Do shooters really benefit from extra maps?

I thought of this thanks to Halo: Reach, where they charge you 800 MS points (6.85, $10.00, 9.60) for three maps. THREE BLOODY MAPS.

But do shooter games benefit from having new maps? I can't see how, I mean a new map does not change how the game's played.

Still a better price than MW2 and their $15 for 3 maps

But yes, more maps do benefit the game. Look at UT and UT2004, both are still being played(UT almost a full 12 years after release), both of which have an insane number of custom maps available.
One of my favorite servers for UT2004 is still updating the maplist with new and/or tweaked maps every 2-3 months, sometimes less


[Edit]Yea, 360 section, you get what I mean tho(or at least you should)

Replay value.

I think in a game where there's only 4 maps, yeah more maps help. In a game like MW where there's already 12-15 maps, not as much.

Agreed, more maps for this game work wonders, rather than be sorta cool DLC that's overpriced like CoD.

Granted, this game could do with it. I meant for this to go in offtopic anyway, speaking more specifically about the ripoff map packs.

In most communities, the same 5/6 maps are played over and over, so adding new maps wouldn't do much at all. In this game, there are only 5 maps total, and you can't expect people to like every single one, so a few map additions would be huge.

I think two main factors come in to play when discussing how important new maps are to a game (shooters in particular).

1) How many maps were "shipped" with the game, at launch. Obviously, no one here got MNC shipped to them - I'm merely using the gamer's jargon. Games like MNC that only have 4 maps or so would greatly benefit from the addition of more maps mainly because the proportion of new maps to pre-existing maps would be much larger. Games like Red Faction: Guerilla, that had a huge number of multiplayer maps with some even specific to certain gamemodes, released DLC content with 8 additional maps in order to benefit from this "proportion" I just mentioned. On the opposite side of DLC success, we have games like MW2 that would release only 3 maps with each map pack, charged considerably more for their maps despite offering less (including re-releases of maps that were already on prior games), but still garnered way more attention than they deserve because of its popular appeal.

2) The degree to which maps are "different" from each other, whether it be related to visuals or the way the map plays. Red Faction: Guerilla suffered from a limited scope when it came to map design. The game takes place on Mars, okay? There's only so much you can do to add variation to dreary, red landscape. MNC surprises me with all the potential it has to excel in both areas of map design. Uber is bound to having a Moneyball and surrounding dome in both areas, and probably an Annihilator at an equal distance between them. That's all, and that's based only on what we've seen so far.

I believe that when taking both of these into consideration, MNC is a game that would undoubtedly benefit from a new map or two.

This.
I hate Ammomule which turns up every-other game & I love Steelpeel which always
gets voted off. So maybe 1 or 2 more maps would be nice but not essential.

more maps = more replay= more players

honestly people like more maps because it offers variety and different strategies

Shooters benefit from GOOD maps. If a map pack is full of junk it doesn't help at all, which is why halo keeps recycling maps, their new stuff is junk

The fact that you would ask this reveals much about the mentality of gamers who've grown up playing on consoles.

Please explain this statement. I am unknowing.

Please keep in mind that Plumbum is an idiot.

Far Cry Instincts for XBox had it's own map editor and that game is still played to this day and hasn't seen a single update since it's release in 2005. Many can say it did get an update in the same fashion L4D did.

Yes, what do you mean Patch?

I find you intelligent, yet very mysterious. I wish you would post more. (Curse you Uber!)

A good map does change the way the game is played, or at least makes you think twice. You don't play Spunky or esp. LaserRazor like you do GIII or Ammo Mule, totally different modes of thinking on those maps (unless you're a camping-only sniper maybe). I want to see another map with multiple hallways and walls like Lazer for said reason. It makes for better games and GIII/Ammo are wore the hell out. SteelCrap isn't even work mentioning, only thing its good for is pubstomping in a barrel. So yes.. I would say that maps most certainly do affect/benefit FPS. The UT point someone made earlier is spot on too...many maps for games go down in infamy almost more than the game/version itself, using UT as an example... Facing Worlds.