Well, Mass Effect: Andromeda is out. The less said about that the better, but fans have been expecting the Mass Effect Trilogy for the past two years. So is now the moment? Is reminding folks that the past games existed a good idea now, or does EA think the only forward keep momentum pressing forward?

I specifically did not play Mass Effect 3 because I figured a PS4 edition would be where I would put my effort? I especially want to see the use of PS4 Pro, because if we waited this long a few added benefits woudl not hurt. I'm not use how sale of Mass Effect: Andromeda will work out, but I can only imagine more than ever a "factory renewed" set of games would be welcome to get some extra sales.

Doubtful, the sales seem to be pretty bad but that isnt counting digital i guess. I wouldn't doubt we have seen the last of mass effect though, maybe even bioware depending on jusy how bad sales really are.

When Andromeda came out, it really made me want to replay the old games. While looking for a reasonably priced way to do that, I found out that the Mass Effect Trilogy is actually a thing on Origin for PC. However, it doesn't come with any of the DLC, which I believe would still end up being hundreds of dollars to buy separately. I wish they would bundle all of that stuff together for a reasonable price.

Bioware's games have never been big hitters EA didn't really invest alot into Andromeda which so far is selling on par with ME2, my guess is the performance of Andromeda has little bearing on a Mass Effect trilogy remaster/port anyway. Bioware are a small AAA studio already working on a Star Wars title a trilogy remaster/port would most likely come from a third party studio.

It's hard to know if the sales are actually all that bad. It still opened at number 1, and PC sales are essentially not counted at all because the charts only include physical numbers. The budget was also "only" $40 million, which is basically nothing for a AAA game in development for 5 years. With a budget like that, it won't take much to break even. Even if it doesn't reach EA's lofty expectations of 6-9 million units (which it won't), it would be crazy to expect it to sell less than a few million. The game will turn a profit.

Secondly, the idea that Bioware's future as a company is somehow riding on this game is bonkers. This game was made by like their 4th tier team (behind the two main Edmonton teams and the Old Republic team in Austin). Bioware Montreal is a tertiary studio that's never developed a game on their own before.

Bioware still has the two main Edmonton teams working on upcoming projects. The DA team is working on a follow up to Inquisition (which, like it or not, sold very well), and the original Mass Effect team is working on a new IP.

To think that EA would shutter the entirety of Bioware because their third tier studio released a game that didn't live up to expectations is just beyond absurd.

@ll_exile_ll: from what i read that was the budget on 3 as well. Kinda sad that mass effect is the throw away and dragon age is the cash cow, which only had one good game in the series.

I guess if the revenue is up maybe they will just shutter mass effect or keep taking a loss on it? But after this reception and perceived sales so far i am not optimistic it will return.

@oursin_360: I wouldn't say Dragon Age even had one good game in that series. People talk up Origins quite a bit but even at the time it was an extremely dated RPG that would surely turn a lot of more casual fans away. I played it and enjoy it for what it was, which was a Baldurgs Gate Lite, but I would never actually call it a great game. If you took the storytelling in Origins and combined it with the graphical fidelity and modernized gameplay of Inquisition (with a slightly expanded combat system) you might get a really great Dragon Age game.

As for Mass Effect I don't really see them pushing forward. I guess I would feel extremely bitter if after Andromeda they decided to make another one of these when they dropped Dead Space like a sack of bricks because Dead Space 3 didn't sell well enough - and as flawed as DS3 was I think we can all agree it wasn't nearly as lacking as Andromeda.

I'd buy a remastered ME trilogy for damn sure.

Andromeda isn't something I plan on buying anytime soon. Granted, that's mostly because this year is crazy so far

They took a gamble. The Mass Effect team wanted to do something new, and rather than abandon the franchise entirely they handed it off to a support studio. I'd imagine the hope was that it would turn out good enough and the brand would carry it to financial success regardless.

It could still end up doing well enough financially to justify another game, and if the Mass Effect subreddit is any indication the game has still resonated with enough of the core fanbase that there will be some interest in a follow up (seriously, it's surreal hopping between these boards and that subreddit, the perception of the game in these two places is in stark contrast).

Speaking personally as a huge fan of the series, I'm fairly disappointed in the final product, but I would still say I like it overall and enjoyed my time with it. I definitely want the series continue, and even want to see stuff from this game in particular continue. There's definitely some good stuff to be found in the game, albeit much of it is buried under a lot of the bad.

Hopefully the Montreal team is given at least one more chance. I'd like to think they have and still are learning a lot from this their first game as a studio, and can improve with their next project.

I'm enjoying it.

We're in the minority on these boards.

@humanity: I enjoyed Inquisition and to some degree Andromeda but I would say the combat in both games were a downgrade. Making a game faster doesnt make it better and the mobility options in MEA only let you circumvent any kind of strategy. (since nobody was as agile as you) It's flashy and enjoyable if you turn your brain off though.

Also i'm not sure Dead Space has any kind of 'out' story wise like Mass Effect did. (I would like another game though as I love those kinds of survival/action horror games)

To answer the OP if there was ever going to be remaster of the original trilogy it would have come out before Mass Effect Andromeda.

I'd buy a mass effect trilogy on PS4 in a heart beat. Got a few hours into the new game and just wanted to get right back into the first ones.

They could probably take what they learned here and truly fix ME3 and put the trilogy out on PS4 Pro and Scorpio.

On the base systems, why not just play on PC?

Yeah, i hope mass effect doesn't die and while i haven't put much time into the campaign i am enjoying the multiplayer so far and hope they keep it updated like they did with 3. But with EA you never know, they are a bottom line type of company probably not going to put to much risk into their AAA products.

Not just these ones...

Anyway now it's time to give Mass Effect to a better studio like Obsidian!

What exactly are you hoping for from an ME trilogy release? All of ME can now be played on both the PC and XBone through backwards compatibility, so there's no longer really any reason to be pushing for a way to play it on modern consoles. Do you just want them to do a graphics pass on it? All the textures in the world aren't going to make those crazy jagged mountains and prefab interiors (so many crates!) look good in Mass EFfect 1. And it's not like the game really looks that bad after that.

Are you hoping for them to do a "Director's Cut" remake by swapping out fighting mechanics in ME1, improving squadmate functionality in ME2, and letting ME2 squadmates play a bigger role in ME3? I'd think that would be pretty cool, but the remaster fad has rarely ventured into remake territory - FF7 is of course the biggest move in that direction that any studio has made. ME can probably be done at a lesser expense than that, but the game industry at large doesn't seem to have much of an appetite for dusting off their old gems and putting them through development again. I'm not sure why that is - maybe it does have more to do with it not satisfying the creative instincts of their teams than anything else.

I think they would have done it by now if they were going to do it. BioWare is probably going to double down on ME:A to fix the bugs and stuff like that (at least I assume that's what they are going to announce on Tuesday...), and then.....that might be it for the Mass Effect series?

Mass Effect 3 was toxic because of this ending. Mass Effect: Andromeda is toxic because of facial animation, bugs, lesser characters, story, quests, and continuing to be not as good as Mass Effect 2, one of the greatest games ever made. So that's basically two highly respected games, and two middling to bad games out of four.

I have no idea what BioWare is going to do next, but I doubt it is going to be a sequel to Andromeda or a re-release of the original trilogy.

I replayed the trilogy a few months ago and they haven't aged particularly well.

Oh, I don't think Mass Effect: GonorrheaAndromeda is the LAST Mass Effect by a long shot. I'm sure in EA's mind and even Bioware's that Andromeda was just "setup" or getting their tools in place. Even if Andromeda sales like shit there will be another game. It like Destiny...no matter how rocky the introduction they are committed. Their will be at leats one more Mass Effect set in the new galaxy even if fans are thinking why bother now.

My original question is more like - "Do they put out the old trilogy on PS4" or "Do they think that will "distract" from trying to shove Andromeda down people's throats?" A conversion of the PS3 versions of the game to new systems could be done by ANY team at EA. Heck, that is the sort of job given to 3rd parties all the time. The expertise is not with the game content as much as skill with making an engine made for older systems run well on a PS4/PS4 Pro and Xbox One S/Scorpio.

Because if you want awesome storytelling and bug-free games ... Obsidian is the place to go!

@ll_exile_ll said:

Every disparate place on the 'Net is a small bubble. The Mass Effect subreddit has 145,000 subscribers. So if they're still subscribed they already have a bias toward being positive. There are a lot like me or Brad S., whom are still totally in love with the original trilogy. So I am part of the core fanbase that they needed, but they didn't catch this guy. And I wanted so bad to like Andromeda. I tried. Played the whole trial, everything I saw excepting the combat was so anemic. From my perspective, one missed opportunity after another. Didn't buy it.

Also as far as a re-release, I don't know. Xbox has backward compat. It would just be an excuse to make it for PS4. Sony wants to sell you its streaming service. So I just have doubts.

new trilogy with ryder as the star.... no... another game in the same galaxy but with different main characters most probably. This franchise still probably selling well to warrant another (we fucked up that last one so here is another game that tries to fix that shit as an apology).

Unless they go back and rebuild Mass Effect 1 from the ground up I don't have any interest in a remaster of the original trilogy, and they aren't going to make that investment. I personally have enjoyed Andromeda. It's a bug filled mess but the feeling of exploration, the moment to moment on planets and the combat all resonate with me.

The discussion around ME:A has frankly been a bit odd to me. Nostalgia seems to have stripped away all the flaws of the original trilogy. The animation jank: go play any one of those games and tell me they animate perfectly. Shepard always ran like a dork, character faces always looked a bit off and soulless in conversations, custom faces on Shepard could create some interesting expressions. From a gameplay/combat perspective Andromeda clearly beats ME1 and even the staunchest critic would be hard pressed to argue it isn't at least on pat with 2/3 (and I would argue better). Menu/UI issues: guess what, those are a series staple at this point. My point is that people are comparing this game to the other 3 with rose-tinted glasses. Those games had many of the same problems Andromeda faces. At the end of the day this looks, animates and feels like a Mass Effect game. I get the complaints but when they are framed against the original games then I wonder how recently that person played them.

@ll_exile_ll: @spaceinsomniac: I'm with you guys on enjoying the game but it definitely doesn't touch the OT in terms of quality. I'm finding it harder to go back to now that I finally got Zelda which is really fantastic and Persona on the way. ME2 and 3 were top priority games for me, I basically ignored everything until I beat them but for Andromeda I feel myself being pulled away much easier. I also find myself not just engrossed in the codes like I did for the other games, it's still there but I'm just not as compelled to look at it.

I think I'm getting near the end of the game though, I just found the last two planets with a viability meter so I'm gonna do my best to close the game out this week. The characters are all just fine, nobody really stands out to me. I don't really hate any of them and they all have their moments but I like they need to be a bit more fleshed out or just different in general for me to really start to care for them. The story has been pretty predictable so far and hopefully it ends on a good note but right now I don't really give a shit about the Archon and know next to nothing about him. Maybe they were going for that but it doesn't make him menacing or an intriguing villain at all.

Weirdly enough, other than taking out the squad stuff which was a huge mistake, the gameplay to be is fantastic. Driving the Nomad has its moments, especially on one specific location that I won't spoil. But the actual fighting dudes is super fun and diverse, going from space wizard to tech mastermind in an instant is really great. I respect anyone's on opinions but I definitely had a sour look on my face when Jeff kept saying the combat was still bad, cause it's not, it's some of the best third person shooting to date.

I hope they get another shot, they got the gameplay down, now they just need to make the story and world more interesting. There are blocks to build on from this game that could spout something special, I hope that happens. Also they really need to throw some polish on the game. I've not had any major bugs but when you get some shitty animation glitch during a moment thst is supposed to be stressful or emotional it just destroys the mood entirely.

When Jeff used to say the combat is bad back in 2 and especially 3 I just found it perplexing. It's especially frustrating when, in the same breath, he'd say the combat isn't as good as other third person shooters and then admit to playing as a soldier. Well, of course if you play as the class that doesn't get to do any of the cool and unique stuff about the combat mechanics it's not going to be as good as could be, but who's fault is that?

Depending on how much of the side content you are doing you are probably only about 1/2-2/3 of the way through. A lot of the loyalty and ark recovery missions pop off after that point.

I agree with you completely about the Archon. He's the worst BioWare villain to date in my opinion. He's got nothing complicated other than "Surrender or die! I'm evil! Duurrrr.," is absent for most of the story, and is not very visually powerful or threatening (I've said in other threads I think the Kett look like the Shit Demon from Dogma). It's been a problem for BioWare since about DA:O/ME2. Games prior to that had great villain characters like the Illusive Man or Loghain. Since then, you had DA:II and ME:3, which each forgot to have a villain, and DA:I and now ME:A, which have villains straight out of the Saturday Morning Cartoon junkpile.

As far as the gameplay goes, I mostly agree with you. I still wish they had stuck with classes, since I think there are simply too many abilities going on and a lot of them are sort of boring or duplicative (how many different ways do you really need to set things on fire?). I also think the soft cover system is really hit or miss. Personally I prefer the old system's binary certainty of being in or out of cover and there are a lot of places where it feels like I should be able to take cover behind something but can't.

@meteora3255 said:

I hear that and I we were in different places in our lives for sure. Everything you mentioned is true. The combat, animation, UI was always sub par. Those games had flaws. I never played it for any of that and that stuff doesn't bother me about Andromeda (though the combat is better, you are still fighting humanoids with assault rifles). The story and characters were it for me. The moment to moment dialogue, the general storytelling, the premise, it's not horrible, but again just huge missed opportunities left and right.

I thought the stuff at the start with the character's father, and what happens at the end of the prologue wasn't bad. But, look...."Whole new galaxy. "What should first contact be like? Oh, let's make some dudes with arms and legs and have rocky skin!" Come on. Like a comic you write in 2nd grade. It's squandered storytelling potential that color the rest of the game for me. Also, the pathfinder title stuff and all the dialogue around that is lame.

Like Brad said in the review, they conveniently wrote out all of the more interesting species from the last games for example, they didn't address any of the consequences that could have arose from the 7+ year long ride they took with the original trilogy. The worst part of Mass Effect: Andromeda for ME, is they had all these weighty backstories, events, and intrigue from the trilogy to make use of, but instead, the game could have been branded anything else and it wouldn't have made much of a difference. This game emphasizes all of Bioware's most awkward moments, hammy one-liners, useless side quests, etc. Just a huge disappointment for me and that's why I didn't pony up.

@symbyosys: I definitely agree with everything you said to some extent. I was actually working on a blog post discussing the massive narrative sidesteps BioWare took in this game to avoid addressing the tough issues they created in this universe.

My argument isn't that Andromeda doesn't have real issues on several fronts. The problem is that people are slamming things, such as the animation or UI, and then pointing to how great the original trilogy is when it suffered from the same problems that they are complaining about. I feel like a lot of the "comparison" between the original trilogy and Andromeda isn't really helpful because it gets bogged down in superficial/mechanical things such as animation jank or UI that was always present in the series rather than focus on things like BioWare conveniently "losing" the other species Arks so humans are the dominant Initiative species or the "white/human savior" trope in respect to the Angarans and the help they require from Ryder/humans.

@meteora3255 said:

Jeez, yeah. It sucks that a lot of the bashing is superficial. I'm trying to take into account all the flaws in the first games, even with the story. I just can't believe they wrote this premise and then sold it. It feels like the script was written for something else...by writers that don't quite get scifi tropes, and was given to folks that don't quite get what Mass Effect was trying to do. *wistful sigh* and point of comparison from the first games to your spoiler text - Humans had to earn their place, and then Shepard had to earn her place. It was mildly refreshing for sure.

I think people are crazy to assume they aren't going to make another one of these. That was like saying DCEU was done Post Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad. This will sell at least 5 million copies imo, (I haven't gotten it yet since I'm going to wait to a sale, but on my PS4 friends list TONS of people were all playing it.) I don't know if you guys noticed on UPF as well as Brad was messing around Dan Teasdale was also playing it. Like lots of people will buy and play Mass Effect Andromeda. There will be those that enjoy it for the goofy, janky, attempt at making a new Mass Effect that it is. But there will also be enough who have to see it for themselves, even if they come away disappointed that the sales will surely be fine I think.

I couldn't help but see how Vinny was playiing and enjoying the game versus even the rest of the crew. The argument that people see the original trilogy through nostalgai and ignore how much of those games are pretty much just in line with Andromeda in so many ways. I mean do people remember the romance scenes in the original games? They were just as unrealistic, sometimes even janky and outright bad as what I saw in the few they showed in Andromeda on UPF. Anyway, even those disappointed with this game will more than likely welcome a sequel. Simply because the studio would then have an opportunity to make corrections to things, flesh out systems that may have worked, and obviously try to ship a more finished product next time out. I don't know about trilogy yet, but for sure this gets a sequel imo.

@lawgamer: a Saturday morning cartoon villain is pretty spot on for how I've felt about the Archon. At one point early in the game you get stopped by a huge Kett ship and this dude comes on screen who is supposed to be the Archon... I think? Anyway, I literally did not see a difference in him compared to the other grunts until the end of that transmission when I started seeing everyone talk about him. I think they really were going towards more of an exploration story focus but needed the big baddie in there just for conflict, he just seems so throw away and it's a shame because like you said, Saren and Illusive man are fantastic. Even the reapers themselves were all incredibly menacing and terrifying in their own fucked it, robot way. At the end of Mass Effect 2 when you see the reapers coming for the Milky Way it's a big "Oh, we are FUUUCKED!" moment, If I saw the same exact scene but with Kett ships I would probably just shrug.

I really thought I was farther in the game though. I completed the Asari ark missions and have done 2 or 3 of the loyaltay missions. Currently working on Dracks now and I've already started moving forward on the Tyrian ark stuff. I'm trying to do most of the Loyalty and ark missions, the memories and the helius assignments with the obvious primary missions but I've kinda decided that the additional tasks are hardly worth doing and really don't mean much in terms of story or engaging gameplay. I really wanna beat the game this week so then I only have 2 big games to balance out but from what you've said I don't know if that's gonna happen.

I can definitely see what you mean about the combat though, some of the abilities to overlap but I would guess most people will specialize in one or maybe 2 trees which is diverse enough. I've spend most of my points like I said is space wizardry and Tech which is pretty much the descpetion of the sential class in previous games. What I like though is that I'm not forced to have the specific powers they set up for the sential class, I can take cloak with my throw if I want or have singularity and the flamethrower. Before you didn't have much of a choice as to what powers you could pick based on class alone. I guess I just prefer having all the choices available as opposed to picking a class I liked that specialized in tech and biotics but not being able to cherry pick the specific tech and biotic powers I wanted.

I think the ideal solution for the next game would be to add back some degree of class restriction, but keep it more open to experimentation than the original trilogy. Like, if you pick Adept you can only have access to biotic abilities, but you have access to all of them. For the hybrid classes, you would have fewer options from each discipline, but still some degree options as opposed to the trilogy where vanguards always had charge, nova, shockwave, etc.

For example, maybe a vanguard would be allowed to choose 1 or 2 weapon disciplines, 3 or 4 combat abilities, and 3 or 4 biotic abilities up front along with a pre-determined set of vanguard passives. You could choose any of the combat or biotic abilties you wanted to start off with, but you were locked in at that point (barring respecs).

I think this would maintain the notion of having a class with a specific playstyle and identity while making that initial choice mean something, but still allow the player a decent amount of freedom to shape that class into their own thing. It would also maintain the lore (specifically regarding biotics) in way Andromeda doesn't, while also improving ways the OT fell short in that regard as well (why were there biotic abilities an adept couldn't use? Or tech abilities an engineer couldn't use?).

@ll_exile_ll: Yeah. Pretty much what you said. I think the best bet would be if they kept the classic classes but also let you Create a Class and be able to pick maybe 10 skills from all of the focus areas and limit you to those 10.

My problem with the system right now is that I don't feel like a specialist in anything. You can use all the weapons and you get so many levels and points you've pretty much got everything you want anyway that your choices feel sort of meaningless. Especially since you can respec at any point. It also kind of makes your squadmates superfluous as well. In older games I always tried to pick companions who complemented my abilities. Here, it's just sort of picking them either because I think I might get unique mission dialogue or based on which ones I find the least obnoxious.

@ll_exile_ll: yeah, your idea is exactly how they should tackle it if they give it another shot. Like I mentioned, I love sential since it's a hybrid between adept and engineer but the powers I was forced to use was annoying. The way you put it, it gives you plenty of freedom without the feeling of "here's everything do whatcha want". I mean that's better than the initial system but looking at my character now, I only have a few passive weapon boosts in combat and the barrier ability. Everything else is in tech and biotics. Hell, I don't even know if passive are working unless I have the correct profile to go with it. But what it saying is it's better to be able to build what you want rather than being restrictive, but some structure would also be nice and most people will probably build their own structure naturally anyway.

All the passives you put points into are active at all times.

Also, yes, that was exactly my experience. I always play adept in my first playthrough of ME games and I did that again here. I rolled with the adept profile from the beginning and went with singularity, lance, and charge right off that bat. I never changed abilities. I didn't want to switch to engineer or soldier on the fly, I wanted my character to be an adept.

I would have liked it if my choice of adept had been locked in from the start and it was reflected by the game. I'd much rather the game acknowledge my class in a narrative sense (much like how being a mage will have a minor impact on dialogue options and how you're treated by other characters in Dragon Age). Choice and options are pointless if there's no limitations and it's never reflected in the game in any way.

Forcing you to commit to something and acknowledging the choice you've made, even in a small way, is much more interesting to me than having the ability to do anything and everything at any time.

I want a sequel to MEA. I think Bioware could've put more polish on the game, and should have, but the outrage is overblown IMO. I've seen more jank in Bethesda games (Oblivion, Skyrim) and other open world games. I would say MGSV, Halo 4 & 5, Destiny, and plenty of other popular games are far less fun and a complete package (value wise) to me. What they setup here is nice, they just need the time/resources to put polish on the next game and don't go so open-world. Keep that to Dragon Age - find a better balance of linear storytelling (the trilogy) and open world exploration (MEA).

Bioware painted themselves in corner with ME3's ending, since they couldn't do a sequel to that without picking one of the three choices. Also, with all that negativity they probably wanted a fresh start. With this game being even more negative they might run in a new direction again. I'd rather they didn't - I don't want something like a Mass Effect prequel of humans meeting aliens for the first time.

Considering EA did sequels to Mirror's Edge, Deadspace, and Titanfall - I don't see the point in questioning the franchise's sequel potential.

@lawgamer: shit.... I can eat home from work today to really put a dent in the game but with your comment I am starting to feel like there is so much more to do in this game. I don't know if I can play 3 huge games all at once and now I'm afraid I may need to put Mass Effect on the "to finish" list now that Persona 5 is out. Man.... if only I hadn't found a switch last weekend.

I think at this point they just have to focus on shipping a finished product. Whether that is DLC or a sequel. With Andromeda being such a mess, I feel like if they want this new trilogy to actually work they have a lot of work to do on anything in the future. From the writing, to the animations, to the QA they just have so much fixing to do if they want to ship a quality product next time around. Releasing a remastered trilogy of ME1-3 at this point would just be reminding people how inferior Andromeda is to everything they put out before it, and how different Bioware is now.

I would start by getting some new hires, because apparently this team they've assembled is not up to the task.

Someone should set the burner to low. It's getting a little overcooked.