Is "32 Player Multiplayer" really that good a selling point?

[Telperion]

I just finished playing a CoD 4 multiplayer match, and it occurred to me that I was having way more fun in a map (Winter Crash) where there were only nine players per' side. Constant action: check, plenty of back'n'forths fighting: check, basic strategy: check.

Anyway, having played in more than a few games where there are above thirty players in the match it all seems to get horribly chaotic. My two main gripes are:
- there's in-coming fire from every conceivable angle, because more people are camping
- there seems to be less team based gaming going on, because of the general chaos all around

Okay, part of this is my own fault: I'm not a HC gamer who is in a clan and has a VoIP connection to other players in the same match. So, maybe I should hook up with a clan and actually start using that dastardly expensive 5H Steelseries mike&headphone I got sitting on my table. Another point is that CoD 4 has what I could call "small" maps, which don't really work all that well when the player count gets high. If I remember correctly I actually participated in a Battlefield 1942 mod, which had a huge map and up to 64 players. That was fun too, because the map was so huge. More recently I had a blast with Battlefield: Bad Company's (xbox 360) multiplayer, which had nice sized maps - and again the lower player count didn't bother me one bit.

So, is "bigger is better" really the answer?

 

[elvor0]

Only in games that it works, like Battlefield, where you have 64 players, given they are supposed to be large scale combat scenarios as opposed to fire fights CoD is supposed to simulate, the maps on COD really aint set up for 32 player games, because they're pretty small. 32 people on Containment oh god....

 

[kinky257]

Another point is that CoD 4 has what I could call "small" maps, which don't really work all that well when the player count gets high. If I remember correctly I actually participated in a Battlefield 1942 mod, which had a huge map and up to 64 players.

You answered your own question already, COD4 maps are small and not particularly well designed.

To continue the Battlefield(2142) anecdote, I would never play on servers with less than 48 capacity on them. The maps are large with multiple objectives so people tend to be spread out, this leads to a variety of tactics that are employable by both teams and would often lead to more enjoyable games... that is when the teams employed them, rather than just grinding down tickets on the front line each map would usualy start with.

 

[rated pg]

It's as good a selling point as 256 player multiplayer. Only if it works.

 

[Valdsator]

Bigger is better only when the map is bigger too. I see lots of teamwork in games like Fat Princess, and the Battlefield series, but I agree with you on COD 4. I barely see any teamwork when there's people simply moving around aimlessly trying to find something to shoot.

So ya, if a game uses the "omg 32 player multiplayer!" advertisement, they should actually try to make it good. Not as a thing just to get more people to buy the game, because that doesn't end up well.

 

[Spygon]

yes but only when it works properly as i still think the multi player for battlefield bad company is one of the best large team multiplayer games i have ever played on.

So really depends on the game and how it is done.

But when i hear large multi player team battles my first thought is awesome then quickly followed by the feeling of doubt due to the possibility of lag.

 

[Abedeus]

16 vs 16 Team Fortress 2 or Quake Wars is great.

Also can't imagine playing Neverwinter Nights with less than 30 people per server.

 

[Meado]

Umm, yeah, of course it is. Just because a game can support 32-player matches doesn't mean every match has to have that many, so your beloved 18/12/8-player matches will be just as fun in that game as they would be in CoD4. you just have the added option to jump up to a larger match size if you feel like it.

 

[DazZ.]

I've played 64 player matches on CoD4, it was hectic as fuck, but very funny.

Couldn't actually play a game properly like that though.

 

[Collymilad08]

It's not that great a selling point imo.

The number of players (once you get above say, 8) and whether it works is totally dependant on the size of the maps. 256 Players on a HUGE map isn't that much different than 32 on a map that's 1/8th the size. Yes you have 256 players, but how many of them are you actually going to run into? Probably about the same amount as you would in the 32 player game.

 

[Da_Schwartz]

Actually...No. I think Multi on this scale without organized "guilds" or teamspeak familiar type of teams. Will just be absolute chaos. You will have more grievers, noobs and everything else people like to ***** about in fps multi. And less crowded instances will leave wide open massive maps. I personally have never tired anything this big online. But i could only imagine from what experience i do have. If its your thing then sure..but it doesn't interest me in the least bit.

 

[Jupsto]

cod 4 maps are TINY TINY TINY.

I mean you can have up to 55 player games in cod4 on PC. its madness because maps are too small. but I'd rather have option of larger games always. so yeah its a selling point.

32 player games of crysis are intsense because maps like mesa are HUGE and it makes it very tactical, kind of like battlefield series. you can't get this gameplay on console, MAG is trying.

 

[GrinningManiac]

COD4, no, it's too small

TF2, the best bits have been the tight, cramped corridor-fighting (like the middle bit of the last part of Dustbowl) where the fighting flips back and forth, and everyone's focused on the same bit and knows what's going on, as opposed to, say, 2Fort, where everyone does their own thing

 

[Pimppeter2]

Seeing as I don't play multiplayer... no

 

[Woodsey]

Depends.

TF2 is rubbish with smaller games; it's just so much fun to have an onslaught of players backing each other and trying to find ways around others. CS: Source is better with smaller games because its so brutal its hard to get a look in without being pumped with 300 rounds of lead from 5 different directions.

Not that you'd ever be able to take 300 rounds.

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

I just finished playing a CoD 4 multiplayer match, and it occurred to me that I was having way more fun in a map (Winter Crash) where there were only nine players per' side. Constant action: check, plenty of back'n'forths fighting: check, basic strategy: check.

Anyway, having played in more than a few games where there are above thirty players in the match it all seems to get horribly chaotic. My two main gripes are:
- there's in-coming fire from every conceivable angle, because more people are camping
- there seems to be less team based gaming going on, because of the general chaos all around

Okay, part of this is my own fault: I'm not a HC gamer who is in a clan and has a VoIP connection to other players in the same match. So, maybe I should hook up with a clan and actually start using that dastardly expensive 5H Steelseries mike&headphone I got sitting on my table. Another point is that CoD 4 has what I could call "small" maps, which don't really work all that well when the player count gets high. If I remember correctly I actually participated in a Battlefield 1942 mod, which had a huge map and up to 64 players. That was fun too, because the map was so huge. More recently I had a blast with Battlefield: Bad Company's (xbox 360) multiplayer, which had nice sized maps - and again the lower player count didn't bother me one bit.

So, is "bigger is better" really the answer?

I played regular crash with 40 people and it was a bit crazy. Basically my team was completely trapped in the OpFor spawn zone, and if you even stuck your head out for a second or 2 it would be shot.

I like large amounts of players if the map is large. If it's small (like crash) it just feels like dying repeatedly. Then again, why stop at 32? MAG is coming out in January, and THAT has 256 people!