Top
550°

60 Player Online to be Missed In Resistance 3

PS3Center: "when asked Insomniac stated 60 player online battles will not be returning for Resistance 3. As many know this was a huge thing for Resistance 2. Given that the game could support this many people in such a confined area. Insomniac stated they are going for a more structured plan for online, they didn't release any details about it, but only stated that this means 60 player open battles of mayhem will not be returning."

Read Full Story >>
ps3center.net
The story is too old to be commented.
Raikiri2590d ago (Edited 2590d ago )

UHmm..but isn't that what Resistance Multiplayer was all about? isn't that what made it unique?

I think i'll just stick with Resistance 2 for multiplayer then.

BTW MAG doesn't count thats an MMOFPS

@abash
monthly fees don't suddenly make it an MMO -.- you sir are terribly misinformed.
MMO stands for Massive Multiplayer Online, thus making MAG an MMO

wikipedia agrees with me http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

dangert122590d ago

Which is good in my opinion as it wearnt as spread out as it should of been plus the sci fi weapons made it abit to hectic in its numbers

-Alpha2590d ago (Edited 2590d ago )

Anytime I said this about R2's MP back when it released I was met with disagrees. It was way too damn chaotic for me.

Now, this may not mean Big MP is gone from Resistance, in fact I don't want it to. What it does mean though is that they seem to say that they will focus on structure. I wouldn't mind a 40 player MP again, but I do hope that they don't have the same "chaos" mentality. I tend to like the smaller-based games where there is a difference sense of strategy used. Maybe I sucked, but too often I would die in a "First see, first kill" basis and I hated that sort of MP and there would be too many hot spots where a bunch of people would gather to fight until the game ended.

I hope Split-Screen online makes a return too.

Killzone 3 seems to be doing the same thing, and I think it's a good thing. More players doesn't make a game better, and I think I'll enjoy the better distributed 12 on 12 Killzone games as opposed to the concentrated gameplay big-team games seem to do.

Akagi2590d ago (Edited 2590d ago )

I agree with Alpha-Male22. I find that multiplayer with 4v4, 5v5, 6v6 and smaller, better designed maps make for a more enjoyable experience. Case(s) in point: Uncharted 2, Halo, CS:S, etc.

While on paper 60 player MP sounds the bee's knee's, it just doesn't translate well. It's definitely playable, but as previously said, it's just absolute chaos. Sometimes it can be fun, though.

Panthers2590d ago

Bigger=\=Better. I felt that R1 online was way more fun than R2. Quality over quantity. Thats not to say that the 60 player matches were not fun, but Insomniac has already said they are more focused on quality this time around, rather than trying to make EVERYTHING feel epic.

hoops2590d ago

Too many players online turns the game into a frag fest.
Hearing 60 player or 50 player online sounds great, however once you play it, you realize how much of a frag fest it becomes.
Smaller numbers is so much better.

-Alpha2590d ago (Edited 2590d ago )

Yup, I always loved games like UC2, Halo, CoD, over big games like Resistance, Killzone, Bad Company 2, etc (Actually, Bad Company 2's MP was pretty well spread out, but people would complain sometimes that maps were TOO big, and PC gamers seemed to think 32 players was better)

Now, they are two different styles, I can enjoy them both, but smaller games tend to make player actions more significant, strategy I find turns into a game of learning and predicting enemy patterns, and it's much more intense.

One big issue with big games is that they force teamwork, which can really break games (Killzone for example). Smaller games tend to be more open-ended. I can play like a lone wolf in Uncharted 2, for example, but teamwork always prevails should I choose to use it.

Bigger games tend to have issues with map size, hot spots becoming way too common (which turns places into nade-fests), etc. There is also the issue of bad community support and games dragging on for too long.

Not saying big games aren't fun, but they tend to have more drawbacks for me. If Resistance 3 does big multiplayer I do hope that it's more like Bad Company, which I thought was pretty good for a decent-sized game.

mastiffchild2590d ago

The 32 p[layer game is the sweetspot for me. Warhawk has it JUST right and the first Resistance was a lot closer than the second to getting MP just right. KZ2 worked pretty well(til they crippled it by patching the controls so it got more generic)and even COD could be better with dedicated servers and slightly bigger teams.

60 player games in R2 were just mental at times and the squad system just didn't make ANY difference at all. Seriously, who EVER saw anyone from their squad again after one of the games started? Unless I was with my clan or mates I NEVER did! Also, playing COD at 6vs6 TDM you can end up either getting bashed by the same guy over and over or end up doing said bashing to some poor guy on the other team and with slightly more players that slightly boring state of affairs gets weeded out. One amazing player a lot better than the rest in a TDM on MW2 say, can just decimate and control a game on his or her own and moving up to at least 8 a side negates the chances of it happening.

Thing is, I've heard that MAG actually works a lot better than it did in beta and if that's true then maybe R3 could see how Zipper manage the madness and take some tips and keep the 60 player? Warhawk, for me, though, got it right.; Everything from the servers to the maps to the number of players to the difficulty to the DLC was sp[ot on and if I'm honest my most hoped for game next year is the oft mooted Starhawk/Warhawk2 for Lightbox. When will we see it!? Also annoyed that the co-op is going to be campaign based in R3 and am hoping it isn't a RE5 style forced NPC co-op in single player as it just never, ever works. Do NOT make co-op king at the expense of great SP. I actually really liked the co-op in R2, oh well!

Anyway 6v6 is too small and 30v30 too mental-Warhawk size, with vehicles, is perfect! I also say this cos Resistance is also a bit arcadey compared to games like BFBC2 and , as sucxh, shares a bit of DNA with Warhawk too.

DirtyLary2590d ago

I'm looking forward to what they've learned about multiplayer.

-Alpha2590d ago (Edited 2590d ago )

@mastiff

yeah, Warhawk is another big game that was well paced. MAG does indeed work really well. The highlight is when you are playing against an equally good team, but sometimes matches can be lop-sided if you aren't up against an equally good (or full) team.

MAG's community is also too small for a 256 game. The Interdiction DLC is averaging an unplayable 12 members for factions, and Interdiction is a 62 player game.

In MAG there is great incentive to stick to your squad and help each other out. In games like Resistance, Killzone, and Bad Company you are forced to rely on teammates who most of the time are too stupid, bringing you down with them. In Killzone it's the stupid Tactitian players and Medics who revive you in the heat of a battle. In Bad Company it's lone wolf Snipers, and in Resistance, well, like you said, there just doesn't seem to be teamwork enforced in Resistance.

ABizzel12590d ago

At the time I think it was a great idea and selling point, but realistically 60 players is just too many for the average gamers taste. It's utter chaos and Resistance did a decent job of keeping everything under control, but it was still Chaos, and the huge maps would make navigation a chore at times.

The best multiplayer experiences for me in a shooter have been from smaller number of players such as Uncharted and Gears multiplayer. But Resistance has always been about scale and enemies, so with that being said I think they should drop it back down to 40 player at the most. They proved their point now, make the online an experience to keep gamers coming back.

I think anything between 20 - 40 player will be just fine. It also said co-op will be different, but I hope they bring back the old co-op except not so predictable and with more customization and weapon options.

EeJLP-2589d ago

Been there done that. 1st console game with 40p online, first to 60p online.. obviously they're not going over 256p now to top MAG.

Time to scale it back down. There was no problem with 40p max. Good riddance to 60p, it's not a 'huge' deal or necessary.

HolyOrangeCows2589d ago

"but only stated that this means 60 player open battles of mayhem will not be returning"

BS. They didn't say that there wouldn't be 60 player matches, they only said that they wanted more focused matches. I read the article and GameInformer was the sole creator of the notion that 60 player matches wouldn't return. In fact, they include no actual quotes suggesting it.

ico922589d ago

i actually like the isanity in Resistance 2's online it makes the game feel like a warzone, I feel so awesome when my name appears in the top 5 rankings out of 60 players, yeah i know that was super nerdy

secksi-killer2589d ago

i still will get the game day one! the player count doesnt make the game, it's the execution of the multiplayer that counts....and i have evry faith in insomniac

pixelsword2589d ago

I don't get it.

People were complaining that in MAG you "couldn't see everyone when playing" and therefore the 256 didn't count, and therefore they weren't buying it.

Yet,

when Resistance 2 had the ability to play 30 vs 30 in an area where you would run into each other people were complaining because they couldn't handle it.

Wheeze, make up your mind.

Hideo_Kojima2589d ago

The problem with huge games is that its harder for you to make a big difference.

Up until 32 (Killzone 2 Warzone) it was possible for you and you alone to make your team win.

In huge rooms with 60+ players even if you are afk your team could possibly win.

raztad2589d ago (Edited 2589d ago )

I dont agree with anyone saying that small maps and 4on4 is better than huge maps with higher player counts.

32 on 32 in MAG works flawlessly and it is pretty fun and hectic. More so when everybody is fighting on point C. Domination is crazy fun, involving a lot of tactics, teamwork.

MAG concept of pushing teamwork, accomplishing objectives > Kill/Death ratios of "tighter" games. It adds a lot to the gameplay, and makes it deeper than just your typical kill-death-respawn.

Well designed maps, and well organized warfare can host 60 players and make the fight intense and fun. I hope IG dont resort to less than 12 on 12 matches in order to "keep focused". I'll be disappointed.

+ Show (13) more repliesLast reply 2589d ago
Abash2590d ago

What do you mean MAG doesn't count? MAG is not an MMO, you don't pay a monthly fee to play the game. Zipper giving it MMO elements doesn't make it an MMO at all.

Super-Brad2590d ago (Edited 2590d ago )

I agree with your comment but not with these words.
"MAG is not an MMO, you don't pay a monthly fee to play the game."

MMO's don't have to cost to become an MMO.

rdgneoz32590d ago

Yep, there are a ton of free-to-play MMOs out there, as well as ones with micro-transactions.

Though yes, I agree that it really isn't an MMO. It just has a few elements of MMOs like many other shooters are doing (with new perks and weapons and such as you level up in rank or such), though done a little differently.

pr0digyZA2589d ago

Now that it's been said I do think its a lot like an mmo, not really their but definately close. oh and you dont need to pay monthly for alot of mmo. Guild wars says hi.

farhsa20082590d ago

To be honest I have complete faith in Insomniac, you cant compete with them on multiplayer.

abczby2590d ago

Have you played Call of Duty, Halo, Uncharted 2, Gears of War, Killzone 2, Metal Gear Online, Unreal Tournament III....?

I could keep going if you want me to...

socomnick2590d ago

ahahah funny comment. Hope you arent being serious though.

mastiffchild2590d ago

Depends what you want from multiplayer , I guess, but to me FoM had more right in the pure Vs MP than the 60 player games in R2 did. I also felt that with so many people shooting so many different guns/weapons in R2 it took too many shots to kill people and meant the battlefield was just even more cramped and barmy than it needed to be.

Irnbruguy2589d ago

@abczby... you forgot counterstrike.. poor show dude.. poor show

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2589d ago
Akagi2590d ago

Write the MP off before the game's out.

Stay classy.

mrmcygan2590d ago

@ Raikiri You sir have just made an idiot of yourself

JUDALATION2590d ago

Not only are they removing the CO-OP, but they are also cutting down the multiplayer... why would they be reducing instead of adding features??? well rumor has it that insomniac which is not owned by sony was making a multiplat game but no words on what game... They also never said that this game would be an exclusive game. Since the xbox has no games with 60 players its safe to say that it cant handle that much nunbers and this is why they are reducing the features so they cound port it to xbox... if this is true it is bad news for fans of resistance because their favorate exclusive will be watered down.

Soldierone2590d ago

the game is being co developed with a Sony company. So Its not going to happen and Sony owns rights to all games already released by Insomniac.

That being said they didn't remove Co-op completely, they made it like RFOM where you can play the SP story with another person. Which will probably also be availible to play online.

Moonboots2590d ago (Edited 2590d ago )

NO, sorry this is your own console dumbing down the game. I think it will play better with less and sounds like a design decision to me.

I believe Sony owns the Resistance IP. They do that, if you won't be assimilated into the Sony ranks they will make sure they own a piece of you some way.

My least favorite franchise on the PS3 and the only game I regret buying(MY OPINION!).. This FPS would get eatin alive on Xbox.

theonlylolking2590d ago

Sony owns the resistance ip. If you go to the resistance forums a lot of people said that 60 player battles where just to much and that you did not die fast enough.

They reduced it to 8 player co-op because it will now be story mode co-op.

homer2590d ago

While your right about some things, you fail to remember that Sony owns the right to the Resistance series.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2589d ago
Ares84PS32590d ago

He is right in everything he said.

Resistance was all about huge mp matches. 60players online was a huge selling point of Resistance 2 and it was pushed liek crazy. Like 30player online was pushed in Resistance 1.

It was what made it unique.

But let's be honest...more people doesn't necessarily mean better game.

thePatriot2590d ago

I remember Thames. running in circles hitting jumpads, being everywhere... like God... bring that back please

ChronoJoe2589d ago

Y does it matter if MAG is an 'MMOFPS' ... ? it just has high enough player count to be categorised as such. That doesn't change anything.

gameraxis2589d ago (Edited 2589d ago )

there was no rhyme or reason other than to "show off what the ps3 can do"... and a good 24 or 32 or whatever they can do with mp to make it awesome, and a Great campaign with both having unique and awesome game play that fits within the resistance world is more than enough, i never played it after i got a few hours in (except i still finished the campaign because of the fan i am), but for the most part i hated r2, so glad their going back... and not spreading themselves too thin so we can get a resistance game that looks great as well as plays great, as well as being unique and fun... and why aren't we seeing, a "single player co-op welcomed back with open arms in r3" title, this article is flame bait from the start, not to say there weren't people who loved the mp and online co-op mode, but I'm personally glad we're getting back to what made resistance resistance... red vs blue is halo (not that there's anything wrong with that IN HALO, I'm loving reach as we speak), let it stay there

gameraxis2589d ago (Edited 2589d ago )

is that weird co-op sh** and the multiplayer along with the graphics and most of the single player campaign was so disappointing to me after r1... hears to them listening to the majority of their true fanbase and making one hell of a game... i have faith this time around because the pres, ted price came out and said he has heard us, and was sad that him and the team sold out and so many fans of r1 were disappointed, in how r2 came out...

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2589d ago
Abash2590d ago

This is good news to me. Resistance 2's competitive online felt like a mess.

gaffyh2590d ago

I agree, I much preferred R1's multiplayer over R2's, but I don't think it was due to the numbers, I personally just think Insomniac got the balancing wrong. On the other hand, using a COD-style XP system was much better because there were times in the first game where you would almost kill someone, and then a few seconds later (after the co-op kill time) someone else killed the guy, and you would get zero points.

TheLastGuardian2590d ago

I hope it's 32 players max.

Dave13512589d ago

I never really played competitive i was a fan of the 8 player co op

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2589d ago
HellsJanitor2590d ago

Good, more people doesn't make a better game. If the game plays better whatever their new way is then so be it.

Blaster_Master2590d ago

Its gonna look better cause they are gonna keep the player count down, i remember when Teddy said he gives up on making games 60 fps cause everyone only cares about how good it looks. The new scans im sure those are in game models. Looks sick.
BTW, im glad the count is down, hopefully it wont be a cluster f*Ck anymore.

mrv3212590d ago

Rooftops 1 hit kill was literally all I player that and the aircraft carrier snipers only.

dgroundwater2590d ago

Yeah a smaller player count is probably for the best. Not many games are fun with 32+ players. Stick with something more focused and rewarding and watch the fans roll in.

redDevil872590d ago

I mostly played on the smaller maps so i won't miss it.

Insomniac made some really good MP maps for small maps. The Red Wood area (with huge trees), Subway and Harbour area were so much fun. I wish more people played on them.