally more difficult bots in it.

That might just be because I was playing with people who didn't know FPSes very well though, and none of us knew the maps/weapons/loadouts. I'm willing to wait and see.

I think looking at it either way is a really bad idea just because it is so different. I think quite a few of the people here talking about how smallscale is more strategic/they know what they are doing and can't wait will end up disappointed with Titanfall, and probably be swearing it off as shite in a few months. But I also think many of the people getting mad about 6v6 will end up playing it and enjoying it, because it is unique, and they do know what they are doing when it comes to FPS games. Until it's on the market and people have had a chance to mess with it and learn it a bit more, it's entirely up in the air as to how good it may be.

MAG: Domination FTW

=D

I admittedly when Hmmm?! when I saw the headline as it does read as a small number, but I barely play these kinds of games so whatever I guess. Playing BF4 and seeing all the madness going on is pretty awesome, but definitely every game does not need to be BF. With all the titans running around and the bots I bet the levels will feel pretty full, like that developer says, though fuck that lame "oh man my heart pounds so hard I gotta take breaks all the time" bullshit. Give me a break.

From everything I've heard it's important to them to have bots around so that anyone can get kills and feel good about themselves, which I actually think is a pretty great design idea, but the more I think about it, the more I think a feature like that would be better served in high player count games then low player count. It just seems like there is a big risk of having too high a bot to player ratio in a 6v6 game, whereas you have more room in 32 v 32 as well as just being able to bank on lucky positioning a little more (with so many players running around, you are bound to get at least 1-2 kills a match, even through sheer stupidity).

For the Titans themselves, 6v6 sounds obvious in a way. Can you imagine a 10v10 with 20 titans shooting rockets across the screen? Peace out framerate. Since Titanfall is an Xbox exclusive, I was hoping they would lean real hard on the cloud computing and use that to leverage player numbers but I guess they have something else in mind, or, the MS180 kaiboshed any plans to go whole hog on the cloud side of things.

So all in all I get where the developer is coming from, and it sounds legit, but I also get the dissapointment. There is something slightly not-next gen about 6v6, but if the gameplay does deliver the next-gen FPS experience, then it won't matter much.

All my favorite multiplayer shooters have been small scale experiences: Halo, Gears of War, and Counterstrike, so I don't see this as a problem. I respect what things like Battlefield are aiming for, but I've always found smaller experiences with more room for coordinated teamplay makes for a much more enjoyable competitive experience.

Well it's not meaningless if you're having fun. You could say the same about old FPS games with multiplayer, like Quake or Unreal Tournament, that if you've played one match you've played them all. Gameplay-wise you're going to be running around shooting each other, but I think when you break it down, that's the primary draw for these games. Whether that's fun or not is what'll keep people interested and playing.

A great new mode can certainly revitalize that interest and add some more depth to the game as a whole, but the Call of Duty games for instance are fun mostly because the part where you run around and shoot people is fun. The Battlefield games are fun for the way they do that, Counter-Strike is fun for the way they do that, and if the Respawn folks play their cards right, Titanfall will be fun for the way they do that as well.

And there is meaningful variance to matches in these games before you get to the modes, whether it's from the weapons, the levels, or even something as rudimentary as playing against someone different. But my point is that even if it's just 6v6 with one game mode at launch, if the core gameplay is a fun experience then people will be playing it for a good long while, or at least until they release a sequel the following year.

Player count doesn't matter, as long as the game is well suited for the number of players. Gears of War is 5 on 5 ( I think ) and I never had any problem with that. BF4 has 64 players and I don't really mind them, since I always see 3-4 players tops.

I don't understand the freak out over this. If the dev thinks that number of players is better for the gameplay balance, I trust them and will see how it is for myself.

its absolutely disgusting!