Haha what? No.

All I meant was if a game doesn't interest me I don't play it. I don't feel the need to make fun of it or foretell of it's doom.

Anyhow where getting really off-topic here so back to Titanfall...

Maybe that's how you act but my optimistic view of humanity leads me to hope most people would reserve such critical judgement until it's launched or we at least have more information/reviews.

I understand everything is judged but I don't think it makes any sense to doom a game when no one's even played it, just my two cents.

People can argue till your blue in the face and tell people how bad the game will suck but hardly anyone's even played the game yet. I don't see why some people are so against a game they barely know any about.

I don't know if the game will be good or bad but I don't think the player count will have much to do with that. I've never played a bad game and thought, "If only they had more players." I think this games success will rely mostly on how they implement all the AI and the mission structure with the MP.

Titanfall isn't just an arena shooter, its attempting to blend SP and MP together and will have a ton more "moving parts" then traditional shooters, I can see why they'd be stricter on balancing it.

I don't think the player number is due to tech limits, it's just how the devs feel they want their game to be played.

I've enjoyed the Halo series. I think the multiplayer (mainly in the 2nd and 3rd) is pretty good and offers a lot of variation. That being said one of the main reasons I play it is when friends are over since you can play splitscreen online, but I'd still definitely play buy it on PC.

Wow, I like how you make so many assumptions and then make assumptions based off your assumptions to arrive at your conclusion. Isn't it a bit early to judge so critically?

Anyway I think you misunderstood the part of the article you referred too. They didn't lower the player count just because people were getting shot in the back, it was more due to the overall chaos that ensued when there where a large amount of very mobile players in one game.

The devs said that every player can have a titan spawned and that titans will be on AI mode if not piloted. Basically there can be 12 people running around and 12 robots along with all the other AI on the map.

It seems like there is a lot of room for variety but I think it will mostly depend on the missions and maps.

Haha I'm pretty sure if he's interested in Rust and DayZ he's not looking for a PvE server. A no sleeper server would help but your entire base and everything you can't fit in your inventory still needs defending when your offline.

Also who said it was a detraction? I love Rust and it's features that encourage teamwork. I'm simple letting the OP know so he can make a decision that's good for him.

They are both far from finished so you really can't judge them based on that.

I'd say it more depends on what your looking for. Rust is a simpler game with more emphasis on building and crafting. DayZ is more of a simulator with emphasis on exploration.

Currently Rust is tough to play casually and solo since you never really log out of the game so your base and all your items can be stolen. Playing solo in DayZ, while not easy, its still much more manageable since you can actually log off and not have to worry about logging back in with nothing.

You really can't go wrong with either one luckily.

That's an interesting point to bring up.

I often feel like many more casual players end up liking large multiplayer games due to there being less pressure on individual performance. I know when I want to play a relaxing game of MP I go for BF4 because there are so many people I can blend in with the crowd and don't feel as pressured on getting the top score.