The Internet exploded last week, 1up is mopping up some of the mess.
It will greatly diminish R-fom and would even the likes of the almighty HALO 3. I want fun and interesting multi w/o any sacrifice in graphics or gameplay. Although I know it's the ps3's inherent weakness that would cause a diminished picture in multi game play, I still wouldn't want to even risk that for the HALO 3 series, unless they've already planned that type of multi already. I'd rather have it more interesting with 16 or less total on screen than 40 anyway. i don't think it would be to fun or hard to have an enemy at every turn.
4 on 4 was the best anyhow. 8 on 8 is too much at some times. I would hate to see 20 vs 20.
But if Bungie is able to pull off 40 players at once w/o any sacrifice in graphics or gameplay, then why the hell not? Just have smaller games such as 4v4 or 8v8 as a option. I really do hope HALO 3 lives up to the hype this time around, but with that being said MS has way to much invested into the HALO series for this game to be nothing but spectacular. This game will be amazing, no doubt about it.
Yeah well it would still be nice to have the option.
No it wouldnt
Screw 40 players. The major problem, with just 8 on 8 in halo 2, you wont be able to finish the game without people leaving. So its not that they cant pull it off, its that when your team leaves you and its 1 on 10, its not too much fun. Although one time it was 6 on 1 in ghost recon, i was the 1, and i crushed them :).
Screw 20 vs 20, its not fun with too much people. Imagine capture the flag, how the hell do you guard a base with 20 people trying to come at your, or think about territories and tryin to stay with that. I say leave it where it is and add in features like spectator mode and maybe even clips of the game in the post game carnage report. Imagine
But it would be so awesome to have a 40 vs. 40 on live. It would be total chaos and mayhem “I would love it!!!” But it would suck if we had frame rate or lag issues to get it dome. I am game for what ever H3 is going to be. But I want it smooth as or smoother than H2. I'M getting the LEGENDARY addition on every thing.
40 player multiplayer would be awesome, especially since you still have the ability (in RFOM as well) to limit the matches to 4v4 or 8v8 or whatever else you desire. 20v20 would just be the max, not the requirement.
Totally agree.. Even if you don't want to play 20v20. It would be nice to do it. Like in Counter-Strike:Source some server s can allow up to +64 players... I .. personally ... coundn't do that, I can't volley that well.
40 players would just turn into a fragfest and lose it's tactics. Grab the sniper and just camp and rack up the kills. Halo is about 4 vs 4. on beautifully made maps like lockout, midship, or 8 vs 8 on the larger maps Headlong, Waterworks.
No, I think It would drag in better tactics and apply it for masses instead of single targets.
I cant even imagine grenades with the 40 people. Its gets bad already.
PDZ's limit of 32 players was a good amount. I'd like to see more than 8v8. I love the epic battles on Coagulation with all vehicles and max players. 16v16 is a good amount
cmon, just give the players the options to set up the number of players per game, if ppl want 64 players, let em do it, damit!!! just follow the PDZ laout allowing u to enlarge maps to meet the # of ppl, geez its not a difficult concept, ppl!
Guys it's not like you don't have the options in Halo 2 to choose how many players you want. 1-1, 2-2, 4-4, 6-6, 8-8. I want big games, just to try them. I want to see 4 tanks, 8 warthogs, 10 atvs flying around the map. The problem is the bigger the game the less you stand out. But the more epic. So there's pros and cons obviously. My guess is Halo 3 will have 32 players which is perfect, and will have many options inbetween. But even more than that, I WANT MORE VEHICLES on the map. I want them to push XBL to the absolute limits. Battlefield 2 had more vehicles than Halo 2 both on XBL, so hopefully the compression online is picking up.
I can't believe some of these guys are actually complaining about having more players online. I know Resistance is shunned by a lot of haters, but attacking a positive multiplayer aspect? With Halo 2, we almost always played on LAN 'cause 4 on 4 games were just weak. The more players, the more chaotic and exciting it is. If anything, you need more strategy with a large amount of players. It's just like Sir Nate says. If people want to have huge games they should have that option.
I disagree...now yeah it would be nice to have the option...sure...but the real draw in halo 2 is the 4 vs 4. 40 people just encourages campers. Grab the sniper, camp, and kill...easy...boring. It's more exciting when you play a game with less cuz you dont know where they're going to be...when they're going to attack...you have to keep your eyes moving...when you have 40 people, 20 vs 20, you lose all that excitement cuz most likely they're be scattered all over the map. Thats why MLG (Major League Gaming) only use 4 vs 4 rules. Its the best for tactics. But the option would be nice to have some mindless shooting and killing. But the main draw is 4vs4 or 8vs8. The hardcore Halo fans out there agree to this...the noobs dont!
Another popular Gamer League is "CAL"- Cyberathlete Amateur League. And for Counterstike...they allow 5v5...you rarely see large 20v20 tournaments cuz it has no tactics.
Nothing would ever get done. It was bad enough in Halo 2 trying to get a bomb in the base with 16 people when they would all keep spawning right outside, it would just be atrocious with 40.
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.