GamerParenting: The Family That Frags Together
Some years back, Microsoft launched Xbox Live with a line delivered by Puff Daddy/P. Diddy/Sean "Puffy" Combs: "It's good to play together."
Indeed it is.
alt="Chicken coop blast."/>Boom Blox for Wii is one of the finest "all-ages" games available.
We keep reading about how gamers are aging, how parents are playing games with their kids, how videogames aren't for social rejects and loners any more. The problem is, all too often, when they say games are getting social they're talking about Internet multiplayer. Now, don't get me wrong, I like to mix it up in Battlefield: Bad Company, Team Fortress 2 and even Grand Theft Auto IV. Xbox Live, multiplayer shooters, MMORPGs, Uno over Live and other online gaming experiences are all bona fide phenomena. But let's face it, aside from some notable exceptions (like playing in a group, a guild or a team of some kind) playing Deathmatch isn't social. It's single-player gaming with simpler motives and more intelligent opponents -- in some cases.
alt="Characters"/>Primitive simplicity, but a blast to play with friends even today.
Competitive and cooperative play have been an integral part of gaming since its inception. (The first videogame, even before Pong, was a two-player version of table tennis played on an oscilloscope.) In the old days you could challenge friends to Pong, Atari's arcade Football (where the players were literally Xes and Os) or Gauntlet, one of the first co-operative four-player quarter-eating machines. My friends and I worked together in Ikari Warriors and Smash TV and against each other in Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat. We fought side-by-side in arcade gun games, and when we were at home or in the dorms, it was all about competitive sports games. There's a real joy in cooperative play, which is why it makes me sad it's so rare.
alt="Nintendo characters face off."/>Smash Brothers is fun to play with any gamerkid you have access to.
The new Kung Fu Panda game joins Super Smash Brothers Brawl, Mario Kart Wii, Boom Blox, and other great kid-friendly titles in offering four-player support. But I'm still mystified that otherwise awesome games like LEGO Star Wars and LEGO Indiana Jones are limited to two players. This is fine if both children are of equal age and ability, but a four-player mode would let the parent (or parents) play with them; as a guide to handle the hard parts or just as another participant in the fun.
Burnout Paradise offers rich multiplayer but I don't want to drive with the kinds of people I find online. The city is gorgeous and on the Xbox 360 the co-op split-screen in Burnout Revenge worked just fine. The ability to drive around at will, meeting up and racing through the virtual city without an explicit goal might prove to be more fun than beating Gr33tzM0nkee in a Road Rage race.
Like many Americans, I have a nuclear family. In this small brick house we have a dog, a cat, a boy, a girl, a man and a woman. We all like videogames -- save the dog and cat who are more into board games. I firmly believe that the family that plays together, stays together, yet all too often too many of us are sitting on the couch not playing. If I can use one Wii remote to play Bowling with four players in Wii Sports, then why is Wii Play limited to two players?
alt="Car racing"/>Burnout Paradise -- real sense of speed, no sense of split-screen multiplayer.
I understand there are technical limitations. For all I know Burnout Paradise can't support split-screen, but I do know that Rainbow Six: Vegas claims to have four-player split-screen co-op, yet simply doesn't offer it. Apparently they tried and failed? I played split-screen Goldeneye back in the day and liked it!
I know enough developers to know that there are often technological limitations beyond "it would be hard/expensive to do that," but in this age of burgeoning mainstream interest, emphasizing Internet play isn't going to cut it anymore. With the success of the Wii and the PlayStation 2's belated yet excellent children's trivia game series Buzz (which supports four players out of the box), I'd like to see game makers start trying harder to make their games suitable for four or more players. If that proves too hard, take out the often-redundant Internet multiplayer (everyone offers the same modes, whether they're needed or not). Give us something new.
alt="Soliders."/>Playing alone (even online with strangers) = Bad Company to me.
Why can't my 16-year old niece and I play Battlefield: Bad Company split-screen from the same console? Why can't we bring it -- together -- online when the mood strikes? I'd prefer to play with her sitting here, sharing my popcorn and laughing at me every time I unintentionally commit suicide, rather than have her play from her house while I play from mine. Maybe the developers could give us that instead of the next graphics update?
We've fragged people from all over the world. Let's start a family feud. Let's play in the same room and make it as easy as it needs to be for non-tech-heads and non-gamers to be able to pick up a gamepad or remote and immediately feel like they're part of the game.
After all? the family that plays together stays together. Single- or even two-player games just make us drift apart into our own screens.
Andrew Bub is the GamerDad. Visit his blog at GamerDad.com
