Patrick Bach from DICE has said there’s no point in pushing Battlefield’s multiplayer beyond the 64 players on PC.
Exactly. Above 64 would be damn chaotic and won't be fun anymore. Getting everytime without knowing the bullet direction becomes boring and stale!
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.
@Organization XII I disagree, MAG pulled it of well.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
thats why i prefer my multiplayer games to be no more than 64 players
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.
10k vs 10k and make it WARRR...of course we might be in cue for days for that one :)
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.
holy crap that would be epic... you just reminded of lord of the rings final battles....
A MMO FPS could be funny.
Other than being an arbitrary number, I agree. It can't be too large. All I remember about MAG was getting sniped every other second.
Those hacked servers with 128 people looked pretty fun. Looked like you could actually play without being screwed by campers every couple seconds.
And i remember Joint Operations Typhoon Rising multi-players awesomeness with 150 crazy bastards on foot, in humvee, chopper, boat... Man, we were more than 64 and it was very fun.
64 players on one map is nice, imagine 4 of those maps linked together, each with it's own 32 vs 32 player battle. Once you break through on your own map you can go for your final objectives, or wreck havoc on the other maps, behind enemy lines. Just one good squad of 8 in a APC that knows how to bring & hold down the triple-A on adjacent maps so everybody gets airborn, and you can easily turn the tide for all 256. Been playing such a game for over 1000 hrs now, it never gets boring and no matter how many CoD's & BF's are released, the fans always come back for more. Join a good clan, that's all there is to it.
Ps3-exclusive MAG says hi!
Pray-and-spray First 2 Spot, First 2 Kill Always being killed from afar Only knowing who killed you after you die ^^^Reasons for why I prefer Gears and Halo over military shooters, I like to look my enemy in the eyes so to speak. Whether it's 1 against 1, or 1 against 2 or 3, let skilled man win not the guy in the right place at the right time.
Because it isn't a skill to position yourself in the best possible area for success. I wonder why sports have coaches. I wonder why military bases are built on foreign soil. I wonder why people get college degrees and then try to get a job that matches the degree.
Not disagreeing that it's skill to position yourself, my k/d is decent enough in those games, I'm saying for me personally, it's just not as fun and exhilarating as facing you opponent eye to eye so to speak. It also seems lame to me to get easy kills from people who just can't see you, although that's probably more realistic, just to me that gameplay doesn't produce a rush. To each there own.
That makes more sense. The gun battles in Uncharted are more exciting than quickly mowing down a full squad in Battlefield. However, I enjoy both. There is a rush when setting a M-COM station and finding the best spot to defend against the 12 people storming your position. Either way it seems we both win. There are excellent games that cater to both our preferences.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.