Does not having split screen ever piss you off?
- Thread starter ForensicYOYO
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, especially when its a game that truly has no excuse to not have splitscreen (i.e. Serious Sam HD on XBLA).
Ya, I really miss split screen in modern games mostly because i was brought up on the Halo franchise and playing co-op with my siblings every afternoon was the norm. It's really irritating how obvious it is when developers don't include it games that are designed for multiplayer. It pisses me of to try and think of the logic that corporations go through when they think that making a game 'social' means everyone has to buy a copy (and be able to run it) in order to participate.
I think the lack of split screen nowadays has been a big contribution to the slight decline in relationship with my sister!
Hell, few years back, nearly every game had 2 player!!! Anyone notice the multiplayer in FFIX??? Possibly the worst multiplayer ever, but it was still there! (If you went into the options you could chose which controller controlled which characters, i.e., you could make player 2 control Vivi and Garnet in battle, and player 1 control Steiner and Zidane. Player 1 still had control of all out of battle scenarios though. It wasn't used much, but it made it a hell of alot interesting if you were playing and a friend wanted to watch. I suppose in a way you could have called it 'Audiance Participation' rather than 2 player, but oh well!!)
Anyway, we definately need more split screen! Especially split screen online like CoD 3!!
Hell, few years back, nearly every game had 2 player!!! Anyone notice the multiplayer in FFIX??? Possibly the worst multiplayer ever, but it was still there! (If you went into the options you could chose which controller controlled which characters, i.e., you could make player 2 control Vivi and Garnet in battle, and player 1 control Steiner and Zidane. Player 1 still had control of all out of battle scenarios though. It wasn't used much, but it made it a hell of alot interesting if you were playing and a friend wanted to watch. I suppose in a way you could have called it 'Audiance Participation' rather than 2 player, but oh well!!)
Anyway, we definately need more split screen! Especially split screen online like CoD 3!!
...I fail to see the problem. You have Battlefront 2, and so are sorted for all your split-screen needs!chainer1216 said:
The increasing absence of split-screen is annoying... I can understand why it's the case, consoles only having a finite amount of processing power, but I wish more games would allow you to kick back, fire up four controllers worth of players and a few bots, and blow the living crap out of each other/the bots...
If you play any games split screen nowadays, you can notice a tremendous difference in graphics. The same goes for multiplayer modes online sometimes as well. The fact that, like oplinger pointed out, the game has to render more of the same (its not as simple as you both playing the same game, think of it as two people playing two games intertwined onto one console at the same time) footage. When you see a zombie in left 4 dead, there are two zombies there because it has to be rendered AGAIN for the other person to see it. Its a huge pain in the ass nowadays that most developers rather not put up with.
Back in the day when graphics were far simpler and pushing the boundaries of the system were largely unheard of at the beginning of console life, it was easier. You can actually see the difference as more people begin to play Mario Kart 64 if you want to really push this issue. Why do you think they only had battle modes/VS races for 3-4 players? Not because they were lazy and didn't want to include the Grand Prix mode, but because the hardware was physically incapable of allowing all 4 players to see all of the other characters on screen at once. I mean, on Kalmari Desert, the train is just the engine for crying out loud in 2 player mode. In 3-4 player mode, they completely get rid of the music in the game.
EDIT: I'd just like to point out that I'm not saying that its impossible for the developers to do so, its just that we're in a different time right now and as far as they're concerned, optimizing for some split-screen won't generate enough profit for them to consider it.
Back in the day when graphics were far simpler and pushing the boundaries of the system were largely unheard of at the beginning of console life, it was easier. You can actually see the difference as more people begin to play Mario Kart 64 if you want to really push this issue. Why do you think they only had battle modes/VS races for 3-4 players? Not because they were lazy and didn't want to include the Grand Prix mode, but because the hardware was physically incapable of allowing all 4 players to see all of the other characters on screen at once. I mean, on Kalmari Desert, the train is just the engine for crying out loud in 2 player mode. In 3-4 player mode, they completely get rid of the music in the game.
EDIT: I'd just like to point out that I'm not saying that its impossible for the developers to do so, its just that we're in a different time right now and as far as they're concerned, optimizing for some split-screen won't generate enough profit for them to consider it.
Not half as much as split-screen that doesn't use the whole screen, i'm looking at you lost planet 2
It's not the developer's fault that the Laws of Physics exist either.Sleekgiant said:
Look, computers are capable of performing a certain number of binary computations per clock cycle. These computations are necessary to render a frame, and if the computer can't perform enough computations fast enough to match the framerate it has to drop the framerate.
It doesn't matter how leet your coding skillz are, that is an inescapable fact.
These days I get pissed off at the absence of splitscreen AND bots. If you don't have both in your game, than no matter how good it looks it's still using a mid 90's mindset. Get with the program and include split screen multiplayer... with bots... as standard already.
My reasons for not buying Resistance 2 is the simple fact I have like 10 FPS already and I feel no need to get one more but you have tempted me to possibly get it after all.Mozza444 said:
I play PC so I've had to put up with this for ages. It would be so good as I could put my PC in the living room and use the 42" tv. I will keep hoping...
Yes it does matter.Eldritch Warlord said:
Lets take a game like Crysis or Metro 2033. Look at those system requirements. Now look at a game like BFBC 2, oh wow the system doesn't need a liquid cooled mega computer to run it. Game developers can make games run as smoothly as they want, if they put work into it.
Still this whole "games with split screen have FPS drops" is not holding water with me. None of you have yet to give me proof and are just talking out of your ass for all I know.
*yawn* Go get mad at someone who will care.stinkychops said:
Which apparently is not much.Sleekgiant said:
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/kane-and-lynch-2-split-screen-performance
that's on a game with split screen in mind. Also bear in mind that single player the game runs at a nice 60 frames. As many games do.
Also worth pointing out, kane and lynch hardly pushes the hardware.
Sadly it's common knowledge to people who -know- things. So you won't find much more proof.
EDIT: More proof: http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=547492
EDIT2: More proof: http://www.co-optimus.com/article/704/Designer__Why_Split_Screen_Has_Been_Left_4_Dead.html
EDIT3: Even more: http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=544507
I hate when they say "Oh, but it reduces framerate, there's not enough memory to have 2 players at the same time." FUCK THAT. Halo has always had splitscreen, it was never a problem, hell Goldeneye had 4 player splitscreen with only 8MB of RAM. The real reason is they think people will buy one copy annd only play with a group of friends, which is fucking moronic.
But Kane and Lynch is a pretty terribly built game.oplinger said:
Alas I remember why I hate these forums more and more everyday, so much elitism, so little space.
It's not elitism, it's not unreasonable to say that if the hardware does more stuff, it won't do it as fast.Sleekgiant said:
Most people know that if you tax hardware it slows down. The trick is to tax it -enough- to get a decent performance out of it (60 frames per second) and not have any major dips.
