Munkeh111 said:
Because it is rubbish |
Split screen is always rubbish in an FPS. It kills most of the strategy involved. That's irrelevant to the question though. Whether it's rubbish or not, it exists.
Munkeh111 said:
Because it is rubbish |
Split screen is always rubbish in an FPS. It kills most of the strategy involved. That's irrelevant to the question though. Whether it's rubbish or not, it exists.
Onyxmeth said:
Split screen is always rubbish in an FPS. It kills most of the strategy involved. That's irrelevant to the question though. Whether it's rubbish or not, it exists. |
Timesplitters split screen was not rubbish. The reason that it is bad is because of the lack of bots, and there is no co-op, I think spec-ops will be playable in splitscreen in modern warfare 2
Munkeh111 said:
Timesplitters split screen was not rubbish. The reason that it is bad is because of the lack of bots, and there is no co-op, I think spec-ops will be playable in splitscreen in modern warfare 2 |
I think it is. Losing half or three quarters of your viewing screen, spying on opponents, having them spying on you and neither wanting to round the corner you know the other is around. Yawn. It was fine until we were given alternatives. I love local multiplayer, but FPS require a LAN party to get the same competitive edge you can get online.
You still haven't addressed what that has to do with my original question.
Onyxmeth said:
I think it is. Losing half or three quarters of your viewing screen, spying on opponents, having them spying on you and neither wanting to round the corner you know the other is around. Yawn. It was fine until we were given alternatives. I love local multiplayer, but FPS require a LAN party to get the same competitive edge you can get online. You still haven't addressed what that has to do with my original question. |
Well they are wrong. I simply sit closer to the television when I play split screen, and yes you do lose some of the tactical edge, but it works fantastically on a game like Timesplitters. Co-op splitscreen can still be good, yeah, you do lose a little, but it is still great fun
9.2
good - great levels, great set pieces, fantastic MP, just right balance of feeling of realism while remaining a game
bad - over reliance on respawning bad guys, SP a little too light on plot, som eMP maps underwhelming
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
Onyxmeth said:
Split screen is always rubbish in an FPS. It kills most of the strategy involved. That's irrelevant to the question though. Whether it's rubbish or not, it exists. |
There's no online split screen «----- which sucks
Gears of War and Halo 3 has online split screen and that's just so much fun with a friend.
9.8/10
+ I have not been sucked into a game (single player or multiplayer) like this in a long long time
+ Probably the best multiplayer I've played this generation
+ Single player campaign was non-stop action with a great deal of variety
+ A sequel is on it's way
- Glitch bitches on PSN
- Singleplayer is short and far from perfect (constantly respawning enemies keeps the action going but it makes for a certain style of gameplay as opposed to giving you choice)
- I have to pay for the sequel
- World at War (seriously, I'd rather activision let Treyarch handle DLC content for Modern Warfare games and just get a new CoD every 2 years instead).
10/10
+Great graphics at that time
+ addictive online
- campaign does not matter
PROUD MEMBER OF THE PLAYSTATION 3 : RPG FAN CLUB

KylieDog said:
Graphically? I think all. Content and game modes/features? Nearly all. |
I didn't know the Conduit had good graphics.
7.5/10
Goods- The Muitplayer was awesome,gameplay was good
Cons- Graphics bad,Campain was super boring
Uncharted 2 is a blast