Dead Space Originally Had Co-Op

Nicholas "bapenguin" Puleo July 1st, 2009 at 7:59 AM

Hold still...there's a fly on you.

It's already known that Dead Space Extraction for the Wii will contain a two player cooperative mode. But what isn't known is the fact that the original Deadspace had a cooperative mode as well, at least, until it was cut like the limbs of the infected.

Glen Schofield, the General Manager for Visceral Games (which was EA Redwood Shores), stated the following on EA Podcast Episode 2:

“We actually had co-op for about three/four months in Dead Space. In the original one, we had it running and we’re playing it and we had a little team developing it and it was actually pretty cool.”

But like all good things, sometimes they just need to be cut. The team decided it wanted to focus more on a really solid single player experience.

“But what we realized is that we were sort of detracting from the single-player game at that point. We could use those guys who were on that team to make our game better and it was hard, you know, there was just technical challenges that were just getting in the way of making the single-player game.”

So perhaps we weren't far off in wanting Dead Space to have co-op? Maybe that's why EA was asking the same question.

Source: Link

Tags: playstation 3 xbox 360 industry news dead space wii

Dead Space Extraction Sales Numbers: Undeservedly Disappointing

Sometimes, we get very disappointed when sales numbers are released. The latest example is Dead Space Extraction. Le(Read More)

Dead Space Extraction: On Rails, First Person Shooter

Image courtesy IGN Yesterday, we reported the announcement of Dead Space Extraction. This was great news for co-op fans, (Read More)

Creepiness Abounds in Dead Space Extraction Gameplay Footage

Dead Space Extraction has us intrigued. First of all, the previous Dead Space game was fairly well received, though unfort(Read More)

19 Total Reader Comments

pheriannath at 04:26 AM on 7.1.2009

I don't think co-op would have worked terribly well in the final game, since they often put you into incredibly cramped spaces, but I would definitely love to see a sequel (not Extraction) designed with co-op in mind.

OrigamiPanther at 04:53 AM on 7.1.2009

I have to agree with Mike here. Given our previous co-op experience, the sheer number of in-game co-op related amputations would have seen a dramatic increase.

Although the idea of one dude running around kicking the shins of the Necromorphs occasionally and headbutting the other guy constantly is pretty entertaining.

bapenguin at 05:42 AM on 7.1.2009

You have to remember that if/when it was designed with co-op in mind - the game wouldn't have been identical to what it is now. It would have been taken into consideration for level design, etc.

pheriannath at 06:39 AM on 7.1.2009

Oh, I fully realize that, but people crowing for co-op in the game they ended up playing need to realize the game would have had significantly altered level design.

jasoncourt at 06:40 AM on 7.1.2009

Yeah, I think there could have been some cool moments where the two players were working separately and only came together every so often. Maybe they could be getting separate generators going to power an area or guiding another player, via headset, through another area because you have the map...stuff like that.

Man that gets me too excited thinking about it. Fingers crossed for the sequel

txshurricane at 07:16 AM on 7.1.2009

I don't see anything wrong with putting a second player into a game clearly designed for one. No one's forcing anyone to play it in co-op. This is going to sound antagonistic, and I apologize in advance, but: you know who that sounds like, right?

Maybe I haven't evolved into the level of Gamer yet where I appreciate the ratio of development time to quality of game...but if the price point of $60 applies, then I'm going to be specific. And co-op to me is critical.

smurphster at 07:34 AM on 7.1.2009

yes, i have to agree. first off, why are there 2 spartans in halo? why do i warp to my partner's position when he/she gets too far ahead? does anyone really care? there are simple ways (while illogical in terms of the story) to fit co-op in just about any shooter. sure it takes more time and effort but some studios make it sound like its impossible. maybe i just expect too much out of all the game studios.

maybe pure economics will eventually root out the weak studios when we stop buying crap games. of course that's assuming the market is rational which has been disproven in the past year.

OrigamiPanther at 07:53 AM on 7.1.2009

ehhh... I think there are examples where tossing a second player into a game that's primarily been developed for a solo play experience is either useless or very poorly executed. You're right that no one's forced to play the co-op aspect, but I'd much rather have a good, well thought out co-op experience (which involves more development time and money), than something tossed in at the last second. With the $60 consumer price point applying, $60 for good co-op is better than $60 for bad co-op, imo.

roland at 07:58 AM on 7.1.2009

Maybe you're speaking in generalities here, but for Dead Space specifically, it was an excellent game with tremendous production values and some intriguing features. I wouldn't want to see fewer games like Dead Space just to have co-op crammed into a game that wasn't necessarily designed for it.

smurphster at 08:29 AM on 7.1.2009

i was just speaking in general. i haven't played dead space because i rarely play any non-co-op game.

i guess my point is i fail to see why some studios seem to effortlessly put out great games that have both excellent single player and co-op while others seem to be cutting it short all the time. we're paying $60 for the games either way. in some cases there's sheer talent involved (bungie, epic) but i don't think talent is the main factor. its obvious that many games are on such a tight time line that they have to cut cut cut to get it out on time. instead they could take longer and sell MORE copies because they end up with a better product. there's a sweet spot there that is consistently cut short because publishers seem to be more focused on quantity of products (titles, not units) instead of quality because they think more products will sell more units. maybe that's true to an extent but i just feel like we're being short-changed.

OrigamiPanther at 08:42 AM on 7.1.2009

That right there is the strongest argument (in only a semi-joking sense) for why video games should be considered art. If the film industry can put out movies like Gigli alongside films like The Dark Knight and still be considered viable artistic outlet as a whole, then dammit, the games industry can put out games like Onechanbara alongside games like ICO and be considered an artistic outlet as well!

smurphster at 08:54 AM on 7.1.2009

haha... well i guess there is a valid point there. however, there are real diamonds in the movie industry who aren't hurried along by publishers. think of what the LOTR, star wars, and the matrix series would look like if their time lines had been shortened drastically. they were left alone because the publishers really trusted their directors and the results are fantastic (well, maybe not SW ep1). anyway, both industries suffer from the same illnesses, but i think its disproportionate in the gaming industry. the CoD series is almost perfect but it could be so much better if the developers weren't restrained so much. we're seeing more and more of that lately. some games have so much potential but are hindered by shortcuts the developers were forced to take.

roland at 09:18 AM on 7.1.2009

I certainly share some of the same frustrations with the quality and features of some games. I wouldn't say that any studio effortlessly creates any game. Any sense of effortlessness is created only by the shear quality of work put into a title.

I can't say I've worked on a video game, but I have certainly been in my share of creative projects (predominantly writing, web and video), and there are always hard limits to time, personnel and resources available, regardless of the size of organization you're working for. You make choices to cut, and no matter what choice you make, someone is likely to be disappointed.

On the subject of cost, I don't tend to compare the overall value of one game to another. I just look at whether or not I think I will get an appropriate value out of any individual game I'm thinking about buying. When measured against the other things I do for fun, gaming is pretty consistently my cheapest form of entertainment, even at 60 bucks a pop for new games. And I don't consider my other hobbies to be particularly expensive ones.

smurphster at 09:39 AM on 7.1.2009

all true, but you can't blame me for being annoyed that my $60 goes much further with bungie and epic than it does with infinity ward (just examples, don't mean to start anything lol). it definitely has an effect on my purchasing habits but i still wind up buying games that i regret later

txshurricane at 10:45 AM on 7.1.2009

Well, then the question remains: is $60 for bad co-op better than $60 for no co-op? I believe so. Just look at Fable II. Is it worse off because of gimped co-op? Co-Optimus hosted an Official Live Co-Op Night for it, crappy co-op and all.

I refuse to believe that the community that named Left 4 Dead its Co-Op Game of the Year -- alongside a hub community (CoG) that named the same game its overall Game of the Year -- would ever be convinced that good co-op = bad single player. And yet here we discuss it.

OrigamiPanther at 11:06 AM on 7.1.2009

Ok, so trying to type out quick replies in between meetings doesn't lead to the best communications . I never intended to imply that good co-op leads to bad single player (and I agree with you that that's a case that'd be tough to find), just saying that good co-op can't necessarily be inserted into, or generated from, a good single player.

txshurricane at 12:16 PM on 7.1.2009

I agree with you. I'm not asking for co-op to be included so much as I'm decrying the implication or wish that co-op be excluded. Does that make sense?

I might be upset that Modern Warfare 2 has only two-player co-op rather than four, but I'd be so much more upset if it had none at all, which is what some people have asked for. They're taking the single-player-is-better-without-it bait, and I heartily disagree every time. Just look at Uncharted 2 with its 3 co-op modes on top of multiplayer and award-winning campaign. How about GTA IV? Too Human? None of these were designed with co-op at the foreground.

These days, the games I'm most interested in are the ones that are in the Co-Optimus database. It's another whole genre. I'm not saying that all games need co-op to be good...I'm just saying that NO game has ever been better without it.

roland at 12:32 PM on 7.1.2009

We all have our own strategies for how we spend our entertainment dollars, I certainly don't begrudge anyone for being different than me.

smurphster at 12:46 PM on 7.1.2009

so true... there were several PC games who's DM modes were so pointless and broken. however, you have to start somewhere. you can't expect a developer to get it right the first time especially when its something so foreign to what they're used to. adding co-op online & offline to fable 2 might have been too much to swallow the first time. next time it should be better. that's just a hard fact of software development we have to deal with. remember how horrible windows 3.1 was? yet it made some tasks so much easier and now we have some very advanced operating systems.

that said i still think publishers are being too pushy