Next game is set in Milky Way galaxy and will feature Shep Dec 1, 2019 17:06:41 GMT cyberstrike and sjsharp2010 like this
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2019 17:06:41 GMT
Nov 30, 2019 17:38:29 GMT @magnetite said:
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.