Death of the 4 player co-op

[Gormers1]

...... It's dead because everybody hates split screen.

Seconded.

Only excuse is Gauntlet.

STFU... Please... Personally Ive never had any problems playing 4 player fps split screen. Even when I had a 25 inch tv or something like that.

One of the main reasons I love consoles is the god damn split screens, and it seems that we are getting less of them these days. Perhaps its because publishers want to make more people buy their games, but split screen often is what decides if Ill buy a game or not, like Pure or that last james bond game.

Of course online is better if all people have the game, but the result of not having split screen is that everybody only plays a game alone. Or WoW... Or only left 4 dead and no other games...

 

[out0v0rder]

The wii has been out for a couple years now.

 

[ketokonami]

I do find it strange that some of these games done even provide the option, i mean, i costs more to buy 4 xboxes 4games and 4 small tvs then it does to by a full big screen with an entertainment system and surround sound, left 4 dead was the biggest disappointment. my 3 friends and i where soo looking forward to being mauled by the zombie hoard together...

 

[I20I3]

Do you know why they aren't bothering with split-screen gaming anymore? Because split-screen sucks. Fucking seriously. While there is no reason for games that don't need to split-screen (sports games, castle crashers, etc) to not have a four person gaming mode, I really wouldn't want to play four-person split-screened Halo or Call of Duty or even Left 4 Dead on my TV. If I had one of those sixty inch behemoths, maybe, but on my 32" TV? Hell no, even split screen on Gears 2 was uncomfortable.

No one if forcing you to use the split screen feature. I also doubt that because you have a 4 player split screen feature on your game, that 3 people will barge into your house, and demand to have you play with them so that you get your screen all split. But my main point is that even not split screen games, are lacking in quantity for the current gen.

If you're not really talking about the lack of 4 person split screen on console games, but rather talking about the lack of quality in non split-screen games, then why make a topic of about split-screen in games? That doesn't make sense.

The reason you aren't seeing split screen so much is because consoles are becoming far more wide spread, as is online use. Why waste time on something that nobody but a minority of the vast population still relies on split-screen to play with their friends. And if I were to host a shindig with enough people to justify playing together, I'd probably be to interested in talking to girls and other such things to worry about split screening Call of Duty.

If you had actually read my original post, you would have seen that I made this about 4 player co-op on one console, not about split screen. You would have also noticed that i mentioned Champions of norrath as my prime example. That being a non split screen game, it is top down action rpg. It was brought up not by me, but others that 4 player split screen is bad. I do see some of the downsides to it, but also a lot of upsides, and the downsides are not pressed on anyone aside form those looking for a 4 player game, in which case they can deal with it.

Okay, my bad, I got a bit confused was only responding to one point of what you said, then you said something different and I responded to that. Okay, here's why you don't see a lot of those games: the big market is currently FPS's. Seriously, nobody is that interested in top-down action RPGs that much. They make a fun diversion for an evening, but they're not going to sell as nearly as well as Gears of War 3 or Half-life 2: Episode 3 will.

Well seeing as how i am somebody, and i am interested in top-down action RPG's a lot. I would have to say your statement is false. Also as for being "a fun diversion for an evening". I have any many others played that type of game for well over 400 hours (that being more than a single evening). If you look at the success of left 4 dead, you can see that people apparently really enjoy a good co-op game. Sure they screwed the pooch on being 4 player split screen. But the Co-op aspect was appealing to a lot of people, and I've heard a number complain about not being able to play 4 player, when the game is called left "4" dead.
I don't want them to make these type of games instead of the big name ones, but instead of the small crappy ones, that no one plays anyways. In time maybe they will gain some sort of fanboyism and reach the ranks of Half-life. But you have to start somewhere, or at least keep going

 

[DirkGently]

Do you know why they aren't bothering with split-screen gaming anymore? Because split-screen sucks. Fucking seriously. While there is no reason for games that don't need to split-screen (sports games, castle crashers, etc) to not have a four person gaming mode, I really wouldn't want to play four-person split-screened Halo or Call of Duty or even Left 4 Dead on my TV. If I had one of those sixty inch behemoths, maybe, but on my 32" TV? Hell no, even split screen on Gears 2 was uncomfortable.

No one if forcing you to use the split screen feature. I also doubt that because you have a 4 player split screen feature on your game, that 3 people will barge into your house, and demand to have you play with them so that you get your screen all split. But my main point is that even not split screen games, are lacking in quantity for the current gen.

If you're not really talking about the lack of 4 person split screen on console games, but rather talking about the lack of quality in non split-screen games, then why make a topic of about split-screen in games? That doesn't make sense.

The reason you aren't seeing split screen so much is because consoles are becoming far more wide spread, as is online use. Why waste time on something that nobody but a minority of the vast population still relies on split-screen to play with their friends. And if I were to host a shindig with enough people to justify playing together, I'd probably be to interested in talking to girls and other such things to worry about split screening Call of Duty.

If you had actually read my original post, you would have seen that I made this about 4 player co-op on one console, not about split screen. You would have also noticed that i mentioned Champions of norrath as my prime example. That being a non split screen game, it is top down action rpg. It was brought up not by me, but others that 4 player split screen is bad. I do see some of the downsides to it, but also a lot of upsides, and the downsides are not pressed on anyone aside form those looking for a 4 player game, in which case they can deal with it.

Okay, my bad, I got a bit confused was only responding to one point of what you said, then you said something different and I responded to that. Okay, here's why you don't see a lot of those games: the big market is currently FPS's. Seriously, nobody is that interested in top-down action RPGs that much. They make a fun diversion for an evening, but they're not going to sell as nearly as well as Gears of War 3 or Half-life 2: Episode 3 will.

Well seeing as how i am somebody, and i am interested in top-down action RPG's a lot. I would have to say your statement is false. Also as for being "a fun diversion for an evening". I have any many others played that type of game for well over 400 hours (that being more than a single evening). If you look at the success of left 4 dead, you can see that people apparently really enjoy a good co-op game. Sure they screwed the pooch on being 4 player split screen. But the Co-op aspect was appealing to a lot of people, and I've heard a number complain about not being able to play 4 player, when the game is called left "4" dead.
I don't want them to make these type of games instead of the big name ones, but instead of the small crappy ones, that no one plays anyways. In time maybe they will gain some sort of fanboyism and reach the ranks of Half-life. But you have to start somewhere, or at least keep going

I won't go into the concepts of exaggeration and metaphor, but focus rather on your mention of Left 4 Dead. I was talking about the top-down action RPGs. There's not a great demand for them. Everybody likes L4D. It's co-op, zombie murdering fun, from the best perspective, the first person, made by Valve, pretty much the best developer out there. Like wise, it'd be a pain in the balls to play in split screen, because it's painful with one split, never mind four. Never mind that it also allowed split screen on the PC, which was something totally new. I don't sell the appeal of 4 way split screen, and neither do many other people. Four person non-split screen requires a very specific type of game, that most of the market simply isn't interested in.

 

[I20I3]

I won't go into the concepts of exaggeration and metaphor, but focus rather on your mention of Left 4 Dead. I was talking about the top-down action RPGs. There's not a great demand for them. Everybody likes L4D. It's co-op, zombie murdering fun, from the best perspective, the first person, made by Valve, pretty much the best developer out there. Like wise, it'd be a pain in the balls to play in split screen, because it's painful with one split, never mind four. Never mind that it also allowed split screen on the PC, which was something totally new. I don't sell the appeal of 4 way split screen, and neither do many other people. Four person non-split screen requires a very specific type of game, that most of the market simply isn't interested in.

I think that what you are doing here is confusing your own opinion with that of "a lot of people" or "everyone". If you had read the thread, you would have noticed that "a lot" of people, have had there fondest memories while playing 4 player split screen. This is due in part to the simple fact that you can play with people you can see beside you. By the title of the thread stating "4 player co-op" it includes top down RPG's, and FPS's, and every other type of game where you can play co-op. My point is that people enjoy co-op games, especially 4 player co-op where you don't have to have a system link. Also i feel that there is a sharp decrease of these games, and there is a demand for them.

 

[DirkGently]

I won't go into the concepts of exaggeration and metaphor, but focus rather on your mention of Left 4 Dead. I was talking about the top-down action RPGs. There's not a great demand for them. Everybody likes L4D. It's co-op, zombie murdering fun, from the best perspective, the first person, made by Valve, pretty much the best developer out there. Like wise, it'd be a pain in the balls to play in split screen, because it's painful with one split, never mind four. Never mind that it also allowed split screen on the PC, which was something totally new. I don't sell the appeal of 4 way split screen, and neither do many other people. Four person non-split screen requires a very specific type of game, that most of the market simply isn't interested in.

I think that what you are doing here is confusing your own opinion with that of "a lot of people" or "everyone". If you had read the thread, you would have noticed that "a lot" of people, have had there fondest memories while playing 4 player split screen. This is due in part to the simple fact that you can play with people you can see beside you. By the title of the thread stating "4 player co-op" it includes top down RPG's, and FPS's, and every other type of game where you can play co-op. My point is that people enjoy co-op games, especially 4 player co-op where you don't have to have a system link. Also i feel that there is a sharp decrease of these games, and there is a demand for them.

And you still don't get the concept of exaggeration. I've already pointed out that most games have co-operative modes. Gears, Halo 3, Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 & 2, Castle Crashers, Resistance 2, Call of Duty: World at War, Left 4 Dead all have co-op modes, whether it be co-op story or another co-operative game mode, and these are just games that come to mind thinking of my own library.

Gears one and two both have co-op campaign with two people, and Gears 2 has the Horde mode which allow sup to five people to play together.

Halo 3 has four person co-op

Rainbow six Vegas 1 had four person co-op and four person terrorist hunt mode. Vegas two only had two person co-op, but allowed the host to control teh AI teammates and allowed for better story telling in the co-op version, and it retained the four person Co-op Terrorist hunt and vastly improved the way it works.

World at War allows for four people to play through the campaign or the "nazi zombies" mode. I'm not sure what it allows in terms of splitscreen.

Left 4 Dead, as we all know, allows for four people to co-operatively fight off the legions of infected, with two people on each platform.

So, I'm seeing a ton of great and fun titles of this generation that allow co-operative fun.

Where is this lack of co-op games? Do they not count as co-op if you can't all play together on the same console?

 

[I20I3]

I won't go into the concepts of exaggeration and metaphor, but focus rather on your mention of Left 4 Dead. I was talking about the top-down action RPGs. There's not a great demand for them. Everybody likes L4D. It's co-op, zombie murdering fun, from the best perspective, the first person, made by Valve, pretty much the best developer out there. Like wise, it'd be a pain in the balls to play in split screen, because it's painful with one split, never mind four. Never mind that it also allowed split screen on the PC, which was something totally new. I don't sell the appeal of 4 way split screen, and neither do many other people. Four person non-split screen requires a very specific type of game, that most of the market simply isn't interested in.

I think that what you are doing here is confusing your own opinion with that of "a lot of people" or "everyone". If you had read the thread, you would have noticed that "a lot" of people, have had there fondest memories while playing 4 player split screen. This is due in part to the simple fact that you can play with people you can see beside you. By the title of the thread stating "4 player co-op" it includes top down RPG's, and FPS's, and every other type of game where you can play co-op. My point is that people enjoy co-op games, especially 4 player co-op where you don't have to have a system link. Also i feel that there is a sharp decrease of these games, and there is a demand for them.

Really if you read the first post, you would stop saying redundant things.

And you still don't get the concept of exaggeration. I've already pointed out that most games have co-operative modes. Gears, Halo 3, Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 & 2, Castle Crashers, Resistance 2, Call of Duty: World at War, Left 4 Dead all have co-op modes, whether it be co-op story or another co-operative game mode, and these are just games that come to mind thinking of my own library.

Gears one and two both have co-op campaign with two people, and Gears 2 has the Horde mode which allow sup to five people to play together.

Halo 3 has four person co-op

Rainbow six Vegas 1 had four person co-op and four person terrorist hunt mode. Vegas two only had two person co-op, but allowed the host to control teh AI teammates and allowed for better story telling in the co-op version, and it retained the four person Co-op Terrorist hunt and vastly improved the way it works.

World at War allows for four people to play through the campaign or the "nazi zombies" mode. I'm not sure what it allows in terms of splitscreen.

Left 4 Dead, as we all know, allows for four people to co-operatively fight off the legions of infected, with two people on each platform.

So, I'm seeing a ton of great and fun titles of this generation that allow co-operative fun.

Where is this lack of co-op games? Do they not count as co-op if you can't all play together on the same console?

Really if you read the first post you would stop saying redundant things.

 

[Metalchair]

I agree with you. the list of four play SPLIT SCREEN games r going away. and this makes me sad. lately the most split screen (if any) that iv seen is two players. games that have four player online play wouldnt be that bad on one screen. Like Fable 2, the co-op already was a rather big disappointment, but if theyre going to make it bad, at least put four players in it, make like a Gaunlet Legends experience. Left 4 Dead also comes to mind (not the crappy co-op, i loved playing with other people) but the two player split screen is a little odd. its meant to be a four player co-op... y not have four player split screen. trying to rely on two AI characters who r unbelievably thick at times is a bit to ask for

 

[DirkGently]

I won't go into the concepts of exaggeration and metaphor, but focus rather on your mention of Left 4 Dead. I was talking about the top-down action RPGs. There's not a great demand for them. Everybody likes L4D. It's co-op, zombie murdering fun, from the best perspective, the first person, made by Valve, pretty much the best developer out there. Like wise, it'd be a pain in the balls to play in split screen, because it's painful with one split, never mind four. Never mind that it also allowed split screen on the PC, which was something totally new. I don't sell the appeal of 4 way split screen, and neither do many other people. Four person non-split screen requires a very specific type of game, that most of the market simply isn't interested in.

I think that what you are doing here is confusing your own opinion with that of "a lot of people" or "everyone". If you had read the thread, you would have noticed that "a lot" of people, have had there fondest memories while playing 4 player split screen. This is due in part to the simple fact that you can play with people you can see beside you. By the title of the thread stating "4 player co-op" it includes top down RPG's, and FPS's, and every other type of game where you can play co-op. My point is that people enjoy co-op games, especially 4 player co-op where you don't have to have a system link. Also i feel that there is a sharp decrease of these games, and there is a demand for them.

Really if you read the first post, you would stop saying redundant things.

And you still don't get the concept of exaggeration. I've already pointed out that most games have co-operative modes. Gears, Halo 3, Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 & 2, Castle Crashers, Resistance 2, Call of Duty: World at War, Left 4 Dead all have co-op modes, whether it be co-op story or another co-operative game mode, and these are just games that come to mind thinking of my own library.

Gears one and two both have co-op campaign with two people, and Gears 2 has the Horde mode which allow sup to five people to play together.

Halo 3 has four person co-op

Rainbow six Vegas 1 had four person co-op and four person terrorist hunt mode. Vegas two only had two person co-op, but allowed the host to control teh AI teammates and allowed for better story telling in the co-op version, and it retained the four person Co-op Terrorist hunt and vastly improved the way it works.

World at War allows for four people to play through the campaign or the "nazi zombies" mode. I'm not sure what it allows in terms of splitscreen.

Left 4 Dead, as we all know, allows for four people to co-operatively fight off the legions of infected, with two people on each platform.

So, I'm seeing a ton of great and fun titles of this generation that allow co-operative fun.

Where is this lack of co-op games? Do they not count as co-op if you can't all play together on the same console?

Really if you read the first post you would stop saying redundant things.

I'm done discussion, nay, arguing about this with you. You've asked for a list of games with co-op, and I gave you a list of said games. I fear I won't be able to continue this without losing myself, so I bid you adieu. If you desire to continue this, you can kindly keep it to yourself.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

Seriously, you need to have a huge TV for 4 player splitscreen to be fun. Squinting and straining my eyes to see if a small blob is an enemy or a bush just isn't my cup of tea. Just my opinion though...

 

[Kodlak]

I've never like 4 split screen, as you get an extrememly small screen and its expensive to get the controllers, so I say good riddance really. You can still have it in a game, but I think the online modes will be used more.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

I won't go into the concepts of exaggeration and metaphor, but focus rather on your mention of Left 4 Dead. I was talking about the top-down action RPGs. There's not a great demand for them. Everybody likes L4D. It's co-op, zombie murdering fun, from the best perspective, the first person, made by Valve, pretty much the best developer out there. Like wise, it'd be a pain in the balls to play in split screen, because it's painful with one split, never mind four. Never mind that it also allowed split screen on the PC, which was something totally new. I don't sell the appeal of 4 way split screen, and neither do many other people. Four person non-split screen requires a very specific type of game, that most of the market simply isn't interested in.

I think that what you are doing here is confusing your own opinion with that of "a lot of people" or "everyone". If you had read the thread, you would have noticed that "a lot" of people, have had there fondest memories while playing 4 player split screen. This is due in part to the simple fact that you can play with people you can see beside you. By the title of the thread stating "4 player co-op" it includes top down RPG's, and FPS's, and every other type of game where you can play co-op. My point is that people enjoy co-op games, especially 4 player co-op where you don't have to have a system link. Also i feel that there is a sharp decrease of these games, and there is a demand for them.

Really if you read the first post, you would stop saying redundant things.

And you still don't get the concept of exaggeration. I've already pointed out that most games have co-operative modes. Gears, Halo 3, Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 & 2, Castle Crashers, Resistance 2, Call of Duty: World at War, Left 4 Dead all have co-op modes, whether it be co-op story or another co-operative game mode, and these are just games that come to mind thinking of my own library.

Gears one and two both have co-op campaign with two people, and Gears 2 has the Horde mode which allow sup to five people to play together.

Halo 3 has four person co-op

Rainbow six Vegas 1 had four person co-op and four person terrorist hunt mode. Vegas two only had two person co-op, but allowed the host to control teh AI teammates and allowed for better story telling in the co-op version, and it retained the four person Co-op Terrorist hunt and vastly improved the way it works.

World at War allows for four people to play through the campaign or the "nazi zombies" mode. I'm not sure what it allows in terms of splitscreen.

Left 4 Dead, as we all know, allows for four people to co-operatively fight off the legions of infected, with two people on each platform.

So, I'm seeing a ton of great and fun titles of this generation that allow co-operative fun.

Where is this lack of co-op games? Do they not count as co-op if you can't all play together on the same console?

Really if you read the first post you would stop saying redundant things.

I'm done discussion, nay, arguing about this with you. You've asked for a list of games with co-op, and I gave you a list of said games. I fear I won't be able to continue this without losing myself, so I bid you adieu. If you desire to continue this, you can kindly keep it to yourself.

Too bad none of those games you listed where FOUR PLAYER co-op games. And not online or with a system link. The object of this post was to bring up that there are no 4 player co-op games you can play offline anymore. And it's true, there are only a few, apart from the games in the xbox arcade.

My god your thick.

 

[WhatHityou]

I say NOOOOO

why because everyone is alwase going to want to play that sertan game with a friend and anoter thing to think about here is that everone thought that downloadable content would kill game stores and so gare they still sit quietly on there sides of the front line

 

[Enigmers]

OKAY! Let me ask. WHO HERE -LIKES- squinting to see on 1/4th the screen space the game was designed to display on while a bunch of shit that doesn't involve you goes on distracting you in your peripheral vision?

Yeah! How DARE you all want to play with your friends without beating them until they buy the same console and games you have!? How DARE you try and take advantage of the fact that TVs are fucking huge as hell now!?

 

[Trivun]

I personally hate 2-player co-op on one console, let alone 4 player. That's simply because I have a small TV, so I don't like splitscreen. If it was bigger I'd have no problem. Sadly, I don't have Xbox Live, so I can only play multiplayer in any form on the PC, since my flatmates aren't really gamers and when my brother visits me at university we're not keen on splitscreen given the small screen.