Ok. I guess this is a new spin on that whole "armchair developer" thing? I'm just saying my impressions of it. Perhaps you shouldn't credit developers on limiting decisions you have no say in? They're fine, but having the best rise to the top as the best naturally is better.
["It's been this number for months," he said. "We are pretty avid players in the studio. People speak their minds and we listen and make changes. This is the number that felt best.]
That's fair.
["The game is essentially built to be six on six."]
Ok.
[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.]
So maps, like those chosen for Ground War in Call of Duty, that might be able to comfortably accommodate a higher player count? Hmm, ok.
["I think the only thing that the player count does is really affect the overall chaotic level of the game."]
O ... wait. So why don't we have the option? Assuming that 4 v 4 allowed, and less chaotic, why isn't 9 v 9 allowed and more chaotic? Ultimately, if it's technically feasible, why not give the option?
["It all comes back to the same thing," Hendry said. "I can see why it's hard for people, why it's hard for it to make sense. But it's up to the developer to make the best choices and create the best experiences."]
Yes. But options are fun, and would appease a lot of people. Or maybe it wouldn't. Maybe they'd get to see how it isn't as great as the 6 v 6 experience, first hand, even in a private match setting.