Mass Effect Remastered coming soon and new Mass Effect Game in the Works

[Corvus]

EA just announced that a remaster of the first three games will be coming in Spring 2021 as Mass Effect Legendary, which will include all three games and DLC packaged in one deal.

This is just a remaster, not a remake, so basically it is about updating the visuals.

In addition they have announced that they are working on the next chapter of the Mass Effect universe. It is early days and they aren't saying more than than yet.

[Anteros]

EA just announced that a remaster of the first three games will be coming in Spring 2021 as Mass Effect Legendary, which will include all three games and DLC packaged in one deal.

This is just a remaster, not a remake, so basically it is about updating the visuals.

In addition they have announced that they are working on the next chapter of the Mass Effect universe. It is early days and they aren't saying more than than yet.

I'll buy it if they fix the ending. Otherwise it isn't really worth my time.

[Zombimode]

What do you mean with "fix"?

What is there to fix?

[warty goblin]

Oddly the visuals are one bit I think has aged just fine. Now if they do something about the controls and inventory/interface in ME1, I'd be very happy. Don't really care about anything after ME1 though.

[Dienekes]

In addition they have announced that they are working on the next chapter of the Mass Effect universe. It is early days and they aren't saying more than than yet.

Here’s hoping they well and truly dump the exploration open world nonsense they’ve tried for Andromeda and Anthem (and the worst bloated parts of DA:I though to a lesser extent) and return to what they’re actually good at.

[Morty]

ME1 needs a lot more than a graphical/UI touch-up to be fun, after all these years. It hasn't aged well at all and the early game is agonizingly slow in several ways. There's a reason my last three playthroughs of the trilogy started with ME2. The other two games have visually aged very well. So I don't know about it, really. I think that people who have already played it many times might just not be the target audience here. But a modern audience is likely to just get bogged down in the morass of early game ME1.

I expect the decade-old arguments about the ending to be reheated once again, but does anyone really expect anything to change about it? Come on. The new game is interesting, but of course too mysterious to say anything about. Will it be an Andromeda sequel? A Milky Way prequel? Some way to continue past the original trilogy?

[warty goblin]

Here’s hoping they well and truly dump the exploration open world nonsense they’ve tried for Andromeda and Anthem (and the worst bloated parts of DA:I though to a lesser extent) and return to what they’re actually good at.

I'm not at all opposed to exploration in ME; I think Andromeda just did an unusually poor job of implementing it. Two desert planets and an ice planet (so, white desert) is a choice of scenery so uninspired it makes the Uncharted Worlds from ME 1 literally look good. And driving around in order to increase a meter is lame design in a narrative-focused (instead of system focused) game. The basic mix of driving around and shooting dudes was pretty solid, it was just that I was driving around the universe's most boring maps, shooting the same 12 dudes endlessly, and doing some deeply, deeply uninteresting objectives. And unlike the Eternal Ubigame*, it didn't even grasp the essential point that if we're being told boring justification for open world nonsense, the justification needs to be very, very short. Ideally three to five sentences I can listen to while driving to the marker.

And really, at this point I'd argue that saying Bioware is good at narrative is a real reach. They may have been good at it at some point in the past, but not any more. With the last two ME games they've crapped the bed in two entire galaxies; a scale of potential-squandering it's difficult to really comprehend. Even at its worst Star Wars only has managed to screw up one galaxy. And I played a bit of Anthem**, and oh boy is that a narrative hot mess. The bad guys are literally introduced by an NPC saying that he had it from another NPC that they did a bad thing long ago. You have absolutely no connection to this dude, the place he blew up, or anything. They couldn't even be assed to make him have killed your dad/sibling/space dog/goldfish. This isn't even just uninspired storytelling 101, this is like a D- assignment for Storytelling 101.

*my theory: all Ubisoft games are 3D slices of the true 4D hypergame. It's just that the Ubigame is pretty unvarying in the fourth dimension, so they all look like the same in our puny realm. It's the perfectly intelligible cosmic horror of liberating checkpoints for all time.

**Before the loading screens broke me. If a game has me thinking back fondly on Neverwinter <loading...> Nights <loading...> <loading...> 2, something is very wrong.

[Dienekes]

I'm not at all opposed to exploration in ME; I think Andromeda just did an unusually poor job of implementing it. Two desert planets and an ice planet (so, white desert) is a choice of scenery so uninspired it makes the Uncharted Worlds from ME 1 literally look good. And driving around in order to increase a meter is lame design in a narrative-focused (instead of system focused) game. The basic mix of driving around and shooting dudes was pretty solid, it was just that I was driving around the universe's most boring maps, shooting the same 12 dudes endlessly, and doing some deeply, deeply uninteresting objectives. And unlike the Eternal Ubigame*, it didn't even grasp the essential point that if we're being told boring justification for open world nonsense, the justification needs to be very, very short. Ideally three to five sentences I can listen to while driving to the marker.

And maybe they’ll make a game you like. Personally, I’ve yet to find an exploration focused game that has held my attention for more than a day. I read a book instead of paying attention to the exploration in ME1. The less said about MEA the better. And I can still remember entering a new map in DA:I and seeing the minimap literally light up with icons and crap and just sighing.

And really, at this point I'd argue that saying Bioware is good at narrative is a real reach.

I didn’t say that’s what they were good at. They’re pretty good at making set piece missions, and small interpersonal stories. That remained the best part of ME2 and ME3. Even MEA had some good companion missions. Anthem I don’t know, that thing was just a mess that was supposed to be an open world looter shooter where the missions were repeatable. That’s just shooting your self in the foot for making meaningful missions.

Their overarching narratives tend to be cliche laden excuses for the set piece missions and interpersonal stories. And I’m ok with that.

[Zevox]

Here’s hoping they well and truly dump the exploration open world nonsense they’ve tried for Andromeda and Anthem (and the worst bloated parts of DA:I though to a lesser extent) and return to what they’re actually good at.

Hear hear! With any luck the reaction to Andromeda being as negative as it was will mean them moving away from what they did with it, and back towards the way they did things in ME2 and 3. Though after the debacles that Andromeda and Anthem have been for them it very much feels like it remains to be seen if Bioware can get their crap together enough to make a new game something good again.

I could see myself grabbing Legendary Edition at some point, to replay the trilogy on newer consoles, particularly since it'll include all of the DLC, only some of which I bought originally. But more than that, I'll be crossing my fingers for them to actually return to form with the next game (and the next Dragon Age that we also know is being made, for that matter). Don't know that I expect it, but I can always hope - at least until such a time as previews start showing up to take that hope out behind an old shed and put it down.

[warty goblin]

[QUOTE=Dienekes;24791697]

I didn’t say that’s what they were good at. They’re pretty good at making set piece missions, and small interpersonal stories. That remained the best part of ME2 and ME3. Even MEA had some good companion missions. Anthem I don’t know, that thing was just a mess that was supposed to be an open world looter shooter where the missions were repeatable. That’s just shooting your self in the foot for making meaningful missions.

Their overarching narratives tend to be cliche laden excuses for the set piece missions and interpersonal stories. And I’m ok with that.

Fair enough. I've never really found their character writing all that hot either. Good for videogames, but roughly batting an average R.A. Salvatore novel in absolute terms. Certainly once I tried the Witcher, which featured characters who felt like they actually had their own lives and interests separate from the protagonist, Bioware felt a lot less impressive to me. I've heard the character writing was really good in ME 2, but I found the entire structure of that game so deeply unengaging I bailed out pretty early; once it became clear it was going to be me getting spoon-fed things through various oh-so-cool NPCs.

As for set-piece missions, I mean they're fine? I wouldn't say they're stellar though. ME 1 has some pretty good ones, but they aren't anything stand out by the standards of mid-2000's action gaming. Recall that this was the same period that produced gems like Crysis (first half), stuff like moving light-to-light in Gears 1, and a full half decade after Halo CE pretty much laid down the law on how you combine infantry, vehicle and aerial combat in an shooter built around separate shield/HP pools while fighting space zombies over ancient omnicidal weapons systems.

[Dienekes]

Fair enough. I've never really found their character writing all that hot either. Good for videogames, but roughly batting an average R.A. Salvatore novel in absolute terms. Certainly once I tried the Witcher, which featured characters who felt like they actually had their own lives and interests separate from the protagonist, Bioware felt a lot less impressive to me. I've heard the character writing was really good in ME 2, but I found the entire structure of that game so deeply unengaging I bailed out pretty early; once it became clear it was going to be me getting spoon-fed things through various oh-so-cool NPCs.

As for set-piece missions, I mean they're fine? I wouldn't say they're stellar though. ME 1 has some pretty good ones, but they aren't anything stand out by the standards of mid-2000's action gaming. Recall that this was the same period that produced gems like Crysis (first half), stuff like moving light-to-light in Gears 1, and a full half decade after Halo CE pretty much laid down the law on how you combine infantry, vehicle and aerial combat in an shooter built around separate shield/HP pools while fighting space zombies over ancient omnicidal weapons systems.

Yeah you’re literally saying you bailed out of the games where I thought they actually became good. Though I do admit the beginning of ME2 with Illusive Man and Miranda can be frustrating. But I still remember fighting through the Suicide Mission wondering why all squad combat games haven’t done this stuff yet. Mulling over how important freedom of thought was to AI and if it was worth their lives. And wondering if they have a soul and which of my allies it will cost me. Laughing with Garrus as we determined who was the best shot. And being actually sad when Mordin gave his last song.

Now I’m not saying they’re the best. You’re right to put up Witcher as a better character writing. But I’d still say at their height they were definitely good. Better than most other rpg games I’ve played.

Those moments I think hold up. The rest of the game? Not particularly. So I would be all down with streamlining the game a bit getting rid of the exploration time sinks. And going into more set missions where they can explore character dynamics and interesting twists on the gameplay.

[Name_Here]

Well the legendary with the same ending is deeply disappointing. I know it's a huge undertaking to rewrite and recreate the ending but I think it would be a good investment to show that you acknowledge where the original failed and that you will do better.

The new game will probably continue to not be anything I want to play. Bioware caught lightening in a bottle with Mass Effect and they squandered it in my opinion.

[KillianHawkeye]

Now if they do something about the controls and inventory/interface in ME1, I'd be very happy.

This is my stance as well. I loved the first Mass Effect, but after experiencing the lack of inventory management and the streamlined combat in the sequels I've never really been able to go back and replay the first one.

I understand that fixing these issues would require completely remaking the game, but there's no reason for me to go in for anything less.

[Cespenar]

Fair enough. I've never really found their character writing all that hot either. Good for videogames, but roughly batting an average R.A. Salvatore novel in absolute terms. Certainly once I tried the Witcher, which featured characters who felt like they actually had their own lives and interests separate from the protagonist, Bioware felt a lot less impressive to me. I've heard the character writing was really good in ME 2, but I found the entire structure of that game so deeply unengaging I bailed out pretty early; once it became clear it was going to be me getting spoon-fed things through various oh-so-cool NPCs.

Setting your storytelling standards at Witcher 3 level is not really a sustainable way to go with videogames, though.

Also, I know I've harped about this before, but a good video game having a similar level of writing as just an average novel doesn't mean that we as gamers are lowering our standards. Games are more than the sum of their parts, and especially the interactivity of the gaming medium is a pretty strong force multiplier for narratives when it comes to drawing the reader/player into the story. And that power of interactivity isn't really such a secret anyway, as any contemporary art exhibition would show us in abundance.

[warty goblin]

Yeah you’re literally saying you bailed out of the games where I thought they actually became good. Though I do admit the beginning of ME2 with Illusive Man and Miranda can be frustrating. But I still remember fighting through the Suicide Mission wondering why all squad combat games haven’t done this stuff yet. Mulling over how important freedom of thought was to AI and if it was worth their lives. And wondering if they have a soul and which of my allies it will cost me. Laughing with Garrus as we determined who was the best shot. And being actually sad when Mordin gave his last song.

Now I’m not saying they’re the best. You’re right to put up Witcher as a better character writing. But I’d still say at their height they were definitely good. Better than most other rpg games I’ve played.

Those moments I think hold up. The rest of the game? Not particularly. So I would be all down with streamlining the game a bit getting rid of the exploration time sinks. And going into more set missions where they can explore character dynamics and interesting twists on the gameplay.

See I really liked the sense of place and universe that ME 1 established. Things felt pretty consistent - extremely consistent for a space magic setting - and really leveraged the hell out of that to draw me into the world. I did a huge number of the uncharted worlds (maybe all of them, can't remember anymore), and read the codex and all that. I really bought ME as a universe to a level I really very seldom do, because it leaned on the worldbuilding instead of on character drama. It had drama to be sure, and I found that much more engaging because it was happening inside the established universe, instead of using the universe as set dressing.

Then ME 2 tossed all that, so I could be resurrected as Assault Rifle Space Jesus by a terrorist fueled by pure plot magic. I hated literally every single one of those developments. I didn't really even like Shepard anymore, and I had very little patience for the story stopping every 15 minutes so it could drool over how cool it thought he/she was. Games telling me constantly how I'm the ultra-chosen special one is absolutely a personal bugbear of mine; it's like I'm playing bad fan fiction.

Setting your storytelling standards at Witcher 3 level is not really a sustainable way to go with videogames, though.

Also, I know I've harped about this before, but a good video game having a similar level of writing as just an average novel doesn't mean that we as gamers are lowering our standards. Games are more than the sum of their parts, and especially the interactivity of the gaming medium is a pretty strong force multiplier for narratives when it comes to drawing the reader/player into the story. And that power of interactivity isn't really such a secret anyway, as any contemporary art exhibition would show us in abundance.

I was actually going with Witcher 1. Comparing ME 1 to a game that came out 8 years later is strictly unfair, but Witcher 1 and ME 1 both came out in 2007, though I didn't play it until the Enhanced Edition in 2008. And Witcher 1's characters still felt way more alive to me than Bioware ever has.

And narratively we absolutely are lowering our standards. I think the fundamental problem is that most games function as reward dispensers, and so we critique them as such. Choice A is good because you get a big reward, choice B is bad because you get punished, or get less of a reward. And if a game has a choice in the narrative where option B shafts you over, we complain about it; even though this should be from a narrative point of view an entirely sensible thing to explore. An awful lot of meaning in stories comes from characters choosing to do something that is difficult, or hurts them, because it's the right thing to do. Consider something like Lord of the Rings, which has pretty simple characters, and try to imagine telling that as a videogame. If you're playing as Frodo, you choose to do something that emotionally and physically destroys you, all to get rid of the most powerful loot drop in the entire game, or get punished by the bad ending where Sauron conquers the world and you're tortured into madness. It's just not doable, because you cannot beat the story into a sequence of rewarding choices. Hell, games can hardly even manage a superhero story, where you get handed enormous power for no particular reason and the only thing you have to do with it is beat up bad guys and be celebrated for doing so, the very thing the game makes fun.

[Morty]

This is my stance as well. I loved the first Mass Effect, but after experiencing the lack of inventory management and the streamlined combat in the sequels I've never really been able to go back and replay the first one.

I understand that fixing these issues would require completely remaking the game, but there's no reason for me to go in for anything less.

As I said, I really don't think you or I are the target audience for this. They're not trying to get people who have already played these games to buy them again; they're trying to draw in a new audience and release it on new platforms. Which can also serve to drum up interest for the new game, whenever it comes. The resources spent on a remake are probably better spent making said new game.

[Cespenar]

I was actually going with Witcher 1. Comparing ME 1 to a game that came out 8 years later is strictly unfair, but Witcher 1 and ME 1 both came out in 2007, though I didn't play it until the Enhanced Edition in 2008. And Witcher 1's characters still felt way more alive to me than Bioware ever has.

And narratively we absolutely are lowering our standards. I think the fundamental problem is that most games function as reward dispensers, and so we critique them as such. Choice A is good because you get a big reward, choice B is bad because you get punished, or get less of a reward. And if a game has a choice in the narrative where option B shafts you over, we complain about it; even though this should be from a narrative point of view an entirely sensible thing to explore. An awful lot of meaning in stories comes from characters choosing to do something that is difficult, or hurts them, because it's the right thing to do. Consider something like Lord of the Rings, which has pretty simple characters, and try to imagine telling that as a videogame. If you're playing as Frodo, you choose to do something that emotionally and physically destroys you, all to get rid of the most powerful loot drop in the entire game, or get punished by the bad ending where Sauron conquers the world and you're tortured into madness. It's just not doable, because you cannot beat the story into a sequence of rewarding choices. Hell, games can hardly even manage a superhero story, where you get handed enormous power for no particular reason and the only thing you have to do with it is beat up bad guys and be celebrated for doing so, the very thing the game makes fun.

Witcher 1? I don't know about enhanced edition, but if we're talking about the same game, I personally couldn't get past the 90s foreign B-movie level translation "English" and the so-horrible-it's-actually-funny deadpan voice acting to really focus on the character depths, but overall I'm just going to say I'd prefer ME's writing at that point. By the time of W2, they have obviously come around, but then again, that's still a high bar to set for all games.

Going on, I'd say you're underestimating everyone a bit. Sure, bonuses and penalties do obviously act as an incentive in many cases, but most people also tend to play narrative-driven games (at least the first time) by doing what they like instead of what is 100% optimal (or at least, a mixture of both). And to see stuff similar to that Frodo example, you'd need to look at purely narrative-driven games, like telltalelikes and so forth, instead of RPGs where you smack people around and it's really mostly about winning and rewards and whatnot, as you mentioned.

[Forum Explorer]

I could see myself grabbing Legendary Edition at some point, to replay the trilogy on newer consoles, particularly since it'll include all of the DLC, only some of which I bought originally. But more than that, I'll be crossing my fingers for them to actually return to form with the next game (and the next Dragon Age that we also know is being made, for that matter). Don't know that I expect it, but I can always hope - at least until such a time as previews start showing up to take that hope out behind an old shed and put it down.

If it includes the DLC and a good price I might give it a shot, otherwise, I've still got my copies of ME, I can just play it again whenever

Well the legendary with the same ending is deeply disappointing. I know it's a huge undertaking to rewrite and recreate the ending but I think it would be a good investment to show that you acknowledge where the original failed and that you will do better.

The new game will probably continue to not be anything I want to play. Bioware caught lightening in a bottle with Mass Effect and they squandered it in my opinion.

The problem is that people can't even agree what needs to be changed about the ending in the first place.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm in the minority, it appears... I loved pretty much every part of Mass Effect, except the quartermastering and some UI in ME1.

Give me an ME1 that uses ME2/3 style inventory and powers (or, even better, MEA), and maybe MEA-style driving (with environments that are drivable, instead of near-vertical mountains everywhere), and I'll be happy.

I can't really see them redoing the ending of ME3, too much, or doing anything in the Milky Way afterwards... the Milky Way is way too changed by ME3 to keep playing there, without declaring one option to be canon, or doing a prequel or interquel.

[Inarius]

I'll probably pick it up especially if it fixes the CTDs while running a 64 bit OS in ME2 and the issues with AMD cpus for ME1. Those two issues are just annoying to have to work around.

[tonberrian]

I heard about rumors of a remaster RIGHT after i bought new, pc copies of the trilogy (because i wanted to replay it but it was cheaper to buy new copies than a new screen). And the new copies didn't even have controller support.

I might still buy a remaster, though.

[Kish]

The problem is that people can't even agree what needs to be changed about the ending in the first place.

People agree that it's bad. If Bioware got a competent writer who agreed that it's bad to write a new ending, it would have a good chance of meeting with widespread acceptance.

But I don't expect them to do that--mainly because I suspect they have ego invested in not admitting that it's bad.

[Anteros]

I don't really buy arguments that something is too much work or not practical. First of all, I don't care how practical something is for the developer when I'm deciding to invest or not.

Secondly, it's a remaster. They're going to spend a fraction of the cost that making a new game would be and still charge full price. Even more reason to not be sympathetic that something is difficult.

Thirdly, it's Bioware and I don't trust them any more. They're going to have to go above and beyond if they want me back as a customer.

[NeoVid]

Much as I loved the ME series and would like to see a rerelease, ME1 seriously needs some mechanical updates (please add a system for the inventory instead of a giant, unsortable list of every item) and subjecting people to ME3's ending again would be insane. On the bright side, since they intend to make a new game, retconning ME3's ending into something that keeps the setting functional after that game ends would be the easiest way to set up more games in the ME universe.

[Forum Explorer]

People agree that it's bad. If Bioware got a competent writer who agreed that it's bad to write a new ending, it would have a good chance of meeting with widespread acceptance.

But I don't expect them to do that--mainly because I suspect they have ego invested in not admitting that it's bad.

I disagree about that. I doubt any ending, particularly if Bioware did any advertising about a new ending, would satisfy fans at this point.

I also don't expect them to do that, but mostly because it seems like a waste of money and effort to do so. I doubt the remaster team has much budget to spare.

[LibraryOgre]

People agree that it's bad.

Some people do. I don't have a problem with it.

[Corvus]

Ah the ending. There isn't much to say that hasn't been said over the last three years, except that it was everything they promised it wouldn't be.

They flat out told us in the lead up that all the choices we had made over the three games would matter and that it wouldn't be a matter of just picking one of three options.

And in the end it was a matter of pressing one of three coloured buttons.

Mostly I think it boiled down to having written themselves into a corner and not relying on a proper writer to try and figure it out for them. So they just threw in a star child, three buttons and called it a day.

For me, ME1 was the best of the series. Give it a graphical upgrade and it will be amazing. ME1 was a proper RPG while the other two are shooters. I mean why else would your introduce a nonsensical ammo system? They try and explain in later on but it makes no sense.

On one hand you have a weapon with unlimited ammo that has a short cool down if you don't practice fire discipline and on the other you have a club if you don't practice fire discipline. And that isn't factoring in all the logistics of supplying ammo to troops. (The best system would actually combine the two - use heat sinks for when you absolutely need sustained prolonged fire then switch over to the old system when you don't.)

The sad thing about this new remaster is that, while it includes al the DLCs apparently, it doesn't not include ME3 MP. I got to the star child at the end of ME3 once, shot it and called it a day (and this was before they made that an auto-loose option in a later patch out a fit of pique), but I played the MP an awful lot. It was the best part of ME3.

[warty goblin]

Much as I loved the ME series and would like to see a rerelease, ME1 seriously needs some mechanical updates (please add a system for the inventory instead of a giant, unsortable list of every item) and subjecting people to ME3's ending again would be insane. On the bright side, since they intend to make a new game, retconning ME3's ending into something that keeps the setting functional after that game ends would be the easiest way to set up more games in the ME universe.

If they want to make a new Milky Way ME, all they need to do is to pick a canon ending. Yes, this will cause a certain amount of nerd fury about having their choices be invalidated, and yes the ending will be rehashed yet again in a zillion places, but I kinda feel like a huge number of people just won't care? I mean yes all three flavors of the ending sucked, and yes people are still salty about it, but the damn game came out 8 years ago now, and will almost certainly be a decade plus old by the time the mentioned ME 4 drops. It's a lot closer to a reboot than a sequel at that point; most of the target audience probably won't have played the original trilogy, or will have played the remasters absent the crazy hype levels of the original releases. And for the OG fans, well, 10+ years is a long time to carry a grudge about a badly written videogame conclusion. At some point most people will basically have moved on, and for those that haven't, doesn't the failure to just let it be a disappointing bit of pop culture effluvium say more about you than the game itself at some point?

Personally I'd say the easiest thing to do would be to set the thing like 200 years later, and have had Shephard pick Destroy. That gives the writers some space for creating some new backstory while letting the new narrative stand on its own, and automatically makes a lot of the choices in ME 1-3 just not matter anymore. That leaves some big stuff like whatever happened to the Rachni queen, whether you cured the Genophage and probably a couple others I'm missing. And with a bit of creativity, those can be filled in pretty easily as well - there was another queen or the Rachni died out anyway, somebody else cured the Genophage later on, etc.

Handled with a modicum of competence (i.e. BioWare management doesn't spend 4+ years screwing around, then crunches a broken shell of a game out the door in 18 months of vile working conditions) I think that could work well.

[LibraryOgre]

On one hand you have a weapon with unlimited ammo that has a short cool down if you don't practice fire discipline and on the other you have a club if you don't practice fire discipline. And that isn't factoring in all the logistics of supplying ammo to troops. (The best system would actually combine the two - use heat sinks for when you absolutely need sustained prolonged fire then switch over to the old system when you don't.)

When I was writing up Savage Worlds Mass Effect, I decided the change was a deliberate choice with military weapons, especially 3RB & full auto, to make them a bit less accessible. Colonists still preferred the old-style, and a lot of military carried a sidearm with the old style.

[Anteros]

I forget what the official explanation was, but you can handwave the heatsinks pretty easily by saying it allows guns to put out more velocity and it's needed to keep up with shield tech.