Granted it’s been awhile, but I remember when BF1942 came out with the large 64-player maps. I spent at least a hundred hours running around Wake Island while the epic battle raged around me. 64 players per server was pretty damn awesome.
Had to go there, didn’t you?
I don’t want huge maps. It makes communication a nightmare. 4 on 4 or 6 on 6 is about as big as I want it.
Well it’s not like anyone is going to force PC players to play only 64 player maps you know.
The option is going to make the game for many.
The devs have said, the clients on the consoles just can’t handle them. Simple fact.
As for MAG The reason it could handle it was that it’s a PS3 exclusive. The PS3 is more flexible when it comes to network code and Sony was willing to use powerful private servers for hosting matches. Also, the graphics are nothing like Battlefield 3 and there are no physics based destructible environment like in Battlefield 3, were there even any vehicles?
Who knows? Vehicles are lame.
Than BF3 is probably not the game for you.
No Battlefield or Bad Company game has ever been for me, for those reasons.
I wasn’t always like that. As recently as Call of Duty 3, I still dug vehicles.
Battlefield 3’s big reveal is tomorrow at GDC! So many good features already announced for that game, like no more commander.
Hype priority: Battlefield 3 > Diablo 3 > Dota 2 >> The rest.
So I installed it, played a few matches, and had my ass handed to me. The melee is wayy overpowered.
Although I was pleasantly surprised that the game wasn’t a slideshow - even with my meager Radeon 4830 and low end Athlon II quad core, the graphics looked awesome.
For communications, you break it down into managable segments. You form squads that communicate with each other and work together on an objective for the bigger picture, and someone above squad level who can coordinate everything. That’s how BF2 worked for example, although due to poor design it was still a communications nightmare, that’s true.
I think a limitation of 12 players max is pretty ridiculous though. There are games where this is suitable and fun, but you rule out a whole lot of types of games. The battlefield series provides some of the most unique moments in gaming (and I don’t mean the gimped down “bad company” series which is intentionally lightweight). It was so cool being overwhelmed by a sudden rush if enemy vehicles but then calling for air support and having some guys fly in from across the map to save your ass, or having epic fights over a city block where you and 25 guys are battling the enemy’s 20 guys and 4 vehicles. Way more interesting than having some twitch shooter 4v4 game if done right.
Hell, even games that are small twitch shooters are more fun with more people. MW2’s 6v6 is bullshit compared to doing 16 on 16 or more on cod4 on the medium to big maps.
We hit 20 people all the time (server max) on the sdmb TF2 server, and the more the merrier. More class diversity, big epic fights, less downtime, etc.
If they do bf3 right (and I have no faith whatsoever in DICE), it will be epic. BF1942 Desert Combat is still the best game I’ve ever played.
So, if I’m reading you right, a game of, say, 64 people, has it broken up into squads of 4 or 6 anyways? Cut out the middleman and just have the damned game 4v4 or 6v6 then.
I mostly agree with you, but…why the lack of faith in DICE? Every Battlefield game they’ve been associated with has been great, except BF2. And Bad Company 2 isn’t a watered down game…its awesome! Unless you mean multiplayer-wise, that is. I haven’t tried to play it yet. Hell, ever since I got my PS3 I haven’t finished the single player campaign yet! Damn kids wanting to play games with Dad! No more PC time for me!
You can’t seriously be as dense as you seem.
The squad system just gives a group common spawns, goals, and voice communication lines. They still function as part of a larger army. You can still have 64 people battling over the same area. Playing a 32v32 game on bf2 is absolutely nothing like playing a dinky 4v4 call of duty game on a little map. It’s the difference between a cowboy movie gunfight and the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan.
Dice makes some massively stupid design decisions. BF2 is almost a great game that’s pretty much single handedly ruined by the stupidest design decision I’ve ever seen in a video game. Other than that, and the stupidly easy airplanes meant to appeal to the casual market, it’s a pretty great game.
BC2 is alright I guess. It seems to have all the ingredients of something I’d like in a game, I just don’t have fun while playing it. The movement and hit boxes seem funky to me. And real battlefield games don’t even have single player, so I’m not sure why that’s a consideration.
Still don’t want. Enough of the hijack, please.
Well stop treating people like idiots because they like entirely different types of games than you, and that you don’t want games that exist to satisfy that playstyle, and there will be nothing to respond to.
Do you really believe that? I really like single player campaigns, and I imagine many others do too. I like multiplayer games as well, but sometimes I just want to run a single player game and not worry about having to compete against other people.
Yeah, of course. The best battlefield games are strictly multiplayer focused games. I don’t need some 6 hour call of duty single player tacked on and taking resources from developing the multiplayer end. I mean, single player fps games are fine - but that’s not what the battlefield series is, at least not the good ones.
The pot has looked into the kettle and has seen himself.
Oh wow, you sure showed me. Yes, saying that I don’t need tacked-on single player to clearly multiplayer focused games, especially when the best games in the series are the ones where they strictly focused on the multiplayer, while at the same time saying that games that focus on single player FPS games are fine, is totally saying that I don’t think there’s any reason for single player FPS games to exist and that anyone who likes them is an idiot.
Dude, let’s just let the hijack go. Is that cool by you?
You say something antagonistic that invites a response, and then plead to end the hijack. Do you need need to have the last word? The easiest way to end our conversation is to stop prompting me for responses.