The death of the 4 player split screen game

Rufus_Shinra

My greatest memories of gaming go back to 4 player Mario Kart, 16 player Halo (on a LAN), 4 player SSBM, 4 player Zelda (4 swords was amazing). When I was originally imagining the possibilites of the next gen my thoughts went straight to SSB with 8 fighters, to a new 4 swords, to 8 person Burnout LANs.

Instead, every new game that comes out is either 1 player, 2 player or online. GoW, Madden '07 (they took out 4 player), Burnout Revenge, I don't understand why gaming seems to be moving backwards. With the proliferation of HDTV and more processing power, why am I not allowed to sit with 3 friends around a TV and play GoW?

So my question to you guys is, why are gamers not more pissed off? Why haven't we gotten angry that 10 years ago we could do 4 player split screen Golden eye, but now we can't even have 4 teammates on one TV in GoW? Why do people with friends that are in the same house have a harder time playing new games together than friends across the country?

FyreWulff

Madden had 4 players? I always thought it and NCAA have always only been two.

A lot of games didn't have four player because a) a lot of them were ports that also existed on the PS2, which only had two controller ports or b) some games pushed the system so hard that 2 player is all they could do.

Also, developers are putting so much crap in the HUD these days that 4 player is near unplayable. See: halo 1 vs halo 2. Halo 1 played just fine in splitscreen for me, Halo 2 is near unplayable in splitscreen.

Darlan

I quite agree with the OP's sentiment...in fact, I simply can't get into online only games at all, I need the inspiration of SP objectives/plot lines or the fun of hanging out with my friends and people I know. Online gaming just doesn't grab me.

BTP

The message is clear: Each system can handle four controllers. Use them.

ZackSchilling

I stopped playing console games after the N64 and only recently picked up a GameCube on ebay to kill time alone over this past summer. Very recently I got a Wii and the lack of a really solid, non-minigame-based party game is vexing. I cannot wait for Smash Bros Brawl.

So to reiterate: why aren't people pissed? I am now.

Kewop Decam

I want a football game (I'm talking to you EA... you fucktards) where you can have 11 vs 11. Everyone controls one person.

Imagine the clans that would come from this

Lemming

ZackSchilling wrote:

I stopped playing console games after the N64 and only recently picked up a GameCube on ebay to kill time alone over this past summer. Very recently I got a Wii and the lack of a really solid, non-minigame-based party game is vexing. I cannot wait for Smash Bros Brawl.

So to reiterate: why aren't people pissed? I am now.

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance? Elebits? Red Steel?

slash000

I've been kind of irked by this for a while. I love local, splitscreen, hang-out-with-buddies in the same room multiplayer.

I'm not pissed, but I'm kind of disappointed with the lack of great 4 player games. And this is not something I've recently felt, either. Even in the N64 days I still felt like there hasn't been as much support as there could be. I thought that every game that could conceivably, easily have 4 players at once would, by this point (back then). But I've resigned myself on the issue.




Now it seems as though a lot of people are taking up the notion that Friends Lists for Online Multiplayer with Headsets is a perfectly good substitute.



But I disagree. I think they're both great, but one shouldn't necessarily come at the expense of the other...

Rufus_Shinra

ZackSchilling wrote:

I stopped playing console games after the N64 and only recently picked up a GameCube on ebay to kill time alone over this past summer. Very recently I got a Wii and the lack of a really solid, non-minigame-based party game is vexing. I cannot wait for Smash Bros Brawl.

So to reiterate: why aren't people pissed? I am now.

If you have 4 controllers and want an excellent 4 player party game Mario Strikers is absurdly fun. Imagine NFL blitz only with mario items and its soccer.

Blakout

The best game I've found for LAN parties in the "next gen" (or current, whatever it is now) is Call of Duty 3. Four people per screen with no problems, and up to three guests on Live. The only other 360 game I've played that works half as good is Ghost Recon, everything else confines you to one or two people per system, which, as the OP said, is incredibly annoying/frustrating.

FishMist

Has any console manufacturer explored the possibility of allowing multiple screens on the same console? So that players can play a multiplayer game on one console and each have a screen to themselves? I don't follow consoles taht much so this could a totally unworkable idea for all I know...

No Great Name

Me and my two friends that own 360s wanted to play some 3 player R6:Vegas.

Variable

I didn't realize this was happening. All I ever play with my friends now is Wii Sports and that works even with just one controller, no split screen.

This is a shame I hope it doesn't stick... it doesn't really make sense. I can't imagine the feature is THAT hard to implement that it would cost valuable time or money.

What a shame. For 360 I could see that it's possible they want to promote Live, as much as that sucks, but I'm highly doubtful it will be a problem on the Wii.

Bamelin

Lemming wrote:

ZackSchilling wrote:

I stopped playing console games after the N64 and only recently picked up a GameCube on ebay to kill time alone over this past summer. Very recently I got a Wii and the lack of a really solid, non-minigame-based party game is vexing. I cannot wait for Smash Bros Brawl.

So to reiterate: why aren't people pissed? I am now.

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance? Elebits? Red Steel?

The 360 has Monster Madness on the way, and Fuzion Frenzy 2 comes out this week too.

Monster Madness I'm really excited about:

ScrabbleDude wrote:

IGN wrote:

Artificial Studios will deliver a very simple game. Monster Madness is officially announced for Xbox 360 and PC and is slated for a spring 2007 release. The single-player game enables one to four gamers to connect and play cooperatively offline (joining or leaving dynamically) or battle online for networked cooperative sessions. In single-player, you play as one of four characters, all young kids, and by advancing through the game you'll find power-ups enabling the transformation from human to werewolf, mummy, vampire, or zombie.

Monster madness heavily promotes multiple play sessions because of the amount of rare weapon upgrades found in each difficulty level. Building upgradeable weapons using random found parts through the five unique environments is a big draw. When you collect a new more powerful gun (the list includes missile launchers, shotguns, machineguns and chainsaws), it's easier to return to an older level and just whip the pants off the weaker enemies. And it puts you on par for the new difficulty level.

The levels are large. Each one in the Campaign Adventure mode takes approximately 30 minutes to beat, and there are more than 20 levels in the works. They cover the typical scary movie backgrounds for Friday the 13th type movies. You've got Suburban Nightmare, High School Hell, The Shopping Maul, Cemetery Scary, and The Dark Castle. Over the course of the five giant levels, you'll confront more than 50 types of monster types, each with their own attacks and offensive strategies.

In campaign mode, of course, you won't just shoot. You'll jump into vehicles and cruise around blasting the hell out of enemies. You'll be able to pilot Go-Karts, Hovercrafts, Mech-Walkers and UFOs to name just a few. Vehicles are integrated into several missions as bonus abilities, while other missions are vehicle-only car combat sessions. Each campaign also poses unique objectives, while Artificial Studios is incorporating physics-based puzzles, escape sequences, and defend the base mission types.

The offline mode also includes a Smash Bros-esque four-player deathmatch with fixed camera angles. So if you've felt like you've missed out because you don't have a gold membership, Monster Madness has your back. If, however, the cooperative campaign doesn't tickle your fancy, you can always hop on Xbox Live and play four to 16-person deathmatches. Online games can be set up in free-for-alls or team-style games of eight on eight. The 16-player game is all-out deathmatch. It's an all-out 16 person free-for-all, or two teams of up to 8 players can enter into a variety of modes designed with special objectives to complete. You'll see standard games such as Capture the Flag and King of the Hill, and more specialized matches such as Monster Hunter (in which a team of monsters fights a team of humans).

Release Date: 04/03 - Sadly same day as GH2.

AWESOME trailer

So, who's interested? I've never heard of this game and now I'm totally pumped. I hope we'll be able to have some good game ons around this.

Bionic Monkey

FishMist wrote:

Has any console manufacturer explored the possibility of allowing multiple screens on the same console? So that players can play a multiplayer game on one console and each have a screen to themselves? I don't follow consoles taht much so this could a totally unworkable idea for all I know...

One of the early specs for the PS3 touted this feature, but it was shortly cut. So, they're at least thinking about it.

Rufus_Shinra

Variable wrote:

I didn't realize this was happening. All I ever play with my friends now is Wii Sports and that works even with just one controller, no split screen.

This is a shame I hope it doesn't stick... it doesn't really make sense. I can't imagine the feature is THAT hard to implement that it would cost valuable time or money.

What a shame. For 360 I could see that it's possible they want to promote Live, as much as that sucks, but I'm highly doubtful it will be a problem on the Wii.

I'm convinced I will end up playing more Wii just because SSBM, FF:CC, Mario Party will be legitimate 4 player multiplayer. However, I do feel sad that we will never see an announcement like:

"Nintendo announces new Mario Kart will have 16 person LAN option."

It will just never happen, because it would be too good. It would just be too fucking good for this world.

Drez

I always hated split screen gaming.

slash000

Drez wrote:

I always hated split screen gaming.

Why? Screen too small?

Rufus_Shinra

slash000 wrote:

Drez wrote:

I always hated split screen gaming.

Why? Screen too small?

Drez wrote:

Anyway, my opinion could best be summed up thus:

I think [Gamer Points for the 360] are amazingly great, and the most intelligent and excellent videogame concept to come out in the entire console era, especially considering they feel like such a simple, little thing, and it's hard to imagine why we've gone so long without them.

If God came to me and made me choose between Multiplayer and Achievements, I would choose Achievements. Multiplayer can go away given that ultimatum.

Because he is incapable of rational thought.

Monoxide

slash000 wrote:

Drez wrote:

I always hated split screen gaming.

Why? Screen too small?

It's probably because he has no friends.

BladeOfSanjuro

Holy god Bam that game looks amazing. Its like Zombies Ate My Neighbors meets Power Stone meets some crazy physics engine.

Marlor

I agree with the OP.

I don't play online much, because I would rather play with the people sitting next to me, rather than an anonymous group of online opponents that mainly consists of vulgar, arrogant 15-year-olds.

Single-TV multiplayer is a big part of gaming for me. I'm not impressed by the current focus on online play at the expense of real multiplayer gaming.

However, the Wii is looking promising. I mainly bought it for its single-TV multiplayer potential.

Bamelin

BladeOfSanjuro wrote:

Holy god Bam that game looks amazing. Its like Zombies Ate My Neighbors meets Power Stone meets some crazy physics engine.

Yeah it's one of my most anticipated games. The gameplay vid is incredible.

Drez

Monoxide, don't project your problems on me. I am very sorry that you are a social lackwit, but that isn't a problem other people suffer from.

Rufus_Shinra: I don't even know how to respond to that. It's so blatantly hypocritical, I'll just let your stupidity stand for everyone else.

slash000: More or less. I mean, when I grew up, I had a 20" TV in the living room, which we upgraded to 26" awhile after. I found 1/4 of that to be a little too small for me, and disconcerting, with colors and shit flying all over the place.

ZackSchilling

Lemming wrote:

ZackSchilling wrote:

I stopped playing console games after the N64 and only recently picked up a GameCube on ebay to kill time alone over this past summer. Very recently I got a Wii and the lack of a really solid, non-minigame-based party game is vexing. I cannot wait for Smash Bros Brawl.

So to reiterate: why aren't people pissed? I am now.

Marvel: Ultimate Alliance? Elebits? Red Steel?

Elebits multiplayer is a bit... it just doesn't click with me and my friends. Red Steel I do not own and probably will not ever. Ultimate Alliance is great but a little bit boring. Ok, a lot boring compared to some other party games.

randombattle

Whatever happened to all those zombie 360 games they announced that were like Hunter The Reckoning?

Drez

I much prever M:UA or Gauntlet type same-screen multiplayer, where everyone is on the screen at once. Or, for turn-based buffs, I had a lot of fun with hot-seat gaming on the same PC.

Polago

Crackdown evidently doesn't have split screen co-op, only live co-op. This was a dealbreaker for both my roomate and myself since if it had that, we'd have put down our cash for it.

Dunno if i'm on topic or not, but still.

Also, Gears was split screen, and that was pretty recent and big name.

RainbowDespair

BladeOfSanjuro wrote:

Holy god Bam that game looks amazing. Its like Zombies Ate My Neighbors meets Power Stone meets some crazy physics engine.

I was about to say "Whoah, that looks like Zombies Ate My Neighbors but about 100 times cooler (which I didn't think was physically possible) and with a million online multiplayer modes," but it looks like you beat me to it.

Thanks for bringing this game to my attention Bamelin. I'd better start saving my money for April 3rd, because this plus Guitar Hero 2 will cost me a pretty penny.

Drez

I played an Alpha or Beta of Monster Madness which I personally thought sucked. But that was close to a year ago, and I'm assuming it got better. It was like Zombies Ate My Neighbors met Smash TV. Good premise, but it was very ugly, and PC control with the mouse and keyboard was horrid.

I'm assuming they've improved it vastly...at least I hope so, because it was an excellent premise. It's probably good with the 360 controller.

Renzo

PolaGo wrote:

Crackdown evidently doesn't have split screen co-op, only live co-op. This was a dealbreaker for both my roomate and myself since if it had that, we'd have put down our cash for it.

Dunno if i'm on topic or not, but still.

Also, Gears was split screen, and that was pretty recent and big name.

It was strange though. On an HD set, the screen is still split horizontally. So each player gets this long wide strip of screen, instead of a block that is somewhat close to a 4:3 ratio. It felt really odd to play that way, and it made getting grenades in grub holes almost impossible.

Accualt

Renzo wrote:

PolaGo wrote:

Crackdown evidently doesn't have split screen co-op, only live co-op. This was a dealbreaker for both my roomate and myself since if it had that, we'd have put down our cash for it.

Dunno if i'm on topic or not, but still.

Also, Gears was split screen, and that was pretty recent and big name.

It was strange though. On an HD set, the screen is still split horizontally. So each player gets this long wide strip of screen, instead of a block that is somewhat close to a 4:3 ratio. It felt really odd to play that way, and it made getting grenades in grub holes almost impossible.

They did that because you rarely have to aim very high so it is more beneficial to see a larger horizontal than vertical picture. Still it would have looked better horizontal.

And the simple reason split-screen isn't as common is because it eats up resources like a mo-fo. The more separate images a single console has to render the less detailed the game will look or the slower the frame rate or both.
I imagine Crackdown doesn't have split-screen because keeping track of that much shit if players are on opposite sides of the maps would make the 360 catch-a-flame. I'm sure it is possible but the coding required would be enormous. Much easier to just throw more power at the problem, two systems for co-op, than to spend a shit-ton of money on split-screaning something like Crackdown.

Rufus_Shinra

PolaGo wrote:

Also, Gears was split screen, and that was pretty recent and big name.

Few things to say about Gears:
1) The game is 2 player split screen. The standard game type is 4v4. The Xbox can have 4 controllers. Why the fuck no 4 player mode? Sure graphics would be worse but give us the option.
2) If you wanted to LAN it, you would need to find 4 people with working 360s and TVs. That requires 1 in 2 has a 360.
3) When you do play split screen online, you're almost never put on the same team as your split screen partner automatically. It's like XBOX live hates you having friends.

All in all, GoW just does not support multiplayer unless you are playing online, or you have 3 other friends w/ 360s willing to bring TVs over.

Accualt

Rufus_Shinra wrote:

3) When you do play split screen online, you're almost never put on the same team as your split screen partner automatically. It's like XBOX live hates you having friends.

All in all, GoW just does not support multiplayer unless you are playing online, or you have 3 other friends w/ 360s willing to bring TVs over.

3) That is because the teams have to be even. You can always have people swap.

All in all that is some hyperbole. The SP game was built around two player and split screen vs would be terrible for GoW considering hiding and cover are such a huge part of the game. You wouldn't want split screen vs in Splinter Cell.

RainbowDespair

Put me in the category against split screen gaming. Reasons why I dislike split screen modes:

1) It makes things awfully hard to see unless you have a big HDTV and the game supports high resolutions.

2) It's always felt wrong to me that people could just look at the other players' screens and find out information that way.

3) Split screen setups generally result in very noticeable visual degradation due to the increased requirements to render the visuals as shown from multiple perspectives.

4) The time spent coding and optimizing split screen mode is time that could be spent working on areas of the game that I actually care about.

So no, I won't be angry if split screen modes disappear from gaming. I like online gaming just fine and multiplayer games where you can see everything on a single screen are even better. The only multiplayer feature that I would like to see become standard is a co-op mode on every game where it makes sense.

Drez

RainbowDespair wrote:

Put me in the category against split screen gaming. Reasons why I dislike split screen modes:

1) It makes things awfully hard to see unless you have a big HDTV and the game supports high resolutions.

2) It's always felt wrong to me that people could just look at the other players' screens and find out information that way.

3) Split screen setups generally result in very noticeable visual degradation due to the increased requirements to render the visuals as shown from multiple perspectives.

4) The time spent coding and optimizing split screen mode is time that could be spent working on areas of the game that I actually care about.

So no, I won't be angry if split screen modes disappear from gaming. I like online gaming just fine and multiplayer games where you can see everything on a single screen are even better. The only multiplayer feature that I would like to see become standard is a co-op mode on every game where it makes sense.

Oh but then you must have no friends and are incapable of rational thought, just like me!

Let's start a club, you and me.

Invisible

I really miss 4-player Hack 'n Slash RPGs. MUA is close, but I'm not a big fan of how the character select system works in those games, I prefer sticking with one character for the entire game, and I miss real armor/weapon upgrades, ones that change your appearance. I want a new Champions of Norrath or Dark Alliance (I'm still pissed at my brother for trading in Dark Alliance II, now I can't find it anywhere, neither XBOX nor PS2), even another Hunter game would be nice.

RainbowDespair

Drez wrote:

RainbowDespair wrote:

Put me in the category against split screen gaming. Reasons why I dislike split screen modes:

1) It makes things awfully hard to see unless you have a big HDTV and the game supports high resolutions.

2) It's always felt wrong to me that people could just look at the other players' screens and find out information that way.

3) Split screen setups generally result in very noticeable visual degradation due to the increased requirements to render the visuals as shown from multiple perspectives.

4) The time spent coding and optimizing split screen mode is time that could be spent working on areas of the game that I actually care about.

So no, I won't be angry if split screen modes disappear from gaming. I like online gaming just fine and multiplayer games where you can see everything on a single screen are even better. The only multiplayer feature that I would like to see become standard is a co-op mode on every game where it makes sense.

Oh but then you must have no friends and are incapable of rational thought, just like me!

Let's start a club, you and me.

Sounds good. Heavy Weapon multiplayer tomorrow night? Oh wait, playing multiplayer games would defeat the purpose of having a no-friend/incapable of rational thought club.

Houk

I always, always, always prefer being in the same room as the person im playing with. Being on the same screen, able to look at the other person's view was part of the fun for us (and we rarely did it anyway).

I do miss those days, but then most of my gaming since college has been mostly single-player games anyway (aside from smash bros, which id never bother to play online). My shift happened at just about the right time, since it's all but dried up.

FyreWulff

I think part of it may be the fact that 4 players may be possible under an engine, but the drop in graphics quality would be too much for the developer/publisher to allow. For instance, (i like using Halo as an example), Halo 1 barely dropped any graphics detail for multi; at the cost of framerate stability. Halo 2 drastically drops the graphics detail (your arms and legs become flat squarish boxes, the fusion cores become simple boxes, etc etc.)

Then there are games that DO have splitscreen but totally screw things up for certain scenarios. in Star Wars: Battlefront, the second player cannot see their ship as they fly. At all.

143999

More Warriors please.