Split Screen Co-op Is Dying 362
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."
...and fees (Score:2)
nuff said.
Re:...and fees (Score:2)
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 gaming is some of the most fun two people can have with their clothes on. I'm not sure why it's not being promoted more these days. It's probably that the format of gaming has moved away from Street Fighter, Bomberman and Contra to things like Call of Duty. At least Call of Duty still has single player for now...
Damned shame (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Damned shame (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Damned shame (Score:2)
Re:Damned shame (Score:2)
Re:Damned shame (Score:2)
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 it split screen when he's in town. Uunder those circumstances it would be a blast!
Now that I think about it, Virtual On for the Xbox could use some splitscreen as well.
Re:Damned shame (Score:2)
Re:Damned shame (Score:2)
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?
Re:Damned shame (Score:2)
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)
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)
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).
Re:Damned shame (Score:3)
>>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 mode involves 4 people taking turns in front of the TV), Time Crisis (four player mode involves people taking turns), then to the Kinect with Dance Central (requires you to take turns in front of the TV) and Kinect Adventures (two people can go at once, but at the risk of fatal injuries), and then finally back to the 90s-era-looking Wii, with lots of four-player-simultaneous games with Mario Kart, Wii Sports (tennis is still fun), and Mario Party (which isn't especially great, but whatever).
It's really annoying how many games promise couch coop and then just lame out on it. There's no reason why the new Time Crisis couldn't support four players at once in its sentry mode - just lazy, I guess.
Anyone out there know any good four player simultaneous games?
Re:Damned shame (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Damned shame (Score:2)
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 too" corridor-shooter.
Happily, the developers do seem to have realised this and it sounds like Resistance 3 is going to re-incorporate some of the better elements from the original. I did a journal post [slashdot.org] on this the other week.
Re:Damned shame (Score:2)
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 - but still just as good, as everyone enters their turns, and THEN the computer executes them all at the same time. When it would come up to your turn, you would get to see a replay of what YOUR figures saw and did...
In terms of graphics, neither comes even close to 'modern' games. No wonder - the younger of the two is just under two decades old (Man, I'm old now) - but the game play in both is just wonderful.
Gameplay beats graphics in 6 cases out of every 5... ;-)
Re:Damned shame (Score:2)
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 compensate for the ability to coordinate and trash talk with your friends across the couch. The feeling of getting together a full 4's team in one room and crushing superior opponents with sheer teamwork may just be the greatest thing of all time.
Re:Damned shame (Score:2)
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.
Re:Online Not a Replacement for Split-Screen (Score:2)
I think your situation is an edge case and they're developing for the masses -- not the five percent that might benefit from some particular functionality. The average gamer is something like 35 years old and I'm pretty sure most 35 year old males don't live with three or four roommates and have a lot of occasions or desire to have this kind of gaming experience.
I'm not suggesting it's an invalid request, but I think it's one of those things where 95% of people bitch about a feature being removed that only 5% of them actually ever used. It's like when the PS3 Slim removed the ability to run Linux. How many people bitched about that? How many of those who bitched actually ever installed Linux on their PS3 or even intended to?
Re:Online Not a Replacement for Split-Screen (Score:4, Insightful)
My eldest loves killing all the brutes while I'm still trying to figure out where they are... "It's OK Dad I'll let you kill the next one"
Also there are some wives/girlfriends who sometimes play.
Re:Online Not a Replacement for Split-Screen (Score:2)
Although my wife will rarely play and if she does it is the Wii, my son is far more interested in being able to play games with me then on his own, and we do not let him play anything online without one of us around and normally if it is online it is with me in something split screen or single screen multiplayer.
The new Need for Speed Hot Pursuit, does not have local multiplayer, yet all the previous ones had, and it was made by the same team that did the Burnout series, which all also had local multiplayer. I found this quite out of style for them, and instead of messing with it, I got NHL 11, so it can drive people away from sales.
COD MW2, requires 2 gamer tags for two people to go online, while COD BO allows a guest to play split screen. COD WaW did not allow for more than 2 players in their Zombie sub-game, COD BO allows for 4 players.
I do see a struggle between the modes of multiplayer, not being a game developer I have no idea what this is like on their end, but to me it seems a small thing that should always stay in tack as not everyone can or wants to play online.
Re:Online Not a Replacement for Split-Screen (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting it's an invalid request, but I think it's one of those things where 95% of people bitch about a feature being removed that only 5% of them actually ever used.
This isn't removing a feature. It's failing to implement it. Removing Linux compatibility was annoying because it was already there, and they decided to remove it.
Re:Online Not a Replacement for Split-Screen (Score:3)
I agree with you 100% percent. I grew up with two brothers, playing split screen games. I also remember playing Halo in a room with 3 xboxs, three TVs, and 10 people playing the game. It was awesome.
Nowadays, I have to own a console, tv, and copy of the game for everyone who wants to play. Its frigging ridiculous. Its like the game manufacturers took it away thinking, they will find plenty of people online to play with. Well Id rather play with my friends and family together. I dont want to play against the 12 year old on the other end.
Re:LAN parties (Score:2)
Grown Ups. (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:2)
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:2)
"The obvious point that I made is that when you are a grown up, you have less inclination and opportunity to have this kind of gaming experience"
Says you. Other people still find time to visit buddies, have a few beers and play a game or two.
Generalising from yourself to "all grown ups" is silly.
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:2)
Perhaps you have gotten older, but have not grown up?
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:2)
And you evidence for that is ... a weak blog article.
A weak blog article that totally ignores the Wii phenomenon and the popularity of the recent mariokart etc.
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:2)
Right, because playing video games is so less mature than having a few friends over, having some beers, and watching football/baseball/basketball/$sport while trash talking the other team.
Perhaps you should grow up and stop feeling superior because of how you spend your free time.
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:2)
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!
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:2)
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)
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:3)
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 Mario kart / Mario party / Wii sports / Wii resort / Wii party where local multiplayer _is_ the game.
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:2)
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)
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 :)
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:2)
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:3)
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 schedules so that they can get together.
Just like every other activity adults engage in. Not sure what the point is here.
Then, you get to lug some hardware around and rearrange furniture.
Hello? We're talking about split screen multiplayer. One screen, one console, two controllers. Nobodys lugging anything around.
It's far easier to just have a seat on the couch or office chair and make use of that thing called the "Internet".
Still more fun to drink beer and talk shit in person. Even if I have to break out the N64 (or 2600 for that matter).
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:3)
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 people over to socialize, and gaming is one activity.
Only because it's so rare. Look, maybe you have one of those uber-gaming chairs in a cave. I have my system in front of my couch. You're right that split-screen coop makes no sense for hardcore gamers. But it does for everyone else. Just like NBA/NFL players probably don't play basketball/football against random friends, but a bunch of 45 year old out of shape guys can play a pickup game of basketball, football or soccer just fine. That doesn't mean there's no room for competitive players.
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:4, Interesting)
You have the dynamics of the influence backwards. While I'm sure all game developers are eager to sell more copies of the games, I doubt anyone but the in-house platform guys give a damn about influence the sames of more controllers and battery packs.
People have difference lives and expectations than ten and fifteen years ago. The average gamer is no longer kicking it in a college dorm room or wasting an after school evening with their buddies in their bedroom. There is more distance between gamers, more hectic lives, less interest in dealing with sharing screens (why would you spend money on a nice huge screen just so you can split it by two or four, again?). It's the same way a lot of people don't do LANs anymore (though, of course, some do).
The thing that is actually disappointing, to me, is the lack of community server experiences. Especially where consoles are concerned. I'm used to years of playing one or two specific games on the PC at a small handful of servers (more than one of which I've owned and operated, myself at some point). You may not know everyone on the server. You may not befriend them. But you kind of have an idea of the atmosphere of the server and you do get to know certain personalities and have an enjoyable gaming experience.
On the console, you just randomly connect with twelve random people selected out of the hundreds of thousands who are playing that game online right now and then you're connected with another twelve random people that you'll probably never *ever* see again, fifteen minutes later. And because it's not a community server, you don't have the community vibe. You don't have the "server for laid back adults" or "the server for hardcore loudmouths". You just have twelve random people every few minutes. And, of course, 90% of those people are someone's annoying fucking brat child screaming racist and homophobic comments into a mic or singing some god awful song into the mic like it's the fucking Apollo.
I don't see much interest or any benefit for the majority of gamers in retaining "local split screen" type experiences, but I see a desperate need to find a way to handle this whole decentralized, vast, meaningless ocean of multi-player gaming that consoles keep ushering in with every passing year.
Re:Grown Ups. (Score:2)
Yeah, but game developers are now realizing they need to "leverage the social network" and will let you play against your facebook friends, so that it can now _more_ stuff about you, like the games you play and at what time.
Split screen? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to split the screen to play Contra!
Proper co-op should be one screen.
Re:Split screen? (Score:2)
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)
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"
Re:Split screen? (Score:2)
Re:Split screen? (Score:2)
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 see them any more until you've all died and the game restarts.
Maybe I'm getting old but it doesn't feel very teamy to me.
Re:Split screen? (Score:2)
Solution: write some split screen games (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re:Do the math (Score:2)
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 computer and display per concurrent player). I'm not aware of any two-person FPS PC games which use a split-screen method, even though Windows has supported multiple input devices for an eternity. In fact, the only PC games I can think of which involved two or more players on one system were all turn-based.
*shrug*
Re:Do the math (Score:2)
Re:Do the math (Score:2)
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.
Re:Do the math (Score:2)
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 of course games like that are not as fun to play. Case in point - my friend has a machine(basically a cheap P4 brick in the garage) set up as an Unreal Tournament server - and every so often we play and it's amazing how fun it is compared to split-screen.
My current PC can handle 2 monitors and 2 keyboard/mouse combinations(dual video and 4 USB 2.0 ports). Yet not one game takes advantage of this. And I'm positive with a little tweaking, the next generation Xbox or Playstation could handle it as well - and in fact, easier, since they already support multiple controllers. Adding a 2nd LCD screen for $100 or so is a minor consideration if that's all you have to do.
Re:Do the math (Score:2)
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.
They were obsoleted by a more convenient tech ... (Score:3)
Re:They were obsoleted by a more convenient tech . (Score:2)
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.
Re:They were obsoleted by a more convenient tech . (Score:2)
Re:They were obsoleted by a more convenient tech . (Score:2)
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 would help, so I don't. Just making an observation.
So don't whine about unemployment/outsourcing (Score:2)
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 to read some more?
Not on the Wii it isn't (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Not on the Wii it isn't (Score:2)
Re:Not on the Wii it isn't (Score:2)
Serial cable? (Score:3)
What happened to serial cables to network two PCs to play Doom or Hexen? Kids today have no appreciation of technology...
Re:Serial cable? (Score:2)
Wii (Score:5, Funny)
This flowchart [www.dula.tv] is surprisingly true as well as being funny.
Comment removed (Score:2)
It's not just because of the internet. (Score:2)
Enter Tekken 6.... (Score:2)
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
My guess is that this is a case of "lets do it like those guys" that tested and failed imo
Re:Enter Tekken 6.... (Score:2)
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.
Our own N64 widescreen hardcore coop (Score:3)
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.
Perhaps because it's shitty? (Score:3)
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.
Re:Perhaps because it's shitty? (Score:2)
You value screen size and resolution over fun with friends? Oh right, this Slashdot.
Why should I have to sacrifice one for the other? Also, the reduction in image quality and confusing nature of gameplay reduces the level of fun with friends.
You want to reduce the quality of fun with your friends?
Re:Perhaps because it's shitty? (Score:2)
If you really think that the quality of fun with friends is better when they're NOT in the same room, fair enough..
When did I ever say that? It's entirely possible to have multiple displays in the same room. Ever heard of a LAN party? Ever heard of attaching multiple displays to a single device?
Re:Perhaps because it's shitty? (Score:2)
I'm talking about the common case here - a few friends coming over to your place
Yeah, me too. How does this make the argument any better? Few guests want to play a game with their own cramped section of a screen. I find that people enjoy non-split-screen multiplayer games much better. For example, Rock Band, Wii Sports or Buzz TV.
Re:Perhaps because it's shitty? (Score:2)
So : IF you have a game that is NOT FIT for shared screen, BUT you still want to retain the FUN factor of having friends around, AND all this while talking about the COMMON CASE of a few friends coming over, THEN split screen is a perfectly acceptable compromise of quality.
But what makes it better than a single shared screen? You appeared to be arguing that split-screen was the only solution to friends coming over to casually play a game. Even though a shared single screen seems a lot more common solution these days.
I was simply throwing out alternative ideas, because commenters here seem to be stuck in a false dichotomy between split-screen and online multiplayer.
Re:Perhaps because it's shitty? (Score:2)
Split-screen gaming requires only one additional thing over single-player gaming - an extra controller. It's small, fits in a drawer and requires close to zero time to setup.
So does shared-single-screen gaming. So, what's the advantage to split-screen?
Re:Perhaps because it's shitty? (Score:2)
What do you mean? Not all games work without split-screen so split-screen functionality allows people to play those games on the same screen.
I meant that split-screen is not the only way to play multiplayer games on a single screen. So, what makes it superior to multiplayer games that don't use split-screen? It certainly doesn't seem as popular in my opinion.
You were claiming that preferring other types of gaming than split-screen means that I don't value fun with friends.
Re:Perhaps because it's shitty? (Score:2)
For some games split-screen is the only way to play multiplayer on a single screen.
Yeah, so what? How does this make split-screen the only way to have fun with friends?
Remember, that was your original argument. That by not being a fan of split-screen gaming, one must be opposed to having fun with friends. You didn't say anything about friends coming over who specifically wanted to play games that could only be played multiplayer via split-screen.
It seems like a dubious contention, anyway. Why would a game only be able to played via split-screen? It seems to me that any game which could be played via split-screen could also be played by two separate screens placed side-by-side.
Re:Perhaps because it's shitty? (Score:2)
Almost all my friends carry around laptops anyway. Setting up is joining the same network and firing up the game,
boardgaming (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:2)
You're not looking. (Score:4, Informative)
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..
Technical Constraints (Score:2)
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.
I disagree...sort of (Score:2)
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 all the while having dinner, trading amusing anecdotes, showing off strange YouTube videos, etc.
And I'm not the only ones who do that. Many in my guild are clusters of friends who LAN party at their friends houses. There is the Texas Cluster, the Washington State cluster and there's us which is the Maryland cluster. We have the scattered ones, but that's 15 people (three groups of five) who enjoy an online game as a personal interactive experience with real people under the same roof.
So is it as dead or as dying as the article says, or is it in a state of evolution? A change into something a little different than we're traditionally used to?
WoW (Score:2)
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.
Comfort vs. Social. Fight! Comfort wins! (Score:2)
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... christmas videos of each other and ... umm... speeches, yeah) and connected through a hub or (the more professional ones) switches to play.
Of course, splitscreen didn't require you to haul anything more than your ass about, but it still meant to leave the basement and head over to a friend's where you'd play at, well, half a screen. Or a quarter thereof.
Let's be blunt here, it's simply more comfortable to call a friend and instead of telling him to come over 'cause you want to whip his ass in some beat-up game to go online and whip him that way. Also spares him the humiliating taunts when you do so.
Or spares you, depends...
The irony is... (Score:2)
The irony is that television screen size and resolution have finally reached the level where split screen games provide a reasonable gaming experience.
Change in screen realestate (Score:2)
Think outside "our" box... (Score:3)
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!
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why, when I was a kid, young people socialized around burgers and malts at the local grease pit. And the burgers were a nickel. And we respected our elders.
Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)
Let's see... that was the 1950's when you were a kid...so that makes you 65 years old or more? Get off my lawn grandpa, we put you in a nursing home for a reason.
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:Can't split into 16 screens (Score:3)
around 10 years ago, I was in high school and played 4-players Goldeneye on a 12" tv. Each player had a 6" subscreen.
Now that I have a job and enough money to be able to buy things, I have a 42" tv. Can't imagine why I wouldn't be able to play a 16 players split-screen game with a 10.5" subscreen for each player (except I would need lots of controllers and beers).
Re:Can't split into 16 screens (Score:2)
Just googled it and realized that the SNES was limited to 512x239 progressive or 512x478 interlaced so the resolution per player was at most 256x239...
Re:Can't split into 16 screens (Score:2)
Re:Can't split into 16 screens (Score:2)
Also, from Wikipedia:
The Nintendo 64 has a maximum color depth of 16.8 million colors (32,768 on-screen) and can display resolutions of 256 × 224, 320 × 240 and 640 × 480 pixels.
I'm pretty sure that Goldeneye ran in 320x240, even when not in split-screen.
Re:Can't split into 16 screens (Score:2)
My bad, of course it was for the N64. Nevertheless, the resolution was still pitifully low.
Re:Can't split into 16 screens (Score:2)
The original PlayStation had a link cable that allowed two consoles to be connected, and software that used it, before the N64 was even released. Very few people used it and the number of games supporting it was always low, and Sony removed it from later units in order to bring down the price of the console.
Older PS2 models could link up over Firewire, but this was also removed in later units for the same reasons.
My point is that split screen multiplayer flourished because networked multiplayer on consoles was impractical, not because it didn't exist. Today it's more practical, but it still doesn't have the same pick-up-and-play quality as many split-screen games.
Re:They better hope not (Score:2)
Maybe they just don't call it LAN parties anymore. Since everybody started using laptops there is a LAN party whereever you go.
Re:They better hope not (Score:2)
Laptops are more common than desktops and have had that status for (I think) 4-5 years now. Though many of them are not powerful enough to be gaming machines, a large fraction are.
And some people do take them around to eachother, mostly students coming from university, or business people coming from work, but I am mostly thinking of students, a cantine can quickly have a few local lan game, or a few guys meeting after work for a few beers hook up their laptops and have quick game of starcraft.