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."

[Raikiri]

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...

[dangert12]

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

[-Alpha]

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.

[Akagi]

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.

[Panthers]

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.

[hoops]

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.

[-Alpha]

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.

[mastiffchild]

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.

[DirtyLary]

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

[-Alpha]

@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.

[ABizzel1]

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.

[InactiveUser]

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.

[HolyOrangeCows]

"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.

[ico92]

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-killer]

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

[pixelsword]

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_Kojima]

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.

[raztad]

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.

[Abash]

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-Brad]

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.

[rdgneoz3]

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.

[pr0digyZA]

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.

[farhsa2008]

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

[timmyrulz]

PMSL - Thats funny

[abczby]

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...

[socomnick]

ahahah funny comment. Hope you arent being serious though.

[mastiffchild]

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.

[FuckinUsername]

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

[abczby]

counterstrike

[Akagi]

Write the MP off before the game's out.

Stay classy.

[mrmcygan]

@ Raikiri You sir have just made an idiot of yourself

[JUDALATION]

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.

[Soldierone]

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.

[Moonboots]

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.

[theonlylolking]

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.

[homer]

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

[LittleBigSackboyPS3]

WTF are you smoking?

[Ares84PS3]

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.

[thePatriot]

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

[ChronoJoe]

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.

[gameraxis]

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

[gameraxis]

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...

[Abash]

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

[gaffyh]

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.

[abczby]

with your opinion.

[TheLastGuardian]

I hope it's 32 players max.

[Dave1351]

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

[HellsJanitor]

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

[Blaster_Master]

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.

[mrv321]

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

[dgroundwater]

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.

[redDevil87]

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.

[Fishy Fingers]

No problems with me, R2 multiplayer was often a mess.

[solar]

and touting MP online at one time doesnt mean increased fun factor.

[PirateThom]

I think the lack of co-op mission modes is a bigger negative, I didn't really care for the competative side of it, but liked the mission based co-op and the bullet hell that resulted from the sheer number of enemies when you had a full squad.

That said, I'd rather they do what they think is best, listening to fans broke Resistance 2.

[user858621]

Resistance 2 online was just a huge cluster f*ck

[user8397144]

I would be happy with the 40 players online. But I would love to get my meltdown and capture the flag modes back!

[Chug]

CTF Somerset FTW!!

[spektical]

aw that sucks.. i loved the 60 player matches. fun times i loved being able to go to the other squads and helpin them out when ours was taking care of biz.

[-X-]

As I said before I hated the competitive in Resistance 2. I liked the cooperative.
I agree with Fishy Fingers. The Multi-player in the game was a train wreck. They should go back to Resistance: Fall of Man multi-player. Simple, and fun.

Besides quality over quantity right?

[blackburn5]

I won't gripe about you guys leaving it out. Just make every other mode epic and give me back my vehicles and it's water under the bridge.

[abczby]

I really hope that Insomniac steps it up and makes a great mutliplayer experience this time around.

Too many people get caught up with the notion "its bigger, that means it must be better." That doesn't apply to multiplayer and videogames.

Think about it, all the best multiplayer games, Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, Uncharted 2, all don't even go up to 20 players online. The most out of any of those games is Call of Duty with the max at 18 player matches, which is one of the least played gametypes in multiplayer.

I think it is great that Insomniac is really going to try and make a high quality, focused multiplayer experience this time around unlike the first two times out. I know there are probably people that will disagree with me on this one, but I feel like Resistance: FoM and Resistance 2 both had decent multiplayers, but nothing that could compare to a Call of Duty, Halo, or Uncharted 2.

Resistance 3 has the potential to be one of the best FPS's of 2011 if they just take their time and really polish the game like iD seems to be doing with RAGE. Really looking forward to this one.

[trevonn95]

that rs2 multiplayer was like MAG on a call of duty map

[josh14399]

i hope they make the multiplayer more like resistance 1 because the second games online was shit.

[theonlylolking]

Hopefully they reduce the health because a whole lot of people made custom games that have reduced health(or increased weapon damage).

Oh well 60 players or not I know its going to be good.

[DiLeCtioN]

while you're at it, get rid of the dum perk system...really ruined the multiplayer

[thehitman]

was just so ahead of its time insomniac should have kept with that system and just built upon it instead of doing something new completely it looks like they giving what the original fans want and thats going back to R1 roots.

[Wii360BeatsPS3]

I'm a big FPS fan, but I've never been bothered with this series, it just looks like shit to me and always gets average review scores and always has problems and issues.

Second rate developer to blame. I like the premise but the execution sucks. The Resistance demo I downloaded was just horrible

[homer]

At first I respected your opinion but then I saw your username and now am sure you have never played a ps3.

[N4Great]

"average reviews scores"

lol.

scores around 8 are really good, when you consider it's a ps3 exclusive (wich are often the best), and the game look sometime better than anything you can't play on your toys..not online (because : 60 players)

[asyouburn]

that sounds like more your type of game

[pixelsword]

@Wii360:

An average score from a ten-point scale is a 5, and if it was a five-point scale, it would be 2.5. Show me reviews giving scores like this on the game and you have a point; otherwise, you aren't looking too good right now.

Math: it's not just for counting breasts.

[headwing45]

Must... not.... feed troll

[ApocalypseShadow]

but don't dismiss 60 player as something bad.it can work when it is setup right.

just because games like halo or gears are only 4vs4 or 5vs 5 or 8vs 8 doesn't mean you need to stick to small numbers to have structure.MAG works and it has structure.

seriously...what if you are doing medieval battles.does 4vs4 work then?how about cowboys and indians?does 5vs5 work then?some of you are so USED to limited games that you think all games should be limited to smaller numbers.

but my guess is that they are going for a different number to keep the graphics quality up for what they are trying to do.and i would guess there is a lot of destructable things going on in this third game.my guess.

[Ascalon94]

I played the 2nd one and honestly I wasnt to impressed. I mean it was alright and the graphics were ok but hopefully this new one can show me something to like.

[Laika]

im surprised at all the hate towards the resistance series. i loved both FoM and two. so much variety in weapons, environments and enemies. not to mention it was very fun.

[MysticStrummer]

I never liked the Resistance multiplayer much, other than the co-op in R2. Anyway, after MAG 60 players is not that big a deal.

[ngecenk]

yeah sometimes its hard to enjoy r2 with that many people around. especially when lots using splicer or fareye, it can be a terrible mess. fewer people are better. 24 would be enough.

[Weather]

Sony could remove the entire multiplayer and not one of you would complain

[GoldPS3]

Stop acting like you know what every Sony fan thinks. I would be piss if it didn't have online.

[xg-ei8ht]

60fps is chaos in tight area's and all trying the same kinda objectives.

BF2 has it right, massive battles and massive maps.

I think a game with.

cod ranking up/perks etc.
With destructive modes of BFBC2/killzone3
With co-op of Resistance 2
With it being smaller for small maps aka 5-6players per team. UC2/GEARS

Would be perfect.

[GoldPS3]

Sounds good to me becuz I prefer a longer story mode, better gameplay, and better graphics.

[NotSoSilentBob]

So Long as the Cooperative multiplayer doesn't suffer I don't care.

[DJ]

I like 32~40 players the most.

[tosh61]

That article is opinion. Its not even implied that 60 player multiplayer matches aren't returning, the author just assumes that.

IG has not yet said or confirmed if 60 player matches are returning.

[IHateYouFanboys]

i said 60 was too many when R2 came out, and i still believe it. really, anything over 32 players is too much IMO, and even thats pushing it.

to handle 32 players, levels haev to be BIG. when levels are big, it takes you ages to traverse them, and sometimes this just plain takes out the fun.

personally i much prefer the small 4-on-4 and 5-on-5 style in Gears and Gears 2. it forces teamwork, and its much more tense. your lives last a lot longer too. MW2 is probably my most played online game, but sometimes even its 6 on 6 seems like too many players.

good to see insomniac realised that bigger is not always better.

[N4Great]

"anything over 32 players is too much IMO"

say the guy who can't have fps with more players on his console of choice :)

Skilled people like sometime team work, 5/5/10/10 etc but also huge battles, with more players, not the kind you find on call of noobs (hiding and shooting), running êveyrwhere.

[IHateYouFanboys]

there are only 3 games on the PS3 that have more than 32 players online - Resistance 1 & 2, and MAG. there is one on the 360 - Frontline: Fuels of War - which has 50 players online.

but of coruse you didnt know that, did you? lol. you obviously thought that Xbox Live had some sort of limit on player numbers, when in reality no such thing exists. the reason that most multiplayer titles are limited to 16 players, with the odd 32 player game thrown in here and there, is because most devs realise that 8-16 players is the 'sweet spot'. put more players in and it just turns into a spawn-die-spawn-die-spawn-die fest.

gears of war 1 was 4-on-4 by design decisions, not by hardware restrictions. MW2 is 6 on 6 by design decisions, not by hardware restrictions.

and saying 'skilled people' like huge battles is idiotic.

[Jacobite]

60 - 100 player maps online are great if Vehicles are involved ie "Joint ops by novalogic", if they have done this with R2 with the right maps (ETQW) that would have been a winner, each to thier own

[Dark-Cloud]

30 players in multiplayer is perfect , and if they put 8 players co-op it will be epic !! because it's going to be like a war game !! 8 people fighting monsters in the campagin , just wow !!! fighting hundreds of monsters !!
i can dream right ? XD ... but ps3 can do it :D the most importent thing is the gameplay .....

[supremacy]

I believe they are going to go with a mixture of the two games this time around. Its also going to be running at 30fps as oppose of 60fps for obvious reasons.

However what I would do if i were them i would simply, keep the numbers down to a more manageble count.

My ideal multiplayer online game would consist of basic things, like...

4 and 8 player co-op modes that take the players through the campaign mode with adjustable difficulty and AI enemy numbers/count depending on how many players are playing at once.

None of that warcraft feel with the xp and all that mumble jumble, just straight to the point kills like in uncharted and in other games like gears of war with horde mode. You shoot them a few times they die, simple, just keep bringing more our way thats all.

Create mode/map edit. Something like unreal or halos forge, this is a (big time) seller in my book. You know inject some of that littlebigplanet DNA/gene into more games, power to the players and not corporate a holes like bobby kotic with his monetizine ways.

Cinema/video like uncharted 2 and halo this will get many more reasons why to play and brag. This helps retain memorable moments and matches.

24 players is my max limit. If should you choose a bigger number than move on and find a another room. To me its simply about fun, and that usually means organized and well balance game experiences.

Custom match making
This is crucial, and perhaps one of the many aspects that make halo such a great game. Simply put, allow players to choose their weapons and their location placements, rules all that. Add this also to a create mode/map editor mode and you got yourself a true winner in my book.

Balance, many devs claim it, but so few actually deliver upon it and quite frankly this is sad. Balance is the key to a healthy fun gaming experience, weapons and perks all have to have their plus and minuses with great balance.(so something like dedicated servers would help maintain balance big time)

As far as the rest would go...well I like games with a realistic feel to them. I like to encounter smart AI and watch and feel the heavy physics of said AI and weapons as well as the enviroment sorrounding these elements.

A game like resistance with killzones physics and halos enemy AI along with some graphical upgrade will do this series justice and believe me a better overall review score in my book.

The enemy in resistance to me have always felt cartoony and funky(nevermind the weapons), if they ever decide to go nasty. Than they would have to go with a different art style to sell their massege better to me. But im not everyone so it doesnt matter now, its, however... just my opinion and ill keep it at that.

[RedSoakedSponge]

this is good news imo. The more players in the match, the less of an impact a single player can do. I want my actions to impact the game, otherwise, what is the point? lol

[peeps]

Totally agree. Large player games can have their appeal however Resistance was much better than R2. This is great news imo and has got me way more excited. I was actually worried they would increase the numbers. Resistance can be a great sci fi shooter so looking forward to see how it turns out.

Restistance 2 was for me a game that felt like it was developed by different ppl to those that made the first.

[TwistedMetal]

they dont have any other option but to play small maps and 6vs 6.

small player matches suck because if 2 dudes die your gonna be waiting for dudes to respawn and take forever finding them. Also in small matches what if you in match with good players and you on a sucky team? everyone quits and you will have a lot 6 vs 3 matches.

In big player matches people quit and you still got tons more people entering the game or backing you up. The gameplay never stops and you dont have to worry about people quiting. Also these are war games. not freaking spy verse spy crap. we have had the 6 vs 6 matches forever its time to upgrade tonext gen status with 32 player maps at least.

the bigger maps with more players take mores kill while the small maps dont because you already know where everyone is or is gonna be. Im tired of dudes who suck at games who cant fight more then 6 guys at a time cry like babys.

When im playing a shooting game I want a warzone. not some fake made up arena sport type match. I dont want basketballl game type set up in my shooters where its freaking 5 on 5. I been there and done that for years.

Pc gamers like big matches, ps3 gamers do and the only people that dont are the people who dont have an option because live sucks with no dedicated servers and cost 60 dollars lol.

Fun is not that sanctioned 6 vs 6 with all these rules and bs like people try to put in smash bros brawl with the no items and final destination bs. Fun is going in a 32 player battle and being in your friends squad and takeing down the enemy. You dont know where the enemy is, and you dont even know how many are coming. Its more realistic. To many games have 6 vs 6 crap only. save that for clans and tourney players. if thats what you want is 8 vs 8 max then take your ars into a clan and shut up because thats where you do that type of gaming.

[supremacy]

Bro and xbox live has been around since the original xbox days, so I assume that it is a very succesful platform in,which ill than say to you...whats your point? They are obviously doing something right, anything you say in this regards will be against you in the face of facts.

The only game I still play to this day is uncharted 2, and no, no, no respawning doesnt take years. Infact its actually quite fast and convienient since you know the game isnt chaotic.

Games like mag and resistance are messy at best, and even you know this.

Next gen this,next gen that, its all about balance a nd convienience and honestly big games like those dont have em.

Ive played games like killzone 2, heck I still own this game. You have these huge maps and no vehicles to make traveling across a huge map a convience. And another thing, people in big 32 player games quit more or less its the same if not worst.

Socom confrontation was a hot mess(waiting to get into a match oh man...lets not even get into that), and mag is at times laggy and thats to be expected ofcourse no game is perfect.

You are basically trying to say that small games present more issues with respawning and short matches.

I say big games are just too messy to even get into, I mean big games its like you spawn, you die. Because you are already in the middle of a large unbalanced frag fest.

[N4OGs]

More options and every game should have the option of 32 player matches at least if its a war type game based on killing a lot of things like killzone2, warhawk, resistance, etc.

For me I only see sucky people complain about big matches because they cant play a game unless its low player count so they know where everyone is and can get in there clan and gang rape you while you on a sucky team. In big player matches if you on a sucky team you can use the sucky players around you as a human shield and still keep yourkdr up.

also if you are good in big player matches it shows. It takes more skill because you have more people coming at you constantly. no waiting for dudes to respawn and you dont know where they will spawn from. I was skilled player in every game in big matches or little matches. Little matches were way to easy and people would quit because id own them to much because even with matchmaking you still gonna get a lot of nuubs getting owned. If you want strictly competivie then get in a clan and dont go making some statement of all games need to have low player count because you cant multi task more then 6 dudes in a warzone.

If you are skilled in big player matches you can handle anything.

In warhawk id loved owning all the nuubs and then out of nowhere you got some good dudes who are on your lvl comeing at you for that nitty gritty challenge with fodder troop guys shooting you to.

I felt like I was jedi takeing on all the storm troopers and then some darth vader guy comes in with my same skill lvl and we duke it out in battle epicly.

Big battles are just more FUN FUN FUN. thats why everyone runs to them. If you want super serious then get in a clan.

all big battles 32 or more players games when you are skilled fill like every movie and cartoon that you ever seen with good guy vs bad guys.

you are the epic gundam tearing up all the small gundams and then when other epic gundam comes at you it gets even more intense on the battlefield.

small battles fill fake, scripted in war games. save the small stuff for games like uncharted and gears and read dead and such. War games should have 32 players standard. its a warzone not some small arena bs.

[WLPowell]

Resistance has guns that shoot through walls... Large numbers don't do it any favors. 32-40 is the sweetspot for the kind of game Resistance is.

[ManiacMansion]

now PS3 boys wont buy this game anymore, since it hasnt 60 ppl online!

[DaBadGuy]

You mean I won't be able to play with 59 screaming, swearing, singing, screeching, annoying mental defects? How will I ever enjoy the game now?

Seriously though 13, or whatever the max amount of players is, is enough in Reach. With 59....I mean....I won't even have enough time to mute everyone.

[tigertron]

I'm not bothered, but I do hope they go back to RFOM's 40 player matches, which were perfect imo.

[TONYPS3]

it was an underrated game.....i still play it. it sold more than 2 million. it was the flagship shooter for the ps3(along with socom) before killzone 2 came along. its a great experience. the graphics look great on my TV. yeah i said it. resistance 2 graphics were better than any shooter on xbox360....60 players online, gigantic style bosses on each map.the maps were at places we have seen or visited(chicago,louisiana,san francisco,etc... cool mountains, cool bright colors, etc... just wish it caught on more...anyway im gonna miss the 60 player maps. i hope they keep the deathmatch online mode(free for all). i never played free for all with so many ppl than on resistance 2....
resistance 2>>>>>halo3/ODS T/maybe even maybe even HALO REACH...just look at resistance 2 graphics on a quality TV.not even close....

[peeps]

good. mp was so so much better in resistance 1. was just downright better.

the problem with higher numbers in mp is that u matter very little as an individual. I much prefer smaller more competitive games and think resistance 3 could be really good.

[dionnysus]

a little late to post, here's my two cents: i have loved the crazyiness 30 v 30 is, sometimes the games are too long, most times they are just the right length, the squad thing wasn't executed well, doesn't matter to the lone wolf i am, the battles felt epic. smaller sizes are okay for me, but i am one of those guys who prefer a large amount of people to kill or get killed by.