Battlefield 3 Could Handle 256 Players

[cobra_86]

DICE CEO Patrick Söderlund has said that while Battlefield 3 could handle 256 players, we won’t see it happen.

“A lot of people ask us about 64 versus 128 or 256 players. Technically, we can go to 256, we’ve tried it,” he said, in a recent interview. “[On PC] We’re gonna support 64 players, dedicated servers… that’s basically it.”

“We play tested with 128. You’ve got to make a game that’s fun to play. And, arguably, we think that the most fun you can have is when it’s between 32 and 40 players. And we’ve done substantial research into this and tested 128 and that it’s not fun. Maybe we haven’t done our design work good enough, but we just feel like there’s no point in going higher than 64.”

He also made note of the fact that the new engine is much better at handling destruction mechanics:

“So if an earthquake—I don’t know if you could see—but you saw the ground crumble and crack and you saw it lifted up and we couldn’t do that in Bad Company 2. But this engine allows us to do those kinds of things. So if there’s a gigantic bomb that hits somewhere, you want to see that affecting the ground as well as the surroundings around it and buildings and all that stuff. And then you start playing in that environment and you realise how much you can destroy.”

The power of this engine is obviously impressive- assuming that modders can get to grips with it we might see some really impressive stuff happening.


Via Gamersbook

Lord

Awesome

[dflynn]

well if they have already decided that the most fun is with 32-40 players, why bother making it 64? should have just kept it at 32, or went to 40

Its all depending on the map. As in BF2, I think it was a perfect fit with 64 players. Im preferring around 10 to 20 players on the BC2, so for me I dont really see it fitting with 256 players. I like to keep the game a bit real. I dont think that most wars is fought with two soldiers around each and every corner. I think DICE has made a good decision.