Multiplayer gaming not evolving?
- Thread starter Gimpymoo
- Start date
Joint OPS was a fantastic game, better than the battlefield offering of the time.
Getting on a motorbike, jumping off a cliff and parachuting into an enemy base NEVER got old.
MP gaming is very much evolving. In many cases, taking elements from other genres.
Just look at the upcoming Battleborn and Overwatch as examples. Bringing MOBA elements to the FPS arena.
Or Titanfall and Evolve with the asymmetry they offer.
Or Division and Destiny with their... loot grinding... and co-op.
Just look at the upcoming Battleborn and Overwatch as examples. Bringing MOBA elements to the FPS arena.
Or Titanfall and Evolve with the asymmetry they offer.
Or Division and Destiny with their... loot grinding... and co-op.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,678
Only 64 players. I was hoping I could be even more insignificant this time
Hehe.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,678
Having recently played the overwatch Beta, I did feel that as part of a team of 6, my actions had a far greater effect on our team winning than a 64 (or even 32) player game of BF4.
Even on the 64 player games in BF4 a small squad working together can swing the tide.
Mix of many factors I think:
-Increased use of voice comms and focus on teamplay (as a game mode, not the actual mechanics of teamplay) in modern games meaning that having huge numbers of players per team could get pretty confusing/annoying compared to smaller teams
-Need for maps designed to work well with that number of players (and by work well, I don't just mean bigger in scale, depending on the game mechanics you need to factor in spawn points, choke points, potential exploits, need for balancing etc etc)
-General resource constraints both on client and server side - increasing player counts can vastly increase the amount of entities that need to be communicated/processed
-Lack of demand i.e. are people really clamouring for 100+ player FPS games?
-Potential risks from under-populated servers e.g. if you have a server running 100 player maps but there are only 20 odd people joining to play does that cause an issue?
In general I think it must be pretty hard to get a high quality, massive scale team game as most of the time it will likely descend into pseudo-FFA with some very basic collaboration and small groups working together. My background is in Quakeworld and I can say for certain that the larger games (16v16) whilst fun were not in remotely the same league as 4v4 in terms of maturity of gameplay/TP.
-Increased use of voice comms and focus on teamplay (as a game mode, not the actual mechanics of teamplay) in modern games meaning that having huge numbers of players per team could get pretty confusing/annoying compared to smaller teams
-Need for maps designed to work well with that number of players (and by work well, I don't just mean bigger in scale, depending on the game mechanics you need to factor in spawn points, choke points, potential exploits, need for balancing etc etc)
-General resource constraints both on client and server side - increasing player counts can vastly increase the amount of entities that need to be communicated/processed
-Lack of demand i.e. are people really clamouring for 100+ player FPS games?
-Potential risks from under-populated servers e.g. if you have a server running 100 player maps but there are only 20 odd people joining to play does that cause an issue?
In general I think it must be pretty hard to get a high quality, massive scale team game as most of the time it will likely descend into pseudo-FFA with some very basic collaboration and small groups working together. My background is in Quakeworld and I can say for certain that the larger games (16v16) whilst fun were not in remotely the same league as 4v4 in terms of maturity of gameplay/TP.