Commented on 2009-09-04 16:42:52 In reply to plmko
I'm not gonna buy/build a gaming pc for this game!
My ps3 is hooked up to a projector and a 92" screen, so I'm gonna stick with that setup. It just blows my mind how one company can squeeze 256 players onto a map, but another maxes out at 8. It's pathetic. I'm not asking for miracles, just 32 players.
Commented on 2009-09-04 16:50:07 In reply to LHL2500
Posted by LHL2500
It just blows my mind how one company can squeeze 256 players onto a map, but another maxes out at 8. It's pathetic. I'm not asking for miracles, just 32 players.
I think you haven't got any idea what you are talking about...
MAG is a MMO shooter, which seems very arcady
OFP2 is a realistic military shooter which includes stuff like bullet physics and realistic looking/sounding/working weapons
MAG and OFP2 are 2 totally different games, like comparing apple's and pears
Commented on 2009-09-04 17:05:53 In reply to LHL2500
Posted by LHL2500
I'm not gonna buy/build a gaming pc for this game!
My ps3 is hooked up to a projector and a 92" screen, so I'm gonna stick with that setup. It just blows my mind how one company can squeeze 256 players onto a map, but another maxes out at 8. It's pathetic. I'm not asking for miracles, just 32 players.
totally different types of games. Its doubtfull you're going to be in a huge world with just 8 players.. though i'm sure codemasters said it would be 8 per team.. meaning 16players for console. If not then you can probably expect AI troops, or cornered off sections of the world ect.. besides 4player co-op will be where this shines in multi
And Mag will make alot of scarifices for those 256 players.. most obvious in its visual downgrade for a start. Plus you'll likely to see no more action than you would in say cod4 with its condensed maps..as you're not going to be seeing those 256 (thought mag was supposed to be 300players?) players on your screen at the same time.
Commented on 2009-09-04 17:38:19 In reply to FireWire
Posted by FireWire
OFP2 is a realistic military shooter which includes stuff like bullet physics and realistic looking/sounding/working weapons
4 on 4 combat is not realistic, given the fact that, this is the US vs. China on a 220 square kilometer island.
The size of the battlefield is something that they emphasize allot.
But a large map with 4 vs. 4 players seems (to me) like a poor choice in use of the consoles abilities.
My biggest fear for this game, would be that i ends up with 4 snipers camping out in each end of the map. :(
Personally I think a game should never have better graphics than game-play. Sure, I'm all for realistic lighting /bullet-drop/ wind effect, but not at the expense of good game-play.
I would only be playing the on-line multi player part of the game, because I find the story (if any) kinda thin.
But let's see what the reviews says when it's released.
As far as me not knowing what I'm talking about: Have YOU actually played any of the games FireWire? If so, please let us know what you think of them.
I wasn't comparing the actual games, just the amount of players.
If Codemasters needs too dial back shadow detail or the texture detail on trees, to allow for more players, then they should do so. Then all the purists can play on PC's, and get all the pretty graphics they want. I for one would rather have 32 players, than pretty trees with pretty shadows.
But hey , that just me.
Commented on 2009-09-04 17:59:22 In reply to bleachedsmiles
Posted by bleachedsmiles
Its doubtfull you're going to be in a huge world with just 8 players.. though i'm sure codemasters said it would be 8 per team.. meaning 16players for console.
From OFDR homepage:
"Extensive PVP and Co-Op support, with options to play through the campaign co-operatively with up to 3 friends, as well as varied multiplayer PVP game modes catering for up to 8 players on console and 32 players on PC."
Maximum 8 players.
I had just hoped for a nice big, sand box, realistic fps.
Something along the lines of Battlefield 2 (but without the bugs ;o)), but i guess that only in the pc realm.
I'm currently playing Battlefield 1943. It's a bit to basic for my taste. Maybe I'll switch back to KZ2.
Do any of you know any other good multiplayer shooters?
Preferably large maps?
Fair enough. But given 16 vs 16 players on a large map, with multiple ojectives, that wouldn't occur.
They allow 32 players on PC, so i assume the maps are designed for that many players?
Maby the problem is that it was designed for pc, and they had to dial it down for the consoles, due to issues that occurred during porting. Who knows.
Given that this is modern warfare and this is a flashpoint, 4v4 is quite realistic as both parties would be denied full scale support and would be sending out recon to harass each other.
Commented on 2009-09-05 09:21:30 In reply to LHL2500
Posted by LHL2500
I'm not gonna buy/build a gaming pc for this game!
My ps3 is hooked up to a projector and a 92" screen, so I'm gonna stick with that setup. It just blows my mind how one company can squeeze 256 players onto a map, but another maxes out at 8. It's pathetic. I'm not asking for miracles, just 32 players.
It's an infrastructure thing. MAG is no doubt hosted on dedicated servers.. I doubt the console version of Operation Flashpoint 2 is.
Commented on 2009-09-05 10:52:23 In reply to GriftGFX
Posted by GriftGFX
It's an infrastructure thing. MAG is no doubt hosted on dedicated servers.. I doubt the console version of Operation Flashpoint 2 is.
OK. That explanation makes allot of sense.
You think the console-owners will be hosting their own games.
That would indeed bring down the amount of players, ass it would depend on the host's Internet connection speed.
I believe it's the same case for Warhawk. If you host your own game, the amount of players in the game is dependent on your connection speed.
Commented on 2009-09-05 11:13:18 In reply to LHL2500
Posted by LHL2500
4 on 4 combat is not realistic, given the fact that, this is the US vs. China on a 220 square kilometer island.
The size of the battlefield is something that they emphasize allot.
But a large map with 4 vs. 4 players seems (to me) like a poor choice in use of the consoles abilities.
My biggest fear for this game, would be that i ends up with 4 snipers camping out in each end of the map. :(
Personally I think a game should never have better graphics than game-play. Sure, I'm all for realistic lighting /bullet-drop/ wind effect, but not at the expense of good game-play.
I would only be playing the on-line multi player part of the game, because I find the story (if any) kinda thin.
But let's see what the reviews says when it's released.
As far as me not knowing what I'm talking about: Have YOU actually played any of the games FireWire? If so, please let us know what you think of them.
I wasn't comparing the actual games, just the amount of players.
If Codemasters needs too dial back shadow detail or the texture detail on trees, to allow for more players, then they should do so. Then all the purists can play on PC's, and get all the pretty graphics they want. I for one would rather have 32 players, than pretty trees with pretty shadows.
But hey , that just me.
First off all excuse me for coming at you this way.. I had a shitty day and I kinda overreacted...
Secondly I understand what you are trying to say but you must understand that MAG is a totally different game then OFP2. MAG might have a max player count up to 256, but there's no way you are actually gonna encounter that amount of players at once because that would be a massive lag fest ping wise and graphics wise...
I agree that 4v4 is a bit thin, but there might be a option to support the teams with extra AI players (still no excuse)
Commented on 2009-09-05 11:36:37 In reply to plmko
Posted by plmko
Given that this is modern warfare and this is a flashpoint, 4v4 is quite realistic as both parties would be denied full scale support and would be sending out recon to harass each other.
From OFDR homepage. (part of briefing)
"You and your fellow Marines should expect to engage scattered but heavily entrenched PLA positions."
So the opposition is spread out. But heavily entrenched is probably not 4 guys with submachine-guns.
A USMC squad most commonly consists of 12 soldiers (3 fireteams of 4 marines + 1 squad leader), i doubt the Chinese differ much in their setup.
Defending a particular area could easily take 2 or 3 squads.
Now this would be OK in co-op mode (you + 3 friends), if we assume that tis only gonna be SPEC-OPS hit 'n run type operations (even though 4 man spec-ops teams are a bit undermanned), but if you look at the trailers, you've got tanks, choppers (gunships and personnel carriers), armored carriers, etc... and the soldiers you see running around are not spec-pos, they are Marines.
Sure maybe the rest of the teammates could be filled in by bots, but it's always more fun with real humans.
I think the single player (or co-op) part of the game is gonna be better than the multiplayer.
In the end, it's a different experience for different people.
Some prefer the smaller teams and the (kinda) locked-down story-mode, others prefer bigger teams and the more open go-where-want-mode.
I'm not saying one better than the other, I just prefer the latter.
Commented on 2009-09-05 11:54:24 In reply to FireWire
Posted by FireWire
First off all excuse me for coming at you this way.. I had a shitty day and I kinda overreacted...
Secondly I understand what you are trying to say but you must understand that MAG is a totally different game then OFP2. MAG might have a max player count up to 256, but there's no way you are actually gonna encounter that amount of players at once because that would be a massive lag fest ping wise and graphics wise...
I agree that 4v4 is a bit thin, but there might be a option to support the teams with extra AI players (still no excuse)
No problem, we all have those days.
I see your point, but I just think that in their (Codemasters) quest for realism, they ended up a wrong place. I would gladly give up some of the details for more players.
I don't need to see 32 players at the time (Don't think i have ever seen 32 players simultaneously in any game), but i want them "around" taking other objectives, providing cover fire , you know "military stuff" ;o)
Immersion into the battlefield is important for realism.
It's gonna take more than beautiful lighting and shadows..
It's gonna take more than bullet dynamics and physics..
And it's gonna take more than 3 teammates.
Loakum
@Driftwood Awesome! I’m loving it! It does show a much crisper picture and the frame rate looks good! I was playing Stella Blade and Dragonball Soarkling Blast! :) (2 Weeks ago)
Driftwood
@Loakum: enjoy, the one Sony sent us will be there on launch day. Coverage will follow asap. (2 Weeks ago)
Loakum
*takes a large sip of victorious grape juice* ok….my PS5 pro arrived early! So much winning! :) (2 Weeks ago)
Driftwood
@reneyvane: non ils l'ont publié le 1er octobre et je crois que tu l'avais déjà linkée. ;) (5 Weeks ago)
reneyvane
Factornews à joué à KingdomComeDeliverance2 au Gamescom 2024 mais ne publie sa preview que maintenant ? [url] (7 Weeks ago)
CraCra
Y a un souci sur les forums ? (8 Weeks ago)
nostradamus
very few with religious beliefs are naive or zealots, but for sure don't find amusing their beliefs being thrown in for clout. maybe STFU with that discourse? (11 Weeks ago)
Driftwood
Download is now functional again on Gamersyde. Sorry for the past 53 days or so when it wasn't. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Another (French) livestream today at 2:30 CEST but you're welcome to drop by and speak English. I will gladly answer in English when I get a chance to catch a breath. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
Patreon
All comments (18)
Commented on 2009-09-04 12:42:27
Commented on 2009-09-04 12:49:19
Commented on 2009-09-04 13:19:21
Commented on 2009-09-04 14:25:32Are they joking?!?
On PC it's 32 players, which i guess is pretty standard.
But only 8 players on consoles?
I was actually considering buying this game on release day, but now I'm sure I'll never buy it.
Not sure how big the maps are in MAG, but at least they understand what multi-player is all about.
Commented on 2009-09-04 15:33:34 In reply to LHL2500MAG on the other hand is an exclusive.
Commented on 2009-09-04 16:42:52 In reply to plmkoMy ps3 is hooked up to a projector and a 92" screen, so I'm gonna stick with that setup. It just blows my mind how one company can squeeze 256 players onto a map, but another maxes out at 8. It's pathetic. I'm not asking for miracles, just 32 players.
Commented on 2009-09-04 16:50:07 In reply to LHL2500MAG is a MMO shooter, which seems very arcady
OFP2 is a realistic military shooter which includes stuff like bullet physics and realistic looking/sounding/working weapons
MAG and OFP2 are 2 totally different games, like comparing apple's and pears
Commented on 2009-09-04 17:05:53 In reply to LHL2500My ps3 is hooked up to a projector and a 92" screen, so I'm gonna stick with that setup. It just blows my mind how one company can squeeze 256 players onto a map, but another maxes out at 8. It's pathetic. I'm not asking for miracles, just 32 players.
And Mag will make alot of scarifices for those 256 players.. most obvious in its visual downgrade for a start. Plus you'll likely to see no more action than you would in say cod4 with its condensed maps..as you're not going to be seeing those 256 (thought mag was supposed to be 300players?) players on your screen at the same time.
Commented on 2009-09-04 17:38:19 In reply to FireWireThe size of the battlefield is something that they emphasize allot.
But a large map with 4 vs. 4 players seems (to me) like a poor choice in use of the consoles abilities.
My biggest fear for this game, would be that i ends up with 4 snipers camping out in each end of the map. :(
Personally I think a game should never have better graphics than game-play. Sure, I'm all for realistic lighting /bullet-drop/ wind effect, but not at the expense of good game-play.
I would only be playing the on-line multi player part of the game, because I find the story (if any) kinda thin.
But let's see what the reviews says when it's released.
As far as me not knowing what I'm talking about: Have YOU actually played any of the games FireWire? If so, please let us know what you think of them.
I wasn't comparing the actual games, just the amount of players.
If Codemasters needs too dial back shadow detail or the texture detail on trees, to allow for more players, then they should do so. Then all the purists can play on PC's, and get all the pretty graphics they want. I for one would rather have 32 players, than pretty trees with pretty shadows.
But hey , that just me.
Commented on 2009-09-04 17:59:22 In reply to bleachedsmiles"Extensive PVP and Co-Op support, with options to play through the campaign co-operatively with up to 3 friends, as well as varied multiplayer PVP game modes catering for up to 8 players on console and 32 players on PC."
Maximum 8 players.
I had just hoped for a nice big, sand box, realistic fps.
Something along the lines of Battlefield 2 (but without the bugs ;o)), but i guess that only in the pc realm.
I'm currently playing Battlefield 1943. It's a bit to basic for my taste. Maybe I'll switch back to KZ2.
Do any of you know any other good multiplayer shooters?
Preferably large maps?
Commented on 2009-09-04 18:15:26
Commented on 2009-09-04 18:32:27They allow 32 players on PC, so i assume the maps are designed for that many players?
Maby the problem is that it was designed for pc, and they had to dial it down for the consoles, due to issues that occurred during porting. Who knows.
Commented on 2009-09-05 08:47:52
Commented on 2009-09-05 09:21:30 In reply to LHL2500My ps3 is hooked up to a projector and a 92" screen, so I'm gonna stick with that setup. It just blows my mind how one company can squeeze 256 players onto a map, but another maxes out at 8. It's pathetic. I'm not asking for miracles, just 32 players.
Commented on 2009-09-05 10:52:23 In reply to GriftGFXYou think the console-owners will be hosting their own games.
That would indeed bring down the amount of players, ass it would depend on the host's Internet connection speed.
I believe it's the same case for Warhawk. If you host your own game, the amount of players in the game is dependent on your connection speed.
Commented on 2009-09-05 11:13:18 In reply to LHL2500The size of the battlefield is something that they emphasize allot.
But a large map with 4 vs. 4 players seems (to me) like a poor choice in use of the consoles abilities.
My biggest fear for this game, would be that i ends up with 4 snipers camping out in each end of the map. :(
Personally I think a game should never have better graphics than game-play. Sure, I'm all for realistic lighting /bullet-drop/ wind effect, but not at the expense of good game-play.
I would only be playing the on-line multi player part of the game, because I find the story (if any) kinda thin.
But let's see what the reviews says when it's released.
As far as me not knowing what I'm talking about: Have YOU actually played any of the games FireWire? If so, please let us know what you think of them.
I wasn't comparing the actual games, just the amount of players.
If Codemasters needs too dial back shadow detail or the texture detail on trees, to allow for more players, then they should do so. Then all the purists can play on PC's, and get all the pretty graphics they want. I for one would rather have 32 players, than pretty trees with pretty shadows.
But hey , that just me.
Secondly I understand what you are trying to say but you must understand that MAG is a totally different game then OFP2. MAG might have a max player count up to 256, but there's no way you are actually gonna encounter that amount of players at once because that would be a massive lag fest ping wise and graphics wise...
I agree that 4v4 is a bit thin, but there might be a option to support the teams with extra AI players (still no excuse)
Commented on 2009-09-05 11:36:37 In reply to plmko"You and your fellow Marines should expect to engage scattered but heavily entrenched PLA positions."
So the opposition is spread out. But heavily entrenched is probably not 4 guys with submachine-guns.
A USMC squad most commonly consists of 12 soldiers (3 fireteams of 4 marines + 1 squad leader), i doubt the Chinese differ much in their setup.
Defending a particular area could easily take 2 or 3 squads.
Now this would be OK in co-op mode (you + 3 friends), if we assume that tis only gonna be SPEC-OPS hit 'n run type operations (even though 4 man spec-ops teams are a bit undermanned), but if you look at the trailers, you've got tanks, choppers (gunships and personnel carriers), armored carriers, etc... and the soldiers you see running around are not spec-pos, they are Marines.
Sure maybe the rest of the teammates could be filled in by bots, but it's always more fun with real humans.
I think the single player (or co-op) part of the game is gonna be better than the multiplayer.
In the end, it's a different experience for different people.
Some prefer the smaller teams and the (kinda) locked-down story-mode, others prefer bigger teams and the more open go-where-want-mode.
I'm not saying one better than the other, I just prefer the latter.
Commented on 2009-09-05 11:54:24 In reply to FireWireSecondly I understand what you are trying to say but you must understand that MAG is a totally different game then OFP2. MAG might have a max player count up to 256, but there's no way you are actually gonna encounter that amount of players at once because that would be a massive lag fest ping wise and graphics wise...
I agree that 4v4 is a bit thin, but there might be a option to support the teams with extra AI players (still no excuse)
I see your point, but I just think that in their (Codemasters) quest for realism, they ended up a wrong place. I would gladly give up some of the details for more players.
I don't need to see 32 players at the time (Don't think i have ever seen 32 players simultaneously in any game), but i want them "around" taking other objectives, providing cover fire , you know "military stuff" ;o)
Immersion into the battlefield is important for realism.
It's gonna take more than beautiful lighting and shadows..
It's gonna take more than bullet dynamics and physics..
And it's gonna take more than 3 teammates.