Support NeoGAF

[GymWolf]

They are not gonna catch jack shit until you have to pay for online gaming in 2020.

 

[Starfield]

Since when are 150v150 matches "the norm" lol? Especially in CSGO

 

[M1chl]

Wasn't BF1 with 64 players for quite some time already? Also it does not really means anything, sometimes 8 vs 8 could be better, depends on a game type and game map. But bigger is better, amirite.

 

[STARSBarry]

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

As a PC gamer to I can confirm outside of the likes of RO etc its not the norm, although I would say 32 v 32 is steady in becoming more common than 16 v 16.

However I'm guessing you have never played Planetside 1 or 2 then? Because those make MAG feel tiny.

 

[Redlancet]

As a PC gamer to I can confirm outside of the likes of RO etc its not the norm, although I would say 32 v 32 is steady in becoming more common than 16 v 16.

However I'm guessing you have never played Planetside 1 or 2 then? Because those make MAG feel tiny.

i haved played both planetsides,also they exist on consoles XD

 

[ZywyPL]

More doesn't make it better.

Yeah, the best MP shooting experience I had were always 3v3, 4v4, 5v5, 6v6 matches, at best 8v8 but such player count is already hugely dependant on the map/game design, and BFBC2 with it's 12v12 being the absolute maximum I ever enjoyed, actually being one of the best MP experiences ever, top 5 easily, but that game was exception from the rule, and even DICE themselves have no idea how to recreate that experience. Bottomline is, the principal is extremely simple - you want to put more players on the map, you need to make bigger maps, and when you make bigger maps, there's more walking than actual shooting, and walking is not the reason I want to jump into MP shooters.