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.

Comments

a recent AVGN video talked about this.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:a recent AVGN video talked about this.

[TWX]

I bascailly stopped gaming when so many titles became online-only. I enjoyed hunting down computer-controlled enemies to go through the level until I got to the exit door, and while I enjoyed multiplayer deathmatch, playing alone for awhile to learn the particulars of the game before coming up against experienced players made it a lot more fun to eventually play against them, as it's not fun to just be fragged and fragged and fragged.

Splitscreen's decline can be explained

[RogueyWon]

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.

Consoles and couches

[DingerX]

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.

Re:Consoles and couches

[drinkypoo]

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.

I am a well-known Microsoft-hater, but the Halo series and even the first game with its repetitive later levels in particular is one of the all-time great video games. It will go down in video game history not just as a great FPS, but as a ground breaker.

Go back and try to play it now and if you've been keeping up with games since there's little point, but it really was sort of t groundbreaking that you could meaningfully play it with a controller (even if you'd get your ass handed to you by a competitor with a mouse.) It also had an amazingly high level of polish.

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.

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?

Re:Consoles and couches

[Agent0013]

Not "kind of annoying wankers", the ARE wankers, because anyone with some experience knows that for movement analog sticks are better than keyboards.

How can anyone seriously think this. To walk right up to a cliff without falling off you need to tap the forward key very quickly, or even crouch then tap forward to move slower. On a stick, each movement takes a move forward then a move back to center to stop walking off the cliff. It takes twice as many finger movements to get the same action. I understand that the sticks are technically analog and you should be able to slowly creep forward, but their response is so bad and the range of motion is little that it is quite difficult to move just enough to creep forward, it is much easier to slam it all the way up then quickly bring it back to center. That will never be as quick as a tap on a key. That is also why headshots are impossible with stick and the games have to help out with aim-cheats. The mouse moves when you move it and stops as soon as you stop it. It also moves faster when you move it faster. The stick moves when you move it over, and keeps moving even though the stick is still, you need to move it back to center to stop the movement. Plus the whole while you are moving back to center the movement is continuing at a slowing rate. You end up cycling from left side of headshot to right side and never get centered on the head itself. Twice as many movements needed. The stick also has a maximum speed that is way slower than mouse movement. With a quick jerk of the hand you can do a 180 spin. On a stick it is move over, wait, wait, wait until you have moved a full 180, then move back to center. Way too slow.

Re:Consoles and couches

[Agent0013]

On a stick, each movement takes a move forward then a move back to center to stop walking off the cliff. It takes twice as many finger movements to get the same action.

You must live in a world without auto-centering sticks. There's no need to "move back", not even taking into account the ability to move slowly in the first place. And how is it twice as many movements when you say " tap the forward key very quickly."

Besides, the thumb is your most cabable finger.

It still takes more movement to get the stick back to the center than it takes to release a key.

I understand that the sticks are technically analog

Not technically analog, they ARE analog

and you should be able to slowly creep forward, but their response is so bad and the range of motion is little that it is quite difficult to move just enough to creep forward,

Your thumb is quite cable of making tiny movements. Now admittedly as a PC gamer you haven't got the skills/practice to do it well, but it's quite easy actually. Just because the stereotypical "ham fisted PC gamer who hasn't touched a joystick since 1981" can't do it, doesn't mean that it's a problem for anyone else.

Yeah, they are analog. But they are too small. You have to move it less than an inch to get full speed. Trying to get a slow speed is impossible because there is slop at the center. You start pushing forward, nothing happens yet, push further, still nothing, then while you are trying to creep forward the barrel comes crashing down on your head and your are dead. You are better off just going full speed.

That is also why headshots are impossible with stick and the games have to help out with aim-cheats.

Stop right there. I wasn't talking about FPS aiming now was I. I was talking solely about movement. The mouse is a fine pointing device, but it is essentially "easy mode", which is why you like it. In the transition to mouse aiming, mouse aiming was considered "easy mode for casual dudebros" compared to the games that came before it.

Headshots shouldn't be easy if we have any pretense towards realism in games, they should be HARD and rare.

You don't seem to realize that all console games have to have aim helpers when people play with the joysticks. Your target is greatly magnified so even if you are off to the side of the person it still counts as a hit. Or the crosshairs are moved onto the target when you get close enough. When a mouse player competes against a joystick player on a game that supports both methods of play, the mouse players completely dominate the game. That is the main reason that the XBox and Playstation does not let PC players play on their network with the console gamers.

The stick moves when you move it over, and keeps moving even though the stick is still, you need to move it back to center to stop the movement.

You're doing it wrong. "You" don't move it back to center. it moves itself back to center.

Sure, just release your thumb. You still have to move it back to center to put it back on the stick again. That will always take more time than not moving anything will take.

The stick also has a maximum speed that is way slower than mouse movement.

It depends on the game settings. What, you didn't know you could change the speed of the right stick?

So it's a trade off of being too fast or being too slow. With the mouse you have both at once.

With a quick jerk of the hand you can do a 180 spin. On a stick it is move over, wait, wait, wait until you have moved a full 180, then move back to center. Way too slow.

Again, you're doing it wrong. You don't move it back, it moves itself back.

You will not be able to move the stick again until you move your thumb back to the center. I don't see how your thumb can be in two places at once or can teleport from one location to another without movement between them.

A frustrating loss

[danielbeaver]

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.

Re:Splitscreen is wonderful

[TWX]

you know what's even better? When the players each have their own station in the same room. Even better than that? when there can be more than two or more than four of them.

Except for the whole smell thing. That does start to become an issue after awhile.

How about developers supporting 3d?

[Lumpy]

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.

Not all split-screen games slow down

[tepples]

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.

Re:...against a common enemy

[Theaetetus]

Incidentally, peeking makes split-screen better for co-op than the alternative of buying two consoles and two copies of the game.

Better? For competitive split screen certainly not. For cooperative games it's tolerable...

Incidentally, reading the comment you're replying to makes Slashdot better for discussions.