Microsoft's Joseph Staten said that limiting Wrecking Zone to 5v5 in Crackdown 3 was a design decision, not a technical constraint. However, that's exactly the opposite of what a colleague of his, Jorg Neumann, said a couple of months ago.
Cant wait to play coop campaign. Game pass baby 😎
I hope it lasts more than four or five hours of the original.
Pretty sure I was close to 50hrs after collecting all those orbs.
Did you confuse this with The Order?
I’m in it for the coop too. As terrible as CD2 was... and it was, me and my homies spent hours running around the city being idiots and having ball doing it. Can’t wait for this one. Even though I like him and think he’s funny, I don’t want Terry Crews in my game though 😒
@DaFeelz "Even though I like him and think he’s funny, I don’t want Terry Crews in my game though" I wasn´t really interested in Crackdown 3 till Terry steps in. Now that i see him in action on the latest IGN´s single player preview, i can´t wait! Comin at ya! XD
CD2, for me, was only terrible because it felt like it should have just been a DLC or a Mod or something. It used the same map and everything. CD3, feels much more like a true sequel, while keeping the crazy sandbox gameplay from the first.
It is awesome that people are celebrating *cough-marketing-*cough $120 a year as if they are avoiding buying what could be mediocre/horrible games due to the history this gen from Microsoft. You know what that use to be? A demo. For free. Now, you avoid buying bad games for $120 a year. 😂
People are celebrating that there's another option to play even more games. Unless of course you think that there's only bad games on Game Pass to choose from. You avoid buying bad games from reviews and personal interests.
Single A games are the new xbox fad.
wuttt. you think people buy game pass just for exclusives. bruhh i think you should check out the catalog. Some great games on there.
People are celebrating games pass because it allows them to play games that they probably wouldn't have bought. Ive played loads of games on Games Pass that I would never play let alone actually buy because it's outside my "comfort zone" I tried Spintires Mudrunners over Christmas and loved it. Without games pass I wouldn't have given it a second look.
Hope it's fun!
Yeah as long as its fun like Crackdown.
More context of Jorg Neumann's quote: "There’s so much stuff that you need to keep in memory, due to the destruction, that there are limits. Once you have a map that is a nice size and creates the pace of destruction the way we dreamed of it, having more players can be counter-productive, but we’re still experimenting, the tech will evolve too." I'm tempted to call out 'fake news' in respect to that description. That's not a wholly contradictory statement from what Staten's getting across, especially since Neumann echoes that design sentiment.
Honestly, I disagree. The first thing he makes clear is there are technical limits due to memory and then he hints at design considerations, while Staten clearly says it was only about design. They are objectively contradictory, even if we disagree about how much they are contradictory.
"The first thing he makes clear is there are technical limits due to memory and then he hints at design considerations..." Within this first portion you've both over-emphasized what's convenient and under-emphasized what isn't--and leads me into a cul-de-sac back to where we already were. Even after I've provided a more-nuanced body of Neumann's quote than the factually-dubious description suggests, you want to highlight the preamble about tech limitations which initially discussed this level of destruction in respect to a 100-player Battle Royale mode. And, sorry, but describing the destructive pacing with "the way we dreamed of it" is more than just hinting at design considerations. In consideration to the FULL quote, it's clearly the larger emphasis in what he was trying to get across. And let the record reflect: even passing the barrier of merely 'hinting' at design considerations rebuts the claim in the description. If we were to follow the description to its logical endpoint Neumann would've had to have made this claim: "5v5 Wrecking Zone was a technical constraint, not a design decision" (note: this is what exactly the opposite looks like). Not only is that objectively NOT the case, I'd go so far as to say it's journalistic irresponsibility that seems keen to cash in on fanboy fuel. That's just how easy it is to see the focal point that rests within both quotes is on the MP's design. I mean...sorry but under no reasonable expectations would any reader anticipate Neumann--who's supposedly contradicting Staten--to also make a similar design argument based on how that description prescribes it.
But he was answering in terms of why there was not 100 players "We prototyped a bunch of modes. We have all kinds of dreams how this can take off. People were asking about Battle Royale, “why aren’t there 100 players?”..." which was different in the context of Staten had talked with idea of 50 other players which could likely have been within the constraints of technical limits and then clearly based off of from his point as "So, really, it came down to design; there’s certainly the ability to have more or less players but as we’ve playtested it over the years we just gelled around team-based five versus five action." So each referenced quote was different based on context of questioning and ultimately they both said the same at the end where 5 vs 5 was chosen based off of the simple fact it was more fun for what they had in mind.
"Having more players can be counter-productive" most likely means "it wouldn't be fun if 30 people just blow up the whole city in the first 30 seconds of a match." Not every game needs to be a battle royale or have a huge number of concurrent players. I'm sick of this argument with almost every new MP game. More players does not automatically equal more fun. Would Fortnite be better if it was 200 players? 500? 1000? Maybe, but not necessarily. What about TLOU multiplayer? Should that have been 30 vs 30?
One of the main reasons why Bad Company 2 was so loved by its community. Is due to the level of destruction caused by 24-32 player matches. Most levels were completely flattened by the end of a round/match. Why? Because of entertaining level design, etc. So neither does, smaller player counts make a game automatically more fun. Resistance 2 at 60 player matches, was more entertaining than Resistance 3's 16 player matches, but Resistance 1's 40 player matches were better than both. It had better weapons, levels, seemed more stabble, etc. Can't rag on high player counts, and expect low player counts to be any better. Its all about whats more entertaining, and thats solely based on design of the game.
@One2thr If you want to go for fun, MAG when it was around had some interesting matches. 128 vs 128 felt like a whole army simulation, while 32 v 32 v 32 was intense as well. Sadly didn't get a lot of lot and died after a while. And Yah, Resistance 2 was miles ahead of Resistance 3 for multiplayer entertainment. Overall, still much better than Drawn to Death with it being 2v2... As for memory constraints with wrecking zone, if they wanted to have higher numbers (6v6, 8v8, or 10v10) and not have the whole place flat in the first 30 seconds, they could just make a larger map if there are no technical limitations.
Exactly... games have a completely different feel when player size comes into play. RS6 doesn't have the player count based off of limitations... it just fits their design idea for what they expected from the type of experience they wanted. Now on the other end where tech can limit the experience we still see completely different perspective of a game when player count changes. As with Battlefield Hardline on old console versus new where player counts were doubled in new consoles and on many maps it really made them more cluster [email protected] than not while opening up better battles on some larger maps. The destruction capabilities alone on CD3 would be a [email protected] with a huge amount of people taking down buildings all around. It would quickly be just rubble rumble. @one2thr - BC2 destruction was much less than what we expect from CD3 and movement in it was very limited in comparison. Not a good example in direct comparison in that fashion.
@Unholy_One I agree, I can only imagine the complete chaos if there were a large number of players in a game where you can blow up everything. I believe the Titanfall devs said the same thing when they were discussing mp for the first game.
Such lines as "creates the pace of destruction the way we dreamed of it" when all the destruction models shown before they actually showed an implementation were certainly much more robust. "There’s so much stuff that you need to keep in memory" This is a statement that there is a technical reason that the extra player objects don't exist in the game, yet they're talking about it as if that's not the case later in the same quote, and was echoed here in this article's quotes. All that extra stuff in memory shouldn't matter if there is no technical limitation, as all player objects would react in the same way to the environmental destruction. Having more players may just make it seem crowded....which brings me to... "having more players can be counter-productive" This I can agree with, but this seems like a team based death match kind of deal. Although really big teams can be counter productive, given the size of the levels shown, it seems that 5v5 makes it almost barren...unless the maps aren't quite as big as they seem. This aspect its hard to say based on what's been shown, and seeing how the game play itself actually works out. Given the snap to aiming of the game, I can imagine more players may actually make it more annoying....as one may experience in RDR2 with it's auto aim mechanics maybe not targeting what you want to target. In other words, the world might be too cluttered for the way the game play works. Overall, both quotes do seem to point towards them wanting a more intimate MP, which is fine, and is a design decision. A big map with 5v5 will seem barren. A small map with lots of players feels crowded for what the game is, and is better suited towards big war campaign game play, or single squad based game play. I've always found 10v10 to be good for medium size box canyon type maps or team deathmatch, although my experience with MP is limited and i'm sure there are implementations out there which may work in other ways with more players.
The memory factor was made in relation to a 100 player count. Other statement made reference to 50 other players and no such limitations within his context. Just the point of 5 vs 5 ultimately being the best fit for what they wanted to achieve.
I don't think 50 or 100 players would be reasonable for the format of the game play. Overall, all that matters is the end result, and 5v5 can work if it's set up properly. Whether it feels sufficient to the player depends more on balance and game play than anything else.
Piss in a cup and tell you its wine.
Crackdown was fun but basic
If this game was being published by anyone other than M$, no one would even care about it. I don't see the appeal after the downgrade.
My expectations werent too high but this is still a game I'm excited to own, but fuck me...news of MP was such a disappointment and makes me wonder whether it's to compensate rather than to supplement the core experience
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.