One of the features meistbeworbenen battlefield 2042 are the matches with up to 128 players. Now players have discovered the testimony of a former developer: The feature was apparently already 8 years ago in Battlefield 3 a topic and discarded.
With the release of Battlefield 2042 fans lively discussion about the game. Not every player like one of the greatest innovations of the shooter: On PC, Xbox Series and PS5-out warfare game all can compete up to 128 players in one.
Now they have the former DICE boss Patrick Overland dug up statements that were made before the release of Battlefield 3 in 2013.
At that time they had apparently experimented with 128 players, but the developers were probably at that time not convinced.
Former DICE employees speak out
What was said then? The former DICE CEO then explained that the team of Battlefield 3 with 128-player games has already made extensive investigation.
The result was not satisfactory, 128-player matches could have just not fun:
Many people have asked us for [games] 64 versus 128 or 256 players. Technically we could go to 256, we tried, Overland said at the time.
We tested 128 players. You have to make a game thats fun playing, and we think the most fun you can have is when to take 32 to 40 players against each other.
He added then: We have done extensive research and tested 128 players, and its not fun. [...] we simply believe that there is no point higher than 64 [players] to go.
These statements, although eight years old, but underscored by another former DICE employees again. So, for example, express the former multiplayer designer David Sir land and former Battlefield Producer Jakub Akmal on the subject:
David Sir land (via Twitter): I personally have always believed that 48 players in 64-player layouts are the ideal spot.
Jakub Akmal (via Twitter): I agree 100%. In addition, vehicles should be limited and directly on the map, not that ridiculous menu Spawning. [...]
Both left DICE after the bumpy release of Battlefield V. Apparently, it reasoned, the new leaders differently and brought the 128 players on the table.
players the large number see increasingly critical
So the players react: With the release manifest itself more and more players, the doubts about the supposedly cool feature of 128 players per game have.
Many it was chaotic with so many players on a map to what speaks for the decision that DICE maintained at that time with Battlefield 3 and all subsequent cuttings to Battlefield 2,042nd
Also, the vehicle Spawning is seen very critical, because that is now already actively used for about to topple with the jet directly to the beginning of a match in the enemy base and clear away, so that just landed players.
Many see to large maps as a problem even more. So says moon ski example: 64 players would also be terrible if the new maps are too big. (Via Reddit)
OJ191 sees the balancing as a key, the key is when the players: I think that in a hypothetical world with perfect games and card design would be 128 or 64 players largely irrelevant, since the design and required for the game player density except for a few exceptions would remain the same. Unless you would the core gameplay so transform that huge 64-v64 battles to be promoted. (Via Reddit)
Ultimately, it is still too early to say if 128 players are too much or not. But how do you think? Do you have a problem with the high player numbers? Or you find it good that finally larger battles are possible?
To release Battlefield has certainly laid in 2042 on Steam a bad start, is currently torn on Steam and has only 21% positive reviews