| J_Allard said:
Oh wait, it's silly to tie player count to hardware. |
Yes, it is about balancing the game to the maps and what is going on. Example being Halo, CoD, Medal of Honor, Counterstrike, Gears, and tis list goes on for similar amount of players.
Killzone and Halo have dona pretty good job with big team matches but Halo also is superb with smaller games. Why is because they have seperate maps for them.
Battlefield is huge and doesnt work well with smaller matches because they arent well designed. Also having such big matches led to issues with op snipers. Because of this they nerfed the shit out of snipers and are now meh in the game.
The only other game that had a similar player count was MAG and it didnt turn out so hot.
In the end what im trying to say is that player count is based off the design of the game and removing all the fanwars people know this. This is why 4v4 , 5v5, 6v6, and 8v8 has been vastly popular forever now. More so than any other format actually.
Just as Killzone and CoD works different, Killzone and BF works different.
I for one prefer the anywhere between 4v4 to 12v12 personally. It allows for more tactical approaches and well designed maps. 16v16 has proven to be chaotic at times, and 32v32 leads to poorly designed maps with snipers hiding in the back doing nothing to help their teams.
