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

  • 76 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for chaoz-king
chaoz-king

5956

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#1 chaoz-king
Member since 2005 • 5956 Posts

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.

Avatar image for FoolwithaLancer
FoolwithaLancer

2020

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 FoolwithaLancer
Member since 2011 • 2020 Posts
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.
Avatar image for StealthMonkey4
StealthMonkey4

7434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#3 StealthMonkey4
Member since 2009 • 7434 Posts

I like 32, perfect size IMO.

Avatar image for chaoz-king
chaoz-king

5956

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4 chaoz-king
Member since 2005 • 5956 Posts
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
I have to agree with this. I've been playing CoD 4 on the PC and these servers have a cap of 64 players and its just a nade fest it's really not that fun.
Avatar image for percech
percech

5237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 percech
Member since 2011 • 5237 Posts
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.
Avatar image for Demonjoe93
Demonjoe93

9869

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 107

User Lists: 0

#6 Demonjoe93
Member since 2009 • 9869 Posts

It all depends on the game really.

Avatar image for mrmusicman247
mrmusicman247

17601

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 mrmusicman247
Member since 2008 • 17601 Posts
Not really. As long as the map size is proportional to the number of players.
Avatar image for ChubbyGuy40
ChubbyGuy40

26442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 ChubbyGuy40
Member since 2007 • 26442 Posts

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.

Avatar image for Cranler
Cranler

8809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 Cranler
Member since 2005 • 8809 Posts

It all depends on the game really.

Demonjoe93

and size of the map

Avatar image for mirgamer
mirgamer

2489

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 mirgamer
Member since 2003 • 2489 Posts
I enjoy both small multiplayer maps and huge battles. 64? Meh, whats so big about 64? Try a 3 faction fight with 200-300+ per side on a single battlefield. lol. 64 seems big in a small map, and yes, BF 2 maps are small in comparison to larger FPS games. Its not the player count that matters the most, its the map and the number it is designed for.
Avatar image for lawlessx
lawlessx

48753

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#12 lawlessx
Member since 2004 • 48753 Posts
doesn't really matter to me
Avatar image for mirgamer
mirgamer

2489

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 mirgamer
Member since 2003 • 2489 Posts
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
If thats the case, then one should only prefer games that are designed for 1-1 or small team games like 2-2 or 4-4 at most. Now thats personal. Compared to such games, even 24 players can be argued as "overkill" and "non-personal". Truth is, nothing is overkill if the game and map are designed to support a high number of players. As many has pointed out, it really depends on the game and the design of the maps.
Avatar image for TheLordHimself
TheLordHimself

3316

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 35

User Lists: 0

#14 TheLordHimself
Member since 2005 • 3316 Posts

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.

Avatar image for NYrockinlegend
NYrockinlegend

2025

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#15 NYrockinlegend
Member since 2008 • 2025 Posts
I'd mostly stick with 32 players. 16 is fine too. R1 handled 40 players well though, but R2 with 60 was too many.
Avatar image for GTSaiyanjin2
GTSaiyanjin2

6018

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 GTSaiyanjin2
Member since 2005 • 6018 Posts

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.

Avatar image for Sharpie125
Sharpie125

3904

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

#17 Sharpie125
Member since 2005 • 3904 Posts

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.

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
NoodleFighter

11826

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 NoodleFighter
Member since 2011 • 11826 Posts

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

Avatar image for brickdoctor
brickdoctor

9746

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 156

User Lists: 0

#19 brickdoctor
Member since 2008 • 9746 Posts

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.

Avatar image for JohnF111
JohnF111

14190

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#20 JohnF111
Member since 2010 • 14190 Posts
I don't care, i like small and large it just depends what mood i'm in which i want to play at the time. MAG was great because there were people everywhere on the map so you never had a direction to travel to find enemies unlike CoD where once you know the spawn points you can get 4 kills with a well timed grenade.
Avatar image for skrat_01
skrat_01

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 skrat_01
Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts
Depends on the design of the game. If you're playing a 64 player map on a tiny map, which is obviously not suited to that player count or game design, and not enjoying it then why are you doing so?
Avatar image for FPSDad1161
FPSDad1161

814

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 FPSDad1161
Member since 2011 • 814 Posts
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.
Avatar image for hypoty
hypoty

2825

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 hypoty
Member since 2009 • 2825 Posts

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.

Avatar image for campzor
campzor

34932

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 campzor
Member since 2004 • 34932 Posts
na i like smaller player counts.. 32 is the MAX i would like. But overall i think 16-18 is the sweet spot
Avatar image for Chris_Williams
Chris_Williams

14882

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 Chris_Williams
Member since 2009 • 14882 Posts

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

Avatar image for Nintendo_Ownes7
Nintendo_Ownes7

30973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#26 Nintendo_Ownes7
Member since 2005 • 30973 Posts

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

Avatar image for Arach666
Arach666

23285

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

#27 Arach666
Member since 2009 • 23285 Posts

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

Avatar image for MetroidPrimePwn
MetroidPrimePwn

12399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#28 MetroidPrimePwn
Member since 2007 • 12399 Posts

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

Avatar image for arto1223
arto1223

4412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#29 arto1223
Member since 2005 • 4412 Posts

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.

Avatar image for skrat_01
skrat_01

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 skrat_01
Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts
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
You're talking about the platform with far more low player count games, and titles like Counter Strike in which half the meta-game is the trash talk an rivalries. But it has to be a PC versus console point right?
Avatar image for el3m2tigre
el3m2tigre

4232

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31 el3m2tigre
Member since 2007 • 4232 Posts

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

This pretty much.

Avatar image for nutcrackr
nutcrackr

13032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 72

User Lists: 1

#32 nutcrackr
Member since 2004 • 13032 Posts
Depends on the size of the levels, the frequency of spawns. 64 players on a large battlefield is a damn fine experience.
Avatar image for commonfate
commonfate

13320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 commonfate
Member since 2010 • 13320 Posts

Depends on map sizes.

64 players on something like NukeTown would suck.

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

Avatar image for deactivated-6243ee9902175
deactivated-6243ee9902175

5847

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 deactivated-6243ee9902175
Member since 2007 • 5847 Posts

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

Avatar image for ChubbyGuy40
ChubbyGuy40

26442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 ChubbyGuy40
Member since 2007 • 26442 Posts

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.

Avatar image for ShadowDragon78
ShadowDragon78

371

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#36 ShadowDragon78
Member since 2011 • 371 Posts

[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
I have to agree with this. I've been playing CoD 4 on the PC and these servers have a cap of 64 players and its just a nade fest it's really not that fun.

Yep, I also play it on PC and it's usually raining grenades, mods are pretty cool though

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
AmazonTreeBoa

16745

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 AmazonTreeBoa
Member since 2011 • 16745 Posts

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.

Avatar image for AcidSoldner
AcidSoldner

7051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 AcidSoldner
Member since 2007 • 7051 Posts
Depends on the game and how well it works. With games like MAG, 256 players works wonderfully with the map sizes and mechanics particular to MAG; large scale infantry based combat. Halo, Call of Duty and Counter-Strike work well with its smaller player counts as it keeps it more personal. Battlefield games have always had that healthy medium with 64 players, and more recently the 24 player count on the console versions of BC2, on its big vehicle centric maps. Then you have games like Resistance 2 that have high player counts (64) for no other reason than having it. It was just a giant cluster **** that wasn't all that fun to play.
Avatar image for jonathant5
jonathant5

873

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 jonathant5
Member since 2010 • 873 Posts

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

Chris_Williams
Ironically camping has never been a huge issue in these large games, at least in Battlefield (1942 till 2142) as well as MAG. Never had trouble with campers in those games even though the playercount is huge. Reason for that was because the maps were designed well in order to accommodate these large battles. On the other hand, camping is a huge problem in the CoD games, even though the gaes have around 12-16 people in it. I like choice, if I was playing CS or Halo or KZ2, definatly gimme less people because with too many people the games get way too chaotic. But with something like BF and MaG, gimme the 64+ players and Im happy. I like choice.
Avatar image for jonathant5
jonathant5

873

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 jonathant5
Member since 2010 • 873 Posts
[QUOTE="AcidSoldner"]Depends on the game and how well it works. With games like MAG, 256 players works wonderfully with the map sizes and mechanics particular to MAG; large scale infantry based combat. Halo, Call of Duty and Counter-Strike work well with its smaller player counts as it keeps it more personal. Battlefield games have always had that healthy medium with 64 players, and more recently the 24 player count on the console versions of BC2, on its big vehicle centric maps. Then you have games like Resistance 2 that have high player counts (64) for no other reason than having it. It was just a giant cluster **** that wasn't all that fun to play.

Agreed, R1 had a decent multiplayer and was fun (although by no means was it good, but it was decent enough). R2 on the other hand was terrible, way too many people at once and the games just chaotic and turned into spam fests. R2 imo is way over rated, on the other hand MAG is quite under rated, its actually a really great MP game.
Avatar image for commonfate
commonfate

13320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 commonfate
Member since 2010 • 13320 Posts

[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]

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

jonathant5

Ironically camping has never been a huge issue in these large games, at least in Battlefield (1942 till 2142) as well as MAG. Never had trouble with campers in those games even though the playercount is huge. Reason for that was because the maps were designed well in order to accommodate these large battles. On the other hand, camping is a huge problem in the CoD games, even though the gaes have around 12-16 people in it. I like choice, if I was playing CS or Halo or KZ2, definatly gimme less people because with too many people the games get way too chaotic. But with something like BF and MaG, gimme the 64+ players and Im happy. I like choice.

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.

Avatar image for Lord_Nas3k
Lord_Nas3k

1492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 Lord_Nas3k
Member since 2006 • 1492 Posts

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.

Avatar image for jettpack
jettpack

3192

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#43 jettpack
Member since 2009 • 3192 Posts

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

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
DragonfireXZ95

26655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#44 DragonfireXZ95
Member since 2005 • 26655 Posts
Usually I prefer more people, 64 players on BF2 was so fun, as was 32 people in BC2. I can't wait for BF3 by the way.
Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
DragonfireXZ95

26655

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 DragonfireXZ95
Member since 2005 • 26655 Posts

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

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

commonfate

Ironically camping has never been a huge issue in these large games, at least in Battlefield (1942 till 2142) as well as MAG. Never had trouble with campers in those games even though the playercount is huge. Reason for that was because the maps were designed well in order to accommodate these large battles. On the other hand, camping is a huge problem in the CoD games, even though the gaes have around 12-16 people in it. I like choice, if I was playing CS or Halo or KZ2, definatly gimme less people because with too many people the games get way too chaotic. But with something like BF and MaG, gimme the 64+ players and Im happy. I like choice.

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.

That's why team based objective maps are the best anyway. Team deathmatch is usually so boring to me. Probably why I hate CoD games, because everyone just plays even the objective based matches like TDM.
Avatar image for Kevz0
Kevz0

550

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 Kevz0
Member since 2010 • 550 Posts

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

Avatar image for Iantheone
Iantheone

8242

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 Iantheone
Member since 2007 • 8242 Posts
I love large games. Spent a lot of time in 64 player COD4. I didnt camp either. There is no feeling in gaming more rewarding than pushing back a massive team to the point where your spans have switched sides.
Avatar image for silversix_
silversix_

26347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 silversix_
Member since 2010 • 26347 Posts
A lot, yes. Don't care if its better to have 64players over 24 but i want to have the freaking option. Sometimes i love chaotic gameplay over strategic one.
Avatar image for dachase
dachase

808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 dachase
Member since 2005 • 808 Posts

[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
I have to agree with this. I've been playing CoD 4 on the PC and these servers have a cap of 64 players and its just a nade fest it's really not that fun.

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

Avatar image for ManicAce
ManicAce

3267

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 0

#50 ManicAce
Member since 2009 • 3267 Posts
Generally I liked more. I hate empty maps and more players gives opportunity to use different tactics, spreads out the battle and keeps it more varied. The only less than 32 player FPS I've played regularly is America's Army, for that kind of game with no respawns it does work.