Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Truly showing how intelligent you are
(which is about as intelligent as an ork, really)
Could be helpful for smaller friend groups?
Likely to keep up the trend they set in the prior game (squad of 3)
Also the game is using the same game engine from SP1 if im not mistaken, so it makes sense if the engine limited them to having a 'squad of 3' for certain parts of the game.
Also makes developing the coop aspects easier, things start to get harder the more players you add to the mix for balancing, game design and playtesting.
Theres a million reasons why its better to have 3 over 4, 5, 6, whatever. More isnt necessarily better.
Is that it?! for £54 we get 6v6 PvP and 3 player co-op? What a joke... SM1 had 10v10?
ok? Can you explain why more = better?
Having more people doing stuff takes up more system resources, and remember before you say that our NASA super computers that cost a million v-bucks can handle anything, this game still needs to run on a PS5.
OP is right. 3player coop. "if you opened your eyes youd see they announced 6 player modes" are only pvp and not coop modes.
I agree, focus on the campaign, and the co op operations.
(I call dibs on Devastator for 3 player games. Might as well look for future brothers to play with now.)