Not to mention Zombies, Modern Warfare 3 had splitscreen in spades and it's where all my enjoyment of CoD comes from. Sitting down with a mate and kicking the rse of bots (or having our arses kicked by bots, does happen)josemlopes said:
Who Killed Split Screen Co-op?
- Thread starter TheVampwizimp_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i have never played splitscreen in my life.
i don't get the appeal, my console owning friends played a lot of goldeneye deathmatch against each other splitscreen and i never got the appeal, we called always seeing were everyone is a wallhack. And coop, well i am not a big fan of coop in general, i barely tolerate it Borderlands.
i don't get the appeal, my console owning friends played a lot of goldeneye deathmatch against each other splitscreen and i never got the appeal, we called always seeing were everyone is a wallhack. And coop, well i am not a big fan of coop in general, i barely tolerate it Borderlands.
The problem with splitscreen-gaming is, in my opinion, that it has rarely been good. It would always mess up your field of view no matter how big your TV was.
And I wouldn't say that splitscreen is dead, but it has evolved into directlink. It's not as simple as splitscreen since you still need two of everything, but it's a far superior gaming experience in my opinion.
And I wouldn't say that splitscreen is dead, but it has evolved into directlink. It's not as simple as splitscreen since you still need two of everything, but it's a far superior gaming experience in my opinion.
I guess it does make sense that the publishers did it. A group of 4 friends buying a game once and playing it together was fine, but it suddenly became possible to make all 4 of those friends buy their own copies, and their own systems. 4 times the profit. Which is a thought that turns my stomach. Yet another older convenience that has been negated by the almighty greed of corporate financial officers.
See, I don't give a damn about the hardware limitations. The PS2 and the N64 could handle it, and the PS3 and Xbox 360 can handle it too. Future Perfect took nary a hit to graphics or framerate to support four people at once, and I refuse to believe that the PS3 can't manage what the last gen could. Just make the graphics and environments a secondary concern. I think most of us (in this thread at least) would gladly pay for a new IP that did what Timesplitters did as well as it did, at the cost of cutting edge graphics. Seriously, does anyone go back to Future Perfect and lose interest because of the graphics? If you do, you are a hoity-toity twat.
Graphical capabilities do not have to define every new release. Give it a distinctive style, like Borderlands does, and you can find ways to cut corners on the actual processing demands. Even if you have to go all the way back to late-PS2 style graphics, big deal. It would be totally worth it.
Which is why I know now that it was the profit motive and greedy executives that did it in. Money grubbing whore bastard fucks.
See, I don't give a damn about the hardware limitations. The PS2 and the N64 could handle it, and the PS3 and Xbox 360 can handle it too. Future Perfect took nary a hit to graphics or framerate to support four people at once, and I refuse to believe that the PS3 can't manage what the last gen could. Just make the graphics and environments a secondary concern. I think most of us (in this thread at least) would gladly pay for a new IP that did what Timesplitters did as well as it did, at the cost of cutting edge graphics. Seriously, does anyone go back to Future Perfect and lose interest because of the graphics? If you do, you are a hoity-toity twat.
Graphical capabilities do not have to define every new release. Give it a distinctive style, like Borderlands does, and you can find ways to cut corners on the actual processing demands. Even if you have to go all the way back to late-PS2 style graphics, big deal. It would be totally worth it.
Which is why I know now that it was the profit motive and greedy executives that did it in. Money grubbing whore bastard fucks.
Well the correct answer is nothing did because plenty of games still come out with split screen multiplayer and co-op. It is really only the less known games with smaller budgets that ditch it. Its a feature that really does not get used very often anymore and is severely limited by technology. As the graphics on games get better and better it causes split screen to put to much pressure on the systems.
In an impressive subversion of this, Valve recently added split-screen co-op in Portal 2, for the PC. It's partly to promote the "Big Picture" mode on Steam, but I still heartily approve of this. I wish Gearbox could be persuaded to do the same for Borderlands 2, but that would probably be difficult at this point. More devs and publishers could take a cue from this. You might sell slightly less copies, but that will be made up for with a massive amount of good publicity.
The internet combined with the fact that its easier to find one guy on your coast ready to play against you as opposed to one friend in your house ready to play against you, killed it.
Also, Travelers' Tales is silently weeping in the corner over the fact that you not only don't acknowledge them but have not acknowledge their contribution to split screen technology. You should feel ashamed!
Also, Travelers' Tales is silently weeping in the corner over the fact that you not only don't acknowledge them but have not acknowledge their contribution to split screen technology. You should feel ashamed!
Meh. The greatest multiplayer game of all time never needed split screen.
http://cdn.wikimg.net/strategywiki/images/d/d9/Bubble_Bobble_ARC_Round013.gif
http://cdn.wikimg.net/strategywiki/images/d/d9/Bubble_Bobble_ARC_Round013.gif
There are still a few that can be played split screen and are lots of fun. Borderlands and its sequel, RE 5, Left 4 Dead, and so on. I personally miss things like the 4 player coop action RPG. The last one that I remember was Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2.
I love me a good co-op, and I like having a gaming buddy slouching on the couch, but I gotta hand it to multiplayer for giving each player a full screen to operate rather than constrict gameplay with a split screen. It helps immersion and makes gaming comfier. I still co-op but I'm not utterly shocked at the prevalence of multiplayer.
You mean like those 'Heroes' D&D games on the XBox? - There is D&D Daggerdale in the XBL store that looks pretty good. I like these games, but they seem to have evolved into games like LeagueOfLegends - which I'm not a big fan off. It's like they play best when it's a small group of 3 or 4, playing in the same room on the same screen, it's like a shared adventure that way. When it's all online, well people just bugger off and do their own thing, and that tends to just be a lot of grinding.FoolKiller said:
There is also Dungeon Defender, which if I'm honest I'm a little dissapointed in. It's like Torchlight and Tower Defense had a baby, then wished the baby was more like Dungeon Keeper.
i can rebute your post with one word: hotseat.Aris Khandr said:
hotseat games were the most awesome part of many strategy games. grab a few friends and play together chattering meanwhile. you cant organize that over the internet like that anymore. sadly publishers decided to skip that option because they wanted peopel to buy more copies and usei nternet services (yes im looking at you civilization 5)