what happened to ---up to 32 players???

Is Halo 3 only 4 on 4? I thought it was going to be up to 16 on a side? what happened?Spinbrett

no, 16 total. 8 on 8

BTB is 16 TOTAL. and if 32 would be possible it would lag so bad it would be sick. it never was 32 wherer did u hear that from ur mom?:lol:

since were on p2p the lag is worse then that of dedicated servers. so they usually restrict it to 16

the back of the halo 3 box says up tp 32 players......did they mislead us? hmmmmmmSpinbrett

BTB is 16 TOTAL. and if 32 would be possible it would lag so bad it would be sick. it never was 32 wherer did u hear that from ur mom?:lol:

seventy5cent832

[QUOTE="seventy5cent832"]

BTB is 16 TOTAL. and if 32 would be possible it would lag so bad it would be sick. it never was 32 wherer did u hear that from ur mom?:lol:

ctfvyrsgurbnorn

Yeah its two to sixteen. I wouldn't mind playing against more than five though for the Lone Wolves variant.

I will never understand why people equate the number of players in a match with the quality and fun of the match. That to me is simple minded and in some cases goes against logic. First off, in order for a 32 person match to be fun, the maps would have to be huge. And I mean huge as in over twice the size of anything in halo 3. Up to 8 vs 8 is just fine and actually ideal for xbox live.

Same as people who would complain about PGR3 only having 8 players per race. Do you really want to race against 32 people on a small track? Imagine the Nurbugring (however you spell it) track with 16 people on it. Give me a break....8 players for that game was PERFECT. Yet...some people still see it as a flaw. Uggh.

even though im fine with 16 players, i do enjoy a little more, anywhere from 24 to 64. But like everyone said its not dedicated servers so it would lag. I have PS3 and PC though so I'm good for 32+ player games.

If they had gotten rid of the matchmaking and just made a ton of dedicated servers they probably could've had 32+ players in one game.

They didn't though. Like that though they would've had to make most of the maps alot larger to accomodate 32 or more players.

The game is 8v8 though...not 4v4.

We all know that eventually halo will get an update where new maps will be included, some of which could possible HUGE. In this case, they might change the player limit depending on map.

Like 16 players max on normal maps and 32 players on HUGE maps

idk, that would be pretty cool, along with an update with some new armors which would be AWESOME POSSUM

I will never understand why people equate the number of players in a match with the quality and fun of the match.

gnomegnasher

Agreed

I've been playing Call of Duty 3 online and we have like 20+ people playing at a time. Lag is not an issue with that many players most of the time, and CoD3's graphics are way better than Halo (lots of grass, flowers, debris, etc.).

But yeah, Halo 3 is still fun as hell even on the ranked matches where you have only 4 vs. 4.

The current leader is R:FOM with a total of 40 players, they do however have the benefit of dedicated servers which helps alot.teebeenz

yea it does. not to troll but resistance online is insane 40 player plus 10 player spectator and no noticable lag is very nice. I wish 360 did the same thing, or at least found a way to minimalize (sp) host advantage. makes it unfair in smaller games.

Well many ppl here seem to directely attack more players in games. which is stupid in many ways. Since its all depends on the game. Halo 3 was made for 16 players. so it makes sence to make smaller maps etc. Thats not to say that it would not be fun with larger maps and 32 players ;). However as Halo is now it just fine its designed for 16 players at thats great. However i cant imagine playing Battlefield with only 16 players thats simply to little imo. And when i play TF2 (i play it on pc) i only join maps with 16+ players on. TF2 tends to cap with 24 players wich it fine. Battlefield is best with 24+ players preferably 32+. I once played El Alamein map in battlefield 1942 with 64 players. that was a blast you really got a feeling of being part of an epic battle.

Thats why i will get frontlines to pc since it features 64 players :D while the console versions "only" features 32 players. While it is bound to be fun with 32 players i would like the oppertunity to enter some massive battlefields. It just doesent make sense why Microsoft or Sony doesent ad the oppertunity to dedicated servers like you see on PC. where you enter a browser and join a server that seems to be running what you want (you can choose the map number of players etc). Well wont want to explaine more. the majority of this board proberly allready know how a typical pc game works online. and im just saying it could work like that on the consoles also. in conjunction with the p2p system wich also have some superior features compared to the typical pc system.

The current leader is R:FOM with a total of 40 players, they do however have the benefit of dedicated servers which helps alot.teebeenz

If your talking about this gen then yes for RFOM having most players online. If your talking all time then no. I believe Battlefield 2 has up to 64 players in one match.

The current leader is R:FOM with a total of 40 players, they do however have the benefit of dedicated servers which helps alot.teebeenz

sorry GARBAGE games dont count, and BTW, Battlefield has 64, so your wrong.

How about one on one, there shouldnt be much lag there.

[QUOTE="teebeenz"]The current leader is R:FOM with a total of 40 players, they do however have the benefit of dedicated servers which helps alot.axes03

sorry GARBAGE games dont count, and BTW, Battlefield has 64, so your wrong.

Except Resistance isn't garbage and tons and tons of people agree and play it non stop all day. Regardless of your like or dislike for the game, the game lets you play with 40 players absolutely lag free and it's fun as hell. This is coming from someone who usually likes smaller matches. Argue all you want that Resistance sucks, the fact of the matter is it achieves great things in it's online gameplay and for free.

Also, if you're talking about Battlefield for the PC, I fail to see how it's relevant when we are talking about consoles. We all know that PCs surpass consoles in most ways, but we are talking about consoles.

Resistance Fall of Man for PS3 is 32players :lol::roll:pdias_92

No, it's 40.

[QUOTE="axes03"]

[QUOTE="teebeenz"]The current leader is R:FOM with a total of 40 players, they do however have the benefit of dedicated servers which helps alot.nyc05

sorry GARBAGE games dont count, and BTW, Battlefield has 64, so your wrong.

Except Resistance isn't garbage and tons and tons of people agree and play it non stop all day. Regardless of your like or dislike for the game, the game lets you play with 40 players absolutely lag free and it's fun as hell. This is coming from someone who usually likes smaller matches. Argue all you want that Resistance sucks, the fact of the matter is it achieves great things in it's online gameplay and for free.

Also, if you're talking about Battlefield for the PC, I fail to see how it's relevant when we are talking about consoles. We all know that PCs surpass consoles in most ways, but we are talking about consoles.

Bungie has dedicated servers...and I lag in Resistance all the time...