Updates Wednesdays

Comic 242 - Splitscreen

Posted on Tuesday, the 28th of February at 11:00 PM, 2017 in 2017

Author Notes:

DanVzare Tue, 28. Feb 11:00 PM, 2017 edit delete
I've recently been seeing a lot of people praising Battlefield and bashing on Call of Duty. Now people bashing Call of Duty is old news. Everyone has been doing that for the past decade. But recently instead of simply saying Call of Duty is just the same old crap it is every year, everyone is now saying that Battlefield is a much better game with much more realistic gameplay and blah blah blah. You get the idea.
It's been going on for a while, and I usually just put it down to different fandoms, but I think recently it's reached its peak with the whole Infinite Warfare apparently being shit (I've not played it, but it looks alright) and Battlefield 1 apparently being awesome (I've also not played it, but it once again looks alright).

Now I've never played Battlefield so I can't say how good or bad the gameplay is. What I can say is exactly why I've never played Battlefield, and that is the one thing that is never brought up when people claim Battlefield is a better game than Call of Duty. And that is splitscreen!

Now are the Call of Duty games any good?
Actually yes, they're pretty well polished, and are probably the only FPS games I've ever played where the regenerating health isn't annoying. Also there are plenty of settings to customize how a match is played, including the removal of health regeneration and even the ability to double your maximum health.

The story modes are usually boring, and I've never played online. But simply playing splitscreen is worth the price of admission if you ask me. Especially once you realize that due to the yearly releases, the previous games get really cheap really quickly.

There's no real point in getting them all either. Just wait a few years for a few graphical improvements and a few new features to be implemented.

Battlefield though has no splitscreen. Now that's probably due to the way the game is. It's got some pretty big maps with lots of things happening at once, and it's not as focused on the fast paced arcade style like Call of Duty. So it makes sense. I mean, just imagine trying to implement bots on Battlefield.

But I like splitscreen. And if there's no splitscreen, then why would I get the game? Who would I play with and why?
I don't like playing online with strangers, I don't know anyone who has it, and the recent consoles all require a subscription fee to play online anyway (which I refuse to pay for several reasons, including the lack of money and the things I listed above).
So yeah, unless it's got great innovative gameplay and/or an awesome story, or has splitscreen, it's a no go. Especially if it's a first person shooter. Because let's face it, unless you're playing with someone, first person shooters are really boring.
They're probably one of the most boring genres out there. The only game that ever did them right was Deus Ex, and that game was so awesome compared to other FPS's that people outright refuse to call it an FPS, and instead prefer to call it an RPG. Despite barely having any RPG mechanics (seriously, I see more modern games having way more RPG mechanics than Deus Ex, but don't get called an RPG).

No matter what you think about Call of Duty, you've got to give credit where credit is due though. It's a popular series of games which is well-known for it's online multiplayer mode, and always has a splitscreen mode. Usually with up to 4-player splitscreen! All in an era where splitscreen games are becoming increasingly rarer.
They could probably do away with the splitscreen altogether, and almost no one would care. Yet it's still there!
You've got to admit, that's commendable.