Ill stick with Counter Strike thank you ^___^

I can't help wondering what the reaction of PS360 owners would be if they were told that due to the amount of Wii's around, all games would now be in 480p and would require motion controllers.

Wow I love how console players don't try to understand and even kind of insults PC players....

Hey let's make all multiplat games with Wii graphics, how about it? (oh yeah that's a stupid example not at all akin to the way PC players feel about this ^^)

It's like they developed the game on the Wii then ported the exact same game over to the Xbox 360 and PS3, but take that up one notch in the food chain.  Do you really think 360 and PS3 games should be limited by what the Wii is capable of handling?  In the same way, the PC game should not be limited to what the PS3 and 360 are capable of handling. 

Edit:  This argument was so obvious everybody else already thought of it.  And they do owe the PC community everything -- they'd be nothing without their PC roots.

I like the changes...

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.

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.

Yep pretty much all this. I have played games on the PC multiplayer for years but I have never liked using servers. Having a server for ventrillo is a PITA enough for me. I don't care about latency, I don't care about coming to a specific server and playing the people there. All I want to do is hit that quick search button and find a game in under 30s.

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.

PC gamers made COD popular! There would be no COD without the PC.

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.