I never said co-op requires split-screen, I said it defeats the looking-at-the-other-screen problem some feel exists.

Doesn't really defeat the problem, it just sidesteps it by taking away the competitive element entirely. It's a completely different sort of experience.

Nice that you completely ignored how much of a huge pain in the ass it is to take a computer down, put it in a car or whathaveyou and move it to a friend's place.

I didn't ignore it, I just consider it irrelevant to the actual game-playing experience. Also, if you have a dedicated LAN machine, it really isn't all that hard to take apart and set up because LAN machines are generally small and you only use them at LAN parties.

Not to mention those days we brought over a second TV and second XBOX and had 12 people sitting around doing 4x4 Halo (we obviously had to switch off.) There goes any fear of screen watching - each TV had one entire team!

Yes, with each person staring at a tiny portion of each TV screen. Sounds awesome!

Can't really do that with PCs. All we needed were two couches, two tables and four outlets. For 8 people.

Again, if you have to divide a screen four-ways, the gameplay experience is pretty much ruined. I'll gladly put in the effort needed to participate in a LAN party rather than settle for the easier but compromised experience of playing split-screen.

I agree with your first point kxmode but some people really like split screen and the consoles are almost too underpowered to do it properly. If you do a lot of internet gaming then its not a huge deal but if you do hot-seat style co-op then split screen is a great feature.

Competing Platforms

What a stupid reason! Competing platforms is awesome! It is probably the only reason we're getting awesome deals. Think what it would be like if Steam was the only player on the block. Do you really think we would see all these sales?! No. Valve would have no reason to do them.

Lack Of Split-screen

FFS, split screen is a console thing goddammit! If you want split-screen go play Need For Speed on a ruddy console.

I never said co-op requires split-screen, I said it defeats the looking-at-the-other-screen problem some feel exists.



Nice that you completely ignored how much of a huge pain in the ass it is to take a computer down, put it in a car or whathaveyou and move it to a friend's place. Even if your buddies are in the same apartment complex moving a computer is at least two trips, if not more. AKA something you end up doing rarely, whereas co-op on a console is something someone just stops by on the way home from work and you end up doing.

Not to mention those days we brought over a second TV and second XBOX and had 12 people sitting around doing 4x4 Halo (we obviously had to switch off.) There goes any fear of screen watching - each TV had one entire team!

Can't really do that with PCs. All we needed were two couches, two tables and four outlets. For 8 people.

Anyone that thinks it's remotely comparable doesn't understand it.

It's not that hard to understand. In terms of the actual experience of playing the game, LAN party > split-screen. All of your criticisms have nothing to do with the actual gameplay experience and everything to do with convenience.

1) That's why co-op has become so popular again.

Since when does co-op require split-screen? Welcome to the internet. Split-screen is certainly not the reason why co-op has become so popular again. Appealing to a broader, more casual audience is the reason why co-op has become popular again. Co-op is simply the least intimidating way to play games for casual players. It requires very little effort to be enjoyable because it isn't the game itself that brings the joy but the act of playing the game with a friend.

2) Most people aren't capable of focusing on all that at once. It surprises me how many people play a good amount and never learn to monitor other screens.

It doesn't take much focus at all. An occasional glance is all you need and it's all that much easier when most split-screen games only support 2 players.

3) For those that can, it's part of the game. Goldeneye's biggest flaw was no bots, meaning 3 or fewer people would get into standoffs easily. But throwing equally matched people into a game was always fun. Monitoring other screens becomes strategy. You know they'll see what you're doing so you need to find ways to either trick them or simply beat them despite their eyes.

In other words, trying to compensate for the inherent stupidity of sharing a screen in a competitive deathmatch experience. As you said yourself, standoffs were common because you could always see what your opponents were doing. Trying to pass this off as some kind of benefit is like arguing that using a gamepad for shooters makes the experience more intense and realistic because it's harder to aim.

As you mentioned in an earlier post, anything is more fun with friends. This includes playing crappy games with crappy control schemes and crappy display modes. Saying that something is fun in co-op is utterly meaningless because almost anything is fun in co-op.

Split-screen is horrible. I never liked it when I played consoles and I still don't like it now. If you're a PC gamer and you want to play with other people in your home, set up a LAN party. Split-screen is just utter crap. Not only do you get lower framerate but you lose at least half of your viewing area and your opponents can see everything that you see. I remember playing 4-player Goldeneye and it was just terrible.

Oh good, a LAN setup. You need to find the space for two computers. People need to lug their computers over. People need to take their computers apart for this, disconnecting the speakers, the cables, etc. You lose the social aspect of being right next to them and focusing on the exact same thing.

Anyone that thinks it's remotely comparable doesn't understand it.


As for people being able to see everything you're doing:
1) That's why co-op has become so popular again.
2) Most people aren't capable of focusing on all that at once. It surprises me how many people play a good amount and never learn to monitor other screens.
3) For those that can, it's part of the game. Goldeneye's biggest flaw was no bots, meaning 3 or fewer people would get into standoffs easily. But throwing equally matched people into a game was always fun. Monitoring other screens becomes strategy. You know they'll see what you're doing so you need to find ways to either trick them or simply beat them despite their eyes.

Crappy enough to play games like Mass Effect 2, Mirror's Edge on High settings and Crysis on Medium.

But at what framerates? I find it very hard to believe that K&L2 is particularly, especially that I got a constant 60+ FPS on the first one. I can give the demo a shot but I highly doubt I'll get poor performance.

Split-screen is horrible. I never liked it when I played consoles and I still don't like it now. If you're a PC gamer and you want to play with other people in your home, set up a LAN party. Split-screen is just utter crap. Not only do you get lower framerate but you lose at least half of your viewing area and your opponents can see everything that you see. I remember playing 4-player Goldeneye and it was just terrible.

have people seriously convinced themselves splitscreen gaming is an asset? jesus.

Yes. Some of us have friends that spend time in our homes.

have people seriously convinced themselves splitscreen gaming is an asset? jesus.

I used to do plenty of split screen on the PC. Mostly NFS3 or Slicks'N'Slide.

Know what? Being crammed around a PC with someone else isn't fun. With three others and it sucks.


That's the main reason I moved more to consoles. At this point the vast, vast majority of my gaming is split screen. Everything is infinitely more fun with other people.

Conviction is another example. Mouse lag so terrible, performance with no optimization,

Conviction ran fine for me on Win7 x64. No lag at all.

Just wanted to concur with the comments stating that the author is apparently some sort of retarded console kiddie who has no idea what he's talking about. I'm not even going to click the link, as they don't deserve it for such drivel.

Make split screen an option. Or if one has dual monitor setup, have one screen and the other for the other player? I never liked split screens on one display.

Darks wrote on Jul 27, 2010, 15:38:
Its asshole comments like this why we get stupid console ports that are total shit.

yeh thats exactly why.. you figured it out sherlock

How crappy is your laptop?

Crappy enough to play games like Mass Effect 2, Mirror's Edge on High settings and Crysis on Medium.

Its asshole comments like this why we get stupid console ports that are total shit.

No it's people like the user below you why there's stupid console ports that are total shit.

Fuck split Screen, you want that shit on a pc, then go buy a console or the consol version of the game. Fucking console wanna be bitches!

why would anyone in their right mind want to play a pc game split screen? This is not what the pc was design for.
Its asshole comments like this why we get stupid console ports that are total shit.

Then there is games like Singularity, which shows zero signs of PC testing with it's texture bug, and I believe there is no patch yet.

Incorrect. Activision recently released a patch.

Another thing, tried to play Kane and Lynch 2 on my laptop, after about a minute of TERRIBLE performance, I get a bluescreen. Not fun to experience at all.

How crappy is your laptop?

Conviction is another example. Mouse lag so terrible, performance with no optimization, and the need to always be online.

Aren't all these things all true of the X360 version? At least on PC, you can ramp up the AA and it likely still runs better than the 360 version.

Back on topic, the article writer complains that PC doesn't have any "killer-apps." Would Starcraft 2, Diablo 3 and maybe even WoW be considered "killer-apps," given their current (or inevitable) popularity?

My biggest issues are terrible ports with absolutely no QA whatsoever. I recently played Dark Athena on my PC. First off, the mouse lag made the game next to unplayable, and the Ambient Occlusion made the performance even worse.

Another thing, tried to play Kane and Lynch 2 on my laptop, after about a minute of TERRIBLE performance, I get a bluescreen. Not fun to experience at all.

Then there is games like Singularity, which shows zero signs of PC testing with it's texture bug, and I believe there is no patch yet.

Conviction is another example. Mouse lag so terrible, performance with no optimization, and the need to always be online. Also, the matchmaking on PC was broken.

That's the main reason I've basically migrated to consoles. And DRM.

Hardware - You have it backwards. Hardware is the REASON PC gaming is superior, not the reason it isn't. On top of this console gamers have this crazy idea that if you don't spend $1500 on hardware upgrades every six months you won't be able to play any games that come out anymore. This is wrong. If you spend the money on a high end system it will be powerful and capable of running every game for several years. If you don't want to upgrade, take it to a reputable place and have them upgrade it. Simple as that.

I just did an upgrade for around $200 and I still haven't found a game that I can't run in full detail. As long as you don't want a computer that can sequence your genome overnight and you keep your eyes open for sales and deals it's easy to afford a powerful rig.