Monday, 29 August 2011

Modern Warfare 3 Deals A Blow To Its Competitors With Rumored 32 Players

Unofficial sources have revealed that MW3 will include game modes with player counts up to 32 players in one lobby. More focus on medium to long range combat engagements support the rumors of the increased max player count.

If indeed this appears to be the case, alongside 60fps gameplay, MW3 has a real king of console shooters this fall and I believe that this will truly give EA and DICE the backseat this holiday season in the FPS genre.

DICE have been criticised by console fans for failing to deliver on what they thought would be a logical progression in player count from previous Battlefield outings on the consoles. However, that did not seem feasible with the new Frostbite 2.0 engine shaping DICE's vision for a 'next-gen shooter' on current-gen hardware (PC withstanding).

I still stand firm with the view that a proper sequel to Battlefield 2 on this generation of consoles was not an ideal direction for EA to take, but the industry wants what it wants.

With COD featuring 32 players, it could full well mean that MW3 will have more of a 'Battlefield' atmosphere on consoles than Battlefield 3 itself will. From a casual perspective, I can easily see those looking at the labels of both games choosing MW3 over BF3 for their holiday purchase. I mean, who wouldn't want 60fps + 32 players over 30fps + 24 players? It's not like the full capabilities of the new Frostbite engine will be fully explored anyway except with top tier gaming PCs.

The one hurdle COD as a series needs to jump is the online connection. MW3 will NOT have dedicated servers on consoles. BF3 will have dedicated servers, just as the previous two Battlefield games have enjoyed.

Seeing as though the game often struggles with P2P connections on Ground War game modes hosting only 18 players, you have to wonder what solutions MW3 will have for an extra 14 players and whether it will be playable at all.

I'll see just how much of a Battlefield game BF3 will be come the beta, which is due to be arriving very soon. As a gamer, personally a good Battlefield game, rather, a faithful Battlefield game that doesn't play like a bad Call of Duty game is all it takes to part with my cash.

MW3 is shaping up to be a real heavyweight and will be unfazed by EA's effort to snag part of the market.


  1. Console MW3 with 32 players?
    This will be impossible with 60FPS, let alone on a P2P connection. PC on the other hand will get dedicated servers and they will have no limit, but CoD maps aren't meant for that many players to start with.

    BF3 has dedicated servers on consoles and PC.
    FB2 destruction/lighting/sound will still be amazing on consoles.

  2. You could full well be correct that the rumors were based on the PC version.

    But about FB2, what plenty of people have noted is the muddy textures in the co-op PS3 footage that didnt look amazing. I have read previews of the xbox 360 version highlighting that there was still a ways to go in making it look good.

    Until we see some footage for the 360 version that DICE have still kept in wraps, we may be lucky to even have BF3 end up looking as good as Bad Company 2.

    I know some people would be happy with that result, but personally, with no significant progression in graphics, why market a new engine right? I hope I am wrong and we are treated to something special on the consoles.

  3. Sure, because putting 32 players in a map the size of my bathroom sounds like such a good idea...-.-
    besides, you would barely notice the difference between 30 and 60 fps.

  4. The difference between 30fps and 60fps is quite noticeable. Some sites sample them side by side and it is clear imo. One thing DICE have done right is to ensure that the framerate is consistent. You get used to 30fps and it isnt an issue at all, unless you are constantly switching between COD and Battlefield. Homefront for example had an inconsistent frame rate which made me feel ill and I couldnt play it for extended periods of time.

  5. I still don't think CoD would run at 60FPS at all with 32 players running around in a shoebox, especially on a peer to peer connection.

    Call of duty with 32 players < Battlefield with 24 players

  6. Pretty much sick of COD series and wasn't going to buy it this year but 32 players certainly has me thinking i want both now.