yeah fuckin watch out is all i'm saying you brits lol.
A year down the road from the original release and Titanfall will likely be competing with some pretty big hitters. In short, though I'd like to play it at the moment; I'm not convinced I'll feel that way in 2015 - Destiny and Division are 2 that I'll be much more hyped for.
The game on its own I find interesting. I might get it on PC if I'm not bothered by the fact that it's on origin.
Thus far it just looks like an Acrobatic CoD with mechs and I had my fill of CoD a long time ago. Assuming it'll have a beta/demo/free weekend on steam I'll of course check it out on PC but I don't give it much hope for being anything more.
and as far as game being designed for certain amounts of players...if you design it well, the more the player count, the better. that is where the future is. you're thinking inside the box, not outside. yes, you can have a game like DayZ that has a lower player count and has smaller maps, yeah, you wouldn't want massive players there, you'd call that game L4D. I'm trying to make a point here. I know L4D is nothing like DayZ but one of the attractive features of the game are that it is massive. L4D3 would not likely bring in as many people as DayZ is right now because while they both may be created for their respective player count, DayZ is likely going to still be more popular because that game is just made for more interaction and more random events.
the trend is towards massive games. so while it's fine that a game like this has 6v6, i'm not saying they should go ahead and make it 32v32...because i'm sure the maps aren't that big...the point is that maybe if they had, from the core design, built a game that was designed for 32v32...at least...you'd probably see a lot more excitement towards it. i can't fathom why people so far have so much hype for a game that is 6v6...i don't get it. it's not a tactical shooter...it's not one of those games where you are tightly knitted. this is COD with acrobats and mechs! it's not going to have strategy or depth! not nearly as much as BF games.
so yes, I don't think 6v6 was a good idea. imagine being on a vast battlefield with tons of mechs and war machines, and then you had the ability to be a badass soldier who can run around the battlefield by doing all of these acrobats and taking out these big mechs with skill...it would be a totally different game and probably would have more potential. you have to think outside the box.
you're telling me that bloodgulch wouldn't be fucking fun as hell with at least 32 players? hell naw man. Halo was amazing for its time and it did well with 4v4 because we were still at a very early stages for multiplayer consoles. also, i really meant to say that the game with massive maps and massive battles was what i wanted out of the sequels. it never happened. that's what Planet Side 2 is to me. a massive Halo game. i have wanted a good massive shooter since PS3 was launched. not necessarily a sci-fi but it will do for now.Quote:
But Halo was never designed to be an MMO. It was designed to be a competitive team shooter, which it excels at.
that's because they didn't have the technology or means to charge people for the higher count. nor did they have the processing power to do so. you'd need dedicated servers for higher player count. tell me one game that does 64+ players without dedicated servers. no one wants to make a game for consoles that can't run without dedicated servers (until now anyway) because they would have to charge you for it. it's expensive and the game would be difficult to make with a higher count.Quote:
If people want more out of multiplayer games then why are competitive games always having such a low player count? Not a FPS but LoL and to a lesser extent DoTA2 two of THE most competitive games out right now... why are they only 5v5? Tell me of a single competitive game that has above 20 players? Go on... I'll wait.
i wouldn't either lol but i never said that.Quote:
I'll take a game designed around 6v6 than a game shoehorning in tens of multiples of players 'just because'.
i'm not disagreeing with you, i'm trying to show you my point of view. we're not really talking about the same things here. i actually agree with what you are saying. when i think of 6v6, i think...ok, unless it's a tactical shooter, you really should have at least 12v12...for next-gen...even in a twitchy game like titanfall/COD. even COD made their count 9v9 from 6v6. even COD on previous gen had a 9v9 mode.Quote:
You can disagree all you like, that is the beauty of opinions.
unless it's a corridor shooter, i think they just cheaped out on this. they probably wanted to keep the costs low. that's all i can think of. the maps look big enough to me. but yeah, i'm not saying they should just increase the count to 64 players...but i would have loved the game if they had designed around more players...because yes, i would say that would be a lot more fun.
because then you would have the ability to have transporters, different classes, ranks amongst soldiers...a commander...so much potential there. i just don't care for that little of a count. not unless it's Rainbow Six. but like i was saying, if they designed it well, they could easily make a 24 player tactical shooter and likely above. you just have to design it well. yes, it is "more" difficult to make a game that is massive like that but that's why we progress in the industry. we push the boundaries. it's those games that should win the awards. not the ones that are doing the tried and true and throwing a little new mix in there. that's nothing amazing.
i wouldn't say "competitive" games...i'd say more like tactical games. competitive games are more challenging as the player count rises and the game design with it.Quote:
Games that are desgined to be massive might be the future. I think it's very naive to think all games need to go massive though. As i've said multiple times. Competitive games thrive of small teams. Not big ones. There's a time and place for big games and yes I love them, but they aren't the be all and end all to me. Why have I only put several hours into PS2 yet that game is colossal? It's got thousands of players, surely that should be the best game ever... no?
i think what it really boils down to is that you like games that are more tightly knitted. i can understand that. yes, not all massive games are great. you can sometimes lose the point of the game. i agree with that. but that's just because the game is badly designed. I did try to demo PS2 on my laptop, granted it ran shitty but i actually wasn't that impressed. i didn't like how it didn't feel like an MMO but more like a massive shooter game. i wanted it to have more personality...have towns and maybe a storyline. so far i don't see it. but i'd rather take that than a 6v6 so we may just have a different preference but i'm sick and tired of small ass games.
maybe DayZ isn't designed for many players...what i'm saying is that it has to be designed well for a higher player count.Quote:
FYI when I play DayZ I tend to stick to servers with only 52 players rather than go on the ones with 100+ players. So no, your logic really doesn't work well with DayZ. So DayZ is actually very far from what I consider massive. Would GTA V be better with more people? Probably because it has such a big map. But that doesn't work for all games.
what my point in all of this is, would you like DayZ if the game was redesigned to be much smaller than it is and then reduce the player count to 4? ok sure, you may...do you think others would still care about the game? i would think not. the reason it's popular is because it's a massive game. it may be the hottest game out on PC right now, as far as trending goes. the trend is towards bigger games with more players. smaller games will still have a niche but i don't think they will appeal to the broader`12qwedfvb
does it really? i don't remember ever playing 5v5 on CS... but again, CS is a tactical shooter, that's a whole different ball game, i never disagreed there.Quote:
Oh... JC2 is an amazing experience with thousands of players. Shit it's good fun just playing it multiplayer. But there is a time and a place for it. I don't want every game I play to be a clusterfuck of players. If I want to play with thousands of players I'll just load up Guild Wars 2 or SWTOR.
I disagree that anything less than 24 is too low for a shooter. It's all about how a game is designed.
As I keep brining it up - There are reasons why competitive shooters have low player counts. CS:S supports up 32 players per server yet 5v5 is still the go to mode. Why is that?
BF4 is designed for PC/PS4 and they scaled it down to fit the older gen consoles. Just like scaling COD or counter strike up to 64 player fucks it up.
The games are designed with a player number in mind and deviations from that more or less will result in a lacklustre gameplay.
Imagine trying to organise a clan war 32v32.All your 32 man team needs to be online and same for the other team, its logistical nightmare.
oh yea i know. i also think they should have at least done 32 players...it just doesn't feel right with 24. BF3 somewhat felt fine. my point earlier was that even if the game is designed to be a 6v6, which i don't get why it is (considering the sort of game it is), it would've still been cooler if they had designed the game from the ground for a much higher player count...like 32 players or more.
I don't care if it comes to PS4 for myself, but if it did,it would mean more people buying PS4, which means more games overall, so it's a win for me. I HATE sports games, but if EA sports decided to go Xbone only, it would suck because it would have a cascade effect that would hurt my gaming experience in the long run.
however, the multiplayer market is saturated right now so we're going to see more focus on SP and maybe even co-op. also since PS4 is cheaper to develop for and now we have indies...we're likely going to see a lot more of it. not to mention, the amount of power inside the PS4 is perfect for massive online games so that's more than plenty for SP games. which will be beneficial.
Big companies go all out with MP, when you are saying this Sufi. I don't agree with you. I am not saying all big franchises will come with MP , but they will definitely at least be more "social" even if they have not MP.
all i'm saying is this, MP is not for everyone and i'm sure companies realize that. also MP means more money spent in the long run. they will probably try and push games that are either just massive (so they don't need to come out with one every couple of years - elder's scroll online anyone?) or they might just focus on SP and deliver in the sense that you will have more to enjoy because the time/resources of the developer AND the console's own resources are not being wasted for the MP portion.
console's resources meaning...i'm sure if you're going to make the MP portion in a game, you would probably need to design the engine so that it works well in both SP and MP, so you're likely going to can some things that were otherwise only possible in SP...BECAUSE developers like to keep things consistent or people will go like, "well, i can do this in SP, why not MP?!"
so we're going to see some amazing shit with SP this generation because the tech is there now, the resources are there to make the difference. games like bioshock/mass effect might scrap online altogether next-gen. same goes for games like dead space. they know MP isn't where it's at always.
but yes, we will see more socializing features if they are possible and make sense. i just think tacked on MP will go away.
Titanfall looks like they did a good job with the game but it has a cool premise but making it MP only just kills the interest for me. That could have a potentially very good story. I'm just not sure why they went the MP only route. Laziness? Know how people perceive shooters? Idk but I'm not one of those people that boots up a shooter and jump straight into MP. Guess I'm just weird.
MP because really no one plays SP in COD games, so again their idea is to make it as cheap as possible. 6v6 imo is another cost-cutting idea. less bandwidth being used.
basically it's a dollar menu COD game but it does bring some things COD does not so it's an idea that might just work.
I don't have a problem with it, i get what they're trying to do. honestly, i would rather see MP games be completely MP (but add training mode or something where you can test out weapons...when you're tired of MP part of it) because that would mean more things added to MP.
i would also rather see SP games be completely SP but maybe co-op if they want to. we're just going to see more focused games this generation. there was a pressure on practically all SP games to include MP and people usually would get disappointed.
now that we have plenty of MP games, there's no need for MP unless it was really well made. there's less market space for more. forgot the actual term lol but it's there. we're actually going to see the tacked on MPs shrink and more focus on SP...the same with tacked on SPs that will go away or i hope they do.
bigger companies will have the money to keep these things, they know people will buy the games for their tacked on SP or MP but the overall trend will be towards shrinking it and put more of that into the actual games so that people can enjoy a more focused and better product. it's going to happen. i don't know yet if it will dominate but it will become more popular. i hope it does dominate though.
we all know he's paid lol.
do not want.