VG247 Forum » The VG247 forum

1. nollie4545
   Member

   Let me throw this into the mix. In terms of online multiplayer play, do very large numbers of players, change the MP experience, and if so, is it a positive change or a negative one?

   I'm talking games where you're looking at 24 players and above. Not your usual 8 a side MW shooter maps etc.

   I've played a lot of Arma 2, so to me, being surrounded and in the midst of a steel cyclone with artillery and air support going off in the background feels as a normal as breathing. Probably the time when my gaming senses really get perked up is when there are more targets than you can count and they are all trying their darndest to kill you.

   As such, in that kind of maelstrom, I always found, (maybe this is another PC focuses thread, I don't know, are console gamers equally co-operative?), that people were happier to play the myriad of supporting roles that help an artificial army function. Never needed to worry about a lack of medics, or AT soldiers, or helo pilots, or tank or truck drives- someone was on it. Ask for mortars or artillery or air support and someone was there, asking for a mark on a map or co-ordinates.

   Is people say yes, bigger battles are more fun, should we aim games more in that direction, and include less of the stuff which traditionally hasn't even been looked at in traditional first person shooters? Ie mortars, artillery, and so forth?

   Discuss.

   Posted 2 months ago #

2. KineticCalvaria
   Member

   Depends really, think it matters more on the actual game mechanics than the player count. I find if battles are too spread out such as in ArmA at times then you can be running for half an hour before getting any action, in that instance, to me that isn't fun. However in the times like you say, when you have a battle going on its a great adrenaline rush, its all down to personal preference, some people like team play others like being a lone wolf. Obviously the ones who enjoy team play will get more out of co-ordination and squad play with higher player counts.

   Posted 2 months ago #

3. nollie4545
   Member

   Totally agree; the biggest most massive ballache of Arma 2 were respawn times and the sheer distances involved in the maps. I'm talking a 5 minute helo ride to some of them. It was mental. I do seriously hope that is sorted in Arma 3. Proper MP server missions would be good.

   Posted 2 months ago #

4. DrDamn
   Member

   @nollie4545
   It certainly provides a different experience, but whether that is "better" or "more fun" is very much down to the game people want to play. I would say that to work effectively larger scale games need to be designed to work well and encourage team play.

   As an example MAG on the PS3 had upto 256 player battles. These were really well managed in that the game split each 128 player side into much smaller groups and pitted them against similar sized groups on the opposing team. As the game progressed and the attackers gained ground the smaller groups were joined together to form bigger units. The last stage of the game brought the two 128 player teams together for the final push.

   This sort of design was a really good way of managing the build-up and giving teams common objectives. Making you feel you were contributing to something bigger.

   On the other point of communication and team work on consoles. Again the game design can do a lot to support this and discourage unhelpful activities. I've found comms much better supported on the 360 as everyone has a mic - great choice to include that by MS. You still get good players and bad players though, stat whores thinking more about k/d ratios than winning a match. It's better if you can either team up with real friends or if the game has good clan support where you can find others who want to play the way you do.

   Posted 2 months ago #

5. OlderGamer
   Moderator

   I can tell you this, I am tired of small numbers of online players in most games on consoles.

   When you are playing a round of World of Warcrafts Wingergrasp were it is mass chaos due to tons of players, you have something that most console only gamers can't even imagine.

   Mag was interesting, but team size couldn't help it get past being a generic military shooter, imo.

   I can't stand games with really small player counts. 4V4, really? Pretty lame. I am sure some folks like, but not me. If I am on a battlefield, i want to feel like I am on a damn battlefield. No game, pun intended. Even console BF has less players then the PC one.

   I don't know if there is the right or magical number. I guess that depends on the person you are asking. But, imo, the days of playing 4,6,8,12 and even 24 players should have stayed on Xbox one.

   "You still get good players and bad players though, stat whores thinking more about k/d ratios than winning a match." Is one of the reasons why I think bigger teams are better. If you have twelve on your team and four of them are 14yr old kids/friends doing exactly what you just said, your team is going to lose. Also, imo, the comm thing is grossly over rated. No better way to have conflict then to give each person a mic. Most players don't listen anyways. If the game gives you automated messages saying where the action is(think: The Stables are under attack!)(from wow), then you don't need two piss heads swearing back and forth to each other.

   I hope the next gen systems can easily handle 64+ players. No reason why they shouldn't. I like massive battles.

   My two cents, anyways.

   Posted 2 months ago #

6. Kalain
   Member

   I can't stand small skirmishes, which is probably why I don't play MP on consoles.

   I got my first taste of Large Scale MP with the original Plantside. Having over 100 people per side really does put a perspective on just how much better large scale combat is..

   Posted 2 months ago #

7. Da Man
   Member

   They're amazing, you can run around and shoot people in the back, or camp and snipe them from a comfy place. You don't even need to help the team because there 're always a few good players.

   Posted 2 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.