I don't know about the rest of you, but back when I was playing the original XBOX, I figured that when the X360 came out, Halo 3, the Call Of Duty games and the like would up the amount of players per game in online multiplayer to 32. But so far there hasn't been any games on the X360 to get that amount of players in per match. I think Battlefield 2: Modern Combat and Call of Duty 3 have uped it to 24, but that's it. I thinkResistance: Fall of Man on the PS3 has 32 players online per game, but to me there are only two good looking games on the PS3, Resistance: Fall of Man and Ninja Gaiden Sigma that are out, and potentially Killzone once it's released. So I was just wondering if anyone else felt the way I doand if you think we will be getting 32 players per online match anytime soon. Sorry if this post is hard to understand, I typed it in a rush.
I don't know about the rest of you, but back when I was playing the original XBOX, I figured that when the X360 came out, Halo 3, the Call Of Duty games and the like would up the amount of players per game in online multiplayer to 32. But so far there hasn't been any games on the X360 to get that amount of players in per match. I think Battlefield 2: Modern Combat and Call of Duty 3 have uped it to 24, but that's it. I thinkResistance: Fall of Man on the PS3 has 32 players online per game, but to me there are only two good looking games on the PS3, Resistance: Fall of Man and Ninja Gaiden Sigma that are out, and potentially Killzone once it's released. So I was just wondering if anyone else felt the way I doand if you think we will be getting 32 players per online match anytime soon. Sorry if this post is hard to understand, I typed it in a rush.ElectronicMagic
32= no fun, just try n play resistance with 40, just sucks
I have never played Resistance: Fall of Man. But I figured that the more people ina match, the more fun because there is more players to go up against. I can understand if it causes technical difficulties, I just thought that X360 could handle it.
well I remember back when I played COD2 on the PC you could have up to 60 people in a server which was just complete chaos fun for awhile but just chaos, you have to think about it like this you lose a lot when you allow that many people to be in one game such as teamwork and then you also have to factor lag into the whole equation, I remember the lag was pretty bad when the numbers got over 40 I dont think anyone would want that when they're on XBL.
Resistances 40 works well because they're large maps, if you dont design them for that sorta thing it cn goto hell quick. But take Warhawk, word it through dedicated servers it may allow upto 64players online.
well I remember back when I played COD2 on the PC you could have up to 60 people in a server which was just complete chaos fun for awhile but just chaos, you have to think about it like this you lose a lot when you allow that many people to be in one game such as teamwork and then you also have to factor lag into the whole equation, I remember the lag was pretty bad when the numbers got over 40 I dont think anyone would want that when they're on XBL. andyboiii
Yeah, I can see that it would get boring quickly if it was just chaos all the time, laggy and no team work. But I wish games like Call of Duty 2 or Gears of War would have at least made the matches 16 players instead of 8. My main frustration with the 16 player thing mainly stems from playing Halo 2 so much and having shot at one player in online mode until my clip was empty just to have another person take him/her out after I did all the work. I figured if there was more players in the match, then there would possibly be more chances to take people out without someone kill stealing.
I have never played Resistance: Fall of Man. But I figured that the more people ina match, the more fun because there is more players to go up against. I can understand if it causes technical difficulties, I just thought that X360 could handle it.ElectronicMagic
It can, But I hate playing with anymore than 24 players at a time.
Perfect dark zero has 32 players...anyways, anything over 8 feels chaotic, you loose teamwork,strategy and any sory of sanity. 16 is best way to go, cod3 has 24, and it sucks. MORE people does not mean more fun.. Quality over quantity
Yeah I was gonna say PDZ had 32 players and I remember just people running around like chickens with their heads cut off shooting at everything they saw since it was so chaotic and then came all the "YOU STOLE MY KILL YOU ASS" comments and such. Not very fun, I think 16 is the best.
When I play, I play to win. And having 16 players on my team would be madness if trying to manage. We'd have to organize multiple team leaders...and such.
I have never played Resistance: Fall of Man. But I figured that the more people ina match, the more fun because there is more players to go up against. I can understand if it causes technical difficulties, I just thought that X360 could handle it.ElectronicMagic
the 360 can handle it. its already been proven that it can. its just that most developers know something higher than 24 would be to chaotic, not to mention that if one person has a bad connection it becomes a laggfest
yeah, 16 is the best because you want to play with a good amount thats good enough for teamworkor straight killing each other.but like call of duty 3 whichhas horrible multiplayer (you can barely stay alive for1 minute) just because it has 24 players at one time.
NO, i think he has a point... I play call of duty 3 and the best games are around 24, ie when there are the most people playing...
I wouldn't mind having 32, and it would be fun! The devellopers just have to adjust levels ( making them big enough) to have it playable with more players... Technically, I'm sure the 360 could handle it, its just probably harder to make... don't know. I do know the PSP has a game with 32 players online ( medal of honor ) and it's quite playable... lol I guess will see
360 can easily do a large scale multiplayer game like pc bf2, its not the hardware thats the prob, its friggin LIVE. Because of LIVE there will never be that type of multiplayer experience which is a shame. Dedicated servers would fix all that.
frontlines fuel of war will have atleast 32 players but they're shooting for 50. but these are huge maps, i think the biggest they talked about was 4 square miles. too bad it doesnt come out until january
frontlines fuel of war will have atleast 32 players but they're shooting for 50. but these are huge maps, i think the biggest they talked about was 4 square miles. too bad it doesnt come out until januarydeedeedee69
Yeah I've had my eye on that game since I first seen about it awhile back, I hope it turns out good.
Yes but it's not the consoles which holding back it's the fact that most gamers don't all have ultra high connextion so it would be constantly laggy unless they were to develope a good server module which will cope with the lag issues.
[QUOTE="ElectronicMagic"]I don't know about the rest of you, but back when I was playing the original XBOX, I figured that when the X360 came out, Halo 3, the Call Of Duty games and the like would up the amount of players per game in online multiplayer to 32. But so far there hasn't been any games on the X360 to get that amount of players in per match. I think Battlefield 2: Modern Combat and Call of Duty 3 have uped it to 24, but that's it. I thinkResistance: Fall of Man on the PS3 has 32 players online per game, but to me there are only two good looking games on the PS3, Resistance: Fall of Man and Ninja Gaiden Sigma that are out, and potentially Killzone once it's released. So I was just wondering if anyone else felt the way I doand if you think we will be getting 32 players per online match anytime soon. Sorry if this post is hard to understand, I typed it in a rush.joslop500
32= no fun, just try n play resistance with 40, just sucks
Your Right there I think if it there is to many people in it, its not t hat fun either cause you cant move around.
Yes but it's not the consoles which holding back it's the fact that most gamers don't all have ultra high connextion so it would be constantly laggy unless they were to develope a good server module which will cope with the lag issues.Pugberto3122
lol my Connection should be good I have road runner turbo and its like a 15 Mbps service.
I think that resistance and PDZ are perfect examples that many players doesn`t mean squat. No team tactics, no talking, exept trash. U might as well play with bots. try play resistance on a full server and u see what i mean
I see most people that responded didn't like the idea of 32 players ina match at once and I can see the point behind that opinion. I have never played a 32 player match, highest I have played was Battlefield 2: Modern Combat andCall of Duty 3(I liked COD3 not as much as COD2, but that is because Infinity Ward is a much better developer than Treyarch)with 24 players per match and I thought it was great fun. I've played Perfect Dark Zero online many times, the reason Ididn't consider it before is because I could never find a match with more than 16 real players and the rest were bots. I'd like tosee more developers at least give the playerhostingthe match the option to have 32 players online, and if they don't want that the hostcan reduce it to whatever number they like. That's just my opinion though.
Log in to comment