Do you think bigger or smaller is better for online games?

Sony makes alot of bigger multiplayer games that have 50+ players online. Xbox 360 has games that go up to 16 players online. What do you like better,a bigger number of players online or a smaller number of players online at once? I like xbox 360's multiplayer games better because they dont have so many people online at once.

Smaller is better.

I had my fun with R2 60 players MP... but I don't know what they were thinking with MAG, that can't be fun (or maybe it's just because the game sucked :P)

I don't like playing with a large amount of people for some reason, so smaller. When I use to play Counter Strike I would always look for servers with only about 6 people in it.

You do you realize that on most games with huge online matches, there are modes with smaller matches too, right? I haven't played MAG, but I know that in Resistance 2 there's an option for how big you want your match to be.

depends on the games.

some games I play would be absolutely terrible if they had more than 16. sometimes that feels crowded as is.

basically preference, the last 32-player game I played was Republic Commando, and that just wasn't enjoyable. for some it might be, but that's not what I like.

I prefer smaller teams.

I had my fun with R2 60 players MP... but I don't know what they were thinking with MAG, that can't be fun (or maybe it's just because the game sucked :P)

GreenGoblin2099

I had my fun with R2 60 players MP... but I don't know what they were thinking with MAG, that can't be fun (or maybe it's just because the game sucked :P)

GreenGoblin2099

Call of Duty got it perfectly with the right number of players and map size :)

depends on the game mode.

It depends on the map design and game type/objective layouts. Warhawk is a good example of how a 32 player map can make the game not feel cluttered. With objectives spread out over a very large map, 16 players on one side have to work pretty tactically to break it up and conquer. KZ2 is a good example of good map design, but odd objective layouts for large gametypes. Things got a little too cluttered in KZ2 with 32 players, that's why I like the matches at around 24.

MAG is great for map layout and objectives. Must have been difficult to find a way to break up that many players and make it all tie together, but they did it.

These are pretty much the only larger gametype games I've played. I like larger games when you're broken up into squads with multiple objectives. But 16 people bum-rushing one point, firing rocket launchers the whole time is dumb.

Ps3 with smaller games preferable... ie Uncharted 2yentlequible

U2 is my least favorite online game as far as ps3 exclusives go. Laggy, wonky gameplay for an online game. Things get annoying. I'd like it much better if they could iron out the lag, get rid of those stupid perks, and make roll and cover two separate buttons. Also, the aiming could be sped up a little.

16 is too small and 50 is too large

24-32 is the best amount

Bigger is much much better. I like battlefield bad company, but an 18 game map, or whatever it is for the 360 just isn't the same game as the 64 (might have been more actually) they had for Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142

It's all about the maps and community. Bigger maps can be much better/fun but if you get stuck with an idiotic team it will turn into hell. I remember back in Battlefield 2 days the helicopter I was in got shot down but I ended up surviving. Even though teammates drove by me, no one bothered to pick me up. So here I am, in the middle of this giant map, with no one giving me a freaking ride regardless of requests. Of course, that was only one game.

But with smaller games these things never happen, so it's usually more fun overall. But sometimes I like giant, sprawling maps and with few people in them then, well, what's the point?

24-32 players is the best, I think. 64 is ok. 256 on MAG was just interesting because it always ended up being 6v6 anyway and you never saw the rest of your team.

It depends, for shooters/racers usually 12 is enough I think, that way its not too chaotic. But Winters Grasp is proof that more can be awesome in the right game.

*facepalm* any xbox360 game could have more players if the devs chose it, its not the console. And for the record, section 8 has 32 people online

And, big matches :D

large mp games were a complete and utter failure when it was the fad years ago and tried over and over again on pc.

why would anything be different now?

(not counting mmo of course)

well it depends on a few things, the size of a map, the strength of the connection, the type of community and the overall quality of the game itself, but generally speaking most games with multiplayer have a sweet spot that they try and hit, finding that right amount of players combined with a reasonably sized map, its what the most popular fps games do, halo. mw2 (not i said popular not good), and bad company and games of the sort

Better designed is better. No matter the player numbers. =\skrat_01

Im going with this. It doesnt matter, as long as its done right. I've had plenty of fun with both.

Personally, anything bigger than 8v8 is wasted, in that it's very hard to get your team to execute any sort of strategy. 4v4 is great, as is 2v2, when it comes to communication. In the MOH beta it supports 12v12, and I find it feels more realistic, and much more like you're actually part of a war. But the problem is it's very hard to influence the game very much.dkjestrup

The MoH beta feels like a war to you? You should play MAG, now that's a war. And since we're comparing the gameplay to MoH, it actually isn't bad, lol.

Depends on what game you are playing

Bigger: More headshots to BOOM!

It depends on the game. Two on two worked just as brilliantly in Splinter Cell as 32 on 32 did in Battlefield. However, some games seem to have huge player caps just so they can brag about it on the box (see MAG, or Joint Ops).

*facepalm* any xbox360 game could have more players if the devs chose it, its not the console. And for the record, section 8 has 32 people online

And, big matches :D

firefluff3

[QUOTE="firefluff3"]

*facepalm* any xbox360 game could have more players if the devs chose it, its not the console. And for the record, section 8 has 32 people online

And, big matches :D

clyde46

Ahem and Gears 2? :P

as big as you can get where you can still voice chat with your whole team.

Big games can be quite fun, but I think a lot of cool things can happen with small stuff. Journey is a small sometimes-multiplayer game that I think will have an amazing online component.

Depends on the design of the game. If it's designed for more people, more people is better. If it's designed for less, less is better.

the games with 50 player online at once...arent they all dead? ye 16 players is the perfect number

Depends on the game.

But bigger is usually better

If it's matchmaking, bigger.

If it's servers, smaller.

Matchmaking takes forever as it is. If it's servers, at least you can get into a game whenever you want with no wait. The benefit is, usually the casuals who don't take the game serious are usually gone, so playing is actually interesting since me and my friend don't just run through the entire other team.