Does a large player count matter to you? (FPS games)

I'm probably the only one who hates 64 player matches but I'd rather have a smaller player count and more skill than nades and rockets flying every where.

I like 32, perfect size IMO.

Depends, games like M.A.G and BF do it well, but Halo and CoD would just suck with more than 14 players, at least to me.FoolwithaLancer

It all depends on the game really.

Oh god yes. 64 player and up is where it's at, like Battlefield and Joint Ops: Typhoon Rising's 128 players.

But some games like Counter Strike would be ruined with that. Depends on the game, but unless it's CS style then it should have a ton of people.

It all depends on the game really.

Demonjoe93

Larger player counts in shooters make it less competitive to me. I don't see a need for 64 players in one server. That's just overkill. It's also less personal. percech

Depends on the game. Sometimes big player counts can make things worse like in Resistance 2. 60 players just made things ridiculously chaotic. Whereas MAG had 200+ players during domination matches and really required teamwork and made you feel like you're part of a real battlefield. I actually may go back to playing MAG since it's a seriously underrated FPS.

Like in the game ? yes and no.... Both can be rather fun but I rather have the option of playing 18 player server or 50 player server. As both are dramatically different experiences. As for over all player count of people playing the game I dont care about that at all.

If the objective of the game is to run around, shooting your gun from the hip and screaming at the top of your lungs, no thanks. But in a tactical military shooter, I want more more more. As many players as you can cram, and with enough map room to manoevre and attempt some troop movement. The original Red Orchestra with 50 players does this quite well, with a chaotic main front, then smaller skirmishes and firefights all throughout the map.

Depends on the game if it's something like Battlefield then yes cause I want a epic massive warfare going on.

It depends on the size of the maps. 32 or 64 players on a Call of Duty map would be stupid, but so would 12 players on a Bad Company 2 map. As long as it's scaled right, I don't really care. 64 players for BF3 sounds cool, but once you consider the size of the map, it'll be no more or less intense than any other game.

Depends for which game. For example, having less than 100 players per battle in Planetside would matter to me since that game shines with 300-400 player battles, anything else feels sparse. Whereas having a nice 5v5 in CS is just as good.

no i like small maps, big maps just encourage camping and snipers, makes it boring imo

It depends on the game. But I still prefer some games with 4 players (Talking about Split-screen on Consoles)

Depends on the game. For a game like Battlefield,wich is about large scale warfare,absolutely.

The player count doesn't mean anything on its own, it's the design of the game that counts.

Having to option does matter to me. I like to have the choice to join a 16, 24, 32, 64, or however many player server. Luckily I get that choice when I play the PC version of BF3, BF2, BF2142, and many others. Also, in BF2 and 2142 I can join 128 and 256 player servers if I want (which are actually really fun on the right map.

No. I love the smaller players sizes. It makes the whole thing more personal. It's kind of hard to trash talk and get a good rivalry going when you have to sift through 32 other players to figure out who it is. PC gamers can keep their large player counts. I'll stick with my low player counts and be able to have more fun with it.FPSDad1161

Not really. As long as the map size is proportional to the number of players. mrmusicman247

This pretty much.

Depends on map sizes.

64 players on something like NukeTown would suck.

However, given a large enough map... hell yeah that's awesome! :D

No but a large enemy count does. Serious Sam and Painkiller for life!

No but a large enemy count does. Serious Sam and Painkiller for life!

Whiteblade999

There was new footage of SS3:BFE released today. Check out Blue News since they had a link on their front page.

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]Depends, games like M.A.G and BF do it well, but Halo and CoD would just suck with more than 14 players, at least to me.chaoz-king

Yes it matters to me. If it is to large, I don't play on that server. A 24 player server is the biggest I tend to care to play on unless we are talking bigger games like Battlefield 3, then I prefer bigger like 64 or something like that.

no i like small maps, big maps just encourage camping and snipers, makes it boring imo

Chris_Williams

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

no i like small maps, big maps just encourage camping and snipers, makes it boring imo

jonathant5

Yeah camping on big maps, unless you're a very good sniper, generally doesn't work.

"Oh that one guy over there is camping behind that tree? Oh I'll just take the 2 dozen other paths to get to my objective.

It's the freedom to be able to play with a larger variety of player counts and not be stuck with 8v8 or 12v12 that matters to me.

Part of why I love playing on PC.

i voted yes but really it depends. with battlefield, absolutely yes

[QUOTE="jonathant5"][QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

no i like small maps, big maps just encourage camping and snipers, makes it boring imo

commonfate

Yeah camping on big maps, unless you're a very good sniper, generally doesn't work.

"Oh that one guy over there is camping behind that tree? Oh I'll just take the 2 dozen other paths to get to my objective.

Depends on the game. Battlefield with 64 players, awesome. Counter-Strike with 32 player, awful.

[QUOTE="FoolwithaLancer"]Depends, games like M.A.G and BF do it well, but Halo and CoD would just suck with more than 14 players, at least to me.chaoz-king

Was just about to post this. Games like CoD and CS are rubbish with too many players