MW3, how did they do it? (splitscreen)

I am a Halo fan, through and through, so dont all start flaming me for posting about COD. Truthfully I didnt even buy MW3, but my brother did and I had a chance to play it this week.

People have been talking about how its basically a carbon copy of MW2, which gameplay wise, its pretty close. But at a closer look, they must have done some serious upgrades.

Previous COD titles haven’t even support split screen play, and MW3 not only supports it… but it runs it almost flawlessly!!! How is this possible? I cant really notice any difference between playing 1 player or 2 online. And they still have pretty damn good graphics… I’ll admit that the levels are all small to medium, there are no large play spaces really, but other than that I dont know what to think.

I am not a computer guy really, so if someone could explain to me what makes this possible, I would appreciate it. I understand that MW3 came out a year after Reach… but its still running on the same hardware and halo has dominated split screen in the past… is halo falling behind? What is different about the new COD that allows it to do this so well?

MW2 had splitscreen and did it flawlessly, so did Blops, and WaW sometimes(not a surprise, after all Treyarch made them lol).

And about your last question, probably just some programming trickery.

P.S-This is a Halo forum :slight_smile:

> MW2 had splitscreen and did it flawlessly, so did Blops, and WaW(one of the only good things about Blops and WaW).
>
> And about your last question, probably just some programming trickery.
>
> P.S-This is a Halo forum :slight_smile:

MW2 had splitscreen online? Am I not remembering right?

This is a Halo question, I want to know what they are doing for splitscreen in H4… I didn’t think splitscreen worked very well in reach.

Halo is obviously falling behind. It will never be as popular as it was at its height (Halo 3) ever again.

> > MW2 had splitscreen and did it flawlessly, so did Blops, and WaW(one of the only good things about Blops and WaW).
> >
> > And about your last question, probably just some programming trickery.
> >
> > P.S-This is a Halo forum :slight_smile:
>
> MW2 had splitscreen online? Am I not remembering right?
>
> This is a Halo question, I want to know what they are doing for splitscreen in H4… I didn’t think splitscreen worked very well in reach.

  1. Yes they did have splitscreen online
  2. We’ll have to wait and see

COD runs at a minimum of 60 frames per second (FPS). To do this, they use textures with lower than average amounts of detail and maps that limit draw distance and the amount of textures on screen. If a game runs at 30 FPS, it still appears to be smooth as the human eye only sees at about 24 FPS. So COD, when playing split screen, simply halves the framerate and leaves the rest of the graphical attributes alone. Halo on the other hand, allows split screen by lowering the graphical quality and possibly lowering framerate if necessary. That is why on four player split screen snipers look like gray blobs and many explosions tend to bog down the framerate as everything needs to be rendered four times over if every person is experiencing high detail effects at the same time.

In short. COD does this by halving the framerate while halo reduces the graphical detail.

Im still pretty certain that split screen in MW2 was only in spec ops, not multiplayer.

Also MW2 did not have multiplayer split screen, only Blops and MW3. WAW and MW2 had local split screen also.

> If a game runs at 30 FPS, it still appears to be smooth as the human eye only sees at about 24 FPS.

Misinformed, you are. We don’t only see in 24 FPS. Also, CoD runs at 60 FPS both in single player and in split screen.

> COD runs at a minimum of 60 frames per second (FPS). To do this, they use textures with lower than average amounts of detail and maps that limit draw distance and the amount of textures on screen. If a game runs at 30 FPS, it still appears to be smooth as the human eye only sees at about 24 FPS. So COD, when playing split screen, simply halves the framerate and leaves the rest of the graphical attributes alone. Halo on the other hand, allows split screen by lowering the graphical quality and possibly lowering framerate if necessary. That is why on four player split screen snipers look like gray blobs and many explosions tend to bog down the framerate as everything needs to be rendered four times over if every person is experiencing high detail effects at the same time.
>
> In short. COD does this by halving the framerate while halo reduces the graphical detail.

Thanks for the explanation MH. So two players would run at 30FPS on COD… it still seems better than halos two players running at 30FPS, I guess the difference would be the textures and detail then.

> > If a game runs at 30 FPS, it still appears to be smooth as the human eye only sees at about 24 FPS.
>
> Misinformed, you are. We don’t only see in 24 FPS. Also, CoD runs at 60 FPS both in single player and in split screen.

Wait what!? so COD runs two screens at twice the speed of halo and still has that smooth of play! once again, how do they do it? lol

> > COD runs at a minimum of 60 frames per second (FPS). To do this, they use textures with lower than average amounts of detail and maps that limit draw distance and the amount of textures on screen. If a game runs at 30 FPS, it still appears to be smooth as the human eye only sees at about 24 FPS. So COD, when playing split screen, simply halves the framerate and leaves the rest of the graphical attributes alone. Halo on the other hand, allows split screen by lowering the graphical quality and possibly lowering framerate if necessary. That is why on four player split screen snipers look like gray blobs and many explosions tend to bog down the framerate as everything needs to be rendered four times over if every person is experiencing high detail effects at the same time.
> >
> > In short. COD does this by halving the framerate while halo reduces the graphical detail.
>
> Thanks for the explanation MH. So two players would run at 30FPS on COD… it still seems better than halos two players running at 30FPS, I guess the difference would be the textures and detail then.

No! CoD runs at 60 FPS regardless of playing split screen and you are capable of seeing far above ‘24 FPS’. Here’s a visual comparison of different FPSs. That user is an uninformed -Yoink!-.

The only thing he got right was the draw distance. Textures don’t have much to do with it though. That’s more disc space related than anything. It’s all about the polygons, mang. The less polygons you have on screen the easier it is to pump out a higher FPS rate (less polygons = less calculations need to be performed allowing for more calculations per second = higher FPS). And to be honest, Bungie needlessly waste polygons. They add detail to things the majority will never notice. Especially when there’s cheaper ways of accomplishing it…

> The only thing he got right was the draw distance. Textures don’t have much to do with it though. That’s more disc space related than anything. It’s all about the polygons, mang. The less polygons you have on screen the easier it is to pump out a higher FPS (less calculations need to be performed allowing for more calculations per second). And to be honest, Bungie needlessly wastes polygons. They add detail to things the majority will never notice. Especially when there’s cheaper ways of accomplishing it…

This makes more sense actually. So basically Bungie/343 go overboard with making the multiplayer maps too pretty is what it boils down too… I think that those sort of details and finishing touches should be mostly reserved for campaign in H4. The multiplayer should be stripped down to the essentials, allowing it to play flawlessly(for 2 screens) and near flawlessly for bigger parties(3-4 split screens).

MMMMk. I was uninformed on the fact that FPS stays static at 60 despite split screen. But the eye tends to capture images at around 24 unless under the effects of adrenalin or other substances, where it can get (to my probably limited knowledge) to around 52 FPS. Under most circumstances, 30 FPS is fine for shooters like halo, which are less about twitch shooting and more about tactical play and consistent shot placement.

Again COD is able to sustain such a high framerate by limiting how much you can see on the map, the low amount of physical detail and having relatively linear campaigns among other things. Halo wont be able to support better splitscreen graphics until we get new video hardware with a new system due to crazy amount of detail that the developers want in the game and the openness that halo gameplay requires.

Really, I’m not sure where Reach uses the processing power. Perhaps Bungie spent so long working on all the features that they didn’t have time to maximise the engine efficiency. Or maybe every time you play Reach online, Bungie co-opts your Xbox to help it crack a bank security system as part of Step 7.

> Halo is obviously falling behind. It will never be as popular as it was at its height (Halo 3) ever again.

Someone didn’t play Halo CE or Halo 2, I guess?

One thing that seems to apply is that the CoD makes end up with more money.
While halo can onyl get those on xbox.

people want a easy to play. easy to pick up game that takes little to no skill to become a pro.

halo is one of the few games that still appreciates letting every one start out even. Because of this its much harder to play making it frustrating for those who cant just jump in and kill. Plus each time a new halos released the game is almost completely changed in some form or matter. This makes adjusting to the game even harder if you sadly got it when the next is coming.
This give’s CoD another point. theirs so little change that adapting is never needed.

Face it
halos loosing simply because its harder to play.

> One thing that seems to apply is that the CoD makes end up with more money.
> While halo can onyl get those on xbox.
>
>
> people want a easy to play. easy to pick up game that takes little to no skill to become a pro.
>
> halo is one of the few games that still appreciates letting every one start out even. Because of this its much harder to play making it frustrating for those who cant just jump in and kill. Plus each time a new halos released the game is almost completely changed in some form or matter. This makes adjusting to the game even harder if you sadly got it when the next is coming.
> This give’s CoD another point. theirs so little change that adapting is never needed.
>
> Face it
> halos loosing simply because its harder to play.

This is completely off topic. Plz go post somewhere else if you want to start a war about COD vs Halo, that is not the purpose of this thread.

> > One thing that seems to apply is that the CoD makes end up with more money.
> > While halo can onyl get those on xbox.
> >
> >
> > people want a easy to play. easy to pick up game that takes little to no skill to become a pro.
> >
> > halo is one of the few games that still appreciates letting every one start out even. Because of this its much harder to play making it frustrating for those who cant just jump in and kill. Plus each time a new halos released the game is almost completely changed in some form or matter. This makes adjusting to the game even harder if you sadly got it when the next is coming.
> > This give’s CoD another point. theirs so little change that adapting is never needed.
> >
> > Face it
> > halos loosing simply because its harder to play.
>
> This is completely off topic. Plz go post somewhere else if you want to start a war about COD vs Halo, that is not the purpose of this thread.

Sorry if I went a little off topic there but Its true
they make more money and there for they can do better things