Halo 3 - More Fun than Expected

Anyone who's been reading this blog for a while will no doubt know by now that I am not a fan of shooters in general - whether they be first person or third person. Lately, of course, the majority of these games have been going online, which lessens their appeal to me even farther. I do believe too many games are completely replacing one aspect of gaming I really enjoyed in the past - personal, side-by-side gaming with your friends - with online play, instead of allowing both types of multiplayer gaming to play nice together.

I've been frustrated recently with games such as Burnout Paradise, Midnight Club: Los Angeles, Fable II and others, because they completely replace the split-screen co-op of times past and focus 100% on the online game modes that pit you against a seemingly infinite pool of strangers. Why can't my friend join me as a henchman in Fable II by sitting on the sofa next to me? Why can't I play two-player co-op against a friend in these racing games, which traditionally include such a feature? One of the excuses I've heard from various people on a myriad of different gaming forums out there is that rendering two game screens can't be handled by the hardware. This, my friends, is complete and utter BS. Wipeout HD renders split-screen flawlessly at rather high FPS. Then we have Halo 3, which renders not only two, but up to four game screens at once on your TV.

I've recently gotten into Halo 3 (finally, right?). My brother and I have been playing it a bit, in a few long play sessions. We have hardly touched the campaign, we've mostly been playing online. We decided to invite a couple other friends over this past weekend to give four-player a go. The result? A night of the most fun I've had in years playing multiplayer. Absolutely no online mode in any game I have ever played even compares to having four friends in the same room play together on the same Xbox 360 and same TV. Sure, we were playing online most of the time, but the fact remains, we could have played offline in a similar manner, as well.

This, my intrepid blog readers, is what might get me into shooters - split-screen co-op - since hardly any other genre supports this feature these days. More developers in all genres should take a lesson from the relatively few games that make use of split-screen modes. It doesn't have to be four players, like Halo 3, just two players will do. That at least gives the game some merit for those of us who still enjoy face-to-face competition and actually, you know, having a life while playing games. I know, I know, its hard to wrap your head around. Sit down, take a deep breath, everything will be alright.

Now, my preference is obvious. This does not, however, mean that I despise online gaming and hope it goes the way of the dodo. I realize there's a good portion of gamers that are accustomed to that now and it wouldn't be logical for developers to cut that out entirely - it should be a staple of most genres these days. But, so should split-screen co-op - that's my point. I mentioned earlier that I feel developers should strike a happy medium. Make split-screen and online gaming work together in the same game environment. Again, Halo 3 is an excellent example of this. You can design and play custom games offline or online. If you're solo and want to play multiplayer, you can do that. If you've got friends you want to invite over to play with you (online or offline) you can do that too, everyone else doesn't have to sit out while they watch a single person play the game.

I realize this is probably all too much to hope for in the present gaming environment, but a guy can get all nostalgic about the days playing Secret of Mana or Midnight Club with a friend in the same room, can't he? My apologies if this post rehashes some things about split-screen game play I've discussed numerous times before, but I wanted to point out how much fun we had with Halo 3 over the weekend, and how it trumps anything I've done with solely online play in recent memory.