lololol i used to play 4 player split screen on like a 24 inch tv. well the each screen was about the size of an unfolded ds.
not having split screen is not really a factor for me, just like theater mode, its one of those things that would be nice to have
and also imagine 4 smaller screens simultaneously performing a task like vaulting or mantling, it would be nauseating

thats why its always an optional feature. it woundn't damage the experience.

It depends how you look at it. If the implementation of split-screen used time and resources that could have been used to improve or add to other aspects of the game, then yes, it could damage the experience.
Just like with female characters - making a female character is optional, and in theory shouldn't damage the experience, but they decided that it would be better for the game overall to not have them.

It does make sense but split screen take away from the game . Theres a lot less you can see, things are smaller. Besides a lot of games aren't split screen such as MOH,BFBC2 etc so its not a huge disapointment.

Yes it is a huge factor Bethesda please if you are reading this you will lose so many custemers it will be rediculis just put in split-screan you have 4 months!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cryvaultboy:

A lot of exclamatory marks (did i say that right?) won't help your cause. Besides, Splashdamage is the developer, Bethesda is the publisher.

Its not going to be in it and no amount of whining is going to change that.

lol, I love how people seem to think that adding new features to games is as easy as erasing a mistake on a piece of paper and correcting it.

Well, it is, if you change "piece of paper" to "thousands and thousands of pieces of paper"

bear in mind if it had splitscreen, the game would have to render the entire map, characters, guns, and everything else twice, which would hurt whatever system you use with todays complex graphics systems. That's the reason why so little games have split screen these days, and the reason why hardly any sandbox games have ever had it.
It's disappointing, but I understand it.

Eh... Borderlands had splitscreen and I never felt like my Xbox was working double-time to run it.

True, but Brink is gonna have 16 people at the same time planting mines, shooting, running around, building turrets, capturing objectives, and a lot more. That's a lot of things for a processor to create multiple times. Borderlands has a lot less going on. still, helluva game.

True enough, and the AI is going to be vastly more involved in Brink. I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make if they only allowed splitscreen off-line, like Borderlands did.

Well, like I said, it still has to generate the whole thing twice. I think making it work was more trouble than the Devs had time to solve. It's cool, though, so long as we all have an internet connection :wink_smile:

Playing MW2 in 4-player-splitscreen simply makes the graphics go really fugly (look at the vehicles). But it works.

Split Screen is a must for me, I have a younger brother and almost every day after school I go to my buddies to play nazi zombies on black ops, which allows split-screen online. I would really hope that Brink puts split screen in, It would defiantly make this game the best game of all time.

To elaborate on this, there's a specific technical reason that splitscreen doesn't work in Brink specifically. Splash Damage has said they've developed an engine that wastes fewer resources on graphics that aren't going to be rendered on screen, so that the game can be more visually impressive without requiring more hardware. Having two players on the same system doesn't just mean having two cameras in the environment, like it might in other games, but actually storing more of the environment in memory, which means the game would slower (or be uglier) by a wider margin than other games would.

Indeed.