Thousand Player Counter Strike Match

INSANEdrive · Post by **INSANEdrive** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:48 am

nintendo9713 · Post by **nintendo9713** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:55 am

Holy crap of crap.

GametagAeonFlux · Post by **GametagAeonFlux** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:47 am

It'd be cool for certain games...but not Counter Strike. Anyway, cool technology, but as I say for most other things...I don't care about it until they've actually got a product.

WaywornMmmmm · Post by **WaywornMmmmm** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:22 am

If this was for a game like Crackdown I'd be happy.

Darco · Post by **Darco** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:23 am

That would suck for whoever dies early in the round. Although, in a game like halo where you're constantly respawning, that would be hella fun.

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:11 pm

Yeah. It'd be fun for respawn-type games. 128 player Battlefield game?

-DeToX- · Post by **-DeToX-** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:14 pm

WaywornMmmmm wrote:If this was for a game like Crackdown I'd be happy.

[cc]z@nd! · Post by **[cc]z@nd!** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:27 pm

seeing this applied to day of defeat would be insane.

can't wait until they apply this to a game.

ScottyGEE · Post by **ScottyGEE** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:12 pm

Halo:Next will use it.

Interesting, but if only I actually wanted something like that to happen. 16-32 is enough/more than enough

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:13 pm

ScottyGEE wrote:16-32 is enough/more than enough

Have you ever played Battlefield (2, MC, 2142) on a stable network with 63 other people?

Halo seems like a quaint gathering for tea at the Queen's compared to that shit.

ScottyGEE · Post by **ScottyGEE** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:15 pm

I have. I'm not too interested in it

32 players is still enough for me with battlefield.

gh0570fchurch · Post by **gh0570fchurch** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:32 pm

I think with this many people, it will just turn into more of a 'which team can get more rounds in the air' than actual skill and tactics. Wouldn't be nearly as fun as you might think.

FleetAdmiralBacon · Post by **FleetAdmiralBacon** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:11 pm

WaywornMmmmm wrote:If this was for a game like Crackdown I'd be happy.

That's actually exactly what this needs to be applied to. I'll bet that MS screws it up, though...

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:14 pm

Yep...MMORPG style games would benefit from this.
Or a Grand Theft Auto game where everyone's jacking each other's car every 2 seconds.

DrXThirst · Post by **DrXThirst** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:47 pm

shadowkhas wrote:
ScottyGEE wrote:16-32 is enough/more than enough
Have you ever played Battlefield (2, MC, 2142) on a stable network with 63 other people?

Halo seems like a quaint gathering for tea at the Queen's compared to that ****.

So, is that Battlefield 2 on 360 or PC?

WaywornMmmmm · Post by **WaywornMmmmm** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:53 pm

Battlefield 2 is on the pc and battlefield 2 Modern Combat is on the 360 and xbox. It (MC) is just a watered down version with different maps.

auerhantheman1 · Post by **auerhantheman1** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:10 pm

shadowkhas wrote:Yeah. It'd be fun for respawn-type games. 128 player Battlefield game?

that would be kick-@$$.

Munsie · Post by **Munsie** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:31 pm

1000 player match on any game would be pointless. Unless it's an MMO with gigahumungous maps.

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:32 pm

Munsie wrote:1000 player match on any game would be pointless. Unless it's an MMO with gigahumungous maps.

de_dust

AWP AWP AWP AWP AWP

Munsie · Post by **Munsie** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:55 pm

1k FFA slayer on Lockout. Woop woop.