Mass Effect 3 four-player co-op courts "mainstream penetration" - reports

I don't mind co-op, but as long as the main campaign is 100% not affected, and the co-op comes on a separate disc made by a different bioware studio.

This I wouldn't mind. I would not like to see competitive MP, but if they mean like a horde style mode, I wouldn't mind that. I don't see why they would want to further alienate fans with competitive multiplayer, or by having dedicated co-op missions. Surely they are going to affect the main campaign? Or is this what the extra three months are for? I cannot comprehend, or perhaps I don't want to.

It could work... could.

As long as Bioware get this right; Make the multiplayer have cameos in the single player but never a massive presence. Something along the lines of, since the Galaxy is at war, a separate ark following four soldiers fighting for freedom- Each could be a differant race and you have to move through the fights with Reapers to clear a space.

I'm thinking something slightly like how Portal 2 did it in terms of continuity... Hmm, well- I love Mass Effect, they screw this up and I will... Meh, Skyrim won't let me down

If I'm not mistaken pretty much the whole of the Mass Effect series had the gamer play through the campaigns by being part of a team.

If ever there was a game who's very design is perfectly suited to co-op Mass Effect is it. Doom 3 allowed this by making a few adjustments to the single player to accomodate a co-op player. Adding co-op campaign does not need to effect everyone's precious single player campaign. Those that prefer to game alone, can't get along with others, can't work as a team or struggle with communication need never know about the co-op campaign.

Or at worst do what Rainbow Six has always done and use parts of the single player campaign maps for a terrorist hunt game type.

And there's an obvious carrott to encourage gamers to check out co-op campaign, and that's by offering a reward, a little gamerscore for those who at least try playing through a mission with an online mate.

Borderlands and Left4Dead I believe made a bit of money and they were pure co-op. There is a market for this game type, and there has to be extra profit in offering a feature that is clearly popular with some gamers.

Perhaps times are slowly changing. I doubt it, but really hope so. I'd love to start buying shooter games again if they offered the replayability of co-op.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see co-op, but I don't want to have arguably the most important game in the trilogy held back by co-op, and especially competitive MP which is where I'm worried.

Just clarifying my point there, in reference to your point about 'precious SP' Jenson. Hopefully a different bioware studio would oversee co-op, that would be feasible for an unaffected SP.

Another game lost to mutiplayer. Oh well

If EA wanted "mass market appeal", maybe they shouldn't have bought an RPG developer.

I've had reservations about Mass Effect 3 ever since Dragon Age II came out. The amount of lies that were told about how "awesome" DA2 would be and videos depicting skills you couldn't even get is what made it such a disappointment.

The same thing is happening with ME3. EA's marketing campaign doesn't seem to be describing it as an RPG at all. The BioWare execs at E3 changed the subject when questioned about the RPG elements they'd promised would be in the game, preferring instead to keep repeating the word "awesome", like it means anything.

The gameplay footage shown at E3 owes even more to Gears of War than ME2 did, indicating that they've gone farther in the wrong direction with ME3. It looks like EA/BioWare are trying to cater to all the idiots who said "ME2's a great shooter, but why all the talking?"

I'm heavily invested in Shepard's story, but I will not be buying ME3 at launch and certainly will not be pre-ordering. It may be petty, but I'd prefer to avoid another costly disappointment like DA2.

Agreeing with Bezza here. If this f**ks up the SP then I'll be sorely disappointed. Theyve already streamlined more than enough to appeal to a bigger Market.

Sure EA won't care about losing an RPG gamer (who followed the storys which such intensity I preferred the galaxy in ME over the f**king Star Wars setting which I grew up watching pretty much every day) if they gain 10 Shooter gamers.

I just hope BioWare would. My first serious game was their RPG Baldur's Gate (which I still love to this day, and squealed like a true geek when I saw the references to it in ME2) and I'd love to think that they wouldn't want to lose a fan like me for some 12-year old idiots who like to just shoot shit.

Jenson , I have always appreciated the fact that you like your games how YOU like your games i.e:
first-person , and with a co-op campaign. You are a guy who knows what he likes and what he doesn't and I respect that , you won't buy a FPS without co-op and loathe to buy a game that doesn't tailor for a FPS viewpoint.

So the thought of ME3 having a co-op campaign must almost take the sting out of what we both agree was a disappointing sequel.......

Sadly , I really don't think that will be the case:

"Mainstream penetration is a major goal for Mass Effect 3 and those high up feel online co-op is the answer they're looking for,"

If this quote from the EA execs is accurate it might as well just read:

"Let's shove some multiplayer in there to grab some of the COD fanboys."

Let's be honest ME3 isn't going to turn into the awesome co-op experience your dreaming of anymore than Left 4 Dead 3 is suddenly going to turn into a story driven RPG.

Bioware were THE RPG guys plain and simple they needed co-op like they needed a vinegar enama , but EA has been dragged them further from their roots with every turn.

they needed co-op like they needed a vinegar enama

It would be cool to have a friend play as a companion as has been said, all the games have companions, technically it is more fit for co-op than Halo, in which the last spartan alive has an identical twin.

You're over-simplifying, Bezza. The kind of features that EA/BioWare are introducing are concessions to attract the type of gamers who don't care about story or characters, they just want a fun game to play online with their mates.

I'm not putting these gamers down, they bring a lot of money into the industry. I just don't want EA to ruin the last chapter of a story that has gripped me since I bought Mass Effect two years ago to make a quick buck.

I don't see why I, as a customer who bought both of the previous titles, should be shoved aside to make way for people who don't care about the franchise and won't buy the next one if their mates don't.

technically it is more fit for co-op than Halo, in which the last spartan alive has an identical twin.

Ha , nice one Bezza and you have a point about Mr Chief and his twin.

That's about it though sadly , Halo is a much better fit than ME co-op wise for the simple reason that the Chief doesn't spend large parts of the game not killing stuff.

While the thought of Being Garrus to your Sheppard while we kick Reaper ass is quite appealing , I don't fancy spending hours wandering about watching you talk to people and do little side quests or scan planets.

Let's be honest , and give me evidence to the contrary on this if you can , but if anyone can name me a single player RPG that became better by shoe-horning in co-op/multiplayer please let me know.

Apart from Fable 2 of course , 'cos that was awesome!

NOT!!!

If EA wanted "mass market appeal", maybe they shouldn't have bought an RPG developer.

They also seem to have missed the fact that for all the glowing 10/10 reviews and awards ME2 actually sold less then ME1, ditto for DA:O (which lets face it, even as fans we can admit was ugly and clunky as hell) which also sold more then ME2. You are never going to attract the "mass market" to the RPG genre because the mass market is made up of teenagers and early twenty somethings who want to play for an hour at a time. They are not going to pick up a game where they will spend that time having a conversation about fish or designing the perfect gun. By trying to widen appeal all EA and Bioware are doing is stopping long term fans buying.

There is a reason a successful niche market is a good strategy and hopefully Bioware will remember that.

And as Maverick said, just because ME has a three man squad doesn't make it a good candidate for a multiplayer. The only thing the Mass Market want less then to spend their hour talking about fish is to watch someone else talking about fish.

Come on people, I said technically it was a better fit for co-op. I have also said I'd like to see co-op on a different disc (even spin off game which if you read eurogamer source it states their source said could be in ME3 or a new game) which, ok vaguely implies (or infers?) that a different studio/team concentrate on this rumoured co-op.

Please read my other points, I don't agree with EA or MP, but I wouldn't mind it if it appeared separate.

OK... STOP!!!!

Seriously I know we're all capable of overreacting and getting our knickers in a twist over the smallest of details, I guess that's passionate gamers for you, but what are people talking about when they say...

I don't want co-op shoehorned into my game because that will ruin the single player and attract unwanted gamers!!!

What the hell are people smoking?!?!?!

I admit I've only played a tiny, tiny portion of all the games that have ever been made, so my opinion and ideas have to be limited, but I've never seen a game with co-op where the addition of this feature has ruined, distrupted or hurt the single player element. The examples that spring to mind are games like Rainbow Six, Close Combat first to to fight, Ghost Recon, Doom 3 and Halo. All games designed to be single player, work perfectly as single player, but also allow you to play through the campaign with one or more friends.

And going beyond games I have much knowledge of isn't World of Warcraft effectively a co-op campaign RPG?

I do not understand why anyone thinks a single player game will be hurt by the addition of co-op campaign. If anyone can give me a genuine reason and examples, I'd love to understand where this attitude comes from. To me it's another example of how people are scared of change!

Over Mr McCool,
I've got a few comments for you relating to this:

While the thought of Being Garrus to your Sheppard while we kick Reaper ass is quite appealing , I don't fancy spending hours wandering about watching you talk to people and do little side quests or scan planets.

First of all Bioware have said that the co-op they're including in Mass Effect 3 is not a straight co-op campaign feature. It will be separate to the single player game. No more related to the single player than the multiplayer part of most first person shooters.

However, if Bioware had the ingenuity to incorporate a true co-op campaign here's how I woul imagine it woul work...

The single player remains exactly as it is. But for co-op campaign the game alters slightly to accomodate the extra people playing. So, for example, based on the second Mass Effect game the planet scanning (don't get me started on that) is removed (and that would wonderful in itself). The conversations between characters would be removed. They work great in single player, but in co-op it's about playing through the missions. The RPG elements would be cut down for the co-op game. It would effectively be a more streamlined game. No need for shops, although weapon and armour upgrades could stay. I see these as a useful and interesting pre-mission excercise where players prepare their characters for the imminent mission. Mission briefings would stay although there'd be no need for the (let's be honest) fun, but pointless conversations between characters. Weapon and armour ungrades would also stay.

Sure, the co-op campaign version would lose some of the RPG/story elements. Those remain in single player but for co-op the game concentrates more on the missions and story progression and less on the conversations and wandering about aimlessly. You'd effectively have two versions of the same game, with neither compromising the other. The game would remain appealing to it's typical audience, and with the addition of co-op campaign the game has endless replayability. Which of could mean fewer secondhand sales (and we all know how much the industry wants to reduce that).

So the game continues to satisfy it's original fan base and appeal to the single player only gamer, but for those who enjoy co-op, for those who like playing alongside others, for those who enjoy teamwork, co-op campaign is available.

What I've described could potentially work for EVERY game with single player that has your character fight/adventure through a game. Admittedly there may be changes required to allow co-op campaign, but that absolutely does not affect the single player.

I can't believe I'm defending Bioware and Mass Effect. It doesn't change the fact I think ME2 was abysmal compared to the original; the planet scanning is one of the worst mini games I've ever seen, removing the Mako was a massive mistake, and more importantly removing the micro-management completely destroyed my interest in the game. Not to metion the story was pathetic and the gameplay a chore. However, any company that supports (or in this case, appears to support) co-op gets my backing! The end.

I would be genuinely astonished if Bioware started messing around with the single-player. Honestly can't see it happpening, they'd lose the fans they've already gained.

Playing through with friends seems doable, though - I can see the appeal of sharing the experience, and if it's not part of the story then it'd be a neat way of revisiting different worlds/locations.

@ Jenson

Best example I can offer of co-op and MP causing the single player to suffer is the head of Rocksteady games recently stating they missed those out of Arkham City because of exactly that reason. Developing something other the main thrust of a game (whether that is SP, co-op or MP) always diverts from the main game, even if it's just by having a section of your staff working on something else instead of having everyone focus.

If the head of a AAA studio is of that opinion then surely he must have some experience?

CunningSmile,

Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't believe ANYONE can give an example of a single player game that was ruined because co-op was included.

As far as the Rocksteady fella's comments are concerned, I don't see this as evidence that a single player game would be worse off for having co-op campaign. And for as long as the industry has plenty of examples where co-op campaign worked, it completely overrides the suggestions of one.

As I explained, the co-op campaign can be as simple as a cut-down, altered, action-only part of a game and does not need to interfere with the single player part at all. A game doesn't even need to be designed to accomodate co-op. As I've already explained co-op can be retrofitted to ANY action-orientated game that has a team working together. In fact Doom 3 was purely single player, and with a few adjustments allowed the game to be played with two. I guess that's the difference between a developer who believes in co-op and one that doesn't.

Sure, I accept gamers who love Mass Effect may not care to play through the game co-op, just as much as those who play Battlefield or Call of Duty may not care to play the multiplayer sections. But the belief that one harms the other doesn't make any sense. And absolutely no one who I've ever read that suggests this can actually point out a game or give examples of this in place. It's pure speculation based on ungrounded ideas.

Perhaps everyone who fears co-op is basing their opinion on the words of Mr Rocksteady head.

Unfortunately what this arguement really needs is, for once (and to put the fears of the anti-co-op crew to rest) is the industry to explain the facts. While I know the makers of Rainbow Six, Close Combat first to fight, Ghost Recon, Doom 3 and Halo would argue that co-op campaign can be included in a game without ruining the single player, I'd really love to hear the excuses the rest of the industry use for not including the feature in their games. The only possible excuse I can imagine is budget. I admit I've no idea how much it would cost to include co-op into a game, but if some developers are able to make it profitable, then there's no excuse for the rest.

For as long as there are great games that can implement co-op, there are few excuses for the rest that don't. Clearly there are gamers that don't and sadly too many developers with the same attitude.

I genuinely think including co-op campaign could potentially increase the sales of a game, and with the obvious replayability could partly resolved the industry hatred for the secondhand market with a percentage of gamers retaining their copies rather than sending them into the secondhand market as they trade the game for a new one. After all, how many times does the average gamer play through co-op campaign missions compared to the play-throughs of single player?

My arguement is as much about making a game better value for money, having a higher replayability, having a game appeal to more gamers, and ultimately helping sell more copies. Everyone wins... except those who inexplicably believe single player, and therefore the game, is ruined by including co-op.

Does this mean Mass Effect is finally becoming a game, rather than an interactive movie!?

Most boring, over-hyped franchise this generation by an absolute mile - hopefully ME3 can deviate from it's predeccessors

Jenson makes a good point, Splinter cell certainly didn't need co-op and you got in my view the greatest coop campaign in chaos theory and conviction. Both games (Conviction a lot less so) had a normal length single player, which I cite as my favourite on Xbox 1 out of any game, ok maybe KotoR.

It's not as if bioware didn't test the water with pinnacle station, a horde mode made by those who ported to pc I believe. What else was that atrocity for other than experimentation?

Jenson , you say that all games would benefit from a co-op experience yet you can only mention straight shooters as an example , I asked previously if anyone can name any RPG's that have benefited from having co-op shoved into them and I still come up empty!

World of Warcraft doesn't count , it was built to be exactly as it is. If the original ME had been built from the ground up for a co-op experience we wouldn't be having this debate.

The reason people are getting up in arms about this latest development is because it is again taking the game further away from what it was designed to be.

I will consent to the argument that an option to play the missions themselves co-op isn't a bad idea , but bear in mind that the actual amount of missions that are simply straight up firefights is about 3.

So , to make it a more viable multiplayer , they will either have to:

a) Make more of the missions in the game shooter friendly and less talky , turn the game into even more of a Gears clone or:

b) Get some of their staff to step away from development of the singleplayer to work on more multiplayer missions.

Guess what , either choice is going to affect the singleplayer experience!

Think I'm wrong? Think about this , no one can deny that for whatever reason , Bioware decided to cater for a more shooter friendly crowd with ME2 , the result being that while the combat sections were a lot more slick and user-friendly , the plot suffered heavily as a result. All of the sudden we have Aliens that swear for effect and no significant bad guy to deal with. And elements people really enjoyed in the first game ( the mako , detailed side quests , weapon mods etc ) were all sacrificed to cater for the gears crowd.

Now we are led to believe that by sticking co-op into the game at the last minute isn't going to dumb the game down even more? Sorry Jenson , Bezza , I hope you are right but I doubt it.

I share your fears maveric, but if you are to believe these rumours anyway, you would believe that a different studio would be doing the co-op as suggested by eurogamer.

Fair enough Bezza , if that's the case , give me a call if you need a good sniper.

It just winds me up that none of this comes from Bioware it all comes from EA.

And it's hardly as if they are saying "Well , we have listened to what the fans want and they have asked for a co-op aspect so we are going to give them the best damn co-op we can! Let the game go out with a bang!"

Their comments all come across as money grabbing :

"Mainstream penetration is a major goal for Mass Effect 3 and those high up feel online co-op is the answer they're looking for,"

I know I've already quoted this but it's worth repeating as it kind of proves my point that they are less interested in making an awesome game multi or singleplayer than they are in milking the cow for all they can. Is it good business , probably , do I have to like it , no.

I'm quite easy to please, but bioware have always done good for me, except the disappointing Dragon Age 2, which I thought was still a great game in its own right.

As I see it a different company would do it (coop), it would be a spin off game, it would be on par with chaos theory and it is not detrimental to the single player. Any or all of these would be welcome - if it exists at all.

And lets face it, if that happened, that would be awesome.

Honestly i think that it would probably be a better idea to leave the coop for a different release, try and make it a different game.

Maverick,

Bioware have already proved to me that they don't need to add co-op into a game to ruin it! Mass Effect 2 was a perfectly good example.

I understand that Bioware want greater sales, but I was surprised and disappointed that they didn't have the faith in their original ideas and felt compelled to change the game design to increase its appeal. I'm sure Bioware fully expected to lose some of their previous fans with the changes, and I was one of them.

I agree with you, I didn't think they improved the game at all, but if they sold more because of the changes, then they were right. I'm actually convinced that the secondhand market further increased it's fanbase because the first game was so good. The real test now will be to see if the changes they made to the sequel help or hinder sales of the third. If it sells fewer than the second then it could be down to the (horrible) changes.

I don't think the story was poor in order to appeal to a larger market. I think it was just a weak idea to begin with irrespective of the changes to gameplay. The story of the original game was epic. It made sense, it drew you in. It took many simple themes and created a universe (or in this case a virtual Milky Way galaxy), populated it with some interesting aliens and cultures. The sequel was like a typical Hollywood movie sequel! It may have wanted to be The Godfather part 2, or The Empire Strikes Back but it turned out to be Police Academy 5!!! The third game's story will either be great, rubbish or ok. And I don't think the game's features or gameplay changes will have any effect.

I mentioned World of Warcraft because it's an RPG game that's played co-op, so I considered it a fair example.

Totally agree with you that a co-op mode would be a more simplified, action-orientated Mass Effect game. I wouldn't see the need to change the single player. Just cut away what's not required for co-op and offer that as an alterative game type. Sure that would mean the co-op game would be shorter, but with a simple option of increasing the enemy population and difficulty beyond the single player, it would make for a challenging and fun co-op game.

In a way it would have the simplicity of Left4Dead, which incidentally takes about four or five hours if played on the middle or easiest difficulty. I'm certinaly not suggesting that a full RPG story with the ability to interact with many AI characters could work in co-op. It's all about the action, along with micro-managing armour and weapons. And there are certainly enough battles in a Mass Effect game to extract those for some co-op action.

After seeing what happened to ME2, I don't really care to pay, or spend hours finding out how the Sheppard saga finishes. I'll be happy enough to just watch a You Tube video of the final few moments, just to see Sheppard save the day (or whatever happens). I do hope that the Mass Effect universe is utilised in future franchises. I still think it's core ideas and designs have great potential and could spawn great games in the future.

However, it's sort of a mute discussion in that the co-op I've read about in Mass Effect 3 is not as I've described, but is simply a set of separate co-op battles, unrelated to the single player game. That still sounds more exciting than the prospect of another ME2-quality game!

I think OXM should really do a blog on how everyone feels about co-op in ME3, certainly some mixed opinions- though I do agree that co-op has the potential to make ME3 more accessible to the types of player who only care about a laugh

I do agree that co-op has the potential to make ME3 more accessible to the types of player who only care about a laugh

Which is half the problem with this strategy to expand into the mass market. Those players you mentioned will pick up the game expecting a Gears style co-op laugh and instead find that only a small part of the game (whether seperate missions or main story) is the game they expected and the rest is dialogue heavy RPG. Some may be pleasantly surprised but the majority think they wasted their money and head straight to metacritic to voice their frustration. Next thing we know Bioware are either disbanded due to the negative 'fan' response or their next game has even less RPG elements.

as far as I see it they can add co-op, as long as its seperate from the main campaign. Honestly, if they make a decent coop side story in the universe or with some non-essential continuation (SC: Conviction) then I can only applaud them. Well, actually only if its split screen co-op, seriously i've not played many good splitscreen co-op games this gen atall.

I do agree that co-op has the potential to make ME3 more accessible to the types of player who only care about a laugh

Which is half the problem with this strategy to expand into the mass market. Those players you mentioned will pick up the game expecting a Gears style co-op laugh and instead find that only a small part of the game (whether seperate missions or main story) is the game they expected and the rest is dialogue heavy RPG. Some may be pleasantly surprised but the majority think they wasted their money and head straight to metacritic to voice their frustration. Next thing we know Bioware are either disbanded due to the negative 'fan' response or their next game has even less RPG elements.

Well put , but from the shouts from EA , it's looking like it might just be the opposite , I get the sinking feeling that Sheppards last song might just turn into the Gears clone EA so obviously want it to be and all us RPG fans will be left scratching our heads wondering what happened to the game we enjoyed. The shooter fans out there will all be loving it , and the RPG fans will have traded it in because it isn't what they wanted.