then don't play co-op - the rest of us will still enjoy it

I think you missed the part where turning ME into a co-op game would require drastic changes to the level design which would in turn affect the single-player experience. A game designed for co-op never works well for single-player. This has been proven time and time again.

It always bothers me when people act like co-op is some trivial thing to implement. It isn't. If you have a highly scripted, story-driven RPG like ME, you can't just slap on co-op and be done with it. Levels have to be redesigned and the mode has to be heavily tested to ensure that it meets certification requirements.

Jerykk wrote on Jun 17, 2011, 17:21:

That's how SC: Conviction's coop/infiltration modes work, actually. If one guy gets to the trigger before the other a "wait for teammate" sign pops up and you're physically barred from going further until the other player enters the room with you.

Yeah, that's the last thing I'd want to experience in an ME game, particularly in the hubs where I like to go around and explore.

then don't play co-op - the rest of us will still enjoy it

Surf wrote on Jun 16, 2011, 21:27:
System Shock 2 had internet campaign coop in 1999 and it STILL works today. AND you can save your games and come back later.

Why is this so hard to do today? Most people love campaign coop, the most recent is Shogun Total War 2. While it had a rocky start, they fixed it in a few weeks and now it is perfect!

I never got to try SS2 co-op. I read it was buggy? Also, DOOM had good co-op too.

That's how SC: Conviction's coop/infiltration modes work, actually. If one guy gets to the trigger before the other a "wait for teammate" sign pops up and you're physically barred from going further until the other player enters the room with you.

Yeah, that's the last thing I'd want to experience in an ME game, particularly in the hubs where I like to go around and explore.

That's how SC: Conviction's coop/infiltration modes work, actually. If one guy gets to the trigger before the other a "wait for teammate" sign pops up and you're physically barred from going further until the other player enters the room with you.

Surf wrote on Jun 16, 2011, 21:27:
System Shock 2 had internet campaign coop in 1999 and it STILL works today. AND you can save your games and come back later.

Why is this so hard to do today? Most people love campaign coop, the most recent is Shogun Total War 2. While it had a rocky start, they fixed it in a few weeks and now it is perfect!

+1

Co-op is not easy to implement. SS2's co-op was tacked on in a patch and it only worked because the levels were fairly basic. Trying to fit co-op into a game like ME would be significantly harder. For example, how would you deal with streaming? The levels in ME1 & 2 were designed with obvious streaming triggers (signified by empty corridors with delayed doors at both ends). That only works with one player. If there are two players, what happens when one player hits a streaming trigger while the other player is still in the section that's about to get unstreamed? You'd either have to completely change your streaming setup or require that both players stand by doors before they open and close.

System Shock 2 had internet campaign coop in 1999 and it STILL works today. AND you can save your games and come back later.

Why is this so hard to do today? Most people love campaign coop, the most recent is Shogun Total War 2. While it had a rocky start, they fixed it in a few weeks and now it is perfect!

Prez wrote on Jun 16, 2011, 19:55:
I love coop, but if it's just going to be 4-player survivor mode with Shephard, Garret, and a Blue Alien with a cute ass against endless waves of Geth robots, I'd say don't bother.

Aliens vs. Predator (2010) has a survival coop mode, but I just kept thinking how much moe fun the campaigns would have been in coop. It certainly would have fit the canon.

That's pretty much it.

The co-op would have be the campaign (you know, where intelligent ((assuming you have intelligent friends ;)) people make combat easier rather than being a drain on medi gel), not just "random generated mission grind for 4 people" to have any worth.

ME and other BW titles have, more or less, been about storyline. Integrating coop in to that would be difficult (unless you had the TOR random roll to advance the conversation mechanic). If the reports are even true, I'd suggest humbly they stick to producing a kick ass single player experience before worrying about attaching the 'fuzzy dice' options.

I love coop, but if it's just going to be 4-player survivor mode with Shephard, Garret, and a Blue Alien with a cute ass against endless waves of Geth robots, I'd say don't bother.

Aliens vs. Predator (2010) has a survival coop mode, but I just kept thinking how much moe fun the campaigns would have been in coop. It certainly would have fit the canon.

co-op pLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its the only thing missing from making this game awesome.

Something AWESOME.

Creston

All I want to know is...what happens when I press "A"?





-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

Jedi Master wrote on Jun 16, 2011, 12:38:
While I agree the story and the stuff with your NPC sidekicks should be SP, I would think they could implement coop MP for the non-story exploration side.
Things like you scan a planet, find a beacon, go down and fight some husks or whatever by a wreck, find out it came from another planet which has ceased comms, so you go there to eradicate the base location. Both MEs had several missions like that which added nothing to the story and were just ways to earn resources and XP. There's no reason you couldn't do that MP.

Other than it will take them considerable time to implement the MP capability into the engine, which will distract from making ME3 the most awesome of the 3 SP games.

They only have 9 months left to get the whole thing done.

They can create 4096 player MP for ME4, for all I care, but I want to see ME3 be a kick-ass SP story. Not a somewhat kick-ass SP story with MP tacked on because it's the hip thing to do.

I can already see some EA fucktard salivating over the idea.
"Yeah, Bioware? Add MP to ME3. That way we can call it "Mass Effect 3: FUTURE WARFARE!"

Creston

While I agree the story and the stuff with your NPC sidekicks should be SP, I would think they could implement coop MP for the non-story exploration side.
Things like you scan a planet, find a beacon, go down and fight some husks or whatever by a wreck, find out it came from another planet which has ceased comms, so you go there to eradicate the base location. Both MEs had several missions like that which added nothing to the story and were just ways to earn resources and XP. There's no reason you couldn't do that MP.

Verno wrote on Jun 16, 2011, 11:36:
I have no desire to do anything multiplayer with the Mass Effect universe. People always tell me how great it would be with the potential for both ship to ship combat and ground pounding, large galaxies and exploration. Maybe they're right about the potential but I have no confidence in Bioware to do it after seeing what they've done with TOR.

You don't want to play WoW with the Force Biotics?

Creston

I have no desire to do anything multiplayer with the Mass Effect universe. People always tell me how great it would be with the potential for both ship to ship combat and ground pounding, large galaxies and exploration. Maybe they're right about the potential but I have no confidence in Bioware to do it after seeing what they've done with TOR.

No.

Do not waste resources on building co-op for ME3. Finish the fucking story. THEN you can do co-op or DM or an MMO or whatever the hell you want for the NEXT ME game.

It'd really suck if they waste resources on this and make the SP portion of ME3 shorter because they added some crappy 4 player co-op levels.

Creston

To me co-op has to have some sort of story (Splinter Cell, Borderlands, Lara Croft GOL, etc). Anything else is just MP.

These sort of "reports" always seem so stupid to me. If you ask someone if they have 4 player co-op, and their reply is "we haven't talked at all about multiplayer", why would you then turn around and claim it might be there? I mean, yeah, I suppose they could be lying, but assuming they are honest, do you think they somehow accidentally created 4 player co-op without ever talking about multiplayer?

Reminds me of mainstream news these days (and I'm ripping off someone else's example here):

CNN: Water may KILL you! More after the break
*break*
CNN: Water may be good for you, and scientists may agree you need it to live, but we found a crazy homeless guy in Detroit who claims you'll die if you drink it!