Hello my fellow Escapists,
I've been thinking about the recent recessive trend of multiplayer games and their player capacity. All of a sudden multiplayer games, whether it's a "feature" of the single player game OR a game designed purely for multiplayer, the numbers that can compete online have been declining.
The thought first came to me whilst playing Left 4 Dead. Now before you shout at me saying "It's designed for a small amount of players", I am perfectly aware of that, it was only a trigger. All new games that support multiplayer have been getting smaller and smaller in capacity.
Not so long ago, people dreamed of playing online battles, scenarios, quests, whatever with others. Imagine if you could reenact the Normany landings on the player scale, imagine if you could have simultaneous flight, ground and naval battles on the same map, all having an affect on the scenario.
Well DICE, the developers of the Battlefield Series, had that dream. They were when they first pitched a game that could sport 64 player scenarios - critics faulted their ambition whilst us gamers drooled in anticipation.
The nay sayers were wrong and thus in 2002 the first of the Battlefield games, 1942, was released and boy-o-boy was it damned good. Despite some support issues from DICE and EA the game was a hit and they went on to release 3 expansion packs for the original game, with a Vietnam take off and a direct sequel with a modern warface spin (that's right, Battlefield did the World War 2 to Modern Combat jump 2 years before Infinity Ward did).
Now DICE have come back to their World War 2 roots and have released 1943. This game has a maximum of 24 players per server.... You heard me. Under HALF of what the original games could push. Why? Why have DICE forgotten their original intent? It's like if Valve decided that they'de make Gordon Freeman talk and casting Eddie Murphy for the role - it totally undermines their design principles.
"Ah Putin" you retort, "it has nothing to do with design". Sorry chum, every aspect of a game is design, from the textures to the mechanics. This fundamental cut in numbers seriously impairs DICE's original vision. 1943 isn't an a conduit for their original ideas, it's another World War 2 multiplayer shooter, that's it. The only thing differentiating it from any other "shooty shooty bang bang" is the franchise name.
Don't we already have enough generic shooters, let alone those who have come down to meet the lowered standards of those around them? Why has the featurette of single player games become the standard rather than sub-par?
I've been thinking about the recent recessive trend of multiplayer games and their player capacity. All of a sudden multiplayer games, whether it's a "feature" of the single player game OR a game designed purely for multiplayer, the numbers that can compete online have been declining.
The thought first came to me whilst playing Left 4 Dead. Now before you shout at me saying "It's designed for a small amount of players", I am perfectly aware of that, it was only a trigger. All new games that support multiplayer have been getting smaller and smaller in capacity.
Not so long ago, people dreamed of playing online battles, scenarios, quests, whatever with others. Imagine if you could reenact the Normany landings on the player scale, imagine if you could have simultaneous flight, ground and naval battles on the same map, all having an affect on the scenario.
Well DICE, the developers of the Battlefield Series, had that dream. They were when they first pitched a game that could sport 64 player scenarios - critics faulted their ambition whilst us gamers drooled in anticipation.
The nay sayers were wrong and thus in 2002 the first of the Battlefield games, 1942, was released and boy-o-boy was it damned good. Despite some support issues from DICE and EA the game was a hit and they went on to release 3 expansion packs for the original game, with a Vietnam take off and a direct sequel with a modern warface spin (that's right, Battlefield did the World War 2 to Modern Combat jump 2 years before Infinity Ward did).
Now DICE have come back to their World War 2 roots and have released 1943. This game has a maximum of 24 players per server.... You heard me. Under HALF of what the original games could push. Why? Why have DICE forgotten their original intent? It's like if Valve decided that they'de make Gordon Freeman talk and casting Eddie Murphy for the role - it totally undermines their design principles.
"Ah Putin" you retort, "it has nothing to do with design". Sorry chum, every aspect of a game is design, from the textures to the mechanics. This fundamental cut in numbers seriously impairs DICE's original vision. 1943 isn't an a conduit for their original ideas, it's another World War 2 multiplayer shooter, that's it. The only thing differentiating it from any other "shooty shooty bang bang" is the franchise name.
Don't we already have enough generic shooters, let alone those who have come down to meet the lowered standards of those around them? Why has the featurette of single player games become the standard rather than sub-par?
