Never heard anything about this game being 64 players. It's probably 6 x 6 because you have a mech and a soldier you can play at the same time. So it's more 12 x 12 if every soldier brings a mech to the battle as well. Game should still be a blast. XB1 already runs 64 player online games, so that's not really an issue.
Same as CoD4... Will probably be higher on PC anyway.... My question is why include bots instead of players... Whatevers I won't doubt them they created CoD4
@nutcrackr: because thd cloud will turn those ai into intelligent players smarter than humans controlling. They will hit you in the eyeball and crush your testicles.
If you look through my post history, it might appear that someone said it was 64 player MP... then I came in and corrected them. And I get called a liar.
You can say whatever you want about me, but I can guarantee you i'll never get anything wrong about this particular game... for obvious reasons.
Titanfall will blow up in lems face like everything else associated with Xbox the last year or so. Even if turns out to be great most of the sales will be on the 360 and PC will have the best version so it's a no win situation.
Nice! Tight knitted team of 6 vs 6 with massive mechs and all sort of AI, it's going to be fun! I remember they boasted about MAG having lots of players but that game flopped hard and I think the devs gave up gaming and I think their servers are done now.
Nice! Tight knitted team of 6 vs 6 with massive mechs and all sort of AI, it's going to be fun! I remember they boasted about MAG having lots of players but that game flopped hard and I think the devs gave up gaming and I think their servers are done now.
That is the best comparison you could make? Mag and Titanfall have one thing in common. Both are games I have no interest in playing.
Each team will have an ai who follows you around and talking dirty to you and giving you orders to retreat to another location. They will be the person standing in the front row as a shield in their thong and bra.
Anonymous Titanfall dev says the game is 2crazy for him if it's above 6x6, so much so he nearly had a heart attack. Zampella says it's for AI balance. Who do you believe?
Same as CoD4... Will probably be higher on PC anyway.... My question is why include bots instead of players... Whatevers I won't doubt them they created CoD4
The reason there's ai is cuz it works like a moba. You kill AI to get your mech and im rdy to bet money it won't have higher amount of players on pc unless server is hacked. MS would never let this happen, this is supposed to be their system seller AND they're saying X1 is POWERFUL lol wouldn't make sense if pc supports 32players and x1 only 12. What a next gen for Xbone, its getting kinda sad.
8vs8 or 9vs9 would be a sweet number with enough teamwork. 6vs6 feels like you will have to try even harder to kill mechs. The map sizes will have to be tiny too.
Nice! Tight knitted team of 6 vs 6 with massive mechs and all sort of AI, it's going to be fun! I remember they boasted about MAG having lots of players but that game flopped hard and I think the devs gave up gaming and I think their servers are done now.
Guessing you never played MAG. It was actually a great game, some of the most fun I've had on a console. Zipper supported it well with frequent updates and patches which improved it further. I haven't checked if the servers are still up but I played it a while ago and it was fine.
I'm not sure I understand what's going on with this. There is another thread where someone is crying about bots being in the game. So is it 6x6 and bots fill in when a team isn't full or is it 6x6 and then each team gets x amount of bots to supplement them? The latter doesn't add up because bots use additional CPU and require additional programming time (IE money) to use. Not to mention they can ruin a game if they aren't very good and just get in the way. In other words it's much less overhead to raise the player count then it is to include bots.
I'm not sure I understand what's going on with this. There is another thread where someone is crying about bots being in the game. So is it 6x6 and bots fill in when a team isn't full or is it 6x6 and then each team gets x amount of bots to supplement them? The latter doesn't add up because bots use additional CPU and require additional programming time (IE money) to use. Not to mention they can ruin a game if they aren't very good and just get in the way. In other words it's much less overhead to raise the player count then it is to include bots.
I think I saw it described like a MOBA, so the bots aren't filling in as one of the 6 players, but rather in addition
Titanfall will blow up in lems face like everything else associated with Xbox the last year or so. Even if turns out to be great most of the sales will be on the 360 and PC will have the best version so it's a no win situation.
Considering the install base,that's not really surprising
I like how the "geniuses" on the forum are talking about what is the appropriate player count for a game no one outside of beta testers have played. Yall are dumb asses.
@SEANMCAD: you are completely missing the point. This has nothing to do with graphics, power, or any of that stuff. This has to do with game design. Period. Nothing more nothing else. For all we know more than 12 players would be a complete cluster ****. You don't know cause you have never played this game so how can you say what is the right player count?
Nice! Tight knitted team of 6 vs 6 with massive mechs and all sort of AI, it's going to be fun! I remember they boasted about MAG having lots of players but that game flopped hard and I think the devs gave up gaming and I think their servers are done now.
That is the best comparison you could make? Mag and Titanfall have one thing in common. Both are games I have no interest in playing.
Mag is a perfect example. Mag was touted as having 256 player(something like that) pvp and cows hyped that part about the game up. Claiming it was going to be great because it had so many players at once. Now they're saying Titanfall will fail because it doesn't have 32v32 or more when the game was clearly designed with small numbers in mind. The game isn't supposed to be Battlefield and it's definitely not that POS Mag.
Whilst I guess it would be nice to have the option of big team battles it's hardly going to be down to hardware limitations. Maybe the maps are smaller for faster, more frantic play? I don't know I'm not even that interested in it but it will definitely be a design choice as opposed to a technical limitation and it shouldn't really be a deterrent from buying the game unless you only enjoy huge battles with vehicles on vast maps in which case you have BF4.
You cows sure are jelly of the Xbox One and it's games. You folks talk about Xb1 games 10:1 over PS4 games...
Anyway,
The devs stated (to paraphrase) "We tested the game with a variety of players, and determined 6 v 6 was the most fun." They didn't say anything about hardware limitations. BF and CoD are both higher, so saying "its a hardware limitation" is a pretty weak argument.
The phase of being impressed with how many players are in one match are over. Give me REFINED game play over some impressive number any day. Less chaotic, more fun, yeah sounds good.
Bu-bu-bu titanfall was going to be 64 players on x1!! Only x360 was 6v6 haha I told u lems there will be no difference between x360 and x1 version
More distrubingly why is ai in multiplayer? I dont understand
Was 64 players ever rumoured? I'm not saying it wasn't I just haven't really followed this game too much!
yep it was only by a few hardcore lems who referred to rumours in forums as proof. they wanted to believe the x1 version will be so much different to x360
Log in to comment