Why Split Screen Still Matters

[fearsomepirate]

Depends, you know? Sometimes the reason for co-op is a vast difference in ability, and you don't want to baby-sit your team mates. I like playing COD Black Ops co-op vs bots with my friends because I'm really good, and they are not. If we play vs. in any FPS, it consists largely of me killing them without them having any idea of what they're doing. Put us all on the same team vs. bots, though, and it gets really fun.

For example, a couple weeks ago we were doing 3 vs 9 on Array. I was just tooling around the map, being my regular COD-playing self. Sometimes, I would camp for a while and snipe so that they could have more fun killing bots. At one point, they both teamed up, threw out a care package (which is total bot-bait) and just farmed kills. They had fun. I had fun. They didn't interfere with me, and I didn't interfere with them.

 

[Billy Idol]

Am I really the only one who prefers playing online?

Gears, Halo, Uncharted, Ghost Recon Future Soldier...I love to play those games in coop...but I am so happy that I could play those games easily without much effort and without sacrificing graphics and screen space via online!!!

I use split screen only in rare cases, and then typically with non-gamers who only are able to play music games, soccer, nhl or racing games (motorstorm an blur are great)!!

But thank god I can play online with my friends!!!

 

[fearsomepirate]

Do you prefer playing online when friends are over?

I mean, if friends are at your house, and you think it might be fun to play some video games, do you prefer to send your friends away to start an online game, or do you slip off by yourself to play alone with your PSN/XBLA friends? Because to me, like I said in the OP, it's not about which is better, it's about which fits into different contexts. If I am alone, online is great. If I am getting together with the guys, it's nice to have some video games we can play together. If I don't have any games with any local multi, it simply means video games aren't an option in social gatherings, not that I'm going to stop seeing my friends in real life.

 

[nightshade]

A lot of my friends are shit at video games so I kind of get bored when I play with them when they come over to my place, so I let them play instead while I tend to keep myself busy with something else. However the ones who are good, like my roomate, I enjoy playing against/with online with them.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Am I really the only one who prefers playing online?

It doesn't need a preference. They are different experiences. Both should be supported by the industry to cater for different people and circumstances. There are lots of people who prefer the fun of having people round, making jokes, eating junk-food, etc., that just isn't the same online, but that doesn't mean they don't also like playing online in other cases.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I like how Shifty is able to say the same thing I said without being abrasive. I need to learn that skill. Probably would be good for my marriage.

 

[Billy Idol]

Do you prefer playing online when friends are over?

I mean, if friends are at your house, and you think it might be fun to play some video games, do you prefer to send your friends away to start an online game, or do you slip off by yourself to play alone with your PSN/XBLA friends? Because to me, like I said in the OP, it's not about which is better, it's about which fits into different contexts. If I am alone, online is great. If I am getting together with the guys, it's nice to have some video games we can play together. If I don't have any games with any local multi, it simply means video games aren't an option in social gatherings, not that I'm going to stop seeing my friends in real life.

Well, I do not have to send them away to be honest. They just prefer (as myself) to play on their own big screen setup without any sacrifices...thinking about it, we typically never play infront of the same screen. We really did it back then in the old days, when there was just no other chance...and then we only played games via Link system. I can remember that we played the first Formula one game on PS the whole night via system link. We both had wheels, screen, playstations. When the next formula one game released, we were shocked, because no link system option, only split screen. This was devastating and we figured useless and unplayable. So, no, I am really not interested in playing split screen...happens maybe once a year or so that I actually do split screen.

One exeption being surprsingly Heavy Rain and LA Noire. Those games, are best played together. In the sense that someone may has the controller, but all are involved (LA Noire is even better suited, as it just gives you way more time to think and discuss). This is not split screen, system link or online...but still one of the best 'multiplayer' experiences I ever had...

 

[Billy Idol]

It doesn't need a preference. They are different experiences. Both should be supported by the industry to cater for different people and circumstances. There are lots of people who prefer the fun of having people round, making jokes, eating junk-food, etc., that just isn't the same online, but that doesn't mean they don't also like playing online in other cases.

I understand this well Shifty, and I guess I really have to initiate some more 'face-to.face' gaming sessions among my friends, just for the junk food alone :smile:

But what, if you have more than three gaming friends...split screen of 4 seems limited...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If you have more than four people together, computer games probably aren't the ideal social activity. And if you're specifically wanting to play games with a group of more than four people, online is definitey the way to go. That or LAN parties.

 

[stofcri]

But split screen is the cheapest way to play games with people in the same room.Just imagine in a LAN party,you'd have to ask your friend to bring their own PC/Console and screen/TV set ...

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, up to four people. Local coop is good for upt o four people. Above that, you either want a LAN party, play online, or do something other than play computer games.

 

[Svensk Viking]

Agreed, splitscreen is awesome.

Especially in the 360's case, where Live is pay to play, the lack of splitscreen have made me skip some games I would have gotten otherwise.

 

[RudeCurve]

But split screen is the cheapest way to play games with people in the same room.Just imagine in a LAN party,you'd have to ask your friend to bring their own PC/Console and screen/TV set ...

With cheapness comes a compromised playing experience, tiny low res window...

 

[Rodéric]

With cheapness comes a compromised playing experience, tiny low res window...

I feel sorry for you, I've never had as much fun as playing with 3 friends around a console in a living room !

I played Mario Kart, Bomberman... back in the days, and it was a blast !

 

[Arwin]

I feel sorry for you, I've never had as much fun as playing with 3 friends around a console in a living room !

I played Mario Kart, Bomberman... back in the days, and it was a blast !

I had one of those extensions that allowed me to hook up 5 controllers on both the PS1 and PS2. One of my favorite games were Micro Machines v3, because it actually had controller sharing, so we'd do 6-8 player races on the same TV when I was an exchange student in Sweden, crazy fun.

In general many games that use the same play window of course don't have a degraded experience.

Shifty, did you actually try FlightControl HD on PS3? It can be played with up to 4 players co-op, and is actually quite an interesting challenge to work together with that. You can mix any amount of dualshock and Move controllers.

You can also play through all of Tumble in co-op with two Move controllers. There are quite a few Move controllers in fact that have interesting multi-player - recent example is you could play Foosball 2012 in co-op quite effectively as well for instance using one Move controller each.

If you still do a lot of local multiplayer, I'd definitely recommend getting two Move controllers. You'll be surprised how many games there are and how cool some of the experiences are. Dead Space: Extraction for instance is a fun 2 player light-gun style shooter.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

With cheapness comes a compromised playing experience, tiny low res window...

That attitude seems really backwards these days. I've played quarter-screen in the sub-SD days. That was a 160x128 display each on a small TV. It was still amazing fun. Now that we have the opportunity of a full SDTV's worth of gaming on the same TV, that's basically the same experience as a four-way LAN party in 1995 without any of the hassle. That's not particularly compromised. The sentiment that anyone choosing split-screen over a LAN party is cheap is one I disagree with strongly. I can respect someone wanting to go to the trouble of a LAN party for that experience, but that doesn't equate to superiority in the way you present it.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Well, I do not have to send them away to be honest. They just prefer (as myself) to play on their own big screen setup without any sacrifices.

So you have a lot of LAN parties, or your house is a video game playground, or what?

One of the other things about split-screen is that you can have LAN parties with fewer machines. Some years ago (I think it was my first year of grad school), I got six friends together, and we played Crimson Skies all night with 2 Xboxes and 2 TVs.

Also, if you have kids...well, some parents will buy two consoles, two HDTVs, and two copies of every game, but some parents don't have that kind of income.

 

[Arwin]

So you have a lot of LAN parties, or your house is a video game playground, or what?

One of the other things about split-screen is that you can have LAN parties with fewer machines. Some years ago (I think it was my first year of grad school), I got six friends together, and we played Crimson Skies all night with 2 Xboxes and 2 TVs.

Also, if you have kids...well, some parents will buy two consoles, two HDTVs, and two copies of every game, but some parents don't have that kind of income.

Actually that's one advantage of digital distribution - though doesn't always help if you need to be online and you can't use different accounts (which I think is an issue for some games).

I have a reverse problem - I have two PS3s, one in the study and one in the living room, several controllers and everything, but don't have any game playing friends in the neighbourhood. Sad.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I have a reverse problem - I have two PS3s, one in the study and one in the living room, several controllers and everything, but don't have any game playing friends in the neighbourhood. Sad.

Seriously, growing up is the worst.

 

[RudeCurve]

I feel sorry for you, I've never had as much fun as playing with 3 friends around a console in a living room !

I played Mario Kart, Bomberman... back in the days, and it was a blast !

Yes "back in the days"....

That attitude seems really backwards these days. I've played quarter-screen in the sub-SD days. That was a 160x128 display each on a small TV. It was still amazing fun. Now that we have the opportunity of a full SDTV's worth of gaming on the same TV, that's basically the same experience as a four-way LAN party in 1995 without any of the hassle. That's not particularly compromised. The sentiment that anyone choosing split-screen over a LAN party is cheap is one I disagree with strongly. I can respect someone wanting to go to the trouble of a LAN party for that experience, but that doesn't equate to superiority in the way you present it.

It's not really backwards. Back in the day I had fun playing pixelated low res 8-bit games too....doesn't mean I'd want to go back to it in this day and age with HD, pixel shading, AA etc present. Maybe your goggles are more tinted than mine.