Titanfall has maximum player count of 12 (alongside AI) [Respawn comments post #558]
- Thread starter Fracas
- Start date
Opus Angelorum
Member
The problem is people are ignoring those who have actually played (praised) it and labelled them as bias press members.
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
As long as the game runs at a rock solid 60FPS at 1080P, I am good. 6V6 with AI soldiers sure as hell looks like a lot of fun in the videos I saw.
Respawn isn't even doing the 360 port...jesus christ this thread.
DrROBschiz
Member
I think a lot of people are frustrated that games are still coming out with so many limitations
6v6 is totally fine but the problem is that LACK of options
The plague of this long generation is that developers could not push the boundaries (that are often pushed in the PC market) placed on them by whatever hardware they are using.
You think the compromises only include the playercount? The hardware limitations govern the entire design of the game and its clear that they make keys decisions to go after the highest install base possible at the expense of pushing this game even further.
Im not saying its wrong. Hell it was probably the only logical choice they had and we are seeing it happen all over with the Generation switch.
The good news is that PS4 and XBone are selling well enough (4.2 mil and 3 mil respectively) that devs will feel more at easy moving on and embracing the updated tech.
6v6 is totally fine but the problem is that LACK of options
The plague of this long generation is that developers could not push the boundaries (that are often pushed in the PC market) placed on them by whatever hardware they are using.
You think the compromises only include the playercount? The hardware limitations govern the entire design of the game and its clear that they make keys decisions to go after the highest install base possible at the expense of pushing this game even further.
Im not saying its wrong. Hell it was probably the only logical choice they had and we are seeing it happen all over with the Generation switch.
The good news is that PS4 and XBone are selling well enough (4.2 mil and 3 mil respectively) that devs will feel more at easy moving on and embracing the updated tech.
no one said that.
some people just prefere more than 12 players.
and btw. less players = more fun isnt true either.
come on.
how long did they play it?
a couple of hours?
you here the same stuff from people who got to play the newest COD first.
Again, the 360 version is a different game, being made by a different developer.
as far as i'm aware, they haven't confirmed 1080p on xbox one
DenogginizerOS
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
If you take out camping snipers in COD TDM games, you would end up with 6V6 most of the time. This design is a reflection of them culling the camping wookies from their game.
How did this become the bash BF4 thread? BF4 is pretty insane in 64 player matches. Everyone is not on foot first off. Game isnt an arena shooter like Quake either.
Rarely have I seen It turn into a clusterfuck. Most of the time Its smaller engagements happening at once.
Love playing smaller matches on BF4 via Hardcore mode also. (Choice is agreat good thing) Games move slower, people check corners ect. Game is great on HC imo.
The Titanfall news did put a damper on my excitement slightly. Smaller matches don't bother me too much but bots in mp do. Have a ton of fun playing KZ mercs on Vita.
Will give game a chance when It launches but after MW2, they get no blind faith. Was nice that the dev came in thread but It's a given he would only have great news.
This game went from instabuy to wait and see. Hope It turns out well either way.
Rarely have I seen It turn into a clusterfuck. Most of the time Its smaller engagements happening at once.
Love playing smaller matches on BF4 via Hardcore mode also. (Choice is agreat good thing) Games move slower, people check corners ect. Game is great on HC imo.
The Titanfall news did put a damper on my excitement slightly. Smaller matches don't bother me too much but bots in mp do. Have a ton of fun playing KZ mercs on Vita.
Will give game a chance when It launches but after MW2, they get no blind faith. Was nice that the dev came in thread but It's a given he would only have great news.
This game went from instabuy to wait and see. Hope It turns out well either way.
This may just be the saddest thread I have ever seen on this website.
There's no problem preferring games to have larger player counts, but acting as though anything that doesn't opt to do this must be due to limitations, and inherently inferior is ridiculous.
I often see people saying they don't understand why people are looking forward to Titanfall, and that it's simply CoD with Mechs. Turns out, as soon as details come across that show there are design choices that separate the game from whats already out there, everyone throws their hands up in panic.
Titanfall has no singleplayer mode, but it has been said that they are adding a sense a narration to the multiplayer in the form of objectives and set pieces. This is something that neither CoD or Battlefield provide, and quite likely requires AI opponents that can be relied upon to perform a specific role in order for these scenarios to effectively play out. These tasks could quite possibly not be things that can be entrusted to human players simply because the average online player is more invested in their individual scoreboard placing, than the role they should be serving on a team. Maybe one of these scenarios is a rescue mission of some sort. Would it be better to have actually human players wait in capture for their team to rescue them, only to possibly be offed seconds after being sprung from prison? I wouldn't think so, that sounds more like a role that an AI is more suited to fill, whilst all the human members perform the rescue. On the other team there may be AI units stationed on patrol, that alert the humans members of the team once they detect the escape route the enemy is attempting to flee from, allowing the defenders to home in on their objective.
This is obviously just a scenario I'm making up and they may not have anything like this in it, but it's really not hard to see how there can be very valid reasons for including AI units in a multiplayer game. A lot of people here seem to be actually complaining that the game isn't just going to be Battlefield with wall running and Mechs... it's crazy.
Also, in regards to player numbers, mobility has been touted as a large part of the game's appeal. If you place too many people into smaller maps, you'd have multiple people locked onto you the moment you respawn each time. This would likely diminish the movement aspects of the game, as you wouldn't have the spacing required to actually move around much, as you'd be constantly engaged in battle. On the other hand if you increased the map sizes dramatically to compensate, you would likely have too many large open areas where you would be unable to utilise your movement options, and would probably get bitch-slapped by any Titan you come across if you're not in your own.
I've never really liked Call of Duty in multiplayer. Same for Battlefield. However, as someone who spent hours a day for years playing Quake 3 Arena, Titanfall is one of the very few FPS games that has actually caught my interest. The movement options are a large part of that, and any design choices that allow for that I fully welcome. Plus, in Quake 3 you could have large numbers on players far above the recommendatios... and it nearly always ended up being a disastrous mess. I would rather not have that scenario become common in Titanfall.
There's no problem preferring games to have larger player counts, but acting as though anything that doesn't opt to do this must be due to limitations, and inherently inferior is ridiculous.
I often see people saying they don't understand why people are looking forward to Titanfall, and that it's simply CoD with Mechs. Turns out, as soon as details come across that show there are design choices that separate the game from whats already out there, everyone throws their hands up in panic.
Titanfall has no singleplayer mode, but it has been said that they are adding a sense a narration to the multiplayer in the form of objectives and set pieces. This is something that neither CoD or Battlefield provide, and quite likely requires AI opponents that can be relied upon to perform a specific role in order for these scenarios to effectively play out. These tasks could quite possibly not be things that can be entrusted to human players simply because the average online player is more invested in their individual scoreboard placing, than the role they should be serving on a team. Maybe one of these scenarios is a rescue mission of some sort. Would it be better to have actually human players wait in capture for their team to rescue them, only to possibly be offed seconds after being sprung from prison? I wouldn't think so, that sounds more like a role that an AI is more suited to fill, whilst all the human members perform the rescue. On the other team there may be AI units stationed on patrol, that alert the humans members of the team once they detect the escape route the enemy is attempting to flee from, allowing the defenders to home in on their objective.
This is obviously just a scenario I'm making up and they may not have anything like this in it, but it's really not hard to see how there can be very valid reasons for including AI units in a multiplayer game. A lot of people here seem to be actually complaining that the game isn't just going to be Battlefield with wall running and Mechs... it's crazy.
Also, in regards to player numbers, mobility has been touted as a large part of the game's appeal. If you place too many people into smaller maps, you'd have multiple people locked onto you the moment you respawn each time. This would likely diminish the movement aspects of the game, as you wouldn't have the spacing required to actually move around much, as you'd be constantly engaged in battle. On the other hand if you increased the map sizes dramatically to compensate, you would likely have too many large open areas where you would be unable to utilise your movement options, and would probably get bitch-slapped by any Titan you come across if you're not in your own.
I've never really liked Call of Duty in multiplayer. Same for Battlefield. However, as someone who spent hours a day for years playing Quake 3 Arena, Titanfall is one of the very few FPS games that has actually caught my interest. The movement options are a large part of that, and any design choices that allow for that I fully welcome. Plus, in Quake 3 you could have large numbers on players far above the recommendatios... and it nearly always ended up being a disastrous mess. I would rather not have that scenario become common in Titanfall.
DrROBschiz
Member
Ok but they still have to build a game that CAN be ported.
Unless they are going to go on record to say that the Two games will have drastically different features
"connection lost to EA servers" pops when I instant resume in B4.
again, 6 players team + bots +mechs is good
good players will be able to prey on 6 humans for maximum score
will do so with grace jumping and double jumping
or using brute force and inventive techniques with their mechs
middle players will enjoy the satisfaction of the relative protection of their cockpits while being chased by on foot soldiers, or last minute evades when good players ride their mechs and munch through their armors
entry level players will have bots to kill, mechs to ride which should alleviate some of the dullness of getting very few kills on human players.
Titanfall will do good this coming Spring.
"key differences"
Unknown One
Member
That depends on map design. Both sayings isn't true. Small map is better with smaller amount of players. Bigger maps is better with more. Playing 4 v 4 in bf4 obliteration is a snorefest.
As a big Battlefield fan, at this point, I'd much rather multiplayer games didn't have that many gameplay options. It's becoming hard to find a Battlefield 4 server on PC that has settings and map I prefer. Heck, I haven't been able to play China Rising maps in few weeks because no one is running those maps with proper settings.
Towards the end, Battlefield 3 was completely unplayable. Nearly 30 maps, 15 game modes and not nearly enough players to populate even one third of the game modes. There was literally no server with decent ping running the maps I'd prefer to play. Imagine if I wanted to play specific map AND specific game mode. Good luck with that.
Same issue with most Call of Duty games. Almost no one was playing ground war, no one playing DLC maps. Splitting the player base with many game modes, multiple player limits and so on doesn't make the game good. It makes the game hard to play unless you want to play team deathmatch on that one specific map everyone is running and voting.
Oops sorry fellas
fi3rypho3nix
Banned
Alright, this is not in defense of Titanfall.
My best multiplayer experiences have always revolved around low player count games/maps. I know some people really want a true battlefield type experience in terms of players, but they always seem so chaotic that cohesion is lost and certainly teamwork.
My best multiplayer experiences have always revolved around low player count games/maps. I know some people really want a true battlefield type experience in terms of players, but they always seem so chaotic that cohesion is lost and certainly teamwork.
Actually it does sound like they are taking some cues from MOBAs.
Interfectum
Member
This thread has been painful. The only reason I can see people having a problem with 6 v 6 gameplay is they can't hide behind sheer numbers and actually have to pull their weight. Otherwise what does it matter?
SniperHunter
Banned
This shouldn't be a $60 game IMO
Look at Team Fortress 2, it was packed with two other killer games! At this point it feels like a $14 Battlefield 1943 type game.
Look at Team Fortress 2, it was packed with two other killer games! At this point it feels like a $14 Battlefield 1943 type game.
Because don't you know? Bigger means better. 16 vs 16 is much bigger than 6 vs 6 and so it must automatically be bad.
I think it's the homogenization of shooters. Larger numbers of players compromise team play, map Control and meaningful player engagement. It just becomes a large area of many smaller battles, respawn, see someone, kill them, have someone else respawn near or behind you, get killed, respawn, rinse repeat etc.
It actually does and it peaked my interest.
You have to camp to snipe , unless you wanna be a quickscoper , you sound like someone who thinks they are really good at COD and blames everything except your crappy style/skill for you shitty k/d.I have quite a few friends like you , just accept you will never be great and enjoy the game
hooijdonk17
Member
A: X is bad
B: Shut up you can't criticize a game you haven't played yet. It's actually good.
C: But you can defend a game you haven't played yet?
D: Why are you telling him to not discuss the game?
Perfect, really.
gaming_noob
Member
I'm glad campers like JayFalcon wouldn't be able to play this game.
Going by your avatar and posts in this thread you wern't going to spend a penny on this game wether the player count was 6 v 6 or 64 v 64.
dragonelite
Member
Pretty much i had more fun in halo with 4vs4 and 5vs5 then i had with 8vs8.
I also have fun in 64 player BF4 but the maps have the size for it.
yeah, we got it.
less is better, and 6 v 6 is perfect.
noone ever said bigger is better.
didnt see anyone saying the wanted titanfall to have 64 players.
striferser
Huge Nickleback Fan
I'd facepalm on some poster reaction in here. player count does not equal to enjoyment...
hooijdonk17
Member
Was it ever confirmed as 1080p? I think rumor was 720p or 900p at best?
but 6 v 6 is the best anyways!?
SparkleMotion
Member
The Last of Us had some of the best multiplayer I've ever played, and that was 4v4. Why do people think that more players = more fun?
hooijdonk17
Member
Because Titanfall is being released only for Xbone, amirite?
No, I'm wrong. I was going to buy it on PC.
Personal preference here, but ive always felt that the more intimate the experience is the higher the ceiling is for fun and skill development
Never been the biggest fan of the battlefield zerg fest, sure its immersive and wartime and what have you but give me an orchestrated 5v5 ala counterstrike or 6v6 ala most other FPS's any day of the week. 32vs32 makes me feel like a pawn.
Never been the biggest fan of the battlefield zerg fest, sure its immersive and wartime and what have you but give me an orchestrated 5v5 ala counterstrike or 6v6 ala most other FPS's any day of the week. 32vs32 makes me feel like a pawn.
gutterboy44
Member
No matter what player count was announced, we would have this exact same split in reactions. If this game was on PS4 and XB1, none of these threads would even exist. Still looking forward to picking it up on PC at some point. I loved COD4:MW, lets hope it can capture that same, "holy shit this is something different and special!" moment and is not just "COD with mechs."
PS - All I care about these days is the feeling of co-op, so I can give a fuck how many players it takes to achieve that as long as I get to work along side buddies for a common goal. 4 player Borderlands 2 was insanely fun.
PS - All I care about these days is the feeling of co-op, so I can give a fuck how many players it takes to achieve that as long as I get to work along side buddies for a common goal. 4 player Borderlands 2 was insanely fun.
Papacheeks
Banned
Can someone squash something for me on here. My room mate thinks this game will sell 12 Million or more in it's life cycle. Meaning from release to end of the fiscal year.
Is he wrong are am I being to reserved in saying I think the game will do Gears of War numbers?
I think it will sell anywhere from 4-6 Million depending on how hot the 360 version is.
Is he wrong are am I being to reserved in saying I think the game will do Gears of War numbers?
I think it will sell anywhere from 4-6 Million depending on how hot the 360 version is.
Its hard to say, 12 million is a bit more than i expect it to do tbh.
Depending on how the end product turns out, the second installment may.
Terbinator
Member
4/5million would be about right I think. What's most interesting for me is how the XB1 hardware numbers will look during March.
Between 360, XBox One and PC, Titanfall will do 5 million easily and that's pretty damn good for a new IP. If they keep the content coming, people will still keep playing something new and interesting until the next CoD gets announced to amaze/disappoint people.
gaming_noob
Member
12M seems too high of an estimate with Destiny, another COD & Battlefield and possibly Halo 5 coming out.
FloweryMarston
Member
We have 30 page of people arguing whether or not the decision of 6v6 is good for the game. The energy being wasted here is amazing, and everyone should just follow vince's suggestion, wait and play the game. The vids and impressions of the game from the people who actually PLAYED it suggests that it's a mighty fun game, and it should be one of the definitive games of the beginning of the generation.
Please guys. stop it =(
Please guys. stop it =(
dragonelite
Member
This whole thread is almost about complaining about the 6 vs 6 playercount.