Support NeoGAF

[Mr_Brit]

What kind of framerate does it hold when there are 256 people on your screen at once?

I don't know, I was only in the BETA and thought it sucked so never followed up on the game. From what I remember the framerate was mostly solid, geometry, textures, sounds, animations etc were all bad on the other hand.

Can you even display 256 people at once on screen(highest I ever saw whilst playing was like 25-30 and that was at a fairly congested choke point on the map)? Has that ever been attempted?

 

[Stallion Free]

I don't know, I was only in the BETA and thought it sucked so never followed up on the game. From what I remember the framerate was mostly solid, geometry, textures, sounds, animations etc were all bad on the other hand.

Can you even display 256 people at once on screen(highest I ever saw whilst playing was like 25-30 and that was at a fairly congested choke point on the map)? Has that ever been attempted?

So why does anyone care about 256 players when you never see most of them?

 

[Mr_Brit]

So why does anyone care about 256 players when you never see most of them?

Beats me.

 

[derFeef]

So why does anyone care about 256 players when you never see most of them?

256 is "larger" than 64. I remember a BF-like game with 128 players on PC years ago with eastern setting I think, but forgot the name. It was terrible.

 

[The Faceless Master]

So why does anyone care about 256 players when you never see most of them?

*waits for the inevitable youtube video*

 

[Stallion Free]

*waits for the inevitable youtube video*

*waits for video showing slideshow performance*

 

[Cuban Legend]

Consoles only being able to handle 24 players is complete and utter bullshit.

MAG completely and utterly destroys EVERY platform for player numbers.

No and No!

But then again all console games look like shit including BF3 so what's the problem.....right?

Let me tell you what the problem is, You've got 2 problems:

First, if you really believe that "player numbers of 256 in a server" utterly destroys as the end-all-be-all to make a game worth playing over another game with "player numbers of 24 in a server", then your not only a stupid troll, but...

...Second, you are exactly the reason why DICE has to use standard features in the BF series since 2002 like "64players, jets, and prone" as a marketing for idiots who care about trivialities like "how much of a clusterfuck a game could potentially be" as opposed to "how well the game actually plays as a total package" regardless of features or statistics.

 

[fuzzyreactor]

looking forward to this. I liked BFBC2 but never got into it as i was still playing killzone 2. KZ2 community is basically dead now so i need a new game to replace it for my FPS fix.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Yeah, make your game look like utter shit and that all becomes possible.

What does looks have to do with bandwidth?

*waits for video showing slideshow performance*

Erm... The video showing all the players had pretty much the same frame rate as usual in that game...

Spoiler

Which isn't great to begin with but... it didn't drops frames with all those players

Let me tell you what the problem is, You've got 2 problems:

First, if you really believe that "player numbers of 256 in a server" utterly destroys as the end-all-be-all to make a game worth playing over another game with "player numbers of 24 in a server", then your not only a stupid troll, but...

...Second, you are exactly the reason why DICE has to use standard features in the BF series since 2002 like "64players, jets, and prone" as a marketing for idiots who care about trivialities like "how much of a clusterfuck a game could potentially be" as opposed to "how well the game actually plays as a total package" regardless of features or statistics.

I think you need to re-read what he said and what was being discussed.

So why does anyone care about 256 players when you never see most of them?

First of all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_FEbTO8udg

Second, did you really just make that question? Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they're not there playing and affecting the battlefield. Specially in a game like MAG...


And for the record, I hated MAG... but some of you people just like to talk nonsense to dismiss a game...

 

[Raide]

I would love 32 players but most console Battlefield players have been rolling with 24 for a while. I still have huge amounts of fun blowing people up in tanks and defibbing people in the back of the head but the 24 player count can make some of the bigger maps feel a little empty.

Just try 32 and see what happens! More players = More people to shoot in the face!

 

[Foxtastical]

So why does anyone care about 256 players when you never see most of them?

MAG feels like Battlefield most of the time, but hey, your map shows that a hundred of your friends are fighting nearby. It's the thought that counts.

PS; I liked MAG.

 

[Afrikan]

*waits for video showing slideshow performance*

what the hell is your problem?

here is the vid for u...128 players on screen, but I'm sure more could have been there if the opposition cooperated.

also for those who just played the Beta before release, Zipper has done a good job improving the visuals over updates... imo, it used to move bad, like in Resistance 2...but after some patches, it moves like every other multiplayer, only with LARGE levels and alot of people scattered out. But if needed, you can always get together just for the fuck of it.

also, I can see people still playing MAG over BF3, on the PS3. They are different games with different play types.

I personally like both for their own reasons. But since BF3 is the new game, I'm excited for that. But I'm also excited for Socom 4, mainly because it will be pushing some of the tech that BF3 will be. Sure probebly not as advanced with Jets and destruction (on DICE's level) but there will be alot of things going on for a the 32player game.

 

[ghst]

here is the vid for u...128 players on screen, but I'm sure more could have been there if the opposition cooperated.

looks better than i remembered.

 

[Metalmurphy]

256 is "larger" than 64. I remember a BF-like game with 128 players on PC years ago with eastern setting I think, but forgot the name. It was terrible.

The game was Joint Operations, and it was freaking awesome.

Spiritual Successor to Delta Force
128 Players (unofficial servers had them up to 250 players)
Huge maps
All sorts of vehicles
Transport helicopters you could put vehicles in.
Day/Night cycle.


Pure awesomeness.

 

[derFeef]

The game was Joint Operations, and it was freaking awesome.

Spiritual Successor to Delta Force
128 Players
Huge maps
All sorts of vehicles
Transport helicopters you could put vehicles in.
Day/Night cycle.


Pure awesomeness.

Ah yeah! But it was pretty much broken in every way. Physics, shooting, performance. maybe it was better later on?

 

[Cuban Legend]

I think you need to re-read what he said and what was being discussed.

I've got what he said quoted in my post, so yes I'm very clear on what he said/was being discussed.

Emphasizing solely on the player numbers being a factor... now that's "complete and utter bullshit" if he truly believed it. But since this is GAF and thus, I doubt he's stupid; it was probably just a troll, a failed troll at that.

I addressed both possibilities (albeit a bit harshly) in my post.

 

[wwm0nkey]

I dont get why people liked MAG, I personally though the gameplay was trash.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I hope Squads are fully incorporated this year as opposed to having this as a run and gun.

 

[Metalmurphy]

I've got what he said quoted in my post, so yes I'm very clear on what he said/was being discussed.

Emphasizing solely on the player numbers being a factor... now that's "complete and utter bullshit" if he truly believed it. But since this is GAF and thus, I doubt he's stupid; it was probably just a troll, a failed troll at that.

I addressed both possibilities (albeit a bit harshly) in my post.

Are you really?

He said the game destroyed them "for player numbers" solely. You went out to mention everything else... He wasn't saying it was a better game.

 

[Foxtastical]

I dont get why people liked MAG, I personally though the gameplay was trash.

For me, enjoying MAG involved more than liking just the combat (which I thought felt pretty janky as well).

 

[Cuban Legend]

Are you really?

He said the game destroyed them "in player count" solely. You went out to mention everything else... He wasn't saying it was a better game.

That's my exact point, player count doesn't mean anything, something his posts were suggesting. As true as it might be that 256 is more that 64 in the mathematical regard, it doesn't mean anything when translated into brand popularity as a result. His issue mentioning player count came after others who were also complaining that 24 players was too little on the consoles.

It's not, BC2 played just fine with 24. BF3 is adding larger maps with more destructibility, a more graphically advance engine and jets into the equation...There is only so much DICE could squeeze into the console without the frame-rate dipping.

And even if they could, guess what... Sony and MS happen to have bandwidth limits, something DICE has said was a factor in not raising the player count on consoles for their newest release under the Frostbite Engine.

 

[wwm0nkey]

For me, enjoying MAG involved more than liking just the combat (which I thought felt pretty janky as well).

Well I just ment the gun play, everything else was fine...but just couldn't get past the gun play

 

[Revolutionary]

*waits for video showing slideshow performance*

Wait, are you implying that a console can't perform as well as a gaming PC? ZOMG MIND BLOWN

FYI, Mount & Blade Warband has ~200 player servers and there's a significantly less amount of things going on as far as physics and such go, but it can still become a "slideshow" (the video you're referencing is hovering around 30 so I'm assuming that's a slideshow for you) if your PC isn't up to snuff (common sense, I know, but judging by the quoted post...).

 

[Metalmurphy]

That's my exact point, player count doesn't "make" a game, as true as it might be that 256 is more mathematically that 64, it doesn't mean anything when translated into brand popularity as a result. He mentioned player count after others who were also complaining that 24 players was too little on the consoles.

It's not, BC2 played just fine with 24. BF3 is adding larger maps with more destructibility, a more graphically advance engine and jets into the equation...There is only so much DICE could squeeze into the console without the frame-rate dipping.

And even if they could, guess what... Sony and MS happen to have bandwidth limits, something DICE has said was a factor in not raising the player count on consoles for newest their Forstbite Engine release.

But he never said it did make a better game, which made you jumping on him with that not make alot of sense.

He was just saying how this 24players due to "console limits" is BS since MAG has 256 players.

And to answer CozMick about that very same issue. It's possible that this is just an XBL thing and not necessarily PSN. We all know how limited and close XBL is, and how open PSN is. U got MAG and DC Universe, and sure 360 has FFXI but it's using PlayOnline from SE and even so they kinda got special treatment.

And since both companies don't allow games to have differences like that on each platform the lowest denominator stays.

This is just me making assumptions though.

 

[Nizz]

That's my exact point, player count doesn't mean anything, something his posts were suggesting. As true as it might be that 256 is more that 64 in the mathematical regard, it doesn't mean anything when translated into brand popularity as a result. His issue mentioning player count came after others who were also complaining that 24 players was too little on the consoles.

It's not, BC2 played just fine with 24. BF3 is adding larger maps with more destructibility, a more graphically advance engine and jets into the equation...There is only so much DICE could squeeze into the console without the frame-rate dipping.

And even if they could, guess what... Sony and MS happen to have bandwidth limits, something DICE has said was a factor in not raising the player count on consoles for their newest release under the Frostbite Engine.

This is why I'm fine with 24 players on console. More destruction, better graphics, jets. If keeping the player count at 24 means I can enjoy all the new bells and whistles without it affecting framerate then so be it.

I'm a little worried that they're going to try and push harder with 32 players and the framerate is going to suffer.

 

[iam220]

He was just saying how this 24players due to "console limits" is BS since MAG has 256 players.

It's not really an apples to apples comparison, each game is designed differently and utilizes different tech, different client prediction code, etc etc etc

Saying 24 players is max on consoles on the FB engine is not necessarily bullshit.

 

[1-D_FTW]

The consumers have always been idiots, but I'm annoyed that DICE is indulging them. Perks and ridiculous unlock trees hurt the games in the long-run as you establish the haves and have-nots. It's absolutely ridiculous how much of a disadvantage newcomers have in multiplayer games these days. BF2 and 2142 had plenty of unlocks but aside from stuff like advanced medhubs and things of that ilk, most of them were just alternatives to the default setups and didn't offer you a clear advantage. DICE of course, threw this philosophy out the window in Bad Company 2 with the retarded magnum ammo which you can't properly counter unless you play the game for 17-20 hours and unlock the body armor DERP.

Perks should only be in CoD which the game was designed around. It's a damned shame this industry has such a focus-grouped approach sometimes.

Preaching to the choir, friend.

Just saying, I'm not sure it's fair to blast them too hard when even the interviewers are slobbering goons who beg for more. They are running a business and apparently it's something the masses demand.

Personally, I wouldn't rage if they were done intelligently. Give all the best weapons and perks at the start and you can have 1,000,000 class levels for all I care. But locking away things like med kit, scopes, and giving away Magnum perks to people who don't need any more advantages are why I'm a lot more excited about Red Orchestra 2 than BF 3. There's so much that can go wrong here. And Dice's history is less then stellar when it comes to judgment.

 

[Metalmurphy]

It's not really an apples to apples comparison, each game is designed differently and utilizes different tech, different client prediction code, etc etc etc

Saying 24 players is max on consoles on the FB engine is not necessarily bullshit.

Yeah, i agree with that.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

This is why I'm fine with 24 players on console. More destruction, better graphics, jets. If keeping the player count at 24 means I can enjoy all the new bells and whistles without it affecting framerate then so be it.

I'm a little worried that they're going to try and push harder with 32 players and the framerate is going to suffer.

But the problem is that if Jets and bigger maps are in the console versions with not even a bump to 32 players, it won't feel like the 24 players from BC2.

Lets say it's 12 per team:

2-3 people fighting for a Jet(or Jets)
2-3 people fighting for choppers
another 2-3+ people as co-pilots/passengers

Who's left on the ground actually going for objectives, and not camping vehicle spawns? Potentially 6 guys total? At least with 32 it could be 14 people left on the ground.

 

[Cuban Legend]

But he never said it did make a better game, which made you jumping on him with that not make alot of sense.

He was just saying how this 24players due to "console limits" is BS since MAG has 256 players.

If he dint outright say it was a better game, then what does bashing BF's 24-player count by calling it complete and utter bullshit mean?

He can bash the player count all he wants, the fact of the matter is that player count doesn't mean anything more than what is, a mathematical fact. (which is why its just troll-bait nonsense amongst serious discussion ITT)

Since both games were developed on their own schedule's with their own goal regarding what kind game/game-experience the developer wanted to deliver, comparing both in that way is ridiculous. All the 256 players per server in MAG didn't make it any better a game, when a lowly 9% cut of that 256 was BC2's limit of 24.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

I don't know why everyone is speculating how things will work on consoles. I keep saying it over and over but did you not play BF1943? It's looking like it will be identical in terms of map size/player count. Just Frostbite 2 engine instead of 1 (or whatever 1943 is using).

 

[Cuban Legend]

Yeah, i agree with that.

Well good because that's exactly what I was trying to get him to realize. I just have little patience for redundancy.

 

[bigboss370]

i think people are assuming wrongly that the consoles can't do more players at the same visual/technical level because of hardware limitations. thats not the case...the problem is bandwidth limitations. consoles can handle the number of players with high destruction and visuals just fine, its just the bandwidth limit that they have that forced DICE to lower the player count from what it is on PC.

personally i absolutely loved Bad Company 2's multiplayer(the best FPS MP I ever played) so if BF3 stays similar to that, i'll be happy.

 

[SapientWolf]

But the problem is that if Jets and bigger maps are in the console versions with not even a bump to 32 players, it won't feel like the 24 players from BC2.

Lets say it's 12 per team:

2-3 people fighting for a Jet(or Jets)
2-3 people fighting for choppers
another 2-3+ people as co-pilots/passengers

Who's left on the ground actually going for objectives, and not camping vehicle spawns? Potentially 6 guys total? At least with 32 it could be 14 people left on the ground.

That's why I'm lobbying for jets and tanks as perks for people that actually help their team. Homefront is doing just that. It would also aid team cohesion if people could give their allies perk points as a reward for helpful behavior.

 

[iam220]

He can bash the player count all he wants, the fact of the matter is that player count doesn't mean anything more than what is, a mathematical fact. (which is why its just troll-bait nonsense amongst serious discussion ITT)

That's also true for every aspect of a video game and or computer program, it's all "mathematical fact". Player count is important and has many implications on the gameplay experience. Even going from 24 to 32 makes for a significant difference in the way you play the game. Especially in a game like battlefield who's gameplay is arguably designed around the idea of having a lot of players on a server.

 

[Ovid]

MAG does indeed look bad but then again it does have 256 players so it's kind of justified.

THIS.

 

[Nizz]

But the problem is that if Jets and bigger maps are in the console versions with not even a bump to 32 players, it won't feel like the 24 players from BC2.

Lets say it's 12 per team:

2-3 people fighting for a Jet(or Jets)
2-3 people fighting for choppers
another 2-3+ people as co-pilots/passengers

Who's left on the ground actually going for objectives, and not camping vehicle spawns? Potentially 6 guys total? At least with 32 it could be 14 people left on the ground.

Good points. In BF2, it was always two people in the jets? Maybe on consoles it could be just one person piloting the jet, like one person piloting the plane in 1943.

If DICE is somehow able to add more players and it doesn't harm framerate in any way then more power to them. That would be one of my biggest concerns.

 

[bigboss370]

That's why I'm lobbying for jets and tanks as perks for people that actually help their team. Homefront is doing just that. It would also aid team cohesion if people could give their allies perk points as a reward for helpful behavior.

oh hell no, i'd hate that. blocking anyone from using vehicles because it is a perk is a terrible idea imo.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

oh hell no, i'd hate that. blocking anyone from using vehicles because it is a perk is a terrible idea imo.

I get what he means though, and it looks like it absolutely works for Homefront. They have 32 player matches, but with the map design, and how they force you to play the infantry game for the first part of the match, it makes it look like it's a huge dynamically changing battle as people build points to "buy" vehicles and drones. I'm not sure if that would really work in BF, but I like the idea.

 

[I <3 Memes]

I just don't see where unlockables are necessary for a game like BF3. Sure COD uses them but that is a basic part of it's gameplay. Small maps, small player counts, quick kills, unlockables, and prestige. Battlefileds attraction is the battlefield.

Just like no other game brings a living breathing city to life like the GTA games, Battlefield games are played because they bring the best feeling of an actual battlefield to life. Unlockables and numbers all over my screen just ruins that feeling.

 

[Loxley]

So why does anyone care about 256 players when you never see most of them?

Annnnnd that's where they'd normally cut the PR interviews off "Whoa hey, look at the time...."

 

[poppabk]

Plus a lot of the vehicles are used for basic transportation.

 

[Metalmurphy]

If he dint outright say it was a better game, then what does bashing BF's 24-player count by calling it complete and utter bullshit mean?

He can bash the player count all he wants, the fact of the matter is that player count doesn't mean anything more than what is, a mathematical fact. (which is why its just troll-bait nonsense amongst serious discussion ITT)

Since both games were developed on their own schedule's with their own goal regarding what kind game/game-experience the developer wanted to deliver, comparing both in that way is ridiculous. All the 256 players per server in MAG didn't make it any better a game, when a lowly 9% cut of that 256 was BC2's limit of 24.

I don't think he was saying 24 players was bullshit, and that the game is worst for it. He was saying the claims that consoles can't support 24 players due to bandwith caps were bullshit... I don't why it's so hard to understand that...

Well good because that's exactly what I was trying to get him to realize. I just have little patience for redundancy.

Really? Cause you said nothing of the sort... We're talking about technical limitations of consoles, and you were talking how more players don't necessarily make a game any better, something no one was actually denying at this point.

Annnnnd that's where they'd normally cut the PR interviews off "Whoa hey, look at the time...."

Why do people play MMOs when they don't see the 2k players per server most of the time?

 

[TheExecutive]

So why does anyone care about 256 players when you never see most of them?

Well for one thing many of the maps were designed around 256 players so there were something like 16 different bunkers to spawn from and therefore you got a different taste of the maps everytime you played and you were never far from the action. That at least says something about the 256 player limit that you dont see in other games.

 

[Enkidu]

I don't think he wasn't saying 24 players was bullshit, and that the game is worst for it. He was saying the claims that consoles can't support 24 players due to bandwith caps were bullshit... I don't why it's so hard to understand that...

But is it bullshit though? I mean, clearly consoles can handle it in certain games, but I don't see why some people refuse to accept that it's not possible in Battlefield. Do they think Dice is lying? Or are they maybe actively trying to sabotage the console version in favor of the PC one?

 

[TheExecutive]

Annnnnd that's where they'd normally cut the PR interviews off "Whoa hey, look at the time...."

There's much more to it than just seeing 256 players. There are command structures that can, on occassion, actually feel like a cohesive unit.

 

[Metalmurphy]

But is it bullshit though? I mean, clearly consoles can handle it in certain games, but I don't see why some people refuse to accept that it's not possible in Battlefield. Do they think Dice is lying? Or are they maybe actively trying to sabotage the console version in favor of the PC one?

I don't think we can really tell, so we should trust DICE on this one.

I mean sure, MAG has 256 players, but it has like 1 vehicle per map, and no destruction.
Frontlines has 50 players, vehicles, but no destruction.

 

[TheExecutive]

But is it bullshit though? I mean, clearly consoles can handle it in certain games, but I don't see why some people refuse to accept that it's not possible in Battlefield. Do they think Dice is lying? Or are they maybe actively trying to sabotage the console version in favor of the PC one?

No, its not bullshit. I am sure DICE would love to be able to port the game directly to consoles but that isn't a possibility. I am absolutely positive DICE knows much more about their engine and what it is capable of than a bunch of internet heroes. Complaining is complaining.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

No, its not bullshit. I am sure DICE would love to be able to port the game directly to consoles but that isn't a possibility. I am absolutely positive DICE knows much more about their engine and what it is capable of than a bunch of internet heroes. Complaining is complaining.

Well according to the GameInformer notes, console numbers weren't increased because there were no complaints so we're on the right track

 

[TheExecutive]

Well according to the GameInformer notes, console numbers weren't increased because there were no complaints so we're on the right track

Yep, E3 will be filled with tears because BF3 has been delayed due to the incessant bitching from console players wanting 32 people in maps. Optimization delay incoming.