• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

EA Gives Mass Effect Fans Hope with Confirmation of 'Exciting Remasters' Coming Soon

Shadowstar39

Member
Apr 25, 2018
84
89
200
If they remastered ME1 and totally updated the inventory system that would be an insta-buy for me
Whats so bad about me1 inventory system, at least it had one. Me2 (I never played 3) was a crap rpg taking out inventory management and rpg mechanics like me1 had. Also me1 felt like a much longer and more rounded game. I loved me1, but I didn't go in expecting fPS or tps mechanics, just like alpha protocol (another underrated game that I like) it used numbers, ala dice rolls for hits like a real rpg.

Me2 was mad for short attention span dude Bro xbots of the time who were more interested in teabagging some dudes head than a good rpg with strong rpg elements and great space opera story. Don't get me wrong it's still an OK game, I just would of rather had the more complex weapon and armor system of me1. I liked getting new weapons and armor as well as upgrading with choices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Godzilla Emu

TheUsual

Member
Dec 10, 2009
2,475
198
810
Whats so bad about me1 inventory system, at least it had one. Me2 (I never played 3) was a crap rpg taking out inventory management and rpg mechanics like me1 had. Also me1 felt like a much longer and more rounded game. I loved me1, but I didn't go in expecting fPS or tps mechanics, just like alpha protocol (another underrated game that I like) it used numbers, ala dice rolls for hits like a real rpg.

Me2 was mad for short attention span dude Bro xbots of the time who were more interested in teabagging some dudes head than a good rpg with strong rpg elements and great space opera story. Don't get me wrong it's still an OK game, I just would of rather had the more complex weapon and armor system of me1. I liked getting new weapons and armor as well as upgrading with choices.
I didn't like how cluttered it was on the screen and scrolling through it when modifying things. Everything else about the inventory system was fine.
 

Syn Marnotrawny

Neo Member
Sep 12, 2019
13
15
100
Shadowstar39 Shadowstar39 I really despise such elitist arseholes like you. ME2 was so much better when it comes to gameplay that it's funny you want to argue otherwise. I hope they remake the first one cause shooting and mako suck. Inventory management was also a nightmare.
 

Ascend

Member
Jul 23, 2018
685
540
320
Ascend Ascend lol, "people dont get what tha Boiware ment", maybe you don't get people
Actually, I get people perfectly. I never said the ending was well executed.

all your paragraphs read like the game built and presented every theme and idea properly and people are mad at the hypothesis which you are arguing for
The game didn't.

while in reality the game is a slapped together disjointed mess with the writing being haphazard, dissonant, sloppy, rushed and all over the place in content and presentation, so hackneyed revelations like the ai jesus boy are lambasted for being forced garbage as if created by someone who's a dunning-krueger
I fully agree with you.

you are arguing about the non-contextualised (by every other facet of the game) idea of the writing with people who are shitting on the (frankly atrocious) execution of it
it's literally pointless, and it doesn't even make the writing not terrible even if you can argue for it successfully
It does not make the way it was presented less terrible. Bringing in new stuff at the last minute is the worst thing to do in any story.

The main problem with this is that it's total bollocks directly contradicted at least once in game by Edi, potentially twice if you make peace with the Geth.
I hope you understand that that is anecdotal evidence. The geth almost wiped the Quarians out with the morning war, which supports the premise. EDI, well, how many AIs were there that were the exact opposite of EDI? If I encounter one wolf in the wild that doesn't want to kill me, it doesn't mean that wolfs won't kill people.

It's honestly quite arrogant to believe that within a span of what, 5 years, maybe 20 years, you know as much about AI and synthetics as beings that have been around for millennia. This is not limited to the reapers, or the Catalyst, but also counts for the ones that actually came up with that premise, which are the organics, aka the Leviathans. The catalyst was programmed to be an AI as protection to organics, and look how that turned out. You may not like the premise, or you may disagree with it, and it's fine to do so. But the bad execution of the ending does not mean that the premise is false.

If you look a bit deeper again, the standoff at ME3 between the Geth and the Quarians, if it wasn't for Shepard, which is technically the product of individual Synthesis, the Quarians would have been eradicated right there, and in many people's games, they were, or, the Geth were. Maybe that's the reason the Star Child loves Synthesis so much.
As for EDI, no one knows how she'll turn out in 50 years, or 100 years, or more.

That does not mean that the ending was not bad, and honestly, the whole thing needs to be revamped. But all three games have problems.
What I really want to happen, is a remake of the trilogy. At the same time, I don't want it to happen, because I'm afraid they'll change the parts that they don't have to change, and leave the ones in that don't need to be left in... But I'll argue from this perspective...

I would be all for a remake of the trilogy, with the following;
Overall
  • Still a trilogy, rather than one large game.
  • All the three games have Andromeda-like gameplay (or improved even more, like squad commands still being there). ME3's is fine too.
  • Still Shepard
  • Most of the characters can remain the same.
  • No technological downgrades in lore as the series progresses (as in thermal clips vs infinite ammo + overheating, power spamming vs one at the same time etc.)
  • Ensure the menus, quest log, power screen etc. aren't cumbersome or confusing.
  • Multiplayer is unnecessary.
ME1
  • ME1 main story and plot is left mostly untouched.
  • ME1 characters are a bit more fleshed out.
  • ME1 sidequests have a bit more variety, without killing the feeling of the vastness of space.
  • Nomad-like planet exploration must remain in ME1.
  • Thresher Maws must still be available through random encounters and pose actual danger to the player.
  • All known species must be available from ME1 onwards, although that doesn't mean every species should be equally available. Something like the Yahg must remain extremely rare for example. Citadel species are the most prominent.
ME2
  • ME2 requires a complete main plot/story overhaul, including a structural overhaul.
  • If Collectors are still there, them being Prothean husks must be relevant to the story/plot in some way. For example, capturing one and reconverting them into actual Protheans must be part of the story. It can also be connected as a way to try and save the abducted humans, where the humans are receiving a treatment to reverse the effects of indoctrination.
  • The Citadel must be similar to ME1 in size, at least.
  • Environments and hubs must be made for both combat and exploration, rather than them being completely separate.
  • Shepard does not die.
  • The Cypher of ME1 must remain relevant in ME2. The Cypher is one of the main things that makes Shepard special.
  • Shepard needs to do at least as much effort as in ME1 to convince the council, before even thinking of joining Cerberus.
  • The structure of the ending can remain similar, but the end boss must be different. This is to avoid the whole human reaper confusion.
  • Tela Vasir is not killed, but remains an antagonist to Shepard for the rest of the trilogy.
  • No 'convenient' excuses for your main character to leave the main ship on a secret unknown mission to make up a crew abduction.
  • The reapers must arrive in this game.
  • Either leave out the whole Dark Energy issue, or ensure it will be resolved in the final game.
  • No planet scanning, thanks.
ME3
  • The whole game needs to be about battling the reapers, and ultimately must have a similar structure to the current ME2 ending, where the loyalty of certain species determines the course of the ending, and where you ultimately have much more control over the final battle against the reapers. The basis is currently already there, so not much needs to change here.
  • You still CANNOT win with military might alone.
  • The emotional impact and connection with the characters must remain.
  • Fix the Rachni mission. If Rachni dead in ME1 -> No Rachni in this one.
  • If there is a Crucible (or some equivalent plot device), it needed to be discovered in the second game through Shepard's Cypher. ME3 should then consist of building it, protecting it and using it. No further 'discoveries' in this game.
  • Full ending overhaul. The reapers must remain semi-benevolent, sort of like Saren, or like TIM, rather than pure evil. The ending must be more than just "we beat the reapers and lived happily ever after". And make sure it's not a deus ex machina ending, where we suddenly get important new information and surprises at the last minute.
 
Last edited:

Mass Shift

Member
Jun 12, 2019
334
272
315
It kind of is, on the surface... But technically, it actually is a sort of weird paradox dilemma, which is why it is easily seen as nonsensical. But I'm going to go a bit deeper into this just for a second... Prepare for a wall of text lol.

First thing's first. We have the main basic premise of the Catalyst... That is, that the created (i.e. AI and synthetics) will always rebel against their creators (i.e. organics).

The moment that synthetics become aware and want self-preservation, organics try to kill them off, because they are afraid of the implications... Remember... Synthetics/AI must by default be capable of more than the organics. That is why organics create them in the first place... To help the organics achieve things that they cannot do themselves without the technology. And the fear of being wiped out by what they created, is actually what starts the conflict at first glance... And AI/synthetics being completely rational (most likely) are not likely to trust again, and likely to see mistakes as deliberate attempts of extermination. The fear of AI/synthetics becoming conscious is alive, even in our current world. If tomorrow we find out that through machine learning and AI we have created a conscious system that wants to do its own thing, wouldn't our first inclination be to kill it, to avoid a threat to human existence? Wouldn't we expect it to try and survive, killing us in the process? I think this was what BioWare was trying to let people speculate about... But not many people got to that part... They were stuck at the reapers being the problem, failing to make the additional step that it was organics that ultimately enabled the creation of the reapers.

Despite the Catalyst being created to stop the chaos between organics and synthetics, the catalyst itself is contributing to the problem, like people obviously argue. This is what many people see as the main issue with the ending. The Catalyst also rebelled against its creators, and it also nearly wiped them out. We can hate the reapers and the Catalyst, telling them that they are the source of the problem. We can say that they are hypocrites by causing the chaos. but they are not, because, one of the most important details that people forget is that organics created the Catalyst. This inevitably means that the premise of the Catalyst is correct, whether we like it or not. It's the organics that created a non-organic as powerful as the reapers, that is wiping organics out every 50k years...

It doesn't matter if you look at it from the perspective of a human lifetime, shorter, or for 50k years or longer... Every technology created by organics that becomes conscious, causes a conflict between organics and synthetics. In fact, The existence of the Catalyst by itself is proof of this. Even the AI created to solve the problem, contributed to it instead. The Catalyst itself is therefore the strongest proof ever of this. It is most likely the most advanced AI that has ever been seen, and it cannot fully solve the problem on its own that it was set to solve. It became aware of this... So rather than solving the problem, it decided to mitigate it, with its 'solution', by trying to store data of every organic, before they are at risk of being wiped out completely from existence without any trace. At least this way, they leave a trace that is preserved forever...

Great solution? No... But... My question to all of you is this... Imagine you were the Catalyst, in the sense that you were given the task to resolve these issues between organics and synthetics. What would you have done differently? Can you come up with a better one? Remember that...
- You can't stop organics from creating synthetics
- You can't stop synthetics from being more powerful than organics
- You can't stop the organics from freaking out when their creation becomes conscious
- You can't stop synthetics from developing a desire to survive when organics want to kill it.

What would your solution be?
My solution would have been to take the three choices and make them Shepard 's choice to play out in an additional ME game.

Because the three choices are presented as all-or-nothing solutions ( they're endings after all), we don't get to explore how fundamentally flawed they are.

I'll make one example.

Synthesis robs every organic of their individuality, and changes the natural evolutionary course of development for every single living being in the galaxy. The ending shows everybody happy, but we know that there would be horror and revulsion after the act. We don't even need to debate the immorality. Shepard is given a giant Borg button, presses it and the whole galaxy is assimilated.

The gamer should have been given an opportunity to see what is wrought by these choices. Weigh the pros and cons, see the potential conflicts that could rise from it. Rebellion, indifference, depression, an insatiable desire to reverse it. Causing conflicts between those who have accepted it and don't want to change back.

Former machines for one, they've been given a taste of life. They'll fight to the death to preserve it. Something that was meant to unify, in the end creates an even greater division.

Understanding that all off the choices are the choices of a machine. A machine's logic, a machine's desire, a machine's imposed mandate.

By wanting to wrap everything up in a neat little bow, the writers had to present the choices AS SOLUTIONS. And not what they really are...................the continued ruling order of machines overn organics.
 

Mass Shift

Member
Jun 12, 2019
334
272
315
Actually, I get people perfectly. I never said the ending was well executed.

The game didn't.

I fully agree with you.


It does not make the way it was presented less terrible. Bringing in new stuff at the last minute is the worst thing to do in any story.


I hope you understand that that is anecdotal evidence. The geth almost wiped the Quarians out with the morning war, which supports the premise. EDI, well, how many AIs were there that were the exact opposite of EDI? If I encounter one wolf in the wild that doesn't want to kill me, it doesn't mean that wolfs won't kill people.

It's honestly quite arrogant to believe that within a span of what, 5 years, maybe 20 years, you know as much about AI and synthetics as beings that have been around for millennia. This is not limited to the reapers, or the Catalyst, but also counts for the ones that actually came up with that premise, which are the organics, aka the Leviathans. The catalyst was programmed to be an AI as protection to organics, and look how that turned out. You may not like the premise, or you may disagree with it, and it's fine to do so. But the bad execution of the ending does not mean that the premise is false.

If you look a bit deeper again, the standoff at ME3 between the Geth and the Quarians, if it wasn't for Shepard, which is technically the product of individual Synthesis, the Quarians would have been eradicated right there, and in many people's games, they were, or, the Geth were. Maybe that's the reason the Star Child loves Synthesis so much.
As for EDI, no one knows how she'll turn out in 50 years, or 100 years, or more.

That does not mean that the ending was not bad, and honestly, the whole thing needs to be revamped. But all three games have problems.
What I really want to happen, is a remake of the trilogy. At the same time, I don't want it to happen, because I'm afraid they'll change the parts that they don't have to change, and leave the ones in that don't need to be left in... But I'll argue from this perspective...

I would be all for a remake of the trilogy, with the following;
Overall
  • Still a trilogy, rather than one large game.
  • All the three games have Andromeda-like gameplay (or improved even more, like squad commands still being there). ME3's is fine too.
  • Still Shepard
  • Most of the characters can remain the same.
  • No technological downgrades in lore as the series progresses (as in thermal clips vs infinite ammo + overheating, power spamming vs one at the same time etc.)
  • Ensure the menus, quest log, power screen etc. aren't cumbersome or confusing.
  • Multiplayer is unnecessary.
ME1
  • ME1 main story and plot is left mostly untouched.
  • ME1 characters are a bit more fleshed out.
  • ME1 sidequests have a bit more variety, without killing the feeling of the vastness of space.
  • Nomad-like planet exploration must remain in ME1.
  • Thresher Maws must still be available through random encounters and pose actual danger to the player.
  • All known species must be available from ME1 onwards, although that doesn't mean every species should be equally available. Something like the Yahg must remain extremely rare for example. Citadel species are the most prominent.
ME2
  • ME2 requires a complete main plot/story overhaul, including a structural overhaul.
  • If Collectors are still there, them being Prothean husks must be relevant to the story/plot in some way. For example, capturing one and reconverting them into actual Protheans must be part of the story. It can also be connected as a way to try and save the abducted humans, where the humans are receiving a treatment to reverse the effects of indoctrination.
  • The Citadel must be similar to ME1 in size, at least.
  • Environments and hubs must be made for both combat and exploration, rather than them being completely separate.
  • Shepard does not die.
  • The Cypher of ME1 must remain relevant in ME2. The Cypher is one of the main things that makes Shepard special.
  • Shepard needs to do at least as much effort as in ME1 to convince the council, before even thinking of joining Cerberus.
  • The structure of the ending can remain similar, but the end boss must be different. This is to avoid the whole human reaper confusion.
  • Tela Vasir is not killed, but remains an antagonist to Shepard for the rest of the trilogy.
  • No 'convenient' excuses for your main character to leave the main ship on a secret unknown mission to make up a crew abduction.
  • The reapers must arrive in this game.
  • Either leave out the whole Dark Energy issue, or ensure it will be resolved in the final game.
  • No planet scanning, thanks.
ME3
  • The whole game needs to be about battling the reapers, and ultimately must have a similar structure to the current ME2 ending, where the loyalty of certain species determines the course of the ending, and where you ultimately have much more control over the final battle against the reapers. The basis is currently already there, so not much needs to change here.
  • You still CANNOT win with military might alone.
  • The emotional impact and connection with the characters must remain.
  • Fix the Rachni mission. If Rachni dead in ME1 -> No Rachni in this one.
  • If there is a Crucible (or some equivalent plot device), it needed to be discovered in the second game through Shepard's Cypher. ME3 should then consist of building it, protecting it and using it. No further 'discoveries' in this game.
  • Full ending overhaul. The reapers must remain semi-benevolent, sort of like Saren, or like TIM, rather than pure evil. The ending must be more than just "we beat the reapers and lived happily ever after". And make sure it's not a deus ex machina ending, where we suddenly get important new information and surprises at the last minute.
YES. The Crucible definitely should have been discovered in ME2.

Acknowledging that also means pointing out how underdeveloped Shepherd's character really is. He is committed to defeating the Reaper menace more than anyone but doesn't actually do anything about it.

He's formulated no theories on how to stop them. He has the Shadow Broker , Councillor Anderson, Admiral Hacket and to a certain extent TIM. He's got powerful military allies, corporations and criminal elements that owe him favors, and enough dirt on the right people to get what he wants. Hell, even the Rachni know what the Reapers are and owe Shepard.

But Shepard spends more time solving people's personal problems. Playing matchmaker, returning lost lockets and collecting endorsements on the Citadel. Those things cute, but it really should not be his role. He should be out there exploring the galaxy, looking for clues, finding the pieces to the puzzle.
 

manfestival

Member
Nov 12, 2009
10,994
1,580
995
The people getting excited about this remind me of the same people that get excited about Skyrim rereleases. Only thing going in these guys favor is that this would be the first remaster so I guess I can throw a bone
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Apr 9, 2009
29,035
4,943
1,250
The people getting excited about this remind me of the same people that get excited about Skyrim rereleases. Only thing going in these guys favor is that this would be the first remaster so I guess I can throw a bone
Mass Effect 1 at this point is 12 years old. Most people have never experienced it.
+
Mass Effect 3 had a bunch of good but overpriced DLC that a lot of people never played. Also it had a great multiplayer mode which would potentially be part of any remaster.

The trilogy needs a remaster, yo.
 
Oct 26, 2018
5,938
5,235
505
On one hand, I'd like to replay ME 1 and 2 with great visuals, reduced loading and 60 fps.

But man.... I don't think I can do it with god awful Mako driving or any of that zone mining shit again.
 
Last edited:

manfestival

Member
Nov 12, 2009
10,994
1,580
995
Mass Effect 1 at this point is 12 years old. Most people have never experienced it.
+
Mass Effect 3 had a bunch of good but overpriced DLC that a lot of people never played. Also it had a great multiplayer mode which would potentially be part of any remaster.

The trilogy needs a remaster, yo.
Once again, I throw the bone but I draw the line at the Shephard dance. They need to leave that alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sub_Level

EDMIX

Member
Apr 5, 2018
2,959
1,581
370
31
South Florida aka Outer Haven
Remakes, remasters, whatever. There are so many these days. It's just contributing to this currently stale industry. There are a few bright spots here and there thankfully, but every company is so averse to trying something new today. They don't want to assume the risk and they know the remakes/remasters of once popular games will be a safe seller. It's depressing.
Well not "whatever". It is a big difference. You are not talking about the same thing. So no.. there is not "so many these days" of actual remakes. Thats as rare as it comes in gaming.

Why is it making the industry stale? You don't need to buy any of them and for the most part, they are not even being made by the original teams to argue something else would have been made. ie Bluepoint games was not going to make Uncharted 5 when the did that collection. So it has nothing to do with NOT trying something "new today" as those making remasters are teams that are NOT going to actually make a new game, its not an either or. Understanding how the industry actually works can help avoid this strange myth.

Its not as if Shadow Of The Colossus remake stopped another game from happening, the team that did that game originally DID NOT DO THE REMAKE, thus they are free to continue working on their new IP as Bluepoint games job was to remake it, NOT make a new game. It wasn't an either or. It was both. The original team is making a new IP, the original team made The Last Guardian and we got a remake by a completely different team. Everyone wins.

You mad that they made money on a remake that is just used to just fund the new IP? So your solution is don't make a remake or remaster to fund anything new, even if the actual damn team making the new game ISN'T being held back to make a remake or remaster? Even if you don't need to buy it? So the best solution is make less money, give less options etc?

Soooooo many publishers that make remakes or remasters still make new IP.

Sony remade BOTH Ratchet and Clank and SoTC ANNNNND you still got Spiderman new IP, The Last Guardian new IP, Horizon Zero Dawn new IP, Ghost Of Tsushima NEW IP and so forth.

Ubisoft remastered Assassins Creed, you still got Watchdogs new ip, The Division new IP, For Honor new ip etc. No evidence actually shows that anyone is making a remake or remaster "instead of" new IP. Ironically, those making remasters and remakes are also making new IP.... Thats just a dumb assumption that I've noticed has no real proof, evidence or weight behind it. Even EA, the king of shady shade, the MT Loot BOX KING, didn't make much remasters this gen, yet still made new IP. Soooooo that theory falls a bit flat when you enter evidence into it.
 
Last edited:

Phase

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2019
408
581
485
Well not "whatever". It is a big difference. You are not talking about the same thing. So no.. there is not "so many these days" of actual remakes. Thats as rare as it comes in gaming.

Why is it making the industry stale? You don't need to buy any of them and for the most part, they are not even being made by the original teams to argue something else would have been made. ie Bluepoint games was not going to make Uncharted 5 when the did that collection. So it has nothing to do with NOT trying something "new today" as those making remasters are teams that are NOT going to actually make a new game, its not an either or. Understanding how the industry actually works can help avoid this strange myth.

Its not as if Shadow Of The Colossus remake stopped another game from happening, the team that did that game originally DID NOT DO THE REMAKE, thus they are free to continue working on their new IP as Bluepoint games job was to remake it, NOT make a new game. It wasn't an either or. It was both. The original team is making a new IP, the original team made The Last Guardian and we got a remake by a completely different team. Everyone wins.

You mad that they made money on a remake that is just used to just fund the new IP? So your solution is don't make a remake or remaster to fund anything new, even if the actual damn team making the new game ISN'T being held back to make a remake or remaster? Even if you don't need to buy it? So the best solution is make less money, give less options etc?

Soooooo many publishers that make remakes or remasters still make new IP.

Sony remade BOTH Ratchet and Clank and SoTC ANNNNND you still got Spiderman new IP, The Last Guardian new IP, Horizon Zero Dawn new IP, Ghost Of Tsushima NEW IP and so forth.

Ubisoft remastered Assassins Creed, you still got Watchdogs new ip, The Division new IP, For Honor new ip etc. No evidence actually shows that anyone is making a remake or remaster "instead of" new IP. Ironically, those making remasters and remakes are also making new IP.... Thats just a dumb assumption that I've noticed has no real proof, evidence or weight behind it. Even EA, the king of shady shade, the MT Loot BOX KING, didn't make much remasters this gen, yet still made new IP. Soooooo that theory falls a bit flat when you enter evidence into it.
I know the difference between a remake and remaster. Thanks though. You make some good points, and there are certainly different teams on remakes/remasters than the ones working on new IP's.

I wrote a long post in reply to this but most of it was just negative opinions about the state of the industry, so I won't bore you. Instead I'll try to turn my focus to the positives and the games coming out I'm really anticipating. It's not a bad list. Check it out.

Death Stranding (Nov 8)
Biomutant
Atomic Heart
Beyond Good and Evil 2
The Last of Us 2 (May 2020)
Ghosts of Tsushima (2020)
Cyberpunk 2077 (April 2020)
Witchfire (2020)
Psychonauts 2 (2020)
Elden Ring
Diabotical
Disintegration
Stalker (2021)
Project Awakening
HZD 2
Bright Memory Infinite
Babylon's Fall
Halo: Installation 01
TES 6
Skywind
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: EDMIX
Aug 29, 2018
1,781
2,736
420
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
I was willing to ignore the retcons with the Reapers because I felt so invested in the relationships and characters in Mass Effect, but the ending of ME3 was so astoundingly awful, it made me retroactively dislike the entire series. I tried to go back and play through them, and I just don't have it in me. I haven't really been interested in ME since 2012, when Bioware scrambled to add the ending DLC to try and salvage as much goodwill as possible. It felt every bit as tacked on as it was.
It's hard to play a choice-based RPG when you know for a fact that not a single one of these choices mean a goddamned thing.
 

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
8,191
258
1,225
Yep. ME2 fans trying to distance themselves. Its like naw bro YOU made it a full on shooter with tiny hubs and focus on character over plot. You can still like 2 but at least own it.
ME2 is an incredible game, no fucks given. It was a true role playing game and led to decisions that had real consequences like few in the genre. Or so we thought - it's not ME2's fault that ME3 took all that stuff and did nothing with it. The shooting was also great too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KorbinDallas

Mass Shift

Member
Jun 12, 2019
334
272
315
ME2 is an incredible game, no fucks given. It was a true role playing game and led to decisions that had real consequences like few in the genre. Or so we thought - it's not ME2's fault that ME3 took all that stuff and did nothing with it. The shooting was also great too.
Well who blames a GAME for what the developing studio did? That's like saying don't blame Thursday for what Friday didn't do.

I liked ME2 for the most part but Bioware is responsible for all 3 games.

The same team that made ME2 also made ME3. I agree the combat was better than ME1, but they dumped so much in character customization and level design in ME2. Skill trees were reduced to only 3 sets for companions. No armor, only skins and EA monetized those.

Probe launching replaced planetary exploration because Bioware was too lazy to flesh out their empty worlds with actual things for us to do. They couldn't even be bothered with rendering the Citadel and while folks hated the elevator rides, the loading screens were everywhere and broke immersion.

Bioware dumped level design and character customization (RPG standards) in ME2, and then turned around and dumped story and choice consequences for ME3. It's been a terrible slide over the cliff for them, Anthem and Andromeda are just the latest examples of just how far they've fallen.

When the founders of the studio left after ME2, that should have been the red flag that concerned us.
 
Last edited:

jonnyp

Member
Jan 12, 2008
2,347
422
945
We already done it:D But ME, DA and Dead Space is exceptions to the rule.
Hehe. After Andromeda and the exodus of real talent from Bioware i have zero hopes for MA anymore. DA I don't care about. Dead Space looks dead now.
 

McCheese

Gold Member
Jan 7, 2018
742
1,671
495
I loved all three Mass Effect titles, loved them.

But I don't want to see the current Bioware attempt even a simple HD remaster, as given a template for greatness, they'll still somehow find a way to fuck it up.

My main concern would be around the romance stuff, folks probably don't really member too much about Mass Effect 1, but if that game came out today, without any changes, you would get resetera trying to cancel Casey Hudson as it's "heteronormative agenda veers into problematic areas of consent", and knowing Bioware Austin is full of folks with a similar mindset, there is zero chance they release them without making changes.

TLDR; Can you just imagine how mad they'll be having to remaster a game about a white guy flying around fucking attractive aliens?
 

Kadayi

Probable Replicant & GIF PIMP
Oct 10, 2012
8,415
7,504
1,065
theconclave.net
Mass Effect 2 is the better game tho...
I'd caveat that with, it's a great game until you jump through the Omega-4 Relay and fight the dopey looking human terminator Reaper thing. Honestly aside from the drama of potentially losing teammates (easily avoided if you prepped beforehans and are sensible in your selections), I thought that whole section was underwhelming, plus of course, Walters and Hudson completely bail on the whole different Reapers thing in ME3, where they all end up looking exactly the same. Honestly, I was expecting more from heading through the relay versus a big final battle tbh. I thought we were going to find out what lies beyond and do some exploring before a confrontation



I loved all three Mass Effect titles, loved them.

But I don't want to see the current Bioware attempt even a simple HD remaster, as given a template for greatness, they'll still somehow find a way to fuck it up.

My main concern would be around the romance stuff, folks probably don't really member too much about Mass Effect 1, but if that game came out today, without any changes, you would get resetera trying to cancel Casey Hudson as it's "heteronormative agenda veers into problematic areas of consent", and knowing Bioware Austin is full of folks with a similar mindset, there is zero chance they release them without making changes.

TLDR; Can you just imagine how mad they'll be having to remaster a game about a white guy flying around fucking attractive aliens?
To be fair you can customise your character

Anyway, with regards to the whole remaster thing, plot issues aside I think the core challenge is that every game was essentially changing in some way as it went along. ME1 was great in terms of the interactions but was hampered by some really tedious UI aspects and inventory management, and the combat was discordant (you're supposed to be the best of the best, not some rube who can't hit a barn at ten paces). ME2, on the other hand, did a lot to build out the characters but went too far in stripping back the Inventory aspects, although the combat was much improved. ME3 kind of got the balance right on combat and inventory, but was let down by a boned headed plot and stripping back the dialogue. One aspect of ME1 I really liked was that dialogue exchanges always involved a cinematic interaction for the most part, whereas in ME3 a lot of the conversations happened whilst you were just standing around or goofing about in 3rd person.

Given the above, I'd far rather the series was just re-imagined from the ground up preferably by a fresh team with different writers. Keep the principles, but just dump the garbage aspects wholesale. I'd also get rid of the whole renegade/paragon thing. I remember in ME1 that fact that there were in-game bonuses tied to being 75% one or the other really annoying because it really nagged at you to go one way or the other due to FOMO.
 
Last edited:

Joon

Member
Sep 1, 2018
92
132
220
Mass Effect 2 is the better game tho...
That's fine. But you have to admit it is a very different game to the first, that's why I don't consider it a true sequel. It's just too different and went the shootbang/relationship simulator route. and removed too many staples which made the first game what it was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ascend