JaggedSac said:
psychoBrew said:
JaggedSac said:
Squilliam said:
I like the changes...  |
I agree. More than 16 and things are more likely to get chaotic and unorganized, unless you are in a clan match, and especially in a game like CoD where the maps are not really open, and there isn't any squad based support(aka, Battlefield). Tribes, Battlefield, UT2004(for some modes), those games need large numbers of players to fill up the battlefields and not seem empty. They were designed for large numbers. People seem to forget that having more players does not make a game better. In fact, that is just silly. Pong would be much better with 30 people playing at once. ZOMG.
Player count should revolve around a game's design, not a platform's capabilities.
|
Player count should revolve around the number of players people want to play with. Don't like 32v32? Make your own game or join one with a player limmit you like.
The problem with 9v9 multiplayer limmit is it's going to feel so ameture on the PC. The game was obviously designed for consoles due to all the limmitations they put on it, which means it will be a below average PC FPS.
|
I disagree, player count should revolve around the game's mechanics and maps. If IW makes a really taut small squad combat game, I don't think they should be forced to provide mechanics to organize a large 32v32 game.
A 32v32 CoD match is a spawn and grenade spam fest. A 32v32 Battlefield game is a completely different story.
|
The point is let the players decide. You do think people have brains and are capable of making decisions for something as simple as what is fun, don't you? If a group of people feel like goofing off with 32v32 on a map designed for 9v9, who is that hurting? These restrictions are typical console bs and don't belong on the PC. I can't believe you support IW for thinking they know how to make someone have fun better than the individual can figure it out on their own.
In any case, maps designed for 9v9 are not very good for PC standards.
