Multiplayer Features or Number of players

#1 Posted by Echelon730 (89 posts) -

Since a big point of the 360 is LIVE.  Its the multiplayer service of choice for millions of people. While the service is great the multiplayer games are offering more features like screencaps, recordings, map editors, clans, and customizable characters. While I am sure people like these features are 360 devs putting too much time into the features and not enough on the core gameplay. The next question is why is there a lack of 32 player and up multiplayer games. Sure there is Battlefield and Frontlines, but PS3 seems to be getting tones of them, including PSN games like Fat Princess.

So the questions are:
More Features or more Players?

#2 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -

I think alot of existing games wouldnt benefit that much from higher player caps. Most of them get frantic enough as is.

The other thing is the fact that online console games dont often utilise servers, so there are technical limitations.

More players depends on the type of online game you are going for, I dont necessarily think more players overall is the future of online gaming (as in more than 32). Whereas gameplay and features will constantly need to be evolved and changed to keep people interested.

Resistance and Mag could have there place, and personally im looking forward to it. But unless they come out and have absolutely fantastic formulas, I dont see the limits changing to much.


#3 Posted by Echelon730 (89 posts) -
Rowr said:
"I think alot of existing games wouldnt benefit that much from higher player caps. Most of them get frantic enough as is.

The other thing is the fact that online console games dont often utilise servers, so there are technical limitations.

More players depends on the type of online game you are going for, I dont necessarily think more players overall is the future of online gaming (as in more than 32). Whereas gameplay and features will constantly need to be evolved and changed to keep people interested.

Resistance and Mag could have there place, and personally im looking forward to it. But unless they come out and have absolutely fantastic formulas, I dont see the limits changing to much.


"
I see what you mean. Gears wouldn't be better with more people than 10 or 12. But Halo 3 could be really intense for 32. Just make maps designed for it.  Or simple games like have UT on XBLA or Quake 3 with 32 players.  Would be nice
#4 Posted by MsCortana (429 posts) -

I am a bit skeptical of adding a higher player cap.  Especially, when it comes to working cohesively with a team.  You take big team battles and groundwar.  Both are great, however, unless you go in with a full team of your friends, you will hardly ever find the team working as a unit. 

#5 Posted by Rowr (5824 posts) -
MsCortana said:
"I am a bit skeptical of adding a higher player cap.  Especially, when it comes to working cohesively with a team.  You take big team battles and groundwar.  Both are great, however, unless you go in with a full team of your friends, you will hardly ever find the team working as a unit. 
"
more often you get many units working as a unit.
#6 Posted by AnTiPRO (93 posts) -

I wouldn't mind dropping features for more players or dropping players for more features. It all depends on the game. I think a bare bones Battlefield type game that can have massive battles would be awesome.

#7 Posted by MagusMaleficus (1041 posts) -

I'd rather have a shitload of good features than a shitload of teens screaming at me because I'm better than they are.

#8 Posted by Demyx (3237 posts) -

I could care less about the features like recordings, map editors, clans, and customizable characters. I really just want to play the game, also there isn't a need for 60 player fights

#9 Posted by epic_pets (1339 posts) -

The number of players

#10 Posted by Gorillawhat (1259 posts) -

Games like Halo are great just 4vs4, even 16vs16 on Halo is far to frantic for my liking. I would rather have more features (ie; video editing, screen capture, level editor, awesome stuff) than having even more idiots running around shooting each other.

#11 Posted by Xeros606 (545 posts) -

most games cap at 8v8 since xbox live uses p2p. games like bf2 and bad comapany can have 12v12 since its servers are hosted by ea. doesnt matter anyways, 8v8 is perfect for me.

#12 Posted by BlindEffekt (917 posts) -

Team fortress 2. Perfect multiplayer game, needs more people.

#13 Posted by Vinchenzo (6192 posts) -

I could care less about more players. There's a war quote from Call of Duty 2, one that could be compared to this situation.

Joseph Stalin:

"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."
Now if you don't understand where I am going with this, think about it in a different way. A small, tight-knit game (e.g. Gears of War) is personal. But when it gets over 16 people, let's say 30+, then all you think is "Hey, killed a guy." It has no meaning. Give me more features anyday.

#14 Posted by BlindEffekt (917 posts) -

Depends how you put it. I want more players so theres more games. Theres barely any to join nowadays in TF2.
But you make a good point.

#15 Posted by Wolverine (4281 posts) -

I wish Xbox 360 had more games with 32 player online play, that would be pretty cool.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.