FPS rival "interested" to see whether Insomniac can keep Sony's Halo-killer from feeling like "running around in a chat room".
A Bungie employee has said Resistance 2 looks "interesting" but its ambitious 60-player multiplayer will be a "challenge".
Speaking on Bungie's latest podcast, Luke Timmins, multiplayer engineer on Halo 3, said that he was interested in how Resistance 2 developer Insomniac would keep 60-player multiplayer games from feeling like "just running around in a chat room".
AdvertisementThe ambitious Resistance 2, touted by fans as Sony's Halo-killer, is scheduled for release on the PS3 exclusively some time in 2008. It will have an impressive eight-player campaign co-op and massive 60-player competitive modes which will focus on squad-versus-squad combat.
Speaking on the Bungie podcast, Timmins said: "Some of the stuff that Resistance is doing about trying to keep jacking up the number of guys in a game... I've played Resistance, and I'm a huge Battlefield 2 fan but I'm still interested in how do you keep that number of guys in a game and make it seem like you are actually playing together and not just running around in a chat room. It's real interesting and I wish them well but, yeah, it's a challenge."
Is Bungie's Luke Timmins right? Will Insomniac face a challenge making 60-player multiplayer games fun? Let us know in the comments section below.
[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]
Anonymous wrote at 17:26 on 21 February 2008
Of course it'll be a challenge, almost everything in game design is a challenge. But that doesn't mean they won't successfully meet it. What they're doing with squads seems focussed on preventing just that scenario, where you feel like you're running around in a chatroom.
Drake wrote at 17:47 on 21 February 2008
Insomniac produced, developed, and delivered a launch-title with 40 players, worldwide region free, and no lag...ever. And dedicated servers.
halo 3 came out 2 years after the console and it didn't even have 720p, didn't have dedicated servers, lagged with 16 players, and had splitscreen problems.
It's quite obvious who the superior developer is.
tramp00 wrote at 17:48 on 21 February 2008
it might be a challenge for bungie,doesnt mean the same for insomniac.
but bungie arent the best developers,niether is insomniac in my opinion.
after all halo is not the best games ever,and doesnt need anything to kill it.
resistance 2 should be good though.
Anonymous wrote at 17:54 on 21 February 2008
Well Insomniac said they were going to be based on squads so that would make things more team based rather than 30 vs 30.
Anonymous3 wrote at 17:59 on 21 February 2008
While Tim is right to recognize the challenge, the beauty of the game is that limits can be set to fewer players. The end user will at least have an opportunity with R2 to determine the viability of 60-player and be able to adjust downward to their preference.
I almost feel as though Tim has a curiosity about the scheme. It makes me think they are partly holding limits on Halo based on design philosophy. It will be interesting to see Tim's take on R2 60-player after it is released.
Anonymous3 wrote at 18:01 on 21 February 2008
Oops! Not Tim... Luke Timmins.
bigbomber wrote at 18:03 on 21 February 2008
they only wish halo could handel 60 plAYERS SIZE MATERS AKS ANY PS3 PLAYER
BIGBOMBER wrote at 18:05 on 21 February 2008
HALO SUCKS
BIGBOMBER wrote at 18:08 on 21 February 2008
WARHAWK 40 PLAYERS ONLINE SIZE DUZ MATTER ASK YOUR GIRL
FRIEND
Mornelithe wrote at 18:10 on 21 February 2008
Well, maybe Mr Timmins should take a trip to Insomniac and learn how to code?
Morne
Anonymous wrote at 18:14 on 21 February 2008
They just wish they could have done it first on the Xbox360.
BIGBOMBER wrote at 18:15 on 21 February 2008
BUNGIE HAS A SMALL MAN COMPLEX JEALOUS THAT THEY HAVE LIMITATIONS ON WHAT THEY CAN DO WHITH HALO
Anonymous wrote at 18:21 on 21 February 2008
how concerning..........what a prick
fuzz wrote at 18:54 on 21 February 2008
Yeah,Bigbomber is right, bungie is ashamed of the 20+ million copies of Halo CE, Halo 2 and Halo 3 that they've sold. How many copies did resistance sell?
Don't get me wrong, I love Insomniac. Probably the only real reason I have a PS3. But don't even try and compare Halo multiplayer with Resistance - Resistance is cool and fun ,but not even in the same class.
Bungie is smart enough to realize that bigger doesn't mean better, it just means BIGGER. If Insomniac was right, why haven't they doubled the size of football teams in the NFL? Wouldn't that be more exciting? No, they realized that 11 players on a team on the field is the right balance for complex but managable play. Bigger can also mean, disorganized, confusing, unfocused, diluted - hence the "Chat Room" comparison. The more players, the less likely you can get everyone organized as a team.
mprunty wrote at 20:55 on 21 February 2008
I don't see no need to worry about Resistance 2. They did 42-player multiplayer with the first installment, so 60 isn't that big of a leap. I think Timmins is worried that Halo can be outshined by a game that wasn't necessarily built to be the "Halo-Killer".
No offense to those that like Halo (especially Halo 3 - I own all three games and Resistance), but Bungie can learn a lot about how to make a solid game from beginning to end.
The Closing wrote at 00:19 on 22 February 2008
Don't like bungie's games, but the dude is right on the money although their game fails in this same aspect too. 60 hell even 20 is too many people in a room. It's just totally mindless that way, and there is nothing personal about the kill. Smaller matches means you get to know your competition, and that makes killing them a million times more rewarding. Also if you have an unlimited respawn count then there is no consequences for dying. But I guess a lot of mindless people out there like mindless no strategy action.
Lulzbungie wrote at 03:17 on 22 February 2008
They're funny, just because Bungie can't do more than 16 multiplayer after a decade of working with the Halo franchise. Size may not matter but R1 achieved 40 players and that's like after only a year of the PS3's debut. Plus what you people don't realize is having options is the key. You can make 16 player games or 60 player games and decide which one is best for you. Knowing Insomniac, I know the 60 players multiplayer will work out really well too.
I just can't help but feel that bungie, known for only FPSes..all of them halo, is a bit jealous and scared that Insomniac, a developer known for making platformers, will take away their limelight when they didnt even't care if Resistance is a halo killer or whatever. poor bungie..
Anonymous wrote at 07:26 on 22 February 2008
Just because Halo 3 is 16 player doesn't mean Bungie CAN'T do it... jesus. You guys make it sound like Insomniac holds the only code for something over 16 players. Put the fanboyism aside and THINK about it. 60 players on a single large map. 60. It would have to be a large map. Now, what if the 60 players limit isn't reached. Now for example you have 10 players on the LARGE map. How freaking long will it be before you see another player? I really think they are stepping over the bounds between boasting player count vs. playability.
[ 1 | 2 | Next Page » ]