Resistance 3 multiplayer downgrade

lol only 8vs8. not even 32 players. Boo, shame on you

I disagree. Its a upgrade. Less players mean that the online will be more action packed. In the 64 player online, most of the map was empty and you had to travel a ways to find someone. Insomniac is making a smart move with this decision. It'll keep the players more interested.

Link?shalashaska88

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-11-resistance-3/711230

Link?shalashaska88

Video and article.

How is it a downgrade? Everyone plays COD with those numbers. More numbers does not equal more fun. It could be 3 v 3 as long as its fun.

i dont like cod. Why does evrything have to be like cod. I miss battlefield 2, I miss battlefield 1942. Those where some awsome multiplayer games.

Screw the casual cod style

i dont like cod. Why does evrything have to be like cod. I miss battlefield 2, I miss battlefield 1942. Those where some awsome multiplayer games.

Screw the casual cod style

Ubersoldat87

So if a game has the same number of players as the Call of Duty games, does it mean that it plays the same exact way as them? :?

yea this is gonna be run and gun 24/7

I think this is a much better idea, multiplayer looks to be much improved this time

I agree with it being an upgrade over so many players but...it will depend on how big and well made the maps are. My opinion of course.

why do people always assume that more players = a better game when it's often the opposite. Imo the only series to properly pull off large scale MP is battlefield. Everything else fails quite hard. Lowering the player count gives them the opportunity to make a much deeper online exp.

Well think about it, theres more to shoot at and teamwork gets thrown out the window. I'm guessing though so...

[QUOTE="shalashaska88"]Link?ExoticAnimal

Video and article.

I disagree. Its a upgrade. Less players mean that the online will be more action packed. In the 64 player online, most of the map was empty and you had to travel a ways to find someone. Insomniac is making a smart move with this decision. It'll keep the players more interested.

ExoticAnimal

Amen to that!

I don't understand why people always ask for a bigger player limit. It's not like a bigger player limit automatically equals a better game. That decision from Insomniac is definitely a smart one.

From what i've seen the multiplayer looks really booring. and wtf did they do with crysis 2? 12 players, played the demo on pc yesterday. wow it sucked, it was so booring

From what i've seen the multiplayer looks really booring. and wtf did they do with crysis 2? 12 players, played the demo on pc yesterday. wow it sucked, it was so booring

Ubersoldat87

No one is forcing you to play these games. You could always go back and play the Battlefield games.

95%+ of the matches I played had no more than like 12-16 players anyways...

I disagree. One of the things that ruined R2 online was the massive maps meant for 64 players, yet only 20 or so people in each game. It was sloppy on Insomniac's part and they're fixing it with R3. I fully agree with 8vs8.

the biggest downgrade is not having a coop mode , but small matches only comes really close to , for those complaing about R2s big matches - you always had the option to choose small matches , nowthe option to play big macthesis gone ...how can it be better ? i liked the big matches , especially when running with a loaded pulse cannon and metting a large group of enemy players

I too prefer smaller rooms

I disagree. Its a upgrade. Less players mean that the online will be more action packed. In the 64 player online, most of the map was empty and you had to travel a ways to find someone. Insomniac is making a smart move with this decision. It'll keep the players more interested.

ExoticAnimal

i guess im the only one that didnt like R2 multiplayer as much as i did part 1..Keasy4

No you're not. ;)

gears was 4 vs 4 and that was my favorite multiplayer of all time. halo 4 vs. 4.. and up. Fun games. Less players is better if you ask me. Too many players creates little battles in different parts of the map. I don't ever remember a game where I saw all 32 players at the same spot on the map anyways so whats the point again?

The game still looks fun, but I will miss the chaos of a lot of players. I liked the large scale approach in the second game. I assume the 8 player co-op will not be back due to the co-op story mode making a return.

Nobody can get it right.

When people complain, they change it, then people complain. Its why I rarely visit this cesspool anymore.

Here's what they could had done:

Reduce to 40

Reduce to 32

Reduce to 24

Have maps designed for 60, 40, 32 and 24 players(certain games like Killzone 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Battlefield 2, etc. do that)

But 16? This is a joke. There might not be a server browser like the 1st 2 which I loved which means crappy matchmaking and most likely lag, hopefully there's custom games. The only reasons they are doing this is to improve graphics and be less chaotic, but they could easily do any of my suggestions. Now it's going to be called a Halo/COD clone with unique guns.

Still want to play it though, though no way in hell I'm paying 60, I got the others for 30 and less bucks.

I like a small group better than a massive number of players. I think there's a better chance for actual teamwork instead of trying to get a huge group to work together.

Here's what they could had done:

Reduce to 40

Reduce to 32

Reduce to 24

Have maps designed for 60, 40, 32 and 24 players(certain games like Killzone 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Battlefield 2, etc. do that)

But 16? This is a joke. There might not be a server browser like the 1st 2 which I loved which means crappy matchmaking and most likely lag, hopefully there's custom games. The only reasons they are doing this is to improve graphics and be less chaotic, but they could easily do any of my suggestions. Now it's going to be called a Halo/COD clone with unique guns.

Still want to play it though, though no way in hell I'm paying 60, I got the others for 30 and less bucks.

mitu123

Have you ever played multiplayer in the first two games? It ran so smooth. I never experience any lag or heard of anyone else experiencing it.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Here's what they could had done:

Reduce to 40

Reduce to 32

Reduce to 24

Have maps designed for 60, 40, 32 and 24 players(certain games like Killzone 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Battlefield 2, etc. do that)

But 16? This is a joke. There might not be a server browser like the 1st 2 which I loved which means crappy matchmaking and most likely lag, hopefully there's custom games. The only reasons they are doing this is to improve graphics and be less chaotic, but they could easily do any of my suggestions. Now it's going to be called a Halo/COD clone with unique guns.

Still want to play it though, though no way in hell I'm paying 60, I got the others for 30 and less bucks.

ExoticAnimal

Have you ever played multiplayer in the first two games? It ran so smooth. I never experience any lag or heard of anyone else experiencing it.

It ruined Killzone 3 with matchmaking, Killzone 2 did it better in terms of connections, I hope the same won't happen here.

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

Here's what they could had done:

Reduce to 40

Reduce to 32

Reduce to 24

Have maps designed for 60, 40, 32 and 24 players(certain games like Killzone 2, Perfect Dark Zero, Battlefield 2, etc. do that)

But 16? This is a joke. There might not be a server browser like the 1st 2 which I loved which means crappy matchmaking and most likely lag, hopefully there's custom games. The only reasons they are doing this is to improve graphics and be less chaotic, but they could easily do any of my suggestions. Now it's going to be called a Halo/COD clone with unique guns.

Still want to play it though, though no way in hell I'm paying 60, I got the others for 30 and less bucks.

mitu123

Have you ever played multiplayer in the first two games? It ran so smooth. I never experience any lag or heard of anyone else experiencing it.

It ruined Killzone 3 with matchmaking, Killzone 2 did it better in terms of connections, I hope the same won't happen here.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="ExoticAnimal"]

Have you ever played multiplayer in the first two games? It ran so smooth. I never experience any lag or heard of anyone else experiencing it.

JoKeR_421

It ruined Killzone 3 with matchmaking, Killzone 2 did it better in terms of connections, I hope the same won't happen here.

I'll wait until it's out though.

[QUOTE="JoKeR_421"][QUOTE="mitu123"] I even said I played them(highlighted in red).:| Yes, I had no lag at all in both games. I fear that with less players they'll probably not have dedicated servers/server browser due to it's player count and most likely matchmaking, which would most likely lag depending on the connections.

It ruined Killzone 3 with matchmaking, Killzone 2 did it better in terms of connections, I hope the same won't happen here.

mitu123

I'll wait until it's out though.

its a bit disapointing but if it works than thats good

I didn't know that about Killzone 3.:o

Yes, we should wait, it's not the end of the world after all, I have yet to lag in a PS3 exclusive though.:P

I didn't know that about Killzone 3.:o

Yes, we should wait, it's not the end of the world after all, I have yet to lag in a PS3 exclusive though.:P

mitu123

It is an upgrade actually for the player count.

BUT: I saw the gameplay previews and I was disapointed. While games are working on enhanced character movement like Brink, Battel Field 3, Crysis 2 and etc.

The characters in the multiplayer of "R3' move so dull. If you look at previews of gamplay the foot movement and body movement is very similar to what COD is offering right now. No innovation.

The single player experience will hopefully be great but I dont have big hopes for multiplayer.