Titanfall (XB1/360)

Looks like a mixture of cod, brink and mech warrior. If it's half as cool as that sounds, it'll be a good game. Quite interested after seeing some of the gameplay videos so looking forward to next year as it has some great titles lined up for us.
 
Well if everyone can get a mech then any more than that and it might get a bit crowded. Tbh I've always preferred smaller team games anyway, 4v4 usually.
 
There's a lot of *****ing and whinging over this only being 6v6 online in the PC section but I think it could potentially still be great.

Some of the best multiplayer experiences I've had have been smaller scale games such as L4D & the original Gears of War. I've been playing a lot of BF4 and it isn't better for its larger scale, there's no teamwork whatsoever & very little communication.

More isn't always better, I'll still be picking this up on PC.
 
I think 12 mechs going at each other is going to be more than enough!

Numbers thing makes no sense, I have learned from BF4 the numbers thing is wasted, at any one time you are only really dealing with a few enemies at a time, so in reality of gaming, it makes little to no difference.
 
12 human players. But on the map you can have 12 mechs (being controlled by AI) 12 human players on foot and then a bunch of (unknown number) other AI in each team. There is going to be plenty to shoot at and it's going to feel a lot more frantic than CoD - but at the same time feeling more enclosed and focused than Battlefield.

From what I understand 6v6 isn't a number plucked from their arses, or technical limitations, it's been play tested against bigger (and smaller) numbers and 6v6 works best for their game mechanics.

This doesn't put me off one bit.
 
MadFruit said:
12 human players. But on the map you can have 12 mechs (being controlled by AI) 12 human players on foot and then a bunch of (unknown number) other AI in each team. There is going to be plenty to shoot at and it's going to feel a lot more frantic than CoD - but at the same time feeling more enclosed and focused than Battlefield.

From what I understand 6v6 isn't a number plucked from their arses, or technical limitations, it's been play tested against bigger (and smaller) numbers and 6v6 works best for their game mechanics.

This doesn't put me off one bit.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this. I think 6v6 should work fine, and considering that in most FPS games I'm better than the AI, but worse than most human players, it should mean I die a bit less than normal too :D
 
jimferno said:
There's a lot of *****ing and whinging over this only being 6v6 online in the PC section but I think it could potentially still be great.

Some of the best multiplayer experiences I've had have been smaller scale games such as L4D & the original Gears of War. I've been playing a lot of BF4 and it isn't better for its larger scale, there's no teamwork whatsoever & very little communication.

More isn't always better, I'll still be picking this up on PC.
Click to expand...

I was going to post something similar. Gears of War 1 was the best multiplayer I every played. Because the teams were 4v4 I could actually get to know my teammates and most people used voice, so I made lots of friends on there. In the Battlefield games everyone just runs about like mad with no teamwork.
 
Ingenious TROLL said:
I'll have exactly 6 mates who will have this game, which will make a perfect team size to take on some pugs :)
Click to expand...

6+1=7 :D

Smaller team sizes wouldn't bother me either, having AI units as well would. They are always exploited in these types of games. If they have somehow managed to stop that happening I would be surprised. It would be frustrating losing to a bot getting killed too often.

Equally it's frustrating getting killed by the super human sniper bot in Gears.

I doubt they can get that balance right.
 
Initially I was a bit surprised by this but after thinking about it and watching some more Titanfall footage last night I'm not bothered by this, less is more in some situations and I believe this is one of them. Map sizes don't seem to be huge and you move around very quickly, couple that with the fact there will be an AI presence as well I don't see there being any shortage of action in this game.
 
dannyjo22 said:
6+1=7 :D

Smaller team sizes wouldn't bother me either, having AI units as well would. They are always exploited in these types of games. If they have somehow managed to stop that happening I would be surprised. It would be frustrating losing to a bot getting killed too often.

Equally it's frustrating getting killed by the super human sniper bot in Gears.

I doubt they can get that balance right.
Click to expand...

Haha, bugger, I meant 6 including me, I'm my own mate you see, yarrgghhh!!

In any case, a 7th would be a substitute :)
 
I'm not even hyped about Titanfall at all but can't really see why 6v6 is such an issue? As long as the maps are designed appropriately for that amount of players there shouldn't be an issue.
 
6 vs 6 sounds good to me, you have a chance to make a difference and work together with some semblance of tactics rather than "run & gun" follow the zerg/spam death & respawn
 
So, I heard it was 6v6 and was a bit dissapointed. But this evening I read this:

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

Which makes it sound a lot better to me. At least they seem to have tested it. Now, with reference to BF4, I do find that the 64 players is VERY intense. I get that some will like this, but for me (an average Joe, that's not that good, it can be frustrating!)

Sounds alright to me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom