surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I feel the exact same way. It pains me when I see a reviewer take off points from a game because it lacks online support. Not all games need it, and I feel that too many tack some kind of online functionality on, because we demand it from all new games like it is a necessary feature. For from it though. BioShock was fantastic the way it was, any online mode would have cheapened the atmosphere of Rapture. Seriously, there are so many options for online multiplayer that even with the humble collection of games I have I will never scrape all the online modes of my games. A better single player experience is a lot of times worth the lack of online, I think.
Wonderful post, and a lot of excellent points. Now if only we could get game developers to figure out the same...
oh crap, arkadian warriors is buggy online? my friend and i were going to play that soon.
i dont think it matters if people arnt usually online for games like streets of rage. the fact that you can set it up with a buddy makes it worth it.
i dont think it matters if people arnt usually online for games like streets of rage. the fact that you can set it up with a buddy makes it worth it.
you need those Streets of Rage II Achievements? i'd gladly go along with you and get them. Cause I know how dead it is on SoRII.
but I understand this bit. Especially with Fighters. Me being a fighter freak, reviewers complain way too much saying "It's a great fighter, but where's the online play?" bit. Usually knocking the game a few points cause online play isn't included. But most casual gamers don't understand that games like Virtua Fighter would be hella hard to pull off with its high graphics and not have 1 bit of a slowdown as that games is as deep and precise as it comes. I hear the VF5 for 360 online is great, but that still means fighters in general doesn't have to go that way.
I enjoy headting to the arcades to play Tekken or Capcom Vs. SNK2 just to be out the house for once and actually meet people/competition face to face. Online, it's just trash talking after another. Take DoA4 for instance. I played online once on my friend's copy. That little slowdown affects any bit of comboing I tried. (but then again, I don't play DoA seriously...at least not like other fighters.) but that slowdown/lag can cause many screwups in blocking/juggles/punishing moves/etc.
all I know is that online fighters would be nice, but i'd rather not have it. Especially if you're bound to find some idiot downloading pron/hentai WHILE on xbl or psn trying to fight people. What makes it worse is when they win a match. It's not needed, but it's a nice plus at times.
but I understand this bit. Especially with Fighters. Me being a fighter freak, reviewers complain way too much saying "It's a great fighter, but where's the online play?" bit. Usually knocking the game a few points cause online play isn't included. But most casual gamers don't understand that games like Virtua Fighter would be hella hard to pull off with its high graphics and not have 1 bit of a slowdown as that games is as deep and precise as it comes. I hear the VF5 for 360 online is great, but that still means fighters in general doesn't have to go that way.
I enjoy headting to the arcades to play Tekken or Capcom Vs. SNK2 just to be out the house for once and actually meet people/competition face to face. Online, it's just trash talking after another. Take DoA4 for instance. I played online once on my friend's copy. That little slowdown affects any bit of comboing I tried. (but then again, I don't play DoA seriously...at least not like other fighters.) but that slowdown/lag can cause many screwups in blocking/juggles/punishing moves/etc.
all I know is that online fighters would be nice, but i'd rather not have it. Especially if you're bound to find some idiot downloading pron/hentai WHILE on xbl or psn trying to fight people. What makes it worse is when they win a match. It's not needed, but it's a nice plus at times.
Great post Jim, but I think you've forgotten one thing - sometimes the multi-player saves the game. Prime example: Lost Planet. I could not stand to play the single-player campaign past level 2 without wanting to pop out the disk and hide it from my friends for the greater good. When I decided to give the multi-player a try, I had a fucking blast. I know many people can't stand Lost Planet in any form, but I really enjoyed the online gameplay especially since most of the players were international. It was always great hearing a Frenchman scream in agony after recieving a rocket to the face.
This is not to say that multi-player should be added to games in case the campaign blows goats. All I'm saying is that it can bring a shitty game back into the realm of playable to enjoyable. Now if such an effort requires taking resources away from the single-player then no, they should not do that.
This is not to say that multi-player should be added to games in case the campaign blows goats. All I'm saying is that it can bring a shitty game back into the realm of playable to enjoyable. Now if such an effort requires taking resources away from the single-player then no, they should not do that.
I fully agree.
Don't waste precious development time on making a half-assed multiplayer when a game does not need it.
Don't waste precious development time on making a half-assed multiplayer when a game does not need it.
it depends on the game, not all games require multiplayer modes, sometimes the nature of the game doesn't lend itself to an experience thats too be shared, like resident evil 4, half life 2..
but i think bioshock deserves the MP patch. imagine a 'forge' type mode where you could place water, oil slicks, and other items that the right plasmid can turn into a death pool.
there were parts of rapture that would have made amazing MP maps (the shopping promenade in particular).. its hard to release an FPS w/o a multiplayer option, but because when executed properly thats some of the most fun you can have gaming online, and when an FPS is executed as well as bioshock people start to think about the 'what-if's'..
but i think bioshock deserves the MP patch. imagine a 'forge' type mode where you could place water, oil slicks, and other items that the right plasmid can turn into a death pool.
there were parts of rapture that would have made amazing MP maps (the shopping promenade in particular).. its hard to release an FPS w/o a multiplayer option, but because when executed properly thats some of the most fun you can have gaming online, and when an FPS is executed as well as bioshock people start to think about the 'what-if's'..
There are many games where I would gladly sacrifice online play for local multiplayer/splitscreen. Racing games, for instance (I'm looking at you Motorstorm). I don't have much interest in racing people online. There's just not enough room in a racing game for human strategy to distinguish itself from computer AI like there is in an FPS.
Crackdown, too. I played a matchmaking game where they match you with *one* other person, and it just ended up being awkward ("I don't know you, you wanna throw cars around?" He didn't). I would have gladly sacrificed that for a split screen mode, so I could play with friends who didn't care about progressing through the game.
That said, I only have a couple friends with next-gen systems and our gaming hours are very different, so I mostly play games with friends who come over (A lot of Halo these days). That may change soon, as a couple of them are talking about getting 360s after xmas.
Crackdown, too. I played a matchmaking game where they match you with *one* other person, and it just ended up being awkward ("I don't know you, you wanna throw cars around?" He didn't). I would have gladly sacrificed that for a split screen mode, so I could play with friends who didn't care about progressing through the game.
That said, I only have a couple friends with next-gen systems and our gaming hours are very different, so I mostly play games with friends who come over (A lot of Halo these days). That may change soon, as a couple of them are talking about getting 360s after xmas.
I agree, people whine about having online in games where it doesn't belong and it bugs the shit out of me.
I agree Jim. I don't like when people take points off a game in a review because the game didn't have some multiplayer option in there. They don't consider that maybe the developers didn't want to include it because it would cheapen the experience they set out to make. Not every single game needs an online multiplayer option. There are games such as Halo that absolutly nail the online functionality, and if the game you're developing can't match that kind of experience then why bother if you're just going to throw the same old thing at it? People might play it for a while but most likely they'll go back to one they enjoy more. But, companies also think that not including it means that they can't compete against a game that has it. Gamers have to change their way of thinking, and more importantly their buying and playing habits, if they wish to change this.
Bioshock is a great example, the atmosphere and gameplay of the single player experience is top notch, and any multiplayer would have to live up to the single player experience and that is a tall order to fill. Also not to mention its competition in that field. That seems to be a running theme in the fps world recently. A short but decent single player experience followed up with some multiplayer action. It almost seems like an excuse to shorten the single player experience, "sorry the single player campaign was so short, but hey you can play it online."
As average as Kayne and Lynch might be it did have an interesting option for its multiplayer and that was going rogue on your team. Not knowing if one of your team mates was going to turn traitor adds a certain suspence level. I'm not sure how many different multiplayer options they can offer in the future, and if they can't keep things feeling fresh it gets tiresome quick.
Bioshock is a great example, the atmosphere and gameplay of the single player experience is top notch, and any multiplayer would have to live up to the single player experience and that is a tall order to fill. Also not to mention its competition in that field. That seems to be a running theme in the fps world recently. A short but decent single player experience followed up with some multiplayer action. It almost seems like an excuse to shorten the single player experience, "sorry the single player campaign was so short, but hey you can play it online."
As average as Kayne and Lynch might be it did have an interesting option for its multiplayer and that was going rogue on your team. Not knowing if one of your team mates was going to turn traitor adds a certain suspence level. I'm not sure how many different multiplayer options they can offer in the future, and if they can't keep things feeling fresh it gets tiresome quick.
Agreed. As a whole I don't play games online, however, when I do...it sure isn't going to be Streets of Rage 2. It'll be Halo 3 or Tetris DS.
Isnt it up to developers to come up with new game modes and gameplay elements of online play to distinguish it from say Halo 3, or Call of Duty 4??
If someone could push the Kane and Lynch bit further, then I think we'll have something quite fresh in the world of Online Multiplayer.
I think I play CoD4 and TF2 online the most. I have Halo 3 but everybody on it is an asshole. Speaking of which, why aren't there that many people playing Team Fortress 2? That game is fun as hell.
I agree with this article. Although I still wish there were people to play some of these XBLA games with.
I never felt the need for multiplayer in Bioshock. I didn't see why everybody bitched about it.
I agree with this article. Although I still wish there were people to play some of these XBLA games with.
I never felt the need for multiplayer in Bioshock. I didn't see why everybody bitched about it.
I guess the whole 'more bang for your buck' thing is still alive and kicking. Considering how much we drop for your average console game these days if we buy it brand new, and (at least if we're XBL Gold Members) how much we pay to play online, including internet in general, I guess most people feel that they're owed online at the very least? Everyone wants to squeeze everything for all of it's potential worth, good or bad. * shrugs *
Hit one out of the park with this one Jim. Games like Bioshock excel because they dev team didnt have to worry about tacking on a half assed multiplayer. If the single player is good enough to stand on its own then leave it at that.
Simple answer: gamers ask for some of the dumbest things without thinking and the developers give it to them based on the perceived need for it by the higher ups.
sometimes it seems like`people only think about online for games. Nintendo has had the biggest problem with this. People really want games like Brawl and Mario Kart to be online, and I think I'll play them for a bit, but I doubt they will be any good long term.
even some multiplayer games are just better live in a group, like Rock Band and Brawl.
even some multiplayer games are just better live in a group, like Rock Band and Brawl.
I remember when Deus Ex came out despite the game being amazing some game reviewers flipped out that there was no multiplayer (omg an FPS with no MP? Blasphemy!)
Ion Storm threw something together last minute as a patch in about a month, and it sucked, horribly, the game mechanics didn't lend themselves to multiplayer at all, and hardly anyone played it at all.
Ion Storm threw something together last minute as a patch in about a month, and it sucked, horribly, the game mechanics didn't lend themselves to multiplayer at all, and hardly anyone played it at all.
Because this new generation of gamers have been weaned on online play, and they bitch to no end when a game doesn't have one so developers tack one on, then these same people whine and bitch that the multi sucks.
Look at Stranglehold, wonderful, brutal and a game that finally captures the spirit of an action movie, as soon as I heard about the multi I knew it was gonna be tacked on, its quite laggy and its just silly, the powers aren't balanced at all either, a good player can seek out all the cranes and decimate everyone with the spin attack.
Ratchet and Clank Up your Arsenal had a tacked on multi and the single didn't feel as good as the previous game.
Hell, I read a preview on Ninja Gaiden 2 and the person writing said he was hoping for some online multi, I still remember people bitching about lack of online play on the original Ninja Gaiden, my question is why? Ninja Gaiden is game that does not fucking need a multiplayer.
With all the really popular shooters out there, most companies should focus on giving us a good single player, if you wanna add online, GIVE US FUCKING CO-OP GOD FUCKING DAMMIT.
I am so sick of a multi mode, tacked on or not and a huge lack of co-op, even games that look built for co-op like Jericho, the Ninja Turtles game, Monster Madness, but no, single player only, or a shitty online mode.
Monster Madness is the one that bothers me the most, a game that could have been the next Zombies ate my Neighbors, having 4 people to get through the single player campaing but have been crazy fun, once again developers say fuck you, you'll a shitty online mode and like it.
To be perfectly honest, I hate online multiplayer myself, people are assholes, people glitch, people leave you bad feedback for playing better, XBL is a cesspool and I no longer play online with anyone other than my friends.
Look at Stranglehold, wonderful, brutal and a game that finally captures the spirit of an action movie, as soon as I heard about the multi I knew it was gonna be tacked on, its quite laggy and its just silly, the powers aren't balanced at all either, a good player can seek out all the cranes and decimate everyone with the spin attack.
Ratchet and Clank Up your Arsenal had a tacked on multi and the single didn't feel as good as the previous game.
Hell, I read a preview on Ninja Gaiden 2 and the person writing said he was hoping for some online multi, I still remember people bitching about lack of online play on the original Ninja Gaiden, my question is why? Ninja Gaiden is game that does not fucking need a multiplayer.
With all the really popular shooters out there, most companies should focus on giving us a good single player, if you wanna add online, GIVE US FUCKING CO-OP GOD FUCKING DAMMIT.
I am so sick of a multi mode, tacked on or not and a huge lack of co-op, even games that look built for co-op like Jericho, the Ninja Turtles game, Monster Madness, but no, single player only, or a shitty online mode.
Monster Madness is the one that bothers me the most, a game that could have been the next Zombies ate my Neighbors, having 4 people to get through the single player campaing but have been crazy fun, once again developers say fuck you, you'll a shitty online mode and like it.
To be perfectly honest, I hate online multiplayer myself, people are assholes, people glitch, people leave you bad feedback for playing better, XBL is a cesspool and I no longer play online with anyone other than my friends.
I forgot the most important one, Kane and Lynch, regardless on how you feel about this title, the co-op is fun, very fun and unique, no online feature, splitscreen only.
"Hit the jump as I ponder the questions that nobody else seems to be asking."
we've been asking this for a loooong time. its been one of the top subjects of the industry. so, it has just become a commodity and thats why you don't see it at the top of the news section anymore. its just the way it is. developers cram that multiplayer in there just for the bloody sake of it. thats in the gaming bible for christ sake.
great article, nevertheless
we've been asking this for a loooong time. its been one of the top subjects of the industry. so, it has just become a commodity and thats why you don't see it at the top of the news section anymore. its just the way it is. developers cram that multiplayer in there just for the bloody sake of it. thats in the gaming bible for christ sake.
great article, nevertheless
Well done, Jim. Love your non-news posts. They're always great reads.
Speaking of dead online games like Streets of Rage 2, does anyone want to play Marathon with me? I need those online achievements! Pwease?
Speaking of dead online games like Streets of Rage 2, does anyone want to play Marathon with me? I need those online achievements! Pwease?
Agree 100%, and I was beginning to think I was alone on that.
I play TF2, and that's about it for online games for me. Games, for me, are about the story, not capturing a flag on a moon base, or capturing a flag in a forest, or capturing a flag in a forest on a moon base. Who gives a rat's ass? It's all the same. Make a great single player game, instead of making a half assed single player and a half assed capture the flag game.
I play TF2, and that's about it for online games for me. Games, for me, are about the story, not capturing a flag on a moon base, or capturing a flag in a forest, or capturing a flag in a forest on a moon base. Who gives a rat's ass? It's all the same. Make a great single player game, instead of making a half assed single player and a half assed capture the flag game.
i also agree with Sterling.
i'd rather have a good single player game with an amazing story than a game with multiplayer and more CTF.
halo3's multiplayer is a lot of fun,but the single player story wasnt that great imo.
on the other hand a game like Bioshock had a great single player. if it had multiplayer, it probably would have sucked.
i'd rather have a good single player game with an amazing story than a game with multiplayer and more CTF.
halo3's multiplayer is a lot of fun,but the single player story wasnt that great imo.
on the other hand a game like Bioshock had a great single player. if it had multiplayer, it probably would have sucked.
Very nice write up Jim.
Though this wouldn't fit with the points you were making, I would also say that many forget about the glories of non-online multiplayer. Think about SF2 or Golden Axe back in the day before the internet, and how great it was to punch your brother or best friend in the arm when they won a match. Thankfully, this is making a comeback with the Guitar Heros and Rockbands, but with too much of the focus on online gaming, it still seems passed over.
Though this wouldn't fit with the points you were making, I would also say that many forget about the glories of non-online multiplayer. Think about SF2 or Golden Axe back in the day before the internet, and how great it was to punch your brother or best friend in the arm when they won a match. Thankfully, this is making a comeback with the Guitar Heros and Rockbands, but with too much of the focus on online gaming, it still seems passed over.
This is a great, thoughtful post in an age where people are shouting, nay, SCREAMING for multiplayer or online functionality everywhere.
I have a close group of gaming friends who've seen community after community fragment over and over as each new FPS launches with a half assed multiplayer mode.
I started on QuakeWorld. Massive community, excellent online play, and it was popular largely because there wasn't much else to play that was worthwhile. Quake 2 made a dent in the community, though it really wasn't slowing down all that much until Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament and it's really all gone down from there. I'm not talking down any particular game here, my heart was in QW though I'd play many others as well. Now, the story is different.
Every single game has deathmatch, team deathmatch, capture the flag, some kind of "assault the location" variant and occasionally they'll throw in a game mode that nobody will ever play because it's not dm/tdm/ctf/assault. It really has to change. Nobody's taking chances any more and it leaves the genre in a very tenuous position for the future.
Often now, the same group of friends who've fought through dungeons and castles and futuristic bases will comment on how TEAM BASED ACTION FPS REALISM COMBAT #386 is just yet another game that's going to be "The IN thing" for another two weeks before everybody moves onto the next. Because that's where we are now. If it's not straight up deathmatch or flag capture, it's team based realism with a set number of rounds. You might not buy guns with money you win at the end of each round, but it's still very, very close to the same tired concept you've seen played out since 1999.
I have a close group of gaming friends who've seen community after community fragment over and over as each new FPS launches with a half assed multiplayer mode.
I started on QuakeWorld. Massive community, excellent online play, and it was popular largely because there wasn't much else to play that was worthwhile. Quake 2 made a dent in the community, though it really wasn't slowing down all that much until Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament and it's really all gone down from there. I'm not talking down any particular game here, my heart was in QW though I'd play many others as well. Now, the story is different.
Every single game has deathmatch, team deathmatch, capture the flag, some kind of "assault the location" variant and occasionally they'll throw in a game mode that nobody will ever play because it's not dm/tdm/ctf/assault. It really has to change. Nobody's taking chances any more and it leaves the genre in a very tenuous position for the future.
Often now, the same group of friends who've fought through dungeons and castles and futuristic bases will comment on how TEAM BASED ACTION FPS REALISM COMBAT #386 is just yet another game that's going to be "The IN thing" for another two weeks before everybody moves onto the next. Because that's where we are now. If it's not straight up deathmatch or flag capture, it's team based realism with a set number of rounds. You might not buy guns with money you win at the end of each round, but it's still very, very close to the same tired concept you've seen played out since 1999.
One aspect to consider concerning a developer's tendancy to include online play is this: If gamers are playing it online, they're not selling it back for someone else to buy as a used copy.
Every one of those people palying Halo Online still has their copy of the game. So Bioshock is awesome, do you still own it? Having completed the one player storyline, how many will hold on to their copy?
If the developer can get another 2 or 3 weeks more play out of most of the copies of the game from online multiplayer thus reducing the amount of used copies available hence selling more new copies during the crucial 2 months after it's release therefore ergo in hindsight superfluous per se etc isn't it worhtwhile? Doesn't that make sense money-wise?
Every one of those people palying Halo Online still has their copy of the game. So Bioshock is awesome, do you still own it? Having completed the one player storyline, how many will hold on to their copy?
If the developer can get another 2 or 3 weeks more play out of most of the copies of the game from online multiplayer thus reducing the amount of used copies available hence selling more new copies during the crucial 2 months after it's release therefore ergo in hindsight superfluous per se etc isn't it worhtwhile? Doesn't that make sense money-wise?
A great single player like Bioshock is nice, but if they manage to put on a multiplayer portion that's decent, even better. People these days expect replay value and a single player campaign just doesn't cut it. Personally, I could live without multiplayer in Bioshock II, in much the same way I could live without Bioshock II at all. I wouldn't mind but since it's there, yay for me.
Well, I’m glad someone finally came out and said it. I agree 100% with this article, Jim. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen reviews of games that read like this: “The single-player mode is wonderful, but in a day and age where everyone’s on the PSN or Xbox Live, where’s the online multiplayer?” If a game’s single-player aspect is worth the price of admission, why include a half-assed online multiplayer option just for the sake of having one?
Of course, there’s a flip-side, too. For example, many reviewers criticized Warhawk for its lack of any non-multiplayer mode. If you’ve read up on that game at all, you would’ve seen that Incognito (the developer) said they were originally working on a single-player mode and a multi-player mode, but they realized that the single-player storyline was shit, so they scrapped it completely and focused on the multiplayer aspect of the game. I’m glad they did, too, because Warhawk is fucking awesome online. Also, it’s only $39.99, so you can’t even make the argument that you’re paying full price for half a game. Thanks for vocalizing your opinion here, Jim; hopefully, developers will see it and realize that it’s not worth it to include an online multiplayer mode if it’s going to suck.
Of course, there’s a flip-side, too. For example, many reviewers criticized Warhawk for its lack of any non-multiplayer mode. If you’ve read up on that game at all, you would’ve seen that Incognito (the developer) said they were originally working on a single-player mode and a multi-player mode, but they realized that the single-player storyline was shit, so they scrapped it completely and focused on the multiplayer aspect of the game. I’m glad they did, too, because Warhawk is fucking awesome online. Also, it’s only $39.99, so you can’t even make the argument that you’re paying full price for half a game. Thanks for vocalizing your opinion here, Jim; hopefully, developers will see it and realize that it’s not worth it to include an online multiplayer mode if it’s going to suck.
KotOR 3 multiplayer for the win!
....wait, you mean that's an amazing single-player game that wouldn't work multiplayer? What, and it has replay value?
...gtfo.
----
Give me a good storyline and some interesting NPCs (and the Force never hurts, either), and I'll be happy for a long time. To hell with the people who act like 8 year olds when you are legitimately superior to them in online play.
Oh, and Co-Op would rock on a great deal of single-player games. The industry really needs to take a hint.
....wait, you mean that's an amazing single-player game that wouldn't work multiplayer? What, and it has replay value?
...gtfo.
----
Give me a good storyline and some interesting NPCs (and the Force never hurts, either), and I'll be happy for a long time. To hell with the people who act like 8 year olds when you are legitimately superior to them in online play.
Oh, and Co-Op would rock on a great deal of single-player games. The industry really needs to take a hint.
Online multiplayer is such a saturated market, and it competes for space more than anything else. Online games depend not just on you wanting to play them, but a lot of other people wanting to play them. So people are only going to play the best of the best online. Unless a game is aiming to have multiplayer as it's primary component, and is genuinely going to offer something that competes, it's absolutely a waste of time. Not to mention when a game is long and dead, it's multiplayer is useless, but the singleplayer experience lives forever.
I totally agree with you. I do appreciate a good multiplayer game, but it annoys me when no one is going to even be around to play it, whether or not it's better than Halo.
People that is only for the multiplayer are not the real gamers, they are not interested in the quality of writing and the way the idea come to life in a videogame, not even the art concept in it...
Usually they are the hardcore who need to say "fuck" for a while, scream, team play and then some of them make a clan to "own noobs" saying they are the bests.
Not that I dont like to play some multiplayer from time to time. Halo 3 was done for the multiplayer. It is sold for multiplayer and we all know how big it is because of it.
Usually they are the hardcore who need to say "fuck" for a while, scream, team play and then some of them make a clan to "own noobs" saying they are the bests.
Not that I dont like to play some multiplayer from time to time. Halo 3 was done for the multiplayer. It is sold for multiplayer and we all know how big it is because of it.
I think an online component to Bioshock would be pretty good, actually, and yeah I can see myself playing it more than Halo 3 or CoD4's offerings.
Not all multiplayer games need to have the same formula. I see the problem as more to do with the available game modes than the fact that everyone does online.
I sincerely wish Kane and Lynch was a better game, because it is nice to see a few new online game modes being put out there. We don't need more CTF, Team Deathmatch, etc. Imagine bioshock with a Big Daddy mode, where one team are Big Daddys and have to protect Little Sisters, and the other team are splicers that need to kill the sisters for adam, which they then use to upgrade?
Not all multiplayer games need to have the same formula. I see the problem as more to do with the available game modes than the fact that everyone does online.
I sincerely wish Kane and Lynch was a better game, because it is nice to see a few new online game modes being put out there. We don't need more CTF, Team Deathmatch, etc. Imagine bioshock with a Big Daddy mode, where one team are Big Daddys and have to protect Little Sisters, and the other team are splicers that need to kill the sisters for adam, which they then use to upgrade?
Fantastic post, I completely agree. So much effort is wasted on useless multiplayer modes that will be empty a month after release, it's a real shame.
I agree as well. That was my issue with Call of Duty. Way to short for a multi-player that is to similar to everything else. And I saw another comment about Crackdown not offering split screen. I agree with this as well. I wanted to join in the fun my cousin was having when he visited. Unfortunately Crackdown didn't offer split screen so I couldn't play with him.
follow
