Post by Eorl @ 02:57pm 08/01/14 | 47 Comments
Previous showings at conventions did have the player matches limited at 6v6, though this is the first official confirmation we've had since the game's announcement. Early impressions did suggest that the low choice of player count worked well with the flow of battle, including interactions with the AI that are present in each match.@MrClutch514 @Respawn 6v6 is max player count. Turned out to be the best balance with ai for us.
— Vince Zampella (@VinceZampella) January 8, 2014
What do you think of these somewhat low player counts compared to other FPS titles like Battlefield 4, which can host up to 70 players in one game?
Titanfall is expected to launch on PC, Xbox One and Xbxo 360 come March 13th. You can find more on Titanfall including the latest interviews and videos at our game page.
Buy now from ozgameshop.com Only AUD$14.99!
Latest Comments
47 Comments
Show
Follow Us
Advertisement
Log In
Posted 03:01pm 08/1/14
Posted 03:02pm 08/1/14
Posted 03:08pm 08/1/14
Posted 03:28pm 08/1/14
Posted 03:31pm 08/1/14
The other problem is with 6v6 that you only need 2 or so good guys on one team to flog the other.
Posted 03:39pm 08/1/14
Posted 03:40pm 08/1/14
Diablo 3
Starcraft 2
Dota 2
BF4 on Xbox lul
Posted 03:46pm 08/1/14
Posted 03:53pm 08/1/14
Posted 04:31pm 08/1/14
Posted 05:32pm 08/1/14
What the hell is wrong with them?
Posted 05:34pm 08/1/14
Posted 05:35pm 08/1/14
Posted 05:39pm 08/1/14
Meh, I personally don't mind throwing criticism at a game which has somehow won over 60 awards and isn't even out yet.
Posted 05:41pm 08/1/14
This ^. I was really looking forward to it, and this player count crap has just killed my buzz. Imagine bf3/4 with only 12 players...
Posted 05:44pm 08/1/14
Posted 05:46pm 08/1/14
If Titanfall at 12v12 has half the reliability that BF4 has then it'll s*** all over it.
Posted 05:53pm 08/1/14
Posted 05:56pm 08/1/14
Posted 06:20pm 08/1/14
the game's not coming to ps4.
Posted 07:08pm 08/1/14
The f*** are we talking about them with regards to a MP FPS?
BF4 you mentioned applies but that highlights the fact that most low player counts on PC are cause its kept similar or the same to console. I remember the good ol CoD days of 16v16 (IIRC) but then it got smaller (and s******) to match consoles.
Only low player count shooter i like is CS:GO but thats cause i hate waiting for the round to end when i die early on. (edit and L4D now that its been mentioned)
Im sure low player counts suit some game modes (like that 4v4v4v4 in BFBC2) but having it the only option? It better be f*****g good.
Posted 06:41pm 08/1/14
Posted 06:44pm 08/1/14
Does that mean PCs are even s***tier because Left 4 Dead was only 4v4 multiplayer?
If the entire game is built around being 6v6, I see no reason why it wont work, its not COD or BF4. It sounds like a decision they made pretty early on, and built it from the ground up with that in mind.
Posted 06:45pm 08/1/14
If Titanfall at 6v6 has half the reliability that BF4 has then it'll s*** all over it.
Posted 07:33pm 08/1/14
Posted 08:32pm 08/1/14
Posted 09:45pm 08/1/14
Posted 10:15pm 08/1/14
Posted 10:28pm 08/1/14
bf4 is bf4 don't compare it, I seem to remember having some pretty damn good games of tf2 and even quake 3 back in the day with only a few players at lan.
more players doesn't make a game better especially if the game play/maps/weapons/ai have been designed to handle it that way
Posted 10:34pm 08/1/14
How much it was all bulls***. Although I never get why people expected anything new or revolutionary from this. It's the people who made Modern Warfare 2. From the position they were in after COD4, they decided to make the MP on the sequel have less players and more lag due to match making.
So this game is a tiny player count with lots of AI soldiers. Sounds like a s***** game for console n00bs.
Posted 10:40pm 08/1/14
EA is publishing it, so i doubt it.
Posted 10:58pm 08/1/14
Posted 12:30am 09/1/14
i also suspect console pandering - lets hope it gets pc "patch" to inc player numbers
Posted 02:01am 09/1/14
just sayin
Posted 08:03am 09/1/14
Why would they? Its not 6v6 because of technical limitations, its 6v6 because thats the game design. Its like saying I hope theres a patch for BF4 that makes it a stealth action game. Not talking about raising player cap because servers can't handle it, you're talking about changing one of the fundamentals of the game's design.
A lot of games are designed with smaller scale multiplayer in mind, and its nothing to do with technical limitations, its all about the experience they want to deliver. I think people are just getting hung up on this one because they see FPS + vehicles and assume it was going to be another Battlefield.
Posted 08:52am 09/1/14
Posted 09:54am 09/1/14
According to someone who has absolutely no reason to lie right?
Posted 10:11am 09/1/14
Sure, but you could say that about anyone, anywhere. But if you assume they're lying without any sort of proof, its the same as assuming they're telling the truth, you're just the other side of the coin.
I just assume they're not lying because their rationale makes sense to me, and because in this instance it seems to make more sense to believe what they're saying than invent conspiracy theories to the contrary. Either way though, I'm keen to read a review before I decide whether I'll get it or not. Interested to see what this AI they're talking about actually is/does.
Posted 10:23am 09/1/14
Posted 10:31am 09/1/14
My "proof" though would be the same as most peoples, its a DM style game on console which usually equals lower player cap than pc gamers might be used to.
Posted 10:48am 09/1/14
Posted 11:20am 09/1/14
This isn't a game with giant maps, it's a fast paced team death match. For people born in the 90's they might not know what that is, but it was all the rage back in the day and its about due for a comeback.
A friend of mine who spent some time at EB expo with the game was explaining the game to me and why it was so good, he basically explained quake 3 with robots. I asked him if he ever played quake 3 or any other DM game from that era and he hadn't (short of CS).
Posted 12:23pm 09/1/14
They are completely different genres which handle player counts differently. It's like comparing the player count in a chess game to football(AFL/soccer). You're arguing a moot point.
Now, I admit a low player count is disappointing but if they are taking the MOBA approach, I think this is an optimal number to minimize disorganized chaos, it just depends on how many AI mobs will be present.
My preference would be that they provide an optional number of AI mobs (0-16) and let you adjust the player number from there depending on what game style you prefer; pure PvP or MOBA style objectives.
Posted 12:51pm 09/1/14
If you've never played the game, how do you know 6v6 is wrong?
Here's an article from someone who has played it:
http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/8/5288552/titanfall-
Posted 01:18pm 09/1/14
Okay, but you've just done the same thing... =\
I don't understand why people want a large multiplayer count for a game they haven't seen in action, the game is clearly designed for 6v6 so it's not going to be an issue
I guess some people are so s*** at games they need to be carried by a group of players to be able to play the game.
Posted 01:23pm 09/1/14
As one article linked to above says, 'it feels like you're part of a bigger conflict.' Well so what, I want to be part of a big conflict. Every other FPS game tends to have you be part of a bigger conflict.
Would rush mode in Battlefield be any better if it was bots fighting over the objectives. Where you then were support in vehicles for them, or could run and gun on the ground, clearly better than all the bots to win.
Of course not.
Posted 01:49pm 09/1/14
all you crybabies are the noobs who populate entire teams in the 64 player games.