Support NeoGAF

[BruiserBear]

That's a good point. It could just be the packaging with a blank disc with the sticker. I figure 4-5 weeks out, we should be hearing that games have gone gold. I'm getting overly excited because this is getting so close.

Also keep in mind that not every developer feels the need to announce their game has gone gold.

 

[HigherLevel]

Ground War has always had too many players for a CoD match, why would anyone want more?

 

[Kajiba]

Good, this kind of clusterfuck isn't fun.

Lmao comments on that video are great.

Having more people on a map doesn't sound fun.

 

[level44]

Ew dat ugly green on the disc.
Seriously, they couldn't have just put a logo instead?

 

[miDnIghtEr20C]

so 64 players for xbox one BF4.
19 for COD.....

am i getting this correct ?


lol if that is the case, i don't know what to say. i just hope BF4 sell more this year. not because i hate COD, its because i want the developers to wake up and stop releasing the same game under different skins.

You don't seem to know the differences between these two franchises. This isn't about limitations. This is design choice. You think COD players want to run around a small map with 64 players on it? No way.

2 different games, 2 different game styles of play.

BF is just that... a huge battle field to play the game on. Last I checked COD doesn't have Jets and Helicopters all over the place. It's design and the way it's supposed to be.

 

[Stinkles]

I heard FIFA only supports 11.

 

[SymbiantXenos]

9 v 9

Good balance there

 

[Frillen]

If you've ever played a Call of Duty online, you would understand this choice.

 

[Dmented]

I wish there was an option to get 16v16 at least in PC version. Always have fun on 32 player servers.

 

[Speedy Blue Dude]

Isn't current CoD mostly 6 vs 6? So 3 players more. Not bad.

 

[Latvian Hitman]

I heard FIFA only supports 11.

FIFA forever staying current-gen, confirmed.

 

[CrunchinJelly]

I heard FIFA only supports 11.

FIFA has 22 player online. Has done for a few years now.

 

[Sub_Level]

I wish there was an option to get 16v16 at least in PC version. Always have fun on 32 player servers.

Even though it wasn't designed for it really, I love 32 player Counter Strike 1.6/Source.

dem Dust bomb rushes mang

 

[Dance Inferno]

I heard FIFA only supports 11.

Next gen my ass amirite?

 

[Smokey]

Not a problem. Probably too many.

 

[Kerub]

I heard FIFA only supports 11.

It's only because the maps are so small. They should make bigger maps.

 

[Hyun Sai]

I heard FIFA only supports 11.

That's a shame... Captain Tsubasa style map could handle 64 players easily...

 

[GodParticle]

More players. I want every map to be like Shipment in COD4 =D

 

[Sub_Level]

I heard that the Xbox One version of Classic Generic Pong will only support two players at any one time lol I guess their Cloud thing was bullshit lmao

 

[Rains]

I was expecting 12v12 on groundwar kinda dissapointing but we will see

 

[model13]

Perfectly cool with this. CoD gameplay doesnt lend well to tons of players. However, I do expect much larger player counts in games that incorporate vehicles.

 

[muu]

Completely design choice. Honestly I vastly prefer the low-number encounters: when you're doing BF's 32 vs 32 thing you're almost never going to be the deciding factor in the course of battle -- CoD does that very well, by rewarding killstreaks. If a bunch of randoms could act as a team maybe, but we all know how often that happens.

 

[Stinkles]

It's only because the maps are so small. They should make bigger maps.

I admit this one made coffee come out my nose.

 

[Currygan]

that's truly awful

RTCW and 64 players, 12 years ago

 

[charsace]

I'm surprised that there are people on GAF who don't understand why COD isn't a 24+ player game. COD isn't designed with high player count in mind. You don't need huge player counts in every shooter.

 

[Frillen]

that's truly awful

RTCW and 64 players, 12 years ago

Again, it's a design choice.

 

[zma1013]

With any more people than that I assume there would just be UAVs and artillery raining down from the sky at every possible moment.

So then it's normal COD.

 

[Tapejara]

6v6 used to be perfect for Call of Duty around the CoD4/WaW days, but they keep making the maps smaller and smaller to the point where 6v6 now feels like a huge clusterfuck.

Ya, I agree. There used to be a lot of variety in the core maps, but now it's one or two medium to large sized maps and the rest are all small. I especially noticed it in MW3, though thankfully the DLC added plenty of larger (and better) maps.

 

[old]

I was hoping with a new gen and new dedicated servers that they would change up the formula and try some different things. But maybe next year's title might do it.

 

[GodofWine]

I think eventually we'll see them make the game a little bigger...as other games push the genre ahead in various ways, they will be foolish to stand pat.

I do think Ghosts is intended mainly for current gen buyers as it really makes no use of the new hardware (resolution bump but still not pretty).

Activision will need to keep their head on a swivel because with each new hardware launch it seems players migrate to new places.

I, personally, do not see their "5 minutes of chaos in a box" format holding up well against games that are coming. (and I like COD, played countless hours of it, but it finally got stale and I am certainly skipping ghosts).

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

It's a design choice.

.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

You don't know COD till you play Shipment with 55 people in Hardcore DM.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Some of you need to go back to mW2, Multiplayer-> Groundwar->Rust->???->loss of profit

 

[MemoryHumanity]

How is this a bad thing? Sounds about right. It's CoD, not Battlefield. Imagine 64 players on a CoD map. Lol no thanks.

 

[CaptainTiptop]

COD is built for a smaller player count. Just sticking 64 players in Ghosts' maps would actually be terrible.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

9 on 9 seems like plenty to me.

 

[PoweredBySoy]

CoD is already a clusterfuck with 18 players. Anymore and it would be complete chaos.

+

I don't get the thought process that more players is inherently better. It relies entirely on map design.

64 players on most of the BF maps is a shit show.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Completely design choice. Honestly I vastly prefer the low-number encounters: when you're doing BF's 32 vs 32 thing you're almost never going to be the deciding factor in the course of battle -- CoD does that very well, by rewarding killstreaks. If a bunch of randoms could act as a team maybe, but we all know how often that happens.

Well that's because Battlefield is about working as a team not a one man army. It's the reason why I hate COD. One player literally dominates the entire game and that's pretty much rest on which team wins. It's not about playing together, it's literally selfish. There's no communication.. I abhor killstreaks because it does not make the game fun for me. If there 3 helicopters in the air and when I respawn, I can't even get a kill or I'm the one being killed, that shit it not fun. Plus I love more people in bigger maps and COD has these small ass maps. I love groundwar and it feels like with every new COD, the maps just get smaller and smaller and it feels so full..

 

[Eggbok]

So the Xbox One cases are longer versions of the PS3/Bluray case?

 

[U2NUMB]

100% expected and amazed people are even bringing this up as a point. The maps are designed for it.. if you want large scale maps and high population per game there is BF4.

 

[Pop]

Tiny maps. Not surprised

 

[aravuus]

Good, this kind of clusterfuck isn't fun.

I thought these were fun for a short while. Like when MW2 was hacked, and here and there you got matches where everyone had infinite ammo and didn't need to reload. They were mindless fun for a couple of hours imo.

Even though it wasn't designed for it really, I love 32 player Counter Strike 1.6/Source.

dem Dust bomb rushes mang

64 player office ftw

I still play on that server now and then

 

[Zarovitch]

no problem here.

 

[Terrordactyl]

correct me if i am wrong. but doesn't COD on pc has 64 players in ?

my point was Dice was able to put 64 players in BF and update them from the number of players on PS3/Xbox 360. yet COD seems stuck with the same number. it seems to be they are just re skinning the game and rushing it for next gen consoles.

Making a run for worst poster on GAF these last few days huh?

 

[The Real Napsta]

9 v 9 is the perfect amount in Call of Duty, IMO, and I played a lot of it last gen.

9v9 is way too many. 4v4/5v5 is where it's at.

 

[dragonelite]

Since when is 18 players bad for a arena game like call of duty if you ask me i like 4vs4 or 5vs5 more then bigger team sizes on small arena maps.

 

[a916]

Well that's because Battlefield is about working as a team not a one man army. It's the reason why I hate COD. One player literally dominates the entire game and that's pretty much rest on which team wins. It's not about playing together, it's literally selfish. There's no communication.. I abhor killstreaks because it does not make the game fun for me. If there 3 helicopters in the air and when I respawn, I can't even get a kill or I'm the one being killed, that shit it not fun. Plus I love more people in bigger maps and COD has these small ass maps. I love groundwar and it feels like with every new COD, the maps just get smaller and smaller and it feels so full..

That's the reason why I like it over BF4... I actually enjoy that feeling of being the MVP and turning the tide of a match by myself.

 

[Tamanon]

OP obviously is not a player of Call of Duty. While a few maps could have more people on it, it'd be insane to have 24-36 on almost all the maps.

 

[Kacho]

9v9 is way too many. 4v4/5v5 is where it's at.

I agree. 9v9 seems like it's going to be a lot more crazy than it already is.

 

[a916]

The game is way too fast paced and chaotic where even the spawn system can't keep up with 9v9 in groundwar... 6v6 is perfect for most maps.

BF trolls are ignoring this is a design choice.