1st Killzone Shadow Fall map revealed???

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#1 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

kzsfmp_zps395941e6.png

Looks to be a small map based on an area of the 1st gameplay footage we saw, and having 8 players is making it more true. Though the player count should be 16, 24(like Killzone 3) or 32(like Killzone 2). Hopefully bots are back in it. What do you guys think?

Avatar image for Nengo_Flow
Nengo_Flow

10644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Nengo_Flow
Member since 2011 • 10644 Posts
8 players? KS:SF's mulitplayer cannot have less than 32 players in competitive matches or it will be passed of as a disappointment within the KZ community. On of the big reasons why KZ2 fans didnt like KZ3's multiplayer was becuz of the lack of server list and the 12 vs 12 from 16 vs 16 downgrade (even tho they added jet packs and Mechs)
Avatar image for Djmaster214
Djmaster214

3240

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Djmaster214
Member since 2005 • 3240 Posts
[QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"]8 players? KS:SF's mulitplayer cannot have less than 32 players in competitive matches or it will be passed of as a disappointment within the KZ community. On of the big reasons why KZ2 fans didnt like KZ3's multiplayer was becuz of the lack of server list and the 12 vs 12 from 16 vs 16 downgrade (even tho they added jet packs and Mechs)

i liked both alot, its too early to judge it could be just a tiny map and thats why its capped.
Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts
[QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"]8 players? KS:SF's mulitplayer cannot have less than 32 players in competitive matches or it will be passed of as a disappointment within the KZ community. On of the big reasons why KZ2 fans didnt like KZ3's multiplayer was becuz of the lack of server list and the 12 vs 12 from 16 vs 16 downgrade (even tho they added jet packs and Mechs)

I agree in every way KZ3 sucked ass.
Avatar image for AJC3317
AJC3317

2546

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

#5 AJC3317
Member since 2003 • 2546 Posts
[QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"]8 players? KS:SF's mulitplayer cannot have less than 32 players in competitive matches or it will be passed of as a disappointment within the KZ community. On of the big reasons why KZ2 fans didnt like KZ3's multiplayer was becuz of the lack of server list and the 12 vs 12 from 16 vs 16 downgrade (even tho they added jet packs and Mechs)

there were a lot of reasons I didn't like kz3's multiplayer. the fact that it sucked was probably the biggest. it was so damn generic compared to what kz2 was. they took everything great about kz2 and got rid of it trying to be more like battlefield
Avatar image for campzor
campzor

34932

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 campzor
Member since 2004 • 34932 Posts
nice find. Looks to be cool. 8 player must be player restricted because lol otherwise.
Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#7 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts
[QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"]8 players? KS:SF's mulitplayer cannot have less than 32 players in competitive matches or it will be passed of as a disappointment within the KZ community. On of the big reasons why KZ2 fans didnt like KZ3's multiplayer was becuz of the lack of server list and the 12 vs 12 from 16 vs 16 downgrade (even tho they added jet packs and Mechs)

16 is the minimum for this game most likely. [QUOTE="campzor"]nice find. Looks to be cool. 8 player must be player restricted because lol otherwise.

Clusterf*** would happen.XD
Avatar image for Nengo_Flow
Nengo_Flow

10644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 Nengo_Flow
Member since 2011 • 10644 Posts
[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"]8 players? KS:SF's mulitplayer cannot have less than 32 players in competitive matches or it will be passed of as a disappointment within the KZ community. On of the big reasons why KZ2 fans didnt like KZ3's multiplayer was becuz of the lack of server list and the 12 vs 12 from 16 vs 16 downgrade (even tho they added jet packs and Mechs)

16 is the minimum for this game most likely. why the f*ck? I dont mind having a mode thats just 4 vs 4, another thats 8 vs 8, but for the love of god there better be a mode thats 16 vs 16. Or KZ:SF will be a disappointment before it actually hits the shelves.
Avatar image for BLBxLakers24
BLBxLakers24

1716

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 126

User Lists: 0

#9 BLBxLakers24
Member since 2008 • 1716 Posts
to say killzone has to have 32 players is just stupid, for one killzone multiplayer has NEVER lived up to the hype, so if they make it 8 players and do it correctly like games like Halo, CoD2 did, there is no problem.
Avatar image for BLBxLakers24
BLBxLakers24

1716

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 126

User Lists: 0

#10 BLBxLakers24
Member since 2008 • 1716 Posts
THE MINIMUM IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE 2 WTF R U TALKING ABOUT? HOW DO U KNOW THEY WERE NOT PLAYING ON A 4v4 SERVER OR PRIVATE MATCH? OR EVEN DUBZ 2V2 JUST SHOWS HOW LIL KILLZONE PLAYERS KNOW ABOUT ANYTHING COMPETITIVE ONLINE FPS GAMING
Avatar image for Mrmedia01
Mrmedia01

1917

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Mrmedia01
Member since 2007 • 1917 Posts

Really if 8 players is the max this will be crap  online. At least 16 players, or 32 even better.

Avatar image for Fightingfan
Fightingfan

38011

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 Fightingfan
Member since 2010 • 38011 Posts
[QUOTE="AJC3317"][QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"]8 players? KS:SF's mulitplayer cannot have less than 32 players in competitive matches or it will be passed of as a disappointment within the KZ community. On of the big reasons why KZ2 fans didnt like KZ3's multiplayer was becuz of the lack of server list and the 12 vs 12 from 16 vs 16 downgrade (even tho they added jet packs and Mechs)

there were a lot of reasons I didn't like kz3's multiplayer. the fact that it sucked was probably the biggest. it was so damn generic compared to what kz2 was. they took everything great about kz2 and got rid of it trying to be more like battlefield

felt like COD to me - I never bought Killzone 3, and I loved playing KZ2 - have the platinum to show my elite 1% valor status :3
Avatar image for Digital_DJ_00
Digital_DJ_00

1460

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#13 Digital_DJ_00
Member since 2005 • 1460 Posts

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"]8 players? KS:SF's mulitplayer cannot have less than 32 players in competitive matches or it will be passed of as a disappointment within the KZ community. On of the big reasons why KZ2 fans didnt like KZ3's multiplayer was becuz of the lack of server list and the 12 vs 12 from 16 vs 16 downgrade (even tho they added jet packs and Mechs)Nengo_Flow
16 is the minimum for this game most likely. why the f*ck? I dont mind having a mode thats just 4 vs 4, another thats 8 vs 8, but for the love of god there better be a mode thats 16 vs 16. Or KZ:SF will be a disappointment before it actually hits the shelves.



16 or 20 total (8 vs 8 - 10 vs 10) will more than likely be the maximum. What reason would there be to have so many players? Balanced multiplayer, uniquely crafted maps, and fun/engaging/intuitive multiplayer modes come first. Killzone Shadowfall shouldn't have huge gun fights just for the sake of having it. Saying Killzone Shadowfall will fail by default if it doesn't have 16 vs 16 is just plain silly. There IS such a thing as "too many players", MAG is more than proof of that. I'd much rather have a balanced 8 vs 8, unique, and engaging multiplayer experience than having a run off the mill 16 vs 16 shoot out cluster-f**k. MAG max player was much bigger I know, but you get the picture.

Avatar image for Nengo_Flow
Nengo_Flow

10644

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Nengo_Flow
Member since 2011 • 10644 Posts

[QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"][QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"]8 players? KS:SF's mulitplayer cannot have less than 32 players in competitive matches or it will be passed of as a disappointment within the KZ community. On of the big reasons why KZ2 fans didnt like KZ3's multiplayer was becuz of the lack of server list and the 12 vs 12 from 16 vs 16 downgrade (even tho they added jet packs and Mechs)Digital_DJ_00

16 is the minimum for this game most likely. why the f*ck? I dont mind having a mode thats just 4 vs 4, another thats 8 vs 8, but for the love of god there better be a mode thats 16 vs 16. Or KZ:SF will be a disappointment before it actually hits the shelves.



16 or 20 total (8 vs 8 - 10 vs 10) will more than likely be the maximum. What reason would there be to have so many players? Balanced multiplayer, uniquely crafted maps, and fun/engaging/intuitive multiplayer modes come first. Killzone Shadowfall shouldn't have huge gun fights just for the sake of having it. Saying Killzone Shadowfall will fail by default if it doesn't have 16 vs 16 is just plain silly. There IS such a thing as "too many players", MAG is more than proof of that. I'd much rather have a balanced 8 vs 8, unique, and engaging multiplayer experience than having a run off the mill 16 vs 16 shoot out cluster-f**k. MAG max player was much bigger I know, but you get the picture.

So KZ2 was crap? The reason people loved KZ2's multiplayer was becuz of how well it played with 32 on huge maps and bots causing chaos. People love the chaos! Thats why people were disappointed with KZ3.

And KZ2 workd great, it was balance. The only issues it had was the spawn grandes that people would use (i did all the time) to spawn trap the other enemies in their base. (But even that was fun, you would get a ton of kills if you were the team doing the trapping or the team being trapped. KZ2's multiplayer was fun. KZ3 was a tone down version of it which wasnt as good.

Plus! Its NEXTEGEN!!!!!!!!!!!!! KZ:SF has to be that nexgen game to bring that next gen experience. If the multiplayer looks like something that could be done on a PS3, has been done on the PS3, or the PS3 has games that have done better multiplayer experiences, then KZ:SF will be consider a disappointment.

 

Im not specifically saying that 8v8 will automatically mean that it wont be good, but it will be looked at as if its not doing anything special (even if it turns out good).

Avatar image for Digital_DJ_00
Digital_DJ_00

1460

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#15 Digital_DJ_00
Member since 2005 • 1460 Posts

[QUOTE="Digital_DJ_00"]

[QUOTE="Nengo_Flow"] 16 is the minimum for this game most likely. why the f*ck? I dont mind having a mode thats just 4 vs 4, another thats 8 vs 8, but for the love of god there better be a mode thats 16 vs 16. Or KZ:SF will be a disappointment before it actually hits the shelves. Nengo_Flow



16 or 20 total (8 vs 8 - 10 vs 10) will more than likely be the maximum. What reason would there be to have so many players? Balanced multiplayer, uniquely crafted maps, and fun/engaging/intuitive multiplayer modes come first. Killzone Shadowfall shouldn't have huge gun fights just for the sake of having it. Saying Killzone Shadowfall will fail by default if it doesn't have 16 vs 16 is just plain silly. There IS such a thing as "too many players", MAG is more than proof of that. I'd much rather have a balanced 8 vs 8, unique, and engaging multiplayer experience than having a run off the mill 16 vs 16 shoot out cluster-f**k. MAG max player was much bigger I know, but you get the picture.

So KZ2 was crap? The reason people loved KZ2's multiplayer was becuz of how well it played with 32 on huge maps and bots causing chaos. People love the chaos! Thats why people were disappointed with KZ3.

And KZ2 workd great, it was balance. The only issues it had was the spawn grandes that people would use (i did all the time) to spawn trap the other enemies in their base. (But even that was fun, you would get a ton of kills if you were the team doing the trapping or the team being trapped. KZ2's multiplayer was fun. KZ3 was a tone down version of it which wasnt as good.

Plus! Its NEXTEGEN!!!!!!!!!!!!! KZ:SF has to be that nexgen game to bring that next gen experience. If the multiplayer looks like something that could be done on a PS3, has been done on the PS3, or the PS3 has games that have done better multiplayer experiences, then KZ:SF will be consider a disappointment.

Im not specifically saying that 8v8 will automatically mean that it wont be good, but it will be looked at as if its not doing anything special (even if it turns out good).



I never said Killzone 2 was crap, I just said that balance, good maps, and intuitive/fun game modes for multiplayer take priority. If "chaotic" is the term you'd use, then it's definately not balanced, because chaos is the exact opposite of balance. The only way I could see a 16 vs 16 or 32 vs 32 working is if the maps for those matches are REALLY big, other wise it'd be a cluster f**k. No thanks to that, if I wanna play a cluster f**k I'll play ground war on CoD on Nuketown.