Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
PlayStation (Games) The Internet Wii XBox (Games) Games

Split Screen Co-op Is Dying 362

Posted by Soulskill
from the just-like-lan-parties dept.
kube00 writes "Split-screen co-op and local multiplayer are becoming things of the past. What happened to cramming a bunch of gamers into a room with two TVs and doing a system link match in Halo? Where have the all-night GoldenEye matches gone? Like the arcades of gamers' youth, the local multiplayer and co-op bonding experience has been replaced with individual gamers and a network."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Split Screen Co-op Is Dying

Comments Filter:
  • nuff said.

    • by dintech (998802)

      Selling more copies of the game and further DLC seems to be the order of the day. Also, I wonder if the fact that this generations hardware is already close to it's limits in terms of performance that can be eeked from the various engines has something to do with it. It's not possible to push the "ooh shiny" factor so hard when you divide the processing between two frames. It's a lot 'easier' just to through the thing through a local ethernet connection or xbox live.

      Having said that, local multiplayer gamin

  • Damned shame (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nursie (632944) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @04:45AM (#34625994)

    Split-screen co-op is a sociable way to spend an evening with a mate or two (drop in a few beers too, of course).

    I was most upset when it wasn't included in Resistance 2, after Resistance 1 had it. Turned it from an awesome shared experience to taking turns and one of you being a bit bored.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by devbox (1919724)
      It's even more sociable accepted way in Asia, where arcades and co-op arcade games still flourish. There's always lots of teenagers playing those games in malls and arcades.

      Actually gaming in general is more social in Asia. Even if you play on computer, you go play in a net cafe with your friends and theres always other people around and playing with you - instead of you playing alone in a dark basement.
      • Having lived in Okinawa for most of my childhood, I can attest to the arcades. They were pretty massive, and they were full of people. Here in the States, every arcade I see is devoid of life.
        • by DeadTOm (671865)
          In the PC gaming arena, LAN parties are all but dead. A few still linger on around the country but they are dwindling. It's part of a growing trend in the US, we're slowly isolating ourselves. Not just from the rest of the world but also from each other. The gaming industry is just one example of that. It's very, very sad.
    • No, it's just that certain games no longer feature co-op + split screen as standard practice. Go ahead and find me a fighting game that doesn't have split screen (lookin forward to Marvel vs. Capcom 3 BTW).

      There's certainly some games that are online multiplayer that would be way more enjoyable w. splitscreen. For instance, AVP (the recent one) blows online-- unbalanced, sh*tty lobby system, and the maps are lame. Bad online experience all around... however, I bought it assuming my brother and I could play
      • If I get this right. Have I ever seen ANY fighting game with split screen? Youtubed Marvel vs Capcom 3 for some in game footage too - and no split screen? Split screen - from the trustworthy Wikipedia: "In its most easily-understood form, a split screen for a two-player video game is an audiovisual output device (usually a standard television for video game consoles) where the display has been divided into two equally-sized areas so that the players can explore different areas simultaneously without being
      • by dangitman (862676)

        There's certainly some games that are online multiplayer that would be way more enjoyable w. splitscreen. For instance, AVP (the recent one) blows online-- unbalanced, sh*tty lobby system, and the maps are lame. Bad online experience all around...

        A poor multiplayer online implementation for a particular game is not really a good argument for split-screen play, it's just a poor online multiplayer implementation.

        Not that online multiplayer is the best solution for everything, but perhaps other ideas like multiple displays would be better than cramming everything on one screen?

        • Yeah because 'cramming' everything on one 42"+ HDTV is so horrible. Did you even think about what you were saying? What about the social aspect of sitting on the couch with a friend or loved one sharing the experience? Oh yeah...buying 2 HDTV's and setting them side by side with two consoles makes much more sense (not).

        • Re:Damned shame (Score:4, Insightful)

          by AltairDusk (1757788) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @09:39AM (#34627286)

          Did you ever play video games with friends when you were a kid? I remember playing Goldeneye with 3 friends split screen on a 15" TV and we managed just fine. Playing 2 way or 4 way split screen on the 46" LCD I have now would still beat playing one player on that tiny screen for each person playing.

          I suspect the real reason split screen is disappearing is that both the PS3 and the 360 have already been pushed to their hardware limits and the game devs are having difficulty making split screen run without killing the framerate or dropping down the graphics level.

          • Re:Damned shame (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Rexdude (747457) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @11:50AM (#34628760)

            No. David Wong said it best [cracked.com]:

            The advantage that consoles have over, say, PCs, is that you can play from your comfy sofa. The reason the sofa is considered the pinnacle of furniture technology is because there's room for other people on it.

            Yet, here's Grand Theft Auto IV, boasting about its robust multiplayer, and if you think "multiplayer" means inviting the gang over to play, get drunk, laugh and high-five each other until the break of dawn, too bad. You can't do that. Want to play with friends, they must be kept at arm's length, faceless at the other end of a broadband connection. Grand Theft Auto IV multiplayer is a world without hugs.

            A little further down, the reason:

            Sorry, you know damned well that technical limitations aren't the reason everyone is dropping split screen. Every previous generation had it, in times with much less powerful systems and few widescreen TVs.
            You're dropping it because four players on a split screen are playing off one $60 copy of the game. Four players playing online need four copies ($240).

            • by ShakaUVM (157947)

              >>You're dropping it because four players on a split screen are playing off one $60 copy of the game. Four players playing online need four copies ($240).

              At the $240 price point, it is zero players playing it.

              I primarily play co-op games these days with my friends, and I have noticed how little selection there is nowadays when I go into my local Gamestop. I had a bunch of friends over tonight for video games and pizza, and we tried to get a good 4 player game going. Played PS Move "Sports" (4 player m

      • Re:Damned shame (Score:4, Informative)

        by Narishma (822073) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @07:12AM (#34626622)

        Go ahead and find me a fighting game that doesn't have split screen (lookin forward to Marvel vs. Capcom 3 BTW).

        Fighting games don't have split-screen, they have same-screen multiplayer.

    • by RogueyWon (735973) *
      Fortunately, it seems that split-screen co-op is confirmed for Resistance 3.

      I do get the feeling that despite some of the flashy set-pieces, Resistance 2 was a real mis-step for the series. Not only did they lose split-screen co-op, they also forced players into an "only carry two weapons at a time" system, a la Gears of War and Call of Duty. The original Resistance was a genuinely interesting console fps, with some real unique selling points. Resistance 2, while pretty, basically felt like a generic "me
    • by beh (4759) *

      Indeed - though - better not split screen, though...

      The best times with multiplayer have been with some oldies

      MIDI Maze [wikipedia.org] (late 80s; Atari ST) - up to 16 players multi-player via MIDI network on the Atari ST. Very simple game - also graphically very simple, but tons of fun to play; particularly if you can also see other player's 'outburst' after you caught em...

      Robo Sport [wikipedia.org] (early/mid 90s; Windows 3) - while technically it would have supported networked play on WfW 3.11; I only ever played it in hotseat mode -

    • Totally agree. For years my college friends and I have been getting bored of the halo series, but they're the only games that still support split-screen to any decent degree. It's amazing how few titles these days support the basics like 4 players per console, bringing guests online, etc. Call of Duty - no, Left 4 dead - (ironically) no, Gears of War - no.

      Our current setup is two lcd's in the living-room, 2 360's, 2 copies of reach, and 8 controllers. No number of new features or game-play improvements can

    • by cp.tar (871488)

      Split-screen co-op is a sociable way to spend an evening with a mate or two (drop in a few beers too, of course).

      I recall a not-so-distant past when three of us would crowd in front of one keyboard playing ClanBomber. OK, that was neither split-screen nor co-op, but it was great fun.

  • Grown Ups. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Seumas (6865) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @04:47AM (#34625998)

    When you grow up, you find that you have less time for gaming. You find that some of your friends and colleagues stop gaming, because of life. Of those who still game, you have fragmentation among their preferred platforms and then fragmentation among the games they invest their time in. If you've managed to find one or two like-minded folk who happen to want to play the same game on the same platform, you have to deal with aligning everyone's schedules so that they can get together. Then, you get to lug some hardware around and rearrange furniture.

    It's far easier to just have a seat on the couch or office chair and make use of that thing called the "Internet".

    • Pretty much what the above poster said. And also TFA is misleading: Split-screen is not dying off, it slowly disappears because the demand for it dropped substantially. Internet availability and low ping delays helped out in killing split-screen.
    • by Nursie (632944)

      So people that want to play in the same room as each other have some growing up to do?

      Nice logic there sparky.

      How's about this one to turn it around - People that play online games largely seem to suffer from a social disorder that results in them shutting themselves away in a darkened room for hours on end, playing games against complete strangers. Some people with a more society-normal social instinct still enjoy games but prefer to do so in company.

    • by lxs (131946)

      That is a valid argument. But in that is the tacit assumption that co-op multiplayer is only for our generation. Last I checked, there are still high school and college kids playing games. Am I so out of touch that my assumption that kids like to hang out together is no longer valid?

      Or are we turning into a second boomer generation? Spoilt slackers catered to by marketing from the cradle to the grave to the detriment of others. Yuck!

    • by beelsebob (529313)

      Except that you don't play split screen games because you aranged a date in your diary to do it, and everyone wants to play the game... You play splitscreen games because you invited a bunch of people round for a curry, a beer and a chat, and now you're waiting for the curry to arrive and want something stupid to do.

      I did this recently, and discovered that out of the 40 odd PS3 games on my shelf, only 2 supported local multiplayer of any kind (Little big planet and blur for reference)

      • by AlXtreme (223728)

        I did this recently, and discovered that out of the 40 odd PS3 games on my shelf, only 2 supported local multiplayer of any kind (Little big planet and blur for reference)

        Came to the same conclusion a while back with my PS3 collection. Want local multiplayer? Dust off that Wii. Nintendo gets that playing together in the same room is half the fun.

        I occasionally buy new PS3 games hoping for one that nails local multiplayer, but even if they do support it it's only with a passing glance. Compare that with Mari

    • by Carewolf (581105)

      It think you are wrong, but I think TFA is wrong too.

      Counter-point: Wii, guiter-hero, etc.

      If nobody wants to make money on split screen or coop gameplay, I am sure Nintendo and friends is more than happy to have the entire market for themselves.

    • Re:Grown Ups. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by xouumalperxe (815707) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @08:35AM (#34626958)

      If you've managed to find one or two like-minded folk who happen to want to play the same game on the same platform, you have to deal with aligning everyone's schedules so that they can get together. Then, you get to lug some hardware around and rearrange furniture.

      You got it completely wrong. If I own a console, a game, and two controllers, and the game supports split-screen (or, more generically, local multiplayer with just one screen -- most beat'em ups don't really split screen), we can play the game together. There's no "happen to want to play the same game on the same platform" here, it's a matter of "people are here, they feel like playing a game, these are the ones I have that work". And this is why the Wii got its reputation for "the console for people who have actual friends": if someone visits me and they enjoy games, Mario Kart, New Super Mario Bros, House of the Dead: Overkill, Super Smash Bros. and Wii Sports are all games we can just pick up and play (and those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head from my own collection, without going into the Guitar Hero or Raving Rabbids sort of games). While not exactly a "hardcore" gaming experience, being able to push the controller off my opponent's hand while I try to overtake them in Mario Kart is a much more satisfying social experience than calling out "owned" over Ventrilo :)

    • I don't really buy that. Last time I played a split-screen game was on a Wii. A friend had a dinner party - you know, something that grownups do - and after a nice meal we played a few games. The games weren't planned at all; the dinner party was planned and the games were just suggested afterwards. The only down side was that most of us were walking home, only one was driving, and she had a distinct coordination advantage by the end of the meal.
    • by Hatta (162192)

      When you grow up, you find that you have less time for gaming.

      8 to 5 is pretty much spoken for. But hey, there's no homework, no after school programs etc, to worry about. I find that I have as much time for games at 30 as I did at 15.

      You find that some of your friends and colleagues stop gaming, because of life.

      Is "life" here a euphemism for "kids"?

      If you've managed to find one or two like-minded folk who happen to want to play the same game on the same platform, you have to deal with aligning everyone's

    • Of those who still game, you have fragmentation among their preferred platforms and then fragmentation among the games they invest their time in.

      Local co-op play fixes the system fragmentation, and most games' gameplay isn't prohibitively complex or unique.

      But I would rather play some game I am lukewarm about with friends than some game I care a lot about with those same people on the internet. Even if they are my friends in real life, I don't find it the same experience.

      But local play works when you have

  • Split screen? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Endymion (12816) <slashdot.org@tho ... minus herbivore> on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @04:52AM (#34626018) Homepage Journal

    You don't need to split the screen to play Contra!

    Proper co-op should be one screen.

    • by MrEricSir (398214)

      There's a lot of truth to this -- what's wrong with grabbing an old video game system at a thrift store and playing some old classics?

      Many of us enjoy classic films, why not classic games?

    • Re:Split screen? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tharsman (1364603) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @06:46AM (#34626530)

      This. Who needs split screen to play Rock Band with friends? How about New Super Mario Bros?

      But some games, like Racing games and FPS, are really not viable without split screen, and I always hated that unavoidable fact.

      That said, I got to poke holes into TFA. From TFA:

      Games such as Donkey Kong Country, GoldenEye, Halo 1 and 2, Mario Kart, Twisted Metal 2 were the meat and potatoes of co-op games.

      From the list they mentioned, the new Wii Goldeneye supports Split Screen.

      Donkey Kong Returns also supports 2 player coop, no split screen required.

      The latest halo game, Reach, also supports Split Screen.

      Mario Kart supports Split Screen.

      I have not seen a Twisted Metal game out in ages, and would love to see a new one, but last non-combat racer I played had at least 2 player split screen support.

      In the end, the article does not even list games that he hates to be missing Co-Op, it does go on to claim Arcades seem to be lacking co-op, but the only point it ends up having is that Bet-Em-Ups (the games he list) seem to be nowhere to be seen in the arcade room. These days Arcades are dominated by fighters, racing games (that in the arcade room have ALWAYS delivered multiplayer via networking and multi-booth setups) and gun games that tend to always support two player modes.

      I ponder if it was posted by a kid that was upset due to one specific shooter not supporting split screen, nothing new since I recal reviews of forgetable shooters in the PSX (that had me properly forget their names) complaining the lack of coop modes.

      Maybe he is upset about the rising number of story-driven games that don't force a second player on screen. Its hard to tell because he didnt bother to make his point, TFA is reduced to a cenile old man whining about "The Good Old Days"

      • Wouldn't Rock Band and similar games technically qualify as split screen co-op anyway? The screen is divided into note tracks, one for each player, and the players are usually cooperating for a collective band score rather than competing against each other.
    • by Mr_Silver (213637)

      You don't need to split the screen to play Contra!

      Proper co-op should be one screen.

      Agreed. Especially since forcing the game-play to one screen has the unintended (but good) side effect of preventing you from just buggering off and abandoning your team mates.

      I've tried playing a couple of games on-line (Half-life, Counter Strike, Call of Duty and Quake) and have never come across any kind of team cohesion. The game starts and everyone in your team generally runs off in opposite directions and you barely

    • by RatPh!nk (216977)
      I have never personally been a fan of the split screen co-op play. I agree that proper co-op should be one screen.
  • Every week or so we have another "XYZ is dead" article.

    I've come to think this is simply what magazines, bloggers, or corporate know-nothings resort to when they're starved for attention.
  • Do the math (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Erbo (384) <obreerbo@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @04:53AM (#34626028) Homepage Journal
    Split-screen multiplayer: Requires 1 console, plus 1 copy of the game.

    Online multiplayer: Requires N consoles, plus N copies of the game, plus N online service subscription fees.

    Which scenario do you think the console and game manufacturers like better?

    • by adolf (21054)

      Why design a completely separate UI for the occasional split-screen battle (or quad-view Goldeneye session) when you can just create one dedicated single-user networked multiplayer mode that doesn't suck?

      The current aspect ratio of TVs isn't helping things much, either: Splitting a 4:3 screen horizontally seems like it was way more useful, way back when, than splitting a 16:9 screen vertically does today, even with 1920x1080 available to play with.

      And, of course, PC games have been this way for ages (one c

    • by DaFallus (805248)
      Exactly. The majority of games that you would expect to include split-screen co-op but don't are that way because of some combination of laziness and greed.
    • by Impeesa (763920)
      Split-screen multiplayer: supports 1 friend at 1 physical location.
      Online multiplayer: supports N friends in N physical locations.

      Which scenario do you think players find more convenient? The forward march of technology can be good for consumers and manufacturers at the same time, it's okay.
      • by Plekto (1018050)

        The best option of course is simply to allow each player to use a different monitor or screen. Even placing the screens at 45 degrees to each other so you can't SEE the other player makes an enormous difference. Imagine playing a game like Halo 2 multi-player if the person can plainly see you hiding. Let alone something more modern where stealth and being hard to see is a major aspect of the game. When the other player can see you, it's reduced to a twitch=fest and there's no tactics or strategy. So o

      • The game companies probably also prefer N players in N locations on N consoles to N players in 1 location on N consoles, because there is less of a chance of them deciding to go do something other than play video games.

  • by perpenso (1613749) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @04:54AM (#34626036)
    They were obsoleted by a more convenient technology. Internet based multiplayer was not possible or practical at the time but today it is. In this era of immediate gratification it's too much effort to organize a bunch of friends and wait until you can all haul your gear over and set it all up. In may be more fun but the incremental amount of fun must not be worth it for most gamers.
    • by Elbereth (58257)

      What? I was playing multiplayer PC games back when DOOM and Quake were hot.

      Consoles have always been on the trailing edge of technology, and, as this story demonstrates, they must be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern gaming world, every time there's a change. Consoles are for little kids and autistic adults. PCs are for gamers.

    • Really? How is online multiplayer only more convenient than hanging out with a friend and going "Hey, lets play some Halo?" and then you pop in the game and you both play on the same screen. According to you though, it's more "convenient" to have one person drive home, then get online and play. You can easily do BOTH. I also know a lot of gamers like myself who refuse to play online with random people due to the absolute truth of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (if you don't know what thi
    • You forget that not everyone is a basement dweller. Split screen and LAN games are/were generally a nice social activity. Get a few friends, a few beers and make a fun evening in one place.

      You can't really replicate that with on-line play and team speak.

      Granted, those have their place too, and there are also the days you don't really want to have people around. Still, both have their advantages. Seeing that socializing in this form dies out just fastens our zombification as a society.

      Not that complaining wo

  • Every major game company is chasing the majority market with multimillion dollar production budget first person shooters. But there are still millions of gamers worldwide who would prefer adventure, split screen or arcade. As angry birds prove, games like Pacman can be still popular today and attract enough following to at least support a small team. Even text only interactive fiction has possibilities. People still read lots of books. Why wouldn't they read a book that asks you to solve interesting puzzles

  • by Zouden (232738) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @05:03AM (#34626080)

    Super Mario Bros Wii supports 4-player co-op. And it seems pretty stupid to ask "Where have the all-night GoldenEye matches gone?" when there's a new GoldenEye game for the Wii that supports 4-player split screen just like the original.

    • And don't forget Mario Kart. 4 player split-screen on one system, and the ability to play over the internet as well. I've passed many an hour in Mario Kart races with friends...
  • by gatzke (2977) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @05:30AM (#34626186) Homepage Journal

    What happened to serial cables to network two PCs to play Doom or Hexen? Kids today have no appreciation of technology...

  • Wii (Score:5, Funny)

    by bcmm (768152) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @05:34AM (#34626208)
    That's easy: local gaming has mostly gone to the Wii, and you and I don't really play with the Wii.
    This flowchart [www.dula.tv] is surprisingly true as well as being funny.
  • The author obviously doesn't own a Wii or hasn't bothered to check the number of games with local coop released today versus the number of games with local coop released 10 years ago. The average number of local coop games released per year seems about constant to me. Off the top of my head, this year on the PS3 alone we saw Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light, Rock Band 3, Army of Two: The 40th Day, and a bunch of other cheap PSN games like Scott Pilgrim. Last year we saw the release of Borderlands and

  • The internet can't replace split-screen's feeling - being next to your friends while playing is a different, much more fun experience. LAN gaming, on the other hand, can. More people have more consoles, and they are getting easier to move about, as are TVs (as they become flat). Why cram 4 players onto one console when you can have a console each?
  • ok, so i understand why many FPS and sports games are better played online , but this one just boggles my mind

    Tekken has a button-mashing platform sort of campaign mode that can be played single or multiplayer. The thing that I cant wrap my head around is why multiplayer can only be played using a net connection
    • By nature of the platform, your characters are never more than a screen apart
    • teamwork is essential or you fail against the horde. Lag kills this
    • character choice is limited to the pair you choose
    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Splitscreen is harder to do well than multiplayer. The art assets are generally designed to look good on the full screen. Today though you have to take multiple resolutions into account if you want to look good on all devices, at minimum 720 and 1080i/p, but you should also cover XGA for Xbox 360 players using their old computer monitor in their room next to their current one... And 1680x1050 and 1280x1024 for PC gamers.

  • by stimpleton (732392) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @06:01AM (#34626322)
    It was 1997, and when Goldeneye for the N64 came out, I would leave work on a friday, drive 2 hours to a friends place who had just bought the game.

    For coop we taped a large piece of cardboard horizontally accross the middle screen, seperating the two views. One would sit on a beanbag under the card. One would sit on a tall recliner looking above the cardboard.

    Each player had a small radar indicating the opposing player. We cut a disk and taped over that.

    It was thrilling stuff. We might sleep that night. For singleplayer we would alternate, one being a spotter. Commentary between us would be constant. By midday Saturday, friends would arrive and it'd be splitscreen ladder matches. One guy was prone to accussing the other of cheating.

    It was tense stuff, and when you heard the others gasp or laugh, you knew you were about to get a lead enema from behind. Satuday night was beers and a DVD. Then more GE about 6am till I would leave at midday sunday. I look back at that period very fondly.
  • by dangitman (862676) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @06:08AM (#34626352)

    Split screen always seemed like and awful thing to me - trying to cram all this different action onto a reduced-resolution portion of the screen. It's the same reason the Picture-in-Picture feature of TV sets is hardly used by anyone. There are probably better ways to have social gaming without dividing a single screen up.

  • That's one of the reasons why I focus on boardgames instead of computergames, like reading a book compared to watching a movie on average it can stimulate the mind more as the game design is usually more intricate and it is more social! I can recommend playing Puerto Rico and Imperial 2030, also see: BoardGameGeek ranking [boardgamegeek.com].
  • Speaking as a games programmer for an AAA game that eventually dropped split-screen support: Can't say I love the fact, but it *kind of* makes sense from a performance standpoint. Consider the following: You have a big bad detailed world to explore. You naturally don't want to keep the areas that the player doesn't see in video memory. Well, if you have split screen, tough luck, you have to keep in memory at worst twice as much, which is pretty bad. Of course you should need half as much detail for each vie
  • You're not looking. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Spit (23158) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @06:41AM (#34626518)

    The most popular titles today all have excellent couch co-op and multi features. Examples:

    Halo Reach
    CoD Black Ops
    SMB Wii
    SM Cart
    Gears of War series

    There are also countless local multi games available on services like Xbox Live Arcade and PSN..

  • Top-shelf games push systems to the limits. If you have split screen you have to render and perhaps simulate multiple scenes per video frame. Memory and processing power are scarce resources. If you scale back your graphics then critics and players pan you for having "shit grafix" compared to the other top-shelf title with no split-screen multiplayer and your sales suffer.

  • While I do agree that the split-screen way of playing is getting a little dated. I know I've certainly never enjoyed playing that way (too distracting and hard to follow who is playing what some times and some games), I do not agree that we are seeing the end of the LAN party and face-to-face interaction while gaming.

    My Tuesday night World of Warcraft gaming group is an example of that.

    Every Tuesday, my wife and I and three of our friends meet at our house and we'll to Random Instances and general quests al

  • by Moby Cock (771358)

    Some of my best times playing WoW was with a friend and his laptop at my place (or my laptop at his place). We'd get a case of beer and play WoW for the evening. It was fun to be able to laugh and joke with the other player in the same room. It was much more interesting than playing at home by myself.

    There is something to be said for having friends in the same room.

  • That's pretty much the bottom line of it.

    The ancient ones here might remember the days when we hauled our computers to each other (provided the other one had a TV that could handle SCART or whatever odd way of connection that computer supported) and connected through serial cables to play the (mostly rather half-baked) multiplayer versions of certain games. Ten years later, it was LAN parties where we lugged computer, monitors steering wheels and ZIP drives towards each other (to exchange various ... umm...

  • The irony is that television screen size and resolution have finally reached the level where split screen games provide a reasonable gaming experience.

  • I'm not surprised split-screen gaming is dying when you take a look at the modern day TV. I used to love going to my mates place and playing mariokart splitscreen on their large rear projection TV. These days we have a plasma screen about the same size as their's back then, but you know what, 16:9 is not a ratio that really lends itself to being split horizontally. Also the result of splitting it vertically gives you zero peripheral vision. Modern TVs are simply not the ideal ratio for split screen gaming,
  • by BigSes (1623417) on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @06:30PM (#34635186)

    One moment here, maybe the industry is right. Think of it like this, most of us are offended or shocked by this beginning to occur more and more often, but "we" aren't the norm. We're essentially a community of gamers and nerds, who largely grew up the same. Most of us loved a Goldeneye all nighter, or lining up tokens to have the next crack at Mortal Kombat, but that's our youth and what our generation loves. If you were 13 then and were really in to it, think about today's 13 year olds. EVERYTHING is a social network type experience. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, XBL, PSN, WOW, and on and on.

    I'm not saying I like it, damn, I hate it. My friends and I still setup multiple PS3s and tvs just to play MW2 and get that old feel. However, video games are big business, and these companies have market strategy departments funded by more money than some small countries have in GDP. They are going to follow modern trends, and I hate to say it, but that's what's hot. Sure, we say it was better in our day, but that argument has been going on about all entertainment mediums, such as music, since the first instrument was ever played. I'm sure my grandfather would take hoop and stick or lawn darts over Super Mario Brothers. Its just a companies selling to a well thought out target market. As much as we all loved it, our time is likely passing. The world just won't get off our collective lawn!

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.

Working...