Please 2K, enable 2 player split screen so two can play on HDTV co-op or versus

[wikoogle]

If it's too late to incorporate it into the game now. Atleast leave a place in the code so that splitscreen can be implemented later into the game via a downloadable update.

So many of us have 50 inch widescreen hdtvs now. We are dying to play RTSs with our friends by our side.

When you split a widescreen tv in half vertically, you get about the same proportions as a computer monitor so it would work well.

Having your friend actually beside you is so much better than having to play with them over online.

Since the campaign is designed for coop please enable split screen on the same console/tv for two players.

I would love to play with my bro by my side on my PS3 and my 50 inch 1080p plasma tv.

I would love to play against him too, even if we can see what each other is doing, it's not that big a deal. So if you could enable both coop and versus play for two people on the same tv, it would be fantastic.

[wikoogle]

Local multiplayer is FUN. It's why games like Goldeneye, Tekken, Halo 1, Smash Bros and many others became such massive massive hits. All four of those games would have been worthless without local multiplayer.

Many people discovered those games at a random party at their friends place. Many of them including I weren't even gamers at the time. But when they saw how much fun it was, they bought the n64 and goldeneye as well.

"Consoles are about fun with your friends next to you, not being on your own."

Now with hdtvs everywhere, if 2K makes this game splitscreen capable, it will be my and so many others dream come true.

In all honesty, back when I was in college when I had a roommate, I couldn't count up the number of games that we bought that we otherwise wouldn't have just because we could play through them together, or against each other, at the same time as we are hanging out.

And I can't count the number of games that we decided to pass on a game we were both interested in because we knew we would have to take turns playing it.

The same is true now with me and my brother. And the same is true for lots of people who have best friends that they hang out with all the time and want to play through games with together as they are hanging out.

These are situations that apply to millions of people.

This is why I am convince that splitscreen support for this game would give this game a huge boost in sales among the console gaming community.

Especially when considering the huge number of quality RTS games scheduled to come out on console within the next year and a half, none of which offer this very valuable feature.

This year, consoles are getting Halo Wars, Supreme Commander, Civ Revolution, Tiberium Wars Expansion Pack, End War, and a couple of other RTS games that I can't recall at the moment. And there's a great chance we'll get Starcraft early next year as well.

Fortunately out of all of them, this is the only strategy game that is being designed for Co-op play. So none of those other RTS games will feature splitscreen.

Co-op is a massive massive advantage to have over other games. The fact is, no body has two PS3s or two 360s in the same house, and very few people would willingly bring over their console over as well as an additional tv to play co-op with their friend while they are hanging out.

There are tons of FPSs and other games that people buy over others just because they support splitscreen co-op. Thats why more and more gaming companies are incorporating that feature into games.

Simply put, if Civ: Rev doesn't incorporate splitscreen co-op into the console version, it will be just one of over a half dozen solid RTSs that come out within the next 12 months, and won't sell that well. If it incorporates it though, it will stand heads and shoulders above the rest for this and could easily double it's sales on consoles for this one distinct advantage

Splitscreen coop would actually work a LOT better if you are able to peek at what your ally is doing too.

So it absolutely should have that, atleast based on how every mission is designed for coop play and how wide, widescreen hdtvs that people own these days are.

But I think as long as coop is included, throwing in versus would be a nice change of pace too. Technically, FPS shooters shouldn't work in splitscreen since you can always see where your enemy is. But FPSs, even tactical ones, are a lot of fun even during splitscreen versus. Same thing here, it's not ideal, but it's still lots of fun and would be a very welcome option. It would actually provide an additional challenge.

[ThePathMaker]

Split Screen would be so cool. I love split screen games, co-op or vs they rock.
Make it SPLIT SCREEN, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wikoogle]

That's the spirit.

Please. If it's too late to incorporate it into the game now. Atleast leave a place in the code so that splitscreen can be implemented later into the game via a downloadable update.

[Sigmakan]

That's the spirit.

Please. If it's too late to incorporate it into the game now. Atleast leave a place in the code so that splitscreen can be implemented later into the game via a downloadable update.

Agreed. Why not atleast leave space for a chance in the future. It would be stupid to burn bridges now.

[Joneleth]

While I support the option for split screen, honestly I'd rather them spend their time with more important things then make a feature that in my opinion will be fairly underutilized (why would you want your opponent to see what your civilization is doing?)

[KrashKrunal]

Definitely something to think about 2K/Firaxis. I do love Civ, and I'd personally love to show my friend WHY I love it soo much, he wasn't too keen on the PC version, but I'm sure he'd love to be able to play the game with me on my PS3 whilst we're both in the same room.

I find that a lot more fun than over the internet - especially since the PS3 version doesn't support voice talk, AND my friend doesn't have a PS3. Why did you skip out on Off-Line Multiplayer in the first place, when honestly, it's something that most people would love to do. Siblings and Friends that love Civ would obviously love to play each other, so not allowing multiplayer on one console just means your limiting the playability of the game.

[Magwill]

Yes we don't care what Sid believes, the players want split screen.

[Sigmakan]

Nice preemptive counter to the Sid excuse. It was bound to come up sooner or later.

[KrashKrunal]

I wouldn't mind Hotseat either actually... it worked perfectly when I played Worms (one hell of a game... I think it took us 3-4 hours to complete ONE game... if we can do that for that game, why can't we do that for Civ Rev), it can work just as perfectly on Civ Rev...

[2K Elizabeth]

hey guys,

i'll bring this up with the team -- but to let you all know, it's way too late for anything to be added into the code. things like this take much longer than you'd believe to incorporate and make sure they work perfectly! ;-)

that being said, i won't guarantee you'll see this feature -- i'm pretty sure they considered it in the past -- but they all read the forums so will hear what you say!

and i'm still excited to play online MP with all of you. i'm pretty sure within a couple weeks you'll be teaching me tricks to the game that i never figured out myself.

-e.

[bigden]

Hotseat was considered briefly, but it didn't make sense with this particular game. There's just no way to hide your strategy from a friend who is sitting right beside you when playing on an HDTV. All it would take is a glance and your game would be blown wide open for both of you.

I plan on going the DS route if I want to trash talk my friends face to face.

[Sigmakan]

I suppose so, but there are ways around that, such as making your friend leave the room lol. My friend who I've always played Civ with does not have a PS3 or 360 and doesnt plan on getting one. Its a shame that we wont be able to play each other. Is the code set up so that this might be an option in the future?

Thanks.

[KrashKrunal]

and i'm still excited to play online MP with all of you. i'm pretty sure within a couple weeks you'll be teaching me tricks to the game that i never figured out myself.

-e.

There's just a slight problem to that Elizabeth... firstly as you've mentioned already you don't own a PS3 so wont play with all of us, and secondly, whilst some of us would love to play you (and the others in this forum), we'd just as equally like to play the game with our family and friends without the need to dish out another £400 for the console + Game...

But I'm not blaming you or the developers for it, it just seems that far too many games are becoming online multiplayer only, and personally I'm finding it increasingly irritating.

I personally own a number of PS3 titles (a list of which can be found here: http://www.neoseeker.com/members/platforms/Krunal/ps3/ - scroll down to the 'PS3 Games Owned' section) And out of them all, the only real two player game that is fun enough to play conistently is Resistance: Fall of Man, which has an equally amazing online experiance, however if I have someone over I'm not going to be playing online, nor am I going to play a one player game.

The best way to boost sales are multiplayer games (with the exception of Grand Theft Auto IV, which boosts sales just by it's name) because that's how people are introduced to a game. For some reason though, most games take out any off-line multiplayer element (Warhawk, GTAIV) and leave only an online element in, meaning I can't really play with my friends like I'd like to. If you can add it to the game via an update we'd all really appreciate it, because at this point, when my friend comes back down to London after his Uni is over, we're most likely to boot up Metal Gear Solid 4 which hopefully will have offline multiplayer and if not then Resistance: Fall of Man, but I'd really love to play Civ Rev with him, even if it's limited to 2 players as opposed to the online's 4/5 players.

:frag:

[2K Elizabeth]

There's just a slight problem to that Elizabeth... firstly as you've mentioned already you don't own a PS3 so wont play with all of us, and secondly, whilst some of us would love to play you (and the others in this forum), we'd just as equally like to play the game with our family and friends without the need to dish out another £400 for the console + Game...

i have a PS3 at work, and goodness knows, i'm there more than i am at home! and i promise, i'll get a PS3 soon for you guys. ;-)

as for the part about friends and family, i'll refer to Dan's post above, that having hotseat when you can see your opponent's screen didn't make a ton of sense.

i love coop and local multiplayer as much as i do online MP, but for some games, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense when put into practice.

but i do understand your opinion!

[Magwill]

hey guys,

i'll bring this up with the team -- but to let you all know, it's way too late for anything to be added into the code. things like this take much longer than you'd believe to incorporate and make sure they work perfectly! ;-)

that being said, i won't guarantee you'll see this feature -- i'm pretty sure they considered it in the past -- but they all read the forums so will hear what you say!

and i'm still excited to play online MP with all of you. i'm pretty sure within a couple weeks you'll be teaching me tricks to the game that i never figured out myself.

-e.

Us Swedes need to settle the score after the extremely entertaining hockey match a couple of days ago.

[Antwerpo]

I really don't get the point of split screen? It's a turnbased game no? And like already mentioned you show your strategy? Would be cool though if you could use 2 PSP's and a PS3 as a big event screen. Otherwise I don't really see any need to play it multiplayer in one room.

[Sigmakan]

I really don't get the point of split screen? It's a turnbased game no? And like already mentioned you show your strategy? Would be cool though if you could use 2 PSP's and a PS3 as a big event screen. Otherwise I don't really see any need to play it multiplayer in one room.

The utilization of the PSP-PS3 interactivity is a very interesting idea. I like it.

I do sometimes forget that Revolution is not turn-based which makes hot seat impossible. However, a split-screen co-op game would still be awesome.

[2K Elizabeth]

The utilization of the PSP-PS3 interactivity is a very interesting idea. I like it.

I do sometimes forget that Revolution is not turn-based which makes hot seat impossible. However, a split-screen co-op game would still be awesome.

Revolution is turned based. it's a faster turn based system than previous Civilizations, but the game it turned based!

[KrashKrunal]

It's not turn based, which if anything is a plus and another reason to have the split screen multiplayer. We'd be soo engrossed with our own area, and with no saves, and AI civs, I think it'd be made even more fun with that element of 'is my friend going to turn on me or not'.

:frag:

[Sigmakan]

Revolution is turned based. it's a faster turn based system than previous Civilizations, but the game it turned based!

Well its not turn based in the sense that players don't take turns, they all go during the same turn.

[Antwerpo]

Well its not turn based in the sense that players don't take turns, they all go during the same turn.

Only if players can't see each other. There is no way you can play civ normally in split screen. I don't want my opponent to see where I am building large armies to invade him.

[2K Elizabeth]

Well its not turn based in the sense that players don't take turns, they all go during the same turn.

it is not turn based in the sense that your units are frozen while someone else plays, yes. but there are defined turns and movements per turn. :-)

it wouldn't be Civilization without that!

[Krikkitone]

As for wouldn't want my opponent to see.... who says the hotseat/splitscreen player would be your opponent, couldn't you play with them as your ally?

Also, well that's just the cost of split screen... it happens with Halo, if this is someone you Trust, then they try not to look at your screen. Or you accept that playing split screen means no surprises (you can still kill someone with an army they know is coming... after all you know where all their defense are)

I see this as a MAJOR advantage of console games over PC games (social gaming on the same device with friends), and since Civ Rev is Civ for Consoles, am really surprised that it wasn't done.

[Antwerpo]

As for wouldn't want my opponent to see.... who says the hotseat/splitscreen player would be your opponent, couldn't you play with them as your ally?

Also, well that's just the cost of split screen... it happens with Halo, if this is someone you Trust, then they try not to look at your screen. Or you accept that playing split screen means no surprises (you can still kill someone with an army they know is coming... after all you know where all their defense are)

Oh come on, thrust? When the goal is not to be defeated? You a hippie? Just accept that it's Civ played the civ way How will you ever become the biggest ruler the world has ever known if you go on thrusting other civilizations?! There can only be one winner so what's the purpose on helping others when you will have to defeat them in the end anyway

I see this as a MAJOR advantage of console games over PC games (social gaming on the same device with friends), and since Civ Rev is Civ for Consoles, am really surprised that it wasn't done.

Get a list of all console games and notice that most games are solo games. GTA IV broke records in sales and it's a solo game. Consoles have to advantage to play party games, but it does not force all games released to be party games.

[Krikkitone]

Oh come on, thrust? When the goal is not to be defeated? You a hippie? Just accept that it's Civ played the civ way How will you ever become the biggest ruler the world has ever known if you go on thrusting other civilizations?! There can only be one winner so what's the purpose on helping others when you will have to defeat them in the end anyway

PS its Trust... and well the stops argument as you appear to agree with me here.

Get a list of all console games and notice that most games are solo games. GTA IV broke records in sales and it's a solo game. Consoles have to advantage to play party games, but it does not force all games released to be party games.

I agree not all released games must be party games, just as not all released PC games need to be multiplayer at all. But given the nature of Civilization (games measured in hours not minutes) , I'd readily give up online play for party play. (PCs are different because multiple PCs are more common than multiple consoles)

True most console games are solo games, but most are also real time, and most are not 'strategy' either RTS or TBS... and most of them I don't play... although there are a few Party ones that I might play.

The BIGGEST advantage of party play is that it allows Casual civ players, and even casual gamers. to play without having to buy 1 game per person playing (and one console for casual gamers, or even regular gamers that share a console).

Now that might cut sales as there are people that want to play multiplayer enough that they would actually buy their Own console and Game to play online with friends, but don't because of party play. But anyone who likes it that much is probably going to want single player as well, and going to want to do it when their friends are wanting to do single player.

[grimnir84]

As for wouldn't want my opponent to see.... who says the hotseat/splitscreen player would be your opponent, couldn't you play with them as your ally?

I totally agree with that... Me and my girlfriend would love the opportunity to crush the enemy hordes TOGETHER!!!

I suggest to add split screen or hotseat as an upgrade or downloadable content at PSN. Am ready to pay as much as the game itself costs...

[wikoogle]

I totally agree with that... Me and my girlfriend would love the opportunity to crush the enemy hordes TOGETHER!!!

I suggest to add split screen or hotseat as an upgrade or downloadable content at PSN. Am ready to pay as much as the game itself costs...

Agreed. 2k wanted more people exposed to their game and franchise so that they can sell more copies. That's why they branched out to consoles.

And that's why should enable splitscreen play at the very least as a downloadable add on.

Game devs sell a crap ton of games because so and so had their game at a certain party and multiple people took turns playing it against each other.

Do you think games like Goldeneye, Smash Bros, Tekken or even Halo and COD4 would have sold even half the copies they did if it wasn't for gamers being exposed to these games at a party they were at?

Goldeneye as I recall had many average to crap reviews when it first came out. One magazine even gave it a 4 out of 10!

It sold because people played it at their friends house and realized just how much fun it was. And I bet Goldeneye and Smash Bros sold tons of N64s too, just as Tekken and Twisted Metal sold a ton of PS1s

I have a powerful PC. Most next gen console gamers do.

We just don't enjoy gaming on it. We much prefer playing with our friends and family.

I grew up on games like Street Fighter, Tekken, Twisted Metal, Goldeneye, Smash Bros, Soul Caliber, Halo, Madden, Gears and COD4.

Note how all of those games are multiplayer games popularly played at parties with friends.

We party gamers also enjoy solid single player games like GTA at parties but really enjoy them because with a group of people, even if we have to take turns, we can laugh at all the cop we blow up and cars we jack and crap like that.

Mark my words, split screen Civ Revolutions has the potential to be huge at parties. Nothing more fun than watch two players you know bash each other with a large armies. Then taking turns playing the winner.

I'm sure I'm not the only console gamer that feels that way.

PC and console gamers are very different animals. I wish more game developers realized that.

[Phalanx]

We party gamers also enjoy solid single player games like GTA at parties but really enjoy them because with a group of people, even if we have to take turns, we can laugh at all the cop we blow up and cars we jack and crap like that.

Mark my words, split screen Civ Revolutions has the potential to be huge at parties. Nothing more fun than watch two players you know bash each other with a large armies. Then taking turns playing the winner.

I'm sure I'm not the only console gamer that feels that way.

PC and console gamers are very different animals. I wish more game developers realized that.

I think you are also forgetting how long a game is. Why would anyone want to sit and watch 2 people play a game for 3-6 hours? That would be terrible.

The shooter / fighting / and GTA games are much different animals.

Split screen would be ok I guess, but not a major advantage for me.

[wikoogle]

Okay, I guess I should be clearer about party/social gaming.

I am including the majority of the social gaming time where it's me and my best friend, or girlfriend, or roommate, or sibling, or family member spend hanging out, gaming.

Being able to participate in this activity with someone else adds to it, and hooks that other person into getting the game too, who will then hook someone else in.

You grow a franchise that way.

Besides, I doubt most games would go on for hours and hours.

[Antwerpo]

It's a supid idea to start with and I am very confident that it would just add nonsense to a game that is build on strategy.

[wikoogle]

Really, the vast majority of the people on the forums seem to be very excited by the idea of split screen coop.

[Antwerpo]

So? Can't a majority be wrong?

And it's not that anyone here isn't gonna buy it without split screen. And a vast majority here is against delaying Civ Rev in favour of split screen so it's not that popular that it has to be in it.

[Joneleth]

Really, the vast majority of the people on the forums seem to be very excited by the idea of split screen coop.

This forum isn't a good indication of the greater Civilization community as a whole. Less then a few dozen people post here.

Just because 6-7 people may want split screen, doesn't mean the majority of players do.

[Stanos]

I don't really care about splitscreen in CivRev. If they put it in later as DLC it would be nice so we could play with our friends, if they don't so be it.
I already got used to console games not getting offline multiplayer, I think it's dying a slow death. I think most developpers have stopped caring about it and started putting their effort in online gaming. It's a pity but hey, that's life

[Edmund0Dantes]

I dont want it either

[Thrallia]

I'd like some split-screen action, but it won't keep me from buying the game. I would love to play with my brothers/wife/sister-in-law on my console, since I doubt my brothers will buy the game without some prodding and playing, but the majority of my playing will be solo or online anyway.

I'd probably pay for that feature to be added at a later date though...

[Lenny]

Although it would be nice, I don't really care that split screen is not in the game.

[Magwill]

So? Can't a majority be wrong?

And it's not that anyone here isn't gonna buy it without split screen. And a vast majority here is against delaying Civ Rev in favour of split screen so it's not that popular that it has to be in it.

Be wrong? We're talking preferences, there is no right or wrong, just what people want. It is impossible to make a good survey on what all the potential Civ players want, but if the majority on the forums want it then it is at least an indication that it can be successful.

[KrashKrunal]

Let's put it simply...

...If you want Split-Screen Multiplayer then you want something 'added' to the game, something that if they do add will NOT make any other part of the game less enjoyable...

...If you DON'T care for the Split-Screen Multiplayer then you don't want something that's 'additional' and wouldn't effect you in anyway if it was added AFTER the release via a Patch...

With that said, if you don't care for it, then you really have no need to post in this thread because, adding this feature as a patch doesn't effect you, it ONLY effects those that will use it. Yeh you have an opinion but an opinion saying 'I don't support' isn't much of one, you only don't support because in most likely cases, you just don't have someone to play OFFLINE with, or are rich enough to have more than one console in a house, so can play against your friend/sibling in the same house.

If the feature doesn't effect you in any way why are you complaining about it?

Some people don't have the connection speed to go online with a console, do you hear them saying 'we don't want online multiplayer', some x360 users don't have cameras, do you see them saying 'we don't want voice chat', some people only use one or two of their favourite civs in a game, do you see them saying 'Only have those one/two civs and make all others AI controlled permanantly' or anything like that? No you don't because that would be like telling them to REMOVE something from the game. If the developers are willing to add this feature, why are you saying 'I don't care about it, I don't want it'? At the end of the day, you DON'T have to use offline multiplayer so it shouldn't effect you, so why go all the way in this thread and say "Just because 6-7 people may want split screen, doesn't mean the majority of players do." (and don't think I'm picking on anyone in particular, I'm just quoting from what I see below in the thread recap)

Now for me the stupidest comment by far is on the lines of "It's a supid idea to start with and I am very confident that it would just add nonsense to a game that is build on strategy." Firstly, it will be built by the Civ Rev team, and from what I've seen so far, I don't think they can disappoint, secondly, if your not going to use it, then it shouldn't matter to you. And I'm sure that many of the hardcore PC Fanboys are 'confident' that Civ on a Console is the death of Civ (either on the PC or entirely), however that is really more of an opinion.

Yes the game is built on strategy, but if your going to be focusing on what your opponent/friend is doing on the other half of the other screen, then your bound to lose, coz that means your not spending time on your turn doing what you need to do, and remember there is a time limit before a turn is up dictated by the first person to finish (atleast on online matches). You honestly, can't be confident in anything till the CivRev team try it, so honestly, all you that don't want this feature, it doesn't harm you in any way if they bring it out as a Patch/Downloadable-Addon, so honestly if u don't like this suggestion, then stay out of the thread. I'm probably stepping over a few boundries with that comment, but if it satisfies even SOME Civ fans and doesn' dissatisfy others, then why the hell do you care if they add it or not?