This week on Sessler's ...Something, Adam tackles the Titanfall multiplayer match size, and discusses why bigger isn't always better. Plus: why you shouldn't be okay with working for free.
I agree with Sessler with this one. BIgger isn't always better and I prefer the more private 6v6 instead of 32v32 or something like that where you can't even walk 3 feet before getting shot. TLOU, Gears 3 come to mind as great multiplayer games that don't involve a large amount of players and were still very engaging and insane battles.
I agree. Even when it comes to Halo, it's always nice to jump into a big team 8v8 match on occasion, but Halo will always be perfect when it's 4v4. And after having played titanfall for a few quick hours at my friend's place, 6v6 seems just the right amount for that game as well.
If you had read up on the story this is after the allocated time. Unless they have renewed the offer this is now on no longer sponsored .
I go back to my cs days.. Everyone always played 6v6 for competitive matches.. Maybe 5v5 for cal.. Even if our servers would run 32 players.. I played the same damn game for over 5 years..Lol.. Must have done something right
I agree, but CS was a "simple" competitive player vs player kind of FPS. It was as stripped back as possible. It didn't have an army of AI populating the maps. I'm not saying Titanfall needs more players at all, it's the shooter I'm most interested in and my friends in the alpha love it and that's all that matters.
wouldnt that make walking 3 feet in titanfall and getting shot by bots
The grunts are the more prevalent of the A.I. and don't pose a threat to the Titans. The more elite types (I forgot their name) pack cannons and can be more problematic, but they are not seen as much. I got my ass kicked over the weekend by a few of those types, in my Titan as well as on foot. The A.I. gives it a "story mode" feel in my opinion, which is cool while hunting down pilots (real players) and Titans. I'm sold on this game, and after four days of playing I'm already lamenting the loss. Come on beta, march is a long ways away.
6v6 may seem small at first but looking at the game in motion and all that chaos happening on screen, I think it's gonna be fine.
You prefer 6v6 to 32v32 because you "can't even walk 3 feet before getting shot" Well i don't see how 6v6 will help because the game has tons of A.I opponents...
I didn't say I prefer it, I just don't think its a problem the Titanfall has 6v6 because as Sessler said, bigger isn't always better. The A.I isn't as smart as a actual player so my guess it'll be fine.
Sessler Something: I Heard Something Negative About Xbox One, And Now I'm Here to Set The Record Straight #44. Seriously, since E3, he's been on a freakin' crusade.
So have you. He just gets more attention.
But I don't get paid for my opinion, so... http://arstechnica.com/gami...
So who hasmore credability, the person who is paid for his gaming opinion or the person who has an agenda other than making money? The developer that is creating the game says they went with 6v6 to make their game more fun and balanced. Sessler has been around for quite some time and has been pretty well respected agrees with the people making the game. You are telling us you know better than the developer and Sessler. I guess two questions come to mind. What games have you created and do you own an Xbox? What has more value? http://arstechnica.com/gami... or http://www.lazygamer.net/24...
I'm sure he has a video somewhere of why small player counts are terrible for next gen and someone will be posting a video of his hypocrisy sooner or later.
Sessler's Something: Your Negative Opinion on an Xbox One Thing.......... and Why You're Wrong.
Agreed. It was funny this came up because I wanted to make some progress in Dead Rising 3 this weekend, and only played for a couple hours on Sunday and just got frustrated with how big the place was and no quick way of getting around. I was wishing for a smaller mall again.
It's all about the map design. As long as you aren't running around for long periods of time without seeing a human player, and the maps are designed to cater for the amount of players, then 6 vs 6 will be fine. I don't know what the fuss is about really. Too bad I'll be waiting for the sequel to appear on PS4...
The problem with Titanfall isn't the 6v6. It's the fact that they included a lot of bots with the 6v6 instead of upping the player cap or at least making it manageable. The AI looks like it could ruin this game imo.
The AI is there to make you feel awesome and powerful, striding around a corner and blowing away a group of soldiers feels great... but that WOULD NOT happen if they were all players. Plus it Titans were powerful enough to take out that many players... the game would just be imbalanced. Think of the bots more as minions from League of Legends rather than competitors in Forza.
"The AI is there to make you feel awesome and powerful" ... against BOTS. That is the problem people are concerned about. We want to feel awesome and powerful against people, not Bots.
You simply would not be able to give players the power they have if their were as many of them as their are bots now, it simply would NOT work. A few soldiers firing their anti titan weapons at a Titan right now will tear the thing to shreds in a matter of minutes. Can you imagine 18 players having that? O_O I don't care what you say or think you know, or even what you want... that wouldn't work. Period.
Loadedklip, There are different types of A.I., some more powerful than others. And during the domination-like game type, they come in handy to help guard the "flag". Plus, walking up to a group of grunts and pounding them with your Titan's fist is nothing short of awesome. Imagine playing Call of Duty's story mode while having to worry about six other dudes with giant robots (which can roam around and fight without you in it) trying to kill you and your squad. Fireseed, Totally agree with the player count; Can you imagine the post-game escape event with more people trying to stop you? Wouldn't be as fun, it would be far too frustrating.
I think letting the Titans roam around as a BOT makes sense so it can defend itself, but I do not agree with soldier AI running around just to get in the way and pretty much = easy kills.
I think having two tiers is cool... ai-grunts=lower tier. human-soldier=upper tier.
Plus, the A.I. has more tiers than just grunts, three that I recall seeing. Grunts are the lowest level of the A.I. types. And if you leave your Titan, or choose to drop it and not get in, it can also be considered another A.I. type, as it can roam around in guard mode and fight as well.
I definitely agree with this edition of Sessler. Instead of these promises of bigger, bigger, bigger,how about tighter design, progressive AI, a new experience in gameplay, concept art that actually translates 99% to the finish product. But I don't agree with The Killer and Hard Boiled, the Killer was okay but was pretty slow and the ending was crap, Hard Boiled was a master piece and right up there with classics like Die hard.
If you had been reading some of the news lately, you would know that the AI in Titanfall is hardly "progressive". It's an utter mess. You can walk into their spawn and they can barely manage to put a bullet into you.
If you would have read my comment I wasn't specifically talking about Titanfall, I was talking about next gen games in general.
@Riderz1337 And if you had been reading some of the news lately, you would know that one of the purposes for the AI in Titanfall, is to act as cannon fodder for players, providing quick/easy points to put towards earning your titan. The AI is not supposed to be reliable teammates or challenging opponents - they are not acting as bots. The only challenging players in the game, are human. When you say something like, "You can walk into their spawn and they can barely manage to put a bullet into you," that isn't a flaw you're pointing out, it is describing the AI working as intended.
6 disagrees freaking Hard Boiled is one of the greatest HK action movies of all time. There is just to many uneducated people on this site or they are just children who haven't watched anything but Twilight.
It's terrible how so many developers think that by making a game bigger, they're magically improving the game. Making a game bigger can lead to a huge amount of problems, specifically the downtime. This is especially problematic in recent open-world games, where there's so much emptiness, that it makes any time between missions dull and uninteresting. By making a game bigger, developers add holes in the patchwork; it just ruins the pacing. Bigger isn't better. Better is better.
The AI is what is odd, I think the developer wanted more players, otherwise why the AI, other than to fabricate the feeling of more players. It's a kind of contradictory thing IMO. 6 v 6 with a ton of bots because we wanted more players, that's how it comes across, to me at least.
It's funny how you people say bigger isn't better and won't buy a wii u. The truth is bigger is better, this game should have been 16 vs 16 at least. 6 vs 6 is a joke, it is ea way of saying they want to build smaller maps. When I played cod nuketown on PS3, I would die as soon as I responded cuz the map was so small with 16 players. Now Battlefield 4 is 32 vs 32 and I am alive because when you put more you need bigger maps, it makes sense. My point is EA is making small ass maps to keep the gameplay healthy at 6 vs 6 and because the x1 is a weak system. Xbox 720 fits it correctly.
"When I played cod nuketown on PS3, I would die as soon as I responded cuz the map was so small with 16 players. Now Battlefield 4 is 32 vs 32 and I am alive because when you put more you need bigger maps" - So what you're saying is as long as the player count is optimized for the map size, it makes for a better experience, essentially a "Goldilocks design," of too big, too small, just right. The reason your experience on Nuketown sucked, was not because of the player count, but because of the player count mixed with map size. The reason your experience with BF was more favorable, was due to to same reasons - player count coupled with map design. This does not prove that bigger is better, only that bigger may be needed for a more optimal design, as well as smaller, in terms of map size, players, or both. In the case of Titanfall, bigger isn't needed. The game has been tested with the current player count and the map size, and it has been found to work best. It has also received overwhelming praise by those who played it, critics and players alike. -- "My point is EA is making small ass maps to keep the gameplay healthy at 6 vs 6..." - which is exactly the point you described earlier with your COD and BF examples - pointing out a healthy balance between map size and player count. The flaw in your argument, is that you are assuming that 6v6 was always the plan - it wasn't. They tried higher counts, and even lower ones, and found that based around the gameplay, regardless of map size, 6v6 worked best. BF was launched as a warfare game - 2 nations competing against each other in a virtual war or "battlefield" setting. It was designed to support larger scale battles. Titanfall could very well support larger player counts, but to make for an optimal experience, it would need to undergo several design changes, changes that would take away from the experience the devs are trying to create. If bigger is better, MAG should be one of the greatest FPS games ever created...
@horse Thx..you saved me some typing. I was going to say just about everything you said @certified Just so you can be knowledgeable...EA is the publisher. (Ea did not make the game) Respawn created the game as in developed aka devs. PS 16 v 16 would have been a clusterf***
I still don't see why they have not left the option in for players to decide how many human players there are. More humans so less a.i characters. There claim about the sweet spot sounds iffy. Why not let the purchaser decided. After all they claim the game can handle them.
How many games do you play where this option even exists? Most MP games have a set player count, even ones that support bots. The only time player ever really get to set the player count, is when they are playing directly against/with bots - That being said, the AI is not operating as bots in Titanfall, so your request makes little sense. The AI in Tatanfall is entirely independent of the player count. They do not replace human players, or make up any of the 6v6 team. They are not on the scoreboard, they do not get Titans, they are not teammates. They serve a completely different purpose. When the game releases and people actually get to see/play it, hopefully it will be met with a big, "ah, I get it now," concerning how the AI works in the game.
@jackreacher Have you even read anything...from the devs...you know the people who actual designed the game....created it??? They tried numerous player counts. From what they are trying to accomplish..with the titans...the ai..the pilots...They map size. 6v6 was the optimal player count that they...the designers felt we best for the...game...that...They created!
Respawn wants to make a competitive game. 32v32 has 0 shot at being an e-sport. You can't spectate or commentate more than 6v6 pretty much. They're ushering a new era. End of story.
high player count games can still be competitive - you just play them with less people...It really comes down to the gameplay. I used to play RTCW and W:ET competitively on PC - both games support 64 players. From a competitive mindset, the advantage Titanfall has is that 6v6 is the only way to play. Players will not need to adapt to playing the game with more or less people - The default setting is the one that will be used for pub games and competition. The gameplay in titanfall looks to allow for players of all skill levels to have fun, which is one of the prime reasons why COD is so popular.
Big games CAN be competitive. They CANNOT be an E-Sport. It's not spectatable or commentatable.
I'm not really buying the e-sport angle. First, because the game doesn't have to only be 6v6. Games like CounterStike and TeamFortress support larger player counts. The player count is decreased when it's a competitive game, but it isn't hard capped to 12 players. Second, the AI in the game won't work well in a competitive setting... unless if they're simplistic and have a very well-defined and predictable behaviour (such as creeps in Dota)
i don't care about the amount of player i care if its fun. i was playing conquest on bf4 last night and for some reason the servers decided to put me and my buddy in a lobby with only 4 people on each side in operation locker. the game lasted for fucking ever and was by far the most intense match i ever had on bf4 since pretty much one person was responsible for a spot if one or two died the match would flip from one side to the other quick
The biggest problem I see is social media and to many gamers playing games. There is also to many games being made. I would love to see a crash so there could be a reset and most of these so called hardcore selfish gamers would leave the scene.
If Sony had an exclusive come out with 6v6 and sub 1080p, would there be an even bigger backlash against such a game? Titanfall will problably be fun to play,(getting it on my 360), I'm just contemplating a reverse scenario between platforms. I am loving everything about Killzone shadowfall, but If I listened to most reviews, I problably wouldn't of gotten it.
6v6 only works in a competitive atmosphere, which you can not have with bots running around. It's a fairly simple concept. Before someone mentions that Dota and LoL have bots, those are not skill shooters, they are mobas that revolve around having mindless bots running in a straight line.
Bots+competitve play = crap. Simple.
i like a good challenge actually
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.