Why I Still Want Local Multiplayer

As a kid growing up, I only played multiplayer games. Including the single-player kind.

I have three brothers and one sister, and we all grew up loving games. A sibling's birthday was a time to rejoice for the whole family, because we knew that meant a new Mario or Final Fantasy title to share together. We would gather around the television or computer and discuss strategy or demand a turn when someone lost a life. We became engrossed in the worlds presented before us. And the experience was very much a communal one.

Later, our focus shifted to actual multiplayer games, and my siblings and friends spent long hours attempting to beat each other's times in Super Mario Kart, pummeling each other in Super Smash Bros., or even crashing the local software company for Warcraft 2 LAN parties. Those are some of my fondest gaming memories.

To me, the word "multiplayer" still means getting a group of people together on the couch to talk trash and have a good time. But these days we often swap the couch for a headset. And in my opinion, that's a shame.

Don't get me wrong. Online gaming has changed the industry for the better in many ways. I dig that. And it's a lot easier to meet your buddies online than it is to have them over to your house, especially if (like me) you work odd hours.

But still -- being in the same room, looking at the same TV, and seeing the looks on your friends' faces when you beat them down...I think that still has value.

Lots of people don't. Lots of game developers don't. One of the first things I check for when I play a new shooter is if it has local multiplayer. And every time I find another one that doesn't, I get a little sadder.

Fortunately, local multiplayer has had a revival in the last couple of years, mostly due to two developments: music games and the popularity of the Wii. Jamming on The Beatles: Rock Band is a superior experience in person with friends. And the Wii has made gamers out of a host of people who never would have considered playing them, thanks to the simplicity and competitive aspect of many Wii titles.

Activision's upcoming remake of GoldenEye 007 will not only have an online mode, but four-player, split-screen, local multiplayer. Due to bigger televisions and better controls, screen sharing will be better than ever. Even if -- no, especially if -- we relearn how to cheat off our opponents' screens.

In my preview of the new NBA Jam, I mentioned that the Wii version would not have online multiplayer (while the PS3/360 versions will). To me that's not a problem at all. I want to see the looks of chagrin on my friends' faces as I dunk on their heads. I want to talk trash and have it talked back at me. I'll find the time, even in my busy life, to experience that.

I don't think these options are just for nostalgia's sake. I think there are real, valuable gameplay experiences still to be had via local multiplayer. And in an increasingly online world, I'm glad I'll still have them.

Tags: the beatles: rock band, Final Fantasy, Super Mario Bros., Super Smash Bros., GoldenEye 007, Super Mario Kart, Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness

Problem? Report this post

Erik Chalhoub

September 22, 2010

I completely agree with your definition of "multiplayer." In my opinion, playing split-screen with an actual human being tends to be more enjoyable than playing against the voice over the headset in online multiplayer. But I'm still a supporter of online multiplayer, some games (like Team Fortress 2), work perfectly with it.

I recently discovered that the PC version of Resident Evil 5 doesn't have split-screen co-op. It was pretty depressing when I realized this, after trying for awhile to get it set up, yet finding it missing...

Report | Reply

EK Thomson

You know, every time a Japanese developer releases a title that is only local multi-player we get a huge outcry about how we want online multi-player. I wonder if when our titles are sent over there if they complain about the lack of local multi-player?

Layton Shumway

@Erik: By all means, online multiplayer is a great thing, and I've had excellent experiences with a headset. TF2 is a perfect example; MMOs are too. But given the choice (and the logistics working out), I'd prefer local every time. Nice to see I'm not the only one. :)

@EK: That's interesting, isn't it? I suppose in a perfect world I'd want all games to have both local and online options. It's different with portable systems in Japan, though, given their prevalence.

Daniel Sims

Every multiplayer game should try to have as many options as possible for getting together. It's not a matter of what's better - online or splitscreen, it's a matter of convenience.

Most multiplayer games should try to have splitscreen for when your and your buddies are all together, and most multiplayer games should try to have online for when you aren't. Simple as that.

I don't get this current problem with having to sacrifice graphics for splitscreen. Developers had the same problem on the much weaker hardware of the past and dealt with it. People who don't want to share a TV ans would rather go through the trouble of buying a second (or third and fourth) Xbox and monitors are just selfish in my opinion.

I have a seeping suspicion that part of the reason games like Halo, Gears of War, and Call of Duty are so popular today is because they are almost the only shooters that still incorporate splitscreen.

Dana Laratta

It also helps this situation if you expand your local multiplayer definition to include local co-op. I know that my son and I have definitely had some good times with New Super Mario Bros Wii and Earth Defense Force 2017, to name just a few.