You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
Well so far it is selling mostly on hype. For example Dragon Age 2 is a game (coincidentally also by EA) that was hyped a lot and reviewed very highly but is not considered very good by players.
Also to me this seems like a problem with the low player count:
One of the problems of it being 6v6 only is the maps.
There is a problem: with low player counts you want "tight" maps where the other players are easily reachable etc. But the problem here is that Titanfall is a game centered on huge vehicles that don't fit on small and tight maps.
How is it possible to design a map that is both "tight" and intense, but also has space and lots of obstacles so that vehicle movement and combat is meaningful? To me it just doesn't seem possible.
The need for the AI enemies indeed suggest that they couldn't design a map that is both spacious and obstacle filled for large vehicles while also being tight and condensed enough for a small number of players. So the AI is there as filler to make the map not seem empty even though it is empty of players.
People assume they know how to make a game better than the actual developers. It's really interesting.
Devs associating with EA are known for not being very accurate when describing their games and sometimes outright lying about games. For example the devs of SimCity tried to explain the strange design choice of always online by saying that the servers did some calculations related to the game but this was actually not true and the game was playable offline.