This game needs a longer single player mode, and 4 player splitscreen local multiplayer

[ZeroParadox]

All good points. But if i wana play it splitscreen i should still have the option.

Well that's what he's trying to say - the splitscreen option wouldn't work very well as a game. I get where you're coming from, but think about it yourself.

Would you include a mode that wouldn't be very good just because people thought they deserved it? Even if you knew it'd be so unplayable/broken that they wouldn't want it anyway, thus wasting your time and money as a developer?

If you think about it, they had no reason to put in local multiplayer at all. The fact that they made an attempt to get it in anyway while making it balanced (giving you targets as opposed to worrying about map coverage) means that they know people want local multiplayer. Other than what's already offered, they really had no other options, at least not for four player traditional split screen.

Maybe they could've had more gamepads, but that would cost the player a ton, and I don't even think the Wii U supports more than 2 pads. This game really doesn't work without your own screen to look at. Overall, traditional split screen is too expensive/too broken to be included.

That's just how it goes. I feel for ya, but there really is no other option.

 

[Chaozrush21]

I would love a longer Single Player mode. It felt a bit short and I really liked the level design. I'm not to sure about 4 player local multiplayer. The game already have a hard time in the normal multiplayer mode, and having 4 players would just make the game run like crap.

 

[LancerStaff]

How about this.. we're paying good money so do everything you lazy developers!

Have you ever played a game developed by a good developer.. like any game by rare? They had EVERYTHING in their multiplayer games. (Except online cause that wasnt a thing on consoles yet).

Is Final Fantasy VII incomplete because it doesn't have newgame+? Is Punch-Out (Wii) incomplete because it doesn't have online multiplayer? Is Fire Emblem Awakening incomplete because it doesn't have full voice acting? Is Sonic Colors incomplete because you can only play as Sonic? Is Kirby's Epic Yarn incomplete because it lacks copy abilities? Is Kirby Air Ride incomplete because it lacks dedicated single-player modes?

You have arbitrary standards over what is or isn't a complete game. Or rather, you've decided that a "complete" game exists. One can add content to a game indefinitely. You could just as well argue that a game is incomplete just because there's a door you can't enter, or a wall you can't climb, or if you can't level to 99, or that Mickey Mouse isn't playable. Just because it's a feature in one game doesn't mean it has to be in another.

 

[BronzeGreekGod]

Well that's what he's trying to say - the splitscreen option wouldn't work very well as a game. I get where you're coming from, but think about it yourself.

Would you include a mode that wouldn't be very good just because people thought they deserved it? Even if you knew it'd be so unplayable/broken that they wouldn't want it anyway, thus wasting your time and money as a developer?

If you think about it, they had no reason to put in local multiplayer at all. The fact that they made an attempt to get it in anyway while making it balanced (giving you targets as opposed to worrying about map coverage) means that they know people want local multiplayer. Other than what's already offered, they really had no other options, at least not for four player traditional split screen.

Maybe they could've had more gamepads, but that would cost the player a ton, and I don't even think the Wii U supports more than 2 pads. This game really doesn't work without your own screen to look at. Overall, traditional split screen is too expensive/too broken to be included.

That's just how it goes. I feel for ya, but there really is no other option.

I still think splitscreen would work by being an altered version of the game. It would still be fun - maybe less competitive, but still fun. I duno if you guys read my other posts, but i suggested a number of different modes that would work swimmingly in splitscreen. You dont need EVERY SINGLE game mechanic of the online multiplayer modes to utilize the basic mechanics of the game to make fun alternative modes.

 

[ZeroParadox]

I still think splitscreen would work by being an altered version of the game. It would still be fun - maybe less competitive, but still fun. I duno if you guys read my other posts, but i suggested a number of different modes that would work swimmingly in splitscreen. You dont need EVERY SINGLE game mechanic of the online multiplayer modes to utilize the basic mechanics of the game to make fun alternative modes.

Well that's what I mean. What they offered is an altered version of the game.
What else would they make that still Splatoon? Even if it was just a deathmatch, it wouldn't work, because you could still see people hiding in the ink. There's nothing you could do for splitscreen that wouldn't just be a completely different game, since the ink/squid mechanic is the core mechanic.

The only "solution" you've come up with is 4 gamepads... which isn't even possible, but even if it was, it's A) Something that people probably wouldn't want to do, as you can see by the posts here, B) extra dev time that has to be spent on something people might not even want for because C) it's a dumbed down version of the actual game.

 

[BronzeGreekGod]

Well that's what I mean. What they offered is an altered version of the game.
What else would they make that still Splatoon? Even if it was just a deathmatch, it wouldn't work, because you could still see people hiding in the ink. There's nothing you could do for splitscreen that wouldn't just be a completely different game, since the ink/squid mechanic is the core mechanic.

The only "solution" you've come up with is 4 gamepads... which isn't even possible, but even if it was, it's A) Something that people probably wouldn't want to do, as you can see by the posts here, B) extra dev time that has to be spent on something people might not even want for because C) it's a dumbed down version of the actual game.

Every split screen game has the "setback" of being able to see where you're opponent is. That doesnt mean - NO it cant be played! In lots of fps games the stelth aspect is used in the full game whereas in splitscreen you can see where your opponents are. that doesnt remove from the fun.

I dont see why people wouldnt want to play with more than 1 gamepad. That doesnt even make sense. Like if ur buddies were over and they had game pads youd never be like eh lets play some splatoon together pals! I believe nintendo is working on multiple gamepad functionality.. and even if that means only 2 gamepads that is an upgrade.

As for modes.. yes they gave us ONE local multiplayer mode. But thats nowhere near enough.

Deathmatch would work as i mentioned a second ago (in different forms - last man standing, first to 10 - whatever). Every man for himself - spray as much paint as you can on the level would be fun. A race mode would be a lot of fun and a different take on the game mechanics. A type of tag mode could also be interesting. And 2v2 would work for every mode i just mentioned. Has anyone ever played goldeneye? or turok? or ANYTHING for the n64? Timesplitters for the gamecube? There were so many options and modes in there you could play for decades. I still play timesplitters sometimes! Beautiful game. I cant wait for playtonic to make a proper fps game (and other games) and remind everyone what proper console games are supposed to be like.

Anyway, even normal turf wars could work. I played the demo, and obviously i didnt get a full handle for the game, but at its most basic form it would work. The only mechanics kept would be shoot paint, swim in your paint, and opponents paint kills you (and im sure some other things i dont know about yet can still work). It would be missing a couple of the "advanced" mechanics perhaps, and stealth wouldnt work, but it would be good enough and would still be fun.

 

[ZeroParadox]

Well, you can literally only have two gamepads. But it's been said why people don't want to.

Just because you can't see it doesn't mean they didn't explain why

 

[BronzeGreekGod]

Well just cause a few people dont want it doesnt mean no one wants it. Many people here have also agreed with my point of view. And obviously most people on the forums are gona be fans of the game, not people that have problems with the game.

Did you look at my mode ideas? I'm gona guess you/everyone else with your point of view wouldnt like those, but again - Options are great. Options provide fun for everyone. The more options the better a game is.

 

[ZeroParadox]

I told you that I looked at them. And I told you why they wouldn't happen anyway, because you can't have more than two gamepads on a console, and making that a thing would cost more money than it's worth.

 

[LancerStaff]

When we say that you can only have two Gamepads, we mean that the Wii U literally can only support two at a time due to hardware limitations. Somebody looked inside the thing and determined that it couldn't be done. Even when you get two to connect to a Wii U, the second just throws up a white "Wii U" screen that's a part of the Gamepad's OS and shows it's battery power on the home menu. Disconnects as soon as a game starts.

 

[Alus]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

There is so much a agree with and disagree with at the same time in this thread and I have to write a book to explain what the **** I'm talking about.

I'll address as much as I can later. But for now I'll say that more options may be great for the consumer, but It has a great cost on the people producing said game in some cases. If the costs outweighs the benefits we could see a failed game.

These statements are pretty much all preference and opinion-based, such as whether the lag will be bothersome with splitscreen, whether the screen is too small, whether 60 fps is necessary, etc. I just don't think it's a good implement that deserves the amount of space in the hardware it will occupy.

Sorry about the attack there. Its just I HATE that argument so much.

 

[BronzeGreekGod]

I told you that I looked at them. And I told you why they wouldn't happen anyway, because you can't have more than two gamepads on a console, and making that a thing would cost more money than it's worth.

Ya you can also use the wiimotes. In which case touch screen mechanics would be removed. So those modes would work, just without touch screen stuff.
I talked about that in earlier posts as well. There are many different controller options

 

[ZeroParadox]

The reason you need the pads is for your own screen. As said earlier, it would be a pain to have to have small screens in a game about coverage and stealth on the TV as is, even more so to aim at since you have barely any retail space for splitscreen for motion controls and 4 players.

 

[Pusha]

Seeing as how the main attraction of splatoon is the multiplayer, i found the single player to be a fine length. Most shooters don't have very long single player modes so that the game devs can put more time and resources into the multiplayer, which is the main focus of the game.

You can't be expecting a mario sunshine or legend of zelda length of single player. Splatoon's single player is just fine.

 

[Gweb]

Hey guys, at this point we're kind of just going around in circles with this discussion.

I think the general consensus is that having an offline local multiplayer mode would be a great addition to the game. Having said that, I'm going to assume that Nintendo did consider adding an offline local 4-player mode since their other games have it (IE. Smash & Mario Kart). For whatever reason, it did not make it to the end product. I'm sure you're aware that the entire process of creating a game and selling it involves more than just game design (which has been mostly what this thread has been about so far). While this thread has been focussing more on "they could do this to make it work", let's consider what COULD have prevented them from adding this aspect to the game. Perhaps on the business side of things there were time and budget constraints. Perhaps on the developer side of things, there were hardware and design limitations. Maybe they could not design the mode in a way that would continue to meet the quality of all other aspects of the game. Heck, they could have been lazy. All of the mentioned could have played a role in being unable to prioritize or carry forth adding this mode to the game. I'm sorry that my post has been a little vague and general, but it is another perspective on things.

At the end of the day, Nintendo is a business. They are a for-profit organization and money is what matters. Keeping customers happy is one performance metric to increase profits and improve branding. I think BronzeGreekGod and others in this thread has some great ideas on how local multiplayer can be designed and implemented. If you really want change, voice your thoughts, opinions, and ideas directly to Nintendo. Send a letter or email and let them hear your voice that you're unsatisfied with this aspect in the game and is ultimately preventing you from purchasing. I don't mean customer support either, look higher on the chain. Perhaps public relations or marketing is a good start (they will get it to the right people). There is a saying in customer service that goes "for every voiced complaint, there are X additional customer who feel the same way but did not say it". Gather and formulate your thoughts, opinions, and ideas constructively. Speak and they will listen!

INB4: Nintendo doesn't care what you think! (they will if they feel there is $$$ to be made)

TL;DR
-Offline 4-player would be great
-Process of creating and selling a game is more than game design
-Devs are not the only ones to blame for problems and lack of content
-Let Nintendo know why you're unsatisfied and MAYBE things may change in the future

 

[BronzeGreekGod]

How do i let them know? cause id love to let them know all the things im unsatisfied with lol

 

[Kimmorz]

4/5-player splitscreen would have been an awesome addition. But I'm sure if they could have done it, they would have done it. I personally wish there was an option to play online with friends on the same console, like Mario Kart 8 and Smash.

This is what I would like. At least to play with one other person on the same console online. That would be nice. 4/5 player options would cool, but I can never get a group that big together.

 

[ZypkerGaming]

This is why options to do EVERYTHING are important. so that everyone with different opinions all are happy

Hardware issues, as previously stated. Like I said before, there are reasons why not everything is an option, such as choosing the color textures for your characters in Mario Kart. It's just not a good usage of space. There's a fine line drawn on where something is worth the space or not.

 

[missingno]

Do you know what an opportunity cost is? The developers only had so much time and budget available to them, and this is what they chose to focus on. Spending their efforts on trying to make a watered down version of the game with a bad framerate, the whole ink stealth mechanic ruined, limited controls, and countless other problems would mean less time spent just making the rest of the game the best it could be. You can have a game that does a few things well or you can have a game that does a lot of things poorly. I'd rather have the former.

 

[RadioactiveMoth]

If the single-player was 3 to 4 times as long, I would still have bought Splatoon for 60 dollars. I adored it. Really hope there's some single player DLC, free or not.