Split Screen?

I don't think most people really care if the map can support splitscreen. I try to get my maps to work with splitscreen because then I am sure that it does not have any framerate problems. However, on forge island I think it is easier to get the map to work with splitscreen. I have a map at about 7500 budget and there are only a few spots that the frame rate drops. So maybe we will see more splitscreen maps later.

 

A map should NEVER have to have something sacrificed (like aesthetics) just so the framerate runs good in splitscreen mode. The xbox 360 is outdated hardware that just cannot handle splitscreen anymore with something like Halo 4... so do not make your map suffer aesthetically or in any way because of that. That's my opinion and it's not just because I hate playing in splitscreen mode. I just like seeing maps built the best they can be and when someone says they don't want to do something because it would lag in splitscreen, well that's just ridiculous.

On the other hand I do realize it is cool to play with your buddies when they come over, but you have to realize yourself that Xbox is very old technology so you are going to have to play another game or Halo 3.

 

I'm not quite sure about the subject currently, but it was a standard that had to be met for matchmaking integration in Reach. If that is also the case with Halo 4, I would assume that's the reason individuals are shooting for split-careen compatability.

 

Splitscreen was supposed to be a requirement for the FFA contest, but not submitted enough maps supported it and still played well, so the requirement was loosened pretty much to the point of removal. Or that's what Godly says.

Don't worry about splitscreen.

 

I don't tend to design for split screen, but I found that one of my maps when scaled back in size (and blocks) for 4v4 rather than 6v6 did pretty well in split screen. That said, as I work to get that map back to 4v4 design, I intend to strive for 2LP capable, but I won't cry if I fail. The fact that I can come close says a lot about reducing frame rate overall and a wider margin for frame rate performance in 1LP mode.

 

To MrGreen, my experiences in Reach had me furious sometimes cuz I would have horrible lag in 2 player split screen. I would start stripping down pieces and it would make a big difference but then at a certain point the splitcreen lag would stay the same after cutting a massive amount of objects, glass and all. It just got frustrating but I haven't had to try in H4 yet.

 

Arbor Pointe? Lol.

Yeah, split screen is a MAJOR headache. I'm assuming people just stopped caring about supporting 2 local players in H4, but in Reach it was a standard if you wanted your map in MM. Many did go for 2 player support, many did not.

Best way to avoid split screen frame rate loss is to keep your object count down. Rule of thumb was to have ABOUT 250 objects (in Reach). You can push this object count limit by segregating your LoS. Room based maps are notorious for good frame rate performance because of this.

 

I like what Mr. Green said the best. You strive for splitscreen for reasons of improving framerate on 1 player, but don't cry if you fail (every time at least).

But some of you are missing one basic fact. A map's popularity is linked to how many people play it. If some people load up your map with a local friend and then cannot play it enjoyably, they will think less of it. At the very least, it will not be played again in that local play session. That may be inconsequential to the author. But the impression is that the map could have been a little better if it had worked.

The simple solution to this dilema is to note in your map description whether the map works for splitscreen. Maybe give it a splitscreen rating, such as 8/10 to indicate that it is very good with some slight hickups.

But this all goes back to the original argument that aiming for splitscreen compatibility improves the experience for single local player games. The crux of it being that if you spend time trying to figure out how to improve framerate, you'll inevitably be a better map builder. Your map designs will be cleaner, even if they do still look aesthetically complex at times. Maps don't need to look "busy" and "complex" at every turn.

That's what causes the framerate drop. It's not object count per se. I've maxed that out on maps that have very little framerate drop in splitscreen. I've maxed out budget as well. It's all about LOS and how many objects you can see at any one time (and specific objects are worse than others of course).

With LaForge (I have to note this to show an example of my argument) it started out as an attitude of making it detailed for 1LP and then try to work on a separate version that is scaled down for 2LP. Here's why that didn't pan out. Because when finishing the engine room area (previous design) I realized that my framerate issues in splitscreen had now swallowed up my 1LP experience.

I strafed back and forth viewing complex areas of the map and watched for the visual cue which is a hickup or a "jump" from one spot to another. Once you watch for it a lot, you notice it easily.

I did experiments to find out which objects were causing the problems. I'd save, go back into forge, delete things I suspected, and do the strafing again to watch for the hickups. I finally foud that one particular spot was viewing too many objects at once and used more objects than necessary. It took a while to devise an alternative way to build that spot (the spot where the engine goes through the floor - was originally going to be open), but it worked out for the better, and taught me something about how to build for splitscreen.

Guess what? It turns out that with some tweaking of the Bridge (the only other area where players experienced a drop) and this rebuilding of some things in the engineering deck, that framerate problems have been reduced drastically for splitscreen as well.

It gave me more items to use too. (Of course, I didn't place them in areas that were already too complex and exacerbate this problem.) That allowed me the budget to finish the map and create some more connecting corridors that I had previously believed would be impossible to build.

Your experience may vary, but IMO there is no reason to draw a fine line between designing for splitscreen or not. this goes badk to the aesthetics as a priority discussion (though I hope less volitile). If you have a particular priority for a map, such as a particular aesthetic theme, and it comes down to compromising that theme or the detail within it, or abandoning splitscreen compatibility, then it's up to YOU as the author to make the choice. there's no rule. It's about doing what YOU set out to do.

If you are creating a sterile, clean map and adding in aesthetics afterward, then obviously your priority was the map layout and adding too much aesthetics would be counterproductive. There's no point to exceeding splitscreen capability to add aesthetics at that point. Conversely, if your priority is focussed on building a beautiful structure and then making a map work around it as a centerpiece, it makese sense to first build that structure with as much detail as you desire, and then later when the map's layout provides framerate problems. Reduce some complexity of the structure so that it allows you to still play on the map.

Some maps start with a sketch of a layout, and some maps start with an artistic idea of something unique to build a map around. Nothing wrong with each method of conception, but each has its own approach and doesn't necessarily work for the other.

Your mileage may vary (severely) but this has been my experience.

Good luck!

 

Given that Halo 4 runs awful in splitscreen no matter what my friends and I stick to Reach when we want good splitscreen gaming.

 

i would beg to differ. There have been plenty of splitscreen matches with friends with no issues at all, or very little. I've noticed that when framerate suffers, it's really hard to get headshots, which as we all know is the name of the game where precision weapons are used. That leads to low kill ratios in those matches. There are times when a friend will be at my house playing splitscreen matchmaking, and we are both positive KDR and I'm having some of the best games I've ever had, then suddenly it switches to Shattered, and the experience totally flips. Negative KDR and horrible experience all around. Sure, I often lose matches and have slightly negative KDR, but when I say totally flipped, I mean it. I could be 20/5 one match, then 10/13 another. Same people, different map. To illustrate that it is not just my familiarity with one map over another, that same map, Shattered in 1LP is perfectly fine. if they removed only a LITTLE complexity here and there, it would be playable on splitscreen, but they won't so it isn't. (and to think I paid extra for the map) Arghh!!!

Some maps have either zero issue or very little, while others are awful as you say.

 

Yeah, I know some maps are fine, but when you're playing splitscreen with friends you don't want to have to say "We can't play that map. It has framerate issues"

Regardless, I find Reach and Halo 3 more fun in splitscreen, as usually there are a handful of players at my LAN parties that aren't experienced, and Halo 4 actually caters less to new players in my opinion -- too much going on at once.

 

gotcha... how I wish I had friends locally who would do lan parties more often. Everybody seems to be fixated with PC gaming and sitting alone in their bedrooms playing... hermits I tell ya!