Respawn: Titanfall 6v6 Criticism Comes From Assumptions

[roseofbattle]

Respawn: Titanfall 6v6 Criticism Comes From Assumptions

Designer Justin Hendry asks for players to put assumptions of Titanfall based on the gameplay of other shooters aside.

Respawn Entertainment is confident it's hit a sweet spot of balance and fun with Titanfall's six-versus-six maximum count despite critics' fears. Titanfall Justin Hendry believes people butting heads with the player limit are approaching the game with assumptions based on other games.

"I think when people get the chance to play they'll hopefully understand," Hendry said. "People have a certain amount of apprehension based on the games they're playing right now and that they've been playing. I don't blame them for having that outlook, and saying that they're going to be bored - they're assuming things based on what they've played, and I understand why people do that."

Hendry has said in the past [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131105-Updated-Titanfall-Will-Have-a-6v6-Player-Cap], "the higher the player count, the more uncomfortable the game gets." Mobility is key in Titanfall, and with too many players that can get bogged down. Respawn is confident that six-versus-six is the most fun for this game. Even with 12 people in a match, there are plenty of things happening. Players can get out of their Titans and let it operate on its own, creating a situation where 12 pilots and 12 Titans could be fighting in addition to the dozens of AI.

"I think anybody watching a game has expectations for what that game should be, and when what they hear doesn't meet a preconceived notion or perception of what that game should be, they might react against it," Hendry said. "So regardless of how much hype there is behind the game, or whether it's exclusive, if [there's excitement] for something, you're going to get that reaction."

Source: OXM [http://www.totalxbox.com/69989/titanfall-critics-are-assuming-things-based-on-older-shooters-says-respawn/]


Permalink

 

[Falterfire]

Well obviously it's based on assumptions. I don't think any of the people complaining have played Titanfall yet.

 

[WashAran]

and that is news how?

Everybody should be aware that people like to assume, which in itself is an assumption.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

Honestly? To me a 6v6 set-up sounds pretty good for a game with these sort of mechanics. Each player has to be important because of the nature of the Titans. That said, more options are generally a good thing and a ground war style game type certainly wouldn't go amiss, just don't balance for it.

 

[Trishbot]

Honestly? To me a 6v6 set-up sounds pretty good for a game with these sort of mechanics. Each player has to be important because of the nature of the Titans. That said, more options are generally a good thing and a ground war style game type certainly wouldn't go amiss, just don't balance for it.

Yeah, it's ultimately how it's designed.

But, also yeah, more options are a good thing. It's like saying you CAN make a great game at 720 resolution, but why not shoot for 1080? Or you CAN make a good game at 30 frames per second, but why not shoot for 60?

More options is a great thing, and having played epic, large-scale competitive shooters like Planetside 2, or even MAG, I admit a locked limit of 6v6 does seem pretty anemic, even if there's plenty to do in the smaller maps.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I agree. People made the same assumptions about Xcom: EU's 4 squad limit (5-6 if you upgrade). Turns out that the developers knew what the hell they were doing, who would have thought.

Personally I'll withhold judgement until I get to try it out for myself. Based on the trailers (which I do take with a grain of salt) the game looks pretty frantic as is. And besides, them changing things that are apparently this big at this point would delay the game even further.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Honestly? To me a 6v6 set-up sounds pretty good for a game with these sort of mechanics. Each player has to be important because of the nature of the Titans. That said, more options are generally a good thing and a ground war style game type certainly wouldn't go amiss, just don't balance for it.

Yeah, it's ultimately how it's designed.

But, also yeah, more options are a good thing. It's like saying you CAN make a great game at 720 resolution, but why not shoot for 1080? Or you CAN make a good game at 30 frames per second, but why not shoot for 60?

More options is a great thing, and having played epic, large-scale competitive shooters like Planetside 2, or even MAG, I admit a locked limit of 6v6 does seem pretty anemic, even if there's plenty to do in the smaller maps.

Or why not even:

But seriously the way they're going about it, 6v6 seems tightly knit, LoL has 5v5 but they could have shot for 100v100 players if not more but they didn't, any game with multiplayer could always go bigger but that doesn't mean they have to.

imagine they suddenly do a 6v6 mode and then a massive PS2 mode, most are going to want to play the PS2 sized mode (that's why we have games like PS2 and BF in the first place and others like them) while people like me and others struggle to find those originally designed 6v6 matches due to lack of numbers.

Basically people should give the 6v6 match type a chance and actually give it a go.

Besides I've played enough massive matches of BF and PS2 to know it can be fun at times but other times it can be a real pain in the ass when there's too many players gunning you down and believe me that happens and it's not always fun.

 

[JarinArenos]

6v6 + waves of minion AI? Sounds like an FPS with MOBA elements. Oversimplifying? Maybe, we'll see.

 

[Ickorus]

Being a frequent Natural Selection 2 player I can attest to 6v6 being an ideal number for some games, in the case of NS2 it's because it doesn't clutter the maps and allows for prime tactical play and teamwork where higher numbers quickly devolve into a clusterfuck and I imagine with the giant robots and AI enemies it's a similar reasoning for them.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Best multiplayer games I've ever played were 4v4 competition maps in Clanbase and the ESL. With smaller teams you can't hide in the crowd and if you're not performing then your teammates, the enemy and everyone else is going to know about it.

 

[Vigormortis]

Best multiplayer games I've ever played were 4v4 competition maps in Clanbase and the ESL. With smaller teams you can't hide in the crowd and if you're not performing then your teammates, the enemy and everyone else is going to know about it.

Exactly. When I scrim in games like Dota 2, Counter-Strike, Quake 3, or Left 4 Dead, team sizes are always 4 v 4 or 5 v 5. As a result, each member of the team is expected, and required, to perform in order for the team to succeed. Honestly, fewer players greatly ups the challenge and difficulty.

Honestly? To me a 6v6 set-up sounds pretty good for a game with these sort of mechanics. Each player has to be important because of the nature of the Titans. That said, more options are generally a good thing and a ground war style game type certainly wouldn't go amiss, just don't balance for it.

Problem is, if they implement mass-player modes but don't bother with balancing them, then all we're hear is complaints from the player base about how 'broken' the game is because of it.

I'd rather have limited mode options that are finely tuned than a deluge of modes that are broken and inconsistent.

Besides, once they get official mod support out (or the modding community does it themselves) I can all-but guarantee we'll see increased player count server mods.

Besides I've played enough massive matches of BF and PS2 to know it can be fun at times but other times it can be a real pain in the ass when there's too many players gunning you down and believe me that happens and it's not always fun.

Or as I like to call them, "clusterfuck games".

Games like Battlefield, Planetside, etc, are essentially just massive clusterfucks with a few rules in place to try to get players moving in the same general direction.

Which is fine. That's a specific kind of play mechanic, one even I enjoy from time to time. However, I tend to prefer the more close-knit, intimate play-style of lower player caps.

For example, a game of 5 v 5 Counter-Strike is vastly more fun than a game of 20 v 20 Counter-Strike. To me, anyway. Just as a 4 v 4 match of Left 4 Dead 2 is often more intense than a match of 15 v 15 Battlefield.

When there are fewer players, and the games mechanics and maps are built around that ideal, the challenge and intensity are greatly increased.

 

[Baresark]

My initial impulse was that it wasn't enough people. I hate playing a game that doesn't have a lot of people in it when it's hard to find the action and everyone is in a concentrated area. But this game doesn't sound like that after reading more. There will be AI soldiers on each side, there will always be a goal that doesn't rely on you being where the other team is at. From that perspective, it's much more believable that it's going to be a good game with that player count. I trust the dev knows more about making a game than the average Planetside 2 or Battlefield, or even COD player does.

 

[Smertnik]

I don't get the complaints. If you want a shooter with big teams then why not just play CoD or BF or literally any other multiplayer FPS? Let people make something different for once.

 

[DjinnFor]

Everybody should be aware that people like to assume, which in itself is an assumption.

If it's an assumption, why did you state it as though it was a fact?

 

[DrOswald]

I agree. People made the same assumptions about Xcom: EU's 4 squad limit (5-6 if you upgrade). Turns out that the developers knew what the hell they were doing, who would have thought.

Personally I'll withhold judgement until I get to try it out for myself. Based on the trailers (which I do take with a grain of salt) the game looks pretty frantic as is. And besides, them changing things that are apparently this big at this point would delay the game even further.

I actually think that XCOM: Enemy Unknown should have had a much larger squad limit, probably double what it is (starting at 8 and going to 12.) By changing the squad from the larger size of Xcom original to the smaller Xcom EU size a much larger emphasis is put on each individual soldier. Loosing even one soldier becomes a big deal, sometimes a game ender if it happens to be the wrong soldier and the wrong time. It makes the game feel more like a tactical RPG with permadeath instead of a tactical war game.

But that just demonstrates the point you were making. Big war FPS's are very different games from Skirmish FPS's just like how a Tactical RPG is very different from a Tactical War Game. They can have the exact same rule set but they will end up very different just by changing scale. And bigger is not always better. There is nothing wrong with making a Skirmish FPS and, frankly, they tend to be better games than big war FPS's.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

By changing the squad from the larger size of Xcom original to the smaller Xcom EU size a much larger emphasis is put on each individual soldier. Loosing even one soldier becomes a big deal, sometimes a game ender if it happens to be the wrong soldier and the wrong time. It makes the game feel more like a tactical RPG with permadeath instead of a tactical war game.

Isn't that a good thing? I never considered Xcom games to be about human army versus alien army, just a sequence of tactical battles (in between base building). Making each soldier loss cause a bigger impact on the battle makes the game a much more tense experience.

Anyway, Xcom aside (because we're a little off topic) the only point I wanted to make was that at this particular moment in time the developers know best how to balance their game, not those of us that are watching from the sidelines simply speculating and comparing it to every other shooter out there. The Xcom thing was just an example of when in my opinion the developers got their design choices right on the money despite fans assumptions based on past experience.

 

[Jmp_man]

Best multiplayer games I've ever played were 4v4 competition maps in Clanbase and the ESL. With smaller teams you can't hide in the crowd and if you're not performing then your teammates, the enemy and everyone else is going to know about it.

Exactly. When I scrim in games like Dota 2, Counter-Strike, Quake 3, or Left 4 Dead, team sizes are always 4 v 4 or 5 v 5. As a result, each member of the team is expected, and required, to perform in order for the team to succeed. Honestly, fewer players greatly ups the challenge and difficulty.

Smaller teams can force players to take a more tactical approach, matches really rely on each player pulling their own weight and working as a team. This can be great with a group of skilled players or with a clan, however we are talking about playing with random players over the internet. If player(s) perform badly the entire team suffers as a result and the game becomes less fun for everyone due to the lack of balance. If we were to look at a game like TF2 (player count started at 8v8 and moved to 12v12) little mistakes do not cost as much, but still allow people to take a tactical approach and each players contribution to the team matters.

The game could be really fun in a competitive setting, but might suffer slightly when the public gets their hands on it.

 

[Jmp_man]

[Double post] Sorry about that...

 

[Vigormortis]

Smaller teams can force players to take a more tactical approach, matches really rely on each player pulling their own weight and working as a team. This can be great with a group of skilled players or with a clan, however we are talking about playing with random players over the internet. If player(s) perform badly the entire team suffers as a result and the game becomes less fun for everyone due to the lack of balance. If we were to look at a game like TF2 (player count started at 8v8 and moved to 12v12) little mistakes do not cost as much, but still allow people to take a tactical approach and each players contribution to the team matters.

The game could be really fun in a competitive setting, but might suffer slightly when the public gets their hands on it.

Well of course. That's always the risk when playing in a random pub match, regardless of player count.

However, with a combination of good, balanced, well-thought-out game design, and a decent matchmaking system, you can at least mitigate much of the headache of imbalanced teams.

Left 4 Dead 2 has a similar system. It's not a perfect system, and poor pub matches still occur. However, it works well enough that, in combination with how much fun a competitive or friends match of the game can be, it is routinely in the top ten games played on Steam; in terms of player counts.

Regardless, time will tell whether Respawn's pulled off something great or failed miserably. We need only wait a little over a month to know.