Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: More than 64 players per map just isn't fun, says DICE

  1. #1
    MyGaming Alumnus James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    MyGaming Hive
    Posts
    12,047

    Default More than 64 players per map just isn't fun, says DICE


  2. #2
    The Legendary Troll Hunter OmegaFenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not here....
    Posts
    34,144

    Default

    Depends on map size. But mostly yes. Coz it turns into a spawn-rape fest. Spawn... walk 2 steps... DIE... Spawn... walk... DIE. NO FUN that.
    "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"


  3. #3
    The thing that should not be Tsar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In james car
    Posts
    17,507

    Default

    I agree to many people just would be terrible.

  4. #4
    R4C3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Durbanville, Cape Town
    Posts
    4,201

    Default

    It must also have something to do woth the size of maps I am sure if the maps are big enough and have enough flags to capture one can have more players. i do not think the SA net will be able to cope with it tho. Maybe I am wrong

  5. #5
    to0kenZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Somewhere Set West
    Posts
    8,650

    Default

    64 Player combat is freakin' fantastic! It just feels like you're really part of a much bigger war than a deathmatch FPS. There's always something bigger going on than the small battle you're fighting with another player in a corridor, or the tank you're trying to RPG.

    That's what makes Battledfeld 3 such a damn fun game. There's always some crazy shit going on all around you, and with 64 people playing, you will never know what to expect. With more players, more is possible, and that makes it all that much better than having less players.

    More players would certainly make for some very interesting gameplay, but for now this will be good enough!

  6. #6
    Thread Killer Murph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    20,136

    Default

    Oh there you are Tooken. I thought you were in a cryogenic freezer, waiting for tomorrow.

  7. #7
    to0kenZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Somewhere Set West
    Posts
    8,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Murph View Post
    Oh there you are Tooken. I thought you were in a cryogenic freezer, waiting for tomorrow.
    Hahahahaha bru! If it were up to me, I WOULD be in a freezer, waiting for tomorrow, but alas, fml.

  8. #8

    Default

    I know from BF2 experience that 64 players on a map is awesome, but more than that will have the losing team slaughtered while they spawn.

  9. #9

    Default

    Definitely agree with Tooken on this one... If the map is big enough to make it fun it can be fun, because there are a lot of players, yes, but it's scattered all over the place etc..

    But I think there should be a cap to it though and 64 just seems to be the right one. I think more than that it becomes a bit of a frenzy where you can just run and gun and be sure to hit something. Then die.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    JHB
    Posts
    210

    Default

    It all depends on the map size but 64 player was so much fun in BF2 and was the sweet spot for full vehicle and infantry warfare.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •