Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [DS] Titanfall Dev Gives Lots of Details on 6 vs 6 Player Count: “a TON of Debate” About it at Respawn
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[DS] Titanfall Dev Gives Lots of Details on 6 vs 6 Player Count: “a TON of Debate” About it at Respawn - Page 19

post #181 of 215
I think the 6v6 is trying to appeal to the more competitive scene. Keeping a lower player count means that the game can be played at a more competitive level than for say 16vs16, 32vs32, etc etc. I think they want this game to be big in that aspect so huge tournaments can happen. It's one more player than League of Legends, and look how big that is. Not a great comparison, but I think that is what they are trying to do with doing such a small player count. I also think gameplay will be so fast that it will fit with that amount of players as well.
post #182 of 215
Some people need to do a little research before jumping to conclusions.

"The game is essentially built to be six on six."

And that headcount won't impact map size, he said; Titanfall has all sorts.

"There are at least two maps that are really big, one of those is huge," Hendry said. "The map size isn't a technical limitation, it's what felt best. It's, 'How do we make this thing feel good?' Some maps are smaller, some are medium size and some are bigger.

"I think the only thing that the player count does is really affect the overall chaotic level of the game."

Number of players also won't impact the sorts of modes the game has, though Hendry declined to say what they'll be beyond the two publicly shown.

The reaction to the game's player count, announced in a tweet earlier this week, didn't necessarily take the team by surprise. There seems to be an understanding at the studio that Titanfall isn't quite understood yet by people not directly involved in its creation. - Quite obvious by many of the comments here

Source
Edited by Archngamin - 1/10/14 at 7:39am
RED Raven
(24 items)
 
Sonic Screwdriver
(11 items)
 
N+1
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670k Asus Maximus Hero EVGA 980 G.Skill Ripjaws X 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
G.Skill Ripjaws X WD Blue Samsung 840 Evo Samsung 840 Evo 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
WD Black WD Blue H80i w/ SP120 x2 Windows 8.1 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Achieva Shimian 27" Ducky Shine 3 TKL reds AX860i Silverstone RV02 EW 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
G700 Ripper XXL Yamaha RX-V373 Receiver Polk Monitor 30 Bookshelfs 
AudioAudioAudioOther
Polk CS1 Center Speaker Polk PSW10 Subwoofer DT 990 PRO 250 ohm Lian Li BZ-502B w/ Coolermaster SickleFlow 120 Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4670k ASrock z87 750 TI SC G.Skill Ripjaws X 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
250 GB Samsung Evo 1TB WD Black H220 Win 8.1 
MonitorPowerCase
55" Samsung LED Silverstone 450w SSF Ncase M1 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800k GA-F2A88XN-WIF Onboard G.Skill Ares 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
840 Evo H60 Win 8.1 Silverstone ST45SF 
Case
Rosewill Legacy U3 
  hide details  
Reply
RED Raven
(24 items)
 
Sonic Screwdriver
(11 items)
 
N+1
(9 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 4670k Asus Maximus Hero EVGA 980 G.Skill Ripjaws X 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
G.Skill Ripjaws X WD Blue Samsung 840 Evo Samsung 840 Evo 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
WD Black WD Blue H80i w/ SP120 x2 Windows 8.1 Pro 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Achieva Shimian 27" Ducky Shine 3 TKL reds AX860i Silverstone RV02 EW 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
G700 Ripper XXL Yamaha RX-V373 Receiver Polk Monitor 30 Bookshelfs 
AudioAudioAudioOther
Polk CS1 Center Speaker Polk PSW10 Subwoofer DT 990 PRO 250 ohm Lian Li BZ-502B w/ Coolermaster SickleFlow 120 Red 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4670k ASrock z87 750 TI SC G.Skill Ripjaws X 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
250 GB Samsung Evo 1TB WD Black H220 Win 8.1 
MonitorPowerCase
55" Samsung LED Silverstone 450w SSF Ncase M1 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 6800k GA-F2A88XN-WIF Onboard G.Skill Ares 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
840 Evo H60 Win 8.1 Silverstone ST45SF 
Case
Rosewill Legacy U3 
  hide details  
Reply
post #183 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

You do realize that the entire purpose of the AI is to create balance within the game?

Take for example REAL Battlefield 4 or COD matches right now. Say your team is pro and you DESTROY the other team.

Is it challenging for you to get a shutout? How's the other team feel at being slaughtered?

Do you support the merciless beatdown of another team?

Now picture Titanfall.

We have a 6 v 6...My team starts to destroy you.

Oh wait, the AI is sporadically improving...Hold on, I just took one in the back from the AI and now the game is actually balanced.

Holy crap, they're making a comeback and now the game is even FASTER because the AI's level artificially increased mid-game.

AI is capable of doing what a human is not. Period.

That's what this game was designed for and one of the features it's pushing so hard...Innovative AI that scales in difficulty based on the opposition.

It's never been done before and if they back down, cater to the public, I'm withdrawing my support 100% because it's simply such a step backwards, it's incredible...In both technology and within the gaming world, itself.
This doesn't exactly sound like a good thing to me...If I and my teammates are legitimately more skilled at a game than players on the other team, we should win the majority of the time (not 100% of the time, but definitely over half the time). This is why I get frustrated when I go into a pub in TF2 and eat a random crit rocket from some bumbling soldier who I've been dominating for the past 5 rounds. I know that I am the beneficiary of random crits, too, but it just feels cheap to get kills that way and I prefer playing on servers with random crit and random spread turned off.

This feels like something geared more toward the casual gamer demographic. I think it's fine in that scenario because it does suck to lose every match you play if you're just a casual gamer and you don't have enough time and/or dedication to invest a lot of hours into the game to become legitimately good at it. But if I play the game very often with friends who are as skilled as I am, it would feel cheap if our win-loss percentage is capped at around 50%.

Obviously, you have experience with the game, Masked, and maybe you didn't explain the nuances of the AI system clearly enough. If that's the case, I'm all ears and would love to hear how Respawn plans to make this game accessible and fair at the same time.
post #184 of 215
Thats like saying you couldn't get into left 4 dead or quake because it didn't support 16-64 players. There should be no debate. The devs only have to explain why or show why.
post #185 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by decimator View Post

This doesn't exactly sound like a good thing to me...If I and my teammates are legitimately more skilled at a game than players on the other team, we should win the majority of the time (not 100% of the time, but definitely over half the time). This is why I get frustrated when I go into a pub in TF2 and eat a random crit rocket from some bumbling soldier who I've been dominating for the past 5 rounds. I know that I am the beneficiary of random crits, too, but it just feels cheap to get kills that way and I prefer playing on servers with random crit and random spread turned off.

This feels like something geared more toward the casual gamer demographic. I think it's fine in that scenario because it does suck to lose every match you play if you're just a casual gamer and you don't have enough time and/or dedication to invest a lot of hours into the game to become legitimately good at it. But if I play the game very often with friends who are as skilled as I am, it would feel cheap if our win-loss percentage is capped at around 50%.

Obviously, you have experience with the game, Masked, and maybe you didn't explain the nuances of the AI system clearly enough. If that's the case, I'm all ears and would love to hear how Respawn plans to make this game accessible and fair at the same time.

So because you SHOULD win, it shouldn't be a challenge? I'm sorry but, that sounds extremely arrogant to me...CODish, in fact.

That's not cheap, that's how TF2 has worked since day 1...It's just like a sniper shooting from 2700 yards, occasionally you just get lucky...I'm sure that Taliban leader didn't expect to get one in the chest from just about 1.5 miles but, it happens in real life.

This is NOT a game for the casual demographic. This game is going to be geared at the FPS player in general.

I never said your win-loss percentage would be capped, I said that if you're destroying the other team, things may change...

Dominance isn't fun. Dominance isn't exciting. If I dominate my opponent, I get nothing out of it, I don't learn...I don't grow...I simply win. Winning is not conducive to me being better at something, it's simply winning.

You don't get better at COD if you're dominated. You don't get better at BF if you're dominated. YOU WILL get better at Titanfall, if you're dominated because the AI opens the opportunity for you to learn from your mistakes by ramping up a bit.

Is it going to destroy the dominating? No...But, the losing side is going to have an advantage.
post #186 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

So because you SHOULD win, it shouldn't be a challenge? I'm sorry but, that sounds extremely arrogant to me...CODish, in fact.

That's not cheap, that's how TF2 has worked since day 1...It's just like a sniper shooting from 2700 yards, occasionally you just get lucky...I'm sure that Taliban leader didn't expect to get one in the chest from just about 1.5 miles but, it happens in real life.

This is NOT a game for the casual demographic. This game is going to be geared at the FPS player in general.

I never said your win-loss percentage would be capped, I said that if you're destroying the other team, things may change...

Dominance isn't fun. Dominance isn't exciting. If I dominate my opponent, I get nothing out of it, I don't learn...I don't grow...I simply win. Winning is not conducive to me being better at something, it's simply winning.

You don't get better at COD if you're dominated. You don't get better at BF if you're dominated. YOU WILL get better at Titanfall, if you're dominated because the AI opens the opportunity for you to learn from your mistakes by ramping up a bit.

Is it going to destroy the dominating? No...But, the losing side is going to have an advantage.

People manage to cs and mobas and sc without ai handicaps. The current fps generation is so coddled due to cod and massive scale fps though
post #187 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

So because you SHOULD win, it shouldn't be a challenge? I'm sorry but, that sounds extremely arrogant to me...CODish, in fact.
Ha, seems like you took that personally...That's not arrogance. That's just pragmatism. A novice picking the game up for the first time should not be able to consistently kill players of a higher skill level. To give new players a handicap like that does nothing to actually improve their ability at the game because they will not know how to play when they eventually don't have such a handicap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

That's not cheap, that's how TF2 has worked since day 1...It's just like a sniper shooting from 2700 yards, occasionally you just get lucky...I'm sure that Taliban leader didn't expect to get one in the chest from just about 1.5 miles but, it happens in real life.
So now you're comparing this game to real life...a game with booster packs and mechs. Right...

And we'll just agree to disagree on TF2. I've played that game since beta and consider myself a pretty good player. It definitely feels cheap to me when I get a random crit kill or when someone gets a random crit kill on me. Just feels like a crutch to give bad players kills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

This is NOT a game for the casual demographic. This game is going to be geared at the FPS player in general.
I guess we'll just have to take your word on this one. I'm waiting for reviews before I buy this game anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

I never said your win-loss percentage would be capped, I said that if you're destroying the other team, things may change...
You said the AI will give the losing team a better shot at winning, so you didn't say it outright, but you implied it. Why should the losing team be given some sort of advantage? I would feel like if you're on the losing team, but think of some strategy on your own (without some AI stepping in) that gives you the upper hand and the win, that victory would feel a lot better than some win where the AI helps you out and gets you a "charity" win.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

Dominance isn't fun. Dominance isn't exciting. If I dominate my opponent, I get nothing out of it, I don't learn...I don't grow...I simply win. Winning is not conducive to me being better at something, it's simply winning.

You don't get better at COD if you're dominated. You don't get better at BF if you're dominated. YOU WILL get better at Titanfall, if you're dominated because the AI opens the opportunity for you to learn from your mistakes by ramping up a bit.

Is it going to destroy the dominating? No...But, the losing side is going to have an advantage.
I disagree with this. The first 20 hours or so that I played BF3, I was horrible. My K/D was around 0.5 or so. But the more I played, the better I got. I learned from my mistakes and after about 50 hours or so, my K/D was up to around 2. Yeah, maybe some AI could've helped me out and got me a better K/D and more wins sooner, but that takes away from the experience IMO. Getting kills and winning matches now feels more satisfying because I was once the guy getting beat down regularly.

I think we just have different viewpoints on the subject that no amount of discussion will reconcile. Not to bring politics into this, but it seems you hold more of a "socialist" view on this where the skilled and unskilled should sort of regress to the middle somewhere. I hold more of a "capitalist" view where the bad players can claw their way up to being good and the good players will consistently win.

Anyway, good talk. I hope the game pans out. It's definitely one of the titles I'm looking forward to the most in 2014. thumb.gif
Edited by decimator - 1/10/14 at 8:33am
post #188 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by decimator View Post

Ha, seems like you took that personally...That's not arrogance. That's just pragmatism. A novice picking the game up for the first time should not be able to consistently kill players of a higher skill level. To give new players a handicap like that does nothing to actually improve their ability at the game because they will not know how to play when they eventually don't have such a handicap.
So now you're comparing this game to real life...a game with booster packs and mechs. Right...

Take it personally? God no.

I don't take anything on a forum personally. I do however, find the thought that "you should dominate because you're pro" to be incredibly elitist.

I absolutely agree. A novice won't be able to wall climb. A novice won't be able to assasinate or shoot while climbing. A novice won't have the knowledge of the map. Within those boundaries, I absolutely agree with you that a skilled player should dominate...My disagreement comes into play when you autmatically assume the average player will gain skill by being dominated.

I watched a pro game of CS last night...HUGE fan of CSS...Average life span was 20s. Please, Decimator, since you're an expert on decimating and domination, explain to me, how 20 seconds is enough to improve on a skill? To learn a skill? To get better? Oh wait, it's not...Because these players are pro.

My point is that you are of the opinion that the average person won't get frustrated, won't rage quit, will accept your dominance when he/she has no window of opportunity through with to learn and/or improve...That opinion no longer fits the genre.

Quote:
And we'll just agree to disagree on TF2. I've played that game since beta and consider myself a pretty good player. It definitely feels cheap to me when I get a random crit kill or when someone gets a random crit kill on me. Just feels like a crutch to give bad players kills.

So getting a headshot would be a "random crit kill"? Interesting...It's not a crutch and exists in other FPS...FEAR for example, integrated critical hits long before anyone knew that's what they were. ARMA3...
Quote:
You said the AI will give the losing team a better shot at winning, so you didn't say it outright, but you implied it. Why should the losing team be given some sort of advantage? I would feel like if you're on the losing team, but think of some strategy on your own (without some AI stepping in) that gives you the upper hand and the win, that victory would feel a lot better than some win where the AI helps you out and gets you a "charity" win.

You're taking a simple concept and skewing it well beyond it's reality.

I said the AI would scale in difficulty and gave you an example.

There is no charity win. There are no charity victories.

The AI currently scales to the difficulty of an opponent.

If I'm a pro and you're a noob, should there be a dominance? Sure...A slaughter? No.

I want the opportunity to learn from a better opponent, the honor in fighting a similarly skilled opponent. I want to better myself through that engagement. Not mercilessly slaughter my opponent and Titanfall offers that.

You ultimately control the action of that Titan, if you do something stupid, you suffer the consequences, use that Titan correctly, you gain advantage...The strategic element is still king above all.

Quote:
I disagree with this. The first 20 hours or so that I played BF3, I was horrible. My K/D was around 0.5 or so. But the more I played, the better I got. I learned from my mistakes and after about 50 hours or so, my K/D was up to around 2. Yeah, maybe some AI could've helped me out and got me a better K/D and more wins sooner, but that takes away from the experience IMO. Getting kills and winning matches now feels more satisfying because I was once the guy getting beat down regularly.

That's interesting because as I take a gander through the BF3 forums, the #1 complaint is hacking and how players can't improve because spawn locations don't allow them too, much less when they do spawn and are killed within 3 steps...

The same is true of COD, the average complaint is that there's such a slant to skill, the game's no longer fair.
Quote:
I think we just have different viewpoints on the subject that no amount of discussion will reconcile. Not to bring politics into this, but it seems you hold more of a "socialist" view on this where the skilled and unskilled should sort of regress to the middle somewhere. I hold more of a "capitalist" view where the bad players can claw their way up to being good and the good players will consistently win.

Lol. I have absolutely nothing against capitalism, in fact, I'm a capitalist.

What I have against your stance is the lack of dignity and/or honor. When you mercilessly slaughter an opponent repeatedly, you have none.

Would I rather repeatedly slaughter an opponent to the point of where he rage-quits and likely curses the game forever? Or would I rather help that individual learn to play and improve his skill?

Titanfall offers that ability through strategy and an AI.

If you're doing poorly because you're learning and your opponent is slaughtering you to oblivion, it picks up a little bit.

Quite frankly, that's not only inventive, it's damn well brilliant...Because now the guy that WAS getting slaughtered has hope, he has the belief that he can still play you, the pro, at an honorable level so instead of quitting, he now engages you, learns from that experience and builds upon it.

So instead of quitting, that opponent now engages you...Even when he loses the game, he's learned what he can do, what he can't do and has improved on himself rather than being randomly slaughtered by an opponent.

To slaughter someone doesn't take skill. To engage at an even keel, does.
post #189 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaBestiaHumana View Post

Hackers will ruin the game for PC. This looks like its gonna be another "only fun on Xbox " game. I hope I'm wrong.
Meh, not really a problem nowadays.

and please let's not forget Halo 2 on XBL...Or even COD on XBL/PSN.
post #190 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

Take it personally? God no.

I don't take anything on a forum personally. I do however, find the thought that "you should dominate because you're pro" to be incredibly elitist.
Not sure how that's elitist. Pros are called pros for a reason. They are good at what they do. If they were bad, we wouldn't call them pros. In that context, pros should win consistently (maybe not against other pros, but against amateurs for sure).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

I absolutely agree. A novice won't be able to wall climb. A novice won't be able to assasinate or shoot while climbing. A novice won't have the knowledge of the map. Within those boundaries, I absolutely agree with you that a skilled player should dominate...My disagreement comes into play when you autmatically assume the average player will gain skill by being dominated.
I think the average player has a lot to learn from being dominated. It's just a matter of patience. It should not be on the game developer's shoulders to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

I watched a pro game of CS last night...HUGE fan of CSS...Average life span was 20s. Please, Decimator, since you're an expert on decimating and domination, explain to me, how 20 seconds is enough to improve on a skill? To learn a skill? To get better? Oh wait, it's not...Because these players are pro.
You're assuming pros go into pubs and pubstomp on the reg. That can't be further from the truth. Pros will scrim other pros and practice with their teammates when they're not playing matches. A pro won't just go into a pub and dump on everyone else just for the hell of it. They have better things to do, like honing their craft so they can make more money at the next tournament.

I played CS since 1.3 (stopped playing after 1.6 and picked up TF2) and the only time I ever encountered pros in pubs was in deathmatch servers. I've scrimmed in 1.6 against pros and have gotten my ass handed to me. Instead of crying about it, I watched the HLTV demos of the games and learned from them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

My point is that you are of the opinion that the average person won't get frustrated, won't rage quit, will accept your dominance when he/she has no window of opportunity through with to learn and/or improve...That opinion no longer fits the genre.
So the game developer should be spoon-feeding the players now to keep them from getting frustrated? Forgive me if I'm not of that mindset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

So getting a headshot would be a "random crit kill"? Interesting...It's not a crutch and exists in other FPS...FEAR for example, integrated critical hits long before anyone knew that's what they were. ARMA3...
I said random crit kills. All sniper headshots (unless you're using the Sydney Sleeper) are critical hits. That's not random. It takes skill to land a sniper headshot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

You're taking a simple concept and skewing it well beyond it's reality.

I said the AI would scale in difficulty and gave you an example.

There is no charity win. There are no charity victories.
Please elaborate on this. That was the impression that I got from your previous posts. Like I asked in another post, how does the AI make the game fair while keeping the game accessible to novices? Seems like a pretty tall order to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

The AI currently scales to the difficulty of an opponent.

If I'm a pro and you're a noob, should there be a dominance? Sure...A slaughter? No.
Ok, you're giving a broad explanation, but can you be a little more specific? What does the AI do exactly that scales the difficulty? If the AI is giving the losing team a bunch of heavy weapons or shortening mech respawn times just because they're losing, that would feel cheap to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

I want the opportunity to learn from a better opponent, the honor in fighting a similarly skilled opponent. I want to better myself through that engagement. Not mercilessly slaughter my opponent and Titanfall offers that.
Seems to me like you can do that in any game out right now if you dedicate yourself to it. Watch YouTube vids or game demos and the like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

You ultimately control the action of that Titan, if you do something stupid, you suffer the consequences, use that Titan correctly, you gain advantage...The strategic element is still king above all.
We'll see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

That's interesting because as I take a gander through the BF3 forums, the #1 complaint is hacking and how players can't improve because spawn locations don't allow them too, much less when they do spawn and are killed within 3 steps...

The same is true of COD, the average complaint is that there's such a slant to skill, the game's no longer fair.
I never had much of an issue with hackers in BF3. I don't play the game anymore because Origin doesn't work for me anymore after the latest update, but when I did play, the matches I were in were competitive. As for the spawning mechanic, you are invulnerable for a couple of seconds when you first spawn in BF3. On a large map, I would always do a quick 360 to see if any enemies were trying to spawncamp me, so spawncamping was never really an issue for me unless it was a broken map like Bazaar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

Lol. I have absolutely nothing against capitalism, in fact, I'm a capitalist.

What I have against your stance is the lack of dignity and/or honor. When you mercilessly slaughter an opponent repeatedly, you have none.
Ok, now I see where you're coming from, but there's no convincing me on this one. I will not play down to the competition (or let some AI tie me down) because the other team will view it as "good sportsmanship". That's just ridiculous. Nor do I think playing to your full ability, even if that means winning by a wide margin, is "bad sportsmanship".

I am a basketball player. I have played basketball for 15 years. I play regularly at my local rec center. I play against less experienced players all the time. I never take it easy on them. I feel like I would be doing myself and my opponents a disservice by doing so. This is not a basketball clinic. This is a game, a competition where both sides are trying to win. I do not play the game without integrity (commit cheap fouls and the like) and always try and help players on the other team get up off the floor if they fall, but I won't play down to the competition and I do not expect as much in return. Once the game is over, I have no problem talking to the other players and saying things like "hey, you can't be standing flat-footed on D" or "you were getting burned on backdoor cuts because you were ball-watching", but during the game, it's all business.

Even between pros, you'll see some blowouts. Blowouts happen in the NBA all the time. The losers use these games as fuel to get better, at least the ones who are smart do. They don't just ragequit because the going gets tough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

Would I rather repeatedly slaughter an opponent to the point of where he rage-quits and likely curses the game forever? Or would I rather help that individual learn to play and improve his skill?
It's not the fault of better players if a noob ragequits. That's entirely on the noob for not having the patience to put in the hours to learn the ins and outs of the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masked View Post

Titanfall offers that ability through strategy and an AI.

If you're doing poorly because you're learning and your opponent is slaughtering you to oblivion, it picks up a little bit.

Quite frankly, that's not only inventive, it's damn well brilliant...Because now the guy that WAS getting slaughtered has hope, he has the belief that he can still play you, the pro, at an honorable level so instead of quitting, he now engages you, learns from that experience and builds upon it.

So instead of quitting, that opponent now engages you...Even when he loses the game, he's learned what he can do, what he can't do and has improved on himself rather than being randomly slaughtered by an opponent.

To slaughter someone doesn't take skill. To engage at an even keel, does.
All right, well, you know where I stand on this.
Edited by decimator - 1/10/14 at 5:53pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Game News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [DS] Titanfall Dev Gives Lots of Details on 6 vs 6 Player Count: “a TON of Debate” About it at Respawn