Nope, you can have a full 64 players on a CQ map. Not sure if it's different on consoles or not, but on PC you can put any number of players on the maps.
On one hand, I like the small frenetic maps like this as a compliment to the larger BF3 maps. They offer an amusing change of pace, a sort of CoD style twitch shooting with BF3's more demanding weapon handling characteristics. It's quite good. But honestly, I don't feel it was worth an entire expansion, particularly since the maps are best played with 32 players which makes the few full size map servers that also host them a bit of a *#^$storm when 64 players get crammed into these tiny maps. Of course one can seek out a server that hosts just the CQ maps but then it gets boring very fast when it's the constant style of play. Honestly, while I like the new guns and the maps themselves are decent in their own way, it just makes me want Armored Kill to come out that much sooner. Now if they'd mixed these tiny maps with some larger ones I think it would have been a much better xpac.
About time. The old Castlevania formula, while good has gotten pretty tired and played out. The recent console game was a good change of pace but it's going to be interesting to see what they do for the mobile games, which has pretty much become the traditional home of the series.
He's using the same sort of descriptions Turn10 did when it came to the handling and pick up and playability, which I suspect means there's tool to cater to the folks who want to play it with arcadey physics. Everyone else who wants more realistic physics will get such by turning off the assists, or perhaps dialing them back if they're done with multipul levels now.
I never said it was a bad game, infact I agree about SotN. However, there's been more 2D castlevania games by this point than there's been CoD games. XD By this point I want Castvania excellence in 3D. The LoS was very good, I liked it alot. And if that team can ramp it up further and improve and already great game that was already worthy of the castlevania name, then by all means.
It amazes me that people are stupid enough to think this means the game is failing. The simple fact is now that the game is out and the large production projects are done there's no need for the extra staff, so they get fired. It sucks, it's unfair, but it's how it works. Hell blizz fires more than 200 people every couple months, and pretty much has since the game's launch. They rotating talent in, use them on the cheap, then boot them out before they have to start paying them decently.
I've got a computer I built 06 for about $640 or so that vastly out performs the PS3 or 360. Sure it can't run many new games maxed, but it gives a pretty good show how outdated and behind the times the consoles are. I mean heck when BF3 came out the devs mentioned that the console versions are running at an equivalent to the lowest settings on PC, but even then they're STILL missing graphical and audio features and STILL don't even hold s stable 30fps, where as my 06 computer runs the game on high at 1920x1200 with a stable 45 fps or so.
Oh I dunno, maybe if the PS3 had halfway decent Anti Aliasing or texture filtering, or a proper hd resolution. But it doesn't, so thus, I can't agree with this guy at all on the technical aspect. The console next gen needs to come by 2013, at the latest.
As for the games and ideas aspect however, I do agree with him. The problem there though isn't so much developers as it is the consumer. Games scream that they wants artier, more interesting or unusual games. Yet when anything but an FPS or RPG is made they don't buy it. Gamers need to start putting their money where their mouths are, and stop getting sold into subscription/service based BS like COD elite or MMOs. Of course gamers are easy to lure into such things and investors love the money it makes them, so really, I don't see things changing any time soon.
Fernin-Ker's comments