Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Mass Effect Legendary Edition remaster trilogy

Atlantico

unida e indivisible
Patron
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
17,153
Location
Midgard
Make the Codex Great Again!
It is strange that EA never looked at Mass Effect as their own Far Cry or Call of Duty that could support annual or biannual releases.

I imagine EA or Bioware didn't perceive RPGs as having long-term series potential, like Battlefield or FIFA.

Mass Effect wasn't a blockbuster hit. It was moderately successful. ME2 was engineered from the start, to be a blockbuster hit.

In other words, the original ME was ditched and ME2 was a soft reboot of the series and it was a massive success.

What I imagine EA/Bioware execs learned from this, was that ME1 was not a winning formula, while ME2 was the golden ticket.

It's ironically similar to what happened to Dead Space and DS2 (and then DS3), which is also and EA franchise from a similar time period.

This lesson is mostly wrong, IMO - in reality, games tend to sell on the reputation of the last game in the series. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it probably has to do with how word-of-mouth works, piracy and deep discounts for older titles.

ME2/ME3 make the galaxy feel way too small, like it's a neighborhood or something.

Precisely, and it also reminds me of the new Star Wars movies. Perhaps this is some kind of a mental trap that some writers/producers fall into when trying to be risk-averse.

It's just a terrible waste of resources and potential, but probably the most "safe" and cynical option.

The missed opportunities and wasted potential of ME2 is excruciating.

It's like seeing an entire crop of grapes, from your favorite vineyard, being crushed to make grape-soda.

What a waste.
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,739
After playing ME1, and considering it was supposed to be a trilogy from the get go (I'm not even sure if it was public knowledge back then, but let's pretend for now), the logical construction of the trilogy would have been so :
Start (ME1) : What reapers are, what happened to the protheans, what threat faces the galaxy. Subplot : Do you side with the council and champion galactic cooperation or do you push the pro-human agenda.
Ending (ME3) : Considering the revelation of ME1, it's safe to assume the end of the trilogy is about how the galaxy faces the reapers, and how they break the never ending cycle (I assume the most cliché version should have prevailed here). Subplot could be about how this threat is faced by either an harmonious coalition of species or humanity alone, who would have by your actions fucked up the council's power and freed europe from brussels technocrats.

In this regard, I would have assumed the bridge, ME2, to explore the galactic politics further, as it should have been the (more or less impactful) C&C generator for the last part. The actual plot would have logically been : how do you convince everyone that the threat is real and they should prepare. The subplot would be how you either favour the council or mankind in your quest for rallying ressources, allies and support from the galaxy.

Since ME2 turned out to be about how there are reapers out there and they need to be stopped, ie. didn't advance the plot of ME1 one bit but rather stuttered on the same shit, but with poorer delivery (Sovereign in ME1 being presented as giving close to 0 fucks about Shepard while whatsitsname in ME2 being homoerotically obsessed with Shepard, which is mega lame), it's difficult to produce a satisfying ending in ME3, since ME3 has to 'fill the shoes' of ME2 and produce a satisfying result to your choices/the plot at the same time. I have very few memories of ME3, but I remember thinking "well ME2 matters fuck all now, doesn't it ?" and the whole trilogy feels utterly pointless in the end.

Imagine getting a proper ME2, where the threat of the reapers is looming in an even more anxiogenous way, as pretty much nobody in the galaxy gives a fuck about your ramblings and keep on following their petty agenda, some of your fellow human included. This would have been a great theme to explore, and with the basic paragon/renegade system could offer two versions : you Ghandi the galaxy up or you settle for the universal chaos, revel in it and use the reaper threat to hijack political power for your faction.
The missed opportunities and wasted potential of ME2 is excruciating.
A villain can't remain mysterious or threatening after you've already prevailed over them multiple times. Only having one antagonist makes a setting feel small.
 
Self-Ejected

MajorMace

Self-Ejected
Patron
Joined
May 6, 2018
Messages
2,008
Location
Souffrance, Franka
After playing ME1, and considering it was supposed to be a trilogy from the get go (I'm not even sure if it was public knowledge back then, but let's pretend for now), the logical construction of the trilogy would have been so :
Start (ME1) : What reapers are, what happened to the protheans, what threat faces the galaxy. Subplot : Do you side with the council and champion galactic cooperation or do you push the pro-human agenda.
Ending (ME3) : Considering the revelation of ME1, it's safe to assume the end of the trilogy is about how the galaxy faces the reapers, and how they break the never ending cycle (I assume the most cliché version should have prevailed here). Subplot could be about how this threat is faced by either an harmonious coalition of species or humanity alone, who would have by your actions fucked up the council's power and freed europe from brussels technocrats.

In this regard, I would have assumed the bridge, ME2, to explore the galactic politics further, as it should have been the (more or less impactful) C&C generator for the last part. The actual plot would have logically been : how do you convince everyone that the threat is real and they should prepare. The subplot would be how you either favour the council or mankind in your quest for rallying ressources, allies and support from the galaxy.

Since ME2 turned out to be about how there are reapers out there and they need to be stopped, ie. didn't advance the plot of ME1 one bit but rather stuttered on the same shit, but with poorer delivery (Sovereign in ME1 being presented as giving close to 0 fucks about Shepard while whatsitsname in ME2 being homoerotically obsessed with Shepard, which is mega lame), it's difficult to produce a satisfying ending in ME3, since ME3 has to 'fill the shoes' of ME2 and produce a satisfying result to your choices/the plot at the same time. I have very few memories of ME3, but I remember thinking "well ME2 matters fuck all now, doesn't it ?" and the whole trilogy feels utterly pointless in the end.

Imagine getting a proper ME2, where the threat of the reapers is looming in an even more anxiogenous way, as pretty much nobody in the galaxy gives a fuck about your ramblings and keep on following their petty agenda, some of your fellow human included. This would have been a great theme to explore, and with the basic paragon/renegade system could offer two versions : you Ghandi the galaxy up or you settle for the universal chaos, revel in it and use the reaper threat to hijack political power for your faction.
The missed opportunities and wasted potential of ME2 is excruciating.
A villain can't remain mysterious or threatening after you've already prevailed over them multiple times. Only having one antagonist makes a setting feel small.
I agree, by facing reapers again and again, you make them mundane. Having a different (or better, no actual) villain in ME2 would have worked very well imo.
Making dissensions and petty oppositions the actual enemy, and making ME2 an exploratory rpg instead of a hollywood tps, would have served ME3 much more.

Well, not if you want to conquer the market that is. And since this was probably their goal, they made the hollywood tps and cashed in. Owell.
 

Nutria

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
2,261
Location
한양
Strap Yourselves In
I imagine EA or Bioware didn't perceive RPGs as having long-term series potential, like Battlefield or FIFA.

ME was made before Bioware got bought out. At that time they were trying to develop their own IP because they were tired of the hassle of licensing stuff like D&D and Star Wars. So they made Jade Empire and ME hoping to build their own setting that they could make sequels in. I don't think they intended ME to be just a trilogy at that time though. There's no good reason why they couldn't have just kept making more games forever.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
36,672
I'm amazed why no rpg developer has ever tried to replicate the mass effect formula. Obsidian, CD projekt, inxile, etc, they try the same pedantic shit over and over again while the space opera set piece extravaganza with larger than life characters resumes itself to mass effect and nothing else.

The market is there, as this remaster shows, anything similar would sell millions, the expertise is there, no lack of developers versed on third person action games. No sure what is missing.

Is The Outer Worlds truly that forgettable? :M
 

Kem0sabe

Arcane
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
13,201
Location
Azores Islands
I'm amazed why no rpg developer has ever tried to replicate the mass effect formula. Obsidian, CD projekt, inxile, etc, they try the same pedantic shit over and over again while the space opera set piece extravaganza with larger than life characters resumes itself to mass effect and nothing else.

The market is there, as this remaster shows, anything similar would sell millions, the expertise is there, no lack of developers versed on third person action games. No sure what is missing.

Is The Outer Worlds truly that forgettable? :M

Outer worlds is nowhere near to being the same type of game as mass effect.
 

Kem0sabe

Arcane
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
13,201
Location
Azores Islands
It's in space and you have a crew of wacky companions, not sure what else you want. Sticky cover?
Third person, varied environments, space opera story with your hero fighting to save the Galaxy from an overwhelming force and against all the odds, big dramatic set pieces.

In mass effect I actually felt like I was playing s hero doing everything to get shit done. In outer worlds I felt like a character in a sitcom doing from sketch to sketch.
 

Riddler

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
2,385
Bubbles In Memoria
I imagine EA or Bioware didn't perceive RPGs as having long-term series potential, like Battlefield or FIFA.

ME was made before Bioware got bought out. At that time they were trying to develop their own IP because they were tired of the hassle of licensing stuff like D&D and Star Wars. So they made Jade Empire and ME hoping to build their own setting that they could make sequels in. I don't think they intended ME to be just a trilogy at that time though. There's no good reason why they couldn't have just kept making more games forever.

My impression was that it was announced as a trilogy from the start as part of a publishing deal with Microsoft. ME1 was initially only released on Xbox.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
Outer worlds is nowhere near to being the same type of game as mass effect.

It's in space and you have a crew of wacky companions, not sure what else you want. Sticky cover?
Outer Worlds is as close to Mass Effect as Fallout is, completely different subgenres.
Mass Effect: mix of space opera and military sci-fi
Outer Worlds: pulp sci-fi/comedy (and space western to some extent too I suppose)
Doesn't help that Outer Worlds is mediocre trash.

They actually don't differ that much in playtime for a full playthrough, you know. And with that playtime ME1 managed to construct a vastly more detailed, interesting world than the Outer Worlds writers could have ever hoped to have done.
 
Last edited:

Yosharian

Arcane
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
10,426
Location
Grand Chien
I'm amazed why no rpg developer has ever tried to replicate the mass effect formula. Obsidian, CD projekt, inxile, etc, they try the same pedantic shit over and over again while the space opera set piece extravaganza with larger than life characters resumes itself to mass effect and nothing else.

The market is there, as this remaster shows, anything similar would sell millions, the expertise is there, no lack of developers versed on third person action games. No sure what is missing.

Is The Outer Worlds truly that forgettable? :M
Outer what now?
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
36,672
And with that playtime ME1 managed to construct a vastly more detailed, interesting world than the Outer Worlds writers could have ever hoped to have done.

"Drew Karpyshyn is a better writer than Leonard Boyarsky" isn't something anyone would expect to see on the Codex back in the 00s. :M
 

Ismaul

Thought Criminal #3333
Patron
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
1,871,810
Location
On Patroll
Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech A Beautifully Desolate Campaign My team has the sexiest and deadliest waifus you can recruit.

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,739
Outer worlds is nowhere near to being the same type of game as mass effect.

It's in space and you have a crew of wacky companions, not sure what else you want. Sticky cover?
Outer Worlds is as close to Mass Effect as Fallout is, completely different subgenres.
Mass Effect: mix of space opera and military sci-fi
Outer Worlds: pulp sci-fi/comedy (and space western to some extent too I suppose)
Doesn't help that Outer Worlds is mediocre trash.

They actually don't differ that much in playtime for a full playthrough, you know. And with that playtime ME1 managed to construct a vastly more detailed, interesting world than the Outer Worlds writers could have ever hoped to have done.
Mass Effect 1 is space opera plus lovecraftian mystery.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
Outer worlds is nowhere near to being the same type of game as mass effect.

It's in space and you have a crew of wacky companions, not sure what else you want. Sticky cover?
Outer Worlds is as close to Mass Effect as Fallout is, completely different subgenres.
Mass Effect: mix of space opera and military sci-fi
Outer Worlds: pulp sci-fi/comedy (and space western to some extent too I suppose)
Doesn't help that Outer Worlds is mediocre trash.

They actually don't differ that much in playtime for a full playthrough, you know. And with that playtime ME1 managed to construct a vastly more detailed, interesting world than the Outer Worlds writers could have ever hoped to have done.
Mass Effect 1 is space opera plus lovecraftian mystery.
ME1 is definitely military sci-fi. There's even a term used in sci-fi literature for this because the two overlap so much: military space opera
 

HansDampf

Arcane
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
1,545
The Dark Matter plot is a bit of a meme. People overstate the number of references to it in ME2. I've been intentionally looking out for references to it this time, and thus far there's only been one when you rescue the Quarian in an early mission. He says the Collectors had traces of dark energy readings. But honestly, that's the kind of thing you might write about them anyway, since they are supposed to be a mysterious threat from a mass relay that nobody else can travel through.
It's in Tali's recruiting mission.
https://masseffect.fandom.com/wiki/Dholen
quarian scientists are worried about dark energy destabilizing Dholen and causing it to mature into a red giant too rapidly
This would have been the fate of the entire galaxy if the Reapers didn't intervene. Rapidly aging and dying stars. No more habitable planets.
 

donkeymong

Augur
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
211
I wonder what happened between ME1 and 2 to cause this shift in direction.


We go from a game with good writing to a game with pretty much no qualities.

I thought the gameplay in ME2 was ok
Lol, not even close. No combat rolls, no blindfire, no proper grenades. Artificial cover, sticking out in the enviroment, no enemies flanking you.No decent melee attacks.All that something that even the first Gears of War has, that set the standard in popamole third person shooters(and was relased some years before.In the first game
, biotic and tech powers were powerfull and fun, so they made up for that, also, cover wasnt needed late game.
 

donkeymong

Augur
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
211
Yes, we know all of this because ME is the most analysed video game series in existence. Quite undeservedly if you ask me, but eh.


A decade has passed and it's all a mess and it's interesting to see how you can go from a rather generic and safe action-RPG to the disasters that followed - the main disaster being that ME2, terrible as it was, appealed to the mainstream.

.
One million more really isnt such a success:
https://www.vgchartz.com/article/250066/mass-effect-a-sales-history/

Especially considering higher cost for developing that one.
 

Orud

Scholar
Patron
Joined
May 2, 2021
Messages
1,129
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut Codex+ Now Streaming!
Wasn't the switch done after gathering feedback from ME1 reviews, where the common complaints were terrible shooting mechanics, dull side missions and the Mako being shit to control?

That they changed the shooting mechanics, was fine. What was not, was also gutting all other combat mechanics (healing kits, grenades, etc... ) at the same time. I do believe we can blame Gears of War for this, since the combat almost became a carbon copy of it. Combat arena's with waist-high cover everywhere, slow-high-damage omni-blade melee attacks, blood on the edge of your screen when low on heath and, finally, regenerative health. Despite the switch, I still think ME2 was a shit shooter. It wasn't until ME3 that they changed it into an enjoyable shooter with decent mechanics. I really enjoyed ME3's multiplayer, but it also stopped being an RPG, combat-wise. Some people might claim build diversity, but it was minor (both in the amount of builds and differences between builds).

However, I have less understanding for the outright removal of the Mako. It added scale along with a sense of exploration and otherworldliness to any mission, not just the side missions. While some missions were nothing but shooting galleries and the controls were annoying, it was integral to making ME1 feel like a grand universe. They should've tweaked it rather than removing it, because a simply flyby of an area can't replace it.
 
Last edited:

Nano

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 6, 2016
Messages
4,817
Grab the Codex by the pussy Strap Yourselves In Enjoy the Revolution! Another revolution around the sun that is.
It's in Tali's recruiting mission.
Her loyalty mission too.

But to be honest, "we need to genocide everyone every 50k years because of dying stars" is probably even dumber than what they came up with in ME3.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom