Bigger Isn’t Better: Titanfall Matches Capped At 6v6

By Nathan Grayson on January 9th, 2014 at 2:00 pm.

The Continuing Adventures of Biggs Uppenson: Sign Toucher.

Bigger is better, says conventional wisdom. And by wisdom, I mean idiocy. “Size matters” is a phrase I’ve found to apply largely to jerks in giant trucks and Reese’s peanut butter cups (the smaller ones taste better for some reason; it is probably wizardry). Many games, in fact, suffer with more players in the mix. So I’ve never really gotten the inevitable tidal wave of enraged tears that hits every time a developer announces that their multiplayer shootything won’t feature 488370630-player battles. And yet, here we are. Titanfall is a 12-player affair, and many fans aren’t exactly pleased.

Respawn’s Vince Zampella made the initial announcement on Twitter:

“6v6 is max player count. Turned out to be the best balance with AI for us. That’s humans only count. There are lots of AI, everyone can have a Titan in follow or guard mode too.”

Meanwhile, producer Drew McCoy doused flames on NeoGAF, further explaining that this isn’t a matter of laziness or flabby technical muscles. It’s about what works best for the game Respawn designed.

“We tried a huge amount of player counts (all the way down to 1v1 and up quite high) and designed the maps, gameplay mechanics, and entire experience around which played best. If anyone wants to chase the numbers game, perhaps we’re not the experience they’re after? I dunno.”

“And FYI, for amount of stuff happening at once in a map you’ll be hard pressed to find a game that keeps the action higher. Remember, you can get out of your Titan and let it roam on AI mode – meaning there can be 12 Pilots wallrunning around, 12 Titans stomping below, and dozens of AI doing their thing.”

So battles are much larger than a simple 6v6 count lets on, and having played a couple demos of the game, I can attest to this. But, more than anything, the game is about options and constant variation. Tiny meat body not doing it for you? Then call down a steel Hulk from the heavens and take refuge in its innards. That said, I haven’t played enough to get a clear indication of how different AI is from traditional bots (Respawn claims it’s very different) and whether or not it’s a game-changer. Respawn’s being pretty vehement about all of this, but I can’t blindly sing Titanfall’s praises just yet.

The demos I’ve played were quite fun taken on their own merits, though. I don’t think Titanfall will be, like, life-changing or anything, but so far it’s a solid shooter with fun movement and an empowering mech mechanic. It might gas-out quickly and topple into the big gimmick scrap heap into the sky, but there’s no way of knowing right now. Really, this whole outburst of anger is pretty silly in that respect. All people have to go on is a number. Oh, the Internet.

I just wish half the gaming community wasn’t obsessed with everything being Bigger, Better, and More Badass. It’s a mentality propagated by publishers, developers, and gamers alike – a vicious cycle that feeds back into itself in a never-ending loop – but it’s prone to rapidly diminishing returns. Big doesn’t equal great. It just equals big. Good on Respawn for sticking to its guns.

, , .

195 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. kevmscotland says:

    *grabs popcorn*

    This should go down well…..

    • Syra says:

      Sure, people will be up in arms about this, but for me personally, this is the best thing I’ve heard about this game. I’m actually way more interested now. I’m sick of huge maps and huge impersonal multiplayer matches where you get sprayed at by a dozen people from a mile away without ever knowing what’s going on… bringing the scale down means people who don’t just play shooters all day and twitch like mad will also have a chance to get a feel for the flow of battles and bring a more meta skill level to bear.

      • Groove says:

        I agree that 6v6 max sounds appealing, but seemingly for a different reason. In a smaller match a good player is much more likely to destroy you every time as there’s less chance of them being killed by things they couldn’t predict. The bonus of smaller matches is that you get a lot more opportunities to become a good player as a result of less variance.

      • Winstons says:

        Syra, you’re pretty wrong in this. You’ve got it the wrong way round. I assume you’re referring to large multiplayer games such as Battlefield – where you think lack of ‘twitch shooter skills’ (whatever that is – being able to aim? Thinking ahead of your enemy?) hinders you.

        If you get ‘sprayed at by a dozen people from a mile away’, all that really says is you are not yet comfortable or competent at the game. That’s just a case of you not yet knowing where to go or being aware of where the enemy is. How do you think this is going to change in 6 vs 6? If anything this is going to go worse for you – lower player counts encourage and reward one on one ‘twitch’ skill, whereas larger MP games have a lot more ‘meta skill level’ (good lord) to them – repairing vehicles, defending points, supporting teamates etc. It’s perfectly possible to be quite good at BF4 or or other large scale MP games without ‘playing shooters all day’

        The poster below you, Groove, has it spot on when he says ‘ In a smaller match a good player is much more likely to destroy you every time as there’s less chance of them being killed by things they couldn’t predict.’

        • Winstons says:

          ‘Meta skill level’, jeebus. I’m going to bring my meta skill level to bear while I get another beer.

          • The Random One says:

            “Meta skill level” is a lot like “ludonarrative dissonance” in which it’s a perfectly descriptive and understandable expression except it makes you sound like a wanker.

        • Bishop says:

          I agree entirely. Also when you play a big scale game like BF, with 24 people on each side you tend to get an even number of duds and studs. 6v6 I only have to invite one competent friend and I’m guaranteed 1/3 of my team won’t be awful.

          • Jools says:

            Pretty much this, yeah. I’ve stopped even trying to drag my friends into smaller servers in games like Team Fortress or Call of Duty because they find it too frustrating when the game is dominated by one really, really good player. Bigger servers let you disappear into the background more easily and it’s less likely that you’ll constantly run into the same hyper competent player.

            I’m not saying that one way is better than the other, but smaller games absolutely do tend to foster a more competitive spirit because individual skill starts to matter more than having more bodies in the right place at the right time. In bigger games, you’re more likely to run into people that are actually at your skill level while maybe being killed from time to time by someone way better than you.

    • DarkFarmer says:

      MOBAesque?

  2. BlackeyeVuk says:

    6v6? Hahahaahahahahahaahahahaha

    No.

    • Lemming says:

      I know right? Me and my football team refuse play anything less than 18-a-side, but try telling the FA that!

      • BlackeyeVuk says:

        Its not my problem that you don’t have enough friends. And need to call in a local football team.

    • Premium User Badge

      Cinek says:

      Hehehe, yea.
      I don’t even bother with an FPS game if there’s less than 12vs12 ppl. It’s just not fun.
      I’d more gladly play 32 vs 32 on a small map, even if it means huge crowds of people running and gunning than 6vs6.

      • The First Door says:

        That’s just silly! It’s not just about player counts, it’s also about how the level is designed. If the levels are well designed for 6 vs. 6, it’ll be fun.

        I still find small Quake 3 maps running 1 vs. 1 or 2 vs. 2 much more interesting and fun than 64 player matches in huge maps.

    • Premium User Badge

      Smashbox says:

      I don’t understand this. You haven’t played the game – how can you judge their decision to be poor?

      Then again, when I said this on Reddit, I was ridiculed and voted down to oblivion.

      • Hmm-Hmm. says:

        Which, as you probably undestand well enough says less about your statement than it does about the attitude of (some of) the reddit crowd.

        • Slight0 says:

          Right, because RPS readers/commentors are infallible intellectuals and everyone else are dumb teenagers with invalid opinions. If a shit ton of people disagree with me its because my opinion is so well thought out and correct that the masses are bound to disagree with it. I wonder if this is how conspiracy theorists feel on a daily basis.

      • tetracycloide says:

        That’s funny, I got downvoted for pointing out that building options and then locking them down when it vines time to release is at least a little anti-consumer.

        The problem with the point you’re making us that it ignores that we’ll never be able to tell how well it works when the game is okayed because the alternatives have been removed.

    • zind says:

      6v6 limit doesn’t really matter to me at all – there’s always room to go bigger in expansions or sequels. For me, the bigger PC dealbreaker is that there are no plans for mod support, which just seems stupid on a Source engine game.

    • danijami23 says:

      Aww, are you scared that you blindly thrown ‘nades won’t hit some poor fucker by chance?

      I really don’t think it’s going to be a big deal, You have no idea how the game even plays yet.

  3. BobbyDylan says:

    I must be the only person in the world who thinks this game is being over-hyped? My resounding response to all of it is…. mhe.

    • Niko says:

      Even if you’d thought that this game is a bucket of monkeys with little top hats and gold bricks in their trouser pockets, you’d have to stand in line, because I thought of that first.

    • S Jay says:

      The internet has a rule, whatever someone mentions “…am I the only one that…” (or similar) there is only one answer “no, you are not the only one”, by sheer number of people in this web thing.

      • DanMan says:

        They clearly haven’t done their homework.

        Of reading ALL OF THE INTERNET!

        • Press X to Gary Busey says:

          It’s the modern equivalent of reading the phone book. Only more weird and disturbed porn.

        • tetracycloide says:

          A priori truths require no homework.

    • hungrycookpot says:

      I’m always confused as to the types of games that fly around here. Shooters like CoD are frequently and vigorously ripped into, but this game has mechs, making it the savior of PC gaming. Personally, I think it looks like more of the same ol, and I’m indifferent.

      • Ich Will says:

        I think the single player of COD is ripped into because it’s a load of complete shit.

      • Ergates_Antius says:

        Except it’s not being hailed as the saviour of PC gaming around these parts. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

        It’s being hailed as looking a bit more interesting than CoD.

        • hungrycookpot says:

          I’m exaggerating of course, but this game has gotten more page-space than any other shooter I can think of in the past couple weeks/months.

          • Kaeoschassis says:

            Can’t speak of ‘months’, but Titanfall has had exactly one article here in the past ‘couple of weeks’ and, uh, this is it.

            My two cents: still looks great, and I don’t even like most multiplayer shooters. Or multiplayer games. Or people.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            That’s a fair point. I’ve always put that down to it being *by* the CoD people, but not being CoD. Which is worthy of note because all they’ve done for the last few years is re-release CoD.

          • Premium User Badge

            Nogo says:

            That’s mostly because the marketing team are acting like seasoned pros, and we’re 6 mo from release.

            People are writing about it because they’re finally getting access and information at the accelerating drip-feed rate.

      • Flammablezeus says:

        Funnily enough, the only thing I hate about CoD is its success. I don’t hate the game, it’s just not my cup of tea. I simply don’t enjoy the multiplayer, but now almost every game tries to emulate it in some way.

    • misterT0AST says:

      Who is overhyping this? And who is hyping this at all?

  4. Squirly says:

    “I just wish half the gaming community wasn’t obsessed with everything being Bigger, Better, and More Badass.”

    This sums up my mentality as well. Just because Battlefield allows 64 players or whatever, doesn’t mean that every PvP-focused FPS has to either match or trump that number. The devs are doing what they feel works best. “Armchair warriors” as McCoy calls them should really stop shitting themselves about things they have literally no clue about.

    • Ansob says:

      Having any more than the number of players the maps were designed for actually makes for a worse game, but I guess there’s loads of people stupid enough to want to play 50-man Shipment games in CoD. Hopefully, Respawn stick with this particular choice, since it’s a good one rather than a mistake.

      • Press X to Gary Busey says:

        Battlefield 2, Gulf of Oman. Forced to smallest map variation with 64 players plus 64 bots. It’s crazy and fun. I’m stupid.

        • Premium User Badge

          Cinek says:

          Aye! Too many people is MUCH better than too few people.

          • dahools says:

            But neither is as good as having just the right amount of people! which for this game, that the devs have designed and extensively played, is apparently 6 vs 6.

          • aepervius says:

            That is the same argument simcity dev gave for giving us village sized maps, and forced connection. So color me very skeptical.

    • Premium User Badge

      Cinek says:

      What’s so wrong with being obsessed about “better”?!

    • Premium User Badge

      Moorkh says:

      I stumbled across that line of Nathan’s as well.

      Why on earth would he end his argument preemptively defending EA’s latest twitchfest from its unavoidable detractors by offhandedly bashing the very basis of the game he is defending? If Titanfall isn’t the poster child of the “bigger [, better] and more badass” creed, I must have looked at these trailers (and this site’s previous, inexplicable fawning) totally wrongly!

    • Christo4 says:

      I remember an interesting thing death’s courier said in Skyrim
      In a battlefield with lots of people, the chance of dying for no reason is very big (he said ballistas/catapults and magic if i recall correctly. or even friendly fire) so in 1v1 is where real skill is tested.
      i’m not saying all games should be 1v1, but smaller teams can bring better gameplay sometimes. it isn’t necessary to have 100vs100 battles

  5. Breadnought says:

    FPS capping, FOV capping, resolution capping and fixed controls are anti-consumer, but capping matches at 6v6 is a-ok? There is no possible reason for Respawn to take this choice out of the hands of their consumers.

    • aldo_14 says:

      Capping at 6v6 can be a necessary and/or valid gameplay decision, though.

      Surely it’d be prudent to wait and see how the thing plays before judging?

    • Premium User Badge

      Phinor says:

      Are you complaining about low player caps with every game? Why can’t I play Call of Duty 250 vs 250, because in WoW that’s possible. Why doesn’t DOTA2 support 50vs50 because that’s how I’d like to play. It’s a design decision. The game is designed for 6vs6,that’s the end of it. We’ve no idea if you can hack your way around it but there’s a ton of games that don’t support hacking like that at all. I mean developers are limiting some games to one lousy player (also called single player games), is it anti-consumerism because the game happens to be designed that way?

      You could argue that FOV cap is also a design issue but it’s also something that can cause a game to be physically unplayable for some portion of the player base and usually doesn’t require as much fixing as say, designing and creating every map twice or five times to support higher and higher player counts. Same with changeable keybindings, there are popular games out there that don’t support that at all but it can cause a game to be unplayable for some specific group of people. It’s the developers choice and if they stick to very low FOV causing less sales because some people simply can’t play the game, that’s their choice. This isn’t a black/white issue, every game is different.

      • aldo_14 says:

        WRT to FOV, isn’t there also the potential for cheating with a wider-than-default FOV being used to spot opponents more easily?

        Albeit really the FOV issue surely stems not so much from it being locked, so far as it being set for a console user (sitting on the couch watching a TV, rather than close to a monitor)?

        • KhanIHelpYou says:

          Its a tradeoff really, a higher fov means more special awareness but it also means that your targets are smaller. I play with a fov of about 90 whenever I can and playing games locked at 60 is like playing binocular football.

    • GallonOfAlan says:

      Reasons? Level design and balancing, having to deal with support incidents because some doughnut tried to run a 128-player server with 2GB RAM are but two that spring to mind.

    • S Jay says:

      I believe player count is mostly about game design (of course it can be because of technical issues, but it doesn’t seem to be the case).

    • womp says:

      This is kinda like complaining that Dota2 and LoL are capped at 5v5

      • Premium User Badge

        Cinek says:

        MOBA is not an FPS.

        • Turin Turambar says:

          ..and? Both are multiplayer competitive team vs team games designed around “low” player counts.

        • Premium User Badge

          Nogo says:

          Genre police!

          Cheese it!

      • tetracycloide says:

        No, it really is nothing like that at all. The tower defense portion of MOBAs dictates lane based mechanics which in turn dictates the level design which in turn dictates player counts. There is no such dictate in an FPS.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Man, and all these shooters with finite ammo caps! And RPGs with inventory weight caps! TERRIBLE.

      (To scupper my own argument: UT mutators can cause several hours of silly fun by overruling all the “sensible” gameplay limitations, even in multiplayer contexts, because everyone is ‘cheating’ equally. Also cramming 32 players into a 1-on-1 map to turn everything into a perpetual fountain of gibs.)

    • Premium User Badge

      Cantisque says:

      I often play TF2 and wind up on servers where the max player count is higher than the default number. I can safely say the experience ends up worse.
      Mario Party only had 4 players and I still prefer that over BF4. It entirely depends on the game and the mechanics of the multiplayer.

  6. mrmalodor says:

    I don’t see the problem. Competitive CS is 5v5 and it’s just fine.

    • Tridae says:

      Came here to say exactly this. .

      It works so well for CS. I’m sure it’ll work here.

      I prefer the smaller team combat style. It’s a lot more personal.

    • DanMan says:

      Sure. If the maps are really cramped, then having lots of players will just ruin the gameplay. BF3 64-player Metro anyone?

      • Premium User Badge

        Cinek says:

        That’s rather poor example how gameplay can be ruined by high amount of players on a small map.
        Metro really does work well in a setup like that and is one of the best maps for scoring achievements and getting new stuff fast in BF3.

      • -Spooky- says:

        BF4 – Op. Locker | 64 Ply | 1.5k tickets | pistols only … woooot .. their the fun goes

    • Premium User Badge

      AngelTear says:

      Precisely this.

      Not to mention, most PvP FPS that try to aim at massive numbers fail out of a lack of organization and direction in the team, to the point that you don’t feel part of a team at all, there is no complex mechanism you’re being a part of. The only shooter that handled massive numbers well for me was Ps3’s MAG, and that’s because it had a complex organization of players into different roles and degrees of command, so that some could direct the overall strategy and some others micromanaged their platoons, divisions and squads, down to their team of 4, all within that overall strategy. I guess NS2’s commander comes close, but it’s not nearly as massive.

    • Premium User Badge

      Cinek says:

      “Competitive CS is 5v5 and it’s just fine.” – and Fun CS begins with 16 vs 16.

      • -Spooky- says:

        CS? Fun? No wai .. TFC ftw!

        • derbefrier says:

          hell yeah!

          TFC is the only FPS were I actually got good enough to play competitively(other than maybe halo) and if teams were limited to 6 vs 6 (i believe it was at least 8vs 8 cant remember its been awhile) It would have been too easy.

      • Shooop says:

        I’ve never heard of this “fun CS”. I’ve only seen the “hide in rooms your enemy has no choice to come through and can’t possibly defend themselves from” and “jump around like you’re wearing super-powered moon shoes while shooting as accurate as the AI in Rainbow 6″.

        • SkittleDiddler says:

          I see you’ve played CS before.

          • dE says:

            Maybe not in some time, but there was a time when this was pretty much normal. The game didn’t get the nickname Camper-Strike from nothing. And when Bunnyhopping and Strafejumping became a widespread phenomena (pre-nerf), it was like watching a horde of jumping maniacs glitching all over the place.

            And the accurate shooting thing, when the +use glitch was still around, that’s what a lot of folks got as well. Pinperfect accuracy by using use to come to an instant stop.

            All perfectly valid descriptions of pre 1.6 Counter-Strike.

    • Derpa says:

      Oh so Titanfall is a Competitive only game

  7. Kitsunin says:

    Eh, I thought it sounded terrible at first, but I highly doubt they’d make a move that sounds so much like suicide without a very good reason for it, so I think it would be very foolish to make any sort of judgement call on that just yet.

    It certainly could allow for some interesting possibilities in our world where we are so pampered with 20+ players in our FPS, but we shall see.

    And, Counter-Strike, anyone?

    • BlackeyeVuk says:

      First of all, there is difference between casual and competitive . Counter Strike does not have cap on casual. Or easily modded.

      This game however, they want to be competitive? – With mechs and jumpacks ? If you really want to do that, you need tad bigger maps at least for mechs. Or does really mechs have narrow corridor they can run streight forward actually doing nothing.

      I really do not see how this 6vs6 is going to be good.

      • Kitsunin says:

        The cap on unmodded casual is 10v10, so not that massively more, and 5v5 is still clearly where the game is at its best, but, I’m not saying they shouldn’t allow for more players, I just think it’s really dumb to be getting upset when you don’t even know how the game works (Clearly, not exactly the same as others).

        • shadow9d9 says:

          It is not “clearly” the best. It is your personal opinion.

          • Kitsunin says:

            Sure, but if that weren’t the general concensus, why do virtually all competitive and even moderately serious events feature 5v5? In Counter-Strike it’s because of the close communication needed to play, more than five players to your team means that there’s too much information to keep track of if everyone is communicating properly. Also, map balance, but that’s something that could be fixed.

          • P.Funk says:

            @ Kitsunun

            I lol at your attempt to say that having more than 5 people a side makes communication impractical. Try telling anyone in an arma clan that.

            When you get into a game with numbers beyond 4 or 5 the communication becomes part of the skill. It also involves creating tiers that communicate without spamming the group.

            If there’s a reason 5v5 CS works its not because any more can’t figure out how to communicate, because frankly if that were true then you wouldn’t have any organized competition that exceeded that number and thats clearly not true.

          • Kitsunin says:

            Have you played CS? It’s a very very different beast to ARMA, focused around quick rounds (usually 1~3 minutes) and extremely precise tactics. ARMA is a much larger, more drawn-out game, and a second-long lapse in judgement isn’t usually fatal. In Counter-Strike more than 5 players is impractical, because it’s Counter-Strike. When you think about it, that kinda makes sense, since it’s a game about being in a SWAT team, not an army.

            Look, clearly it’s possible to have organization in larger teams, cl-ear-ly games can have more players, but it all depends on how the game is designed, and sometimes more just doesn’t work. I can’t see how the shit that’s so hard to understand.

          • Reefpirate says:

            I think the real reason 5v5 or less is popular in competitive games is simply because of the logistics of running offline tournaments. DotA, LoL, SC2, CS, Quake, etc. all have small team sizes (down to single people) because trying to send 10 or 16 people to a tournament 500 miles away becomes very expensive. Also the prize pools need to be much larger if you’re going to split them 10 ways instead of 5.

          • P.Funk says:

            Yes I’ve bloody played CS. Your argument doesn’t convince me. Arma can be slower, but in a PVP match against humans you can be ambushed and forced to make decisions at a pace as quick as CS. Whats more when making decisions with imperfect information you’re trying to relay between various groups of people to put together an on the spot plan ahead of the other guy’s on the spot plan, half guessing, half reasoning, mostly hoping that the people you’re barking ideas to get it and do it right, and in the process aren’t so crap at the mechanics of the game that even when they get the plan right they don’t screw up the execution.

            None of that is really precluded by the pace of a game. In real life SWAT teams or counter terrorist entry teams plough through buildings at a similar pace and yet they frequently involve groups larger than 4 or 5. The logistics of communicating and planning become more complex, but frankly thats just, like I said, another layer of complexity to manage.

            I’m not bashing the 5v5 thing, but I think you’re making the differences out to be too much. In the end managing groups of people creates a new level of gameplay. It adds roles because there’s a finite number of people you can have working together using mics and direct communication. It makes it messier, it makes it more complex, but its not impossible, its just easier to not do it that way.

            As someone who’s played competitive Project Reality for Battlefield 2 and a lot of organized Arma, along with a billion other FPSs, I know how this breaks down. You can only directly manage or work with so many people. Its obvious that the competitive gaming scene keeps things small for logistics and convenience. Its more practical to make teams that small because it makes the game cleaner and simpler and its not like you have to find a dozen hardcore players to make a team. You can do it with a handful of friends and a few recruited players. Doesn’t mean you can do the same thing with more, its just more work, but not impossible or even impractical.

          • Kitsunin says:

            That’s…kind of what I was trying to say before. Counter-strike plays with 5v5 because if you go over 5 players you’re forced to delegate roles because communication between greater than 5 players becomes unwieldly without commanding roles to relay information. It’s the same reason DotA and them have 5 players: It’s around the largest amount you can efficiently manage without leadership roles, and that is exactly what I was saying; Counter-strike plays best with 5 players because it’s Counter-strike, it simply isn’t a game that works (At its best) with the leadership mechanics of something like ARMA, because every game that was ever made isn’t exactly the same, geez.

      • aldo_14 says:

        I really do not see how this 6vs6 is going to be good.

        I remember enjoying smaller scale games of 4v4 in the original CoD, so it doesn’t see how it would prohibit it. I think they may be trying to increase player agency – in a lot of MP games you can spend most of your time getting killed without even knowing why, because it’s a barrel of chaos. I can understand an argument that with smaller teams and NPC enemies, it gives the average or crap player (i.e. me) a chance to still participate over a protracted period rather than just endure wave after wave of quick deaths.

        • Kitsunin says:

          Yeah, that’s what I meant to say, but failed. In a PVP environment, every kill a player gets means a death for another player. Smaller team sizes and AIs would indicate to me that they are going for a game that’s more about making the biggest positive impact for your team, rather than just any positive effect. It’s a different and rarer design perspective, not inherently a worse one.

          • Reapy says:

            I’m pretty sure the size is due to console releases…but anyway about NPC buddies + players, I think this is a missing experience for games. I know there is a ‘captain mode’ for with fire and sword where you control some AI units, and the regular m&b mode if you have bots in it you can command them, and it is pretty interesting.

            As you said, you can have more devastating and satisfying weapons that are ‘unbalanced’ against the AI, but leave the player alive, just with a burnt hole in the ground for a unit. It also means you can have dynamics of troops actually behaving and sculpt a strategy. In a cs match 1 or 2 players might go hold a choke point, but think how more interesting that conflict becomes if each player comes with 12 AI to assign for the defense.

            Players will behave irrationally and not to your plan, AI do what you tell them. I think it will be an interesting thing if executed correctly.

            I still think 6vs6 is because of consoles though.

          • Premium User Badge

            Cinek says:

            “I’m pretty sure the size is due to console releases” – totally agreed.

            Though I find it rather ridiculous – new consoles get released and we hit roof of their performance limitations just a moments after release. What’s the point of that? I can’t see these consoles surviving 10 years like both: Sony and Microsoft imagined. Tablets will eat them for breakfast in no more than 4 years.

          • mukuste says:

            @Cinek: It’s on Xbox 360.

        • BlackeyeVuk says:

          Why would you add big chompy Mechas in small maps is beyond me. Oh I know, they will force 6 players to follow their “Titan” mech into narrow corridor and you will have to defend it. Map will be just imaginary straight line from point A to point B.

          I see this quickly becoming boring as hell.

          • Kitsunin says:

            Christ, could you make more assumptions?

          • BlackeyeVuk says:

            You could watch them trailers and gameplay. Im not making this up. Im just getting the idea on the long run. This will be boring for me at least. And maybe I do have problems because I still play CS 1.6 .

          • aldo_14 says:

            Why would you add big chompy Mechas in small maps is beyond me. Oh I know, they will force 6 players to follow their “Titan” mech into narrow corridor and you will have to defend it. Map will be just imaginary straight line from point A to point B.

            Have to note it’s apparently one mech per player, so that’s 12 mechs in what appear to be fairly urban environments (the clutter being necessary, I think, to balance mech versus infantry gameplay).

            I dunno.. I’m not massively hyped about the game, to be honest, but it seems a lot complaining is based around presumption… about the gameplay, about the map size, about how their much-vaunted AI will work. I personally like to at least consider the possibility of competence and think maybe they did actually test it before capping it?

          • BlackeyeVuk says:

            I concur aldo_14.

          • Kitsunin says:

            O-o-oh my god…

            T-the game…

            I-i-it really is, just a bunch of players floating in black space between two dots labeled A and B.

          • Ergates_Antius says:

            Im not making this up
            Um….yes you are.

      • Ergates_Antius says:

        I really do not see how this 6vs6 is going to be good.
        Why not? What does player count have to do with a game being good or not?

  8. ReV_VAdAUL says:

    I’ve seen a lot of reference to huge numbers of people being really angry about this but haven’t really seen many people all that bothered about it. Games Journalists seem very annoyed about people criticising it for some reason though, the videogamer podcast yesterday got really angry about it too.

    Also the “bots are very different from normal bots” line seems weird, they seem to be the scripted waves of enemies of single player FPS (which RPS has often criticised) dumped into a multiplayer game rather than anything new or particularly special. I mean sure that might add something to the game and work fine but lets not pretend it is a special new kind of bot.

    • aldo_14 says:

      Also the “bots are very different from normal bots” line seems weird, they seem to be the scripted waves of enemies of single player FPS (which RPS has often criticised) dumped into a multiplayer game rather than anything new or particularly special. I mean sure that might add something to the game and work fine but lets not pretend it is a special new kind of bot.

      Well, that would be very different – just not necessarily better. I just took it as that they weren’t trying to get the AI/bots to behave like proxies for humans.

    • Kitsunin says:

      I think the point is that they aren’t “bots”. In the sense of AI players which almost always do a terrible job of taking the place of people, but try to anyways despite everyone hating being stuck with them. It’s not some revolutionary new concept, sure, but it’s not “bots”, and that does mean they’re aiming for something a little different than just typical PVP + big robots. Saying anything either way just yet makes little sense.

      • Premium User Badge

        AngelTear says:

        The way I imagine it is a little like minions in LOL/DOTA; for the function they have, they have all the AI they need (i.e. a dozen simple rules about who to aim for first and a simple path to walk) and they’re not Bots pretending to be players (it almost never worked, although I remember Unreal Tournament having some really good and believable bots)

  9. Premium User Badge

    Arathain says:

    It’s a different situation when you have a load of AI grunts running about, I suspect, vs. something like Battlefield where everything is a player. It could give the game a really interesting rhythm, with constant action and encounters with other players as a big highpoint.

    • Synesthesia says:

      agreed! I actually thought the same thing. Players would be higher skilled enemies, and an encounter with them would change your flow. Do you engage him or evade? Ask for support? Call your titan?
      A 64-player clusterfuck seems like it would take away alot of those decisions, in favor of, well, a 64-player clusterfuck. Good for them for sticking to their guns.

  10. Smurf says:

    Competitive, fast, tactical and needs a lot of teamwork. If it is similar to my current cocaine-like addiction which is CS:GO, I’m looking forward for this. Numbers don’t matter if it is fun!

  11. uh20 says:

    if Respawn insists on capping titanfall to 12 players, then what reason do they have to not make the classic “big team” mode with 18 players?

  12. pintoyac says:

    Titanfail

  13. Ztox says:

    lol I find all of the rage funny. If it’s a solid game, who cares? The player count should fit the design. I heard that modding will be a thing (on an EA published game wtf?!) so maybe on PC we’ll see a higher player count on PC eventually.

    CS:GO is the best FPS ever made and that’s only 5v5 when played properly with no bots or titans so…

    • shadow9d9 says:

      Not only is it not the best fps ever made, but CS has always been enjoyed with 10v10 and 12v12.

      • Reefpirate says:

        Not in competition it hasn’t… Competitive CS has been 5v5 for a long long time now.

  14. Seafort says:

    Developers know best till their profits are hit when gamers don’t buy their game :P

    • ryanrybot says:

      Yep, and their profits are hit because people needlessly cry foul when it doesn’t have a feature another game has, no matter how well it plays.

  15. db1331 says:

    High player count doesn’t make or break a game. I find 64 player BF4 to be a clusterfuck. I’m either getting shot in the back by someone on foot, or killed by a vehicle the instant I spawn. 32 players on the smaller maps is much more enjoyable for me. I played Hanai Resort 64 players for the first time the other day, and with the attack boats and the artillery trucks, it was absolutely ridiculous.

    And count me among those not the least bit excited about Titanfall. It doesn’t help that it’s made by the same people who basically told their PC fanbase to go fuck itself with MW2, after we had supported them for several years.

  16. S Jay says:

    Competitive TF2 = 6v6.

    • jlgroves1 says:

      exactly, the format can work, it just depends on the game mechanics and how a specific map can be played. While I am not incredibly excited for this game (mainly because I still sink most of my game time into tf2) it has nothing to do with the player counts.

    • Premium User Badge

      Cinek says:

      Real TF2 = minimum 16 players per map.

      • Synesthesia says:

        Please expand on this concept of “real”, if you may. I am intrigued!

        • Lusketrollet says:

          Please expand on this concept of “real”, if you may. I am intrigued!

          * “Meant to be played”.

          * “Often also “Fun”, and “Good”.

      • Premium User Badge

        Malibu Stacey says:

        Standard TF2 is 12 vs 12 max actually.

    • Premium User Badge

      strangeloup says:

      There’s also Highlander, which is 9v9 (one of each class per side), and in my entirely subjective opinion about a million times more interesting than sixes.

      I tend to find that the standard server limit of 24 players (12 a side, obv) works pretty well, because (ideally) it means you can get each class covered and still have room to bolster classes as needed.

  17. fluffy_thedestroyer says:

    heres today’s bitching from fluffy:

    MWUAHAAHA (*while pointing at people who got sexually excited by this game)

    It’s always a joy for me to see someones dream shatter because someone falsly hyped a product and at the last second learned something very important that destroy the product. I also get very high amount of joy when I see the reaction of a kid gets his candy stolen…thats my evil side talking now.

    Ok, i’m not talking about a baby candy getting stolen. I’m talking about a kid here or even adults who acts like kids.

    Anyway for this news… WTF IS THAT CRAP ?? look at Counter-Strike…32 players and lots of other games, 64 players in 1 server. look at Planetside 2 which has thousands of players on 1 server in the same area…thats an MMO to look at. But this here…6v6..

    1 line comes to mind
    BITCH PLEASE

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      It’s always a joy for me to see someones dream shatter because someone falsly hyped a product and at the last second learned something very important that destroy the product
      Except that many of the people anticipating this don’t care about a lower player cap, so your joy is ill founded.

      Rather than just arbitrarily and incoherently listing numbers, maybe you could form an argument as to why having 16v16 or 32v32 makes a game better than having 6v6.

    • Synesthesia says:

      4chan misses you

    • Kaeoschassis says:

      Yes…? It’s… 6v6, that’s what they said.
      Sorry, what’s your point again?

    • Premium User Badge

      Thurgret says:

      I’m not sure whether you’re expressing your like, dislike, or indifference towards this decision.

    • Premium User Badge

      Malibu Stacey says:

      Off you fuck back to SA/4chan/reddit or wherever else the 12 year olds congregate these days.

  18. dorn says:

    There is still a massive demand for a particular type of PC-FPS that hasn’t existed for ~5 years now. Titanfall was hyped up as finally addressing this. It’s not about what’s “best” for this game. It’s the fact that they are being ignored again.

    It’s the same reason that Chris Roberts can make 20 million dollars or whatever.

  19. Hunchback says:

    Actually, the more hardcore a multiplayer FPS is, the less people on a team it allows. Competitive Quake 3? 4 per team max, if there’s any team play at all. And no one can beat Q3 on terms of hardcore.

    Obviously, the more people there are, the less “responsibility” there is to your actions, so if you suck balls, but you play with 63 other people it’ll hardly be noticable. If your team is 4 and you suck, that’s 25% of the team sucking, so… that’s why kiddies cry about team sizes.

    • onyhow says:

      So you can’t be casual player, EVAH???

      Also, it’s also wrong that I want to play giant clusterfuck mech combat (with appropriate map size of course) with other people?

      Okay…

      • Hunchback says:

        No one (at least not me) never said you can’t be casual player, or play a huge mess of a game. I am actually a big fan of the BF series, and i did spend endless hours in CoD2 and 4, before it got consoleshit port.

        What you can’t do tho, is cry if a dev team decides to make a game that doesn’t do casual, or mass 100v100 gameplay. *shrug*

    • Smoky_the_Bear says:

      I don’t think its anything to do with that personally. To me the idea of big stompy mechs in a multiplayer FPS just suggests that it should be relatively large scale, i.e. a bunch of people working together to bring the mech down.

      They have already said that there will be AI running about the place so they seem to want to create that large scale feel, not sure why they are then limiting it to 6 a side. Its not like people wouldn’t have the option of playing smaller teams, but play a game with bots in pretty much any multiplayer FPS and it becomes uninspiring, the bots are predictable and boring to play against. I think this is why people are reacting badly to it. It’s a case of why 6 people + bots, why not just more people instead.

      I hope that it works well and they aren’t just scaling the player size down because of technical limitations on PS3/360.

      Also a lot of what the guy is saying is bullshit to me. Even if the ideal team size is 6 people, still why limit it? The ideal team size for Counterstrike is 4-6 people, they still made the game so it could run with much more and its sometimes entertaining to jump into a 30 person server for some mass carnage.
      The maximum team size doesn’t have to be the ideal team size for a game, so I still don’t understand the cap, why shouldn’t people be able to play 15 v 15 if they want, the serious players would still play 6v6 if that’s what the game was balanced around.

  20. 2helix4u says:

    This actually makes me -more- interested in this. Since it suggests it is at least breaking from the CoD, BF shooters which I’m not very interested in. LoL has also made me appreciate smaller team sizes. I’m sure there will be larger gametypes after release when they can figure that stuff out, whether they’ll be free updates or paid-for-DLC… wait, Microsoft exclusive.

    e: Wait EA, haha oh then it’ll definitely be added as a paid-for expansion or sequel. … Oh respawn, out of the frying pan into the fire.

  21. Chiron says:

    My experience online has been that its difficult even making sure 2v2 games go ahead without a hitch when your relying on people who you don’t know.

    Out of the 15v15 matches on something like World of Tanks you end up with 3 people doing all the fighting, 5 people hanging around at the base doing nothing, another 5 people dying within seconds and then spending most of the match bitching about it and finally 2 people who are missing, presumed taking a shit or being bots farming for xp.

    • Colej_uk says:

      Such is the nature of online gaming I guess. The incompetence ratios are probably the same no matter the player count.

  22. Premium User Badge

    Shockeh says:

    To be very cynical – The reason so many people love high player counts is because they’re basically, well, not very good. In a high player count environment, there’s a low chance to be last (someone has to be, but statistics start to back you up), you’ll always get kills even if you’re one of the ‘PRO SNIPAR’ crowd who likes to plink away (usually uselessly) from 3km away, and you’re just lost in the noise.

    In a 6v6 environment, if you’re the bad player, it stands out.

    I’m sure there’s plenty of people who have legitimate loves for large player-count games aside from this, but surely they’re well catered for. My only hope is that if they’re sticking with 6v6, they ensure competitive play gets some limelight; Add the features it needs to work, support it, make sure there’s admin/spectate capabilities, ensure there’s a match mode where every map is played twice (once each way), don’t have one-time fixed player names so people end up with clan tags in their name…

    The list of minor tweaks that a competitive title need are actually quite short, and so often overlooked. A game balanced around 6v6 is perfect for this, and Titanfall otherwise has sounded like the potential to be a really fun arena shooter.

    They could always permit higher player counts (some clown will always mod everything to enable it anyway) and just ensure it’s clear everywhere the game is ‘intended’ for 6v6 – I.E The TF2 model.

    • Moraven says:

      Higher player count in a team deathmatch = more kills, more chance at killstreak, more exp for unlocks, more challenges done.

      I know in Killzone on PS4 due to the map size, sometimes 12v12 is almost to much, with action at every area. Or its a hail or bullets and grenades and you die instantly most of the match. I do like it for the most part playing Warzone for all but the smallest 2 maps. Also with 12 players a sniper has more targets to shoot at. 9v9 might work better.

      I hated the TF2 servers or other FPS that had enabled larger player count. It just does not work. Natural Selection 2 is a good example of this also.

      Now Battlefield with the large maps, objective based gameplay and vehicles shines when it is 16/32 sized teams.

    • Hunchback says:

      That’s basically what i said, 4 posts earlier :P

    • derbefrier says:

      it could also be becasue people just find it more fun with more players, which depending on the game could be the case. some people like the chaos and are not concerned with killstreaks, stats or whatever else you dream up. some people just play for fun and for some people more players equals more fun.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      I think you’re on to something here.

      EDIT: As well as more people=more kills, more people = I can piss off, ignore the objective to do my own lone-wolf thing, make absolutely no contribution to the team yet still end up on the winning side.

    • reyn78 says:

      How exactly having bots & AI controlled mechs fits into “competetive multiplayer” argument? I mean we used bots in CS1.6 and DoD only because at a lan party there were 4 of us and well we kinda felt a need to shoot something for a change?
      Now that internet is a god given right, why would you argue for replacing human players with AI-controlled ones and argue this is to cater to the “pro” players as opposed to those masses of noobs playing 64 man domination on Operation Locker?

  23. Vagrant says:

    6v6! This shows the game will be bad! All games with lower playercount multi such as Halo & Splinter Cell have been regarded as the worst multiplayer games ever!

    • fluffy_thedestroyer says:

      6v6 is not a problem if you put in some type of competition but it matters when its open to the full public where millions of people will try to get in a match..tahts the problem here imho

  24. prian says:

    This sounds like a marketing decision to release a more players DLC down the road.

    • Billzkrieg says:

      God, I do so love that old fashioned gamer pessimism. Everything is done to screw the player and extort more money from them. Nothing is ever done to make a better game right?

      • Shooop says:

        It’s becoming less and less unwarranted pessimism and more and more the way things actually are as times go by.

        Don’t forget how much the publisher of this game loves making you pay sticker price for the base game which isn’t finished and charging you for the rest of it later.

      • reyn78 says:

        Because statistics are on the side of the argument that DLC puts in features into a game that should have been there from Day 1. It’s not pessimism, it’s experience.

  25. fdisk says:

    I’m OK with this; my biggest peeve with games like Battlefield is that generally when you have 64×64 people there is absolutely no need to play in a group or tactically; the whole thing becomes a clusterfuck and it’s more about luck than about tactics.

    6v6 makes the battle a lot more controlled and it’s easier to be aware of what’s going on.

    Also, I played this game at PAX and it was the only AAA title I was impressed and had fun with. It kind of IS CoD with Mechs but I’m sick of CoD, BF, etc. and I still had a really fun time playing this.

    • P.Funk says:

      Well to be fair to Battlefield thats because they design the maps to be clusterfucks. I mean for god’s sake you take the most popular map in Battlefield 2 and its basically about fragging around corners in a dense urban clusterfuck.

      Now, compare Project Reality’s interpretation of that same game engine and you get something altogether different. If you DONT play in groups you basically die.

      Map design is huge. Its more important than most things. Map design is central to how a game plays. Most of the features of a game mode are built into how the map plays, not just from some points measuring system. You take the flags on any capture based game and the difference comes from the map that hosts those flags.

      So why is Project Reality a game better suited to 64 or even 100 players (yea thats right) than Battlefield 2? Because the maps were designed to accommodate them.

    • Derpa says:

      So why then can 5 man squad of friends carry a team in BF4 with their tactics?

  26. Tei says:

    I love to play Battlefield with 64 players. After a while you find order in the clusterfuck. But thats really big maps, with air, ships, tanks and infantry. This game is urban guerrilla, and a hybrid singleplayer/multiplayer.

    The correct question is not if games can be good with less players (thats right, games can be fun with a low number of players), the question is if they are lyiing, if they are making 6vs6 the cap because some machines like the Xbox 360 can’t handle more.

  27. Premium User Badge

    Petethegoat says:

    Sounds good to me.

  28. Cronstintein says:

    Player count doesn’t really matter as long as it fits the map well.
    I think the reason they’re playing with so few players is so the ratio of mechs:human on the field stays low. By flooding it with AI it gives you plenty of fodder to shoot with your mech.

    I’m not entirely convinced on the direction, personally. I play online shooters because I *want* to shoot, and be shot by, actual people. Bots are inherently uninteresting to fight most of the time (CoD and BF campaigns, for instance).

    This game is moving into the “wait and see” category for me. The movement system looks really fun but so did Brink…

  29. Premium User Badge

    Makariel says:

    There’s only one reason why I would want a higher player count: I am awful at multiplayer and need more people on more side to counter my inability to run & gun, snipe or do just basic shooty-bang-bangs. I personally don’t like the big, anonymous battles in fields that some seem to enjoy greatly. Less combatants where my ability or inability makes a difference is something I find much more interesting.

    • aldo_14 says:

      I am utterly awful at MP and, to be honest, I don’t find player numbers make much difference. More players means more targets, true, but it also means you’re more likely to get killed by someone you didn’t even see.

      • Premium User Badge

        Malibu Stacey says:

        So very much this. I used to play on a TF2 community server which was 32 players. It basically screams “pick sniper” because you’ve got a target rich environment.

        So many dead medics with charged (but undeployed) ubercharges sniped from across the map. The rage was glorious.

  30. Stardog says:

    People tend to play MP to be part of a large group, not a small one. And there’s no fun in killing an AI.

    Natural Selection 2 was made for 6v6, but most of the servers are 9v9 or 10v10, some even 12v12, even though it breaks the game.

  31. Tokyo Joe and the Bombardiers says:

    Still looks like Call of Duty with robots to me.

  32. Heliocentric says:

    Blacklist (and before that Chaos Theory) play best with 2 vs 2. 6 vs 6 suited Natural Selection perfectly. Hidden Source is majestic at 8 vs 1.

    Nothing to see here.

    • Derpa says:

      So titanfall is not shooting to make it big then? Props to them then.

  33. Heliocentric says:

    Oh, and SWAT 4? 4 players vs bots worked great more than 8 players would usually result in hillarious failure.

  34. Shooop says:

    Is this a balance issue or technical issue? It’s very possible they just couldn’t make big enough maps to fit more players and the mechs.

    The suits behind this already have an abysmal track record so the pointed cynicism is not at all inappropriate. Demanding $60 for a game that they plan to finish later and charge you more to do it is a strategy that’s worked very well for them so far.

  35. Sir_Brizz says:

    The game looks interesting and possibly fun, but it’s Origin exclusive which means I will buy it when it is around $5. Or maybe I won’t because the game will probably be dead by that point.

  36. reyn78 says:

    Soooo It’s ok to have 6vs6 with an undisclosed number of “revolutionary (not)bots” and AI controlled mechs, but is not OK to have 12 vs 12 humans? Riiiiight.

    • Kaeoschassis says:

      I seem to be saying this a lot tonight but if you’re making a point, I’m not getting it.

    • Lusketrollet says:

      Soooo It’s ok to have 6vs6 with an undisclosed number of “revolutionary (not)bots” and AI controlled mechs, but is not OK to have 12 vs 12 humans? Riiiiight.

      ^ This, for fuck’s sake.

  37. Hailencte says:

    My co-worker’s sister-in-law makes $85/hr on the laptop. She has been without a job for 10 months but last month her payment was $12628 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check here >>>>>>>>>> http://WWW.BAY93.COM

  38. Hailencte says:

    Google is paying 75$ per hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family. On Sunday I bought themselves a Alfa Romeo from having made $5637 this month. Useful site…. http://WWW.BAY93.COM

  39. Lusketrollet says:

    You can’t really make the “it can be better with microscopic 6v6 matches with the game specifically designed around it and blah-blah-blah” -nonsense-argument when the very same post points out that there will be several AI-controlled grunts in the matches, as well.

  40. tatpurusha says:

    The reason the smaller Reese’s taste better is because the peanut butter:chocolate ratio is lower. You’re welcome.

    • MukkyPuppy says:

      The minis taste even better straight out of the fridge. Crisp chocolate shell with firm “peanut butter” is the best way to eat a Reese’s.

    • tasteful says:

      came here to post exactly this except all lower case and “tasteful out” instead of “You’re welcome.”

  41. Jertornas says:

    The obvious answer to all this, add mechs to planetside 2

  42. Carlos Danger says:

    On the plus side, maybe the 12 man cap will keep folks from trying to refer to it as an MMO as they do in other FPS. Sounds like they made the maps too small which should work out great since they decided to add giant robots in the mix. But I am sure the parkour style bunny-hooping will elevate the game play. Just need to throw the term “competitive” out every so often so folks know you are super-elite.

  43. Serenegoose says:

    This has made me more interested in the game than any other news so far. And I mean, I saw a trailer where spaceships did the cool jumping in at close range thing. Thoom!

    But seriously, I stopped playing TF2 when I started spending upwards of 5 mins trying to find a map that wasn’t 32 player badwater with no respawn timer. It’s not that I object to those games existing (though I hate playing them, and thus don’t) it’s that they have a way of drowning out all the other game modes entirely. If you want masses of players, play literally any other multiplayer FPS in existence. I’m glad this is 6v6.

  44. stupid_mcgee says:

    This is the most retarded non-story I think I’ve ever read.

    The fact that this is even an issue does a fantastic job of highlighting just how astoundingly stupid and pathetically childish the gaming community, as a whole, is.

  45. hamburger_cheesedoodle says:

    I’m actually pretty pleased to hear this. There’s a place for huge 32v32 slugfests, but the games I have the most fun in are always less than 16 players. I have a bit of a competitive shooter background where matchups tend to be 5v5 or 6v6 though, so I might be biased.

  46. PopeRatzo says:

    I know it’s not cool and low-res with bad hipster music, but this looks fun. I’m am glad that it does not inspire introspection and weepiness in the player.

    And I like that it has guns and jet packs. Wheee!

    Check that. Guns and jet packs do make me kind of introspective and weepy, but I’m not going to hold it against Titanfall because at least thank god it doesn’t have retro-ish 8-bit graphics and bad hipster music and it’s not a side-scrolling platformer and hopefully there won’t be a lot of nostalgia for the best game I ever played in 1989.

    I’m hoping 2014 is the year it’s OK to be new.

  47. Spacewalk says:

    6v6 is sure to make it easier to keep track of everyone whilst spectating.

  48. SkittleDiddler says:

    Limiting the game to 12 players makes sense when Respawn choose to be a little more open about the real reason they’re doing it: to make it a level playing ground for everyone participating. http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/9/5292474/titanfall-maps-can-be-packed-with-nearly-50-combatants-including-ai.

    I’m not sure how I feel about this. They want to make a competitive shooter, yet they seem overly concerned for those players who may not have the skill or the reflexes to manage a match against more experienced gamers, therefore they throw in an overwhelming amount of AI opponents for the noobs to shoot at? Up to 50 combatants on the battlefield, with only twelve of those being human? Why not just throw us the option to fill some of those AI slots with real players instead?

    In essence, Respawn are hadicapping the game specifically to attract those from the casual console crowd. Ugh.

  49. MultiVaC says:

    Small player count sounds fine, it’s sometimes good to have more focused gameplay in something like this. The thing I’m skeptical of is the way they justify it by saying that they have a bunch of NPCs and AI controlled mechs to make up for it. 6 vs. 6 on a small map designed for that number is great, but 12 vs. 12 where half of those are glorified bots doesn’t sound very appealing at all. Hopefully whatever they are doing with the AI is as interesting as they claim, otherwise they would be better off just allowing more players if they wanted to have a ton of stuff going on in the map. Who doesn’t immediate quit a TF2 match when they realize they are on one of those shitty servers that try to pass bots off as actual players? I guess it’s all going to depend on how exactly they implement all of these NPCs.

  50. Inertiaman says:

    People would be less annoyed if Respawn hadn’t spent the last six months showing everyone gameplay footage with 20 people going at it. There’s no excusing poor setting of expectations. Quite cynically, I think they overegged willingly.