What happened to 32v32 FPS?

[coloumb]

It would be possible but the landscape/graphics would have to be similar to world of Warcraft (alterac valley 40 vs 40 pvp instances zone)

 

[zerocool84]

It would be possible but the landscape/graphics would have to be similar to world of Warcraft (alterac valley 40 vs 40 pvp instances zone)

and???

gameplay>graphics 100% of the time

 

[Darklife]

Hell whatever happened to 75vs75? Joint Operations anyone?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

MAG on the PS3 has 128 vs 128. It's pretty epic to have 128 man parachute assaults.

 

[Darklife]

MAG on the PS3 has 128 vs 128. It's pretty epic to have 128 man parachute assaults.

Why they released a game like that on the PS3 is beyond me.

 

[shortylickens]

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

You sir, have just won the thread.

Now we should end it before this gets any more ridiculous.

 

[Elcs]

C&C Renegade with 32 Vs. 32...

Epic

 

[pontifex]

Hell whatever happened to 75vs75? Joint Operations anyone?

and yet another huge ass MP game that sucked...

 

[imaheadcase]

I don't believe any of the stuff talked about here. Because if you really think about it, old games back in the 90s offered the same amount of players in multiplayer online.

If technology/game need to move forward they need to offer no restrictions on maps in size limits. They need to make the tech they have scale better for more players.

BC2 for example, people play 32 player servers, but its not limited to that for pure performance, its limited on map size. It does not add more to the GPU/CPU (well nothing noticeable) to have 32 more players, it just adds more to the bandwidth.

Game designers need to concentrate of games being able to scale well.

I remember i "think" it was RAGE engine, that did this to some extent.

I would LOVE to have older games, and newer games be able to instantly have a program that scales existing maps and adds more players. It would be heaven for most people. Could you picture BC2 128vs128 maps with bigger map, you would be scared shitless every turn. It IS possible, its just no one things of doing that because almost every game made now is hinking "how would this play on console" or LAN, etc.

Games still have a long way to go for the fun factor in my book, i don't like short fast games. Isn't it sad most games now focus on graphics/storyline/marketability than actually taking games "to the next level" and offer something that people look at video of it and the whole internet goes "WHOAHHHHHHHhhhhhhh". Thats how it was in the 90s when games came out. Now we are oversaturated with cookie cutter games that have no appeal, because they all blend in to one another in same old thing.

whew, thats my rant.

 

[Baasha]

People saying 16v16 is too much is laughable.

In BC2, I spend a lot of time running to the action but its great that they have squads where you can spawn alongside them. That is a great tactic to spawn in the middle of the battlefield so to speak.

With 32v32, the action will only be more intense.

Have you guys forgotten BF2? There were squads that naturally formed that would guard one checkpoint while others would try to take over others etc. It was freakin epic and the fighter jets, helis, Humvees etc. made it so much fun.

BC2 is a fun game and I love the maps. It would be greater still if they have more players for non-stop action.

Plus, I would like to see MUCH more gore. And the whole "Revive" thing is retarded. After taking a 50 Cal sniper to the head, you can't be revived because your head will be in many small pieces all over the tarmac. I'm sick of this color-by-number gore BS.

Bring on the flying limbs with copious amounts of blood that doesn't disappear from the ground! :twisted: In that sense, FEAR was one of the best online FPS I've ever played; intense action, lots of gore, and relatively small maps that made your heart pound!

 

[NinjaCat]

I also like playing with more people on a map, but the map better be big enough to support them, now that I think about it I'm having doubts about DICE and bf3, I don't think the maps they'll have will even be as big as the bf2 maps, though hopefully if there's user content people could make the big maps.

 

[videogames101]

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?

Me, and I'll pay for it.

 

[Schadenfroh]

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

Specifically, the maps are made with console versions in mind. It should not be THAT hard to increase the player cap on the PC version since RAM is abundant.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Specifically, the maps are made with console versions in mind. It should not be THAT hard to increase the player cap on the PC version since RAM is abundant.

Once again, they are perfectly capable of creating giant Maps. MAG has 256 players on a single map fighting over objectives. Personally I think companies just think that smaller amounts of players are easier to balance for and less of clusterfucks, which in my mind is a decent argument. But meh, I would love to see more games like BF2.

 

[Regs]

No lean or prone. Next game you will have no knees either. Why? Cause it takes more skill to fight in a shooter game with no knees, that is why. Fawk you.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Yes, BF3 will have 64 player epicness.

 

[Capt Caveman]

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?

For a noob that enjoys MW, your point is invalid.

32 v 32 allows for huge clusterfucks which can be fun as hell but also larger maps and the need for additional teamwork. Plus, it creates the opportunity to have more vehicles(air/sea/land) which adds variety to battles.

 

[schneiderguy]

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.

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.

Since neither of you can read, notice I wasn't talking about BF2. That's actually a perfect example of a game that DOES work well with 64 players because the maps are large enough to not create a clusterfuck of players that are just spamming grenades and dying every 2 seconds.

Red Orchestra is another game that works well with a lot of players, I believe 50 is the cap but the maps are nicely sized.

 

[pontifex]

Me, and I'll pay for it.

sucker born every minute and a fool and his money are soon parted adages prove to be true once again.

 

[pontifex]

For a noob that enjoys MW, your point is invalid.

32 v 32 allows for huge clusterfucks which can be fun as hell but also larger maps and the need for additional teamwork. Plus, it creates the opportunity to have more vehicles(air/sea/land) which adds variety to battles.

please explain how it is invalid? if my point is invalid then so is yours. I've played BF2, BF 2142, and BC2. One of the reasons I think they suck is because of the huge maps and that is why I play games like MW.

 

[zerocool84]

sucker born every minute and a fool and his money are soon parted adages prove to be true once again.

Just like Modern Warfare games.

 

[pontifex]

Just like Modern Warfare games.

well there you go, nothing is perfect...

 

[Capt Caveman]

please explain how it is invalid? if my point is invalid then so is yours. I've played BF2, BF 2142, and BC2. One of the reasons I think they suck is because of the huge maps and that is why I play games like MW.

You know there are vehicles that make the huge maps, pretty much a non-issue right? MW requires no strategy and is just a clusterfuck.

Don't like BF games b/c of the asshats, I've already suggested that you should have a 1/2 dozen regularly admin'd community/clan servers. Heck, I pretty much only play on 2-3 servers.

When you play regularly on the same servers, you get to know everyone else which makes playing even more enjoyable. I'll look on xfire and see where all my friends are playing, jump on TS and play with them.

Again, when you're part of a community/clan, it's epic fun to scrim another community/clan on 32 v 32 maps. Some folks get so serious, that they'll devise squads and strategies.

Jumping on a server and playing solo is not fun and pretty boring imho. Not liking BC2 is strange, since it's basically MW on bigger/better maps that require more teamwork/strategy.

 

[heymrdj]

and yet another huge ass MP game that sucked...

Not sure what sucked about it. It was fairly revolutionary for it's time, especially the netcode. Their servers still can run 250 players. It's not uncommon for the original JO to have over 190 players on a good holiday weekend in one server, and 600 players spread throughout the game rooms.

In fact the only reason I haven't bought any new games since JO and its expansions is that I'm a tactical gamer. I enjoy strategy to my games, and JO delivers that when you're hanging with your friends. Getting 80squad mates into a single map and commanding them all through all the different vehicles is engaging. Run and gun gets boring, and its tiresome. Americas Army had some of that right by making it so you couldn't respawn in a game, made people use their heads for once and learn they can't respawn infinitely after taking bullets. But I realise most people in the market want cheap entertainment that isn't realistic. But that's why me and my clan don't do run and gun nor allow it from new joins .

 

[pontifex]

You know there are vehicles that make the huge maps, pretty much a non-issue right? MW requires no strategy and is just a clusterfuck.

Don't like BF games b/c of the asshats, I've already suggested that you should have a 1/2 dozen regularly admin'd community/clan servers. Heck, I pretty much only play on 2-3 servers.

When you play regularly on the same servers, you get to know everyone else which makes playing even more enjoyable. I'll look on xfire and see where all my friends are playing, jump on TS and play with them.

Again, when you're part of a community/clan, it's epic fun to scrim another community/clan on 32 v 32 maps. Some folks get so serious, that they'll devise squads and strategies.

Jumping on a server and playing solo is not fun and pretty boring imho. Not liking BC2 is strange, since it's basically MW on bigger/better maps that require more teamwork/strategy.

except that people TK you over vehicles or completely ignore your requests for a ride so it is an issue, right?

but that's just 1 of my many complaints about the BF games. I play games that I find fun. If a game is a chore to play or not fun, guess what? i'm not going to fucking play it. I'm done with the BF series.