Rumours of Mass Effect Trilogy Trilogy Remaster: What would you like to see?

So exactly like the Mass Effect Trilogy? Maybe it was planned as an entire series of games that would expand the setting exponentially. The point is that ME:A was supposed to be the kick off point of an entire new sequel saga, that would consist of more than one game. Even in the Schreier article it is quoted that the Montreal Studio expected to jump right into the next game, once Andromeda released. Instead, they got shuttered. So even if it didn't adhere strictly to what Mac considers a trilogy, which has no real standing, they had plans to keep on making these games. Unless the plan was to make a one off Andromeda game and never touch the setting again, which is fine with me. But either the game was going to get sequels or not. I'll take whatever point of view you guys want.


Spin off or not, it is the continuation of the ME universe. Like, a spin off would mean that it is not the main title of the franchise and that the main title of the franchise can be picked up at some point. Also, 5 years and $100 million CAD is a lot of time and money to entertain a spin-off. And if it is a spin-off, when are we going to get another mainline title again? Because spin-offs aren't usually as successful as mainline titles. For example, Rogue One wasn't a very successful movie, compared to the two Star Wars movie it was sandwiched between. Neither was Solo. Better Call Saul is a Breaking Bad spin-off prequel that isn't as successful as Breaking Bad, isn't considered a mainline title and El Camino was a Breaking Bad movie. The point of Andromeda was to pick up and continue the story of the Mass Effect, after the end of the Reaper War. Apparently and I don't know where this quote comes from, I'm guessing some gamespot article Mac Walters seems to reject the idea that Andromeda is a spinoff and promotes that it is connected to the other games in the franchise. So I don't know.


It has as much mileage as your writers can make of it. There is no reason why you can't take the setting any place you want. Bioware said that they made ME so they could tell any kind of tale in it. Seems like a very close minded approach to make just 3 stories out of "unlimited potential".


They should take the choice that gets them out of a dead end. Admittedly, Andromeda was a dead end. It doesn't get more dead end than shutting down a studio. And Bioware would have to soft reboot again after it. Meaning nothing of Andromeda as you know it would return. Which would further alienate the fans. You can't reboot after a reboot. I mean, you can, but you really, really shouldn't. It's not a win situation. Look at Terminator and its constant soft rebooting. It went right were Andromeda did and Mackenzie Davis herself said how she didn't expect anything Dark Fate related ever making an appearance ever again after it. Nobody in their right mind would take it up. I don't see Bioware, except out of sheer stubbornness, picking Andromeda back up. At the very least not now, not any time soon. Even if there is a trilogy remaster that confirms interest in ME, are you really going to follow it up with a sequel to Andromeda? With the most optimistic take setting it to release in 2025 at the earliest? That's got disappointment written all over it.


Tell you what. I will concede, if you can tell me the chances that a new TLoU can be a success after TLoU2. The game sold great. Everyone returned it the next week, after they finished it. And remember, ME3 went through a similar round of refunds, because of the endings.


What about Solo? Remember Han Solo? One of the 3 main characters? Got his own movie? Cost Disney about $150 million. Solo doesn't have enough of an appeal to capture an audience? Guess Disney should have made a Leia movie, then.


Oh, yes it is. It most definitely is. ME3, just like TLJ, was hugely divisive and subsequently the next main title underperformed greatly. I will take tRoS/ME:A over TLJ/ME3 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. While they were not even close to good, they were a million times better to their predecessors, because while they were mostly dumb, they weren't insultingly dumb like TLJ/ME3. In that sense, they are equivalent.


You are taking this from a narrative standpoint, whereas I am more taking it from a public reception standpoint. I guess it was my fault for not being specific about this.


Like Divinity Original Sin or Baldur's Gate 3, I would gather. Both games sold incredibly well and elevated Larian to unprecedented heights of market reception in the gaming community.

Divinity: Original Sin II received "universal acclaim", according to review aggregator Metacritic

But Bioware would rather eat dirt than admit moving away from Origins' gameplay was a bad move for the franchise. Why is it that other studios keep cutting Bioware off at segments they used to be a powerhouse at? How come these studios find success, both critical and financial, while Bioware becomes a meme? If Bioware is making all these great choices, why are they at the bottom of EA's support chain? Why are all their latest games failing? At some point, Bioware has to come to terms with the fact that they have been making a series of bad choices for nearly a decade now and that has come at a great cost to their success.

In other words, you are still denying brand damage exists or, at the very least, the Star Wars brand is damaged at all. Alright. I'll see you in the New Reypublic. I'm sure that will sell gangbusters.

Of course it is unusual. But then again Anthem really hit them in the pocket book and some income would be great for them for whatever their next game is.

Yes and there are many people who agree with me about Marvel movies and yet that doesn't automatically make them crap does it? Trying to say an opinion is correct simply because people agree with you is a logical fallacy. And since you already posted one...

No, in other words, the reception of a shitty movie isn’t a good indicator of the effects of the larger franchise. Solo sucks, and its mediocrity is what dug its grave. If the Sequel trilogy had fared better, it might have enjoyed a stronger initial viewing, but given what was presented, I’m sure that would have seen a big dip just the same. That is, unless the argument here is that Solo was actually very good, but was done a grave injustice by backlash over the main trilogy. In that case, I’ll crack open my bottle of goose so I can swallow that pill better. 

I've been thinking on how to reply to you. I we both could continue to quote chunks and reply to that building an ever expanding reply until each one takes up an entire page. Combine with the fun game of "I can find pictures on the internet" could really just bloat our replies. So I am going to try and be as brief as possible while covering the main points of my counter argument without bloating it to much.




1. By the same logic you try to use to validate your dislike by appealing to a nameless, shapeless mass that can not be measured I could say the same thing about people liking the game. That the silent majority was fine with the ending and only a very loud minority of people complained. So any attempt to say in any way shape or form "well other people agree with me" means absolutely jack fucking shit



2. What people choose to say in a discussion often provides great insight to their thoughts and ideas. But some times what they choose not to say speaks volumes more. In this case you still refuse to even provide a rough draft idea on how the Rachni could have more narrative impact while still allowing them to be removed without affecting the over all narrative and relying on a complete rewrite of the story for the variation. The greatest insight however is your constant attempt to try and compare unlike games and games that are not multiple parts of the same story across 3 games. Deus Ex is a single stand alone game with a beginning middle and end and nothing more. This gives developers more room to do what they want and can allow 4 separate endings because the choices are limited to a single game. Mass Effect 3 however is the 3rd game in the series with choices on choice on choices stacking up. To address all possible choices like what Deus Ex does would be impossible from any realistic standard.


While I have never played the DA:I game trying to find information about the effects of the Dragon Keep import feature turns up nothing. The most I can find is that your previous character is known is mentioned by NPCs and you might swap out NPCs of certain regions but everything remains the same. I would love a post or video that goes into more detail about the differences. But one of the key thing that this system was created to address was to address canonical and plot issues. And while similar it is not the same as a single character full of choices across 3 games that has to try and address all those exponentially increasing choice deviations in a single game.



3. Comparing ME3 to ME2 is a very high bar to use. Because by your own words you think there was no choice in ME3. Meaning by your own reason and logic you should have abandoned the game series after ME2. Yet like some kind of masochist you played the 3rd game and some how are surprised and upset that the game did not conform to your specific desires. Even though ME2 was a massive red flag of that already.

About how many people liked or hated the endings: We REALLY don't know. We can't even make an educated guess. Because the number of people who go online to talk about any kind of product is super low. The vast majority of consumers is always silent. So even if the majority of those engaging in discussions online hated the endings, it doesn't mean shit.

Now this is only anecdotal but still: I had two coworkers who finished ME3. One LOVED the ending. He was a casual player who liked Mass Effect but probably wouldn't go online to talk about it. Another was a hardcore fand who liked the endings fine too. And she, like me, loved the music played during the catalyst scene. We both enjoyed that scene.
I was disappointed about the execution of the cheap ass color coded copy paste pulse but thought the whole twist at the end was OK. And the reaper logic made sense to me.

So, those are real world examples of people NOT hating the endings. So now what? Doesn't prove a thing either way!

Everyone I know in person was disappointed by MEA. Not everyone finished the game. Does THAT prove anything? No.

As for the low completion rate of ME3: My guess is the MP. Tons of people bought the game just for the MP. They tried the story but got bored and switched back to the MP. These people never played the previous games. ME3MP drew a whole new crowd of people who were not RPG players.
As has been pointed out, the average consumer is very casual and never that invested in a product or franchise. Fan really means fanatic for a reason...

I personally cannot understand how people don't finish games that aren't complete trash. But that's what the majority does. Most gamers don't care about the story at all. They get hooked by the gameplay or they don't. And I guess that explains the low completion rate of any game. People hop from one new thing to the other, easily distracted.

How is a low completion rate even supposed to be connected to the ending shitstorm? That makes no sense. Did they start playing, read about how shit the endings were said to be and decided not to finish their epic journey becausw that's somehow less disappointing?? That's ridiculous! I avoided spoilers about the ending like the plague! People doing fewer playthroughs would be an indicator perhaps...

So if you have no idea of the execution, because you haven't seen the movie and the name has no pull, when previously it might/should have had, would you call that brand damage?


Maybe. I don't disagree, but I don't wholly agree with that. I think there's a little more to it.


So you can see that, at least, opening weekend performance can be affected by brand health. So opening week sales for a game could be impacted as well and considering that is where most of the game's sales are generated. I would surmise that reviews and especially memes would not have taken effect in such a short time so as to damage sales. But apparently launch sales for ME:A were lower than ME3. Would you expect that to happen? If yes, how come? Because it was a spin off?


Hey, I've come across a rabid bunch of Solo defenders. Even so, I doubt it would have fared much better, had it been a more competent movie. I don't think it would have saved the movie from being a flop. Didn't Disney call it "franchise fatigue"? People were just tired of Star Wars, apparently.

What about Dr.Who? Do you think the new season will draw in crowds again? Would you know that it isn't good, before having seen it? Do you think the next Terminator movie will draw in crowds? The next Star Wars movie that continues the story of Rey? Even if they're good movies, do you think people will be there on launch window? And again, you can say "we don't know until X happens". The point, as a company, isn't to wait for X to happen, but rather prevent it. You've got to read the signs the audience gives you. It's better to work under the assumption that you have suffered brand damage, again, Todd Howard said it would be naive to think otherwise, than be oblivious to it and have your studio shut down, after the effect.

Sometimes, people get overwhelmed. It's not that they didn't like the game or the part of it that they did play, wasn't enjoyable to them. Some people are just too attached to end it. There's a myriad of reasons for it. I've never finished Divinity: OS, because by the second map, I had no idea what quests I needed to do, who I needed to talk to and whether I had, perhaps, killed those people. Oopsie!