Titanfall dev responds to criticism about 6v6 player limit

Producer Drew McCoy says it's impossible to make a game that everyone enjoys.

Titanfall developer Respawn Entertainment has responded to criticism regarding the game's 6v6 player limit, saying that ultimately, it's impossible to make a game that everyone enjoys.

One NeoGAF user said the appeal of 64-player multiplayer games is that because there are so many players, you never fully know what could happen in any given match. This user argued that for players who enjoy this kind of thing, why not at least give them the option?

"What about high player counts makes that more fun, though? I honestly want to know, because this kind of stuff is super important and we obsess over it every day," McCoy said in response. "None of us are deluded enough to think we're making a game that fits every gamer. We're making a game we think is badass, and hope other people do it.

The same forum user said they enjoy games like M.A.G. and Planetside because you're able to interactive with dozens of players, whereas in Titanfall, you'll be limited to your five other teammates. That being the case, McCoy said Titanfall may not be the best game for this player, but made clear that Respawn is always listening to feedback and suggested that things could change in the future.

"If having more people is just core to what you expect for fun, then I guess that's it," McCoy said. "That said, this is a multiplayer game, and we do plan on supporting it, adding to it, and making it better. Player feedback is something we crave, and want to do things based on."

Titanfall is limited to 12-player matches--6v6--but games will feature up to 48 total combatants when you factor in AI-controlled characters. The game started its life with 12 human-controlled players on each side, but after playtesting, this was whittled down to its current form.

Finally, McCoy said it has been "really tough" to market Titanfall to players because unlike franchises like Call of Duty or Battlefield, it does not feature a single-player campaign that can be used to create cinematic trailers. Marketing material for Titanfall so far has consisted of extended gameplay trailers. The game has also been playable at various events, including PAX.

"There's no amount of polished marketing that can replace playing the actual game," McCoy said.

Titanfall launches for Xbox 360, Xbox One, and PC on March 11, 2014. The game is never coming to PlayStation or Nintendo platforms, though sequels could. Respawn is "definitely" thinking about offering a beta game for the game.

Written By

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and would like to see the Whalers return to Hartford.

Want the latest news about Titanfall?

Titanfall

Titanfall

Follow

Discussion

1025 comments
vincentga
vincentga


EA Boss know nothing about technology and think PC are same than console.

For EA PC know no evolution during 5 years at least, like console.

Hahaha

EA Boss know just one thing: How make more billion !!!


EA want to be like Activision. Hum. Maybe one soon will buy other.



vincentga
vincentga

12 player?

Hahaha

It's really a joke. It's clear this game is for console so for kids... AGAIN.


Companies make billions with PC player but today they s**t on them.

Well I find a lot idiot to ignore millions of PC player but when we have just 1 cell brain...


Maybe a day they will exist one intelligent game company (a new one) who consider PC player and make games for them with 64 players and even 128 players.


Console are for kids and compare console to PC is compare Lada to Lamborghini.

EA want do like Call Of Duty.

Small maps few player on map.

Well games is like TV now just c**p !!!

Money, Money and Money again !


Less player mean need more server from EA mean more money !!!


Thanks EA for 12 players limitations. So $60 I will use for other game from other companies or stay in my purse.


chilidog102080
chilidog102080

I know comments like this really are an indication that I'm actually reaching an age where I can't identify with what is acceptable with today's youth, but I just can't take a game without a single player campaign mode seriously. I acknowledge that I'm from a dying breed of gamer (I'm 33) that grew up with nothing but a single player or two player experience, but a solid single player campaign is still the yardstick I use to measure a game's overall draw and quality. Yes, having a solid multiplayer experience as a bonus is great, but the meat and bones of the game still lie-for me-with the quality of the campaign mode. I'm not in high school anymore and have 20 friends that I would want to play with after school. I work all day, have a couple friends I hang with, and when I want to play, I want to just start up and go without making sure I coordinate schedules. And I know that's not how it works, and that most people largely play against people they've never met, but try as I might, I still find that process awkward and somewhat intimidating. And I just now realized as I wrote this, that I just had my first "when I was your age" moment. I'm going to go cry now, lol! I'll cry while playing a game by myself! Lol!

samus_my_life
samus_my_life

i prefer 6v6 rather than 64 players ..

two steps and you die " WTF " 

6v6 with AI ... is a great idea. 


TORCEDOR
TORCEDOR

the first line says it all ,.............not everyone is going to enjoy. but what has not been said is that lots of people will crib and fib. 

mursexxx
mursexxx

They can't make a game every one likes so they'll make a game no one will like.

69
69

"Finally, McCoy said it has been "really tough" to market Titanfall to players because unlike franchises like Call of Duty or Battlefield, it does not feature a single-player campaign that can be used to create cinematic trailers."


gamers do not want cinematic trailers they want examples of the gameplay...

laodang
laodang

This game is for noobs to get sum kills. By killing Bots! you'd think look good and feel good. But If it was Battlefield or COD your Score would look like 30 deaths and 0 kills.

epictetus1216
epictetus1216

Some people are just on automatic complain pilot. If they decided to limit it to 6v6 they probably had good reason to.

SpartanEdge
SpartanEdge

No matter how Respawn try to spin it, a multiplayer ONLY game that only supports 6vs6 in this day and age, is absolutely shocking. I could understand those kinds of numbers on last gen hardware, taking the added AI combatants into account, but not on new hardware and PC, where your seeing 64 player matches in the other games, and 66 player(including 2 commanders) matches on Battlefield 4 on the new hardware with multiple vehicles going around. Even with added AI combatants, the player count seems pretty pathetic comparatively.


I'll be honest, as soon as the game was announced to have no single player/Co-Op campaign, i was out, but to only have 6vs6 human players in mandatory multiplayer only game is going to alienate a lot of the crowd(and custom)that multiplayer only games appeal to.


If they do do a sequel, i hope that Respawn live up to the promise of "Player feedback is something we crave, and want to do things based on." and i really hope that first of all they include a proper campaign(preferably one that has the option for Co-Op), and adds (a lot) more players in the multiplayer component, and also makes it for the PS4. As it is though, as they admitted themselves, they have a hard sell with this game, because it's not going to appeal to those who want a campaign and proper narrative, they have lost those people already, and are now also in danger of not appealing all that much to the very people the game is aimed at, the competitive multiplayer PvsP crowd.

k41m
k41m

Oh by the way if you are going to make a point or just give your unpopular opinion on Gamespot, try your hardest to use near perfect grammar. If they can't prove you wrong or if they are just too lazy to retort you will have your ability to spell and form paragraphs thrown into question!

k41m
k41m

It's kind of funny how much denial some of you are in. Yall do know this game is 100% multiplayer right? No single player. So, a game that focuses 100% on MP is only letting you play with 5 other people on your team and this is a good thing WHY?

guitarist1980
guitarist1980

Personally the option would be nice but I don't mind having smaller numbers of players in each game. Playing BF4 or COD your focusing on killing 1 enemy or 1 squad while another is blind siding you completely taking you out of the game for what I call is a cheap kill. I understand some players like that but if that's your thing their are other games out their that offer that sort of experience. The draw back is their is no single player campaign so the multiplayer has to offer you the best of the best. For me I have no issues and for the people that are going to whine about not having 32 vs 32 robot mechs shooting at randomness I doubt the single player would have made much of a difference.

Dasim64
Dasim64

What about having more human players makes it more interesting? Really? Someone who's designing games doesn't understand the most basic principle of online gaming. How does that even happen? AI is predictable and flawed. Humans on the other hand are totally unpredictable and are far more enjoyable to play against. You end up with a much broader range of ability and see things happen that you'll never see with bots because humans use their imagination to play where bots are always following programming. Programming is limited to a finite number of commands. Humans are always coming up with something new whether it's how they approach a level or how they choose to utilize the weapons and skills in their possession. Mixing humans and bots is the worst possible thing to do because where is the thrill in killing a bot? The bot doesn't care. The bot has no loyalties. The bot has no passion or desire to win and no remorse or feeling about losing. Bots don't communicate or taunt with any feeling. Any lines they use are repeated recordings that get old very fast. Bots cannot follow commands properly when it comes to complicated strategies that a team may be trying to use to win. Bots aren't going to send you a friend request or laugh at your stupid jokes. Bots just fail on so many levels when it comes to online gaming and I really don't understand this decision to have 48 player games where the majority of the combatants are AI controlled.  

lt_quinn
lt_quinn

Remember, these are the guys that killed off dedicated servers for the CoD-series on PC. I have zero faith in Respawn/TitanFall.

bi0hazard187949
bi0hazard187949

This game is a fail, doesn't matter how pretty it looks. 6v6 players with mostly AI controlled players? Well have fun killing Bots.

ravenglass1
ravenglass1

Cloud based A.I. will change that like on forza

Zionmaster
Zionmaster

That comment about asking why high player count matters really sends home just how clueless these devs are. I was going to give this game a shot but when i heard it confirmed that it's only 6vs6? Yea no thanks. But hey as they said I shall take my money elsewhere instead.

Chaloner11
Chaloner11

Kinda pathetic they believe AI-controlled characters are better then gamer controlled characters.

chrisx28
chrisx28

Yup non of that 2 year old run and slash crap, strategy and team work. This game will be great as long as you get the right crew.  If you don't like it hmmmm don't play it and stop bitching, obviously this game wasn't created for you.  You have so many choices of gaming that when one comes out that you don't like the concept of than simply move on...  Personally I can't wait!!

freaky_ninja
freaky_ninja

Are you guys seriously complaining? Gear of War 3 is a perfect example. Gears 3 was 5v5 and extremely intense and gratifying. It's called Tactical team combat, learn how to play and talk with your fellow gamers. Plus with Titan Fall only being 6v6, making a team of 6 friends will be far easier than trying to fill 12 or 24 friends.

pensaer
pensaer

game make it 8 vs 8 

that way it's like BFH

everyone likes that

edgeofblade2
edgeofblade2

Yeah, this is good news. Great news, in fact. Online players are assholes. I can't enjoy myself without some over-competitive jackass ruining my good time. I play games to have fun, not to be some college dropout's chew toy. I think the bots will help smooth out the experience so it doesn't suck as bad as most online games do.

mursexxx
mursexxx

I'm kinda glad they're doing this. I have too many games to play as it is. This is just one less to take up space on my bloated playlist.

Circlestrafe
Circlestrafe

 Slashed the player count so xbloxnone and P.O.S.4 will run it somewhat satisfactory.  Perfect. 12v12 probably would've rocked.  12 players, 36 bots.  Brilliant.  Another console generation dragging PC hardware into the past.

pritster5
pritster5

@samus_my_life  if you played bf4 and died in two steps... sorry bu your just bad at that game, you can survive at least 5 min without getting shot at cuz the maps are bigger than a freaking planet

colt_a
colt_a

@mursexxx Except for the fact that it was the most popular game at PAX, many leaving saying it was the best shooter ever made.

colt_a
colt_a

@69 Stupid people love hype videos.  Stupid people have a lot of money.

k41m
k41m

I'm still gonna give this game a shot but this is very dissapointing news.

grove12345
grove12345

@Dasim64 im not going to argue or agree. but what comes to mind is what online experience is best for RPGs? 3,000 annoying players on one server, or a custom closed server with 8 friends working together? But why choose to have 40 something AI bots playing if player count doesnt matter?


owenstoodstill
owenstoodstill

I do agree with what you're saying but ..... Some of the funniest games I've had have been against bots . Everything you have said can also be a down side to things. Humans are offensives, cheat and lag . Sometimes in cod ghosts I'll just play offline stick aload of bots on and have a blast. Same with killzone SF. I think more games should have bots . You can't beat those split screen multiplayer games with friends . But everything I've said is kinda seperate from the titanfall issue .

So this is being hyped up as the true next gen shooter and they haven't even given us the option to choose.

I can see this game being awful and with it not being on playstation it's gonna create a heck of a lot fanboy fights . This game has clearly been over hyped and it's starting to bite back now

SpartanEdge
SpartanEdge

@Chaloner11 AI have their place, in single player and Co-Op for example, where i'll rather play against AI anyday, but your right, it doesn't substitute other people in PvP games. Provide a bots mode sure, but it seems odd to force their presence in a multiplayer only game.

SpartanEdge
SpartanEdge

@freaky_ninjaYes, but Gears also offered a campaign, and a Co-Op one at that. For a game that ONLY offers PvP, this is not good, no matter how they try to spin it.

Dasim64
Dasim64

@freaky_ninja Good luck taking command of those 18 bots on your team. Yea 48 player matches where only 12 are human or did you miss that part? That's 36 bots running around that you have to fool with. Still think it's a great idea?

1wikkid1
1wikkid1

@edgeofblade2 You don't like multiplayer and so a game that's completely 100% multiplayer, without a single player component AT ALL, is good news? Strange world you live in.

SpartanEdge
SpartanEdge

@Circlestrafe Another arrogant PC elitist  more like lol. Your alright, you can keep your PC gaming thanks, cos i don't like gaming on PC for many reasons of preference. Like 50ft said, the new consoles are perfectly capable of 'handling' high player counts. All you have to do is look at CoD and Batllefield 4 for evidence of this. BF4 for example, caters for 66 players(2 commanders included)33 players per side, and thats with loads of stuff going on with multiple vehicles on the(large)play areas. So take your format prejudices elsewhere.

SpartanEdge
SpartanEdge

@owenstoodstillI I agree. while a understand what Dasim is getting at, i personally prefer playing against the AI in a Co-Op aspect, rather than PvP gaming. I find it more relaxing, enjoyable and more traditional gaming, where you are the main characters and not some faceless grunt dying every other minute in a tit-for-tat meaningless copy and paste battle that has no narrative, but thats more of a preference thing, and can appreciate the appeal of PvP for others.


The problem here is, Respawn have created a multiplayer ONLY game, that doesn't really cater very well for multiplayer gamers. They've created a game that alienates people that like campaign and Co-Op, and it's alienating a lot of the PvP crowd by not catering to them particularly well either. Not really sure who they are aiming this game at, and are expecting it to appeal to, because as it is, i don't see it appealing to all that many in a big or meaningful way. This is a game where it's shortcomings and limitations far overshadow any potential good aspects, and that is not good.


Now ,the games i can't wait for are Destiny and Tom Clancy's-The Division. Those games look particularly intriguing to me.

k41m
k41m

@ddt88 @Chaloner11 So were you trying to invalidate his point or just be a complete bag about it?

guitarist1980
guitarist1980

@Dasim64@freaky_ninja yeah I do because it can help boost up your score. I am sure in the statistics they will have PK's and bot kills. I like the idea its something different. But we wont know for sure until we play it.

Circlestrafe
Circlestrafe

@SpartanEdge @Circlestrafe It's not arrogance, it's simple third grade math.  Can your console run BF4 across 3 screens?  Didn't think so.  Anything can run CoD, it's so simple my TRS-80 can run it.  

Circlestrafe
Circlestrafe

@50_Ft_Kingie @Circlestrafe Impressive.  You just explained my comment perfectly.  AFTER playtesting, they found it didn't run well on a console, hence, they hacked it.

SpartanEdge
SpartanEdge

@Circlestrafe@SpartanEdge Lets cut down to brass tacks. By 'Behind', what your really referring to here is graphics. I have already conceded that PC does have the edge on that, but as i say, that gap is becoming small and less and less relevant. You conceded yourself in your lasts post that extra hardware is becoming increasingly moot, due to piracy, low sales and general popularity of consoles, because it is simply not in the developers interests to utilise it. This doesn't affect me in the least, as i do not game on PC.

The point i am making, is that there is far more factors to it than simply graphics that determine someones gaming preference, which i listed above, which are very real and important factors and considerations, making the PC far from an obvious choice. That's all i'm saying.

Circlestrafe
Circlestrafe

@SpartanEdge @Circlestrafe Yeah, that one I can't argue, and it pisses me off. Not the arguing part...the piracy part.  Sucks for everyone, but mostly us PC gamers, unfortunately.

Circlestrafe
Circlestrafe

@SpartanEdge @Circlestrafe I get it, I do.  I completely understand why many people would want a console over a PC, but the point is, they ARE behind in technology vs. a PC.  THAT was my point. That was the ONLY point I was making. Often times, devs will , for lack of a better term 'cripple' games so they'll run well on ALL systems, dismissing stuff that REQUIRES better hardware, for the benefit of the many, over some of the few. ('bad' console ports, anyone?).  So the consoles ARE, in fact holding us (you, me, everyone) back.  


My kids have consoles, my brothers have consoles, my sisters have 'em, their friends have them, my friends have consoles.  Many of them also have PCs.  Some prefer one over the other. NONE of the consoles hold a candle PERFORMANCE wise, to a lot of our PCs.  



SpartanEdge
SpartanEdge

@Circlestrafe Also, 8. Piracy. Piracy is rife on the PC. It is slowly killing the PC, because it it damaging sales massively, making it more and more less worth the effort for developers to develop for the format, much less put extra development time in for. Some company's have already said "Never again" regarding development for the PC due to massive piracy issues, Epic Games being one example.

SpartanEdge
SpartanEdge

@Circlestrafe@SpartanEdge  Why would i WANT to run it across three screens!? lol Simple answer is, i don't. Some games offer multiple screen functionality on console, but i have no desire or inclination to do so, one screen is all i need. Make no mistake, if i wanted to game on PC i would get a PC for that purpose, nobody's doubting that, but the gap is getting smaller all the time, to the point where its almost impossible to tell the difference from screenshots or videos, which has people looking for a tell-tale button prompt for clues. If you wanna talk about maths, sure the graphics may be a little better on PC, but its far from all about slightly better graphics for me, and i suspect others judging by the numbers of people that choose a console over a PC. I'll explain why i personally prefer console over PC(And unlike you, i will not insult another format, just because it's not for me, just rationally explain why i prefer console for personal reasons). Those reasons are as follows..

1. I prefer joypad over mouse and keyboard. Yes, you can use joypads on the PC, but against other people who are using m&k, you'd be at a disadvantage right there, and i don't wanna use a system i don't like, to be able to compete. M&K just feel doesn't natural or comfortable to me, and that's what it boils down to. On console, everyone plays with joypad, same as me. Completely even playing field, which greatly appeals to me.

2. PC suffers from crippling DRM on many games, and some AAA games you cannot even buy on physical format(I prefer a physical products for my money), and even then may have crippling draconian DRM and other restrictions attached.

3. Everyone has different hardware on PC.Due to the very nature of the PC, people have different hardware and configurations. In many cases, people can have significantly better hardware that costs a fortune, that will give them an edge in graphical detail and frame rates etc. On console, you know where you stand, and everyone plays on an even playing field. this appeals to me greatly.

4. I find consoles far more accessible, less temperamental, with no compatibility issues. Consoles are built for gaming from the ground up(not so much the Xbone, i admit), and use what they have very effectively for that purpose, where developers great programming, and are familiar with and are adept with the hardware and software, as opposed to having to rely on brute force as is the case while developing on PC, as they don't have the same luxury to get aquanted with changing and varied PC setups.

5. Far more of my friends have and play on console as opposed to PC. I like playing with friends.

6. Xbox live and Playstation Network are great gaming hubs that are very well suited to gaming and do the job very well.

7. Gaming Rigs are very expensive. A lot more than i am personally prepared to pay for slightly better graphics. 

Taking all that into account, graphics are only a small part of it, as i say. I am not taking anything away for those that chose to play on PC, but these are my reasons why i prefer not to.

50_Ft_Kingie
50_Ft_Kingie

@Circlestrafe @50_Ft_Kingie Impressive, you managed to extrapolate completely unsubstantiated BS from that quote. They didn't say anything about whittling it down because of hardware limitations.
Like I said, XB1 and PS4 can handle 64 player games like BF4, and the devs aren't exactly newbies when it comes to MP games. Can you not realise that they changed the player count because they wanted to, not because they had to? The BF4 map Operation Locker is a prime example of why more players isn't always better.