Discussion Forums > Gaming

Online Multiplayer Games (Small vs. Big)

(1/1)

TMRNetShark:
This is not going to be PC vs Consoles thread, even though everyone will probably make it out to be just that.

My question is: How many players do you like in a competitive online multiplayer game?

Obvious games that have a limit to how many players can be playing at one time like fighting/RTS/Co-Op/platforming games wouldn't count. I'm talking about shooter/simulation games that can push the boundaries of how many players can play in one game. At one point in time, I asked myself how many players is too many players? Most online shooter games today are either 24 (consoles) or 32 (PC) players. What does adding more players really add to gameplay? Games like Flashpoint boost north of 100+ players because it creates that "War" feeling and that's great. It adds to the experience of being in war. At the same time, your average CoD-like shooter game has up to 32 players fighting each other for what reason? If you will only ever see 2-3 enemies before you die (average player), then what's the point of having up to 16 enemies or 15 other allies killing the other players?

My point is this, the Splinter Cell series made killing in the online arena personal instead of mindlessly seeing an enemy, aiming, then shooting them, then rinse and repeat. In Chaos Theory and Double Agent, the online part of those games was called Spies Vs. Mercenaries. It was 2 or 3 Spies vs 2 or 3 Mercs. Only 6 players per match (Choas Theory, it was only 4) and it was the most fun because it brought thinking into the equation of killing your online opponents. As spies you would have to stick to the shadows and avoid being seen (or if you were a good player, stalk the Mercs) while being a Merc had the spine tingling feeling of not knowing where the enemy was coming from but being constantly prepared. Basically, it took skills and experience to be successful at both those games and it was vastly different being on either team. I want to see more games be personal in the online portion with fewer players but require more skill to be able to kill the enemy.

blubart:
it really depends on the game and the expected experience.
both - games with few players (i would say less than 10) and a lot of players (50+) - have distinct qualities.
while the first honors personal skills, reflexes and tight teamwork the second honors strategy, knowledge and responsibility assignments.

both can be equally fun or boring depending on how it is set up.

TMRNetShark:

--- Quote from: blubart on April 27, 2011, 09:08:53 PM ---it really depends on the game and the expected experience.
both - games with few players (i would say less than 10) and a lot of players (50+) - have distinct qualities.
while the first honors personal skills, reflexes and tight teamwork the second honors strategy, knowledge and responsibility assignments.

both can be equally fun or boring depending on how it is set up.

--- End quote ---

So the mid-ground is where we would get mediocre online experiences. For instance, Wolfenstein: ET would be awesome with 50+ players because of the class system and overall map strategy. The unfortunate pitfall to that I guess would be people not following the right strategy, but that would also be a pitfall in smaller games because your partner can screw up the whole game with no chance of winning (or at least slim it down by a lot). 

Bloodfox:

--- Quote from: blubart on April 27, 2011, 09:08:53 PM ---it really depends on the game and the expected experience.
both - games with few players (i would say less than 10) and a lot of players (50+) - have distinct qualities.
while the first honors personal skills, reflexes and tight teamwork the second honors strategy, knowledge and responsibility assignments.

both can be equally fun or boring depending on how it is set up.

--- End quote ---

This.

It really depends on the game.
I don't mean to sound rude but I find this poll silly.

Sosseres:
I voted 100+, larger maps, more possible combat areas and more strategic options is what happens when you have more players. Things like the commanders in recent Battlefield games (excluding the console games) truly shine when you have large teams. Vehicles is also a portion of this, they die easier in larger battles, but they also get more kills before they die.

Having 100+ without vehicles would be boring, the travel times would be too long with most map layouts. Then you have something like a chopper/airplane that can't shine until you get large maps with many possible targets. If there is only one place you can go they will have anti air and limit its usefulness to a large degree.

The opposite experience with you vs somebody else can also be fun, but I like the team work and strategy elements more than pure skill. Some of the most fun that I've ever had in team games is defending a flag in conquest mode against multiple opponents, that doesn't happen in smaller games. Especially BF V was fun for this, having anti air and tnt. ^^

Navigation

[0] Message Index