Slashdot Mirror
Splitscreen Gaming Is a Culture, Not a Mode
SlappingOysters writes: Grab It discusses the loss of splitscreen gaming to the Halo series in this article that asks developer 343 Industries to re-evaluate its position on cutting the feature. The developer has cited "increased visual and gameplay fidelity" as the reasons for cutting the series' hallmark mode. In better news for couch co-op fans, the site does confirm that Gears of War 4 will have splitscreen gameplay when it releases in 2016.
This accusation is always throw sometime in the match ,"How did you know I was on that side of the map? You must have been looking at my screen."
Split screen is wonderful. You're playing the same game together, side by side, rather than two rough interpretations of each other's single player games. You get to verify the other player is playing fair. Long live Resident Evil 5 and 6's split screen modes.
Mike and James had a play vid of the new Godzilla game on ps4, James is pretty much about old school games only and really has no clue about modern games. They wanted to play split screen 1 on 1 vs mode and....couldn't. To boot, they had to have a ps4 live account just to access the vs mode which was online only.
In some ways games really have taken a step backward, instead of kinects and moves to bring social gaming back...maybe they should bring simple things like 2/4 split screen back.
There are a few things behind the decline in split-screen gaming on consoles.
Demographics have changed a lot. Until the latter part of the PS2/Xbox cycle, console gaming (with a small handful of exceptions) meant getting a bunch of people into the same room at the same time. That was ok as far as it went; a huge chunk of the gaming demographic back then was the teenager and young-adult market, with ready availability of siblings or housemates to provide the players. Those players are still the most important purchasing demographic, but they're older now. Split-screen gaming for them is a "special occasions" thing now, while online gaming is there for them whenever they feel like it.
Gamers are also a lot more intolerant of poor framerates than was the case in the past. Split-screen gaming usually involves a big hit to framerate and many classic split-screen games (including the early Halo titles) made enormous compromises in this area. Ever since the Call of Duty series started making a big selling point out of its 60fps gaming, there's been a lot more focus on framerates. For those about to cry "graphical snobbery!" - the difference in responsiveness and feel between a console shooter running at a steady 60fps and one running at either a steady 30fps or, worse still, a variable framerate is huge. PC gamers might not appreciate this, since they're used to having a lot more control in this area. But one of the big reasons why the Call of Duty series made it so big on consoles (despite seeming tame and unambitious to PC gamers) is that it just feels so much more responsive than the competition. With split-screen shooters often having provided a sub-20fps experience, the market for them now is likely much diminished.
There's also the point that more multiplayer games these days make a big point out of persistent stats systems. Look at a modern online shooter and you will often find a bewildering array of level-up systems, perks, bounties and other meta-game components. Those are geared towards online players putting in dozens of hours, not to quick-blast couch-parties.
So basically, while there is a small but vocal community that desperately wants split-screen gaming, there are understandable business reasons that have led to it being sidelined and gradually eliminated.
splitting hairs.
Let's get the obligatory stuff out of the way: the author there seems to think that Halo is some sort of masterpiece. It ain't.
Even in terms of mechanics, consoles are lousy for FPSs: controller vs. K+M; the mouse always wins. From a PC-superiority perspective, the best way to do an FPS is therefore Keyboard and Mouse, which means one player sitting in front of a screen. Consoles can't beat PCs on technical specs.
The result, someone who wants a "serious FPS" is going to do it alone in a darkened room in front of the same device that delivers pornography.
Consoles, on the other hand, are hooked up to huge screens and are played on couches. There are often other people around, which is what can drive sales. So, yeah, split screen makes more than sense, it makes sales.
Of course, the way all consoles are selling now, their target demographic is fast becoming married men who only get to play for an hour or two late at night after the spouse and kids have gone to bed.
I'll admit, I grew up on split screen gaming with friends, or two player single screen local multiplayer. Gaming has never been as fun as it was back then. But today? I can't do it, I've tried on a few of the ps3 titles that offered it, and I simply could not concentrate on my side, or half, of the screen.
Why is no one really hammering on this 1 screen sharing via 3d? Sony has a solution out there but I don't think many games actually use it. This is the future of split screen gaming, and I fully expect once all tvs can support the refresh rates, we'd see games being shipped with polarized glasses specifically to enable this faux split screen gaming.
Some games today still seem like splitscreen would be fantastic, others not so much.
The days of split screen shooters ala Goldeneye are over, it's more trouble than it's worth
Some of the most fun I've had playing video games was sitting on the couch with three other friends and playing Goldeneye, Mario Kart 64, Super Smash Bros, Halo, Timespliters, Fusion Frenzy... etc. Never mind the complaints about screen peeking, or the super-low-def TVs of the era, these were deep, rich gaming experiences that combined all the best parts of teamwork and cutthroat competition. I'm especially fond of the Halo 2 system link LAN parties we had, where we had two teams of eight in two different rooms in the house, battling for hours on end trying to capture that last flag. Having your buddies in close physical proximity meant you could quickly and efficiently communicate and coordinate, and the crazy, ambitious plans we hatched on the fly (and occasionally actually pulled off) stand out to me as some of the most rewarding gaming experiences I've ever had.
But of course, something happened when headsets and online play became popular among console users. The value proposition was obvious: play multiplayer all the time, without having to actually get them over to your house (a non-trivial problem if you're too young to drive, or live in a rural area, or just don't have many friends). You can even use a headset to talk to your teammates and opponents - just as though they were sitting on the couch with you! Except... it's nothing like that. There is a coldness to talking to a disembodied voice over a headset, something the social animal can't connect with. Me and my friends chattered over our headsets, but it rarely became as raucous as our interactions on the couch. Those rare times when we finally planned around our busy adult schedules to find time the couch to play Halo: Reach or Super Smash Brawl proved the point - we hadn't simply outgrown it, it was still way fun.
Halo 4 was the last game we spent a lot of time playing split screen on, but we were eventually forced to quit as the framerate was unplayable on newer map packs. Clearly, the era of split screen was dead - only Nintendo caries the torch on. It's a frustrating loss.
The last few years have seen me become a lot more involved in board games, tabletop RPGs, and miniature wargames. The primary driving factor for that was my craving for physical human interaction when gaming. I was suprised by how lonely I felt even when I had a regular group on VOIP to play League of Legends, or a community of friends in Planetside 2. I won't undersell how much fun I had with those people, but they were disembodied voices to me, and I couldn't connect the way I could with people on the couch.
3d LEFT to the player 1 and 3d Right to player 2 is the killer feature of the 3d tv sets. Why the hell dont these developers support it?
Although asking them to enable 3D in games is falling on deaf ears, so I'm guessing it will never happen.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Incidentally, peeking makes split-screen better for co-op than the alternative of buying two consoles and two copies of the game.
Split-screen gaming usually involves a big hit to framerate and many classic split-screen games (including the early Halo titles) made enormous compromises in this area.
True, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 for Sega Genesis would slow down a lot more in its split-screen mode that put Sonic on top and Tails on bottom. But Super Mario Kart never slowed down. Take that, "Blast Processing". So if Halo 5 can't keep up with rendering two views, this only means Halo 5 is broken.
Plus shared doesn't always mean split. Because Bomberman, Smash TV, and Smash Bros. take place in one room at a time, they don't need to split the screen to fit all players on.
The value proposition was obvious: play multiplayer all the time, without having to actually get them over to your house (a non-trivial problem if you're too young to drive, or live in a rural area, or just don't have many friends).
I don't see how online helps in a rural area, as rural areas are generally slower to get wired broadband, and latency over cell or sat is too high for real-time games.
Clearly, the era of split screen was dead - only Nintendo caries the torch on. It's a frustrating loss.
If indie game developers were willing to make PC games designed from the ground up for sharing a screen, would you be willing to buy/build a gaming PC for the living room?
In 3D, the two cameras are 60 to 65 mm apart (one IPD). This means the two views can share a lot of the visible set calculation and texture caching. Two cameras with half the map between them can't benefit quite as much from that.
There are always a small minority that like things a certain way. So some people out there are sure to be fans of split screen. The truth is though for the most part. Split screen SUCKS!
The performance of the game usually goes way down.
If its an FPS or any kind of fast action type game the other players 'screen' plays hell with your peripheral vision and is a huge distraction.
If its not a co-op situation the temptation to cheat is really strong.
The amount of screen real estate gets to be terrible, it was IMHO nearly unplayable for most games at standard definition and while its better with high def its still not great.
The physical screen size is reduced destroying the immersive experience element of the game.
As far as I am concerned. Good riddance to a horrible mode of play that nobody ( that isn't crazy ) really liked. Much better way to go is multiple consoles or for social gatherings games where all the players can be on the 'same' screen.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
LAN parties are the last bastion of in-person cooperative gaming.
Didn't I just read that game consoles are going to be eclipsed by tablets in the next couple of years, in terms of horsepower? Aren't those people just playing games on their PC or on a tablet?
A tablet's input device is a flat sheet of glass. It's fine for games that would have otherwise used a mouse, such as a space shooter like AirAttack HD. It's also good for what are essentially racing games that use only one button, like Rayman Jungle Run. But for games originally designed for a gamepad, there's no way to tell where your thumbs are relative to the on-screen controls at the side while you are looking at the action in the center. It's even worse than the widely panned Turbo Touch 360, which at least has a recessed touchpad with ridges and physical A and B trigger buttons. When I tried the free subset of Pixeline and the Jungle Treasure on my Nexus 7, I kept "whiffing", or pressing outside the active areas of the on-screen gamepad, and missing jumps. This continued until I paired a Bluetooth keyboard, after which the game worked fine.
Or are people actually buying external gamepads like MOGA for use with their tablets and phones? The last time I checked, I couldn't find any sales numbers for these external gamepads, which disappoints me because there's no other way to assure game developers that there's a market for games supporting them.
As for PC, some people choose consoles because they're easier so long as one is happy with vanilla versions of games from major labels.
Each player is obligated to bring their own computer
This means people have to plan LAN parties in advance. They can't gather for a reason other to play video games and then just spontaneously decide to break out the video games. (See beelsebob's comment.)
And it doesn't help if someone else in the household needs to use the family PC the same night.
power strip, extension cord, ethernet station cable, and chair.
Good luck hauling that behind your bike. Or what am I missing?
Splitscreen Gaming Is a Culture, Not a Mode
Next you'll be telling us that splitscreen gamers are being repressed as a people.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Or are people actually buying external gamepads like MOGA for use with their tablets and phones?
I don't know if they are but I do know that they can.
Except in practice, "can" doesn't matter quite as much as "are". If only one person owns a particular peripheral, it's not economically viable for a for-profit game developer to add support for that peripheral even to an existing game, let alone develop games from the ground up for that device.
They can also use various PS3 controllers (DS3, Sixaxis) if they don't need to use any other bluetooth devices at the same time... on some devices. Yeah, not a perfect solution, but the point is if it works you can do it for very little money and the app to find out if it will work is free.
For someone who doesn't already own a PS3, where might he find a working DS3 or Sixaxis controller with which to try the Sixaxis Compatibility Checker app? I imagine video game stores' return policies don't cover incompatibility with non-PS3 game systems as a valid reason. Besides, the app's description states that root access is required, and at least on the device I own, rooting would require a factory reset.
cara mengatasi keputihan dengan ramuan tradisional http://24jamnet.blogspot.com/2...
Because TV manufacturers would have to support it first, or at the very least someone would have to make left/right switchable glasses.
I would have thought that left-only and right-only modes would be more popular to support people who get headaches while watching 3D movies but want to enjoy a movie in 2D with someone else who does enjoy 3D movies. A quick Google search for 2D glasses turns up products compatible with certain 3D technologies.
you can't just go buying Android devices willy-nilly any more than anything else and just expect them to work.
Consoles are easier than tablets. With a console, you can buy the console, the controller, and the games, and be sure that compatibility is warranted just from what is printed on the box. With a tablet, you cannot, as the packaging does not list support for rooting or the Sixaxis Controller app. Therefore, people who remain rationally ignorant because they are busy with other things to do in the day are likely to continue to choose consoles.
Or is there an up-to-date list of which phones and tablets are compatible with the Sixaxis Controller app, so that I'll know before I spend big bucks on a device, shipping, and tax, only to discover that it is incompatible? A quick Google search (sixaxis controller android device compatibility list) failed to find anything relevant.
[Context: drinkypoo's claim that split-screen is irrelevant because tablets have replaced consoles despite a touch screen's unsuitability for certain genres]
Or are people actually buying external gamepads like MOGA for use with their tablets and phones?
Do you see people using them on public transportation, or when waiting? Then no.
[...]
if I'm going to buy a game that would be played best with physical controls, [...] that's what the Vita is for.
In the three years that the PlayStation Vita has been out, I haven't seen one of those on public transportation either.
What a wasted opportunity!
MOO|MOO
---+---
MOO|MOO
Not far off from "Charge!", one of the activites in Nintendo's Wii Play. Ride the bulls and plow into defenseless scarecrows.
It's a plot instigated by the television/monitor manufacturers to sell more hardware.
Have gnu, will travel.
It's much better now than it was in NTSC, but if you want to game with someone in the same room, for the best experience, you'll want a dual-view display so both of you can use the entire screen. It seems like this hasn't been supported on consoles since the Xbox 360 though. I'm happy Skyping with friends while playing online so we all have our own big screens. It's nice to still be able to hang out while living in different states.
From the bits of preview footage we've seen the game is already having a hard time even doing single screen at a fixed rate.
They're shooting (har) for 1080p, but they're using something called 'dynamic resolution' where various things are rendered at various resolutions depending on how important it thinks they are and what the frame rate is doing - you want it fixed at at least 30 fps, though 60 would be better. Basically a dynamic level of detail, which is a smart idea, but some things on the screen are noticably lo-res. For instance at some points your gun is in really high detail close up, but then halfway down the gun it periodically looks like it's rendered at 320x200 (seriously) before upscaling. This is noticeable even in motion, not just freeze frame.
I'm sure they're still optimizing, and you might not even notice much in the heat of shooting Covenant in the face, but it does imply that they just don't have the oomph to render two entire scenes at once at a decent frame rate. Split screen is the same total pixels (fill rate), but almost twice the amount of geometry to render.
I assume non-splitscreen is for goats or sheep then.
They also can't start their tabletop role playing games unless they bring their books and dice and character sheets.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, those are cheap enough that the DM can afford a spare copy of the core books, the current campaign's sourcebooks, and set of dice. In addition, unlike the family PC, tabletop RPG materials have only a single purpose, which means someone else in the household is unlikely to need to use them for some other purpose that night.
Provided your family is rich enough to buy stations for all gamers in the household plus whomever they have over.
If they play computer games together they bring computers or have left a rig at the friend's house that they regularly play at.
"[Having] left a rig at the friend's house" is a bit more expensive for computer games than for tabletop games. One is more likely to own four controllers than four gaming PCs.
Eventually they'll sell you a box that "inspires you to think of the game you'd like to play", but there'll be nothing in the box
Do you mean a direction like WarioWare DIY? It's shorter than the previous WarioWare games but comes with a built-in modding tool. Or Super Mario Maker?
Slayer Edition was supposed to add new levels and equipment. Instead they added an "endless" mode, and made the camera not follow the players unless they're edging the screen into an oncoming horde of monsters. I miss the old days :(
I call Odd Job.
But these are Xbox One owners who are complaining about no split screen in Halo, they weren't concerned about frame rates in the first place otherwise they would have built a PC or at least got a PS4 if they wanted to stick to consoles. The target audience for an Xbox One is a thrifty consumer that just wants a plug and play experience, and doesn't really care about performance but just wants to play the latest games in the cheapest way possible. Ouya and Wii U don't cut it on that front due to the library, but an Xbox One that can be picked up for $250 with pack in games fits the bill.
And to do the local multiplayer on a single station you need to have enough controllers for all gamers in the household plus whomever they have over
A spare controller is far less expensive than a spare desktop computer, graphics card, monitor, copy of Windows, and copy of each game.
For cooperative games it's tolerable, but not optimal depending on the game.
Agreed.
In [some action RPGs for Super NES, PlayStation, and PlayStation 2], if any player has the menu open, gameplay basically pauses
Blame those particular games' developers for that. The solution going forward is not to remove the possibility of split-screen but to fix shoddy menu design. Arrange the menu to fit in one player's half of the screen, and pause only when the menu button is held down for a second. This may have been too much to handle on the Super NES, with its 64K of VRAM and three usable scrolling layers, but the hardware limit must have been overcome between the fourth and fifth generations, as GoldenEye starts to get it right.
A spare controller is far less expensive than a spare desktop computer, graphics card, monitor, copy of Windows, and copy of each game.
These days plenty of people have more than one PC, or have a laptop or a console that they can bring and it doesnt limit you to just 4 players and having to split the available screen into 4 sections that everybody can see. Split screen is just a crappy and limited compromise that is less and less relevant now that more people have more than one system and/or can bring their own to a lan party as well as having highspeed internet connections.
If cost is your main concern then fine, do the crappy split-screen controller compromise. Not quite sure the point you are trying to make since the case you are presenting is niche but it is still quite well served: There are a vast array of titles for the major consoles that support local multiplayer, you can even develop or commission games of your own through the indie programs on them and if that is too limited for you there are plenty of Android micro-consoles that are free to develop and distribute on as well as the PC platform that you could target.
These days plenty of people have more than one PC
How well would one gaming PC and two PCs with Intel integrated graphics processors work? Wouldn't the player with the gaming PC be at an unfair, unfun competitive advantage over the Intel IGP players?
or have a laptop or a console that they can bring
First, they have to be all the same platform, such as all PC, all PlayStation 4, all PlayStation 3, all Xbox One, or all Xbox 360. Second, if they're PCs, they need to have gaming GPUs, not Intel IGP, and laptops with Intel IGP can't easily be upgraded to add a gaming GPU unless something has changed that I don't know about. Third, all players have to own a copy of the same game; you can't play, say, Counter-Strike against Unreal even though they're both first-perosn shooters. And fourth, as beelsebob and I wrote earlier, a LAN party is less spontaneous. All players have to plan in advance that a specific gathering will be a LAN party so that everyone doesn't have to drive back home or wait an hour for the next bus to go get their video gaming hardware.
and it doesnt limit you to just 4 players
I'm told that DualShock 3 isn't limited to four; there can in theory be up to seven on one PlayStation 3. Super Smash Bros. for Wii U supports eight players.
and having to split the available screen into 4 sections that everybody can see.
True of a first-person shooter or a racing game. But what is "split" in Bomberman or Smash TV or Street Fighter or Smash Bros.?
as well as the PC platform that you could target.
Other Slashdot users have told me that if my team develops a PC game supporting two or more USB gamepads and tries to bring it to market, next to nobody will buy it because next to nobody wants to either buy a second gaming PC for the living room or move the gaming PC back and forth between the living room and the desk. And as I understand it, the indie console programs require that a company already have brought a successful PC game to market. Or what am I missing?
I can't speak to how often "a lift from family or friends" can be repeated before they begin to object to "using me as your private taxi". But a controller is cheaper than successfully lobbying your city to add bus service at night or on Sunday. (Source)
I can't speak to how often "a lift from family or friends" can be repeated before they begin to object to "using me as your private taxi". But a controller is cheaper than successfully lobbying your city to add bus service at night or on Sunday. (Source)
If you can't get a lift from family or friends and there is no bus service then a controller doesn't help you either, no matter how cheap it is it doesn't get you from one place to another.
If you can't get a lift from family or friends and there is no bus service then a controller doesn't help you either
I'll admit I forgot something. A controller and a bicycle are cheaper than a car and insurance.