![]() Ironically, these are the people who would probably benefit from the far reach of online gaming the most, but in its absence they are being left by the wayside as fewer and fewer titles cater for a physical multiplayer option with people who live nearby. Huge numbers of people in more rural communities around the world still struggle with sub-par connection speeds, making online gaming an impractical and frustrating experience. Knee-deep in the Internet Age, it's easy to forget that we’re not yet at that point where everyone has a high-speed broadband connection (as Microsoft’s embarrassing u-turn proved when it was forced to ditch its "always online" policy for the Xbox One). We were so busy storming enemy lines alongside dozens of virtual teammates in Star Wars Battlefront that we forgot how great it is to sit next to three buddies in the same room and high-five a perfect headshot IRL (the high-five, not the headshot). Yet, so great is the potential of online gaming that we've allowed it to completely sweep its predecessor off the map. In fact, there are some truly unique gaming experiences that really are only possible when large numbers of people are brought together online, and the magic of the internet means I can game with friends who live halfway around the globe at the push of a button. It's also not to say that there's anything wrong with online multiplayer, per se. There’s also plenty of indie titles out there with amazing multiplayer options Octodad and N++, in particular, are at their best when played with other people. Team 17 have only recently announced a brand new Worms title, which looks every bit as fun to play with friends as every other game in the series, while Black Ops 3 will apparently feature a split-screen co-op mode. ![]() That’s not to say that local multiplayer is completely dead elsewhere. Nintendo are one of the few companies out there who continue to focus on the idea of bringing gamers together under the same roof, rather than hiving them off in a million individual, lonely bedrooms. This reason is exactly why my Wii U currently sees more playtime than my PS4. Instead of engaging in debates about frame rates, we should be encouraging developers to invest their time in creating the kind of innovative experiences that lead to great social interaction, and celebrating that instead of fetishising more flawless reflections or dynamic lighting. It may even be that we, as a gaming community, are partly to blame for this. It seems that, these days, developers are petrified of any perceived weakness that could lead to comparatively negative press. Online forums, magazines and websites are full of comparisons between how fast title x runs on respective consoles, or how smooth the rendering is on title y. Unfortunately, this generation's console war seems to hold graphical capability at its absolute forefront. If anything, I and all my friends all found it hilarious. Ultimately, I’ve never felt this had a negative impact on the gaming experience. Split-screen gaming has always taken up console resources (as anyone who's ever tried to play a four player split-screen game with explosive weapons will be all too familiar with). Yet I, for one, couldn’t care less if playing a split-screen game comes at the cost of slightly impaired visuals - the more important thing is the experience, and how much actual fun it is. In this day and age of cutthroat statistics, where everything is reduced to competing lists of facts and figures, developers are wary of how such an effect might impact reviews of their titles. This results in reduced frame rates and impaired graphics, sullying the "perfect" impression one gets from a game in single player mode. That said, there's a more practical reason for the decline in split-screen gaming, which is that it simply eats up too many console resources.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |