Sections

DICE: 256-player Battlefield 3 is possible, but “not fun”

Friday, 11th March 2011 05:54 GMT By Nathan Grayson

Long before MAG or, er, this thing were throwing around numbers large enough to make calculators blush, the Battlefield series ruled the multiplayer shooter roost. So, why not make a move to reclaim the old throne?

Well, because bigger’s not always better.

“A lot of people ask us about 64 versus 128 or 256 players. Technically, we can go to 256, we’ve tried it. We play tested with 128. You’ve got to make a game that’s fun to play. And, arguably, we think that the most fun you can have is when it’s between 32 and 40 players,” DICE CEO Patrick Söderlund told AtomicMPC.

“And we’ve done substantial research into this and tested 128 and that it’s not fun. Maybe we haven’t done our design work good enough, but we just feel like there’s no point in going higher than 64.”

So there you have it. 64 players is the sweet spot, and DICE has no intention of going above and beyond the call of duty. Well, it does intend to go above and beyond the Call of Dut– oh, you know what we mean.

Breaking news

20 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. xxJPRACERxx

    64 is plenty enough.

    #1 3 years ago
  2. sickgamer

    yes it wont be fun ..

    #2 3 years ago
  3. JimFear-666

    Oh yeah… i like when people tell us whats fun and whats not…

    They know everything for us…. i like it!!

    /sarcasm

    Mag was one of the greatest online game ive played in my life… If it sucks, its just because they dont know how to do it… Anyway its dice… They cant release a game without being broke and full of bugs… So … i couldnt care less about what he say…

    #3 3 years ago
  4. Uncontested

    JimFear troll harder please.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. Gekidami

    I bet they could totally cure cancer if they wanted to aswell. But they just dont want to.

    #5 3 years ago
  6. Lounds

    BF2142 was my fav, I loved blowing up the huge ships and then running off and parashooting back to the ground, Epic game, although it did have its bugs i loved it.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. Grimrita

    For once I agree with DICE. I remember getting BF2142, my first BF game and ‘upgrading’ from playing on 16 player, to 32 then to the awesome 64 player maps.

    64 is alot of fun and any more than that will probably increase spawn campers/baseraping than now (if that is possible!).

    And just because a game has 256 players online for an FPS, doesnt mean its any good. Played it once and didnt like it but to be fair, the reason why I didnt like it is because FPS games on a console take some adjusting to from playing on a PC

    #7 3 years ago
  8. DrDamn

    MAG worked because the game modes which supported 256 players were designed specifically for it. The standard Battlefield modes wouldn’t particularly so they are right to avoid it. When designed well for it 256 players can work fantastically well though.

    #8 3 years ago
  9. Gekidami

    Obviously if they’d have raised the amount of players they’d make maps & modes accordingly. They’re not going to try and make squares fit into circles…

    #9 3 years ago
  10. xxJPRACERxx

    Sure they could design maps for 256 players, but if only 40 peoeple are playing on a server this would be boring. They could also create a dynamic map size like in bf2, but you have to balance the game for each map size, this can be long process. It’s best they concentrate on one map size and do it correctly. And 64 is still more than many online fps.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. DrDamn

    @9
    Making it work is a lot more involved than giving it a try though, MAG was completely designed around the idea of up to 256 players.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. albo88

    #3 if you know wont you wont then make a game for yourself and STFU
    if they say is not fun end of story
    we are not talking a but new entry developers here DICE has pretty much made the history of on-line FPS
    and to be honest peoples belive more in them then in trash santanist faggot like yourself
    now got put a metal in your ass and let yourself in air left right when the wind bring you

    #12 3 years ago
  13. Nozz

    @12 O_o

    Anyway, I’m with #8. BF3 MP just might not have been designed that way but it would be great to see what they could do in terms of map size, vehicle count etc etc.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. Grimrita

    @12 BC2 wasnt so hot ‘from the masters’ of FPS?

    #14 3 years ago
  15. SwiftRanger

    Pretty much a BS-statement from Dice, anyone who has played PlanetSide (that’s still 2003, folks) knows what the future could hold for multiplayer shooters. More is better if you want a real war on your screen, period.

    Too bad Dice seems more interested in a BF2-remake with a destructible environment.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. Lounds

    they should do an mmo style like EVE, having massive regiment armys, down to small terroist organisations, you create or join exsisting fractions, and have proper roles and responsiblitys each time you Rank up, i.e. Sergant/Corporal’s duty is to be in charge of a section and distribute ammo etc. Plattoons, Brigades, company’s etc. That would be awesome.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. DSB

    Well, at least they throw in the caveat about their design work perhaps not being good enough.

    You can succesfully do massively multiplayer online shooters, but the design will have to be a lot different from more basic shooters.

    What I’d like to see more than anything else is a bit of a balancing of the medic class. It’s a little too stupid to run out and zap someone and they jump right back up, and so many squads in BC2 have abused that system. At least make a time penalty so the medic has to risk a little bit to be constantly spamming his teammates with paddles.

    @15 I’m mentioning Planetside an awful lot these days, but you’re absolutely right. Hopefully they can top it with Planetside: Next.

    #17 3 years ago
  18. freedoms_stain

    @17, I agree, the medic needs major work. Me and a friend speculated from the gameplay footage that if you can drag bodies in multiplayer then it might be indicative of medic treatment taking longer (say roughly the time it takes to arm an m-com). Pure speculation that might have no basis in fact. Also, medics shouldn’t be invincible while their defib animation is taking place. So-called “Medic trains” are the bane of conquest infantry maps in BC2. Nelsons Bay is probably the worst for it. Sensor spammers + Medic trains = crap round.

    Also, if I don’t want revived I should have an option to bot be revived. It’s never happened to me but I’ve heard stories of guys who were revive-spammed by a medic sitting safely in cover while they themselves had no ammo to fight back with and just took repeated deaths with no way to tell this medic to fuck off.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. spiderLAW

    @12
    Whhhaaaaaaaa??????!!!!!
    i seriously laughed so hard when i read that. The whole warehouse was looking at me with “WTF” faces. That shit was a funny read, especially the last paragraph.

    #19 3 years ago
  20. OwnedWhenStoned

    @12

    Autotranslate FTW.

    #20 3 years ago