Top
50°

Battlefield 3: 64 players is the “maximum where it’s still fun”

Patrick Bach from DICE has said there’s no point in pushing Battlefield’s multiplayer beyond the 64 players on PC.

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Organization XII2241d ago

Exactly. Above 64 would be damn chaotic and won't be fun anymore. Getting everytime without knowing the bullet direction becomes boring and stale!

kaveti66162240d ago

This is just a PR statement. A few years from now when DICE makes another multiplayer game, they will probably have the resources to add more players while keeping the graphics up, and they'll do that.

NewMonday2240d ago (Edited 2240d ago )

@Organization XII
I disagree, MAG pulled it of well.

papashango2240d ago

and look where MAG is now lol the community is a dump. at least 1942 and bf2 lasted for years before their communities moved on.

Baka-akaB2240d ago (Edited 2240d ago )

mag is only in the dump because aside from a few franchises , the console mp population doesnt stay too long on a game .

It is a PR statement , we'd here the same speech whatever other number was chosen . And it's ok , it should be up to the dev to choose how many people they want

MaxMurdoch2240d ago

mag had 256 players and that wasnt the problem. Kaveti is right.. this is PR. we will one day play with enormous maps and 1000s of people in the same battle.

baodeus2240d ago

It is a problem, especially with MAG. Not everyone would play as a team and follow orders. Finding a large group that can do that to play every time is impossible. Most tend to just run and gun, therefore, finding a good game in MAG is rare. That is the down fall of MAG, the idea is great, but in reality, it isn't practical.

-Alpha2240d ago (Edited 2240d ago )

Actually, you CAN go over 64 players. I saw some mod or something when the beta was going where the server ran well above 64

@baodeus

While true, MAG did have a good structure for organization. All the majority had to do was follow the directions given by the handful of leaders.

Unfortunately for MAG, the PS3 community just wasn't big enough for its ambition. The game dwindled too soon. Would have loved to see it on PC.

I can't wait for the day Battlefield PC can support 200+ players with all those vehicles and destruction.

ScubbaSteve2240d ago

@baodeus

You're just as likely to have those people in a 64 player game as you are with a 256 player game. In fact if you are just randomly joining games it is more likely to be balanced with a 256 player game because half the game wont be filled with people in the same clan/guild/squad.

baodeus2240d ago (Edited 2240d ago )

Mag is great when u play with competent people and it does have a decent organization MP mechanism. But like u said,

1. the community is too small for once, which doesn't work well considering u need a lot of players (256), decent player at that.
2. Team work is mandatory in MAG, but this often isn't the case, not to mention it has to be consistent throughout multiple squads -> platoon -> company.
3. Squad -> Platoon -> company cohesion rarely happen in 256 player games. It is much easier to achieve in 64 player games, making 256 player games less desirable. So it seems like the more people are playing, the less organize it gets.

Like i said though, MAG is heavily dependent on team work and consistency, but how often does that happen as the number of players increase? MAG is a hit and miss game, more miss than hit, which is a shame because it is very enjoyable when it does work.

MaxMurdoch2240d ago (Edited 2240d ago )

Baodeus you arent getting it. The total number of players is irrelevant. What is important is players PER certain area, because that will determine how much action takes places (and how chaotic/organized it is).

I can have a 1000 players, but if the map is large enough to have them distributed with the same concentration as the 64 player map, then there is no problem. You would just have more options where to spawn and fight, and the battle would be huge.

There is no way you can argue that teamwork decreases if player count goes up if the organization is well implemented. If people squad up and play objectives, the gameplay will be great.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2240d ago
Rainstorm812241d ago

thats why i prefer my multiplayer games to be no more than 64 players

Neo Nugget2240d ago

Well, you could certainly have more players in a game, but you would need to spread players out with different objectives so you don't have mobs the whole match.

2240d ago
despair2240d ago

10k vs 10k and make it WARRR...of course we might be in cue for days for that one :)

ShadowJetX2240d ago

Yeah, except it'll be like real life, and if you die your out for the rest of the match. And then you join the next match.

Grendizer2240d ago

holy crap that would be epic... you just reminded of lord of the rings final battles....

Show all comments (27)
The story is too old to be commented.