The upcoming console generation is perfect for a remake/remaster

Thx, but I've already played the trilogy. Multiple times.

Really? Ok... Let's dive into this, and since many people compare it to ME1 instead, I'll be mentioning that game too... I would say that Andromeda is practically a more sandbox/open world ME2, and not ME1 with ME2 elements. ME2 was chosen as the core for Andromeda. This game is ME2 at its core for basically everything. It's ME2 revamped to the "current" generation, with some added elements of the other games.

Andromeda begins almost the same as ME2, except this time you don't die, but actually survive the fall to a planet. Your father dies instead. In both cases death is used as the excuse as to why you're suddenly more powerful or have more abilities. In contrast, in ME1 you're made 'special' by a story element rather than death, which is the Cypher.


And rather than having the collectors being the mysterious enemy, you have the Kett being the mysterious enemy. They both remain the enemy throughout the whole game. In ME1, the initial enemy (Geth / Saren) is technically not the enemy at all...


Rather than looking for people to form a team, you're looking for planets to colonize. In ME1, you're looking for clues to defeat the enemy, i.e. progressing the plot.


Rather than having to make those team mates loyal, you have to make the planets viable for colonization. In ME1 you're too busy looking for solutions to attend daddy issues. At least Colonization was a necessity in Andromeda, so it beats ME2 there.


Rather than upgrading the Normandy you upgrade the Nexus. In ME1, you upgrade your understanding and knowledge of previous civilizations and the enemy.

And so on and so on.


Andromeda additionally has the same design structure, meaning, segregated small stories everywhere, forced teleportations everywhere, not being able to board the ship without leaving the planet/station, and the overall arching plot is extremely weak, if not non-existent, and it does not flow, at all. The structure of ME1 is completely different compared to Andromeda, plot-wise, world-wise and design-wise. 

Since the fundamentals are based on ME2 (which makes sense since it's their more popular game), actually an extremely linear game, it fails at its core because this is now a big and non-linear game which turns the strengths of a corridor game turn into weaknesses. You cannot use the same structure in a linear game for a more open and exploration game. On the basic ME2 core of the game, they tried adding ME1 exploration elements which actually are more like the ME2 Hammerhead missions on much larger maps full of fetch quests. 

ME1 worked, because the main missions had value to the end goal, even after the world opens up. The main missions of the game in the middle act, which were recruiting Liara, investigating the Feros colony, and visiting Noveria were directly connected to the main plot through having a Prothean Expert, receiving the Cypher and chasing Saren's sidekick respectively. In ME2 you're worrying about daddy issues, and in Andromeda I apparently cared so much about the story that I don't even remember what happened in the middle, aside from a bunch of vaults, which structurally work the same as character loyalty in ME2.

In Andromeda, the lines between side missions and main missions is just as (if not more) blurry as in ME2. And the reason that is the case is because the main plot, as mentioned earlier, is extremely weak, if not non-existent. I'll take one simple example. It basically took 2/3 of the game in ME2 to find out that the Collectors were Prothean husks so to speak. It also took 2/3 of the game to find out that the Kett are basically the Andromedan version of Husks. In ME1, you find out what husks are on the first mission, which is like 1/10th of the game, if not less. That alone should give you an indication of the difference in depth that these games have in their writing. What else did ME2 and Andromeda have? Not much, other than a cliffhanger at the end. There is no equivalent to the ME1 Geth plot in those games for example, among many other things.



I see really little evidence that it is based on ME1. The open world argument is quite a shallow one.

You know I agree and disagree the ending is the ending it will never change as long people have no immageition (think that's spelled right) and your right and wrong it was Shepard vs the reapers but add in( it was to me really) Shepard against the counsel .  

*Imagination

Most remasters aren't upscaled. They create new high resolution textures based on the original ones.

The first game would be Eden Prime and then five other games at $60 to get the equivalent of Mass Effect 1.

I hope EA doesn't think that as an excuse to charge us full price again 

Sounds nice in theory, but not going through space with our own ship would be a massive turnoff. 

If there isn't enough good will for Andromeda 2, I just don't seeing there being enough good will for the entire franchise for if they cannot make any changes without people getting upset and not buying the game. For there is going to be plenty of blowback regardless of what direction they are going to go and they have all the leg work setup for Andromeda now and would have to replan an entire franchise around what to do in the Milky Way while dealing with people that are upset at how they abandoned Andromeda because of online complaints and people that are just done with Mass Effect/BioWare.  Personally I think no matter what setting BioWare goes for good word of mouth is the most important thing they need and not catering to what setting they should be using to what portions of the playerbase are claiming would bring in the most players.

As I talk to new people getting into the franchise, is that ME is an OK trilogy, the MP is great, the story in 3 is terrible and basically we were all idiots for expecting our choices to pay off. And while that is all well and good ... these are not ME fans. You don't play ME for the MP, not to say that you shouldn't, although I personally will, but if you want ME to be a vehicle for another MP game, maybe you're not the fanbase Bioware is looking for. Coming from the Schreier Anthem article, it seems a lot of devs where disappointed with the direction Anthem took and what EA wanted out of the game, with its live service elements and focus on MP, rather than story telling.

In other words, this might repopulate ME3MP, but it won't win over new fans and it won't generate lasting fans.


Oooh. I don't think people here will like this take. I hope you have a flamesuit handy.


While I've said before that Andromeda fans should get a sequel they deserve, making the next game Andromeda 2, with or without Ryder, will be a studio suicide move. The amount of damage the ME and Bioware brands have suffered ensure a weak market reception, to the point that I don't think it can be successfully turned around, even if the game turns out to be 10/10. It could make the ME after that be better received, but Bioware and ME would have to survive the current release, to reach that. Unless everyone's plan is to make 1 game in the ME universe to conclude Ryder's story, however merited that is or not and then just close shop.

I don't think they really care about the world, choices, consequences etc. The MP is just an interesting skin, to them, with the in-universe lore explaining some cool combat mechanics. But from what I've been told, they don't care about the universe's choices, consequences or notable personalities, i.e. what gives the setting life. If you made an Apex Legends type of ME MP, not in the battle royale sense, but as a free to play, standalone MP game, linked to the ME universe, but loosely, with no set timeframe or galaxy even, they wouldn't care about the ME SP at all. Maybe it could spur some on to look more into the universe, but that wouldn't be many. Evident by how Andromeda's MP, as far as I'm told, hasn't seen the success of the ME3 MP. The ME3 MP got really popular from word of mouth, that many non-ME fans checked it out, but I doubt the ME:A MP even registered for them. At least, as evident by ME:A's sales. You'd think they'd jump into the new one, but they didn't. The audience Bioware and/or EA want for that, just isn't there.

Wiki lists that Andromeda cost $100 million CAD and that the revenue generated is ~$110 million USD. Considering that, with the given digital/retail split, only ~50-60% of that $110 million USD made it back to EA, Andromeda can have lost EA as much as $20 million USD. As for the previous franchises, CoD has been declining in sales, with nostalgia trips like Modern Warfare reversing the trend, temporarily and Todd Howard called everyone naive for thinking that Fallout 76 didn't damage the brand and Bethesda's rep. Case in point, outside of Doom Eternal, which is a DOOM game, no other Bethesda game has performed well, since Fallout 76.


Maybe. If Anthem can survive the time in stasis. Gaming is very competitive to spend that long being bad. It's already one year since release and we're probably at least another 18 months away from getting Anthem Next. Even if it eventually becomes good, I don't think Anthem will have a future.


I doubt that. I know Bioware has a lot riding on it, at this point, but I doubt that. But if it will be good, it will generate some good buzz around Bioware and heaven knows, they will need that, even if it doesn't sell well. The live service elements and the Anthem route they are going with it, makes me very doubtful of what we will get, at least, on launch.


Agreed.


With the exception of Blake Jorgensen, who left EA, or am I thinking Patrick Soderlund? Anyway, either one,with the exception of him, the rest of the EA heads are still the same as the ones that were there when Visceral was closed down. Unless I am mistaken.


Agreed.