Support NeoGAF

[Papercuts]

I understand that they are basically mooks you kill to make yourself feel badass. And I still think it's a stupid design choice. It worked out like this, believe me:

16 v 16
Requires huge map, system can't handle
12 v 12
Requires big map, system can't handle well
6 v 6
Small map, works fine, but feels like too few players
6 v 6 + mooks
Small map, works fine, shit to kill here and there -> Let's go with this.

I won't spend a penny on this game.

Why would I believe you over the developers of the game that have showed AI from the debut?

It makes no sense to suggest that the system can't handle that when you said it yourself at how impressive looking you find Battlefield. When they were IW, they deserve more credit for what they did with CoD, catering to 60fps on those consoles meant they were one of the few people focusing on playability and fluid response.

 

[muddream]

Everything?

I can't stand multiplayer games with small player counts and this definitely kills any desire I had to play this game. More power to those who like that sort of thing, but I like bigger battles ranging from Battlefield size up to Planetside type stuff.

Well, I can't stand Battlefield or Planetside. Does that make those games worse? Will I run into the BF4 thread and complain how all the maps feature a lazy, open design? C'mon..

 

[Horp]

I didn't call anyone, anything. I said, "the fuck" as in "what the fuck kind of game did you think this was?" At no point did I call anyone any names, as you're implying.

Yeah your sentence was in no way rude at all /s. So if I thought it was a 12 v 12 kind of game is that also "the fuck"?

Well, I can't stand Battlefield or Planetside. Does that make those games worse? Will I run into the BF4 thread and complain how all the maps feature a lazy, open design? C'mon..

If you see a new game called Battleside and there are videos of it that makes you think it's 4v4 at most, and when you hear it's 128 v 128, is it wrong of you to go into a thread discussing exactly this matter and tell people what you prefer, and why you think you won't like Battleside now that this has been announced?

 

[Ominym]

Yeah your sentence was in no way rude at all /s. So if I thought it was a 12 v 12 kind of game is that also "the fuck"?

12 v 12 is an entirely different debate than thinking the game was going to be like Battlefield or Planetside.

I can totally agree with you that I figured it'd be more. Even 12 on 12. But saying the trailers implied the game would have Battlefield or Planetside numbers? Come on now.

 

[NeoGash]

Yeah step the fuck off my fucking Titanfall you fucking fucker.

(Sorry for the language, just making a point there. No one here is a fucker)

Really people? People have opinions, and there are some matters that usually matter a lot to people. Things such as if ADS is in a game, if there are levels with unlockable weapons, and how many players can be in the game.

I really thought we would have 12 v 12. And 12v12 is a totally different experience from 6v6.

People are entitled to opinions, yes. No-one is saying you can't prefer games with larger amounts of players, it's just that when people spout bullshit like hardware/software limitations (with no basis or evidence to support that

Spoiler

, especially when there are other games on the system with more players

) and that less players is inferior to more players than they should get called out for being an idiot.

Game is 6v6, we have established this, it isn't changing. Don't like it? Then drop a comment if you are so inclined and then go away and post in threads about games you do like. I don't go into every Uncharted, Gears of War and Heavy Rain thread complaining that the games aren't open world, because that would be retarded. Not every game has to be the same, and believe it or not, a lot of people don't like Battlefield and games with large amounts of players. Why doesn't Battlefield 4 have mechs online? Obvious hardware limitation and poor game design.

 

[Bor]

Here is my take as an outsider looking in.

6v6 is fine for a game like this, IF It is the type of shooter that you don't go down in a few hits.

My biggest issue with Titanfall is it wants to move out the realm of the military shooter and into the realm of fantasy, but it still want's to hold on to the same military shooter tropes.

You can jump into in to mechs the size of tower blocks, jump and wall run with rockets strapped to your back, but you can only hold 2 weapons at one time and can die with one well placed shot?

Am I the only one that sees the disconnect here?

Disconnect because of believabilty of the gameworld, or gameplay reasons?

Because i think it could be reasonable that you die with one well placed headshot since you probably wouldn't be heavily armored, otherwise the jetpacks couldn't carry your weight and moviebility(the wallrunning) should be greatly lowered.

Just from a gameplay standpoint. i guess we have to wait and see. Jurnos seemed to love it, but that doesn't say much these day. March comes soon!

 

[hooijdonk17]

Well, I can't stand Battlefield or Planetside. Does that make those games worse? Will I run into the BF4 thread and complain how all the maps feature a lazy, open design? C'mon..

It makes those games worse for you; and you are free to complain about whatever it is that makes it so..

 

[Fattony12000]

2 v 2.
BRs only.
Lockout.

 

[sleeping_dragon]

No thanks. I'll stick to my COD.

 

[Green Yoshi]

Great news, so I can buy it for my Xbox 360.

 

[FullMetalx117]

6v6 and 4v4 requires a lot more teamwork, skilll than your average 64 player shoot em up fest. Not up to the challenge gaf?

 

[Jibbed]

These guys know what they're doing, 6v6 is perfectly fine. Anyone jumping to conclusions needs to actually think about the long-standing player count in CoD since CoD4 nailed the formula. 6v6 in almost every mode except 9v9 in Ground War.

DICE are doing their own thing with Battlefield, but IMO 16v16 is really as high as they should be going anyway. The novelty of high player counts (32+) wears thin pretty quickly when it inevitably turns into a clusterfuck.

 

[muddream]

If you see a new game called Battleside and there are videos of it that makes you think it's 4v4 at most, and when you hear it's 128 v 128, is it wrong of you to go into a thread discussing exactly this matter and tell people what you prefer, and why you think you won't like Battleside now that this has been announced?

People ITT have gone further than that and said the game would be better with more players and even started with Xbone conspiracy idiocy.

 

[Guess Who]

I think they cheaped out on effort and they did a very poor job technically. I won't spend a penny on this game.

Every time someone posts shit like this is a painful reminder of how completely clueless many people are as to the absurd amounts of time, effort, blood, sweat, and tears that developers sink into a game like this. "Cheaper out on effort" my ass. Ugh.

 

[Hindle]

I'm liking what I hear. 6v6 means a more personal tactical affair, and should cut down on the players who run around pointlessly getting themselves killed.

 

[Randam]

1. maybe now, for the maps they have now, 12 players is more than enough.
but people who would have liked 9 v 9 or 12 v 12 would have wanted bigger maps too.

so the problem isnt the playercount, it is the map size.



2. how do you get titans in that game?

does every player start with/in his titan?
so at the beginning there are always 12 players and 12 titans on the map?
do they respawn?

or are they killstreak rewards?

 

[The Living Tribunal]

2 v 2.
BRs only.
Lockout.

 

[Globalisateur]

Console development yet again compromises the PC package.

Specifically Xbox 360 development probably. BF4 on next gen has already 64 players.

Anyway this game won't cannibalize Battlefield sales apparently, only COD sales.

 

[Arkanius]

I was about to come to this thread and applaud Respawn on their decision except...
GAF is having a brain meltdown over this

wat

Did you really want BF4? Go play BF4

 

[Mister Negative]

I understand that they are basically mooks you kill to make yourself feel badass. And I still think it's a stupid design choice. It worked out like this, believe me:

16 v 16: Requires huge map, system can't handle/takes too long to design maps for
12 v 12: Requires big map, system can't handle well/takes too long to design maps for
6 v 6: Small map, works fine, but feels like too few players
6 v 6 + mook: Small map, works fine, shit to kill here and there -> Let's go with this.

I think they cheaped out on effort and they did a very poor job technically. I won't spend a penny on this game.

You're completely missing the fact that 12 v 12 on a big map still plays completely differently than 6v6 on a small map, and that the devs clearly prefer having 6v6 on a small map for their game.

 

[R_Deckard]

A Pre-orda...a Cancelled.

That is a bit crap though, hell Rainbow Six on Xbox had more than that!!! :-(

 

[BraXzy]

I don't see a problem with this.. the comparison to BF4 is stupid.. it has huge maps and you only end up seeing 10 people at a time amyway. This game is made for fast paced action in close quarters, amd like they said, with AI and Titans around, you won't notice.

 

[Tourmeta]

Seems a bit small for what Titanfall appeared to be (kinda open and big) but I haven't played it, pobably works fine.

 

[double jump]

I guess I need to play the game before making judgments however even after reading the devs comments I still don't understand the need for bots.

 

[Guess Who]

I was about to come to this thread and applaud Respawn on their decision except...
GAF is having a brain meltdown over this

wat

Did you really want BF4? Go play BF4

This whole number-dickwaving nonsense is one of the stupidest, pettiest outrages I have seen on here. Wait till someone tells them lots of fighting games are still 2 to 4 players!

Some games just work better at smaller player counts. More players does not equal a better game and people calling Respawn lazy or incompetent because of this are tremendously ignorant.

 

[Unknown One]

I was about to come to this thread and applaud Respawn on their decision except...
GAF is having a brain meltdown over this

wat

Did you really want BF4? Go play BF4

I still want to play bf4. What I got was codbf4.

 

[Zachi]

The game is advertised to be epic war-like battle game, especially if it's online versus gameplay. And yet it's hard to make the battle feel epic, when there are only 6 smart friends/enemies, and the rest is just dumb AI drones

 

[AngryMoth]

I don't mind games with high player count since it has it's own merits but personally I prefer low player counts. I like feeling like I can actually influence how the match swings, and I think this encourages players to work together more. Whereas in larger games often I feel my personal performance is insignificant to the outcome of the match. Uncharted 2 was my favourite mp this gen and that was only 5 vs 5.

 

[Striek]

Cool with me, CoD4 is still the MP champ by me. That said, I don't actually believe the 'excuse' for 'only' having 6v6, I firmly believe that if higher playercounts and larger maps ran smoothly, they would be in the game.

 

[Agent Gibbs]

my initial response to this is, wow that is a low number, but in some games low pvp count works very well.....but they have typically been small arena games...something which surely can't be a case for a game where freaking Mech's are running around, else it will be a case of 10 steps in a mech and you hit the map wall.....

The other option is that is a huge destroyed city like wasteland, and as such it allows for a real tactical warzone like feel where you can be stealthy, set up choke points or go full on mech assualt.....or it could just be a big empty map because they've dropped the ball

you can't really judge this on a tweet alone, without having the context of map sizes and how the game plays

 

[DagnastyEp]

If they've played with the played count and 6v6 works best, then I'm willing to trust them in that.

Why are people so surprised by this? I'm pretty sure at E3 last year it was 7v7, so it's only been tweaked to have one less played then it had 7 months ago.

 

[Baron Aloha]

6 vs 6 does sound awfully low especially given the Titan mechanic. 8 vs 8 is the sweet spot for me personally but I'd like to see more games have a variety of maps that support a different number of players so that folks can pick and chose from what they like best. I'm not really a fan of the one size fits all approach.

 

[KHlover]

Wait...the game has bots in MP? Can they be turned off? That sounds terrible. I just imagined being backfucked by a random bot while dueling with a human player...awful.

 

[D4Danger]

What is it with titanfall threads that bring out the worst in people?

I bet you could guess

anyway, Gears was 5v5 and probably the best mp game I played last gen. If the game is designed for 6v6 then great. more players =/= more fun.

 

[tci]

Sounds good. Crowded MP is always terrible for gameplay and strategic play anyway. Good map design will make this.

 

[NeoGash]

I bet you could guess

anyway, Gears was 5v5 and probably the best mp game I played last gen. If the game is designed for 6v6 then great.

Yeah a few people are believing what they WANT to believe so desperately, so there's no point in arguing, that much is clear. It's like they think game designers make the biggest map they can make and try to fit in as many players as possible, rather than decide how many players they want and make maps based on that. I think some of these people know this but just want to f*** the thread up with the same unintelligible arguments without supporting evidence, only much evidence to the contrary which further cements their position on this as troll-ish and idiotic.

 

[Bright-Light]

Im so excited for Titanfall.
But as i only have a ps4 right now, my dilema is whether to buy an xbox one to play it on, or wait for an affordable steam box.
I really like the idea of getting into steam, but im worried that i would get destroyed in Titanfall by KB/M players whilst im using the steam controller.

 

[Mister Negative]

Cool with me, CoD4 is still the MP champ by me. That said, I don't actually believe the 'excuse' for 'only' having 6v6, I firmly believe that if higher playercounts and larger maps ran smoothly, they would be in the game.

I understand that some people want the option, but I like this approach. Too often, games have too few small maps or too few big maps, and the community is a little split. By limiting themselves to 6v6, they can focus their whole attention on making sure the 6v6 experience is perfect, and that they can provide a large number of maps that flow well with that number of players.

 

[kaizoku]

The bots are to enable a sense of story in the game, they're mixing in story and campaign elements into the multiplayer.

So I assume you'll have guards standing watch or people escorting the president or transporting some cargo or some other scripted events where bots come into play and make the world feel more alive than just 2 armies blasting each other.

6 v 6 is still a viable game guys. I agree that it's the tightest number in terms of tactical team working.

Even in BF4 you usually have squads of 5 running around together largely ignoring other squads.

 

[StratJ]

I bet you could guess

anyway, Gears was 5v5 and probably the best mp game I played last gen. If the game is designed for 6v6 then great. more players =/= more fun.

Gears 1 was actually 4v4 and it was arguably the most fun I had online on the 360.

 

[Rogue_Ledr]

Good. High player count doesn't mean anything.

I beg to differ.

higher playcount allows for bigger battles.

Having more options is a GOOD thing.

 

[Parakeetman]

The bots are to enable a sense of story in the game, they're mixing in story and campaign elements into the multiplayer.

So I assume you'll have guards standing watch or people escorting the president or transporting some cargo or some other scripted events where bots come into play and make the world feel more alive than just 2 armies blasting each other.

6 v 6 is still a viable game guys. I agree that it's the tightest number in terms of tactical team working.

Even in BF4 you usually have squads of 5 running around together largely ignoring other squads.

Thats because they made the communication system broken as shit. Its too hard to coordinate anything out side of your own squad unless you have some massive group using a third party chat program.

 

[Scooby]

2 v 2.
BRs only.
Lockout.

I like you.

 

[Tokubetsu]

Still don't see how this is a negative. Anyone who has been playing CoD seriously for awhile (as in, since at least 4) will tell you this is this the sweet spot. 4x4 can be very nail biting intense, everbody's gotta be on their shit. 6v6 has a nicer spread while managing to be more interesting from a chaotic battlefield approach.

 

[D4Danger]

Gears 1 was actually 4v4 and it was arguably the most fun I had online on the 360.

Gears 3 is the best Gears though

Point being that smaller player counts are actually fun. You can put a group of people together and actually feel like a team. (The extreme of this is probably 2v2 in Splinter Cell. Another great game)

 

[eznark]

I literally have to stop playing every few rounds because my heart just can't take it some times.

Titanfall going to make you its bitch?

 

[Mister Negative]

Still don't see how this is a negative. Anyone who has been playing CoD seriously for awhile (as in, since at least 4) will tell you this is this the sweet spot. 4x4 can be very nail biting intense, everbody's gotta be on their shit. 6v6 has a nicer spread while managing to be more interesting from a chaotic battlefield approach.

I never really played much 4v4 CoD, but what I have played of it via Gamebattles and such just wasn't for me. It's a little TOO slow paced. Halo 4v4 was always perfect though. Too bad those days are over. RIP Halo.

 

[Arkanius]

I still want to play bf4. What I got was codbf4.

You have the perfect example of a game trying to be something that it isnt

CoD is CoD and works better with what CoD does.
BF4 does well large player battles.

Titanfall will do well what Titanfall wants to do.

And come on, we can all say that playing 64 player battles in de_dust1 is fun and dandy and that options are fun, but the design of a game really goes through the window when you start increasing the number of players just because "Me too! attitude".

 

[QaaQer]

can anyone give me a summary of whats being argued about here? Seems like a mighty big thread for player count announcement.

 

[Nibel]

Because generally at shows its only played for 10 mins one a small amount of consoles. You can't compare that to hours played.

I agree that 10 minutes are not enough to determine wether the AI of is worth a damn, but I still see no issue with 6 vs 6: as fun as 64-players-battles are in BF3 or BF4, they are pretty chaotic and a lot of the kills happen due luck like being at the right spot at the right time. BTW, is there a source for the 10 minutes?

Sure that kind of gameplay is fun and I enjoyed BF3 a lot, but I love the smaller multiplayer games as well. We all had plenty of fun in Gears of War or The Last Of Us despite smaller player counts - because it makes the games more challenging; you've got to earn those kills. And Titanfall seems to go in the same direction but also adds this whole war feeling with AI comrades and Titans of course (12 Titans on one map sounds like a lot).

Like I said, I can't see the issue - the quality of multiplayer games was never determined by the number of players but by the game's actual quality