Top
660°

Bungie dev: 60-man Resistance 2 will be a 'challenge'

Speaking on Bungie's latest podcast, Luke Timmins, multiplayer engineer on Halo 3, said that he was interested in how Resistance 2 developer Insomniac would keep 60-player multiplayer games from feeling like "just running around in a chat room".

Timmins said: "Some of the stuff that Resistance is doing about trying to keep jacking up the number of guys in a game... I've played Resistance, and I'm a huge Battlefield 2 fan but I'm still interested in how do you keep that number of guys in a game and make it seem like you are actually playing together and not just running around in a chat room. It's real interesting and I wish them well but, yeah, it's a challenge."

Read Full Story >>
videogamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
CRIMS0N_W0LF3356d ago (Edited 3356d ago )

bungie you are bunch of noobs.

60+ MP was done YEARS AGO! Even 1000 Players per map on 56k dail up w/o lag was done. And I am talking about FPS.

and no it didn't end up a chat room it ended up a full fledge war.

v1c1ous3356d ago

he's is not saying 60 person multiplayer CAN'T be done.

it's more like "so you got 60 people in a game. now what? what's to stop this from turning into a frag fest where nothing gets accomplished?"

Anego Montoya FTMFW3356d ago (Edited 3356d ago )

RFOM2 vs HALO3 (2 years after the launch of each system.)

RFOM2- 60 players
HALO3- 12 to 16 players

RFOM2- 8 Player Co-op
HALO3- 4 Player Co-op

RFOM2- 2 storys
HALO3- 1 story

RFOM2- Looks Unreal
HALO3- Looks OK

RFOM2- 720p/1080i (possibly 1080p)
HALO3- 640p

RFOM2- 60FPS (most likely, Ratchet was)
HALO3- 30FPS (i think, not sure)

IMO

bungie should just sit back and enjoy their success right now.
because RFOM2 is a serious problem for them and their image.

CRIMS0N_W0LF3356d ago

It was done and not ended in a frag feast and it had team seperations. I'm talking about Battlefield. I saw the some of the most tactical matches 32 vs 32 players.

Most tactic "matches" I saw were on PlanetSide, where different clans meet up and pratice formations to raid a whole planet

v1c1ous3356d ago

@1.2

way to miss what i just said

@1.3

yes, it is possible to make such a huge game be controlled, but it all depends on what methods the developers go through to keep the game balanced.

that's the main problem Imsonmiac has to overcome.

and don't get me confused as defending bungie either. i played halo 3, and even with 8 vs 8, that game is filled to the rim with LONE WOLF type gamers who won't listen to reason or work together,

jwatt3356d ago

People at bungie were not trying to bash Insomniac and I agree with what they were saying. 40 players is alot but I felt like it was too hectic.

Now Insomniac said they will address this issues by splitting teams up into groups and giving them thier own objectives. That sounds like that can help out alot and I am definitely looking forward to this games.

Fragking283356d ago

1000 players on a 56k dial up connection yeah right buddy

wallace10003356d ago

What game ever had 1000 player games? That must have taken a long time to find that many players :-P

3356d ago
TheSadTruth3356d ago

The original resistance multiplayer was pretty bad.. first off you die WAY too quick considering how much autoaim their is.. makes it so even little 10 year old's can aim

The truth is that is just too many people in a console game.. it makes the game fast paced but it's just boring spawning and dieing from getting shot in the back and since there's so much autoaim, the best Resistance players will still get killed by low skill players. The nades are pretty ridiculous as well.. I mean all you have to do is touch a player with a nade and they explode on impact, takes the skill and timing out of a normally skilled weapon. I do like the sniper rifle from what I recall... takes some skill to use effectively. Before anyone flame's me.. I also think Halo 3's multiplayer is pretty bad too.. just because the horrid map designs... I've been doing nothing but play CoD 4 as of late. Good, now Sony and MS fans can both mass disagree me.

InMyOpinion3356d ago

Bigger isn't always better...

gambare3356d ago

It's obvious that the Halo3 MP engie never player BF2, BF2 got a healthy 32 vs 32 players on a single map, and it wasn't a "running chatroom"

RelloC_ReBorn3356d ago

dude, she is just telling you that to make you feel better.

kwicksandz3356d ago

you must have been smoking some powerful stuff to dream that up. you cant even run 3 player games without lag on 56k with your neighbour

rofldings3355d ago

"Massive numbers should not mean massive confusion: 60 players (up from Resistance's max number of 40) may sound like an awful lot, but Insomniac is doing everything in their power to make sure competitive battles don't get out of hand. Players will be split into lobbies of six-to-eight-member squads, each with unique objectives. Specific areas on each map will foster frantic large-scale battles, but most of the fighting should come in the former of smaller skirmishes."

No. Sorry, that sounds like fun. Not just a 60 person frag fest.

BobDog3355d ago

massive numbers have been done of 56k, but u got to remember when u had 128mb of ram and a 20gig hardrive and games were a couple hundred megs

InMyOpinion3355d ago

I was referring to the subject at hand. The penis measuring contest is that way --->

Bloodwar3355d ago (Edited 3355d ago )

Responding to Anego Montoya FTMFW, I wanted to share something with you. Huxley for the Xbox 360 is going to have 120 players shooting it out on their MMOFPS. I wonder for how long RFOM2 is going to be in the light, if it even makes it. And with only 60 players? And before peeps start saying, where is the story for this MMOFPS?

What Are The Factional City's?
Home cities are non-combat zones where players will be able to take a break from the battlefield and relax. You'll find all sorts of things in the home city, including trades, shops, guild halls, apartment buildings, garages, etc.. The Alternatives have a city called Eska. Their rivals the Sapiens have Nostalonia.

Source= http://www.huxleygame.com/h...

Sounds like this game may be more than an FPS. Maybe not exactly a roleplaying game per say, but having a city where we have trades skills.. reminds me of my time working on trade skills in WoW. And the story is going to be our wartime battles against the other factions... ohh and did I mention, it's going to have 120 person battles? hehe

Stubacca3355d ago

Anego Montoya FTMFW, good point. Bubbles for you.

V1c1ous, have you played resistence? Because if you have, you would know the maps can be massive. As such, these battles turn out to be good old-fashioned war and not just a 'frag fest'.

+ Show (17) more repliesLast reply 3355d ago
PStriple7033356d ago

this is coming from devopers who made the most wanted game(halo3)in 640p, the first RFOM was 40 online was smooth as eggs

Blankman3356d ago

The media has already dubbed resistance 2 as a halo killer lol to get the record straight killzone 2 is the halo killer not resistance. Resistance is gears killer lol.
if they could do 40 without feeling like running around in a chat room why do you doubt they can do 60. Sure it will be hard but thats not to say it can't be done. Insomniac has an excellent track record and they are an excellent games studio. They have made 2 really good games in 2 yrs on a console notorious for difficult development and it looks like they are about to deliver a 3rd in resistance 2. Bungie hasnt worked on anything but halo in almost a decade yet halo runs at 640p on xbox

BloodySinner3356d ago

...yet you worship the 600p Call of Duty 4? Wow!

shysun3356d ago

COD4 looks like a HD games, Halo3 dosen't.

BloodySinner3356d ago

Basically had you not been told that COD4 was running only at 600p, you wouldn't have been able to tell the difference.

Johnny Wadd3356d ago (Edited 3356d ago )

@ blankman & bloodysinner:

Not to flame or anything.... but you can't tell the diff. between 720p and 1080p unless you've got a LCD/Plasma tv that's 46 inch or higher. I don't think the general public knows how to distinguish true HD on a smaller tv. That's why I laugh at those people who spends the extra dough to buy a tv that's 1080p but the screen-size is only 37 or 40 inch..... LOL silly consumers that doesn't do their research.

just a side note, you can definitely see the diff. between Resistance/Halo 3 on my 52 inch sony.... I chose the 2 to compare because they are similar games. However, I enjoyed Halo 2 a lot more than Halo 3.

Bombomb3356d ago (Edited 3356d ago )

only if you actually thought about what you've just said, you wouldn't have fallen for the trap.

Good trap and bait sinner...

see, it's all in the mind..so mindless delusional fanboys

Pain3356d ago

Have Not been hyped for ANY other FPS since Perfect Dark 64.

This game is going to Rock.

And Make others take a look at what they doing .

Perkel3356d ago

@ Johny Wadd

pff haha sorry guy u are wrong

1080p on 24 or 40 or 100 inch tv is still 1080p. I have Sony KDL40W2000 and yes it's 1080p and 40" 1080p in Lair is mindblowing and waaaay better than 720p Motorstorm.

Can't see the diffrence ? You are blind my friend then. More, picture at bigger tv with 1080p looks worse than same picture at smaller tv with 1080p. Go figure why..

wow143356d ago (Edited 3356d ago )

Resistence (86) and Killzone (70!?) have both been owned by the Halo Series (97,95,94).

Really, it is the universal opinion of the industry that RFOM and KZ are second rate when compared to the pinnacle of the genre: Halo.

YOU might disagree -- its your right -- but the collective wisdom of the industry says you are incorrect (in the sense that one can be right/wrong about such things..).

Edit, just show you something of interest:

MGS 94
MGS2 96
MGS3 94
Average 94.6 / 100

Halo 97
Halo 2 95
Halo 3 94
Average: 95.3 / 100

So, In the pantheon of Shooters, are you going to say that RFOM and KZ(!?) are better than MGS? Because they would have to be in order to be "better" than Halo.

M'kay thanks.

Johnny Wadd3356d ago (Edited 3356d ago )

@ Perkel:

You, my friend, are wrong. In order to truly "see" the difference between 720p vs 1080p, you have to have a television that's preferably, 50 inch or larger. As you sit at the same distance from the TV from 40 inch or 52 inch, you can tell the difference. What you're buying for in the 50 inch or larger 1080p tv is the clarity/resolution factor that you get as you move away from the TV. As you move away from a 1080p 40 inch tv, you will notice a pretty significant image deterioration. Go on AV forum and read the faq list. Trust me, 1080p for a 40 inch is just a way for tv companies to get more of your money.

You're right in the sense that 1080p @ 20 or 24 inch is the same....
But it also looks the same when you compare 720p @ 20 or 24 inch between its respective 1080p counterparts. Because the tv's are so small, you can't see the extra resolution/pixels on the 1080p. In essence, you've paid extra for something you can't see.

Oh yeah, if you sit close enough to the 40, your pictures will turn crappy just as when you sit close enough to the 50.

RecSpec3356d ago

@wow14

What the hell are you talking about? MGS is not a FPS.

SSCOOLCHEA3356d ago

it got 10 10 10 9.5 .....and thats was from and xbot magazine EGM

kurochi3356d ago

@ Perkel:

ha ha ha ha ha
what the hell are you talking about? Go read up on some of the facts before you embarrass yourself in regard to the HDTV subject.....

ha ha ha ha ha ha

I'm sorry, it's just so funny at how brain-washed you are by the tv companies..... ha ha ha You should return the 40 inch you got and spend the extra grand to really enjoy 1080p on the 50 inch..... ha ha ha ha ha ha

crank3356d ago (Edited 3356d ago )

Sorry there johnny you are not quite saying things right

1080p resolution, no matter at what INCH, is going to make a huge difference where ever it is available.

One simple test for people that are not technical, for people who do not calibrate displays for every movie and game

30 inches is the close to optimal for 1080p sitting 3 feet away.

It all has to do with pixel pitch. The bigger you tv, common sense, here, the bigger your 1080p images are DUDE.

Staying at 1080p, the more you blow that image up the worse it gets, and YES YOU CAN SEE THE GAME LOOK WORSE WHEN YOU BLOW UP A !)*)P IMAGE FROM say 30 inches to 40. LOSS OF PIXEL DETAIL, THEY ARE LARGER AND BLURRIER.

It is not that hard to imagine so don't spill the misleading info so much, research it a bit because I can see the difference between 1080p and 480p on my 24 inch QUITE EASILY. 720p resolution for WEB PAGES IS TERRIBLE

IT is like watching a large blurry screen, when I switch back to 1920x1200 my screen if perfection, and that is ON A 24 INCH DELL SCREEN

Not 50 and not 60 and not 40---------24 inches and the differences between the equivalent 720p and 1080p for desktops is a HUGE.

I could never USE 480p on my computer the text is about an inch big on default, 720p alao looks horrendous.

Your false opinion that 1080p only is right for 40 inches above is completely false. You obviously know nothing about resolution and the way pixels are used.

Again, 19200x1200 photos look optimal on my 24 inch screen, that is why I got it.

Blow them up anymore and they get blurrier. That correlates to games, too.

I am sick of people acting like high definition works only for this magical plane above 40 inches.

NONSENSE PEOPLE. GET EDUCATED.

Johnny Wadd3356d ago

@ Crank:

You, get educated my friend.
Goto this link as these people know what they're talking about. What I said above is exactly what these people are talking about in greater detail. Have fun reading the post. I'm too lazy to explain the diff. to you. Bottom-line, on a smaller screen, you eyes cannot see the diff. from 720p vs 1080p. Of course if you're talking about 100 inch tv, your image will be lousy at 1080p and worse on 720p. But the optimal viewing distance for 1080p 50 inch is about 7-8 feet from the tv. But at 8ft for 720p 50 inch, it's not the same.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs...

Oh, one more thing. The quality of your display ultimately depends on your signal input. So, if COD4 and Halo 3 is only at 640p, than that's all you're gonna get (unless there's up-conversion involved). So, nobody can tell the difference unless, like I said on my previous post, you have 50 inch or above 1080p tv.

Please get educated. I suppose for some people, ignorance is bliss?

pukka_p3356d ago

#Wow14
Resistence (86) and Killzone (70!?) have both been owned by the Halo Series (97,95,94).
------

I honestly thought - resistance 1986, Killzone 1970? Halo in 1997, 1995 and 1994? "What's this fool on about?", I thought...

Then I realised... Of course. Why would anyone ever want to argue their own opinion of a game when they can use another person's opinion expressed as a number out of 110?

I'm sorry to have a go, but I just played pixeljunk monsters yesterday (a true classic) having seen a score in a magazine of 7/10!!! Sooooooo very, very wrong. But then, that it just my opinion (although most agree with me this is a great game).

So back to my criticism.... Variable reviews with dubious scores are bad enough, but people quoting them like gospel is well just <INSERT OpenZone comment>. Please don't lower yourself to quoting random scores.

socomnick3356d ago

I dont mean to sound fanboys but imo resistance 1 multiplayer was absolute trash it felt tacked on. It was nowhere near what halo 3 multiplayer is. Resistance 2 might have a chance who knows.

crank3356d ago

You are talking to a certified installer here SON

http://whatis.techtarget.co...

Tristimulus, sharpness diagrams, DAC's, and temporal motion. etc. are taken into account for every calibration

I use about 12 different personal settings 4 that are used regularly, based on tristimulus, gamma curves, white point, native response, etc and all for different content, all manually set up to reflect lighting conditions and material

what I cannot do is change the dot pitch, motion settings, etc. for my display because it is fixed, and that limits what kind of detail you can see from specified resolution

I could set pixel clock and phase if I wasn't using DVI

AS IF you are telling me anything by linking to some ******* AVS forum POST where they analyze and analyze

The thing about it is 95% of those SCIENTIFIC comparisons are based on hardware advantages

rarely do you get an objective opinion over there except from SOME of the better articles

I have a membership on that site I have read THAT SAME ******* FORUM POST

I have worked with many computer algorithms for deinterlacing interlacing, etc. and dozens of display panel calibrations systems for viewing content

I currently use mac display at the moment casually, as it doesn't have a ton of calibration tools but it does let you mess with tristimulus so who cares really

Every movie and game to my exact standard LOL, and you are sending me to an a forum that I have already been to thousands of times

AS IF, I love it when vacant people like you try to be all genius and condescending, I was there too at one time

pixel pitch is the most important factor in realizing 1080p resolution detail at screen sizes above 30 inches and even below to some degree

I don't know how many times I have to tell you I work on a 1920x1200 DELL screen

SO JUST TRY THIS FOR ME FANBOY
TAKE A SIMPLE WEB PAGE LIKE GOOGLE AND PUT IT TO 1920x1200

AND THEN PUT IT TO 1024x768 and then again to 640x480

SEE THE ******* AMAZING DIFFERENCE.......... on a 24 inch screen SHI* for BRAINS?

You just saw 480p compared to 720p to 1080p

There were differences in each version and you(if you even have a display) could see those variations quite easily from 3 to 15 feet!!!!

Now of course those difference are minimized when viewing material that doesn't have things like text and other nonmoving objects
calibration tools use specific patterns that the display and video chips have to stand up to
you don't want distortion of any kind obviously but this is the real world

this is why calibration systems use a VARIETY of programs to determine a display's usefulness

but still, the view that you cannot calibrate by eye is absolute BULL****
of course you can't print off detailed spec sheets from your mouth but know one needs to

everything to your eye, depending how much experience you have gained, drug use, sleep, etc. is exactly what you will be actually seeing (not a spreadsheet) so learn to trust yourself based on individual experience with various displays and systems

trained specialists know in the gut what looks right because of there constant hands on approach to calibrating, not because a computer tells them

so go by your gut not by some forum, actually test these things yourself and make your OWN opinions, Don't spout off Bull**** like you are some sort of engineer or something because you obviously are not

computers cannot tell you if YOU like 6625 degrees or 5865 degree for color by the way, that is subjective

PIXEL PITCH AND MOTION RESPONSE ARE NOT

Here is just one of many calibration overviews for PHOTOS on monitors, and a good website besides the one you listed--if you hadn't caught on, I am not sure how much you use AVS but you must not crawl those forums that often they have all you need to know about calibrating displays, chief

http://www.drycreekphoto.co...

Maybe you could read a few more things about what you don't know about, many links from the main article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

I would suggest you learn about pixel pitch first off there dude, and that would be here in dot pitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Of course these are STARTER articles, GOOGLE these terms for more if you wish

Next time you want to BASH someone involved firsthand in the industry make sure you know what you are talking about, DON'T SEND ME TO A ******* WEB PAGE I will just send you to one

People like me that play VIDEO GAMES 4 feet away from the screen can easily spot details missing on a 1080p vs 720p version of the same game

HELL, why don't you to Eurogamer and look at the differences on their scientific 360 vs PS3 comparisons
notice how the 720p capture is a lot smaller than the 1080p capture

yes they look similar but when you blow that 720p image up to the size of the 1080p image it doesn't look as similar anymore--too bad they don't do these comparisons for you they only analyze ps3 vs. 360

anyway, in photoshop, the 720p image just got a lot blurrier and that is because the .92 million pixels of 720p cannot handle being blown up to that size without sacrificing something--that is the advantage of 1 million+ more pixels

YOU ACT like dot pitch is just somehow changed in the display for however large you want it to be, and that the advantages of smaller dot pitch somehow just disappears on smaller displays

ehhhhh, no

That is not true, you get what you buy

1080p displays from even 3 years ago have worse dot pitch than the best 720p display but even then all that extra resolution still makes it look better

we are talking 2,073,600 1080p pixels vs. .92 million 720p

only a fool like yourself would say that 1 million pixels MORE only matters above 40 inches or so

If you have a 1080p display you will notice the vast difference in the environments, textures, etc when pumped up to NATIVE 1080p ON ANY SCREEN SIZE I WILL REPEAT ANY SCREEN SIZE, above 20 inches

and we are not talking sitting 20 feet away on state of the art video chips for 720p compared to the worst 1080p chip on the market, this is an objective comparison best handled by objective testing, but since we don't have all those tools for each other we are doing the webpage thing because it is simple and true

NO, then you are verified idiot

For your information, I have been involved in over a hundred arguments/discussions on that board

They are also the same people that compared 1080p vs. 720p and said 720p has no difference compared to 1080p at 10 feet and 100 inch screen

THE KICKER: they were using the best 720p equipment on the market, and the worst 1080p equipment

Point is moot, you have to have the same equipment video technology to accurately compare things, and they usually don't have anywhere near fair comparisons on those boards

THAT is why I give you the computer comparison, because it analyzes pixel pitch waaaay more accurately and fair than a movie does with the same resolution

You have to have a really nice screen to keep up on web pages and 720p doesn't cut it at any screen size don't even bother arguing I am working on a 24 inch screen did you not GET THAT ALREADY, for the sole purpose that 720p on a 24 inch screen is just not nearly enough resolution for web pages or text

TRUST ME ON THAT, been doing it for a while now

so in the end that ******* link says absolutely nothing, those AVS forums are for fanboy spasm lovefests

crank3356d ago (Edited 3355d ago )

Re: I am too lazy to explain the difference to you. Just read this post by people who know what they are talking about. Of course, you have no idea what you are talking about so.................

Let me guess, you are 15 and wildly excited about yourself

Your theory about moving away from tv's and the 50 inch 40 inch thing is so full of UTTERLY COMPLETE BULL**** that at times I wonder how sympathetic you are to the delusions in your small head

PIXEL RESPONSE, PIXEL PITCH, RESOLUTION, get these terms through reading about them not trying to define them from your limited standpoint and you will not look like an IDIOT

Do you realize that anyone with half the knowledge I possess could single you out as a total noob, you don't state any facts or even words standardized by the industry

the way you assume things and then direct me to some else's viewpoint says you know nothing yourself

so thanks for that unintelligible mess of a response GENIUS

The most redundant PWN you could ever get from a fanboy....... absolutely NO FACT and COMPLETE CONJECTURE ON THINGS YOU DON'T EVEN BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND

I am too lazy

Well, I am not, so read the post and uh, have fun doing it JOHNNY WAD LOL

Douche Bag

Scenarist3355d ago

Crank...well said. I know a bit more than the average joe when it comes to this stuff . definitly not as much as you (pro)

and I have been saying the same thing on other forums of course in much less detail. What kills me the most is 90% of consumer dont even know what the real details are to look for when buying a tv or monitor, and you would be surprised as to what peoples questions are when searching for a tv or monitor. NO one that I have ever came across ever refers to ppi or dot pitch or the measurements

Most just argue over 1080 vs 720 ...occasionally they argue over contrast ratios or more rarely aspect ratios , and everyone expects perfection out of the box or as seen on display out of the box
i love tech first and self school myself for the most part and second i just so happen to be a salesmen and installer who does NOT calibrate tvs on a pro lvl but i do calibrate em...and as far as pro goes im a sound guy and i do calibrate those systems on a pro lvl

and as far as screen size goes you can only take recommended viewing distance into account...since at a fixed distance say 20ft a 50 inch and a 20 inch looks different at the same resolution DUH cuz your not going to sit 20 feet away from a 20 inch tv

anyway bubbles for you and dont mind my grammar and punctuation ...i just type

Skizelli3355d ago

You people pick the stupidest things to argue about. Talk about Small D#ck Syndrome.

Perkel3355d ago

pff BTW i have enought of stupid people who think 1080p (or any bigger resolution) is good only above 40inch or more. It's like fight with air...

Crank bubble for u for time spent fighting with air ^^

Daurelus173355d ago

MGS 94
MGS2 96
MGS3 94
Average 94.6 / 100

Halo 97
Halo 2 95
Halo 3 94
Average: 95.3 / 100
UR trying to compare the scores when MGS came out on the ps1 while the other 2 game out one ps2. mg2 on the ps2 was better then halos 2 score while halo 3(360) got the same as MGS3 (ps2). not to mention the halo scores go down since the game never changes. try to compare something else there buddy

+ Show (21) more repliesLast reply 3355d ago
mintaro3356d ago

60 people online for a *console* (key word) will be tough for any developer. but if anyone can do it, its insomniac

PS360WII3356d ago

This coming from someone who could only get 8 people multiplayer? I suppose if you look at it that way it would be challenging.

wallace10003356d ago

I might have misinterpreted what you said but if you are referring to halo 3, big team battle is 16 person multilayer.

PS360WII3356d ago

ah, well no you didn't misinterpet me and I guess that why I got 5 disagree's ^^ I've only done 8 people multiplayer games must of missed out on the 16 maps :(

P4KY B3356d ago

8-12 player games allows you to hold a grudge against someone and make it personal.

INehalemEXI3356d ago

You can also play those games too in R2 your not forced to play 60. If its not your bag you can enter a game with 8-12.

CRIMS0N_W0LF3356d ago

in battlefield 2 i saw the most tactical matches ever with 64 players.

socomnick3356d ago

Crimson who cares nobody's talking about battlefield 2 go bend over for your pc already. Pc gaming is dieing live with it.

kwicksandz3356d ago

Unless your in a huge clan match gtfo its a giant deathmatch at that player count.

gambare3355d ago

R2 won't have 30vs30 only, I bet there will be 8vs8 game modes, then you can take someone personal ;)

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3355d ago