Would Halo3 or TF2 be better if it was 32 max vs the current 16max?

Are these 2 engines showing their ages? For a next-gen game, shouldn't they both by 32 max (at least). I was bummed when I found out TF2 is only 16 max. I thought it would be 32max.

I don't know if I will be getting the orange box like I planned cause I like 28+ gamer.

discuss.

Are these2 engines showing their ages? For a next-gen game, shouldn't theyboth by 32max (at least). I was bummed when Ifound out TF2 isonly 16max. Ithought it would be 32max.

I don't know if I will be getting the orange box like I planned cause I like 28+gamer.

discuss.

gamenux

Depending on the game style. Halo offers 16 player max but most games still prefer the tight competitiveness of 4 vs 4. I believe its more fun. Unless handled properly, most 32 player games and beyond turn into a noobfest where the outcome of the game is no longer in your hands.

I've been on some 24 player servers playing TF2. Edit: On the PC.br0kenrabbit

[QUOTE="gamenux"]

Are these2 engines showing their ages? For a next-gen game, shouldn't theyboth by 32max (at least). I was bummed when Ifound out TF2 isonly 16max. Ithought it would be 32max.

I don't know if I will be getting the orange box like I planned cause I like 28+gamer.

discuss.

RaveRabbid

Depending on the game style. Halo offers 16 player max but most games still prefer the tight competitiveness of 4 vs 4. I believe its more fun. Unless handled properly, most 32 player games and beyond turn into a noobfest where the outcome of the game is no longer in your hands.

True. I just prefer larger games cause War is always and should be hectic. Noobs are like pedestrians, they get in the way and create confusion for the game and I like that feeling of chaos. Make it a bit more realistic and fun for a game.

Some games are funner with less people. Also I've seen 24 on the PC version of TF2.
KrazyKenKutarag

How is 24 on PC? details, details...

[QUOTE="KrazyKenKutarag"]Some games are funner with less people. Also I've seen 24 on the PC version of TF2.
gamenux

How is 24 on PC? details, details...

How does it play? A but more hectic but not as much as some would think, definatly more action. I personally feel 16 people is the sweet spot.

More players don't make a better game. Halo is perfect with 16 players anythign more and it will be a boring frag fest with no teamwork. COD2 has 64 players on PC and it is just horrible.Deihmos

No, but it can be better than any 8 vs 8 game. More options = good. CoD2 doesn't work well with 64 players,but any Tribes game, Joint Strike Ops, Red Orchestra or Armed Assault/Operation Flashpoint work very well with 32 vs 32 or sometimes even 64 vs 64. It's nice to have a war-like atmosphere and tactics, which Halo will never be able to deliver

It all depends on a game, but bigger player limit is always a good thing.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]I've been on some 24 player servers playing TF2. Edit: On the PC.gamenux

Actually its the perfect amount. I think there are 32 servers now also.

I was a ladder player back when tribes was awesome and the (32+) was usually just pug servers with crappy players that I dominated for fun. Could be different now since everything is moving into casual land.

TF2 has 24 players on the PC, and with that many people, it gets a bit hectic. Not totally chaotic, but pretty close. 16 would probably be a better number. sonicmj1

Wrong? there are 9 classes in the game. If there are 8 players on a team that means EPIC fail.

[QUOTE="br0kenrabbit"]I've been on some 24 player servers playing TF2. Edit: On the PC.gamenux

Wrong? there are 9 classes in the game. If there are 8 players on a team that means EPIC fail.

coolmonkeykid

It all depends on the game design. Would basketball be more fun if it was 10 on 10?

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]More players don't make a better game. Halo is perfect with 16 players anythign more and it will be a boring frag fest with no teamwork. COD2 has 64 players on PC and it is just horrible.AdrianWerner

No, but it can be better than any 8 vs 8 game. More options = good. CoD2 doesn't work well with 64 players,but any Tribes game, Joint Strike Ops, Red Orchestra or Armed Assault/Operation Flashpoint work very well with 32 vs 32 or sometimes even 64 vs 64. It's nice to have a war-like atmosphere and tactics, which Halo will never be able to deliver

It all depends on a game, but bigger player limit is always a good thing.

Halo is not that kind of game. WOuldn't work well with so many players 8 - 16 is perfect. Battlefield works well with 64 playersbut you cannot communicate with all the team members only the 6 players in your squad. Imagine if you would communicate with everyone?

Halo is not that kind of game. WOuldn't work well with so many players 8 - 16 is perfect.

Deihmos

nope..that's just lame excuse. Halo takes place in big open ended areas with lots of vehicle action, it would be a LOT better if it had at least 32 players limit

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]

Halo is not that kind of game. WOuldn't work well with so many players 8 - 16 is perfect.

AdrianWerner

nope..that's just lame excuse. Halo takes place in big open ended areas with lots of vehicle action, it would be a LOT better if it had at least 32 players limit

there are only a few big maps. the best maps are the smaller ones.

I don't think it's about the engine. Halo just wouldn't work with these Battalion sized teams.Spartan070

That is a sweet video right there.

I think AdrianWerner said it best, having a lot of players in a game that can handle it is nice since it adds to the war-like atmosphere. I should have added that to my last post about enjoying large scale battles. I enjoy chaos in my FPS for the most part, i have actually gotten use to it to the point where i plan my attack around it... which sounds odd since it should be impossible to plan anything when there so much chaos involve.

Also, small scale FPS matches always bring me out of the game. Lets say we have a CoD game, where its only 16 players online, and the maps are the usually sort (towns, battlefields, etc). This would bring me out of the game in the sense there wouldn't be enough people to make the match seem like a war. A game is a game, but when am playing it i don't want it to feel like a game.

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]

Halo is not that kind of game. WOuldn't work well with so many players 8 - 16 is perfect.

AdrianWerner

nope..that's just lame excuse. Halo takes place in big open ended areas with lots of vehicle action, it would be a LOT better if it had at least 32 players limit

couldn't agree more. Than again, Halo multi leaves much to be desired anyway in my opinion, especially compared to games that have been out for ages, ie..Tribes, TFC and of course BF.

Are these 2 engines showing their ages? For a next-gen game, shouldn't they both by 32 max (at least). I was bummed when I found out TF2 is only 16 max. I thought it would be 32max.

I don't know if I will be getting the orange box like I planned cause I like 28+ gamer.

discuss.

gamenux

i thought 16 for halo 3 was low but after playing games of even 8 players in a match, its a riot lol 32 players would be way too much

Personally i prefer 32 vs 32 matches. CoD2 was able to do that, and that game came out years ago.Zor

On the PC... not on the 360.

[QUOTE="Zor"]Personally i prefer 32 vs 32 matches. CoD2 was able to do that, and that game came out years ago.Funkyhamster

On the PC... not on the 360.

You should try a 64 player game in cod2. It's a lame frag fest.

64-player CoD2 is rather pointless, can't go anywhere without getting instantly shot.

As for 16-player games, it has always felt like the perfect amount for consoles, but on the PC, 32 player seems more..suited for some reason. In TF2, it is more frantic than it's console counterpart but that is what the game was intended to be, plus it manages to be as frantic as TFC without the incessant grenade spamming.

I guess the frenzy would immerse you more, like others have said; the 'war' feeling.

Having more players doesn't make the experience better, it all depends on what player counts the maps and mechanics are designed to accomodate.TyrantDragon55

[QUOTE="Funkyhamster"]

[QUOTE="Zor"]Personally i prefer 32 vs 32 matches. CoD2 was able to do that, and that game came out years ago.Deihmos

On the PC... not on the 360.

You should try a 64 player game in cod2. It's a lame frag fest.

[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]Having more players doesn't make the experience better, it all depends on what player counts the maps and mechanics are designed to accomodate.peacebringer

Halo actually has some decent sized maps, 16 players seems like enough to me considering the map size. I wouldn't know for sure because I don't go into the larger battles, I prefer 4 v.s. 4 team slayer games and 5 player free-for-alls.

More players don't make a better game. Halo is perfect with 16 players anythign more and it will be a boring frag fest with no teamwork. COD2 has 64 players on PC and it is just horrible.Deihmos

[QUOTE="peacebringer"][QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]Having more players doesn't make the experience better, it all depends on what player counts the maps and mechanics are designed to accomodate.TyrantDragon55

Halo actually has some decent sized maps, 16 players seems like enough to me considering the map size. I wouldn't know for sure because I don't go into the larger battles, I prefer 4 v.s. 4 team slayer games and 5 player free-for-alls.

That really sucks consoles can only have 16 players, you can't even have every player on your team being all the classes. This really sucks for alot of reasons. Pyro is an unpopular class, when you only have 16 people playing, you're less likely to have a pyro, or a medic.

Seems it would also be difficult to be a spy (one of the most fun classes in the game), since there are less people, you will be picked out and shot quite easily. They get picked out enough with 32 people playing, let alone 16.

You guys shouldn't be defending the less players per server decision, you're really missing out.