Saturday, May 17, 2008

I guess this wont be a weekly thing... (A Split Screen Rant)

Okay, so perhaps I haven't been updating this as much as I should...

Anyways, since none of you care for the drama and small talk.... On with the show:

Isn't the new generation great? You find a great game, go play online, and then when a friend comes over, you realize that it doesn't have split screen... 

Dear dear dear.... 

"Sorry Bill, this game doesn't contain any split screen multiplayer"
"But, it has online, why doesn't it have split screen?"
"Uh..."

So what are we to tell these people? "Just because?"

Are we not in the next-generation? Online play, downloadable content, wireless controllers, HD, surround sound, motion sensing, and pretty graphics, and developers can't implement a feature that has been around since before the NES(Nintedo Entertainment System). What happened? It's the next generation of gaming, surely we move forward, not backward, so onto some minor points to be taken:

"Games have online because it is the next big thing"

Perhaps that is so, but what happens if the servers go dead... Or you don't have the internet, or it's not hooked up to your system, or it's not fast enough? Surely this is a large % of the market?

"Split Screen ruins most multiplayer games, because you can see where you enemies are"

Again, true, but haven't games had split screen multiplayer for a long time? What is it about this generation that's any different? Before there was online, there was LAN, which most of the time takes place in the same room, again, how different is this?

"It takes time to implement split screen"

It takes time to implement Online, it takes time to make the graphics, it takes time to program the gameplay, so why is this aspect shafted?

"Online is better then split screen"

No, that's a matter of opinion. If you are trying to play with someone miles and miles away, sure it's nice, but what if you have people at your house, and to play a game, you just have to switch off? That's not fun.

"It takes more processing power to render stuff going on, on both screens at once."

Okay, I can agree with this, but again, I point my finger at the past, look at how many games last generation had top of the line graphics, and still had split screen? Why is this generation different?

"Not all games need split screen"

No, not all do, but games that have online already have multiplayer programmed in, sure it's not all of the multiplayer code, but it's most of the basic code needed, I don't see why developers can't go the extra 10 steps.

"Developers don't add split screen, because it's such a small feature, that no one would care"

Not true, I have seen tons of topics on online forums of people not buying a game due to lack of split screen, I also have friends that think this way. I myself haven't bought Unreal 3 on the PS3 due to the lack of split screen.

"Games on the PC have never had split screen"

Not true, old games, around the times of DOS, and Windows 95 had split screen, but that's beside the point. Split Screen is something that has put consoles ahead of computers. 



Now, why is it that when sony removed Rumble from their controllers there was an uproar, but these companies are not getting negative feedback when they don't add split screen to a RACING game..?

So in the end, why is it that exclusive to this generation there are so many games that have online but not split screen? Games that demand split screen even, First Person Shooters, Racing games.. I shudder to think of the first fighting game that doesn't include split screen...

Anyways, I'm not going to commit to, and fail, in saying that I will update more often... But, we shall see

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your rant is bad and you should feel bad.

Jon God said...

I don't however, instead I feel like laughing at this fail of a comment.

MGSFREAK1688 said...

I understand your position, but a long rant like this was not needed. They are just video games...focus your anger on things that matter. Like...saaay...how bad education sucks in America.

Anonymous said...

Why would they give us split-screen when they can make us pay for another copy of the game?

And congratulations on your newfound popularity! Speaking of which... your face looks like it has a troll's face on it but it's really your actual face.

-Action Jack

gruz said...

I'd prefer to have the whole screen to myself while playing multiplayer.

There's also some issues like framerates that come into play. If the system has to draw everything 2x, you might see a big slowdown.

Most of the games that I play though do have split-screen for co-op, just not online play.

Anonymous said...

I agree. I go to a friends house to play a game localy, we select multiplayer only to see "Lan" and "Online".

Developers need to make more games splitscreen. Bungie did it with Halo 3 and the splitscreen is really fun. I don't play online since it costs too much money for Xbox 360 and Wii doesn't many online games that are any good, and I don't have a PS3. I wish more games had splitscreen. There is no excuse. If Halo 3 did it, so can other games.

Jon God said...

I agree, I think Halo 3 should be a staple of what should be required in a video game. :)

Amber said...

/agree with your rant.

And the big companies are scratching their heads wondering why the Wii is selling so well. It may have bad graphics, childish games, and require us nerd types to actually use muscles that extend beyond the wrist, but at least it doesn't require others to be kept at arms length at the other end of a modem.

Tim said...

You are really not alone, I just read the preview for the new midnight club game to find out there is no splitscreen, which was the main reason I liked the first one so much.

I think the main comment in your rant is the "It takes more processing power to render stuff going on, on both screens at once."

True yeah, other games systems have done this before with still top graphics, but it's exponential. Just take a look at Mercenaries 2 and GTA4. Do you really think the PS3 could handle two Niko Bellics running around entirely different parts of the city at the same time on one console? Sure Pandemic probably wouldn't make graphics and detail as pretty even if it was also a one player game, but things have to be toned down for split screen to work, and that damages the reputation of a game when somebody sees a two player game and judges the entire games' graphics on that. Mercenaries 2 got entirely shafted because of its graphics, and i think that would have been a lot less likely to happen if they didn't opt for the co-op availability. But this is just ramblings now.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, I think it's dumb that they expect us to have multiple consoles, copies of the game, and tvs just to play a game with someone we know and make it actually socially worthwhile by being in the same room.

Anyway the point of this ridiculously long comment is that if a developer tries to lower the graphics quality even just a little to allow for split screen, they'll get criticised for it. That is, until they all do it.

And Amber, though I'm a ps3 owner, I couldn't agree with you more about the wii thing.

I think this comment is actually about as long as the post itself...whoops