Support NeoGAF

[NeoGash]

People that like competitive online games tend to get far more playtime and longevity out of a $60 purchase than your average single-player game fan does.

It seems quite common to see people putting multiplayer as some less important/optional 'gamemode' compared to the single player, but I think that perception needs to go away. A game focused entirely on multiplayer shouldn't be considered any less of a game than one focused entirely on single player. Its just a different type of game.

I agree Seanspeed (Forza rocks!). I myself wouldn't pay $60 for a MP game as my internet sucks, but it is funny how people are happy paying $60 for CoD or Battlefield but not $60 for Titanfall. How the hell does the tacked on SP in those two franchises justify your purchase of $60? If MP is your thing, then Titanfall will deliver on that front, and MP can be played for hundreds or even thousands of hours, not a couple of 10 hour playthroughs (if you are lucky).

I'd argue that MP games offer more value than most games, but unfortunately I never really play online so it doesn't work like that for me.

 

[level44]

And the fact the dev is trying to justify it so much says a lot.

Exactly this.

And the people trying to justify it on this forum is just as laughable.

 

[FranXico]

The hype is coming from the fact that everyone who played it has said it is good. Microsoft hyped Ryse but the media said it was shit, because they played it and it was shit. Unless you are suggesting people are only saying it's good because they got EA and Microsoft money...

I'm saying that not as many media would have had even tried in the first place if it wasn't for MS touting to the entire world that it is The Next Big Thing.

Ryse was hyped as well (as the Launch Technical Showcase), regardless of how many people were disappointed with it.

 

[bombshell]

Bingo. Killzone Shadow Fall is 7 v 7 and it's incredibly tight and well balanced.

KZ: SF is 12 vs. 12.

 

[Super Stardust]

People that like competitive online games tend to get far more playtime and longevity out of a $60 purchase than your average single-player game fan does.

It seems quite common to see people putting multiplayer as some less important/optional 'gamemode' compared to the single player, but I think that perception needs to go away. A game focused entirely on multiplayer shouldn't be considered any less of a game than one focused entirely on single player. Its just a different type of game.

 

[XT Vengeance]

Rather a smaller, tighter experience than a massive sloppy one.

6 on 6 worked a treat when I played it. Doesn't feel empty at all, and the AI plays a bigger part in that than you might think.

This. So much this.

 

[NeoGash]

I'm saying that not as many media would have had even tried in the first place if it wasn't for MS touting to the entire world that it is The Next Big Thing.

Ryse was hyped as well (as the Launch Technical Showcase), regardless of how many people were disappointed with it.

Well that's to be expected, that's what advertising is all about. I think the fact that everyone who has played it is touting it as an amazing game far overshadows the advertising Microsoft and EA are putting into it. If it was a steaming turd, no amounts of advertising would have saved it.

 

[Militant17]

Depends on the map layout. Cod has tiny claustrophobic maps. Even with the small map it's a clusterfuck. Terrible map design.

Well they said the maps were designed for the player count, so I don't see an issue. If the maps suck then that's poor game design, the player count would have no effect on that.

 

[Papercuts]

I understand people saying wait until you play it until making judgements.

But the devs saying they chose 6 v 6 for 'gameplay balance' and people repeating the same thing is just BS.

It is 6 v 6 maximum because that is the ceiling running it at 60fps with mechs on the XB1's specs. Obviously if this was PC only it wouldn't be limited to a measly 12 players. And the fact the dev is trying to justify it so much says a lot.

Why do you think that claim is BS?

 

[Opus Angelorum]

There are many examples of multiplayer games that play better with smaller numbers.

This is nothing more than an excuse for those who don't even own the system to shit on it.

 

[nynt9]

There are many examples of multiplayer games that play better with smaller numbers.

This is nothing more than an excuse for those who don't even own the system to shit on it.

But the game is coming to PC as well? I don't see what this has to do with owning an Xbox.

 

[FranXico]

Well that's to be expected, that's what advertising is all about. I think the fact that everyone who has played it is touting it as an amazing game far overshadows the advertising Microsoft and EA are putting into it. If it was a steaming turd, no amounts of advertising would have saved it.

By all accounts, it sounds like fantastic fun and a return of the old school fast-paced multiplayer shooter.

I will definitely play it on PC, even if means getting Origin shoved down my throat by EA.

 

[Chabbles]

Sounds like PR bull to me. I think it is definitely limited by the 360.

It may be BS, but couldn't they just "do a BattleField" and cut the numbers on 360 to 6v6 and have a bigger player count on X1/PC ?
.....But then they'd have to make the X1/PC maps bigger..... maybe not enough time to design 2 builds that are so different from one another...

 

[Opus Angelorum]

But the game is coming to PC as well? I don't see what this has to do with owning an Xbox.

If the majority of the complaints were concerning the PC version I'd agree.

 

[Marauder Shields]

And people were actually hyped for this?

Nah it was all manufactured hype.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Nah it was all manufactured hype.

lol

 

[Forkball]

So should people with heart conditions be allowed to buy Titanfall?

 

[nynt9]

If the majority of the complaints were concerning the PC version I'd agree.

I mean, Xbox is the less powerful platform compared to PC, so people (including me) would be upset if it was the case that the PC version is being gimped by the console's limitations, so the complaints regarding the console are valid, I'd say.

 

[geordiemp]

dunno, on Ghosts you have

Multiplayer - player vs player

squad mode - player + AI vs player vs AI

Extinction horde mode

The squad mode has more bots and less players and as such is much easier, although its nice to have both options. The bots even corner camp sometimes lol.

However, my point is that Titanfall just seems to have a higher player squad mode of players and AI for the easier kills for 'new players'.

I can foresee a balance issue where good players wiping out the bots real quick, getting their kill streaks and owning.

So, it sound like multiplayer with a race to kill the other teams bots to get kill streaks.

Will it be balanced for longevity ? who knows..

 

[SlickShoes]

So should people with heart conditions be allowed to buy Titanfall?

If I play 10 games in a row and I haven't had a heart attack I want my £45 back.

 

[StratJ]

People seriously must be having a laugh when they're throwing hardware limitation reasoning around the place. Really guys? Are people being serious here?

I can imagine the choices made here depending on the maps they've designed. 12 players with 12 titans at one given time may be quite a lot.

One of the most fun I've had online on a console is GoW 1 which was 4v4.

 

[FranXico]

I mean, Xbox is the less powerful platform compared to PC, so people (including me) would be upset if it was the case that the PC version is being gimped by the console's limitations, so the complaints regarding the console are valid, I'd say.

But that is true of any multiplat game that potentially gets gimped because of the console port. We don't even know the full story behind the 12 player limit yet.

 

[Seanspeed]

I agree Seanspeed (Forza rocks!). I myself wouldn't pay $60 for a MP game as my internet sucks, but it is funny how people are happy paying $60 for CoD or Battlefield but not $60 for Titanfall. How the hell does the tacked on SP in those two franchises justify your purchase of $60? If MP is your thing, then Titanfall will deliver on that front, and MP can be played for hundreds or even thousands of hours, not a couple of 10 hour playthroughs (if you are lucky).

I'd argue that MP games offer more value than most games, but unfortunately I never really play online so it doesn't work like that for me.

Yea, and you aren't alone in that so I don't feel this game will ever sell CoD numbers, but they are also a smaller team with a smaller budget so don't necessarily need to. We'll see. I think it will do well enough and justify its 'multiplayer-only' experience to both the consumers and to their publisher.

But the game is coming to PC as well? I don't see what this has to do with owning an Xbox.

I get the impression that a lot of people do see it as an 'Xbox game'. I've even seen people making the mistake of thinking this is being made by Microsoft. I don't know if that's the case here specifically, but it wouldn't surprise me to hear that some of the anti- posts on it are due to a bit of that 'exclusive' backlash from console side-takers.

I mean, Xbox is the less powerful platform compared to PC, so people (including me) would be upset if it was the case that the PC version is being gimped by the console's limitations, so the complaints regarding the console are valid, I'd say.

The complaints are only valid *IF* that's actually the case. We don't know that. We'll know more when it comes out. Players will be able to notice pretty immediately whether the game feels too sparsely populated by players or not.

 

[StratJ]

But that is true of any multiplat game that potentially gets gimped because of the console port. We don't even know the full story behind the 12 player limit yet.

You do, it was quoted in the OP. It was a design choice.

 

[Super Stardust]

dunno, on Ghosts you have

Multiplayer - player vs player

squad mode - player + AI vs player vs AI

Extinction horde mode

The squad mode has more bots and less players and as such is much easier, although its nice to have both options. The bots even corner camp sometimes lol.

However, my point is that Titanfall just seems to have a higher player squad mode of players and AI for the easier kills for 'new players'.

I can foresee a balance issue where good players wiping out the bots real quick, getting their kill streaks and owning.

So, it sound like multiplayer with a race to kill the other teams bots to get kill streaks.

Will it be balanced for longevity ? who knows..

There are no killstreaks in titanfall, everyone gets a titan even if you dont get a kill

 

[derFeef]

THIS^

No, not THIS. This is jumping to conclusion - with the silliest reason. The game never seemed like a grand scale shooter ala battlefield - which is 64 players on all nextgen platforms btw.

 

[Saiyu]

Would have expected at least 8... Ah well, will see what it's like in the coming months.

 

[Rayme]

But the devs saying they chose 6 v 6 for 'gameplay balance' and people repeating the same thing is just BS.

It is 6 v 6 maximum because that is the ceiling running it at 60fps with mechs on the XB1's specs. Obviously if this was PC only it wouldn't be limited to a measly 12 players. And the fact the dev is trying to justify it so much says a lot.

So Drew is lying, I'm lying, and Vince is lying. Fantastic. Brilliant legwork, professor.

"Trying to justify" isn't what Drew was doing. He was patiently explaining how this game became what it is, for anyone curious or surprised. I think you know that.

 

[nynt9]

But that is true of any multiplat game that potentially gets gimped because of the console port. We don't even know the full story behind the 12 player limit yet.

The complaints are only valid *IF* that's actually the case. We don't know that. We'll know more when it comes out. Players will be able to notice pretty immediately whether the game feels too sparsely populated by players or not.

I know, but speculating on this is the point of a thread like this, no? I'm not saying it is gimped, I'm saying "if it were, it would be bad".

Also, yes, any multiplat game being gimped is always a thing to be upset about, in my opinion.

 

[derFeef]

KZ: SF is 12 vs. 12.

Not even 64 like battlefield? Must be hardware reasons.

 

[Seanspeed]

No, not THIS. This is jumping to conclusion - with the silliest reason. The game never seemed like a grand scale shooter ala battlefield - which is 64 players on all nextgen platforms btw.

Yea, I think anytime somebody wants to bring the Xbox's limitations into this just need a response of 'Battlefield 4'. No more needs to be said.

 

[Sojgat]

People keep bringing up killstreaks, titanfall doesn't have them.

You get a titan every 2 minutes, getting more kills/points can speed this up. It's a timed reward, that's it.

"Bots" = 25 points
Pilots = 500 points

 

[Ramenman]

Kudos to that Respawn dev for a very good answer in this thread.

I'm not even the biggest fan of what's been shown so far, but here I really don't know what you guys are freaking about.

Like player number alone means anything about the pacing of any game...

 

[CryptiK]

Does this game have a locked frame rate?

 

[Ominym]

People that like competitive online games tend to get far more playtime and longevity out of a $60 purchase than your average single-player game fan does.

It seems quite common to see people putting multiplayer as some less important/optional 'gamemode' compared to the single player, but I think that perception needs to go away. A game focused entirely on multiplayer shouldn't be considered any less of a game than one focused entirely on single player. Its just a different type of game.

I played more hours in Halo 3 multiplayer than it took to beat the entire Mass Effect trilogy. And I know I'm not alone. Anyone that thinks a game not having a single player means it's not worthy of $60? You're absolutely wrong. Some could make the argument that COD development time would be better off not spent on a campaign. Same goes for Battlefield.

If the game is shit, if the gameplay is bad? Would a single player campaign really improve the game? No.

Some people will go to any length to throw this game under the bus.

 

[FyreWulff]

Sounds like PR bull to me. I think it is definitely limited by the 360.

There are games on the 360 with more than 12 players.

 

[monome]

it's all good in my books.

less time in a hobby collectiong players, more time playing.

my only request is to not use EA servers, they break the instant resume feature on X1.

 

[Larson]

I only have a PS4 so i can't play it either way, but 6vs6 is way to low. I got the sense that this game was going to be epic in scale. Like when i watched the trailer there where people everywhere and a chaotic battlefield. 6 enemies to go against is to little, you can't justify that. Its okey for a game like CS or Gears where the gameplay is suppose to be tactical and slow, but this game is designed to be chaotic and big.
I can't see why they couldn't just makes the maps bigger? It looks like they have made the maps and then added the player count and i am sure that the 360s limitations had something to do about it.

 

[MrBambinoDent]

So all of a sudden everyone here have played the game at some expo! Well I find it a convenient way to state whatever your dreams are as confirmed facts!

 

[nOoblet16]

It is 6 v 6 maximum because that is the ceiling running it at 60fps with mechs on the XB1's specs. Obviously if this was PC only it wouldn't be limited to a measly 12 players. And the fact the dev is trying to justify it so much says a lot.

BF4 is 64 players on Xbone with 60(ish) FPS, sure that would be more demanding than 12 players with 12 AI on a much much smaller map.

 

[muddream]

What's wrong with 6v6 if the maps are tight enough? The best UT 2004 maps were built for a similar player count, same goes for Halo...not every game with vehicles needs to be Battlefield.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

this game is designed to be chaotic and big.

Or... the game is designed to be the game it is designed to be.

 

[derFeef]

I only have a PS4 so i can't play it either way, but 6vs6 is way to low. I got the sense that this game was going to be epic in scale. Like when i watched the trailer there where people everywhere and a chaotic battlefield. 6 enemies to go against is whey to little, you can't justify that. Its okey for a game like CS or Gears where the gameplay is suppose to be tactical and slow, but this game is designed to be chaotic and big. I can't see why they couldn't just makes the maps bigger? It looks like they have made the maps and then added the player count and i am sure that the 360s limitations had something to do about it.

There are AI controller characters doing their thing so you you are right. This game was not designed to be chaotic and big, that's Battlefield. Mind you I am not very hyped for this game, but just seeing nonsense like this getting posted everywhere makes my head hurt.

 

[leng jai]

Not sure why but I always had the impression that Titanfall would occur on a large and expansive battlefield.

 

[Curly]

Between the twitter responses and the dev reply in this thread, Respawn seems to be a defensive bunch. You believe that 6 vs 6 is "the most fun" but imply that the player count could theoretically go higher? Why not give the option to up to add/subtract and let the community decide what's fun/balanced?

Also, if the AI aren't just bots then please explain what their function is in the game. Having "dozens" of NPCs running around to "keep the action higher" in a multiplayer game sounds awful.

 

[hooijdonk17]

6v6 could only be adequately fun in very small maps..
Now, considering the scale of the walkers in the game.. Huge walkers, small maps with only 6v6 max sounds like a recipe for boredom in 2 days.
Sounds like the Xbone specs greatly gimped this game.
Also, if 6v6 is SUCH A SWEET SPOT for OMG action, why the bots?
Bullshit meter pinging..

 

[madp0k]

I think the dev's know what their doing, it's kinda like their job. At least wait till the game is out and in the wild for people to come to their own conclusions.

Good MP games are good regardless of the player count. I love 64 player conquest but I also love 32 player rush or 24 player KZ WZ or 14 player KZ WZ or 4v4 team tactical. We also used to play 2 v 2 sniper matches on COD4, the game is what makes it good or not, not the player count.

I can't wait to play TF2 on the PS4.

 

[Edwards_Omatic]

What's wrong with 6v6 if the maps are tight enough? The best UT 2004 maps were built for a similar player count, same goes for Halo...not every game with vehicles needs to be Battlefield.

Believe it or not, I had the most fun i've ever had on BF4 playing a 4v4 game last week. It was domination mind so the maps were a lot smaller than conquest etc.
sogood.gif

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

Between the twitter responses and the dev reply in this thread, Respawn seems to be a defensive bunch. You believe that 6 vs 6 is "the most fun" but imply that the player count could theoretically go higher? Why not give the option to up to add/subtract and let the community decide what's fun/balanced?

Also, if the AI aren't just bots then please explain what their function is in the game. Having "dozens" of NPCs running around to "keep the action higher" in a multiplayer game sounds awful.

Because players will go for the highest count by default and think it's the game that is broken. They are making the game, let's have some faith in that they have an interest in producing the best game they can.

As for the A.I. stuff, it worked for MP-focused games in the past so it's pretty neat that it's coming back.

 

[Seanspeed]

Sounds like the Xbone specs greatly gimped this game.

Battlefield 4.