• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Consoles have only just barely begun to catch up with PC in Online Games that offer more than 50 Players

N

Nhranaghacon

Banned
For decades now, on PC - 150v150 Multi Player matches have been the norm, particularly in modded games like Counter Strike (which eventually became a feature), War of Rights, Modded battlefield ect - Some BF1942 games were uncapped to support 300 players easily and that was circa 2004.

But only with this last console generation have Massive Online multiplayer battles become the norm on consoles, and that has only been with a handful of games (notably, Call of Duty Warzone) but now that Console's have found some bit of parity with PC's I expect games offering massive online battles will finally get to come into their own, which is an exciting prospect as the massive online MultiPlayer matches, that are not of the MMO variety need to undergo a renaissance in my opinion.


I just thought this was worth pointing out, specifically because now all dev's can make cross platform games that actually really cater towards this need for massive multiplayer matches and battles. And it's an area that, while it has been normal on PC for nearly 20 years... it has typically been relegated to small counterstrike maps, comically so - and modded battlefield (I think standard on BF has been 60vs60 on pc's, and far less on consoles until lately) so I feel like massive MP battles need far more TLC than the PC community has been able to provide due to the disparity when making a game that releases across both pc and console ecosystems.

Also, these games should start to look far better due to the Console adoption of this once long time PC trend, and as such - should begin to cater and transition to a far prettier, more fun - larger.. more open world theme.
 
Last edited:
D

Danteyke223

Member
I feel like some of the new COD maps in Black Ops Cold War are too large for the usual 6v6 game modes. That Naval battle map especially, and the Miami one. I feel there would be less campers on these maps if there were more people moving around and forcing people to move. Or who knows I'm probably wrong, but it just felt like that in this entry of COD.
 
iconmaster

iconmaster

Banned
Nintendo's probably the leading console in this regard.

Tetris99-coverart.png


"Nintendo" is not a console, so read that contraction as "Nintendo has"
 
Last edited:
N

Nhranaghacon

Banned
Danteyke223 said:
I feel like some of the new COD maps in Black Ops Cold War are too large for the usual 6v6 game modes. That Naval battle map especially, and the Miami one. I feel there would be less campers on these maps if there were more people moving around and forcing people to move. Or who knows I'm probably wrong, but it just felt like that in this entry of COD.
Click to expand...
I don't actually play any of the COD games, but I think most of the issues with large open world MP gaming in particular - is that it has only ever been a segmented industry until recently, I think the map creation/thinking behind large MP game's is due for massive evolution and refinement that we just haven't really been able to achieve in stride because Consoles and PC's used to be notable for delivering completely different experience. I think in the future, open world maps in particular will really begin to transcend what we once thought of as Normal MP maps.
 
The_Mike

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Danteyke223 said:
I feel like some of the new COD maps in Black Ops Cold War are too large for the usual 6v6 game modes. That Naval battle map especially, and the Miami one. I feel there would be less campers on these maps if there were more people moving around and forcing people to move. Or who knows I'm probably wrong, but it just felt like that in this entry of COD.
Click to expand...

Are there many campers in cold war? Funny people said MW2019 is a camping Simulator and everything would change.

Jokes on them. CoD never changes.

MiyazakiHatesKojima said:
Playing with 100 Biden voters sounds like a nightmare to me.



No thanks, OP.
Click to expand...



100 trump vs 100 biden would mean there's probably 180 on Biden team given multi boxing (multiple voting in the election) and zombies on the map because of dead voters.
 
Last edited:
Redlancet

Redlancet

Banned
150vs150 the norm? Id been playing online on pc since the nineties and thats Pure bullshitt and i have played my fair share of mods on battlefield or Red Orchestra, also the biggest online game i have played was mag on PS3 250 players at once
 
N

Nhranaghacon

Banned
MAG was largely considered a miserable failure as it partitioned player numbers, you were never actually engaged with more than 63 other player's at a time due to the games quadrant based partitioning. So it in fact was a 32vs32 player game that let new faces load in once you traversed quadrant's. Hardly an actual 256 player brawl, you couldn't line up 128 players facing the other 128 players in that game if you wanted to.

BF Desert Combat and forward had game mode's that allowed for massive 300 player count's if modded properly, as did the originally quake 3 which allowed 120 player's on a map at once if modded in the command console to do so - in the 90's. And unlike MAG, it showed all players on screen fighting it out and did this without compromise.
 
Guilty_AI

Guilty_AI

Member
Redlancet said:
150vs150 the norm? Id been playing online on pc since the nineties and thats Pure bullshitt and i have played my fair share of mods on battlefield or Red Orchestra, also the biggest online game i have played was mag on PS3 250 players at once
Click to expand...
Planetside could handle 400 players battles if i'm not mistaken, and the game came out like 7 years before MAG.

So yeah, i suppose you just didn't play the correct games/mods, although i don't blame you for missing them since more players per match doesn't necessarily equals fun
 
Hawking Radiation

Hawking Radiation

Member
Nhranaghacon said:
MAG was largely considered a miserable failure as it partitioned player numbers, you were never actually engaged with more than 63 other player's at a time due to the games quadrant based partitioning. So it in fact was a 32vs32 player game that let new faces load in once you traversed quadrant's. Hardly an actual 256 player brawl, you couldn't line up 128 players facing the other 128 players in that game if you wanted to.

BF Desert Combat and forward had game mode's that allowed for massive 300 player count's if modded properly, as did the originally quake 3 which allowed 120 player's on a map at once if modded in the command console to do so - in the 90's. And unlike MAG, it showed all players on screen fighting it out and did this without compromise.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing. Had no idea that's how MAG functioned.
 
N

Nhranaghacon

Banned
Hawking Radiation said:
Thanks for sharing. Had no idea that's how MAG functioned.
Click to expand...
It's an MMO shooter that was notorious for it's bug's, rated 76 on metacritic and most of it's bug's and issues (lots of performance issues) in fact were leveraged by the way the game attempted to
introduce players to large scale battles - if there was ever an instance where all 256 player's did show up in the same quadrant (through an exploit or loophole) it gave the word slide show new meaning, as such - unless players attempted to force this to happen by utilizing loopsholes ect - MAG strictly regulated the number of player's that you could interreact with at any given time.

And no problem.
 
N

Nhranaghacon

Banned
The May 30th Man said:
Just because games can have 100+ players, it doesn’t mean they should. How boring would that be?
Click to expand...
Not at all boring if a game were made to properly cater to large scale battles. If a game came out that was not an MMO, but delivered 1000vs1000 man battles - and did so in a way that actually delivered a fun experience opposed to the canned, closed off - non open world game's we've been used to - that'd be great. I'd love to see what Air Combat and Tank Combat looked like if it resembles an actual 2000 man war. And we as gamer's should want and expect that with coming generation's, good massive MP games that actually deliver on open world massive multiplayer battles.
 
Last edited:
TheMay30thMan

TheMay30thMan

Member
Nhranaghacon said:
Not at all boring if a game were made to properly cater to large scale battles. If a game came out that was not an MMO, but delivered 1000vs1000 man battles - and did so in a way that actually delivered a fun experience opposed to the canned, closed off - non open world game's we've been used to - that'd be great. I'd love to see what Air Combat and Tank Combat looked like if it resembles an actual 2000 man war. And we as gamer's should want and expect that with coming generation's, good massive MP games that actually deliver on open world massive multiplayer battles.
Click to expand...
Just that though? Like every game? No, thanks. That sounds boring.
 
N

Nhranaghacon

Banned
Snakeyes313 said:
But you do realise consoles are not pc`s and are not in competition with PC? lame ass thread.
Click to expand...
Lame if you hate multiplayer games, and unlike those who actually read the thread - this isn't a thread about PC's VS Consoles, it's a thread celebrating that finally Massive Multiplayer Games can be made that cater to both audiences, unlike with the battlefield series that has notoriously halved it's player count on console - due to performance limitations.

With this new generation, these games can finally be created for both audiences without compromise - that is not a competition driven narrative and you are categorically wrong when suggesting this thread is about consoles vs PCs. It is quiet the opposite. The word Parity would find no place in such a thread, and that is what this thread is about - Consoles/PC synergizing and seeking parity in game dev - so that dev's may deliver larger, better MP experiences.
 
N

Nhranaghacon

Banned
The May 30th Man said:
Just that though? Like every game? No, thanks. That sounds boring.
Click to expand...
Firstly, that doesn't sound boring and secondly - if you personally think we as gamer's would be relegated to only 1 type of massive MP game experience (when there are thousands - zombies/space opera/sea fearing/land faring/Aliens/Monsters/Dinosaurs/Indengous Tribal Warfare/Strategic... massive mp gaming types available to pursue - that are not made like the standard boring MMO) you lack imagination... and are questionably anti gaming.
 
Last edited:
V4skunk

V4skunk

Banned
Danteyke223 said:
I feel like some of the new COD maps in Black Ops Cold War are too large for the usual 6v6 game modes. That Naval battle map especially, and the Miami one. I feel there would be less campers on these maps if there were more people moving around and forcing people to move. Or who knows I'm probably wrong, but it just felt like that in this entry of COD.
Click to expand...
I've not playing cod in like a decade but I'm pretty sure the last few games have been built around 64 players.
 
Last edited:
TheMay30thMan

TheMay30thMan

Member
Nhranaghacon said:
Firstly, that doesn't sound boring and secondly - if you personally think we as gamer's would be relegated to only 1 type of massive MP game experience (when there are thousands - zombies/space opera/sea fearing/land faring/Aliens/Monsters/Dinosaurs/Indengous Tribal Warfare/Strategic... massive mp gaming types available to pursue - that are not made like the standard boring MMO) you lack imagination... and are questionably anti gaming.
Click to expand...
I don’t think “we as gamers” should do anything because I’m not part of your big brain collective. I personally believe that only having massive player-count games would be boring, regardless of the “unimaginable amount of genres”. Anti-gaming? No, I just think your opinion is stupid, stranger.
 
Last edited:
Randum

Randum

Neo Member
I really think number of total players was a "bigger deal" when we were stepping up what was going on in the games. Think back to CS pre-GO era and you saw mods to support huge player lobbies, but it was minimal gameplay - move around a static map, and shoot. Now with BF series, you are seeing those larger scale games come to light with vehicles, and destructible barriers etc.

Being a "serious casual player" myself, the number of supported players doesn't even register when I look at online games....so not to poo all over the OP, I feel like sure "a lot" of players is cool, but gimme a fun game first, the "right amount" of players will be determined by the game itself.

AND that is my two cents...
 
N

Nhranaghacon

Banned
The May 30th Man said:
I don’t “we as gamers” should do anything because I’m not part of your big brain collective. I personally believe that only having massive player-count games would be boring, regardless of the “unimaginable amount of genres”. Anti-gaming? No, I just think your opinion is stupid, stranger.
Click to expand...

Barely reads the thread, believes it is a systemic call for game's that only cater to one experience. The Anti gaming stench is strong with you.

We, the Gamer - do not see genuine strides made to better multiplayer gaming as bad for you, the industry or anything in between.

You - the non gamer - as prescribed since you have blatantly and unwarrantedly railed against the "big brain collective" that is - I can only assume - the standard hardcore gamer

Since this is essentially what you are in here to do, then you are essentially wasting your time by decrying/protesting the advent/further progression of gaming - particularly the massive MP gaming large scale battle surge we will all certainly see as consumers in the near future - due to parity of Consoles and PC's/games finally making the the foray towards large scale player battles like Warzone. And your protest isn't even particularly well though out, you might was well have just showed up and said no.

Also the tone you just set here isn't very genuine as a pro-gaming enthusiast and I would say it is questionable/ but your tone is in fact laudable.
 
Last edited:
N

Nhranaghacon

Banned
The May 30th Man said:
Null
Click to expand...
More notable and totally worth discussion is the fact that at least you are no longer trying to derail the narrative of this thread, at least blatantly. Though you are now going so far off topic it should be inadmissible.

This thread discussion, is about how much better large scale Multiplayer Gaming will become now that dev's no longer have to cater to separate audiences. And that is a notable discussion point considering most, even cited here - don't actually take into account the large disparity that has been consistent between PC's and Consoles.

Which means the narrative is not as you attempted to derail it "All games should cater to massive online battles" as you incorrectly cited by stating " I personally believe that only having massive player-count games would be boring, regardless of the “unimaginable amount of genres”. " You may in fact believe that, however No where did I, or anyone else say anything remotely close to the narrative you are attempting to traverse on my thread.

It is a thread on the advent of larger more open world multiplayer gaming, it is not advocating that all game's change to this trajectory as you have again - wrongly implied.

So again, the narrative you are trying to shill is systemically incorrect as no where does anyone here believe all game's should transpose to this game style - and I'm glad to have enlightened you to this fact and am correct in citing that you are only here as an attempt to derail the thread, as is evident by your rewording/neigh blatant disregard to what this discussion is actually about.
 
iconmaster

iconmaster

Banned
Nhranaghacon said:
MAG was largely considered a miserable failure as it partitioned player numbers, you were never actually engaged with more than 63 other player's at a time due to the games quadrant based partitioning. So it in fact was a 32vs32 player game that let new faces load in once you traversed quadrant's. Hardly an actual 256 player brawl, you couldn't line up 128 players facing the other 128 players in that game if you wanted to.
Click to expand...

I never played it and I still feel cheated, if this is true. That tag, though
 
Lethal01

Lethal01

Member
What exactly do you think a PC from 2001 has against a console like the PS4 that would have stopped a 100 vs 100 match from happening?
 
N

Nhranaghacon

Banned
HarryKS said:
Why do you wanna play against so many? You get shot down quickly.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, if the game world is big enough (which is why I made this thread, we should be seeing more and more games with large expansive open world map's and higher player count's) you would in fact get to squad up however you see fit - I personally would love to form a squad of Air Fighter's - 50 or more and take out enemy structures ect while that is also going on across various other areas of the map. See, we should see a gradual more recursive shift towards better larger world's, not just larger player count's - to actually make those games worthwhile.

Essentially, the Oasis will eventually spring forth from better utilization of open world map creation and much larger player count's, suddenly we just traverse one game with 1000's of players... but multiple different game worlds - all made adjacent of what we are used to with MMO's (meaning map's made and curated to provide better variant's of what we are used to, unlike where MMO's currently struggle, delivering playability and action oriented FPS gaming) personally, I detest MMO's, I think now that we can just make large open world map's and stream them together as needed - that open's a lot of door's to new game type's people never would have thought possible - hence The Oasis.

Suddenly you have large 1000vs1000 player open world RPG's that are not MMOrpg's, that are more action oriented like Skyrim/Morrowind/Demons Soul's - zero emphasis on MMO mechanics with 100% emphasis on gameplay. I detest MMO mechanics too, timed cooldown's on all abilities, hit attack once for an endless repeating attack? No thank you give me a real RPG with real action oriented mechanics that fly's in the face of what MMO gaming is.

Do the same with FPS's, and all other types of large scale battle based online games - refine them, now that both console and pc can handedly support 100 player teams - make these games cater to both audiences - opposed to making it for PC with the emphasis that it will be scaled down later to work on console.. with a lesser player count.

Now the opposite can happen, finally, and that is notable.
 
KyoZz

KyoZz

Tag, you're it.
Do you have an example of a console game that do something like 150 vs 150 in multiplayer ?

Also, let's not forget GW 2:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Jez Corden] If Microsoft really IS bringing Steam, Epic Game Store, etc. to Xbox consoles, it needs to answer these big questions
2 3 4
155
8K
sachos replied
Coming to Xbox Game Pass: Little Kitty Big City, Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, and More
News
42
2K
Kerotan replied
Palworld Becomes the Biggest 3rd Party Game Pass Launch Ever - More than 7 Million Players
2 3 4
153
7K
Ozriel replied
(Tokyo Game Show) Valve, Capcom, Bandai Namco discuss growth of Japan PC gaming (PC position now on par with console & smartphone)
30
2K
Hudo replied
The demise of the Xbox shows the true important of quality, exclusive SINGLE PLAYER GAMES on your platform
2 3 4
198
12K
digoutyoursoul replied
Top Bottom