TitanFall [XO,X360]

[Billy Idol]

Is it great news? I'd rate it as ... news until we find out if it's actually good.

I like a new small team based game. So for me, great news that they don't go just with big numbers!

 

[blakjedi]

This game may be good for the platform... but i think it looks like shyte. It better be a TEN in terms of gameplay and replayability.

 

[Gradthrawn]

My only concern is if I can do private/friends only/invite only games. Give me that and I'm happy with whatever player count they decide.

 

[Scott_Arm]

My only concern is if I can do private/friends only/invite only games. Give me that and I'm happy with whatever player count they decide.

Being a game that runs on dedicated servers, it seems unlikely that this would be an option. Doubt they'll let you rent your own server like Battlefield.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Being a game that runs on dedicated servers, it seems unlikely that this would be an option. Doubt they'll let you rent your own server like Battlefield.

Since it is completely scalable via the cloud, I'm not sure why they couldn't offer a "subscription" fee in order to create "private" matches with the dedicated server reservation system. That would be more than enough to cover any additional fee's that EA/Respawn might potentially incur for increased cloud server load.

Basically the same idea as renting a server.

Regards,
SB

 

[dobwal]

6 vs 6 players, plus AIs for both teams.

Considered my interest pique especially if this ends up being some type of single/multiplayer intergrated experience. I like human vs human interaction in multiplayer to be an event and the addition of AIs makes limiting map size not as important as in pure multiplayer.

I like GTA Online because it caters to that concept, where the appearance of a human player can stand in stark contrast to all the AIs that are present. Demon and Dark Souls does it on a grander level.

 

[RudeCurve]

Hmm not sure about the 6vs6...I would prefer 8vs8 minimum and 10vs10 max.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Love the idea of small teams. No one cooperates that much in huge games like Battlefield anyway.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I'm not for or against small teams. If the maps are too big, it could be a problem. The game types, the map sizes, how the ai works will all have a big affect on how busy the game feels. They have experience, so I'd expect they got it at least mostly right. Very unexpected though.

 

[Scott_Arm]

More info at Polygon

http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/9/529...packed-with-nearly-50-combatants-including-ai

12 players and up to 38 ai characters at the same time, so 50 "actors", if you will.

 

[AlphaWolf]

On the bright side that probably means 19 more 'people' actually working towards the objective than I've encountered in most of my online gaming.

 

[Scott_Arm]

On the bright side that probably means 19 more 'people' actually working towards the objective than I've encountered in most of my online gaming.

I'd always kind of thought it would be cool if someone made a Dynasty Warriors style game (but good), but multiplayer where the "hero" characters were controlled by players. This isn't exactly that, but it sounds like it's kind of going in that direction. You have the usual cannon fodder ai players running around like you would in any single-player shooter, but then you have the much better and more challenging human opponents as well. It is smart in the idea that people who aren't generally good at shooters may be able to contribute to the game, and get more enjoyment, by killing the ai. Battlefield is smart in awarding a lot of points for objectives and roles, so you don't need to just kill a lot of guys to be useful. Seems this is another way to address the issue. Hopefully the ai is interesting. I don't expect the ai to be really good, but I hope they have some interesting functions that players might not have.

 

[Gradthrawn]

Being a game that runs on dedicated servers, it seems unlikely that this would be an option. Doubt they'll let you rent your own server like Battlefield.

I hadn't even considered that. Damnit.

Since it is completely scalable via the cloud, I'm not sure why they couldn't offer a "subscription" fee in order to create "private" matches with the dedicated server reservation system. That would be more than enough to cover any additional fee's that EA/Respawn might potentially incur for increased cloud server load.

Basically the same idea as renting a server.

Regards,
SB

An interesting possibility. Although I have absolutely no interest in renting a server. I just want to play through game without being interrupted by dumb asses, or for that matter without me interrupting someone else's game due to my lack of skill. I'd like to actually cooperate and coordinate in a team based game. And the only way I've found to be able to consistently do that is to play with people I know.

Oh well. Worse case, I'll do what I do in GTA Online. Keep my head down and avoid the jerks. Hop servers if things get too crazy. I'm adverse to online games for the reasons noted above, but I'll "suffer through it" if the game is enjoyable and rewarding enough to essentially play online, solo. I suspect Titanfall may be.

 

[Rockster]

If MAG and BF4 taught us anything, it's that more players doesn't equal better / more fun.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Depends on the game. BF with more players is more fun, but I can't imagine trying to play COD with 64 players.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Nothing great about 6vs6 as far hearing the news goes. I hope they don't kill thier hype with it.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Double post. Stupid tapatalk

 

[RudeCurve]

Well they said they did lots of testing from 12vs12 down to 2vs2 and they settled on 6vs6 because of sensory overload at high player counts due to the nature of the way players move so fast via wall running etc.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Game can be fun at any player count. Depends on the game. Of course, hearing that a next gen game is just 6vs 6 does put a dampner on your interest. Anyways, resistance 3 also lowered the player count and made for a fun game finally, though imbalanced if higher n lower ranks played together. As for my personal taste, I loved MaG's 256 player matches and love the 64 player matches of BF4. Of course, everything has to accomodate, the map design, game design, etc etc. for example, I did not enjoy 64 player matches in in BF3 except in Caspian border, Bandar Desert and one or two other maps. Rest were too chaotic and 24 player worked much better.

As for TFall, They seem to be keeping a major role for AI. Won't it hurt replayability ? I mean its a MP game primarily and if AI keeps doing itss cripted stuff in every match, it can become annoying eventually. The dev mentioned something like u start with AI lpayers around u and then move on to Player vs Player. Does it mean every MP match has a pseudo story? I mean like the Operations mode in KZ3 or something, although that didn't have AI to support the mission or anything.

 

[nightshade]

Titanfall is a perfect fit for Esport, the developers know this which is why 6 vs 6 seems like the best choice. Most E sport games have gameplay that revolve around 4 vs 4 or 5 vs 5 matches.

As far as Battlefield is concerned, I've not had as much fun playing BF3 and BF4 as I did playing BFBC2. Because my favourite game type was rush, which is a clusterfuck to play when it's over 32 players that and the fact that the map design in BF3/BF4 are ill suited for Rush mode. So yea higher player count doesn't mean better.