JJDinomite
Banned
Wow, NeoGAF is LITERALLY praising Titanfall for this. This is a new low. Anyone who seriously is looking forward to this game has truly lost it. You'd be better off directly mailing all of your income checks straight to Microsoft.
Titanfall has maximum player count of 12 (alongside AI) [Respawn comments post #558]
- Thread starter Fracas
- Start date
I haven't had torrent software installed for years.
Upload it to Google docs for me antitrop
I see we have regressed again....
For me ignorance would be accurate, as I hadn't really been following it besides seeing the gameplay trailer at E3. It just looked like a lot of stuff was going on so i kind of just assumed there were going to be a lot of players.
I think you win worst post.
THIS post is a new low.
So 6v6 is perfect?
I'm glad all the people that played it are happy with it.
Interested in the PC version, but I'd like to choose how many people can join a server.
It also must have actual dedicated servers, with an actual server browser.
Personally 12v12 in games like CoD4 were my fave.
I like having the option of playing 6v6, 10v10, 15v15.
Having a choice is great.
Maybe in Titanfall playing with more than 6v6 isn't fun, but at least I get to try it right?
Who knows, I and many other might enjoy it more.
I know most people here are console gamers,
and might not understand the concept of setting up a server with your own rules and settings.
But it's great and you're able to play with others that enjoy the same settings of a particular server.
It really creates tight communities.
I was actually playing CoD4 recently,
and there are still good servers with people playing.
Games built around community are built to last.
I'm glad all the people that played it are happy with it.
Interested in the PC version, but I'd like to choose how many people can join a server.
It also must have actual dedicated servers, with an actual server browser.
Personally 12v12 in games like CoD4 were my fave.
I like having the option of playing 6v6, 10v10, 15v15.
Having a choice is great.
Maybe in Titanfall playing with more than 6v6 isn't fun, but at least I get to try it right?
Who knows, I and many other might enjoy it more.
I know most people here are console gamers,
and might not understand the concept of setting up a server with your own rules and settings.
But it's great and you're able to play with others that enjoy the same settings of a particular server.
It really creates tight communities.
I was actually playing CoD4 recently,
and there are still good servers with people playing.
Games built around community are built to last.
Are we reading the same thread or is there selective reading going on?
This is my main quip too. The game is heavily balanced around 6v6? Great, fine, but let me set up a 12v12 server too.
Same for me. I only just watch the trailers and judging by this clip from the image in motion I didn't know that MILITIA were AI bots, so I thought these were all actual players.
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
Lol... wow.
Regret Truth
Member
DrROBschiz
Member
This guy
Never played Battlefield 2142 back in the day?
I think people just expect more from a next gen game and locking player counts is a clear sign of hitting a wall in development.
You would think the extra power afforded to them would give them freedom to offer more.
I am not saying 6v6 isn't the best setup. I am saying that having that as the only option makes the game seem much smaller than expected.
Maybe the game should have been marketed differently to emphasize that its a small scale/close quarters FPS because I think some people were thrown for a loop
Liquidsnake
Banned
Yes. Go try 64 player Metro and Locker in BF4, and tell me you still feel the same.
It's unfortunate that you equate people excited about what the game has shown this far to people in this very thread writing off a game because of how many players the multiplayer is and then trying to use it as an argument to equate the performance of the Xbox One or blaming MS for buying exclusivity. Both of which have occurred in this very thread among many other posts dismissing the game outright because of this news. Those are all very much unwarranted.
Sorry to dogpile, but that's a really bizarre thing to say. Like an alien hearing there are eleven players on a soccer team and flipping out.
It's a fast action shooter with giant mechs.
What is the "right" number of players then?
How big are the levels?
How fast can your team traverse the landscape?
What happens when an odd/even situation happens with mechs?
And how did you come to the conclusion a "wall" has been hit in development? I would love to see a tennis court designed with this philosophy.
hahaha. This post is a new low. Hell this whole thread. You would think that people on GAF at least would know that player count doesn't mean shit on fps. Its all different kind of game play.
but obviously the complainer here play with numbers on the back of the box. Its pretty pathetic.
hell EA and Activision should just already cancel all their shooters I mean MAG had 128 v 128 and that was last Gen. How dare these people sell next Gen games with less than that.
Its a scientific fact MAG was the best fps since it had the highest player count.
ThreePiMatt
Member
Trade show impressions are horribly unreliable. Sim City sounded it like it could have been the Second Coming if you were only going by like post-E3 impressions. Respawn themselves have said they've tested the game with more players, they just happen to believe that 6v6 is the most fun. That's all fine and dandy, but locking yourself into that seems silly. Allow players to make larger games and let them determine what is fun for themselves.
I played competitive Counter Strike all throughout college and yeah, there's no better way to do competitive FPS than 5v5. But when I'm just slumming it in pub servers then 5v5 is boring as shit. It just seems silly and unnecessary to completely hard-cap your game at 6v6.
I played competitive Counter Strike all throughout college and yeah, there's no better way to do competitive FPS than 5v5. But when I'm just slumming it in pub servers then 5v5 is boring as shit. It just seems silly and unnecessary to completely hard-cap your game at 6v6.
Umm no, the opinions have been varied on here:
Some people want options in terms of player count and are disappointed that they are stuck at only a maximum of 12. Even if they focus on tailoring the gameplay towards a certain number of players, they'd like to at least have the option of doing large number of players if they wanted to.
Some people feel that's it is better to focus on a set number of players and polish up the mode to revolve around that number. To go along with that they are taking Respawn's word that they tried a bunch of different number of player counts and felt 6 v 6 was the ideal setup.
And the gameplay trailers have looked like a lot of fun, so why shouldn't some people be excited for it? Because it's not 64 vs 64? That's silly logic if you ask me.
DrROBschiz
Member
The difference being that players have the option to set the player count (by choosing a server or hosting one) to whatever they want.
You can play 6v6 or 32vs32
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
ugh, I will always leave the server when those maps come up.
So a Multiplayer only game, 6v6. Serious question, is this game worth $60 / £50 guys?
Imo I wouldnt buy it for that price. Doesnt seem enough meat on it for me.
About the 6v6 and Enemy AI: Speculative:
their issue is their using a 10 year old source engine that is typically CPU Bound, So its likely putting alot of strain on the X1 CPU, probably not using what available X1 GPU Compute it has, hence why they are adding AI Bots...
Why AI Bots?
Because they will probably run the AI Bots from the Cloud, its one of few known things the Cloud is theorized to be useful for atm.
I could be completely wrong, I havent read much of this thread atm (30+ Pages), So apologies if this has been said.
Imo I wouldnt buy it for that price. Doesnt seem enough meat on it for me.
About the 6v6 and Enemy AI: Speculative:
their issue is their using a 10 year old source engine that is typically CPU Bound, So its likely putting alot of strain on the X1 CPU, probably not using what available X1 GPU Compute it has, hence why they are adding AI Bots...
Why AI Bots?
Because they will probably run the AI Bots from the Cloud, its one of few known things the Cloud is theorized to be useful for atm.
I could be completely wrong, I havent read much of this thread atm (30+ Pages), So apologies if this has been said.
In 1999. And they had AI/Bots. Later editions support much more after that.
There is no requirement that anything more than 6 v 6 makes it more fun, but it is nice to have the option.
I am assuming you are responding to my post without quoting it. The IGN quote is the point I was trying to make. It is flat out wrong. It was marketed as something much bigger than 6 v 6 at E3.
It isn't Gaf being Gaf, it's previews being previews.
FreddieQuell
Member
Hey, I'm with you on most of what you said. The people who say,"6v6? No buy." or "Xbone can't support more than 12 players, trololo." are ridiculous. But I can't even ask questions about the game without being called a hater. It's a little ridiculous.
IGN's previews of the game have been pretty disingenuous, that much is for sure. IGN gonna IGN.
Byron Bluth
Banned
Free speech for everyone, even idiots. So if people want to bitch, they can.
IMO I don't really care, its just odd that we are going to 6v6 on next gen? It just seems jarring and the fact they released this info less than 3 month before launch is telling that they obviously wanted to wait to reveal this, they knew they would get backlash.
I am in the camp that they should have the "Pure" mode or something that is 6v6, but allow players and servers to run higher numbers if they like. Choice is nice.
IMO I don't really care, its just odd that we are going to 6v6 on next gen? It just seems jarring and the fact they released this info less than 3 month before launch is telling that they obviously wanted to wait to reveal this, they knew they would get backlash.
I am in the camp that they should have the "Pure" mode or something that is 6v6, but allow players and servers to run higher numbers if they like. Choice is nice.
I just don't get how people think higher player counts are always better. It's not a "one size fits all" kind of thing. Some games are just designed for certain player counts. Every shooter isn't and shouldn't be the same. I say this as someone who's played Call of Duty 4 matches with upwards of 40 players. Not to mention one of my favorite multiplayer games, Splinter Celll, is traditionally 2v2.
Drew Mcoy, the Producer of the game and former IW vet.
How about not using a JPG compressed to absolute shit screenshot to try to make that judgment?
It's pretty obvious from this right here that 4 of those characters on the screen are AI soldiers.
Where's this screenshot from? The 360 version?
The visuals are hot garbage.
Hell no. Not for me. I'll be waiting until it drops to $40, maybe even $30 before I even consider buying Titanfall now. No way in hell I'm paying $60 for half a game.
You would think your average GAF user would be informed enough to not browse places like IGN.
Of course, you would assume your average GAF user was better than the majority of the posts in this thread.
Needless to say, I am incredibly disappointed in the cognitive ability of this forum after being apart of this thread. Just a complete joke.
miDnIghtEr20C
Banned
Are you for real? We even had a dev from the team post in this thread to tell it how it is. Amazing that all the people who have played this game didn't know how much less fun they should of had because of the now confirmed player count. Wasn't E3 and the rest of the shows about 6 or 7 on each team?
Yea. Drew from Respawn was in here talking to some of the people who were going off the deep end about the player count.
I still find it hilarious that people are freaking out about a game they haven't played and don't know how the balance works. 12 people running around potentially in a Titan or having their Titan follow them plus the group of AI militia sounds like it will be more than enough.
FreddieQuell
Member
Stop being a hater. Why can't you wait until you spend $60 on it before you form opinions?
Nah, the game has a great art style. There are definitely tons of glaringly low-res textures in the demos, but hopefully that will be a bit improved by launch.
I do think the game looks good, though.
DKo5 was brave enough to enter the carnival of stupid.
Chubzdoomer
Banned
It sure does. PlanetSide 2 is the real deal. Great game all around.
So because Goldeneye and PD had low numbers every game after them should too?
Sorry, but it should be gamemode dependent only. If they tested(as they said) differing player counts and found 6v6 to be the best, then fine; but why not include the other modes as optional?
somehow, tons of people on a forum for hardcore gamers and enthusiasts can't wrap their head around this simple concept
Liquidsnake
Banned
I take this as a back to COD 4 roots.
DrROBschiz
Member
Its not a bad thing
But it is a glaringly obvious limitation
They waited to reveal this very close to release and also are now saying it was a decision as a result of extensive testing. Seems to me that in order to preserve performance they had to compromise in several areas.
Its kind of disappointing to see devs hitting walls so early in the Next Gen cycle but it was probably to be expected.
There is nothing wrong with it. I think people will still love it but its a valid criticism and an issue we will see again and again for titles developed right on the edge of a generation shift
ShawaTheGreat
Banned
Lol people are really holding on to that drm thing. I Wonder what the brain scan of a normal human looks like vs a Sony Jihadist
The fact that every player can control a titan at the same time makes this a bit more reasonable. I would have expected them to limit the titans overall, like just allowing three per team, but I'm liking this solution more.
Some form of 12 vs 12 mode without titans and AI would be nice though.
Some form of 12 vs 12 mode without titans and AI would be nice though.
So which one do I need to pay to get direct feed of the Titanfall Tutorial from E3?
Still want to see some good footage of that video, since it pretty much shows people how good the game could be.