Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 17:06:41 GMT
Bioware is not going to go back and change or fix anything. You should learn how game development works. Once the game development cycle is finished (in ME3's case, this was Citadel DLC), there is no further patches or fixes to the game.
Second, the safest route is what may please the most fans, but it's also the one which makes the least amount of money. However, some people don't want them to take risks. They want to always go the safe route, because it avoids alienating their fanbase.
However, Bioware's fanbase has been slowly alienating since ME1 came out.
If you're going to be full of yourself, at least know what the hell you're talking about. Many remasters go back and fix bugs from the original, and some make significant changes such as Warcraft 3: Reforged.
I was talking about the safe route from a marketing perspective and I'm fully aware the fans are a secondary concern. Personally, I don't particularly want a remaster or even overhaul of the trilogy, but it's a very popular request. Bioware knows it needs to earn some good will back and good remaster is a safe way to do that while an entirely new ME game is being worked on.
The article you cited clearly says that what was done to Warcraft 3 was "more than just a remaster" - i.e. it was essentially a remake.
Definition of Remaster: "to create a new master of especially by altering or enhancing the sound quality of an older recording" (Added: in visual media, it would also include graphical upgrades).
Definiton of Remake: 'to make anew or in a different form"
Since a remake is essentially a new release, bugs can get fixed as part of the process. The process can also create many new bugs, so the game company would likely "service" the remake with patches for a period of time after release.
The cost of doing a remake vs. a remaster is what makes the difference. A remake of the OT would essentially involve almost the same cost and the same amount of time as generating a new game. It would likely have to be re-voiced and rewritten to condense the 3 games into a single game (since single games are generally much longer overall than they were when ME1 was released. A new game in Andromeda would probably even be cheaper to make than a OT remake since several of the assets for the Andromeda galaxy have already been made on the Frostbite engine. The assets for a remake of the OT would have thave to be made from scratch. I don't see them putting in that sort of work and cost into redoing Shepard's story without tampering with that story in a major way... which would mean it would probably no longer feel like the OT since the individuals who made and wrote the OT are long gone from Bioware. I don't believe that's going to satisfy people who want the OT back or arbitrarily win favor back for Bioware and easier than just continuing in Andromeda with an improved anitmations, an improved ongoing story with a PC who can be roleplayed more as a renegade (as well as a paragon), and great gameplay. IF the risk remaking the OT... and the critics and people who pre-release play the game don't absolutely love whatever is done to it, any perceived marketing benefit would be lost almost immediately and result in even greater damage to the mass opinion of the franchise than reeleasing an Andromeda game into a market with lesser vested emotional interest in it.
|
|
shermos
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, SWTOR
Posts: 142 Likes: 123
inherit
5320
0
Nov 21, 2023 16:35:36 GMT
123
shermos
142
March 2017
shermos
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age Inquisition, Jade Empire, SWTOR
|
Post by shermos on Dec 1, 2019 17:57:19 GMT
If you're going to be full of yourself, at least know what the hell you're talking about. Many remasters go back and fix bugs from the original, and some make significant changes such as Warcraft 3: Reforged.
I was talking about the safe route from a marketing perspective and I'm fully aware the fans are a secondary concern. Personally, I don't particularly want a remaster or even overhaul of the trilogy, but it's a very popular request. Bioware knows it needs to earn some good will back and good remaster is a safe way to do that while an entirely new ME game is being worked on.
The article you cited clearly says that what was done to Warcraft 3 was "more than just a remaster" - i.e. it was essentially a remake.
Definition of Remaster: "to create a new master of especially by altering or enhancing the sound quality of an older recording" (Added: in visual media, it would also include graphical upgrades).
Definiton of Remake: 'to make anew or in a different form"
Since a remake is essentially a new release, bugs can get fixed as part of the process. The process can also create many new bugs, so the game company would likely "service" the remake with patches for a period of time after release.
The cost of doing a remake vs. a remaster is what makes the difference. A remake of the OT would essentially involve almost the same cost and the same amount of time as generating a new game. It would likely have to be re-voiced and rewritten to condense the 3 games into a single game (since single games are generally much longer overall than they were when ME1 was released. A new game in Andromeda would probably even be cheaper to make than a OT remake since several of the assets for the Andromeda galaxy have already been made on the Frostbite engine. The assets for a remake of the OT would have thave to be made from scratch. I don't see them putting in that sort of work and cost into redoing Shepard's story without tampering with that story in a major way... which would mean it would probably no longer feel like the OT since the individuals who made and wrote the OT are long gone from Bioware. I don't believe that's going to satisfy people who want the OT back or arbitrarily win favor back for Bioware and easier than just continuing in Andromeda with an improved anitmations, an improved ongoing story with a PC who can be roleplayed more as a renegade (as well as a paragon), and great gameplay. IF the risk remaking the OT... and the critics and people who pre-release play the game don't absolutely love whatever is done to it, any perceived marketing benefit would be lost almost immediately and result in even greater damage to the mass opinion of the franchise than reeleasing an Andromeda game into a market with lesser vested emotional interest in it.
Semantics and gaming press spin. As of the time of writing The wiki page for Reforged calls it a remaster and that seems reasonable. There were more changes made than in many other remasters but it wasn't close to a remake. Bioware could do something similar without needing to invest much more than for a basic remaster.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 18:24:05 GMT
The article you cited clearly says that what was done to Warcraft 3 was "more than just a remaster" - i.e. it was essentially a remake.
Definition of Remaster: "to create a new master of especially by altering or enhancing the sound quality of an older recording" (Added: in visual media, it would also include graphical upgrades).
Definiton of Remake: 'to make anew or in a different form"
Since a remake is essentially a new release, bugs can get fixed as part of the process. The process can also create many new bugs, so the game company would likely "service" the remake with patches for a period of time after release.
The cost of doing a remake vs. a remaster is what makes the difference. A remake of the OT would essentially involve almost the same cost and the same amount of time as generating a new game. It would likely have to be re-voiced and rewritten to condense the 3 games into a single game (since single games are generally much longer overall than they were when ME1 was released. A new game in Andromeda would probably even be cheaper to make than a OT remake since several of the assets for the Andromeda galaxy have already been made on the Frostbite engine. The assets for a remake of the OT would have thave to be made from scratch. I don't see them putting in that sort of work and cost into redoing Shepard's story without tampering with that story in a major way... which would mean it would probably no longer feel like the OT since the individuals who made and wrote the OT are long gone from Bioware. I don't believe that's going to satisfy people who want the OT back or arbitrarily win favor back for Bioware and easier than just continuing in Andromeda with an improved anitmations, an improved ongoing story with a PC who can be roleplayed more as a renegade (as well as a paragon), and great gameplay. IF the risk remaking the OT... and the critics and people who pre-release play the game don't absolutely love whatever is done to it, any perceived marketing benefit would be lost almost immediately and result in even greater damage to the mass opinion of the franchise than reeleasing an Andromeda game into a market with lesser vested emotional interest in it.
Semantics and gaming press spin. As of the time of writing The wiki page for Reforged calls it a remaster and that seems reasonable. There were more changes made than in many other remasters but it wasn't close to a remake. Bioware could do something similar without needing to invest much more than for a basic remaster. Vs. Semantics and YOUR spin. They aren't going to redo the ending without redoing portions of the story... Anything less is just not going to pacify the very audience you're trying to say would give them this huge marketing advantage... and if that "target" audience isn't completely in love with the result, that advantage vaporizes and almost immediately becomes a disadvantage because the people that have been arguing the endings for 8 long years now are SO emotionally invested in getting that "fix" that they are not going to "lie down" and accept a cost-effective , mediocre patch of the endings. They would, for the most part, just prefer to stick with the free mods many of them are already using. Once Bioware opens Pandora's box the costs start to mount. A change of engine, for one thing. Condensing the three games into one, which would involve a substantial rewrite because, right now, the best endgame fight is in the middle (ME2's SM). Once they start rewriting, then comes revoicing. The lack of emotional investment people have in Andromeda is actually something that can be an advantage and is certainly not as big a disadvantage if the next Andromeda game isn't perfect.
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,879 Likes: 49,335
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,335
Iakus
20,879
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 1, 2019 18:29:26 GMT
The baggage is permanent. The only solution is a retcon or reboot. No, retconning it will be just giving the ending haters what they've been demanding all these years. Think of the news headlines. Allowing gamers to demand a change or extension to the story. Instead of the game company deciding to put it to rest.
No reboot is necessary, because the story has ended.
Why can't they just say, "Shepard defeated the Reapers, the galaxy rebuilt itself. End of story".
"Game Developer Listens to Its Player Base And Delivers a Long Asked-For Product. News at Eleven"
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,879 Likes: 49,335
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,335
Iakus
20,879
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Dec 1, 2019 18:34:25 GMT
If Bioware is going to remaster the original trilogy, they might as well make changes to ME3's ending to make an entirely new game in the Milky Way easier to write. They could also fix the problems ME3 had due to being rushed, especially Priority: Earth. It won't be worth buying if all they do is give the trilogy a fresh coat of paint. I can get that already with mods, many of which also fix bugs and add to the universe. MEA2 is likely to bomb even with a new character. Mainstream gamers will be afraid of being bitten again. A trilogy remaster - more like overhaul - with gameplay improvements and minor changes to fix narrative problems is probably the safest route Bioware could go. The riskier route but still less so than MEA2 would be to go back to the Milky Way a century or two after ME3 and tell a new story with a Star Trek The Next Generation type vibe. The Reaper threat is a memory but the galaxy is still largely unexplored with new challenges (and some old) ahead. Bioware is not going to go back and change or fix anything. You should learn how game development works. Once the game development cycle is finished (in ME3's case, this was Citadel DLC), there is no further patches or fixes to the game.
Second, the safest route is what may please the most fans, but it's also the one which makes the least amount of money. However, some people don't want them to take risks. They want to always go the safe route, because it avoids alienating their fanbase.
However, Bioware's fanbase has been slowly alienating since ME1 came out.
And how has "taking risks" worked out for Bioware the last few years? Anthem? MEA? ME3? DA2? DAI is the only product which one could argue was a "success" and even then they played it kinda safe by going back to a more DAO-style Skyrimesque storyline. Playing it safe for a while might be the smart move at this point. Until they settle this identity crisis they seem to be having.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 19:47:53 GMT
So then what of the history/lore of the setting? Will it just have a bunch of [redacted] in it? Do the geth still exist? Do the Quarians? Are all of the relays just magically back up and running across the galaxy? Or, better yet, do the Krogan still exist, and did Shepard cure the genophage? Geth and Quarians can be sort of far flung across the galaxy, but the krogan are basically a major presence. There's simply no avoiding what's going on with those guys, because they just can't be written out. For anyone who bothers to look at the setting's history, which has always been a thing in the games, these big gaps in the story will be a little too obvious. If you played the Extended Cut, your questions were already answered.
I don't think the people in Andromeda will be going back to the Milky Way. It was a one way trip.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 20:13:37 GMT
So then what of the history/lore of the setting? Will it just have a bunch of [redacted] in it? Do the geth still exist? Do the Quarians? Are all of the relays just magically back up and running across the galaxy? Or, better yet, do the Krogan still exist, and did Shepard cure the genophage? Geth and Quarians can be sort of far flung across the galaxy, but the krogan are basically a major presence. There's simply no avoiding what's going on with those guys, because they just can't be written out. For anyone who bothers to look at the setting's history, which has always been a thing in the games, these big gaps in the story will be a little too obvious. If you played the Extended Cut, your questions were already answered.
I don't think the people in Andromeda will be going back to the Milky Way. It was a one way trip.
I would say it depends on how much farther out Bioware wants to push the timeline into the future from where we are at. I would think that once has civilization has proven the ability to engage in intergalactic travel, the logical next step to to go back and connect the two galaxies into a common universe... to connect a Mass Relay in Andromeda to the network of them in the Milky Way. The story has already jumped over 600 years in a single "sleep." There is nothing limiting them from jumping further forward through time... or even back to before the beginnings of the Reaper War to prevent it from happening. Time looping in that way is not unheard of in science fiction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 20:14:06 GMT
Bioware is not going to go back and change or fix anything. You should learn how game development works. Once the game development cycle is finished (in ME3's case, this was Citadel DLC), there is no further patches or fixes to the game.
Second, the safest route is what may please the most fans, but it's also the one which makes the least amount of money. However, some people don't want them to take risks. They want to always go the safe route, because it avoids alienating their fanbase.
However, Bioware's fanbase has been slowly alienating since ME1 came out.
If you're going to be full of yourself, at least know what the hell you're talking about. Many remasters go back and fix bugs from the original, and some make significant changes such as Warcraft 3: Reforged.
That's a sample size of one game. However, I do recall Bioware stating if they did remaster the trilogy, the combat from ME1 would stay the same. They weren't going to update it so that ME1 and ME2 had the same fluid combat as ME3.
I can tell you right now that the remaster, if it gets done, will still have the same stupid ending the most vocal fans hate, Starchild and all that stuff. Priority Earth will not be changed. Neither will the other complaints people talked about.
Some places that do remasters want to keep it as faithful to the original as possible. Instead of hacking things up and creating a new game that plays nothing like the original.
|
|
Cyberstrike
N4
is wanting to have some fun!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
XBL Gamertag: cyberstrike nTo
PSN: cyberstrike-nTo
Prime Posts: 1,732
Prime Likes: 467
Posts: 1,872 Likes: 3,041
inherit
634
0
May 14, 2017 17:50:43 GMT
3,041
Cyberstrike
is wanting to have some fun!
1,872
August 2016
cyberstrike
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
cyberstrike nTo
cyberstrike-nTo
1,732
467
|
Post by Cyberstrike on Dec 1, 2019 22:30:38 GMT
If you're going to be full of yourself, at least know what the hell you're talking about. Many remasters go back and fix bugs from the original, and some make significant changes such as Warcraft 3: Reforged.
I was talking about the safe route from a marketing perspective and I'm fully aware the fans are a secondary concern. Personally, I don't particularly want a remaster or even overhaul of the trilogy, but it's a very popular request. Bioware knows it needs to earn some good will back and good remaster is a safe way to do that while an entirely new ME game is being worked on.
The article you cited clearly says that what was done to Warcraft 3 was "more than just a remaster" - i.e. it was essentially a remake.
Definition of Remaster: "to create a new master of especially by altering or enhancing the sound quality of an older recording" (Added: in visual media, it would also include graphical upgrades).
Definiton of Remake: 'to make anew or in a different form"
Since a remake is essentially a new release, bugs can get fixed as part of the process. The process can also create many new bugs, so the game company would likely "service" the remake with patches for a period of time after release.
The cost of doing a remake vs. a remaster is what makes the difference. A remake of the OT would essentially involve almost the same cost and the same amount of time as generating a new game. It would likely have to be re-voiced and rewritten to condense the 3 games into a single game (since single games are generally much longer overall than they were when ME1 was released. A new game in Andromeda would probably even be cheaper to make than a OT remake since several of the assets for the Andromeda galaxy have already been made on the Frostbite engine. The assets for a remake of the OT would have thave to be made from scratch. I don't see them putting in that sort of work and cost into redoing Shepard's story without tampering with that story in a major way... which would mean it would probably no longer feel like the OT since the individuals who made and wrote the OT are long gone from Bioware. I don't believe that's going to satisfy people who want the OT back or arbitrarily win favor back for Bioware and easier than just continuing in Andromeda with an improved anitmations, an improved ongoing story with a PC who can be roleplayed more as a renegade (as well as a paragon), and great gameplay. IF the risk remaking the OT... and the critics and people who pre-release play the game don't absolutely love whatever is done to it, any perceived marketing benefit would be lost almost immediately and result in even greater damage to the mass opinion of the franchise than reeleasing an Andromeda game into a market with lesser vested emotional interest in it.
Remakes of classic games can work but when you consider the games that are getting remade are games like Resident Evil 1, Resident Evil 2, and Final Fantasy VII these are also games that were released close to 20 years ago and the platforms that can support them are getting harder to find and playing the original versions are also getting harder (there are also get remasters of those games that just basically improves the graphics of them).
The remakes are BRAND NEW games with new combat systems, graphics, sound, music, gameplay, story elements that have been removed or reworked, and so on. IMHO trying to remake the MET would be harder and a bigger risk than making MEA2 plus there is also a very good possibility that it might make the MET an awful experience for some people by trying to "fix" things that were the devs, critics, and players thought were wrong with the MET like the combat system in ME1, the endings in ME3 and various other things that would very likely get BioWare into a lot of trouble like the all the close-ups of Miranda's butt and Jack's default look in ME2 and taking those out and/or changing those those two things and the backlashes from both sides who would love to see less of Miranda's butt and Jack have a better default look and those useless hardcore gamer trolls who do nothing but scream "SJWs are ruining the MET!" and not to mention the flame wars here and all over on social media. If you think that is the kind of PR BioWare and EA needs then you need head examined.
Because chances are that would happened if BioWare would remake the MET (hell that would happen if BioWare just announced today that they were going to remake of MET and NOTHING ELSE) so yeah I'll gladly take MEA2 over dealing with that fucking shit storm every single time.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 1, 2019 22:43:25 GMT
So then what of the history/lore of the setting? Will it just have a bunch of [redacted] in it? Do the geth still exist? Do the Quarians? Are all of the relays just magically back up and running across the galaxy? Or, better yet, do the Krogan still exist, and did Shepard cure the genophage? Geth and Quarians can be sort of far flung across the galaxy, but the krogan are basically a major presence. There's simply no avoiding what's going on with those guys, because they just can't be written out. For anyone who bothers to look at the setting's history, which has always been a thing in the games, these big gaps in the story will be a little too obvious. If you played the Extended Cut, your questions were already answered.
I don't think the people in Andromeda will be going back to the Milky Way. It was a one way trip.
Well, this is why a post-ME3 game set in the Milky Way is doomed to a retcon, thus probably won't happen.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 1, 2019 22:48:24 GMT
The article you cited clearly says that what was done to Warcraft 3 was "more than just a remaster" - i.e. it was essentially a remake.
Definition of Remaster: "to create a new master of especially by altering or enhancing the sound quality of an older recording" (Added: in visual media, it would also include graphical upgrades).
Definiton of Remake: 'to make anew or in a different form"
Since a remake is essentially a new release, bugs can get fixed as part of the process. The process can also create many new bugs, so the game company would likely "service" the remake with patches for a period of time after release.
The cost of doing a remake vs. a remaster is what makes the difference. A remake of the OT would essentially involve almost the same cost and the same amount of time as generating a new game. It would likely have to be re-voiced and rewritten to condense the 3 games into a single game (since single games are generally much longer overall than they were when ME1 was released. A new game in Andromeda would probably even be cheaper to make than a OT remake since several of the assets for the Andromeda galaxy have already been made on the Frostbite engine. The assets for a remake of the OT would have thave to be made from scratch. I don't see them putting in that sort of work and cost into redoing Shepard's story without tampering with that story in a major way... which would mean it would probably no longer feel like the OT since the individuals who made and wrote the OT are long gone from Bioware. I don't believe that's going to satisfy people who want the OT back or arbitrarily win favor back for Bioware and easier than just continuing in Andromeda with an improved anitmations, an improved ongoing story with a PC who can be roleplayed more as a renegade (as well as a paragon), and great gameplay. IF the risk remaking the OT... and the critics and people who pre-release play the game don't absolutely love whatever is done to it, any perceived marketing benefit would be lost almost immediately and result in even greater damage to the mass opinion of the franchise than reeleasing an Andromeda game into a market with lesser vested emotional interest in it.
Remakes of classic games can work but when you consider the games that are getting remade are games like Resident Evil 1, Resident Evil 2, and Final Fantasy VII these are also games that were released close to 20 years ago and the platforms that can support them are getting harder to find and playing the original versions are also getting harder (there are also get remasters of those games that just basically improves the graphics of them).
The remakes are BRAND NEW games with new combat systems, graphics, sound, music, gameplay, story elements that have been removed or reworked, and so on. IMHO trying to remake the MET would be harder and a bigger risk than making MEA2 plus there is also a very good possibility that it might make the MET an awful experience for some people by trying to "fix" things that were the devs, critics, and players thought were wrong with the MET like the combat system in ME1, the endings in ME3 and various other things that would very likely get BioWare into a lot of trouble like the all the close-ups of Miranda's butt and Jack's default look in ME2 and taking those out and/or changing those those two things and the backlashes from both sides who would love to see less of Miranda's butt and Jack have a better default look and those useless hardcore gamer trolls who do nothing but scream "SJWs are ruining the MET!" and not to mention the flame wars here and all over on social media. If you think that is the kind of PR BioWare and EA needs then you need head examined.
Because chances are that would happened if BioWare would remake the MET (hell that would happen if BioWare just announced today that they were going to remake of MET and NOTHING ELSE) so yeah I'll gladly take MEA2 over dealing with that fucking shit storm every single time.
I have to agree. The whole idea of remaking the trilogy just seems ridiculous to me. For all its faults, I think it's best to just leave the trilogy as it is, and the characters as we remember them. I don't want a rewritten Garrus, Wrex, Liara, etc.. I don't want an ME2, or at least the chapter of the game that ME2 would comprise, to be without the likes of Zaeed or whatever. But more than that, I don't want any more Shepard. This character's history goes back a ways now, and I prefer getting something new. For better or worse, Ryder at least has room to grow. Shepard sure as shit doesn't. I don't want the franchise to string the same character along. That's why I was thrilled to get someone new. For better or worse, I will always maintain that it's better to develop a character like Ryder than to exhume Shepard purely for sake of fan service. I will say this. If BioWare were to bother remaking the trilogy, that would only tell me that they've succumbed entirely to creative bankruptcy, unable to make new stuff, just spit and polish the old stuff.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 1, 2019 22:58:10 GMT
Bioware is not going to go back and change or fix anything. You should learn how game development works. Once the game development cycle is finished (in ME3's case, this was Citadel DLC), there is no further patches or fixes to the game.
Second, the safest route is what may please the most fans, but it's also the one which makes the least amount of money. However, some people don't want them to take risks. They want to always go the safe route, because it avoids alienating their fanbase.
However, Bioware's fanbase has been slowly alienating since ME1 came out.
And how has "taking risks" worked out for Bioware the last few years? Anthem? MEA? ME3? DA2? DAI is the only product which one could argue was a "success" and even then they played it kinda safe by going back to a more DAO-style Skyrimesque storyline. Playing it safe for a while might be the smart move at this point. Until they settle this identity crisis they seem to be having.
I think that the idea that all of these things are inherently riskier is debatable. Mass Effect, I think, is a special case because of the massive hole the writers dug for the franchise. Anything and everything they do in the Milky Way would be a veritable shitshow of massive story pits they'd have to seal up. I'll just put on my hyperbole hat and state that the Milky Way is now a massive story tomb. All that's left without taking huge chunks of the story and ignoring them for a follow-up game is to just have something that occurs concurrent to Shepard's time line. Words cannot express how much I would loathe something like that in game form. Andromeda was probably the safer bet, since it basically means they don't have to account for much of anything at all. In and of itself, simply going to Andromeda with a new set of characters and aliens is not particularly risky by comparison. Sure, the details of going there in the first place might rankle some folks, but let's be honest. Most don't really care about that, as it was never really the focus of any complaints against the game, and when it comes to weird space magic and logical inconsistencies, it most certainly wouldn't be the worst the franchise has suffered. If anything, most or all complaints regarding Andromeda would probably be just as bad and possibly worse if it was a post-ME3 game.
Anthem, well. I'm certain that in the minds of EA, a looter shooter would be a shoo-in for success, since a lot of people play a lot of Destiny and Borderlands. Not sure why BioWare of all companies was the one to do this. I would've rather Respawn did. I don't really care what the hell they do. Titanfall is OK and there's Fallen Order, but I'd much rather they fall on the sword than Bio (though if Respawn made it, it probably would've been more focused).
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Apr 22, 2024 18:35:27 GMT
9,167
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,821
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Dec 2, 2019 2:40:52 GMT
Well, the MW's a story tomb if picking a particular set of Shepard choices as a canon would cause the fans to freak out. Probably a reasonable assumption, though.
|
|
Sanunes
N6
Just a flip of the coin.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Prime Posts: 4392
Prime Likes: 882
Posts: 5,899 Likes: 8,927
inherit
1561
0
8,927
Sanunes
Just a flip of the coin.
5,899
Sept 13, 2016 11:51:12 GMT
September 2016
sanunes
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
4392
882
|
Post by Sanunes on Dec 2, 2019 3:34:29 GMT
Bioware is not going to go back and change or fix anything. You should learn how game development works. Once the game development cycle is finished (in ME3's case, this was Citadel DLC), there is no further patches or fixes to the game.
Second, the safest route is what may please the most fans, but it's also the one which makes the least amount of money. However, some people don't want them to take risks. They want to always go the safe route, because it avoids alienating their fanbase.
However, Bioware's fanbase has been slowly alienating since ME1 came out.
And how has "taking risks" worked out for Bioware the last few years? Anthem? MEA? ME3? DA2? DAI is the only product which one could argue was a "success" and even then they played it kinda safe by going back to a more DAO-style Skyrimesque storyline. Playing it safe for a while might be the smart move at this point. Until they settle this identity crisis they seem to be having. I see going backwards to be an even bigger risk then those games. Its a smaller market and they would be aiming for since there are going to be people that don't want to go backwards. At the same time the audience they would be aiming for the people that claim how great those prior games were would find something about the game to hate even if its one mistake they made during development maybe even something that was part of those original games they got a pass for. Not to mention changing things they didn't want to see changed so then they have alienated the group they were aiming for and had already lost the interest of people that aren't interested in old stories. Andromeda has shown that BioWare cannot look backwards when making a game for they were trying to combine the "best parts" of the original trilogy as I remember from an interview "the exploration of Mass Effect 1, the character development of Mass Effect 2, and the combat of Mass Effect 3" those were what they described as the pillars they were aiming for with Andromeda and the game failed to live up to those expectations. I am all for having some mobile developer or an indie that specializes in remastering games be given the okay to update the fidelity of the original trilogy, but anything more then that could be another Jade Empire in the making.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:26:15 GMT
I don't see the point of remaking the trilogy. Was it really that terrible?
Never in a million years would EA/Bioware sign off on such a thing.
|
|
inherit
Glorious Star Lord
822
0
Jan 24, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
16,819
KaiserShep
Party like it's 2023!
9,233
August 2016
kaisershep
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by KaiserShep on Dec 2, 2019 4:41:39 GMT
I don't see the point of remaking the trilogy. Was it really that terrible? Never in a million years would EA/Bioware sign off on such a thing. People just can't let it go. Honestly if BioWare were to do such a thing, I would be genuinely concerned that this is the beginning of the end, more so than with anything else that's gone on. Like, really? You can't make new shit? You have to go back and redo old shit that isn't even that old, and then ask us to pay for your do-over? Get the hell outta here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
946
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 4:42:55 GMT
And how has "taking risks" worked out for Bioware the last few years? Anthem? MEA? ME3? DA2? DAI is the only product which one could argue was a "success" and even then they played it kinda safe by going back to a more DAO-style Skyrimesque storyline. Playing it safe for a while might be the smart move at this point. Until they settle this identity crisis they seem to be having. Those games had issues, but it wasn't due to taking risks. There was poor management decisions, lack of direction, or simply having issues with the tools to make the game (eg. Frostbite). Besides, why would people want them to go backward and use ideas from games 10 years ago? Why not use modern ideas? I'm going to bet their next game will take risks, and will do so without any regard to what their fanbase thinks because they don't control what Bioware does. It will not be ME4, set in the Milky Way, feature Shepard and crew, or the "familiar setting" that is playing it safe.
People just can't let it go. Honestly if BioWare were to do such a thing, I would be genuinely concerned that this is the beginning of the end, more so than with anything else that's gone on. Like, really? You can't make new shit? You have to go back and redo old shit that isn't even that old, and then ask us to pay for your do-over? Get the hell outta here.
If they can't let it go after 7+ years, then they either have serious mental health issues, or are like a little kid who is going to kick and scream until he gets what he wants.
Mass Effect Trilogy is not burnt to a crisp all the way through. It's got some parts from each game that people liked, and some they didn't like. That's true of anything though. I liked Andromeda, but I didn't enjoy some parts of it. I'm definitely not demanding Bioware waste resources on remaking it though.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
Apr 22, 2024 18:35:27 GMT
9,167
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,821
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Dec 2, 2019 16:50:28 GMT
Besides, why would people want them to go backward and use ideas from games 10 years ago? Why not use modern ideas? On a related note, for N7 day I decided to do another ME1 run, and this time I'm hunting a couple of ally achievements, which means doing a bunch of assignments instead of my usual practice, which is to blow most of them off. Last night I realized that ME:A managed to copy the worst aspects of ME1.
|
|
sjsharp2010
N7
Go Team!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 10,598 Likes: 18,386
inherit
2309
0
Apr 22, 2024 17:11:45 GMT
18,386
sjsharp2010
Go Team!
10,598
December 2016
sjsharp2010
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by sjsharp2010 on Dec 2, 2019 17:57:49 GMT
I don't see the point of remaking the trilogy. Was it really that terrible? Never in a million years would EA/Bioware sign off on such a thing. People just can't let it go. Honestly if BioWare were to do such a thing, I would be genuinely concerned that this is the beginning of the end, more so than with anything else that's gone on. Like, really? You can't make new shit? You have to go back and redo old shit that isn't even that old, and then ask us to pay for your do-over? Get the hell outta here. Yeah they may as well call it a day with ME if all lthe fans let them do is just remake the trilogy to their specifications. I want them to come up with new stories and ideas and whilst I agree that MEA wasn't perfect I thought it was a solid effort in order to keep the franchise alive without needing to revisit the trilogy's endings whic hfor me I believ ewould have ended up in an absolute car crash and almost certainly have ended the franchise. Everyone has their own opinion though. But mine is that I think they should stick to whatever plan they have for Andromeda because right now I feel that's the safest course of action not just for Bioware but for the series as a whole. Because I think if I'd have judged the series based just on my experience with ME1 on it's own I'm not sure I' d have enjoyed the rest of the series the way I do now because the series didn't fully grab my interest until after I did my first run of ME2 because that's when I saw it's potential. I liked ME1 as a simple shooter/COD type story but outside of that it didn't grab me that much. ME1 was just lucky in that I bought both it and ME2 together so felt an obligation to play both which ultimately for me saved it. Because up until then it kind of just felt like a generic COD type story in space. Don't ge tme wrong I liked ME1 still do I jus tfelt that it didn' tbrin ganything really new to the table (outside of being able to create our own characters that is as that was my first experience with a CC) until the second game. But in terms of story it wasn't anything different I felt than what you'd see in a COD game or a James Bond film it was well written but not anything new. But for me that's another of the reasons why ME2 is my favourite as it was the one that really grabbed me and got me interested in the ME series.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2019 18:01:08 GMT
Besides, why would people want them to go backward and use ideas from games 10 years ago? Why not use modern ideas? On a related note, for N7 day I decided to do another ME1 run, and this time I'm hunting a couple of ally achievements, which means doing a bunch of assignments instead of my usual practice, which is to blow most of them off. Last night I realized that ME:A managed to copy the worst aspects of ME1. I'm very interested in hearing you elaborate on this a bit more. I suspect it may be that I somewhat agree with you... and I'm curious to find out.
|
|