Weekend Question

[if76]

Since this may have been the slowest videogame news week in internet history, I'd like to pose the following question:

Although online penetration in the world of console gaming hovers around 10%, videogame companies have started making online their dominant form of multiplayer. Meanwhile traditional same-room gaming has taken a back seat. The inclusion of a four-player-on-one-couch mode is either lackluster (Halo 2) or nonexistant (the vast majority of 3rd and 1st person shooters such as Unreal Tournament). Is this shift to online-only multiplayer a reflection of the shift in gamer demographic toward older gamers, or are game makers (and reviewers) out of touch with the common gamer? How do you feel personally? Would you like it if game companies would put more effort into making N64-esque multiplayer experiences or would you not touch a 4-player splitscreen with a 20ft pole?
Discuss!

[bapenguin]

Halo 2 split screen lacklaster? What makes you say that? Not only that, with the split screen you can take all 4people on live and play as well!

But yes...more focus needs to be put on the same room gajing expierence. Forza is a good example...the split screen play is ATTROCIOUS, you have practically no options whatsoever. The online play on the other hand is crisp and well though out.

[thecrazyd]

It works for certain games. I would never want to play Smash Brothers online, but as far as FPSs go, its all about the Internet.

[Draft]

Halo 2 split screen lacklaster? What makes you say that? Not only that, with the split screen you can take all 4people on live and play as well! My thoughts exactly. And yet the N64 did it well?

[Wonka]

if76, in order to form an opinion about this I need to have a reliable estimate of how many people play games multplayer with split screen? What is the rate of people buying (and regularly using) secondary controllers?

[Adam Blue]

Well, I enjoyed the N64 days of split-screen multiplayer gaming, but having your own TV became a whole new universe that took over. I think all types of gamers are getting into it. I don't think any group is being alienated and there are so many different types of people that play online.

Game companies don't need to focus on the split-screen/same room gaming, but I think if the online component is in place, that split-screen should too. You never know when you will use it.

[MosBen]

Part of the problem is that one tv is rather restricting. Even playing with 4 people divides a tv up into rather small areas to play on. Plus there's always the asshole, me, that looks at what everyone else is doing as a "strategy".

[PotatoNinja]

I live for multiplayer games, and as fun as online gaming can be, unless the internet somehow allows you to reach over and punch the guy who just sniped you for the fifth time in a row, I'll always prefer the couch over broadband.

In this generation, the Gamecube is the only console (IMO) that has really done much for the 4-player-in-one-room gamer. Not saying there aren't good 4 player titles for the Xbox and PS2 (Halo 2 and Champions of Norrath come to mind), but that doesn't compete with all the Mario Party's, Smash Brothers, PSO, Crystal Chronicles, Four Swords, Wario Ware, etc.

I have been very, very, happy with Xbox LAN parties, and I hope that's a trend that takes off in the next generation. Four playes is fun, but having 16 people in one room is just fantastic.

[Taran Wanderer]

Another factor to consider is that only one copy of the game needs to be purchased to play split screen. To play online, each person needs to buy his/her own copy. So it makes sense for developers/publishers to focus more time on the online multiplayer experience in order to sell more copies. However, there are exceptions to this thinking. As thecrazyd pointed out, games like Smash Brothers and party games (pretty much by definition) are more fun when everyone is in the same room playing the game.

[Ghost_Saint]

The problem with online multiplayer only is that your friend has to go out and buy the console and the game, and the service in order to play with you.

However the problem with split screen is that you have a smaller screen (really bad on your average TV if you're trying to do 4 on Halo and you're trying to find the person sniping you), and everyone else can see exactly what you are doing on your screen and where you are.

The best way multiplayer works is if you don't have sacrifice screen space for your friend(like in fighting games).

[EL CABONG]

both reviewers are out of touch and gamers are older now than before. I game online on live and enjoy it I use to love 4 player split screen but now that I am in my mid twentys I rarely get a game on the couch with more than one other person.

[MasterEvilAce]

Man.. yeah splitting up the TV sucks hard. I was playing crash and burn earlier today with a friend on split screen.. Terrible experience. Couldn't make out anything on the screen at all.

I wish they had up to 4 separate TV possibilities on consoles..

[kizke]

I've never had more fun playing a game than when I've sat down with a few friends and played with them.

Online is lacking true, honest community. I wouldn't call it social. To this day my favorite game to play with people is Smash Bros or SBMelee because of how approachable it is and since it requires people to actually be present it fosters a better environment in my opinion.

[Blade]

Split-screen is still great, and if applicable.. should be used.

However, it's definitely not the only game in town. Every home console needs to have built-in ethernet from here on out.

[if76]

My thoughts exactly. And yet the N64 did it well?

There are just a lot of little things that Halo 2 does that hurts the 4player splitscreen.

For instance the way that you log in before you decide what game type you want means that only one person can mess around with the game options rather than all four.

Another thing is the lack of the option to turn off those little icons above players' heads. In multiplayer it makes a lot of sense to quickly show who's hurting etc but with 4player splitscreen it just makes it harder to see.

Then there's the maps. CTF on Coagulation is almost impossible to play because half of the spawn points start the player off midfield without any nearby guns or vehicles. If someone is making off with your flag, it's really up to luck whether you have any chance at all of catching them. Of course if you were in an 8 or 16 player game this wouldn't be an issue because chances are someone would spawn in a decent spot.

These are just a few examples of Halo 2 being completely online focused.

[mister_slim]

I think split-screen is probably a hassle for developers. Instead of one camera they have to develop for 4, while online play, though it does have its own difficulties, is more similar to single-player.

[Blue]

I hate the fact that in order for me to feel like I can have a fun multiplayer experience with Halo 2, I have to have a Lan party where I know everyone involved. And, as we only have 3 Boxes (Boxai? either way), that only allows for 12 people max. That also means that one television is going to have 2 players from each team attached to it, thus allowing for the opportunity of "spying" on the other team. The split-screen thing doesn't really bother me, but I do agree that it sucks up a good chunk of the screen making it - for me - harder to snipe. It's a bit of a double-edged sword as while the screen does shrink, it's nice to be able to see what everyone on your team is doing and where they are.

I've found that I cannot tolerate my teammates over LIVE where it's more of a crapshoot whether or not I get people that either a) know what they're doing or b) don't TK. Halo 2 over LIVE just turns out to be more of a hassle than it's worth.

[MongolHunter]

I think that they shouldn't ignore one part of the game to concentrate on the other. Shouldn't they be able to make it fun for online gaming and couch gaming? I had a blast playing 4 player Halo 2 when I was living in staff accom. People were just next door to play but we weren't near any form of cable internet connection so split screen was all we could do (sure system link but it never really happens) and it works well if you have a tv that is moderately big. Also the plural of box i think is boxen. Such as ox = oxen.

[MagicAlex]

Don't forget that games are getting more complicated as well. A game like Goldeneye was perfect for console-gaming because there wasn't much information that needed to be on the screen, and the pace of the game was slow enough that you didn't have to worry about death coming at you from all directions. Hollow Tube, on the other hand, is built more like a PC FPS, and having reduced vision is essentially a handicap.

And it's not like having a single screen is necessarily better either. On some stages in Smash Bros. it becomes nearly impossible to keep track of your character amidst all the explosions and splashes. On top of that, they made the goddamn status area so big it intrudes on the game area, and obscures characters and objects behind it. Multiplayer can obviously work in both split screen and single screen, but the designers have to be smart using whichever method they decide on.

[Heretic Machine]

I like both split-screen and online gameplay. Why? Because I can game online anytime, while split-screen is funner but is only available -sometimes-.

[splatstick]

...penetration...

I would like to point out that this is the only part of the post that my brain could allow me to read.

[if76]

I think the problem with reviewers is that they are really out of touch with what equipment the average gamer has. They work in offices with 6 xbox's hooked up on a lan and each one connected to xbox live. When a game like battlefield 2 comes in for review they play on private servers and don't have to deal with uncooperative morons on the public servers. When a game has a crappy splitscreen multiplayer mode, they never even mention it because they can just play system link or online. Meanwhile if a game has an excellent splitscreen mode, it doesn't affect the review score at all because they don't care. Yet probably 70% of the people that play the game will be using splitscreen for their multiplayer.

[Steve_Erhardt]

I think both need equal developement, depending on title. Something like Mario Party works/fits well with 4-screen split, and frankly there's no excuse to NOT have that... it's a Party game, after all.

For something like Halo or say MechAssault, MAYBE a 2-way split, max, though personally I can't stand to share the screen like that... I feel like I'm playing with fucking blinders on. At any rate, those games are examples of where the online function becomes more important and deserves the lion's share of development attention.

[Blue]

I would like to point out that this is the only part of the post that my brain could allow me to read.

/giggle on

...penetration...

/giggle off

[Chandler]

reason why N64 did well in split screen gaming is because you could see the players in 007 and starfox. It used simple polygons and colors. You can't see crap in Halo2 or unreal tournament because theres hundreds of particles and objects flying around.

High def should help a lot, but it's getting annoying when the graphics of games are getting better but at the same time its getting harder to see whats going on.

[Blue]

reason why N64 did well in split screen gaming is because you could see the players in 007 and starfox. It used simple polygons and colors. You can't see crap in Halo2 or unreal tournament because theres hundreds of particles and objects flying around.

High def should help a lot, but it's getting annoying when the graphics of games are getting better but at the same time its getting harder to see whats going on.

It could just be me, but I have a wide-screen HDTV and I still have a hard time figuring out what's going on with split-screen multiplayer over LIVE. If it's just two of us and the screen is only split once, that's not too bad. But when you get four of us and the image is divided that much, high def or not, it becomes difficult to make out what's going on.

I agree with your point though about 007 and Starfox though. If possible, games like Unreal Tournament and Halo 2 have too much going on and too much to do. Split screen (and I'm talking four or three-way split) really does seem to work best when the game itself is simplier.

I'm still curious though as to what would make a good solution. The idea of having a console with the ability to attach multiple televisions to a single unit is perfect though I seriously doubt anyone would do that any time soon. Wouldn't they lose money doing that? Meaning, doesn't it make sense for them to almost "force" the consumer to buy multiple machines to play with their friends? Yay money.

[if76]

reason why N64 did well in split screen gaming is because you could see the players in 007 and starfox. It used simple polygons and colors. You can't see crap in Halo2 or unreal tournament because theres hundreds of particles and objects flying around.

High def should help a lot, but it's getting annoying when the graphics of games are getting better but at the same time its getting harder to see whats going on.

When you play games like Halo on a standard TV monitor, you're playing them 480i. Games like Starfox and Goldeneye actually ran at resolutions considerably lower than this. I'm not sure going up to 720p will be a relatively larger boost.

[slenchender]

I think that we should still have split screen and online. they should just give us the option of either.

[XenonCJ]

4v4 Quake1 LAN style (DM3 clan-ring) during my years at college were some of the best times computer gaming I've ever had. I've yet to play a game since that has matched that level of intense competitive PLUS co-op feel.

When my clan beat Clan Postal in T3 (online quake1 tourney), one of my clanmates actually THREW UP afterward because it was so intense. Now that's some good shit... eheh

[EternalGamer]

Yes we can all agree that split screen multiplayer isn't as pretty, but when it comes to the choice between looks and quality of experience, I will always choose the latter. For me, you simply can't beat having a group of friends playing a game together in the same room, no amount of headsets, cameras, or other peripherals are going to be able to duplicate the experience of the social dynamic of multiple people gaming in the same room. There is also the huge difference in quality control in terms of both who you are playing with and the connection speed. Internet play guarantees inconsistency in both those areas.

LAN parties are definitely the best of both worlds, and when we get to the point where flat panel TVs are more of a commonality, literally grabbing your TV underarm and carting it over to your buddy's house, will be only a minor inconvenience. But what I really want to see is more Co-op material. Gaming needs to find a way to really develop as a social outlet if it wants to expand, I think, and the internet, in my opinion, will always be and incredibly second rate social outlet.

How many of us watch movies alone ALL of the time? How about with a bunch of strangers? What about playing sports, more fun with just some dudes you meet at the park or with your friends? An evening dining out with conversation? More interesting with random folks or people you know? Poker, clubbing, cooking, hiking, dancing, drinking. All these activities are a lot more fun with people you know and actually care to be around, people you genuinely want to spend more time with. Almost all of the other most popular forms of entertainment are those that can be engaged in socially, so why must we continue to game primarily alone or with vertible strangers?

There are some great evolutionary gameplay mechanics developing in the single player arena nowadays, however if I want to play with multiple people, I am often limited to very standard "I can outshoot you/out race you" competitions. The games me and my friends have enjoyed the most have been the dungeon hacks, games with mechanics so repetitive and dated they belong two generations back at least. I understand the way that developing co-op play defies the traditional norms single player audience focus, but I think there is much success to be had for those that find a way to make a kick ass co-op gaming experience. It is a market area that has yet to be significantly tapped.

I like games. Most of my friends like games. With all the other obligations of life, free time is limited enough as it is. So why is it in the little free time we have, we must choose between spending time with our favorite hobby and our favorite people? This is something that needs to change.

Dan

[if76]

Bravo Dan. Please take a bow.

[Shifteh]

EternalGamer seems to have summed it up, but I'd just like to mirror him, if I may.

I recently asked my friends to name a game that has had them as riveted to the screen, and having a blast in the process, as Goldeneye for the N64.

We sat and discussed, and came up with... nothing. Games have come somewhat close; nothing, however, has eclipsed it. Perfect Dark was mentioned, but we noted that, even now, we still play Goldeneye. And we love it!

You can have all the online "emersion" you want, but you'll never get the same fun as sitting around, unplugging one guys controller, making up random rules on the fly, removing certain rules on the fly, and just plain craziness you get in person.

[Vandenh]

Split screen was a poor mans multiplayer. Gaming companies made split screen games to have some kind of multiplayer support... now that we have fast broadband it really is not necessary for most games. The only exception seems to be the so called "party" games (a relativly new breed anyway). Me and my friends almost never play split-screen... when we get together we just play hotseat type games.

Actually.. if we want to have fun and beer, we usually play a boardgame. A lot more fun than staring at a TV screen like zombies. Of course for kids splitscreen action could still be fun... not for us anymore.

[Wonka]

So I am hearing that a lot of you (or at least the ones who wrote in) like to spend a lot of time playing games split screen on the couch. I agree that this is a lot of fun, but I am an older player, and A LOT of my friends are no longer living in the same city as I am in. I wonder how old a lot of you guys are, and if perhaps you will still be usually playing split screen on the couch in 10 years? I also wonder about the question I asked earlier: More specifically, what percentage of gameplay time is actually spent playing split screen? 1%? 5%? 50%? I honestly have no idea what the precise answer to that question is... Is the comparison to 10% of gamers being online really even relevant? Perhaps the question we should be asking is what is the percentage of time that is spent by gamers (per capita) playing each of these modes (online vs split screen)? I would be willing to bet that online will pull out in front eventually (if not already), due to the massive convenience of it.

[didragondi]

I play much more single player, so maybe I am not the target audience here anyway, but, I love multiplayer cooperative games. Split screen is sort of the default mode for shooters, but I personally have a good time with the split screen as well; but my favorite for multiplayer is shared screen like Xmen legends. FOur players, coop, leave whenever you want.. the setup is perfect, its just a shame that with four different points of view, you cannot do that with a shooter.

[didragondi]

I will add one thing to that also, Online as it is right now is of little interest to me on the xbox, since multiplayer RPG's are my favorite type of mp game. I believe they are planning one for 360, but there is really no excuse for there not being one for the XBOX. I will not subscribe to live as long as it is just shooters/.

[EternalGamer]

So I am hearing that a lot of you (or at least the ones who wrote in) like to spend a lot of time playing games split screen on the couch. I agree that this is a lot of fun, but I am an older player, and A LOT of my friends are no longer living in the same city as I am in. I wonder how old a lot of you guys are, and if perhaps you will still be usually playing split screen on the couch in 10 years? I also wonder about the question I asked earlier: More specifically, what percentage of gameplay time is actually spent playing split screen? 1%? 5%? 50%? I honestly have no idea what the precise answer to that question is... Is the comparison to 10% of gamers being online really even relevant? Perhaps the question we should be asking is what is the percentage of time that is spent by gamers (per capita) playing each of these modes (online vs split screen)? I would be willing to bet that online will pull out in front eventually (if not already), due to the massive convenience of it.

Wonka, I think the problem with your question is that it is not so much how many hours ARE spent playing multiplayer on one screen, but how many hours WOULD be spent doing so if we had better options given to us. I too am now several states away from a lot of my friends (but probably only temporarily while I finish up graduate school), but even for those with significant others, co-operative gameplay offers the opportunity to share an experience rather than alienating your partner/spouse. Right now probably 20% of my gaming time is spent playing co-op but it probably would be more if good opportunities were available. I have a feeling being able to SHARE in enjoyable gaming experience would prevent a lot of tension in the relationships of gamers everywhere. Whether our freetime is spent with friends, family, or significant others, most of us probably do not spend it entirely alone. I wish game designers would acknowledge this fact.

Dan

[IagoTheHunted]

There's not much I can say that hasn't been said. But on developer end (I'm a developer) I think the "problem" is largely about design. The reason why online multiplayer is more redily used is because you don't have to change the core 1-player game much to get it working. FPS's are the easiest example, where the game is almost identicle (to the player) playing online and alone, so not much design work has to happen to incorporate it.
Getting lots of people to play on one screen, however, has the same problems that it's always had.
The screen is too small.
HUD needs to work for multiple people.
Menus pause the game for everyone and thus need to be excluded from gameplay.
etc. etc. etc.

Unless the game is designed specifically for that type of gameing, it just won't work, and often that's not the case online, where it can be added as a feature rather painlessly.

Oh and lastly for anyone who wants to check out a great multiplayer game, look for X-men Legends 2 when it comes out (I'm on that project, it's going to kick ass :)