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.”

Read The Full Article: Dead Space Originally Had Co-Op

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

seem to... believe me i know its not effortless. i'm a software engineer (granted a different field) so i know what kind of effort goes into software. but some studios just make it look easy.


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

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.

The game as a whole isn't worse off because its co-op could use a few tweaks, but is this a case where co-op should have been included if it was going to be a poor experience? The answer is all a matter of preference (including what the experience is like) and we just fall on different sides.


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.

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.

I would actually argue that Fable 2 would have been better without co-op. It was one of the few negatives to an overall great package, and I could have done without the frustration and disappointment of trying to enjoy it with my wife. Then the resources and time spent on co-op might have been used to make the overall game even more superb.

But that's the only example I can think of off the top of my head.

Co-op has come into it's own, as you stated. But I don't want it to become what competitive multiplayer did for awhile, where it seemed like every game had to include some competitive/deathmatch style mode, that was often tacked on and just wasted developer resources and players' time.



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

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