By Jim Rossignol on June 16th, 2011 at 4:11 pm.
The rumours are strong. That is like a strong smell, only on the level of ideas. Does that makes sense? No. But still our chums Eurogamer report: “Mass Effect 3 is strongly rumoured to feature a four-player co-op mode. Eurogamer understands this four-player, online-enabled co-op mode is “standalone” and features “competitive elements”.”
This co-op portion of the game is “said” not comprise a portion of “the” single-player campaign, and will be its own thing. But who is doing the rumouring? And why are they rumouring so hard? Is it because they are compensating for something? Eh? Stay tuned for more overheard fragments of data as they happen, Internet fans!
I am skeptical. I guess it would be alright if its done well, but somehow I doubt it can be done well without comprimising the single player portion in the realatively short time they’ve been working on ME3.
PS. i had also heard that John Walker secretly eats feathers in the bathroom. isn’t that wierd?
report
Mass Effect came out in November 2007, the sequel in January 2010. That’s roughly two years, two months. The time between 2 and 3 will be the same, give or take a week or two (assuming it doesn’t slip again).
Not that that really means anything, but ME2 didn’t feel rushed to me.
report
As long as it’s a totally separate thing it might be OK. People can fight each other on ME maps all they want and I can play the single player campaign all I want and we’ll all be happy!
report
@Springy – Right, its the same amount of time. that’s kinda what worries me. that would obviously be enough time for another great single player game, but is it enough time for a great single player game AND a great co-op game?
we shall see.
report
@abremms,
I’ll still be happy if we get a great single player campain, alongside a not-so-great co-op campaign.
report
Valve managed Portal 2 in roughly 2.5 years. If they can do it, almost anyone can… oh how much I wish that statement was true. If Bioware has become adept at their engine and can manage to pull together both would be incredible. As the saying goes, if Gabe Newell can do it 2 (adjust for valvetime), everyone else can do half as well.
report
Rumoured to be awesome
report
Damn right, the coop could be fun, as playing it on your own is fun as well. They’d probably have to do something strange with the conversation system though. Unless it’s all combat.
report
I know they’ve promised enemy AI improvements, but while that’ll be great for the SP game if it lives up to that promise, I’m not sure I can see those improvements being on the scale of making co-op interesting.
Then again, is enemy AI ever really good enough to make co-op interesting?
report
Strange thought, but I’m always in favour of co-op. But I still need to, y’know, get into the first Mass Effect. I keep getting bored and going to play something else after a while.
report
What? John Walker eats feathers in bathroom? I KNEW IT.
report
Robin Walker controls the weather from the staff room? Somehow I’m not surprised.
report
Johnnie Walker embezzled money from Gaddafi? The whisky-swilling dog!
report
John Walker beats mothers under a half moon? I should tell twitter immediately
report
John Walker wears leather in the bathroom? Eh?
report
“I” like “rumours” and “inferences”.
report
I guess I could be the first one to go for the elephant in the room and say something like “Maybe it’ll be DLC”
report
Who gets to control the dialogue? Or is it co-op of just the shooting elements? No offence but Mass Effect with just shooting isn’t appealing.
report
The shooting is co-op, but the dialogue is competitive. Each player much race down the dialogue tree to seduce the hot alien first.
report
Co-op “romance” scenes!
report
There should be a renagade interrupt that when activated, the character puts their hand up to stop the conversation, raises one eyebrow, then simply says:
“Threesome?”
report
I likes me the sound of that trash-talk: “I’m going to romance you so hard…”
report
Edit: totally balls’d up my to hit with this reply.
report
Actually, it’d be interesting to have a closest-score-without-going-over mechanic for conversations: so everyone gets a random +/- 20 score, which is then added to their Paragon/Renegade score, and each option has a certain paragon/renegade-ness score as well. You pick your option, which is (hopefully) closest to the way you’re playing your character, and so does everyone else, then the person with the lowest difference between the target score and their “roll” wins. Like SWTOR, but with more incentive to roleplay rather than max out your Persuade stat if you want to dominate a conversation.
report
In principle… good. But this will turn the game more into a arcade, less like a rpg.
report
Mass Effect isn’t an rpg, no matter what Bioware claim. It is a shooter with rpg elements.
Adding co-op in theory should make it more of an RPG since it gives a real opportunity to create a character and roleplay with others to make a story. In practice the game will still be just a shooter.
report
Because everything that isn’t an RPG is an arcade game.
report
I think it’s an RPG. I play the character how I want to and make the decisions to fit the character. Surely that’s the definition of a role playing game?
What IS a role playing game then?
report
If it requires any skill other than ability selection and dice rolling, it is not an RPG.
report
I agree, its an RPG (there’s allowed to be more than one type). As for this addition, I don’t get it. I don’t remember anyone asking for it.
report
Its not an RPG , its a shooter with Dialog choices and a basic level select.
If saying having dialog choices makes a game an RPG then that makes Monkey Island an RPG as well as Day Of The Tentacle (I think most people would say they are adventure games or point and click, not RPG)
It has a turret section in ME 3 for gods sake, its kinda a giveaway!
report
RTS games are the ultimate RPGs.
You can choose what direction your narrative goes in RPGs? RTS gamers create their own narratives in the battlefield.
report
It’s a role-playing shooter, which is a subgenre of action RPG, which is a subgenre of RPG.
Therefore it is an RPG.
Anyone who says otherwise is being a stubborn ass or a purist fool. Or, more likely, both.
report
I’ve been playing PNPRPG:s since -85, CRPG:s since -88 and LARP since -93 and I say ME2 is an RPG.
That makes you wrong and me old. I’m at least very sure it makes me old
But I’ll agree to call ME2 a story teller action game, if you agree to call D&D a tactical skirmish system with RPG elements.
report
This conversation always misses the fundamental point, which is that ME2 may be an RPG but it’s a terrible one judged by the standards of RPG’s. The RPG mechanics are the weakest parts of the game, from the minimalist skill system to the near total lack of weapon options to the god-awful mineral scanning. As a shooter with dialogue it’s a pretty great game, as an RPG it’s a shallow mess.
report
I don’t know, I think it depends on how we’re measuring RPG’ness. If it’s purely on mechanics then I’ll grant Vinraith’s point, but if we’re measuring creating a believable universe that you want to spend time in and explore, characters you want to spend time with and a plot you want to explore then I don’t thin k many games have done that better.
report
Defining RPG purely as mechanics for levelling etc. Is a seriously wonky way of viewing the genre. Would be a pretty odd way of doing things with Pen and Paper RPGs.
ME2 is an RPG just one with a particular kind of mechanics.
report
Computer game genres are defined by mechanics, RPG is no exception. Any other definition (something like “creating a believable world”) encompasses a wide variety of games that are clearly not RPG’s, rendering the genre label useless.
report
@Vinraith: So basically, the people who claim Mass Effect is not an RPG are actually the biggest fans of the franchise, who would rather call it a good shooter than a terrible RPG? :)
Oh wait, seeing sassy’s reply to jti, I actually might be onto something…
report
@Raiyan
On the contrary, people that think it’s a good RPG are clearly its biggest fans, as they’re the only ones I can think of who are including the mineral scanning amongst its good qualities. ;)
report
If games are purely by mechanics then how come Company of Heroes is an RTS and Sid Meier’s Gettysburg is a Wargame? Or is it an RTS Wargame, or is one the sub genre of the other?
Or maybe genre definitions are a bit more nuanced than that.
report
If we’re defining genre’s purely by mechanics then I’d argue RPG is already useless, given it covers Torchlight, Disciples, Fallout, Final Fantasy, WOW, Wizardry, Dragon Age… I could go on but you get the point.
We can either seize on one definition and decry all others as pretenders to the name, or we can just accept that RPG is a catch-all term which means whatever your pointing to at the time, much like Sci-Fi does.
report
I have learned to avoid definition discussions, because reality is not based on definitions, definitions are based on reality. So your definition can be right, but reality can disagree, that make you a fool.
What I was tryiing to say is that I fear the multiplayerification of Mass Effect may result in less Role Play elements removed in favor of pew pew pew pew. Maybe I sould have said that I fear the diablotification of Mass Effect.
report
Well I’d say most genre definitions in most mediums are just simple catch alls to try and communicate meaning to the other party, so are vague, imprecise, context dependent. What they are not is a reductive categorisation system.
Sort of like when someone says they like “Grunge”.
report
If I say “RPG elements”, what do you think of?
Character development, yes? Like in GTA:SA. A focus on character abilities over the player’s abilities. There you go.
It’s very very simple and not at all fuzzy.
report
We can either seize on one definition and decry all others as pretenders to the name, or we can just accept that RPG is a catch-all term which means whatever your pointing to at the time
If the term is meaningless, they why are you here arguing over its meaning?
report
Vinraith
I didn’t say it was meaningless. I said to define it purely mechanically isn’t particularly useful and that it covers a broad spectrum not a narrow one.
I’m here because:
1) Tei’s point was valid and doesn’t deserve to be deflected by “Mass Effect isn’t an RPG”
2) “RPG is a broad term but still a useful one” is a point I thought was worth making.
3) Arguments can be fun
report
The official RPS definition is “Guns & Conversation” game.
To quote the source:
“Jom: There are times where traditional points of reference break down and clever men are forced to invent clever descriptions to decide what is going on. This is happening to the shooter and RPG genres. Neither is really relevant to Mass Effect 2 in their traditional form, and yet this game is still made up from elements of both of them. This realisation caused us to propose a new genre: Guns & Conversation. G&C! – you can see it catching on? Right? Oh. Well, we are not clever men. But anyway, if you are playing this kind of game there’s going to be some shooting, and there’s going to be some talking. And that’s about it. There might be a bit of time in menu screens, but most of the stat and inventory tinkering is gone. I’m okay with that, I think. The Guns & Conversation genre has been too long coming, frankly. Now that it’s here, it’s good to see Bioware leading the way in melding both hiding behind waist-high scenery and saying either nice or nasty things to people with heads made of plastic into a single game.”
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/12/23/the-games-of-christmas-%E2%80%9910-day-23/
report
Sounds like something separate from the main game. Co-op missions with some sort of story running through them, L4D style, could be interesting. Though they’d need some way of making the conversation side work in a multiplayer environment. Without that, it’s just a “Guns and” game, and ME’s combat isn’t strong enough to hold up the experience on its own.
report
Co-op? Might play and enjoy it then :)
report
Am I the only one going WTF here?
report
I’m a huge fan of co-op in general, but to me this just seems like ticking a box on the modern gaming features checklist.
report
Agreed. Seems like every high profile single player game these days feels like need to tack on some kind of multiplayer, and I don’t see how co-op would enhance the Mass Effect experience at all.
report
I guess this is the point where someone has to point out that even the very first Baldur’s Gate had coop multiplayer. So I did.
report
Did you ever play it? It wasn’t really as good because only 1 person got to control the dialogue then skipped it all and you missed all the fun NPCs like Minsc.
Icewind Dale/Neverwinter Nights worked much better because they were more shells for tactical team combat experiences.
report
I played Baldur’s Gate as LAN co-op with my wife. It was a blast. It was a long time ago, so I’m not sure I’m remembering this right, but I don’t think we missed any NPC interactions. The two players just divided up control of the NPC party members. And yes, the person on the host computer did control all the dialogue, but with two computers in the same room, it wasn’t hard to discuss the situation before making a dialogue choice.
I have zero interest in co-op for Mass Effect though.. Wrong game for it;, especially if it’s just a combat-heavy side mission unconnected to the main game. The combat just isn’t that tactical or challenging.
report
Ah we played it 4 or 5 player back in the day. So we sucked up all the NPC slots with our custom characters if I remember that right.
Though it was fun to play with the more eccentric class packages. We had a Kensai, Wild Magic Wizard, some specialist monk, Shapeshifter Druid etc.
report
Baldur’s Gate with all-selfmade characters was very fun. Although you did miss out on Minsc, I’ll admit that.
report
BG’s mp worked very well for combat and dungeon crawling but it would break badly whenever dialogue (which happened often), anything character development/inventory related or moving on to another map came into play
everyone keeps bringing it up and its the very example of a tacked on mp, that worked functionally but was rarely used because it would break an important part of the game and other games available at the time that were designed as mp games were just more fun to play
i remember that the one and only time i managed to convince my friends to try it, we were firing up Diablo again after 30 minutes
report
@JKjoker: Yeah, I remember a few broken bits, but we still made it through the first game and sequels. Also Icewind Dale, which was simpler and therefore smoother. Co-op play in Neverwinter Nights wasn’t bad, either.
This was back in the dim dark pre-online-gaming days when it was amazing that LAN co-op or PvP worked at all. When it did work in certain games, like playing co-op through System Shock 2 (which was fun), it felt more like a happy accident than deliberate programming.
report
Hah, I’m actually playing through BG1 multiplayer with my girlfriend right now.
To clear up a few inaccuracies in posts above:
Whoever speaks to an NPC or gets spoken to controls the dialogue.
NPC control is divided up among the players – my girlfriend has her character, Branwen and Kivan at present, I have my character and Imoen.
Character development works exactly as you’d expect. You level up your own NPCs.
Inventory stuff all works just fine provided the host sets everyone to have leadership permissions. Without them, you can only see stuff on the NPCs you control.
Haven’t tried moving map with the non-host player so far.
In short, it works really well with one minor glitch – charmed/summoned creatures default to the host’s control, not the control of the player controlling the charmer or summoner. Also, getting the PCs to see one another can be tricky, I use LogMeIn Hamachi to make the networking a bit more reliable.
Perhaps at some historic unpatched point it was flakier, but BG1 multiplayer is very solid and works well, and none of the complaints made of it above are true. I would recommend it still as a LAN game.
report
when i said broken i meant it worked against the “fun” not bugs,
dialogue would steal the control away from players, if you happened to have one that wanted to read you had fights right there
character development and inventory management tasks were just too time consuming to do while other players wanted to move on so you ended up half assing your choices (making ppl uncomfortable with their chars)
moving on to different maps was also a constant headache because there was always someone that wanted to keep exploring and someone that wanted to just get on with it
the game was also very slow for mp, you can easily have 15 minutes of doing nothing (in 1 because many maps were empty, in 2 because there was dialogue everywhere), there was always someone that got fed up quickly and started pushing for a different game
report
“moving on to different maps was also a constant headache because there was always someone that wanted to keep exploring and someone that wanted to just get on with it”
That’s a criticism of the group you were playing with, not a problem with the game mechanics. When I played all those old Bioware games in co-op with my wife, we didn’t have those problems.
Okay… well… she was always running off and opening chests, which got us into constant trouble in MP. But she was a Rogue, after all.
report
No, it is a problem with the game mechanics, in a proper mp game like Diablo if someone wants to go to town to free their inventory, buy potions or check out wares they dont need to drag all the other players along with them, it caused constant arguments between players
yeah the group you are playing with does make a difference but we are talking about a lan game played with groups of real life friends often using house rules, in a modern game putting a good group together can be much harder if not impossible depending on the net code and server browsing implementation
report
Maybe they’re doing the conversation as a test run for The Old Republic, to see how well the system for deciding what gets said works.
report
Mass Effect 3 will be a shooter like the hugely succesfull Call of Duty franchise. There will be cutscenes for the roleplaying fans, but the main focus will be in multiplayer experience and kicking some alien ass!
report
I will not defend ME is an rpg because I think it is a blight on the name which will overall damage the genre. I will however defend ME on it not being able to be compare to Call of Duty, the only semblance of each other is that they both involve shooting people.
report
No. Just NO.
report
ME34D! I love it!
report
Whyyyy? What’s wrong with single player games? Please just focus on that and make it double awesome instead of always tacking on coop.
report
Local co-op for the PC?
Of course not.
*Sigh*
Do we’ve have any news on any Split Second sequel?
report
This sounds like it’d be fun but I don’t know if it’d really change how I played. In ME2 there were two different experiences for me: “running around and talking to people in places where people weren’t shooting at me” and “zoomed in on my gun scope with the time-slowing adrenaline buff on”. In neither case did my other party members really factor in.
But maybe that would change in a co-op mission.
report
Something akin to ye olde AvP multiplayer mode where it’s the players versus swarms of bugs could work. I guess they’d have to remove the pause effect, or at least allow you to move the gorram camera while in the action menu.
report
That’s a bit daft.
ME is fun, but not really because of the shooter bits – they were good enough in ME2 but nothing amazing. By contrast, playing ME with friends being able to drop-in co-op the squadmates would have been neat.
report
So … co-op, and Kinect?
Can’t they just focus on making a good single-player game, ffs?
report
Multiplayer and kinect has even more disturbing implications for the sex scenes.
report
I suppose if it’s true, then it will be something like Mass Effect’s Pinnacle Station DLC, where you had to complete certain objectives on a given map, namely kill all the enemies or take hold of control points, but with other people this time. If so, don’t really see the point of that.
report
I miss the co-op of oldschool RPGs on the SNES where it wasn’t so much a touted “feature” as an option you could turn on if you wanted, ala FF6 or Secret of Mana. You know, assigning different controllers to different characters in the party. It had no bearing on the exploration or story bits, but in battle your friend could help out.
An option like that in ME would be fun, but a completely separate 4-player shoot ‘em up? Why? Aren’t we all here for Commander Shepherd’s tale?
report
Secret of mana’s co-op implementation is one of my absolute favourites. That game was clearly designed with co-op in mind, as such having another player not only complemented but accentuated the already solid game mechanics. A co-op game should be a co-op game. A single player game should be a single player game.
report
What speculation? We already now about the 4 coop multiplayer. Two words:
Horde mode.
report
Go ahead I’d say, I’m not interested in it. Games like these should be alone, immersed.
PS: I heard J.W. likes feathers.
report
I hope there’s co-op mineral scanning!
report
The screenshot on top makes me sick! Why can’t we see the sexy asses?!
report
I would like to see them finish off the series with ME3 “single player campaign” then produce a MMO after.
report
I dunno. This is a Bioware game here, so with the inevitable romance I can see playing this with friends going down some awkward roads.
Like that stag do we don’t talk about.
report
Who are all these people playing co-op games? Are they school children? I just have to ask, because I don’t know anyone, as an adult, who sits around playing co-op games. Even in the rare case that the few friends you know who play videogames have the same platform and interest in the same genre of games, they’re unlikely to be available at and for the same times that everyone else is, because — you know — work, relationships, family, and other bullshit. When I see “co-op” advertised for a game, it just says to me “game content you’ll pay for but never use”.
report
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE PLAYING BOARD GAMES AND SPORTS
ARE THEY CHILDREN
report
By Co-Op i hope they doesnt mean “Co-Op” survival?
report
Why in the name of Cthulu’s tentaclebeard are they putting multiplayer in a series intended for singleplayer only? The combat is fun, sure, but not THAT fun. I doubt it will work if at all in a multiplayer setting.
report
Horde mode.
report
Why can’t I play alone? Play alone in my dark room? Totally separated from everyone? Secretly at the dead of night?
Why don’t they get, that playing games is like reading books for me? And reading together with others at the same time SUCKS!
report
Co-op reading is going to be huge once e-readers get their own social networks.
report
It’ll be like reading script reading. One person will be the narrator, reading all the descriptive stuff, and everyone else will be assigned a character or two to read aloud.
Even if everyone is in different buildings you have to read your section audibly.
report
Multiplayer Wrex Sheparding
report
Multiplayer reporter punching.
Wrex.
report
When I romance a character, I don’t have to share, do I?
report
PLEASE CHRIST, NOT THIS CONVERSATION AGAIN!
report
LETS GET CYNICAL MOTHERFUCKERRRR
report
PSA:
There’s a rather thorough and very useful thread on the official forums titled ME3: Known Features.
Carry on.
report