Depends on the type of warfare the game offers. Battlefield-like games, for example, can handle something like 60 players at the same time and it works mighty fine.
Is "32 Player Multiplayer" really that good a selling point?
- Thread starter Telperion
- Start date
Recommended Videos
On the PC version of CoD4 where the maps are bigger then yes it's better to have more players.
Not saying this in a trolling fashion but unless I remember incorrectly it's a fact. There's like 16, 32, and 64 player versions of maps on the PC version. I think...
Probably a bad example, either way, put simply, large maps = better for more players
Relatively small maps = don't clusterfuck them!
Not saying this in a trolling fashion but unless I remember incorrectly it's a fact. There's like 16, 32, and 64 player versions of maps on the PC version. I think...
Probably a bad example, either way, put simply, large maps = better for more players
Relatively small maps = don't clusterfuck them!
KIn a real firefight in any warzone nowadays, it'll usually be a few small squads of maybe 5/6 people fighting against similar numbers. Hence 32 player action in a game isn't far from reality, you can see that as two squads of 5 and one squad of 6 fighting per team. That's plenty. In things like Battlefield, the game is meant to represent more large scale battles, which is why there are 62 player games and even (I think, or soon to come, at least) 124 player games. It's all down to whatever the game is meant to represent, which is why I feel that 32 player online games are perfectly fine and a reasonable selling point.
It depends both on the game and map design.
Depends on the game design, because some games have specific weapons, skills or classes designed to (or simply more proficient at) counter "crowds". Generally speaking, the more people around there are, the more emphasis is placed on explosive weaponry (like grenades or rockets) and less on "precision" weapons (like snipers or rifles).
On the other hand, the above can be either blurred or accentuated by the map design. If the map fails to accommodate the desired number of players, the game won't play well. If the map is too big for the amount of people you have playing, you generally end up with the action spread too thin... If the map is too small, the opposite occurs and things get too cluttered, causing the well known "clusterfuck".
So yeah, it depends.
Depends on the game design, because some games have specific weapons, skills or classes designed to (or simply more proficient at) counter "crowds". Generally speaking, the more people around there are, the more emphasis is placed on explosive weaponry (like grenades or rockets) and less on "precision" weapons (like snipers or rifles).
On the other hand, the above can be either blurred or accentuated by the map design. If the map fails to accommodate the desired number of players, the game won't play well. If the map is too big for the amount of people you have playing, you generally end up with the action spread too thin... If the map is too small, the opposite occurs and things get too cluttered, causing the well known "clusterfuck".
So yeah, it depends.
i think you have a good point, massive amount of players on a normal Multiplayer sized map isn't the greatest of things as it does just become a mess of people. but if there it is a HUGE map and the game mode is something objective based then i think 32 players per team would be good.
but for most games that amount of players per team would be a bit excessive
but for most games that amount of players per team would be a bit excessive
In the case of MAG, it's about 50-50 at this point.rated pg said:
Personally, I like more people in any team deathmatch. More people to mow down and more people to wathc my back.
And you could get a multitap thing that lets four players play on the NES!Fredrick2003 said:
