[Megathread] Titanfall

[Stevecow]

Wow, looks really cool. Is it mainly going to be a multiplayer game or will there be some good solo stuff to do? I seen some of COD makers are also developing this game and I always thought the COD solo campaign was really fun and exciting. If they can add a solo campaign to this that matches the COD stuff I will indeed pick it up but if the main focus is multiplayer with a lack of solo missions then I think I will have to pass.

Just read the post above me. Is, it true there will be no solo play?

[Edge-]

Killzone doesn't seem to have any multiplayer elements, although I only googled it quickly.

It has multiplayer, but casual googling did not turn up specifics of how many players are involved in it.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it mainly going to be a multiplayer game or will there be some good solo stuff to do?

Exclusively multiplayer.

I seen some of COD makers are also developing this game and I always thought the COD solo campaign was really fun and exciting.

The founders made the studio and brought some of the IW team over with them, so there will very likely be a lot of CoD-esque elements to it. However as mentioned, there will be no solo campaign, it's a multiplayer campaign that you play with others.

[SirRobin]

Single-player fps's multiplayer modes are what you are looking for (for example CoD has a single-player campaign and seperate arenas for multiplayer mode). Titanfall does away with the single-player mode altogether, so the Campaign is a multiplayer team vs. team experience.

Killzone doesn't seem to have any multiplayer elements, although I only googled it quickly.

Well a massively multiplayer game with a single-player mode, that I never bother playing, might be more accurate but potayto potahto. Titanfall doesn't do away with a single-player mode. It appears to not be big enough to bother including one to begin with.

Killzone does have a multiplayer mode. So do a number of primarily single-player fps designs.

Now Planetside is a strictly multiplayer game and has an impressive player count. Even has potentially three sides to every battle. And Battlefield 2142 had Titans.

So, again, not seeing the benefit to smothering the potential mayhem with such a limited player count and forcing almost always far less than brilliant "AI" on folks. Or is it one of those sacrificing gameplay for "story" things again?

[Stevecow]

The founders made the studio and brought some of the IW team over with them, so there will very likely be a lot of CoD-esque elements to it. However as mentioned, there will be no solo campaign, it's a multiplayer campaign that you play with others.

I'm truly sad to hear that. I don't have any numbers to back this opinion up but don't most people play video games solo? Why would they develop a title with this kind of budget to only target the people who play multiplayer games? I would guess the budget is big since it has EA behind it.

I know I played a little multiplayer in the COD games but I can honestly say the solo stuff was fun. I'm not saying because I like the solo missions of COD the majority liked them too but I would guess people mostly play solo. Maybe I'm misunderstanding some features. We know it's 6 vs 6. Is this always going to be 6 humans vs 6 humans or is there an option for 1 human 5 NPC's vs 6 NPC's. Maybe I'm just trying to hard to find that play where I don't have to go online or have a friend sitting next to me.

[Dhrizzle]

Well a massively multiplayer game with a single-player mode, that I never bother playing, might be more accurate but potayto potahto. Titanfall doesn't do away with a single-player mode. It appears to not be big enough to bother including one to begin with.

I'm not sure what the bolded part is referring to. Anyhow the point I was making with Titanfall is usually AAA shooters feature a single-player campaign and multiplayer arena mode. Titanfall (does away with/didn't make) the single-player mode as the campaign is part of multiplayer.

So, again, not seeing the benefit to smothering the potential mayhem with such a limited player count and forcing almost always far less than brilliant "AI" on folks.

Because playtesting revealed a team of around 6 gave the best experience for the game-play they are working on. Yes it smothers mayhem, presumably because they wanted to deliver an experience based more on tactics and team-work rather than a 32-per-side bullet tornado where success is based on being the lucky enough not to enter someone's crosshairs.

Why do you say NPCs are "forced" on players, as if it was a compromise between players and bots? They aren't supposed to take the place of a team member, they're more there to provide PvE style objectives.

[SirRobin]

I'm truly sad to hear that. I don't have any numbers to back this opinion up but don't most people play video games solo? Why would they develop a title with this kind of budget to only target the people who play multiplayer games? I would guess the budget is big since it has EA behind it.

I know I played a little multiplayer in the COD games but I can honestly say the solo stuff was fun. I'm not saying because I like the solo missions of COD the majority liked them too but I would guess people mostly play solo. Maybe I'm misunderstanding some features. We know it's 6 vs 6. Is this always going to be 6 humans vs 6 humans or is there an option for 1 human 5 NPC's vs 6 NPC's. Maybe I'm just trying to hard to find that play where I don't have to go online or have a friend sitting next to me.

Far worse, in my opinion, is going to be what 6v6 brings to randoms. You know, those matches you get when you queue up solo. In larger player count games, there is a greater chance that each side would get some vets. So one doesn't completely dominate the entire round. With just six players? Just one vet, on one side, could turn each match into a roflestomp.

[Dhrizzle]

I'm truly sad to hear that. I don't have any numbers to back this opinion up but don't most people play video games solo? Why would they develop a title with this kind of budget to only target the people who play multiplayer games? I would guess the budget is big since it has EA behind it.

I know I played a little multiplayer in the COD games but I can honestly say the solo stuff was fun. I'm not saying because I like the solo missions of COD the majority liked them too but I would guess people mostly play solo. Maybe I'm misunderstanding some features. We know it's 6 vs 6. Is this always going to be 6 humans vs 6 humans or is there an option for 1 human 5 NPC's vs 6 NPC's. Maybe I'm just trying to hard to find that play where I don't have to go online or have a friend sitting next to me.

It's always 6 humans vs. 6 humans. It seems to have caused a lot of confusion but the NPCs are part of the map, not part of your team. Think of it like Alterac Valley - the various commanders and guards might be on the same side of the players, but they aren't there to be part of the team.

[SirRobin]

Because playtesting revealed a team of around 6 gave the best experience for the game-play they are working on. Yes it smothers mayhem, presumably because they wanted to deliver an experience based more on tactics and team-work rather than a 32-per-side bullet tornado where success is based on being the lucky enough not to enter someone's crosshairs.

Two, six, ninety, success will always be greatly based on being lucky enough to not enter someone's crosshairs. Less players equals less team work, not more, in my opinion.

Why do you say NPCs are "forced" on players, as if it was a compromise between players and bots? They aren't supposed to take the place of a team member, they're more there to provide PvE style objectives.

Is there an option to play without the bots in this multiplayer game? If not, then they are being forced on the player.

[Stevecow]

I doubt it but will they allow console players with PC players? I have a friend I would most likely play with who would get this on PS4 just because he doesn't really have any games for it due to their lack of games right now but I would play it on PC since I'm not interested in a PS4 right now.

I don't know any games that have ever done that but hey who knows. With Titanfall claiming the "Future of Multiplayer" I figured they might do something like that.

[Edge-]

I doubt it but will they allow console players with PC players? I have a friend I would most likely play with who would get this on PS4 just because he doesn't really have any games for it due to their lack of games right now but I would play it on PC since I'm not interested in a PS4 right now.

I don't know any games that have ever done that but hey who knows. With Titanfall claiming the "Future of Multiplayer" I figured they might do something like that.

No official word that I know of, but as usual, it's highly doubtful.

[Dhrizzle]

Two, six, ninety, success will always be greatly based on being lucky enough to not enter someone's crosshairs. Less players equals less team work, not more, in my opinion.

It's different for different situations. Like someone mentioned in an article about this subject, TF2 allows up to 32 players but the majority prefer 24, and Counterstrike usually has 5 vs. 5 games.

Personally I find larger teams usually hinder team work in this sort of game as you're just throwing warm bodies and it's more effective to allow chaos rather than having set objectives for each member. On the other hand games like EVE can make good use of hundreds of team members with distinct roles.

Is there an option to play without the bots in this multiplayer game? If not, then they are being forced on the player.

Well yes, but only in the way that guns, running and using terrain are forced on the player.

[Stevecow]

I just read this from their website. Are they not putting out a PS4 version or is that coming at a later date?

"We are happy to announce that Titanfall will be landing on store shelves for Xbox One, Xbox 360, and PC beginning March 11, 2014 in North America and beginning March 13, 2014 in Europe."

[Ratboy]

I just read this from their website. Are they not putting out a PS4 version or is that coming at a later date?

"We are happy to announce that Titanfall will be landing on store shelves for Xbox One, Xbox 360, and PC beginning March 11, 2014 in North America and beginning March 13, 2014 in Europe."

It is a Xbox/PC (Microsoft Platforms) exclusive. It's not a timed exclusive, so unless there is a major change it will never be on PS4.

[SirRobin]

Well yes, but only in the way that guns, running and using terrain are forced on the player.

If you want to zoom out that much, then you could say its like how turning on your xbox or computer, is forced on the player. Hard to be an fps without something to "s" with. Easy to still be an fps without the "b."

[Stevecow]

This article claims that because of cloud they couldn't make it for PS4. It also claims they approached both Microsoft and PS4 but PS4 couldn't come up with a solution where microsoft did. Interesting, that what is being held as the most anticipated game of 2014 to be exclusive only. Also, I don't know if the article is real or not just something I came across when looking for the PS4 version of this game.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/...box-one-cloud/

Here is a recent article of EA saying that they just didn't want to go with Playstation and it has nothing to do with Playstation. They also mention why there is no single player. They claim "Respawn noticed an important trend in how most games are usually played."

http://www.inquisitr.com/1036438/ps4...-explains-why/

[SirRobin]

Sorry but EA's credibility when saying/claiming, well, anything? Has not exactly been high for a long time.

[Dhrizzle]

If you want to zoom out that much, then you could say its like how turning on your xbox or computer, is forced on the player. Hard to be an fps without something to "s" with. Easy to still be an fps without the "b."

Yes, but you could have an FPS with only one weapon, flat terrain and no movement; anything else is "forced" on the player.

[SirRobin]

Yes, but you could have an FPS with only one weapon, flat terrain and no movement; anything else is "forced" on the player.

Which, again, is zooming out pretty far. Still hard to have an fps without the "s." Still easy to have an fps without the "b." And heaven help them if the AI is as bad as we've seen in some games, at launch, like ACM.

[Dhrizzle]

Which, again, is zooming out pretty far. Still hard to have an fps without the "s." Still easy to have an fps without the "b." And heaven help them if the AI is as bad as we've seen in some games, at launch, like ACM.

Also easy to have an FPS without "V", "T" and "M" (in fact that would be perfectly balanced). The AI of the NPCs depends on what purpose they serve in the game, they won't have to be much more complex than your typical MMO mobs (and I think "mobs" is a more accurate way of thinking of the NPCs, rather than "bots").

[SirRobin]

Also easy to have an FPS without "V", "T" and "M" (in fact that would be perfectly balanced). The AI of the NPCs depends on what purpose they serve in the game, they won't have to be much more complex than your typical MMO mobs (and I think "mobs" is a more accurate way of thinking of the NPCs, rather than "bots").

As in relatively stationary, doesn't move far, patiently waits for you to shoot it? Again, doesn't sound like its adding much. So will we also get the joy of watching these non-bot bots resetting when they wander to far from their preset paths or points?