You might want to choose one relative failure because it's the option that doesn't involve covering up what you may consider a war crime
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Mass Effect Community Thread
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
You might want to choose one relative failure because it's the option that doesn't involve covering up what you may consider a war crime
Poodlestrike
Banned
Another area that ME3 is better: persuade chances that only open up if you fill your bars and make the right decisions.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Oh ok, because you don't have the willpower to "sabotage" your own playthrough and deal with the "hard" choice that you so desperately desire that "I" shouldn't have the right to have my choice of "all good things." In otherwords, to meet your definition of a perfect playthrough I should be denied the choice for my playthrough. You still have the choice to choose one or the other.
Fimbulvetr
Member
In the case of Tali's loyalty mission, yes.
I seriously can't believe you're arguing for this.
The Artisan
Member
Doesn't this go with any big decision in the game? Tali's loyalty, kill/save heretics, keep/destroy genophage data, etc.
Right now it seems tali's loyalty missions is the best example. it probably is.
Fimbulvetr
Member
Change/Kill heretics and Keep/Destroy Genophage Data are actually cases where you aren't given an ideal solution and you have to pick one side or the other.
There are also cases where you aren't choosing between flawed solutions and choices are presented as win-lose scenarios(everything during the Suicide Mission, for example).
The Artisan
Member
actually yeah I dunno why I said those things. What I should've thought of and said were the miranda/jack catfight and tali/legion problem. That's essentially the same type of decision making (with possible supplementation in paragon/renegade point form) that's presented as the tali loyalty mission, yeah?
ROUGE_BLOCK
Member
Question why does everyone want a remastered trilogy so badly for mass effect? I have played the first three games to death, to be honest buying them all again at a higher framerate and be a little crisper doesn't really entice me.
Not to mention what if as we have seen with several other remasters (Sleeping Dogs and Borderlands the Handsome collection), and being EA, if they they rush it to market before it is done?
Mass Effect 1 could use that more stable framerate but, I just don't think the end results of a remaster will end in happy fun times.
The Artisan
Member
for me personally, I played the games on Ps3 and there were several performance issues. Having the game remastered would be a treat to playthrough again on Ps4 especially since I got to play Me1 only once, it coming so late to that platform.
...And there's my answer right there. I have never gone back to these games. One playthrough. I made my decisions and stuck with them.
I even waited for all the DLC for ME3 just because I knew it would be integrated into the central story - which was a design decision I love. And by the time I finished my ME3 play-through in mid-2013, we were on our way to new consoles. And shortly thereafter the Remaster rumors started pouring in. I have been waiting (impatiently) for the Remaster rumors to prove either fact or fiction for close to two years so I can plan my second play-through plans accordingly.
I've gotten into PC gaming in a big way - but the PC releases don't have controller support, so that's a no-go for me.
ROUGE_BLOCK
Member
Only once for an ME1 playthrough, the decisions you could've fully had! So yeah, a remaster would definitely serve any playstation owners who had to play the games out of order due to ME1 taking so long to arrive on the system. I see where it would come in handy there.
Fimbulvetr
Member
Minus the narrative weight, yeah.
For me it would depend on how they do it, if it's just a straight up port that increases the resolution and the frame rate I won't be all that interested in it I already have them on PC. If they actually go back and tweak the gameplay so all the combat feels like ME3 then I'd be all over it.
Boombloxer
Member
Because I want to play the multiplayer again. I wouldn't even bother with single player because I've seen everything.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Just so I can have them on PC with controller support and all the DLC packaged together and the new remastered ending that didn't make people bake sadness cupcakes.
This but for PS4. better performance + packaged deal
matrix-cat
Member
I'd like to play the Mass Effect 3 DLC, but on PC it still costs $50 in total and never, ever, ever goes on sale. At this point I'd much rather pay $60 for complete, HD-ified PS4 versions of all three games than $50 for a few hours of two-year-old DLC.
Ivory Samoan
Gold Member
I've always found the Fallout char creator's to be abysmal... like, the very worst.
Not that it matters to me, Brotherhood of Steel power armor all day for my vault escapee!
You've only played each game once? Bruh, the whole point of Mass Effect is to play it more than once to see how things change when you've make different decisions.
I mean, I've pretty much seen everything that is there to see in this games, but I admit, it took a long time and dozens of playthroughs to get to this point, because there's a hell of a lot of hidden shit in these games, so well hidden, that they don't even show up on the wiki and I had to get them added on.
Mass Effect 1 could really, really, really, REALLY take advantage of a new cover mode, because the current one is absolute SHIT compared to the cover from ME2 and 3. And since you'll be in cover a LOT on Insanity Mode, it's actually a must. Better yet, I wouldn't really care THAT much for a remaster (I think all PC versions are still very well playable, both visually and technically), if they'd release a (paid) update that improves the cover in ME1.
DOWN
Banned
You've only played each game once? Bruh, the whole point of Mass Effect is to play it more than once to see how things change when you've make different decisions.
I mean, I've pretty much seen everything that is there to see in this games, but I admit, it took a long time and dozens of playthroughs to get to this point, because there's a hell of a lot of hidden shit in these games, so well hidden, that they don't even show up on the wiki and I had to add them.
It's kind of cool just to play once and get the most heroic outcomes. I don't really think anything but the clear heroic outcomes would make for much of a blockbuster with how BioWare wrote the trilogy. The renegade stuff just seemed contradictory to many of the small deeds they put in for you. It screamed "paragon is our cool Batman hero love" and renegade just wasn't very compelling in context.
Maybe they'll angle the new game more like DAI and make me feel like every decision pisses somebody off, so just get cold and do what you politically stand behind. It felt more mature than Mass Effect's pretty obvious good guy slant. I really do like when I can't please everyone.
Mass Effect 1 as a whole needs to be fixed, that game is a mess. The combat needs a massive overhaul, the inventory system needs to GFTO, the Mako and the horrendous copy paste layout of the unexplored world's need's to be fixed, the lag and terrible framerate need to be dealt with, Pinnacle Station needs to be wiped from existence and much, much more.
This game man, how did it score so high on metacritic? I've been asking myself that question for nearly a decade now. The premise is good, but bah gawd, the execution leaves a lot to be desired.
I wouldn't necessarily call it a mess, but I also can't say I disagree though. It was very ambitious with great lore building and great characters, but decent execution. And I think that's why it got (and somewhat deserved) the scores it got, even though it played very static and robotic compared to its successors. I did play it first on a PS3 and yes, the frame-rate was sub-par, but after having build a PC I don't necessarily want a remaster just for the technical aspects. It runs and looks well maxed out, I think every mid-end card from 2011 and onwards can accomplish that. Sure, everything else is gravy, but my main point of criticism was the atrocious cover which lead to a lot of unnecessary deaths and frustration on Insanity.
So in short, I'd rather buy a $5 update for a new cover than a $60 "remaster" (in quotation because remasters nowadays are just up-ressed and that's about it).
Also, I'd say Mass Effect 2 improved on pretty much every bit except maybe the scope of the main story, which I think a lot of second entries in a trilogy suffer from.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
And I can't grasp how other people feel that others should be forced to meet their gaming preferences.
For some reason people are butthurt that (with the proper amount of effort) that the game will provide you with additional dialogue options that enable you to get the best of both worlds in unideal situations. The example being used is Talis loyalty mission, where under normal situations you wpuld have to choose between getting her exiled to keep her loyal or not get her exiled but lose her loyalty.
People like me who took the time to go and talk to each squadmates after every mission and tailored their game to build up dialogue options for that purpose LOVE having these options. Because they are that, options. i get frustrated when people want to remove options to tailor to their preferences.
That's why it ticks me off.
Having said that, I am VERY much open to discussing the system itself. I do feel that the P/R system was flawed in how it worked in ME2, but they did some good things in ME3 with it.
Ive notched up 160+ hours on ME1, having decided to plough through repeatedly with graphical mods and a brand new character. I feel it is one of those games that I can love but can also criticise for what its failings (much like Final Fantasy 7 in that respect). ME1 seems to have a status where it is the game that is repeatedly used to beat the following entries around the head with, accompanied with shouts of dumbed down.
The combat in ME2 & 3 got derided. Too action, not enough RPG. Out of the pair, the third game was the one that got it right. ME2 laid the foundations (I found it too easy to sit back and decimate foes with a sniper rifle, sending my AI forwards) but ME3 nailed them. ME1, by comparison, was floaty and terrible. The enemies drifted towards you, you waved your receptacle in their direction and waited for their HP to go down. I dont care if it was managed by some hidden dice roll, it was awful. Squad mechanics too. Eventually, I ended up mowing through the game with marksman pistol on master.
The depth of ME2 & 3 was another thing that got hit upon. Now 3, Ill give it that, it felt like a significant notch below 2. 2, however, was a fantastically realised galaxy. Amazing. Stunning cities, side missions with variety, and it felt alive! ME1 was boxy. The main thing people pine for is the Mako. Now I get that it offered a different experience, however the experience often boiled down to navigating around square maps with rocky terrain, shooting the same red triangles for a nice text box reward. Would I rather have that or the distinct ME2 missions and locales? No way.
Then the story. ME1 cited as the pinnacle. I think everything from the Virmire reveal onwards was absolute gold. But CHRIST, the slog through the Citadel right after the first mission was enough to kill my first three play throughs. Now I came from KOTOR with the firm belief that it had the most dreary writing and tedious NPCs ever. ME1 did little to dispel that (and Dragon Age:Origins was a freaking trial too). BORING BORING people. I found the succeeding games much better in this respect, engrossing.
With that in mind, you could say that ME1 has a lot that needs addressing but it would be an entirely different game and pretty much an unreasonable demand. In essence, tidy it up, give PCs controller support and kick it out. Same I'd want from any FF7 remaster tbh (clean it up, perhaps do over the 3D work, no need for voice acting... keep it the same game)
The combat in ME2 & 3 got derided. Too action, not enough RPG. Out of the pair, the third game was the one that got it right. ME2 laid the foundations (I found it too easy to sit back and decimate foes with a sniper rifle, sending my AI forwards) but ME3 nailed them. ME1, by comparison, was floaty and terrible. The enemies drifted towards you, you waved your receptacle in their direction and waited for their HP to go down. I dont care if it was managed by some hidden dice roll, it was awful. Squad mechanics too. Eventually, I ended up mowing through the game with marksman pistol on master.
The depth of ME2 & 3 was another thing that got hit upon. Now 3, Ill give it that, it felt like a significant notch below 2. 2, however, was a fantastically realised galaxy. Amazing. Stunning cities, side missions with variety, and it felt alive! ME1 was boxy. The main thing people pine for is the Mako. Now I get that it offered a different experience, however the experience often boiled down to navigating around square maps with rocky terrain, shooting the same red triangles for a nice text box reward. Would I rather have that or the distinct ME2 missions and locales? No way.
Then the story. ME1 cited as the pinnacle. I think everything from the Virmire reveal onwards was absolute gold. But CHRIST, the slog through the Citadel right after the first mission was enough to kill my first three play throughs. Now I came from KOTOR with the firm belief that it had the most dreary writing and tedious NPCs ever. ME1 did little to dispel that (and Dragon Age:Origins was a freaking trial too). BORING BORING people. I found the succeeding games much better in this respect, engrossing.
With that in mind, you could say that ME1 has a lot that needs addressing but it would be an entirely different game and pretty much an unreasonable demand. In essence, tidy it up, give PCs controller support and kick it out. Same I'd want from any FF7 remaster tbh (clean it up, perhaps do over the 3D work, no need for voice acting... keep it the same game)
I think there's some profitable rebalancing for ME1 that could be done just by tweaking a few values in the mechanics.
Increase damage, both player and enemy. Particularly on higher levels of difficulty, fights drag on way too much
Increase starting accuracy.
Decrease power durations, particularly at high levels Being able to have constant or near constant Immunity/Marksman/Barrier breaks the game. And if you've increased damage as I suggested earlier, disabling powers don't need to be so long.
Increase damage, both player and enemy. Particularly on higher levels of difficulty, fights drag on way too much
Increase starting accuracy.
Decrease power durations, particularly at high levels Being able to have constant or near constant Immunity/Marksman/Barrier breaks the game. And if you've increased damage as I suggested earlier, disabling powers don't need to be so long.
I wish I waited
Is it a design decision you love because you waited it out? I hate DLC that fits into the middle of a game you've already completed. I mean it's great you get to play some more, learn new lore etc but it ruined it for me having it released afterwards.
After the ending that a lot of people didn't like, myself included - I was done with the series, I can't even really replay RPG's because I can only do the story once, it's the unknown and progression that do it for me.
However that being said, I did play Deus Ex:HR's dlc that takes part in the middle of the main story but I felt like I'd have enjoyed it a lot more if it was actually part of the game on release or I waited to play the main game. But you never know what all these DLC's will contain.
Yeah. The debate about persuasion vs. non-persuasion comes down to what one looks for with dialogue choice-based narratives. For some it's all about the toughness of the choice and the greyness of the outcome. For others they are looking for a way to triumph over the conflict presented. I don't think desiring either is inherently wrong. If we're looking for an example of each paradigm, you have Tali's loyalty mission for using persuasion to "win" the dilemma, and Legion's loyalty mission at the other end where persuasion is irrelevant and both choices have balanced pros and cons.
Personally, I like it when a game integrates both into the story. Often if a game tries to make every situation "tough" with balanced decisions it ends up feeling artificial and contrived. On the other hand, having persuasion options always produce the best outcome might lead to someone disengaging from the deeper, more interesting questions that might be at play. By presenting me with some situations where I can gain a better outcome by playing certain ways, and other situations where I can't, the game keeps me on my toes and never feeling like I've figured out the systems at play.
I actually think Dragon Age 2 does a great job of this. Sometimes things work out well, sometimes things are fated to work out terribly, and sometimes you get something in between.
For Mass Effect, I'd like to see the Paragon/Renegade options taken a bit more seriously for what they are supposed to represent. What I mean is that we should keep the persuasions, and sometimes let them lead to a better outcome, but other times have them lead to a worse outcome. This makes sense because of what they represent: either a very diplomatic, idealistic approach, or a hardcore consequentialist approach WILL sometimes be the best thing. Other times they could lead to disaster. Give players the option, but let them decide based on context if it might work or not.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
And I don't consider that to be a bad thing.
I seem to have missed the meat of this discussion, but I'll come out in favor of giving the player the ability to work for an "optimal" solution.
In this case, I think of the Quarian/Geth conflict in Mass Effect 3 where if you put in the work, you can achieve peace (which is obviously the optimal solution).
When I play games like Mass Effect, I want to feel like the hero. Call it childish, call is sophmoric or whatever, but when I play games I generally want to feel good. I don't care if you have to make me work for that perfect solution. In fact, I generally prefer it if you really make me work hard in order to achieve something great. I don't want those perfect solutions gift-wrapped.
Mass Effect's problem with the P/R system is that it became lazy. They simply conditioned players to always pick top right or bottom right, depending on what they were doing. Honestly, what I'd like to have happen is mostly separate morality and dialogue choices. Make it so you have to have fulfilled earlier obligations in order to open up those extra dialogue. Again, think the Geth/Quarian final choice.
So, for instance, if you happened to help Person X and were sympathetic to them, when a later situation comes up that requires their assistance, the player would be given new options to arrive at an optimal solution.
Similarly, you can mix it to somewhat discourage just playing "Johnny Squarejaw" or whatever. Let's take a scenario where you encounter some villain character and are given the option of killing him or not. In that situation, the "wholesome" option is to let them live. However, later on, if he lived, he'll reappear in a crucial situation and prevent the optimal solution from being achieved.
Kind of like the whole Geth rewrite/destroy option.
I think I'd also be willing to have the occasional choice in which there is no perfect solution, but I'd rather it be the exception as opposed to the norm. For one thing, having them be rarer makes them stand out more. For instance, I still feel that the choice at the end of Bring Down the Sky is one of the hardest choices in the series, and that DLC remains most memorable to me because of that choice, and because that situation was relatively rare.
Basically, I want to be able to access a (near) perfect playthrough if I so wish, but I also want to be made to work for it, and I really think that's possible.
Bioware just needs to divorce an overall morality system from their dialogue, get away from training players to always respond in the same way regardless of how they really feel for fear of being penalized, and be willing to accept that some players are going to make decisions that will reward them less.
I have zero problem "penalizing" a player with suboptimal solutions if they're unwilling to put in the work to achieve perfect results.
I think there are places for series where everything is terrible and everything is all grey and whatnot. There's places for elements of that in Mass Effect, but on the whole the series is still a lot more aspirational than The Witcher, for instance.
In this case, I think of the Quarian/Geth conflict in Mass Effect 3 where if you put in the work, you can achieve peace (which is obviously the optimal solution).
When I play games like Mass Effect, I want to feel like the hero. Call it childish, call is sophmoric or whatever, but when I play games I generally want to feel good. I don't care if you have to make me work for that perfect solution. In fact, I generally prefer it if you really make me work hard in order to achieve something great. I don't want those perfect solutions gift-wrapped.
Mass Effect's problem with the P/R system is that it became lazy. They simply conditioned players to always pick top right or bottom right, depending on what they were doing. Honestly, what I'd like to have happen is mostly separate morality and dialogue choices. Make it so you have to have fulfilled earlier obligations in order to open up those extra dialogue. Again, think the Geth/Quarian final choice.
So, for instance, if you happened to help Person X and were sympathetic to them, when a later situation comes up that requires their assistance, the player would be given new options to arrive at an optimal solution.
Similarly, you can mix it to somewhat discourage just playing "Johnny Squarejaw" or whatever. Let's take a scenario where you encounter some villain character and are given the option of killing him or not. In that situation, the "wholesome" option is to let them live. However, later on, if he lived, he'll reappear in a crucial situation and prevent the optimal solution from being achieved.
Kind of like the whole Geth rewrite/destroy option.
I think I'd also be willing to have the occasional choice in which there is no perfect solution, but I'd rather it be the exception as opposed to the norm. For one thing, having them be rarer makes them stand out more. For instance, I still feel that the choice at the end of Bring Down the Sky is one of the hardest choices in the series, and that DLC remains most memorable to me because of that choice, and because that situation was relatively rare.
Basically, I want to be able to access a (near) perfect playthrough if I so wish, but I also want to be made to work for it, and I really think that's possible.
Bioware just needs to divorce an overall morality system from their dialogue, get away from training players to always respond in the same way regardless of how they really feel for fear of being penalized, and be willing to accept that some players are going to make decisions that will reward them less.
I have zero problem "penalizing" a player with suboptimal solutions if they're unwilling to put in the work to achieve perfect results.
I think there are places for series where everything is terrible and everything is all grey and whatnot. There's places for elements of that in Mass Effect, but on the whole the series is still a lot more aspirational than The Witcher, for instance.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Since we love to criticize Mass Effect 3's story I have to ask if there is anyone who feels that the game really made the quarians and geth look pathetic? From a gameplay perspective there needed to be a conflict, but it just seemed like they had taken a major step back from where their relationship was heading in Mass Effect 2.
Having said that brokering peace between the quarians and geth was one of the few things that I felt the game used perfectly since it made decisions from the previous game matter, made in game decisions matter.
Having said that brokering peace between the quarians and geth was one of the few things that I felt the game used perfectly since it made decisions from the previous game matter, made in game decisions matter.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
This is fantastic. I for one DO like happy endings, but I do want to have to work for a happy ending. The brokering of peace between the geth and the quarians is an example of how it should work (never mind how bad that story was).
Also, I would be very much in favor of a situation where something seemed like the right decision turn out to be a bad one. Although, the "letting a villian live" situation is a bit too obvious in how that can bite a player in the ass.
Deus Ex Human Revolution kind of had this in that you were lead to believe that visiting a clinic for an "upgrade" would be a good decision, but it turned out to be a bad decision.
More than anything I was just confused at the beginning of that arc. They are in a very different place at the beginning of ME3 than they were at the end of ME2, and most of the transition is either buried in the codex or explained in passing dialogue. I felt like there was some Extended Universe material I was missing that showed it all.
I don't actually have much problem with the content of the arc once it begins, though. That goes for most of ME3, which I thought had the best story of the bunch with exceptions here and there.
ME3 has become the whipping boy because it's the latest game which also left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, but similar essays could be posted on the goofs of ME1 and ME2.
I will say this: once ME4 comes out, prepare to see a lot of posts about how it doesn't compare to ME3. Happens with every new BioWare release.
BrassDragon
Member
Did people take Dragon Age Inquisition to task because it wasn't up to the quality of Dragon Age II?
I do agree that, if there's an option for a happy ending for a quest or the whole game, they should make us work hard for it. But I also think that it's important to write scenarios where you can't control the situation. I think both of them add to a believable world and RPG. You can always do your best and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but your efforts are recognised. In the end, it is about good writing and allowing players to feel satisfied in one way or another.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
You thought Mass Effect 3 had the best story of the bunch? Wow. It was such a mess in so many ways.
thechristoph
Sir!
I think I can only be disappointed by a remaster. I've come up with so many ideas in my head that are probably way beyond the scope and budget for a remaster that, even though I feel like I know what is realistic to expect, what my imagination has built up is impossible to live up to. Yeah, I've become one of THOSE fans.
Yes, actually. Not the majority, of course, but more than you'd expect.
So are the other two games' story, if you want to look at them from certain angles. Personally I think the story moments ME3 did well, it did better than the previous games, and that more than made up for its gaffs.
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
My problem was the forced ridiculousness of the Crucible and how everyone all of the sudden believed it would be the ultimate reaper weapon.
Tuchanka was pretty damn good, Rannoch was good if you didn't think too much about the ridiculousness of that scenario.
The Rachni.....such a shame.
BrassDragon
Member
I shouldn't be surprised. But I am. thisisneogaf.gif
In a way, thinking about it now, Mass Effect 3 has the same problem as Mass Effect 2, just not as noticeable.
The self-contained side plots (the Krogan, the Geth/Quarian, possibly arguably the Miranda/Cerberus stuff) is actually good, but the main plot is kind of terrible.
The Crucible is definitely contrived, but it's not like the galaxy has any other options. I also think that thematically it was the perfect way to defeat the Reapers: since each cycle had contributed something to the design of the Crucible, it was a triumph over the Reapers not just by Shepard's cycle but also by all those who has been defeated and harvested before. This plays in well to the Catalyst's realization that organics have been getting progressively better at resisting the harvests, leading to his surrender.
Heh, well see I played the series as 2>1>3, so I already had a low opinion of how important the rachni decision was, considering it's relegated to an unimportant NPC in 2. Accordingly going into 3 I expected them to play a minor role, at best. And considering I was on media blackout, I didn't have Mac's silly "the rachni play a huge role in the ending!" assertion kicking around my head.
RagingPhoenix
Neo Member
I really didn't liked how all the complexity of that arc dissolved in an instant and it was more a binary representation of both parties.
Maybe I've only ever played with Legion onboard so I dunno how it goes on without him but the Geth (and the quarians as well) were shown in a completely different light to what I've come to see them as during the entire conflict. One needed to be liberated from generations of suffering (never mind that they annihilated a majority of quarians and drove them off their planet) & the other was draped in your typical tyrannical bully trope. I couldn't recognize Han Gerrel throughout the game, this was the same guy from ME2? And now only Koris' path was righteous? This binary thingy really didn't helped but I guess it was a running theme in the whole game.
AcePartyN7
Member
I would love to have the trilogy on next gen for multiples reasons;
- Make discover this saga to a lot of new players that missed this awesome saga
- Have an easier transfers of choices with the saves in the next one,
- To relauch the MP of ME3
- To have these games at 60fps stable 1080p with a true pad support
- Enhanced graphics, textures, cut scenes and why not a bit the gameplay for example: ME2 and ME1?
I think the gameplay of ME3 should be easy to put in ME2 and this will give to the game so much.
- For ME1 instead is a bit tricky as the game was designated differently but for sure some stuff can be improved like the Mako gameplay for example and if not a ME1 60 fps-1080p with High resolution texture would still be awesome for me.
I played around 600 hours each ME and I clearly would love to see them on next gen in fact it’s really the only remaster that I would love to have if the work behind is here and not just a port, if only the remasters today were more like the Halo Anniversary editions… (if we do not speak of the MP problems of course)
Still I need and wants ME for next gen even if it's only to play one last time, it's still around 150 hours only to finish the story.
So please Bioware make this happen!
If a remaster happens, it won't be a remake. That means no reworking gameplay mechanics in any games. Also, it wouldn't make a difference in terms of save transferring, since Next ME uses another engine. If saves carry in any way, we will get something similar to Dragon Age Keep.
Son of Flounder
Member
I agree with this, also I have the 3 games on different services (Steam, DVD & Origin) plus the shitty way the DLC is handled on PC, for ME2 it took me a couple of hours to download and install all the DLC as individual EXE files!
Bioware has already said that you don't need to keep your saves.
It's likely that ME4 will be a fresh start. If there is importing, it'll be done with a web site, as stated above.
That problem has actually already been handled, in a way. All future games will only be on Origin, and not on Steam.
- Status