Why Split Screen Still Matters

[Shifty Geezer]

But we wouldn't be going back to that. We'd be going to a full SD screen's worth. It's a relative improvment as good as the other improvements in gaming, only it appears that split-screen hasn't been progressed but instead dropped and replaced with the lonely world of online gaming.

Wii effectively sold a hundred million boxes on being the local-coop machine. I don't understand why all the devs, who must have enjoyed split-screen gaming all those years ago, have all given up on it.

 

[Cornsnake]

Perhaps part of the problem is that games are more difficult to read nowadays, especially shooters. It used to be levels with relatively simple geometry, and the only thing that moved were the enemies, usually standing in wide open spaces because they were too dumb for anything else. Compare that to KZ3, which a friend and I stopped playing co-op because it was too hard to see what's going on. You have enemies wearing black armour in dark environments often hiding behind cover, and scenery composed of millions of little details and loads of effects going on. It all blends together with only half the screen.

Maybe good co-op needs to be taken into account when designing a game. But I'm not seeing brown shooters going anywhere.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There's probably something to that. Warhawk worked pretty well in split screen because it was pretty clear. Local multiplayer needs some specific game design. Playing CON, even with a primary colour circle around your character base you lose yourself from time-to-time. That'd be a benefit of split-screen. I'd love someone to focus on multiplayer though. Top-down games and design specifically for local coop.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Wii effectively sold a hundred million boxes on being the local-coop machine. I don't understand why all the devs, who must have enjoyed split-screen gaming all those years ago, have all given up on it.

Because, like a couple people in this thread, they don't understand that what makes split-screen worthwhile is the social context. They view split-screen as an inferior version of playing online, therefore, if you can play on online, they don't see the point of even having the feature.

They're not thinking about the fact that if you have three boys aged 7, 9, and 11, if they cut splitscreen, your options are:

a) Buy three consoles, three TVs, and three copies of every game.
b) Endure incessant bickering as they fight over whose turn it is to play by themselves

Or if you are getting together with between one and three friends, the options are

a) Not playing video games.
b) Online-LAN party (you and friends vs strangers).

You can't even do a regular LAN party because no one except Treyarch/Infinity Ward includes maps that are playable with fewer than 6 players any more, and apparently a memo went out that bots are a lame, stupid, dumb alternative to playing online that no one wants any more, not a unique feature with unique appeal.

Because if I could play Battlefield with a friend vs bots, apparently I wouldn't have fun and would rather get destroyed online by people who apparently play it for a living.

 

[Acert93]

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.

Same here. A number of times there have been games I would have picked up at $60 if they had 4 players but totally passed.

 

[tuna]

Because if I could play Battlefield with a friend vs bots, apparently I wouldn't have fun and would rather get destroyed online by people who apparently play it for a living.

I think BF3 bots would be quite difficult to program actually. Also, does BF3 even have split-screen? Seems to be a very unsuitable game for that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Bits don't have to be realistic though, mimcking online players. They need only be cannon-fodder. Like Borderlands, or Uncharted. Or Starhawk. All games I've played with friends; only one of which I could play local coop with a mate.

 

[nightshade]

I like the bots in Gears of War 3, they move like experienced players, as in they keep running and evading instead of just walking as a canon fodder with the only compensation being their 100% accuracy. It's the only game where I can have some moderate amount of fun against bots.

 

[Arwin]

Does Killzone 3s botmode support split screen? I never tried. I only remember being disappointed that there was no Move support for splitscreen, but again, don't have anyone to play with anyway.

 

[tuna]

Bits don't have to be realistic though, mimcking online players. They need only be cannon-fodder. Like Borderlands, or Uncharted. Or Starhawk. All games I've played with friends; only one of which I could play local coop with a mate.

Well, BF3 is not a cannon fodder game. If that is what you want, is it not better to play COD?

 

[fearsomepirate]

No, there is no split-screen for the bot mode in KZ3. GG said it was too demanding to have the 2nd player (they are pushing the PS3 way too hard in multi IMO). For some reason, they give you no ability to customize your bot matches. Apparently if I was able to take Assassination out of the Warzone cycle, I would become sad and depressed and lose my will to live. Thanks, GG. Thanks for saving me.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well, BF3 is not a cannon fodder game. If that is what you want, is it not better to play COD?

Horses for courses. Devs shouldn't refuse local coop just because they can't match the online experience with their bots. On offline training programme with bots is always a good addition to let players familiarise themselves with maps and weapons and controls, so please devs add that and tweak also it into a local coop experience.

 

[tuna]

Horses for courses. Devs shouldn't refuse local coop just because they can't match the online experience with their bots. On offline training programme with bots is always a good addition to let players familiarise themselves with maps and weapons and controls, so please devs add that and tweak also it into a local coop experience.

A bot in COD has to know about running around the environment and shooting. A bot in BF3 has to know about running around a much larger environment and shooting. The BF3 bot also has to know about driving vehicles. It also has to be able to drive vehicles with different bots/players in the same vehicle. The bots also have to decide when to enter/exit vehicles and what kind of loadout to choose based on the map.

I think that a training range would be nice in BF3, but BF3 bots would be way to complex to implement.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's overcomplicating it. Starhawk's bots aren't anything like human players - they are dumb grunts that spawn with a set weapon and simple tactics. The gameplay comes from them attacking in overwhelming numbers and the players having to outsmart them. I think that's a key component to good coop games - the team has to use their brains and coordination.

When I played CON again last Tuesday, we tried a 2nd difficulty game recommended for level 24+ characters starting with level 1 chars, and got mullered. But now I am scheming how four mages could possibly survive, rotating one blocker with the team casting ice spells, the blocking player being replaced when his mana has regenerated to fire off spells. In a BF3 local coop game, it could play with set enemy positions and weaopns and tactics and the players needing to learn the layout through repeated playthroughs. Or it could spawn various random elements and the players must react. There are lots of ways to play it out that don't need to emulate the online, human-competitor experience. Successful local coop has the players winning and feeling good at their teamwork, and only needs provide enough of a challenge to pull that off.

There's also the option of local team versus local team online - 4v4 BF3 maps with both sides playing local coop.

 

[nightshade]

Well, BF3 is not a cannon fodder game. If that is what you want, is it not better to play COD?

Why not ?
BF2 and BF2142 had bots, it worked.
Team Fortress 2 a game which is heavily based around using loadout and special abilities has bots.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Here's the thing...bots don't have to do everything. They just have to be functional, and you just have to give the user some flexibility in setting up the bot parameters. And a lot of stuff tuna said bots can't do are things AI already does in many games, both in single-player games and multiplayer bots.

The AI of COD bots is actually pretty terrible. But you can make a fun game by doing a match of 3 vs 8. Or you can set the time limit pretty long and see who gets to the most kills. Or you can just mess around and do silly things, like go 1 vs 9 with you just dual-wielding pistols, or make a rule that you have to pick up the weapon of whatever bot you just killed. Give me the flexibility, and I can entertain myself for hours.

GG made the mistake of thinking bots are "training" for online, so they give you zero flexibility in bot mode, like you're playing a random match online, but with bots. You can't even choose what side you're on.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I should add that another advantage of bots is I can play games that people aren't playing online any more. It's really hard to get into a game of Medal of Honor or COD:WaW these days. And then there are lots games where the online mode was a complete bust right away.

 

[Acert93]

Bits don't have to be realistic though, mimcking online players. They need only be cannon-fodder. Like Borderlands, or Uncharted. Or Starhawk. All games I've played with friends; only one of which I could play local coop with a mate.

In fact BF1942 had bots and they were dumb as rocks--but playing on a 4 player LAN with 4 players and 4 bots versus 56 AI was a BLAST. Some of the best gaming I have ever had. They were sheer cannon fodder but it was a blast, especially Desert Combat. It seems ironic with 1080p on 42+ inch displays being a target a lot of console gamers could hit that consoles may cheap out + designers shy away from split screen when the hardware could finally do it justice.

 

[tuna]

That's overcomplicating it. Starhawk's bots aren't anything like human players - they are dumb grunts that spawn with a set weapon and simple tactics. The gameplay comes from them attacking in overwhelming numbers and the players having to outsmart them. I think that's a key component to good coop games - the team has to use their brains and coordination.

When I played CON again last Tuesday, we tried a 2nd difficulty game recommended for level 24+ characters starting with level 1 chars, and got mullered. But now I am scheming how four mages could possibly survive, rotating one blocker with the team casting ice spells, the blocking player being replaced when his mana has regenerated to fire off spells. In a BF3 local coop game, it could play with set enemy positions and weaopns and tactics and the players needing to learn the layout through repeated playthroughs. Or it could spawn various random elements and the players must react. There are lots of ways to play it out that don't need to emulate the online, human-competitor experience. Successful local coop has the players winning and feeling good at their teamwork, and only needs provide enough of a challenge to pull that off.

There's also the option of local team versus local team online - 4v4 BF3 maps with both sides playing local coop.

There are BF3 coop stages, have you tried them?

 

[tuna]

In fact BF1942 had bots and they were dumb as rocks--but playing on a 4 player LAN with 4 players and 4 bots versus 56 AI was a BLAST. Some of the best gaming I have ever had. They were sheer cannon fodder but it was a blast, especially Desert Combat. It seems ironic with 1080p on 42+ inch displays being a target a lot of console gamers could hit that consoles may cheap out + designers shy away from split screen when the hardware could finally do it justice.

Could they enter/exit vehicles? Decide where to spawn? Change loadout?