Is On-Line really the future?

[bluemonkey1]

4 player split screen is over 4 times harder to render.

If games don't have split screen it's not cut out for the hell of it it is because they can't.

[VideoGameCritic]

[QUOTE=bluemonkey]4 player split screen is over 4 times harder to render.

If games don't have split screen it's not cut out for the hell of it it is because they can't.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, so your saying Motor Storm doesn't have a split screen because it can't handle it?  I don't think so.  I think Sony realized the PS3 was in trouble and had to get it out ASAP.

[twel]

i think online gaming is fine as long as it is just gaming ... but i fear that it will result in buggy games and consoles with endless patches, updates, microtransactions  etc. ... they won´t let you own anything - you´ll just have to pay for everything. i guess in the future we´ll buy "time" for some "pay-tv-video-game-channel" thing which we can play on our "videogame-decoder".

[bluemonkey1]

4 player split screen = rendering the scene 4 times over.  Plus there is added overhead from trying to get all 4 v-synced at the same time.  So when doing 4 player split screen on Motorstorm it is putting 4 times the workload on the PS3.

Why do you think Gears was only 2 player split screen?  Because the engine was not optimised enough for the system to be able to render it that many times over.

[ajsmart1]

Online play has never really interested me much, but I do like having the console connected.  The ability to download demos, trailers, and the small budget games is nice. 

 

Some criticize the console updates, but I do enjoy getting the added features they often come with.

[VideoGameCritic]

[QUOTE=bluemonkey]4 player split screen = rendering the scene 4 times over.  Plus there is added overhead from trying to get all 4 v-synced at the same time.  So when doing 4 player split screen on Motorstorm it is putting 4 times the workload on the PS3.

Why do you think Gears was only 2 player split screen?  Because the engine was not optimised enough for the system to be able to render it that many times over.
[/QUOTE]

I agree that there's a trade-off, but it would be possible for those games to have four-player split screen modes with some degradation to the graphics and framerate.

[Steerforth]

Just look at N64 Goldeneye. The N64 wrote the book on 4 player splitscreen, myself I would like multiple TV outputs on one system (I think the PS3 was going to support this). I guess wireless LAN is Nintendo's solution, but I think that is much more reasonable on the DS than the Wii. What really torx me is they hold back content on single card wireless LAN for the DS. If a family has 2 DS's for multiplayer purposes, its a joke to think they want to buy multiple carts as well.

 Nintendo has had a few mediocre multiplayer attempts, they require too much hardware for few to many games, to make it worth it.

1. GBA/GC link system, at least for 4 player games
2. Crappy single card DS multiplayer
3. Wii LAN, supposedly for Battalion Wars
4. I think 3+ player splitscreen pretty well stinks, but that goes across all consoles, 2 play splitscreen is bad enough.

[BigOldCar]

Online can be good.  When you want to play with/against someone it's nice to have full-screen, as others here have said.  That said, it's even nicer if the person is in the same room with you.  I prefer system link.

Also repeating what someone else said, who wants to pay for it?  It's overhyped because it's another revenue stream for the companies.

My friend Matt had xBox Live! for about six months.  He's an avid hockey fan, and when they didn't update the rosters so that his lineup would be accurate, he got disgusted and dumped the service.  I'm with him.  They want the service to be just valuable enough to players that they might pay up, but not so valuable that they keep enjoying old software instead of going out and buying, for instance, NHL '08.

And what's the deal with selling old games online?  That's a neat service, sure, but since the compilation discs are all out there already (and cheaper per-game), what's the point?

Well, I'd be lying if I were to profess total stupification.  Fact is, I can see the appeal.  Classic gaming goodness, no scrounging around flea markets or blowing into old cartridges required.  But me, I'd just as soon have the actual hardware and software media.

[bluemonkey1]

Well on XBLA they take the old games and add online gameplay modes, online leaderboards (which are after all the point of these old games) and usually some updated modes.  Jetpac updated looks beautiful.

[feilong801]

[QUOTE=Steerforth]Just look at N64 Goldeneye. The N64 wrote the book on 4 player splitscreen, myself I would like multiple TV outputs on one system (I think the PS3 was going to support this). I guess wireless LAN is Nintendo's solution, but I think that is much more reasonable on the DS than the Wii. What really torx me is they hold back content on single card wireless LAN for the DS. If a family has 2 DS's for multiplayer purposes, its a joke to think they want to buy multiple carts as well.

 Nintendo has had a few mediocre multiplayer attempts, they require too much hardware for few to many games, to make it worth it.

1. GBA/GC link system, at least for 4 player games
2. Crappy single card DS multiplayer
3. Wii LAN, supposedly for Battalion Wars
4. I think 3+ player splitscreen pretty well stinks, but that goes across all consoles, 2 play splitscreen is bad enough.


[/QUOTE]

I agree with everything except point 2. I don't think single card DS multiplayer is crappy at all. New Super Mario Bros, Tetris DS, and Metroid Prime: Hunters all provide solid single cart multi experiences, to name a few. You cannot expect the full on game; the DS has limited amounts of memory for which to even store the downloaded games.

The only game where I was dissapointed in this regard was Advance Wars Dual Strike. The single card multi was the sort of lame "action" game variant. I would have liked the turn based tactical game.

-Rob