What happened to 32v32 FPS?

[Baasha]

Guys,

I was playing BF:BC2 today and realized what a crock we've all been fed when games today are not only more expensive, but lack features that were in games of old like BF2 etc.

The biggest thing that I miss is the massive number of people per server.

Why don't FPS games have 32 vs. 32 people (64 per server) or more? I mean, the technology was available a long time ago but I feel we as consumers, at least the majority of us, are satisfied with the status quo of whatever the companies throw at us.

Isn't it fair, not only as customers, but as gaming enthusiasts, to insist that companies that produce FPS games be conscious of this request (or demand) for more players per server?

I mean, MAG had 256 damn players per "server". And that was on PS3!

What gives?

I really hope BF3 will have at least 32 vs. 32 or more players per server.

Total carnage equals total satisfaction!

It'll give people another excuse to buy the latest and greatest hardware to handle the graphics etc.

 

[zerocool84]

It's because players today want more run and gun quick fights ala Modern Warfare which means smaller makes and less people per map. That's what sells so that's what everyone is doing. BF3 is promising to give us the good ol' BF experience and I hope it does. BF2 is still my most played FPS behind CS.

 

[midnight growler]

I think its also important to remember the tradeoff between size (both map and player wise) with graphics and eye candy. Take the level of detail in MW2 or BC2, add destructible environments and put it into every inch of a BF2 map with 64 people running around and most systems would come to a screeching slowdown.

The keyword is for developers is still 'most people.' If they make a game so detailed that only a few people can play it, its not going to sell well.

 

[Baasha]

The keyword is for developers is still 'most people.' If they make a game so detailed that only a few people can play it, its not going to sell well.

That's a good point but this should impel the companies to be more innovative in their marketing strategies.

For example, they could make two versions of BF3; one is for the people with high-end machines that can take the stress as well as connections to so-called 'high-end' servers to have bigger maps and more players with all the bells and whistles (destructible environments, gore, hardcore physics etc.) and another version for the masses that sells at a discounted price (maybe $30) but with features that are commensurate with the price (independent servers, 16 people per team, indestructible environments etc.).

Having the choice will make people want to upgrade their hardware and go for the more expensive "version" ($60 or whatever). For those who want the core aspects of the gameplay, the $30 (or whatever) version should suffice.

Yes, there is a lot of development that goes into this and making two versions will be difficult but these companies, especially behemoths like EA, can easily afford the resources (money, manpower, marketing etc.) to take on such a project.

Think of it like Porsche; different versions for different folks. The 997 C4S is a quintessential Porsche with a rear-engine and most of the features that make it a great car. Yet, the 997 Turbo, although it shares most of the features of the C4S, is in a class of its own; the price difference between the cars is warranted in the eyes of the consumer.

A fully-optioned C4S is about $110,000 and a fully-optioned Turbo is about $175,000. Yes, the $65,000 difference may seem large to a majority of folks but majority of folks don't buy a Porsche Turbo. Likewise, a difference of $30 for a price of a game will make "most" people buy the cheaper version as it gives "most" of the experience of the game; those who want all of it can cough up the extra money and enjoy it.

This is of course my opinion and I hope the game industry moves towards this model as technology is improving tremendously every couple of years and people's expectations are not getting any lower.

 

[Baasha]

It's because players today want more run and gun quick fights ala Modern Warfare which means smaller makes and less people per map. That's what sells so that's what everyone is doing. BF3 is promising to give us the good ol' BF experience and I hope it does. BF2 is still my most played FPS behind CS.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Sometimes I think MW is the bane of FPS although it was such a great game.

 

[Ika]

That's a good point but this should impel the companies to be more innovative in their marketing strategies.

For example, they could make two versions of BF3; one is for the people with high-end machines that can take the stress as well as connections to so-called 'high-end' servers to have bigger maps and more players with all the bells and whistles (destructible environments, gore, hardcore physics etc.) and another version for the masses that sells at a discounted price (maybe $30) but with features that are commensurate with the price (independent servers, 16 people per team, indestructible environments etc.).

Having the choice will make people want to upgrade their hardware and go for the more expensive "version" ($60 or whatever). For those who want the core aspects of the gameplay, the $30 (or whatever) version should suffice.

Yes, there is a lot of development that goes into this and making two versions will be difficult but these companies, especially behemoths like EA, can easily afford the resources (money, manpower, marketing etc.) to take on such a project.

Think of it like Porsche; different versions for different folks. The 997 C4S is a quintessential Porsche with a rear-engine and most of the features that make it a great car. Yet, the 997 Turbo, although it shares most of the features of the C4S, is in a class of its own; the price difference between the cars is warranted in the eyes of the consumer.

A fully-optioned C4S is about $110,000 and a fully-optioned Turbo is about $175,000. Yes, the $65,000 difference may seem large to a majority of folks but majority of folks don't buy a Porsche Turbo. Likewise, a difference of $30 for a price of a game will make "most" people buy the cheaper version as it gives "most" of the experience of the game; those who want all of it can cough up the extra money and enjoy it.

This is of course my opinion and I hope the game industry moves towards this model as technology is improving tremendously every couple of years and people's expectations are not getting any lower.

That would never work. Not only are you increasing the development costs for the PC platform (for which developers are already leery of developing for), you're fragmenting the game community, which is NEVER a good thing - moreso when you're talking about wanting more players per server. One of the reasons Counter-Strike is still so popular is because it ran well on all hardware, even when it was released.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

That's a good point but this should impel the companies to be more innovative in their marketing strategies.

For example, they could make two versions of BF3; one is for the people with high-end machines that can take the stress as well as connections to so-called 'high-end' servers to have bigger maps and more players with all the bells and whistles (destructible environments, gore, hardcore physics etc.) and another version for the masses that sells at a discounted price (maybe $30) but with features that are commensurate with the price (independent servers, 16 people per team, indestructible environments etc.).

Having the choice will make people want to upgrade their hardware and go for the more expensive "version" ($60 or whatever). For those who want the core aspects of the gameplay, the $30 (or whatever) version should suffice.

Yes, there is a lot of development that goes into this and making two versions will be difficult but these companies, especially behemoths like EA, can easily afford the resources (money, manpower, marketing etc.) to take on such a project.

Think of it like Porsche; different versions for different folks. The 997 C4S is a quintessential Porsche with a rear-engine and most of the features that make it a great car. Yet, the 997 Turbo, although it shares most of the features of the C4S, is in a class of its own; the price difference between the cars is warranted in the eyes of the consumer.

A fully-optioned C4S is about $110,000 and a fully-optioned Turbo is about $175,000. Yes, the $65,000 difference may seem large to a majority of folks but majority of folks don't buy a Porsche Turbo. Likewise, a difference of $30 for a price of a game will make "most" people buy the cheaper version as it gives "most" of the experience of the game; those who want all of it can cough up the extra money and enjoy it.

This is of course my opinion and I hope the game industry moves towards this model as technology is improving tremendously every couple of years and people's expectations are not getting any lower.

How about they just make the same game but put in options to select between the two...?

 

[pontifex]

It's because players today want more run and gun quick fights ala Modern Warfare which means smaller makes and less people per map. That's what sells so that's what everyone is doing. BF3 is promising to give us the good ol' BF experience and I hope it does. BF2 is still my most played FPS behind CS.

well no shit...because 32 vs 32 sucks ass

to house that many people the maps have to be huge. who wants to spend half the game walking/running to where the action is only to get sniped by the other team and have to do it all over again?

 

[QueBert]

I wanna play Ice World on CS 1.6 or CS:S with 64 players, that was be such an awesome cluster fuck. Shoot and you'd almost certainly get at least 1 kill.

 

[paperfist]

well no shit...because 32 vs 32 sucks ass

to house that many people the maps have to be huge. who wants to spend half the game walking/running to where the action is only to get sniped by the other team and have to do it all over again?

Pretty much my sentiments exactly. For me 64 slot servers are fun in small bites, but it usually ends up being aggravating for the reasons pontifex stated. Not that on smaller servers you can't get sniped to death, but at least it didn't take 8 minutes to get to a spot because all the ass hats took a vehicle and couldn't bother to check if anyone needed a ride

I do agree with the OP though in terms of features, games are just getting so dumbed down that it's not even fun anymore.

 

[Malak]

I think 12v12 is the sweet spot. Honestly when you get more people in an FPS it gets less fun. You die a LOT more often, and to house 64 players you need a big map which means you are spending 50% of your time just running to the action where you proceed to die immediately and wait for respawn. I LOVED Planetside, but you had ways of shortening the walk distance by quite a lot.

 

[Ika]

I wanna play Ice World on CS 1.6 or CS:S with 64 players, that was be such an awesome cluster fuck. Shoot and you'd almost certainly get at least 1 kill.

I onced played COD4 with 64 players on Container, the smallest map in the game... it was just LMG spam, spawn, hold down trigger, throw a few grenades, pray you get 7 kills then hide, pray you survive, and spam helicopter until it goes away and the one called in next is yours. so many kills. that was the most shitfesttastic game I've ever played in any game, ever.

 

[KaOTiK]

I love the big 32v32 thing. I think a good way of speeding up travel time as that seems to be the main problem people have with large maps is to do the squad thing that is in BC 2, be able to spawn on a squad member.

My theory on the whole FPS being not what they were from the past is this:

Until the last generation of consoles, FPS' were a PC genre. Once FPS' became popular on consoles they are literally going through the evolution of the genre from the beginning and sadly because consoles are where the money is at right now, us PC gamers are having to deal with ports or cross development so in turn we are having to go through the genres evolution all over again. Thus is the reason why we don't have games with all the features and such we had xx years ago, we are having to literally wait for the console crowd now.

 

[zerocool84]

I onced played COD4 with 64 players on Container, the smallest map in the game... it was just LMG spam, spawn, hold down trigger, throw a few grenades, pray you get 7 kills then hide, pray you survive, and spam helicopter until it goes away and the one called in next is yours. so many kills. that was the most shitfesttastic game I've ever played in any game, ever.

Sounds just like regular MW.

 

[CrystalBay]

They just cant handle the bandwidth either the client,servers, or the netcode ..you are dreaming for 64 player servers ...They have been trying this for years now the landscape is stale.

 

[zerocool84]

They just cant handle the bandwidth either the client,servers, or the netcode ..you are dreaming for 64 player servers ...They have been trying this for years now the landscape is stale.

???

 

[CrystalBay]

Its lag city that's why for fps.. maybe WoWI aint no Scientist or programmer but it blows. IT doesn't work well for hitscan.

 

[mundane]

..

 

[CottonRabbit]

Didn't RTCW:ET support 64 players? Some of the maps (both user created and original) were a phenomenal blast to play when close to fully loaded.

Yes, not out of the box, but custom maps made 64 players work. 20-32 players was probably the sweet spot for ET though. That game is also far more complex than anything being released today and a much better run and gun experience than MW.

 

[minmaster]

its because games are now made with console versions in mind and consoles can't really do 64 players...

 

[schneiderguy]

With the size of most maps getting released in FPS games today (BC2, TF2, CoD, etc) even 16vs16 is way too much. BC2 is ok with 12vs12 but I prefer 6vs6 or 8vs8 with TF2. I don't understand the appeal of having five people shooting at you while you're shooting at five different people.

 

[zerocool84]

With the size of most maps getting released in FPS games today (BC2, TF2, CoD, etc) even 16vs16 is way too much. BC2 is ok with 12vs12 but I prefer 6vs6 or 8vs8 with TF2. I don't understand the appeal of having five people shooting at you while you're shooting at five different people.

I'm glad you don't make games.

32v32 on BF2 had some of the most epic battles ever. That many people trying to get one point on a map was awesome.

 

[KeithTalent]

I'm glad you don't make games.

32v32 on BF2 had some of the most epic battles ever. That many people trying to get one point on a map was awesome.

Even though I hated BF2 in many parts, mainly due to how buggy it was (also the air combat seemed quite unbalanced), I have to agree with this. I have yet to play a game anything like it and a massive 32v32 always had the potential to be epic. Some good times there.

KT

 

[CrystalBay]

It wont be epicaly good it will only be epicaly shitty .. thats why they wont do it anymore For FPS. the throughput of data has gotten rigid

 

[minmaster]

With the size of most maps getting released in FPS games today (BC2, TF2, CoD, etc) even 16vs16 is way too much. BC2 is ok with 12vs12 but I prefer 6vs6 or 8vs8 with TF2. I don't understand the appeal of having five people shooting at you while you're shooting at five different people.

newsflash, NOT EVERYONE is fighting in the same area at the same time in these 64 player Battlefield maps. they are several times the size of a standard COD map size and have several areas all over the map being contested by 2 teams at any given moment. maps like highway tampa are just freakin' epic. in one area, there might be infantry battles for a flag, another area might have a 3 on 3 tank battle, all while air battles take place overhead. although 64 players sound a lot, spaced out on a map several times the size of your standard ADD fps game, i would argue that it's less cluttered. especially on open maps with no artificial choke points. sometimes i wonder if the people who don't see why we need 64 player games have ever experienced how epic this shit is. it's not even comparable to anything COD, BC2, TF2, etc.