Support NeoGAF

[Hyperzephyrian]

If they actually go back and tweak the gameplay so all the combat feels like ME3 then I'd be all over it.

I think that's an unreasonable expectation. Frankly, I wouldn't want it that way, anyway. I'd be playing a different game, not ME1.

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.

Care to share? I've had a lot of playthroughs and never run across anything that I thought was a super-well-hidden secret.

I don’t care if it was managed by some hidden dice roll

It wasn't, no matter what ThoseDeafMutes tells you. ME1 had a slowly-contracting reticule with random bullet paths within that reticule; it's a very old and well-worn system, and you can find it in other console shooters like The Last of Us and Rainbow Six 3. If you want to know what dice-roll combat looks like, play Morrowind; you can be literally an inch from an enemy when you're attacking, but you might still miss if the behind-the-scenes stats say so.

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.

I don't know if it's of any help to you now, but the Director's Cut of Human Revolution integrates that DLC into the campaign.

I still feel that the choice at the end of Bring Down the Sky is one of the hardest choices in the series

I'm curious about your reasons. That choice seemed painfully easy to me; saving the hostages was plainly the right call. Throwing away real, present lives in favor of hypothetical future ones makes no sense.

 

[Bisnic]

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!

Are you me? Im exactly the same! ME1 on Steam, ME2 on dvd and ME3 on Origin (although bought on dvd, but since Origin is required...). Same with ME2 dlcs all being on Exe files.

 

[Patryn]

I'm curious about your reasons. That choice seemed painfully easy to me; saving the hostages was plainly the right call. Throwing away real, present lives in favor of hypothetical future ones makes no sense.

The whole operation presents the idea that it's not difficult for the Batarian leader to engage in operations that could kill many, and he clearly had ideas for mass genocides.

So the calculation is whether it's worth saving the handful of people in that room vs. the chance that he will later be responsible for thousands of deaths.

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

The whole operation presents the idea that it's not difficult for the Batarian leader to engage in operations that could kill many, and he clearly had ideas for mass genocides.

So the calculation is whether it's worth saving the handful of people in that room vs. the chance that he will later be responsible for thousands of deaths.

I guess I can see the logic there, I just don't think it's airtight.
It shouldn't affect your decision, but he doesn't go on to carry out another attack if you let him go. I did kill him when he showed up in ME3, though.

 

[Patryn]

I guess I can see the logic there, I just don't think it's airtight.
It shouldn't affect your decision, but he doesn't go on to carry out another attack if you let him go. I did kill him when he showed up in ME3, though.

I suppose it's a YMMV situation then. For me, it was a tough choice.

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

I suppose it's a YMMV situation then. For me, it was a tough choice.

I suppose it depends on how credible a threat you think he'll pose in the future. Honestly, part of why I let him go is that I knew, on a meta level, that BioWare probably wasn't going to write in a future attack by him. If I were role-playing better, I'd probably have to spend a lot more time thinking about it.

 

[Sir Garbageman]

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.

You eloquently summed up my main issues with the ME dialogue system and recommended some smart solutions to improve it. Bravo.

 

[Plasma]

I think that's an unreasonable expectation. Frankly, I wouldn't want it that way, anyway. I'd be playing a different game, not ME1.

Sure but like I said I already own them on PC it's not like improving the framerate or resolution would make much of a difference to me and I wouldn't rebuy it all for just controller support.

 

[The Artisan]

I was in bed going to sleep last night, and the arrival mission failure screen crossed my mind. The whole thing was creepy, and some parts of it were disturbing, but there also parts that the indoctrination documentary did not really touch upon.

For instance, this looks like the table in the middle of the crew's quarters level of the normandy, only I can't tell what it is there at the table, if I were to take a guess, they look like keepers

there are shots of our whole entire crew, squadmates and crewmen both, all along a view of illium. but the weird part is, the illusive man is here too, and he also appears to be the only one that moves slightly before the next frame.

and the next frame reveals that...everybody was waiting for the arrival of the reapers, creepy. unless they're all indoctrinated somehow, I wonder what this is all supposed to mean.

alright, so perhaps not all of your crew were there, but it's strange they picked the ones they did including the illusive man.

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.

yeah man, and I really liked the game too (minus the combat). I had 1 Me1-->Me2 playthrough, don't even know if I finished it but I noticed a few differences, which were that asari chick who was on virmire who also showed up in grunt's recruitment mission, and that other chick who was trying to shakedown the merchant asari on illium.

in all of my playthroughs I didn't miss out on most of the big decisions because of the genesis comic, but obviously you don't get the full experience without playing the first game.

Minus the narrative weight, yeah.

right, meaning that narratively tali's mission was more important than the two fights among your squadmates. same principle applies though, you lose something if you pick the wrong choice.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

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.

That is true, but IMO nothing about ME2 felt too much out of place. And the Collectors being the threat I felt never felt forced.

But then again Mass Effect 2 is my favorite game from last gen.

 

[Patryn]

That is true, but IMO nothing about ME2 felt too much out of place. And the Collectors being the threat I felt never felt forced.

But then again Mass Effect 2 is my favorite game from last gen.

Forced? Not really?

Unimportant? Definitely.

 

[The Artisan]

But then again Mass Effect 2 is my favorite game from last gen.

same (again, goes back and forth with Uc2)

one thing I never realized because I didn't pay attention to the development of the game (back then it was a 360 console exclusive) the game's hud and reticles and what have you were much similar to Me1's, I didn't know that until just recently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lbQ_lGyt7c

 

[JohnnyFootball]

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.

After reading your post and seeing that YOU have played the first 3 games to death I, too, must admit that I have no possible idea how anybody else could want them. Since you played them to death its totally likely that everybody else played them to death. Nobody else could have possibly never experienced them.

It all makes sense now.

 

[EatChildren]

Even though whats-his-face posted here which I guess signs towards BioWare being interested in a trilogy remaster, I don't know where it will fit. If it doesn't release this year I just don't see it happening. I'm still betting ME4 is aiming for a late 2016 release (inevitable delay aside) and I can't imagine EA/BW would want to saturate the market with a trilogy port of the franchise early in the same year. I also think if ME4 is really very much a clean slate and new direction they'd rather focus the future of the series on just that, rather than bring back all the old baggage (and good stuff) for people to familiarise with all over again.

As a fan of course I'd be open to a trilogy re-release (assuming it met my expectations on PC). But yeah, I just don't see it happening.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Even though whats-his-face posted here which I guess signs towards BioWare being interested in a trilogy remaster, I don't know where it will fit. If it doesn't release this year I just don't see it happening. I'm still betting ME4 is aiming for a late 2016 release (inevitable delay aside) and I can't imagine EA/BW would want to saturate the market with a trilogy port of the franchise early in the same year. I also think if ME4 is really very much a clean slate and new direction they'd rather focus the future of the series on just that, rather than bring back all the old baggage (and good stuff) for people to familiarise with all over again.

As a fan of course I'd be open to a trilogy re-release (assuming it met my expectations on PC). But yeah, I just don't see it happening.

I fail to see how such a thing would be considered "saturating" since the potential buyers would likely be either those that have never played and are wanting to see what the fuss is about or those who wish to replay it on current gen systems. All of which are likely buyers of ME4 also.

EDIT: Also, you run the risk of people being less inclined to buy the game since they may feel that being the fourth game of the series that they would have no clue what is going on. The greatest benefit of the ME trilogy for EA is that many people may be curious about ME4 and decide the pick up the trilogy in the mean time. EA makes money and gets paid to advertise for ME4.

 

[Lucreto]

I bet they fill it at E3.

Fall 2015: Mass Effect Trilogy Remastered
Fall 2016: Mass Effect 4


Make it happen, EA !!!

I hope so, I only played the games once. I would love an excuse to play them again.

 

[TheUnsunghero26]

same (again, goes back and forth with Uc2)

one thing I never realized because I didn't pay attention to the development of the game (back then it was a 360 console exclusive) the game's hud and reticles and what have you were much similar to Me1's, I didn't know that until just recently
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lbQ_lGyt7c

It also had the radar out all the time, something they got rid of in the final release. I can't remember where I heard this, but apparently disabling it was to improve performance.

 

[wolfhowwl]

And I can't grasp how other people feel that others should be forced to meet their gaming preferences.

It isn't any different than the discussions over say including exploration, depth of RPG elements, action focus, etc. in the next game. All of those debates had people pushing for the kind of game they want.

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.

No one here is getting "butthurt." I'm not mad that there is an option, I just disagree with that approach to designing a scenario and think it is a failure to follow-up on one of their initial promises for this series ("many choices lie ahead, none of them easy").

This is a Mass Effect thread three years after the last game, most of us still here are the kind of player that completed all the content in these games. We took the time too.

And yes, I readily admit that we were advocating for quests to be written a certain way to tailor to our preferences, just as you are advocating that they be written a different way to tailor to yours.

 

[ROUGE_BLOCK]

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.

The thing is they are not going to fix ME1 anytime soon. There would not be much point towards that, and best they would do is improve the framerate but, the gameplay would go untouched in a remaster.

 

[Fiery Phoenix]

So the new Deus Ex has been showcased finally.

NEXT...

 

[DOWN]

So the new Deus Ex has been showcased finally.

NEXT...

It should hopefully arrive just in time to keep us from collapsing over our need for sci-fi, and tide us over until Mass Effect comes later in the year.

 

[Fiery Phoenix]

It should hopefully arrive just in time to keep us from collapsing over our need for sci-fi, and tide us over until Mass Effect comes later in the year.

Agreed.

I remember Human Revolution and ME3 were only about 6 months apart (although not within the same year). Can see something similar happening next year.

 

[Patryn]

It should hopefully arrive just in time to keep us from collapsing over our need for sci-fi, and tide us over until Mass Effect comes later in the year.

Different sort of sci-fi. There is little there to feed my need for something closer to space opera. Mass Effect can't come fast enough.

 

[DOWN]

Did anyone feel that unlike the ME trilogy, the newer ME concepts don't quite fit how one would describe any of the first three games visually? I thought 1 was rather sleek, 2 was more grimy and brooding, then 3 was more aspirationally institutional in showing the bright lights in big facilities and cities, touched by war.

But these new shots seem quite dark, sombre, vast, and weathered. Like the drama isn't clear, no battle scars, but just an aging existence on the fringe. I like that tone and I'm curious how much these images reflect on the new game.

As a fan of restraint when it comes to drama and conflict, I preferred the tactical terrorist enemies of Saren and the Geth in ME1, over the dramatically large save-the-universe plot of 2 and 3. I like the unseen hero, an astronaut and a military professional, boldy going into the stars to keep them lit for the optimists, so to speak.

I appreciate that more personal, rather than universal, atmosphere in a science fiction traversal. That sense that you're world is on fire in your own head and mission, but only so the allure and spectacle of the future is not set aflame for everyone else out there, staring off the Citadel Wards' balconies.

The burn and weight of the problems are on you and the specific threats you chase, not a war that everyone is stuck in. The hero underground. It's a feeling I love in ME1, and Deus Ex to a degree, so I hope that getting those vibes from the new ME concepts isn't me being too hopeful.

Yup. Truly the epitome of badassery.

 

[ROUGE_BLOCK]

Did anyone feel that unlike the ME trilogy, the newer ME concepts don't quite fit how one would describe any of the first three games visually? I thought 1 was rather sleek, 2 was more grimy and brooding, then 3 was more aspirationally institutional in showing the bright lights in big facilities and cities, touched by war.

But these new shots seem quite dark, sombre, vast, and weathered. Like the drama isn't clear, no battle scars, but just an aging existence on the fringe. I like that tone and I'm curious how much these images reflect on the new game.

As a fan of restraint when it comes to drama and conflict, I preferred the tactical terrorist enemies of Saren and the Geth in ME1, over the dramatically large save-the-universe plot of 2 and 3. I like the unseen hero, an astronaut and a military professional, boldy going into the stars to keep them lit for the optimists, so to speak.

I appreciate that more personal, rather than universal, atmosphere in a science fiction traversal. That sense that you're world is on fire in your own head and mission, but only so the allure and spectacle of the future is not set aflame for everyone else out there, staring off the Citadel Wards' balconies.

The burn and weight of the problems are on you and the specific threats you chase, not a war that everyone is stuck in. The hero underground. It's a feeling I love in ME1, and Deus Ex to a degree, so I hope that getting those vibes from the new ME concepts isn't me being too hopeful.

They have been alluding to this new Mass Effect in an unknown edge of space. Maybe these pictures allude to the more mysterious and undetermined nature of this new region of space. We know new races are an inevitability, and with it new and undiscovered worlds.
Bioware did also come out and say we won't be saving the galaxy once again, so it might be a much more personal and toned down story like earlier parts of ME1. Not to mention ME4 does use the frostbite 3 engine, the concept art could reflect the visual style they are going with the new game.

 

[The Artisan]

It also had the radar out all the time, something they got rid of in the final release. I can't remember where I heard this, but apparently disabling it was to improve performance.

improve performance in what way?

man, thinking back to how that guy said everything they cut from Me3 was because of Ps3 performance...really makes me wonder how much more would've been in the Me3 experience if they didn't cut those things out of the 360/PC versions.

 

[ROUGE_BLOCK]

After reading your post and seeing that YOU have played the first 3 games to death I, too, must admit that I have no possible idea how anybody else could want them. Since you played them to death its totally likely that everybody else played them to death. Nobody else could have possibly never experienced them.

It all makes sense now.

Yes that is what I was getting at completely, thank you for restating my post!

The point is myself, including others have played through the original three many times. I am not against a remaster entirely, but we, who have played all of them multiple times are the target audience (the pre-existing audience) for a remaster of the ME trilogy. Sure it will attract new players, but will it significantly draw enough enough of a new audience to warrant a release?

More than likely ME4 would draw in a much larger new audience, being a new game in the series and a fresh start on a new generation of consoles. Much like what Dragon Age Inquisition did.

Though if people want to buy it and re-experience the entire trilogy, that's fine by me. For the most part with retail listings we have seen and Bioware even saying they are taken it into consideration, it's highly likely it is in development.

Not to mention playstation owners who never got to experience the trilogy in the proper order as many who have already replied to my question mentioned.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Yes that is what I was getting at completely, thank you for restating my post!

The point is myself, including others have played through the original three many times. I am not against a remaster entirely, but we, who have played all of them multiple times are the target audience (the pre-existing audience) for a remaster of the ME trilogy. Sure it will attract new players, but will it significantly draw enough enough of a new audience to warrant a release?

Existing players probably aren't the target audience, though plenty will buy them (like me) Lesser games have gotten re-released. So yeah there is a market. Considering that the rerelease cost is so low, it absolutely warrants a rerelease.
Again, it seems that you assume that because you had played the hell outta them and hav no interest in replaying them that everybody else should feel this way. This thread proves that people would happily rebuy them to replay on current gen systems. I no longer have my 360 or PS3 and do not want to sit at a PC to replay so this is perfect for me.

Also a trilogy port is the perfect way to advertise ME4.

There is simply no downside to rereleasing the trilogy on current gen.

 

[diaspora]

Even though whats-his-face posted here which I guess signs towards BioWare being interested in a trilogy remaster, I don't know where it will fit. If it doesn't release this year I just don't see it happening. I'm still betting ME4 is aiming for a late 2016 release (inevitable delay aside) and I can't imagine EA/BW would want to saturate the market with a trilogy port of the franchise early in the same year. I also think if ME4 is really very much a clean slate and new direction they'd rather focus the future of the series on just that, rather than bring back all the old baggage (and good stuff) for people to familiarise with all over again.

As a fan of course I'd be open to a trilogy re-release (assuming it met my expectations on PC). But yeah, I just don't see it happening.

If nothing else, EA can sell 1080p ports digitally.

 

[Lucreto]

Michael Pachter thinks the next Mass Effect will be out before next April.

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/mirro...ffect_4_to_release_by_april_2016_pachter.html

So it will be 2017 because Pachter said it.

 

[DagnastyEp]

Michael Pachter thinks the next Mass Effect will be out before next April.

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/mirro...ffect_4_to_release_by_april_2016_pachter.html

So it will be 2017 because Pachter said it.

I'm also betting on a spring 2016 release for ME4.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I hate to say this, but I am way more excited about a new Deus Ex game than I am about ME4.

Although, in the one day that we learn of Deus Ex existence we already know way more about that game than ME4.

 

[SkullplateMurray]

March 2016. Out the way of Halo and Star Wars Battlefront, but before the end of the financial year.

 

[Patryn]

I hate to say this, but I am way more excited about a new Deus Ex game than I am about ME4.

Although, in the one day that we learn of Deus Ex existence we already know way more about that game than ME4.

Deus Ex is being officially revealed.

ME4 hasn't yet.

There's also nothing wrong with being more excited for another game. Personally, while I enjoy Deus Ex it's not something I'm a super fan for so I still sit waiting for E3 and the EA conference.

 

[Hahs]

Let's just cross this out to about right...there!

Michael Pachter thinks the next Mass Effect will be out before next April.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Michael Pachter thinks the next Mass Effect will be out before next April.

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/mirro...ffect_4_to_release_by_april_2016_pachter.html

So it will be 2017 because Pachter said it.

Michael Pachter thinks?

 

[EatChildren]

I fail to see how such a thing would be considered "saturating" since the potential buyers would likely be either those that have never played and are wanting to see what the fuss is about or those who wish to replay it on current gen systems. All of which are likely buyers of ME4 also.

EDIT: Also, you run the risk of people being less inclined to buy the game since they may feel that being the fourth game of the series that they would have no clue what is going on. The greatest benefit of the ME trilogy for EA is that many people may be curious about ME4 and decide the pick up the trilogy in the mean time. EA makes money and gets paid to advertise for ME4.

It's saturation because it dilutes brand recognition of a new product with an existing product. It's a gamble. In some cases it works (see: Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty), but in many other cases publishers prefer to space releases in order to weight significance on the most recent entry. Mass Effect isn't an unknown brand. I'd argue it's one of the most identifiable new franchises of the last generation.

With that in mind, I've been lead to believe that Mass Effect 4 is very much, through and through an entirely fresh, new chapter. While big fans like ourselves will naturally question where it occurs in the canon and how it can be tied in, most games like what Mass Effect 4 will likely be do not aim to appease this crowd. Yes, it's the fourth game in the series, but it also might as well be an entirely new entry point for people who've no clue what the franchise is about. Built in such a way that prior knowledge of the series is barely relevant. The fact it is unlikely to be called "Mass Effect 4" is an example of this, much in the same way Human Revolution was not called Deus Ex 3 nor required or demanded series familiarity to enjoy.

That's not to say a trilogy port wouldn't have a place, I just feel the window of having a reasonable place is rapidly closing, if not closed already, versus what I'd expect to be a typical marketing push for the future of the series. Mass Effect 4 won't be "Mass Effect 4, the continuation of the Mass Effect universe that requires or supplements knowledge from the Shepard trilogy". It'll be a completely fresh start, and it would be unusual for a publisher to push out a content pack limited by last generation design within a 12 month window of a game that will no doubt be pushing the future of the series first and foremost. Typically in marketing you don't want your predecessor product floating around as a point of comparison, you want it somewhat forgotten.

 

[Patryn]

I think there's still a place for the trilogy remaster. I've already seen people in multiple threads here on the site who don't post in this thread plead for a remaster of Mass Effect, with many saying it's the only remaining thing that they really want to see remastered.

However, I do think the window is closing. Honestly, I think if it's happening it needs to come out this year, but I suppose it could maybe be beginning of next year. But I think if you go past March 2016, you've gone too far.

Of course the wild card is that the narrative of there being way too many remasters and current gen not having any new games and just ports has begun to take hold. I've started to wonder if at some point the choice would be taken out of EA's hands and Sony and Microsoft will just block any additional remasters to avoid the system being flooded with them. I doubt they will do so, but it's something I've been curious about.

 

[SliChillax]

http://www.****************/articles/80841/20150407/mass-effect-trilogy-ps4-xbox-one.htm

This just appeared on Google Now, I'm on my phone can't verify is it legit?
Edit: nvm it's nothing.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

It's saturation because it dilutes brand recognition of a new product with an existing product. It's a gamble. In some cases it works (see: Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty), but in many other cases publishers prefer to space releases in order to weight significance on the most recent entry. Mass Effect isn't an unknown brand. I'd argue it's one of the most identifiable new franchises of the last generation.

With that in mind, I've been lead to believe that Mass Effect 4 is very much, through and through an entirely fresh, new chapter. While big fans like ourselves will naturally question where it occurs in the canon and how it can be tied in, most games like what Mass Effect 4 will likely be do not aim to appease this crowd. Yes, it's the fourth game in the series, but it also might as well be an entirely new entry point for people who've no clue what the franchise is about. Built in such a way that prior knowledge of the series is barely relevant. The fact it is unlikely to be called "Mass Effect 4" is an example of this, much in the same way Human Revolution was not called Deus Ex 3 nor required or demanded series familiarity to enjoy.

That's not to say a trilogy port wouldn't have a place, I just feel the window of having a reasonable place is rapidly closing, if not closed already, versus what I'd expect to be a typical marketing push for the future of the series. Mass Effect 4 won't be "Mass Effect 4, the continuation of the Mass Effect universe that requires or supplements knowledge from the Shepard trilogy". It'll be a completely fresh start, and it would be unusual for a publisher to push out a content pack limited by last generation design within a 12 month window of a game that will no doubt be pushing the future of the series first and foremost. Typically in marketing you don't want your predecessor product floating around as a point of comparison, you want it somewhat forgotten.

I think there's still a place for the trilogy remaster. I've already seen people in multiple threads here on the site who don't post in this thread plead for a remaster of Mass Effect, with many saying it's the only remaining thing that they really want to see remastered.

However, I do think the window is closing. Honestly, I think if it's happening it needs to come out this year, but I suppose it could maybe be beginning of next year. But I think if you go past March 2016, you've gone too far.

Of course the wild card is that the narrative of there being way too many remasters and current gen not having any new games and just ports has begun to take hold. I've started to wonder if at some point the choice would be taken out of EA's hands and Sony and Microsoft will just block any additional remasters to avoid the system being flooded with them. I doubt they will do so, but it's something I've been curious about.

I don't see where this "the window is closing" mentality comes from. Why does it need a window? Its a remaster, not a AAA release.

With the exception of Halo:MCC, TLoU:R and GTA:V most of these re-releases/ports do not get released with a great deal of marketing. Outside of those, how many remasters/ports actually are released with a ton of marketting. Releases like Tomb Raider and Sleeping Dogs, Metro Redux and almost every single collection (GoW, Sly, Daxter, and Ratchet) from the PS3/360 generation was released with a "here it is" mentality. Most of those were announced 2-3 months before they actually got released.

We have no idea what EAs plans are for a trilogy port. Could they go Metro Redux on us and do a lot of rebuilding of assets? Sure, maybe, but I doubt that would make financial sense. Most of us are expecting (and would be perfectly fine with) 1080p/60fps, higher rez textures and all DLC, which could be done for pretty damn cheap using PC assets. I will admit that I wrongly assumed that using PC assets would make porting an easy process. Companies like High Voltage software, who was responsible for the terrible port of Saints Row IV have demonstrated that a port can be screwed up.

Again, I just don't see why all the sudden a Mass Effect trilogy getting ported to current gen systems would warrant all this hype.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Of course the wild card is that the narrative of there being way too many remasters and current gen not having any new games and just ports has begun to take hold. I've started to wonder if at some point the choice would be taken out of EA's hands and Sony and Microsoft will just block any additional remasters to avoid the system being flooded with them. I doubt they will do so, but it's something I've been curious about.

No, that mentality is being overblown by a minority of internet morons.

Most people are smart enough to see that we are getting vastly more new games than we are getting remasters and nobody is being held at gunpoint being forced to buy them. They also understand that new games TAKE TIME. Unlike the anti-remaster crowd that all of the sudden seems to think that new games grow on trees and remasters are preventing that from happening. I could go on and on, but Ill stop there.

However, I will turn against remasters real fast if they start selling one game for $40 like God of War 3 and Darksiders 2 (where the fuck is the first game?)

 

[The Artisan]

It's saturation because it dilutes brand recognition of a new product with an existing product. It's a gamble. In some cases it works (see: Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty), but in many other cases publishers prefer to space releases in order to weight significance on the most recent entry. Mass Effect isn't an unknown brand. I'd argue it's one of the most identifiable new franchises of the last generation.

With that in mind, I've been lead to believe that Mass Effect 4 is very much, through and through an entirely fresh, new chapter. While big fans like ourselves will naturally question where it occurs in the canon and how it can be tied in, most games like what Mass Effect 4 will likely be do not aim to appease this crowd. Yes, it's the fourth game in the series, but it also might as well be an entirely new entry point for people who've no clue what the franchise is about. Built in such a way that prior knowledge of the series is barely relevant. The fact it is unlikely to be called "Mass Effect 4" is an example of this, much in the same way Human Revolution was not called Deus Ex 3 nor required or demanded series familiarity to enjoy.

That's not to say a trilogy port wouldn't have a place, I just feel the window of having a reasonable place is rapidly closing, if not closed already, versus what I'd expect to be a typical marketing push for the future of the series. Mass Effect 4 won't be "Mass Effect 4, the continuation of the Mass Effect universe that requires or supplements knowledge from the Shepard trilogy". It'll be a completely fresh start, and it would be unusual for a publisher to push out a content pack limited by last generation design within a 12 month window of a game that will no doubt be pushing the future of the series first and foremost. Typically in marketing you don't want your predecessor product floating around as a point of comparison, you want it somewhat forgotten.

Just because the next game is not a continuation of shepard's story doesn't mean naming it Me4 would be wrong, imo.

 

[Ralemont]

Just because the next game is not a continuation of shepard's story doesn't mean naming it Me4 would be wrong, imo.

True, but numbered sequels carry the connotation of the continuation of a story, which is why BioWare shies from it when they can to attract new players (this is why Dragon Age Inquisition doesn't have a 3 in it).

 

[The Artisan]

True, but numbered sequels carry the connotation of the continuation of a story, which is why BioWare shies from it when they can so they can attract new players (this is why Dragon Age Inquisition doesn't have a 3 in it).

Not all the time, it doesn't. And all bioware would have to do is make clear that shepard's story is done. And most of the hardcore fans already know that, so there wouldn't be any confusion in naming it Me4 if they so wished.

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

When Hitman: Absolution came out, the Hitman HD Trilogy followed two months later. Maybe we'll see a similar pattern with ME4 and a remastered trilogy (if it comes).

I've started to wonder if at some point the choice would be taken out of EA's hands and Sony and Microsoft will just block any additional remasters to avoid the system being flooded with them.

I don't think the console manufacturers can throw that kind of weight around. Given how slow AAA releases have been lately, I think they're probably grateful for every one they get, remaster or not.

 

[The Artisan]

When Hitman: Absolution came out, the Hitman HD Trilogy followed two months later. Maybe we'll see a similar pattern with ME4 and a remastered trilogy (if it comes).

I don't think the console manufacturers can throw that kind of weight around. Given how slow AAA releases have been lately, I think they're probably grateful for every one they get, remaster or not.

I think it makes all the more sense to release a remaster before the next installment in the series. It's not what always happens like with the example you mentioned as well as dark souls and batman, but to me it would make more sense to do it the other way, and that's how most of them have worked anyway.

 

[inky]

Not all the time, it doesn't. And all bioware would have to do is make clear that shepard's story is done. And most of the hardcore fans already know that, so there wouldn't be any confusion in naming it Me4 if they so wished.

Why take the risk when you are trying to make a clean break and bring in new people.

 

[The Artisan]

Why take the risk when you are trying to make a clean break and bring in new people.

i don't see it as a risk in any way shape or form. they're probably not gonna do it anyway, i'm just saying if they did, there shouldn't and probably wouldn't be an issue.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I think it makes all the more sense to release a remaster before the next installment in the series. It's not what always happens like with the example you mentioned as well as dark souls and batman, but to me it would make more sense to do it the other way, and that's how most of them have worked anyway.

In the case of Mass Effect it makes far more sense to do it before.

 

[The Artisan]

In the case of Mass Effect it makes far more sense to do it before.

more sense to have the remaster release before? yeah.