-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Why hasn't this console gen delivered 64 player MP games?
- Thread starter The Wise Old Man
- Start date
I think it's F2P now with a level cap.
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
The Mana Legend
Banned
64+ players isn't what I'm worried about.
What I'm worried about is that Perfect Dark came out 12 years ago and it's still more customizable and shit than most console shooters today.
Come on Crytek UK. Make Timesplitters 4 and bring me back some customizing goodness, thanks.
What I'm worried about is that Perfect Dark came out 12 years ago and it's still more customizable and shit than most console shooters today.
Come on Crytek UK. Make Timesplitters 4 and bring me back some customizing goodness, thanks.
Do we REEEALLY want 64 players? It's not just a question of server or graphics, but the whole gameplay mecanics and level design. A game should've been ONLY MP to accommodate this settings.
The weapons, the maps, the respawn, everything! Even more, what if this games BOMBA? Then you have 16 people on a 64-player HUGE map!
The weapons, the maps, the respawn, everything! Even more, what if this games BOMBA? Then you have 16 people on a 64-player HUGE map!
The Mana Legend
Banned
All I want is a game where you have 150 people lined up on one side, 150 on the other. All aiming at each other. And the match starts with everyone firing at each other.
Would be amazing. I loved it in RDR, and it would be insane with 300 people.
FullMetalx
Banned
I still prefer the halo 3 4v4. More than that just kills the "TEAM" aspect of the game.
Zoramon089
Banned
No it wouldn't. It'd be over really fast and would be a fairly terrible experience. 64 players is way too excessive for most types of games. I have a hard time trying to think how any game would be better with that many players. Not saying it'd be terrible for all games, just that I can think of a game type that would benefit from it
24/7 karkand infantry only
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
Agreed. 600+ hours
Kenshin001
Member
256 player matches on MAG were awesome, especially at its height when a lot of clans were playing against each other. I remember when the game was announced and people saying it was impossible on consoles. Think I put 300 or 400 hours into the game but I saw players with crazy hours on the game and who are probably still playing.
The problem is people jump from shooter to shooter pretty quickly so it would be hard to keep it going with those numbers unless it was a big established series like Halo or CoD. Doesn't look like MAG 2 is in the works but I hope Sony do another 256 player game for the next generation.
The problem is people jump from shooter to shooter pretty quickly so it would be hard to keep it going with those numbers unless it was a big established series like Halo or CoD. Doesn't look like MAG 2 is in the works but I hope Sony do another 256 player game for the next generation.
Yap, MAG is a very special shooter. Love it !
The SVER large map is unbalanced, but the game is rewarding if you're the resourceful type.
Kenshin001
Member
It's 64 players? Sweet.
Erm... No.
Battlefield 1942, Vietnam and 2 Own with 64 players. Battlefield 3 vanilla doesn't work so well with 64 players as the maps were designed to be a lot smaller, the Karkand Maps however work really well with 64.
Some CSS Maps work with 64 players but most are built around 5v5 so that's not a great example, but 64 player games own. Especially battlefield.
michaelius
Banned
Day of Defeat is much better for huge games then Counter Strike IMHO.
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
32 player PDZ multiplayer was so fun back in 2005. I thought games were going to be 32 player going forward, especially Halo. 
Joseph Merrick
Member
yeah, 24 is definitely more cinematic
Looking into it further, it's either that or 48 players. Either way it's large compared to the average console shooter playercount.
Ciastek3214
Junior Member
10/10 would read from this poster again.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
Lack of RAM and the fact that most games are P2P. EA uses dedis, but they also shut them down once "the game is no longer popular"
when they want you to buy something else.
Chuckpebble
Member
Maybe we'll get a Pikmin game where you can all jump in and be one of the little buggers next gen?
It's also the truth.
The more the merrier.
Left 4 Dead 2 10vs10 is hilarious and 16vs16 with Team Fortress 2 is badass. (With fast respawn of course) And I think 32vs32 would be a blast on a map similar to cp_steel.
I don't care if these games weren't 'meant to be played this way'. They're so much more fun like this.
Left 4 Dead 2 10vs10 is hilarious and 16vs16 with Team Fortress 2 is badass. (With fast respawn of course) And I think 32vs32 would be a blast on a map similar to cp_steel.
I don't care if these games weren't 'meant to be played this way'. They're so much more fun like this.
Woo-Fu
Banned
Because peer to peer networking is much cheaper to implement/maintain than dedicated servers. The short answer? $$$.
Might as well just play CoD instead of trying to turn BF into it.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
NO.....Just NO!
I've learned from the PC that 64 player games typically are not any fun. I've always found the idea appealing, but I've never really enjoyed such games.
Planetside might have been one of the few exceptions, but again, I actually thought the game became less fun as the player count increased beyond a certain point. Most round based games, however, simply don't work for me with 64 players.
Planetside might have been one of the few exceptions, but again, I actually thought the game became less fun as the player count increased beyond a certain point. Most round based games, however, simply don't work for me with 64 players.
I really don't think Halo would play well with so many players. The game has a pretty significant 1 on 1 element to its combat and flooding the battlefield with 32 or 64 players would destroy that balance.32 player PDZ multiplayer was so fun back in 2005. I thought games were going to be 32 player going forward, especially Halo.
Rygar 8 Bit
Jaguar 64-bit
nope 64 or bust on BF
BattleMonkey
Member
Most console shooters are peer to peer. Your not getting 64 players
Sohter.Nura
Member
There are limitations, but my guess is that the mass market which these games are developed for are just no interested in that kind of play. It's too hardcore, and most of times they'd rather just play with their smaller groups of friends.
So there's very little incentive to develop a product like that.
So there's very little incentive to develop a product like that.
Yeah, it did.
Just one of the many examples as to how overextended Insomniac were when they made Resistance 2. Their ambitions got the best of them and that resulted in an average game.
resistance 2 30x30 multplayer wasn't much fun, just people running around. much like cod.
mag on the other hand fixes that by making it objective based and rewarding you for it.
as far as quality, isn't cod sub hd? Isn't Halo under 720p also?
plagiarize
Banned
well, clearly not many people want to play 64 player games. i mean, yes a few have been popular, but the length of time for which it's easy to find plenty of busy servers that aren't too geographically removed from you is tiny unless your game is a huge hit. COD could probably do it with name brand alone. BF3 likely COULD have done it but chose not to go after that quite as hard as before.
for me, once you start getting more than say, around 24 players in a game, what i don't like is the loss of relationship. a game like MAG with over a hundred players, there's no way i can keep track of that many players. when you play with fewer players, you develop a narrative with them almost. you remember what you did to them, and they did to you, and you react accordingly.
when a game has more individuals than i can really keep track of, it loses something for me. i much prefer being able to get a sense of the play styles and personalities of the people i'm playing with and against.
that isn't to say i didn't have loads of fun with Wolf MP and Wolf ET, because i did, but i had more fun with them when there was about ten or twelve players on each side.
for me, once you start getting more than say, around 24 players in a game, what i don't like is the loss of relationship. a game like MAG with over a hundred players, there's no way i can keep track of that many players. when you play with fewer players, you develop a narrative with them almost. you remember what you did to them, and they did to you, and you react accordingly.
when a game has more individuals than i can really keep track of, it loses something for me. i much prefer being able to get a sense of the play styles and personalities of the people i'm playing with and against.
that isn't to say i didn't have loads of fun with Wolf MP and Wolf ET, because i did, but i had more fun with them when there was about ten or twelve players on each side.
Rygar 8 Bit
Jaguar 64-bit
abracadaver
Member
I hope next gen brings 64 player battlefield back. Really dissapointed with 24 players
Also CS:GO is limited to 5vs5 on consoles which sucks. I only played 10vs10 or 12vs12 counter-strike back in the day
Also CS:GO is limited to 5vs5 on consoles which sucks. I only played 10vs10 or 12vs12 counter-strike back in the day
RumblingRosco
Member
I always weep when I think about how TV screen size/resolution has increased in the past 10 years, yet we pretty much left split-screen gaming behind just as it would have been at its best. I think my TV now is over twice the size (and definitely more than twice the resolution) than my TV in 2002.
