New Mass Effect Game

DWolvin

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 13, 2002
Messages
2,772
Single sequel to both? Oh boy...

Didn't it take centuries to get to Andromeda?
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,969
Single sequel to both? Oh boy...

Didn't it take centuries to get to Andromeda?

Yeah but I assume this game will take place many, many years later. Liara (if that is her) would still be alive even if the rest of the case past away. Asari live a long time, Salarians live short lives. Don't recall how long Krogans live but I recall them living longer to. Which would be nice, a few returning characters but you wouldn't want all of them. I wouldn't expect them to rebuild the relays within years. And the teaser showed them, I assume repaired/remade.
 

Mad Maxx

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 12, 2016
Messages
5,758
Yeah but I assume this game will take place many, many years later. Liara (if that is her) would still be alive even if the rest of the case past away. Asari live a long time, Salarians live short lives. Don't recall how long Krogans live but I recall them living longer to. Which would be nice, a few returning characters but you wouldn't want all of them. I wouldn't expect them to rebuild the relays within years. And the teaser showed them, I assume repaired/remade.
Asari can live past 1000, Krogan can make it to about 800, Salarians rarely get to 40, Drell get about 85 and humans can live to 150.

Still don’t know how long Turians and Quarians live.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,209
I wonder how they're going to handle the canon end to the original trilogy? While I'm sure they can figure out a way to write around nearly any of them, unless they do something like essentially take one of the ME3 mods (expanded galaxy + MEHEM etc) viewpoint, they'll have to kinda decide one of the three paths - Destruction, Control, Synthesis , right?

Now, from the LOOK of it it doesn't appear everyone has the "green glow reaper bio- tech" of the best Synthesis ending, but I suppose they could find and easy way to write around the end of that (ie people essentially modded themselves not to glow all the time, a trivial pursuit given that level of biomechanical engineering). If they went with the Control ending then Overlord-Shepard guided Reapers must be hanging around out there somewhere even all those years later, doing good things. Lastly, the simplest thing would be a highest war-resource Destroy ending where Shepard survived (note that in all 3 endings in the Extended Cut the Normandy SR2 crashes but is shown to be repaired and lifts off) which would mean the least amount of massive overarching change to the universe. Unless they take the absolutely ballsiest ending of all which frankly would be hard to explain - that the whole ending of ME3 was Indoctrination via Harbinger or something, which some thought was going to be a "big twist" real ending. I seem to remember the best (and only) possible evidence for this being the lowest war resource destroy ending where, as opposed to the max-resource Destroy where Shepard breathes under the rubble of the Catalyst, in the lowest-resource Destroy there's a mirrored scene in London with a similar pile of rubble (no breath), suggesting Shepard was on Earth and thus it could have all been an Indoctrination element. This, mixed with the Reject (don't make a choice at all and let the Reapers do their thing, bad end) ending being the only one in which Harbinger's voice can be heard instead of the Catalyst "Star Child".

Anyway, it will be neat to see where they go with this both in terms of Andromeda and the original Trilogy . The picking up the N7 marked tech (Armor ? Something from the ship? Shepard's body if we assume he died) and what very well may be Matriarch Liara pictured there at the end. Lets hope its a solid step forward. Some suggest that the updated/remastered "Legendary Edition" coming out next year for next gen hardware may have just enough tweaks and updates it in terms of new content to be a hint as to where we're going.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,372
Would you guys like a story where they cloned Shepard? I would.
They already did that.

Sheprad's story is done. Or what (s)he would save the world from an even greater threat? Fuck no. I like the universe, but I Don't want the baggage. Frankly having liara in it is already too much baggage. It'd just weigh down any story. Misdirect the focus.

Gamers are a strange bunch. They say they want companies to take more risk, but when they do, they realize all they wanted is a copy of a copy of a copy.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,812
They already did that.

Sheprad's story is done. Or what (s)he would save the world from an even greater threat? Fuck no. I like the universe, but I Don't want the baggage. Frankly having liara in it is already too much baggage. It'd just weigh down any story. Misdirect the focus.

Gamers are a strange bunch. They say they want companies to take more risk, but when they do, they realize all they wanted is a copy of a copy of a copy.
Or Andromeda was a pile. I had no issues with the concept. The issue is that Andromeda was average at best. The story was just derivative boring crap, and most of the game felt lifeless and empty. Not to mention all the new characters had awful voice acting and writing as well. The scramble to make a game in basically one year of that scale because of poor management shows. It’s a barren, shitty game. The only good part was the combat upgrades.
 

LurkerLito

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,403
I wonder how they're going to handle the canon end to the original trilogy? <snip>
Dam. How do you remember all of that? I can honestly say I only remember roughly up to the star child multiple choice test then my memory blanks like I purposefully deleted my memory of whatever choice I made for the ending and it's consequences. :)
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
4,812
It is funny how you people get so excited real quick and forgetting that Bioware hasn't had a good track record in recent times.
Oh, I have no hope for this game. EA/Bioware have an awful track record right now, and I think Bioware working on DA4, this new Mass Effect, and whatever else they are doing is the same recipe for disaster that brought us Anthem/Andromeda. The real talent is being spread too thin.
 
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
1,000
Oh, I have no hope for this game. EA/Bioware have an awful track record right now, and I think Bioware working on DA4, this new Mass Effect, and whatever else they are doing is the same recipe for disaster that brought us Anthem/Andromeda. The real talent is being spread too thin.
I also think there really is no more talent left at this point.
Or more likely that all talent was slowly crushed by EA/business-types overreach.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,969
They already did that.

Sheprad's story is done. Or what (s)he would save the world from an even greater threat? Fuck no. I like the universe, but I Don't want the baggage. Frankly having liara in it is already too much baggage. It'd just weigh down any story. Misdirect the focus.

Gamers are a strange bunch. They say they want companies to take more risk, but when they do, they realize all they wanted is a copy of a copy of a copy.

Kind of what I think. You can't keep bringing someone back from the dead. It makes sacrifices have a lesser impact. But I am not entirely opposed to it either. Depending on the story quality and gameplay, it can be good or bad regardless. The big question is what they plan for the plot. What made the first trilogy interesting is how it gradually expanded. It started off fairly small and by the end of the first game we knew Shepard had stepped into a situation far bigger in scope than thought in the earlier part of the game. Pacing, delivery and expansiveness is what made it great. I think it will be hard for them to top the original trilogy in that aspect.

As for risks, they have to take the right risks. Genre swapping or changing things for the worse and then pretending it is great isn't going to win any favors. I seldom see any game take risks that are worthwhile. Typically we end up with something like:

- Assassin's Creed Odyssey (turned into a crappy grind/level spam RPG)
- Mass Effect Andromeda (turned into an open world like experience at the expense of story, didn't realize the mix of shooter & focused story aspects is what made the series not excessive sidequests)
- Wildlands (genre swap)
- Ace Combat Assault Horizon (didn't improve story writing, made it more bland and generic, didn't add more depth to flight/combat but instead made it more on rails/arcadey).

Which were all step backs from the games that preceded them. Every game in the above series needed some changes and could've taken some risks. Every single one did the exact opposite of what was needed and the result sucked.

And this is something I really hope they have figured out for the new Mass Effect.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,372
Kind of what I think. You can't keep bringing someone back from the dead. It makes sacrifices have a lesser impact. But I am not entirely opposed to it either. Depending on the story quality and gameplay, it can be good or bad regardless. The big question is what they plan for the plot. What made the first trilogy interesting is how it gradually expanded. It started off fairly small and by the end of the first game we knew Shepard had stepped into a situation far bigger in scope than thought in the earlier part of the game. Pacing, delivery and expansiveness is what made it great. I think it will be hard for them to top the original trilogy in that aspect.
That is exactly the point, Shepard is already big, doing anything small would be benath the character, and if they pull a time travel plot where he gets transported into a world where he is unknown that would be just cheap. And why the hell not use a fresh character then? There can't be a sense of progression if you start with a character who already realized his potential.

As for risks, they have to take the right risks. Genre swapping or changing things for the worse and then pretending it is great isn't going to win any favors. I seldom see any game take risks that are worthwhile. Typically we end up with something like:
Genre swapping is a risk, and it's not always for the worse. Heck some of the best games are genre swapped. Or do you think GTA3 shouldn't have switched from a 2D top down action game, to a full blown narrative driven TPS in a 3D environment? Was that a mistake? Or Dune II switching to, or rather inventing the RTS genre?

- Assassin's Creed Odyssey (turned into a crappy grind/level spam RPG)
- Mass Effect Andromeda (turned into an open world like experience at the expense of story, didn't realize the mix of shooter & focused story aspects is what made the series not excessive sidequests)
- Wildlands (genre swap)
Tough luck to you I guess, because I liked all those games. Some more than others.

Which were all step backs from the games that preceded them. Every game in the above series needed some changes and could've taken some risks. Every single one did the exact opposite of what was needed and the result sucked.
You can't measure success based on how much you personally like a game. The numbers except for andromeda are not in your favor. Which wasn't even a genre swap, it's no more open world than the previous games. In each you could freely fly between star systems. And explore a small portion of planets, that never changed.

And this is something I really hope they have figured out for the new Mass Effect.
What they should really figure out is not to make the game people are expecting, they must make the game they want to, that they have a vision for, no matter what that might be. For better or worse I really hope they stick to that, instead of trying to predict what people want.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,372
It is funny how you people get so excited real quick and forgetting that Bioware hasn't had a good track record in recent times.
Meh, I'm not ready to bury them yet, because of one misstep, that hardly counts because it's in another genre entirely. I'd not be interested in Anthem if it was made perfect from the get go. And I still enjoyed Dragon Age Inquisition and Mass Effect Andromeda despite their flaws. So if they only make a game as good as those that's still better than nothing in my book.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,969
That is exactly the point, Shepard is already big, doing anything small would be benath the character, and if they pull a time travel plot where he gets transported into a world where he is unknown that would be just cheap. And why the hell not use a fresh character then? There can't be a sense of progression if you start with a character who already realized his potential.

Personally, I leave it up to them to determine if they can write it properly or not. I give it a toss up. Shepard alive or dead doesn't matter to me. Just make it work. Problem is a mentioned, it will be hard to follow up. Thwarting a plot to end all life in the galaxy is hard to top in terms of urgency and relevance. But again, I leave it up to them to write something good. Lets hope they follow through.

Genre swapping is a risk, and it's not always for the worse. Heck some of the best games are genre swapped. Or do you think GTA3 shouldn't have switched from a 2D top down action game, to a full blown narrative driven TPS in a 3D environment? Was that a mistake? Or Dune II switching to, or rather inventing the RTS genre?

2D to 3D isn't swapping genres, it is just using new technology to bring a more life like experience. Same more expanding narrative quality.

But using Wildlands as an example, they swapped genres to an action/exploration game. The squad commands got even worse to the point they didn't even try and allow teleporting for your team because they couldn't figure it out. You can't even position them. That is a huge regression and makes them practically useless. Sure it gets them more sales, but they did the opposite of take a risk. They made it more accessible for the mainstream. If they wanted to take a risk they would've went back to the series roots even if the sales wouldn't be there.

Tough luck to you I guess, because I liked all those games. Some more than others.

You can like them, I'm just shooting holes in your "gamers want developers to take risks" argument. For all those four games, they did the opposite of take a risk. Gamers often do want the same thing, hence the push for open world RPGs for everything single player and crazy cosmetics for multiplayer. They tend to want the same basic formula wrapped up in different packages.

Then you have others like myself who do want developers to take risks and improve upon their genre; and that means not making another carbon copy open world action/RPG. Instead we get regression. Assassin's Creed stories became too long winded and disconnected, and the clean, smooth stealth mechanics are gone and replaced with a bum rush fighting game where you can impale someone 30 times before they die. Perfect example right there.

You can't measure success based on how much you personally like a game.

Success is measured by sales. If we went by that logic, should every game be a Fortnite clone? I think not. I have no problem with people playing that, but I want a serious non-cartoon looking MP game or a good SP game that doesn't try to emulate the cosmetics of it.

What they should really figure out is not to make the game people are expecting, they must make the game they want to, that they have a vision for, no matter what that might be. For better or worse I really hope they stick to that, instead of trying to predict what people want.

As long as it is cleverly written, the story is very present, is a focused shooter with some RPG elements I'd be happy with that. I just don't want a 70 hour game filled with MMO style upgrade quests that serve no purpose. I don't want more forced multiplayer stuff. I don't want to be starring at screens trying to figure out where I can find the right space rock to upgrade my pistol so it can kill some body because they magically gained more health due to a level system.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,372
Personally, I leave it up to them to determine if they can write it properly or not. I give it a toss up. Shepard alive or dead doesn't matter to me. Just make it work. Problem is a mentioned, it will be hard to follow up. Thwarting a plot to end all life in the galaxy is hard to top in terms of urgency and relevance. But again, I leave it up to them to write something good. Lets hope they follow through.
I don't see a way of using Shepard without degrading the character or it being derivative. So I'd prefer if they did not use him, at least not as the player character. I doubt bringing him back is what they really want to do creatively, it feels more like desperation to me.

2D to 3D isn't swapping genres, it is just using new technology to bring a more life like experience. Same more expanding narrative quality.
2D top down side scrolling game, to 3D action game with fully fledged out story, not a genre swapping? So Duke3D wasn't genre swapping either? By this standard Fallout3 isn't a genre swap either as it is still an RPG.
But using Wildlands as an example, they swapped genres to an action/exploration game. The squad commands got even worse to the point they didn't even try and allow teleporting for your team because they couldn't figure it out. You can't even position them. That is a huge regression and makes them practically useless. Sure it gets them more sales, but they did the opposite of take a risk. They made it more accessible for the mainstream. If they wanted to take a risk they would've went back to the series roots even if the sales wouldn't be there.
You are still doubling down on your own personal gripes with the game. That doesn't mean it was bad for the franchise. Taking risks does not have to be financial suicide. There is a sweet spot between making fortnite clones. Which of course is far from a guarantee of success anyway. And making a game that has a diminishing fanbase. Which is exactly the opposite of taking a risk, it's the known quantity. The risk was to change the formula, making the same game you were used to is not a risk. The same goes for Assassin's creed, either they were going to continue using the same formula (which imo didn't work well to begin with) or change the game into what Origins / Odyssey / Valhalla is. Now Valhalla of course they are settled into that which is not necessarily good. I hope with the next game they dare to change and not make basically the same game with a different skin again. Remember that's what you wanted, for them to make the same game you are used to, the only difference is that you liked that game, and do not like this. The double standard is strong with you.

You can like them, I'm just shooting holes in your "gamers want developers to take risks" argument. For all those four games, they did the opposite of take a risk. Gamers often do want the same thing, hence the push for open world RPGs for everything single player and crazy cosmetics for multiplayer. They tend to want the same basic formula wrapped up in different packages.
Look out, most of your bullets are hitting your feet. Gamers don't know what they want, and developers only know what they already did. Repeating the same thing is not taking a risk, doing something new is. And taking a franchise where it hasn't been before is a risk too, even if you don't agree it should be taken there.
Then you have others like myself who do want developers to take risks and improve upon their genre;
Recycling the same formula with minor incremental improvements, in what world is that taking a risk? Unless by risk you mean doing the same thing and expecting it to somehow magically make more money the next time. You let your personal feelings get in the way of objectivity. For example making NFS: Underground was a risk that paid off for EA, I hate the guts of that game, it ruined everything I liked about NFS, but at the same time it is a favorite of so many people that I can't deny it's success, and if I wished it was never made I'd be an asshole.

and that means not making another carbon copy open world action/RPG. Instead we get regression. Assassin's Creed stories became too long winded and disconnected, and the clean, smooth stealth mechanics are gone and replaced with a bum rush fighting game where you can impale someone 30 times before they die. Perfect example right there.
I get it, you don't like open world action RPGs, but that's not a measure of risk nor success. I never liked Assassin's Creed not even the story, until I played Odyssey. Yet you think making it was a mistake.
Success is measured by sales. If we went by that logic, should every game be a Fortnite clone? I think not. I have no problem with people playing that, but I want a serious non-cartoon looking MP game or a good SP game that doesn't try to emulate the cosmetics of it.
As I already mentioned this above, there is a long distance between financial suicide by making a game that is known not to bring in the sales, vs making the exact clone of fortnite. Which is in a weird void anyway imo. I'd wager that 90% of fornite players barely play any other game, let alone games outside the battle royal genre.
As long as it is cleverly written, the story is very present, is a focused shooter with some RPG elements I'd be happy with that. I just don't want a 70 hour game filled with MMO style upgrade quests that serve no purpose. I don't want more forced multiplayer stuff. I don't want to be starring at screens trying to figure out where I can find the right space rock to upgrade my pistol so it can kill some body because they magically gained more health due to a level system.
Mass Effect1 was an RPG already, you needed to upgrade or sorry, replace your pistol every 10 minutes with a more powerful version of the exact same item. And the ammo, and the mods, it was ridiculous. Forced multiplayer was in ME3, but was patched out in short order. So what you describe aren't the failings of Andromeda. All I want is a solid story with passable and likeable characters, without regurgitating Shepard. I don't mind if it's an action RPG, or FPS, or immersive sim.
 

singe_101

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
2,150
They can use the Control ending and all reapers destroyed themselves by flying toward massive stars. Even reapers would be obliterated.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,969
I don't see a way of using Shepard without degrading the character or it being derivative. So I'd prefer if they did not use him, at least not as the player character. I doubt bringing him back is what they really want to do creatively, it feels more like desperation to me.

I'll leave the writing up to them. It can end up good, but it can also end up bad. As for desperation, that is what Andromeda and these new games are. The original trilogy ended they decided to milk the IP. If it results in good games I don't mind, but lets not pretend this is anything but EA trying to cash in on what they think will sell.

2D top down side scrolling game, to 3D action game with fully fledged out story, not a genre swapping?

Depends if the genre changed or stayed the same. Metal Gear was always considered a stealth game despite the camera angle changing. Rainbow Six & Ghost Recon went from having no visible weapon or hands to showing them in 1st person in sequels and stayed within the genre for the early 2000s. Gameplay goal largely stayed the same, but the technologies allowed more realistic interpretations of this.

You are still doubling down on your own personal gripes with the game. That doesn't mean it was bad for the franchise.

You're missing the points. I'll reiterate with colors as emphasis:

"Sure it gets them more sales, but they did the opposite of take a risk. They made it more accessible for the mainstream. If they wanted to take a risk they would've went back to the series roots even if the sales wouldn't be there."

Red part = measurement for success.
Blue part = taking a risk, or in this case, not.

In the case of Wildlands, swapping genres wasn't a risk. It was a known quantity and what practically every other game is these days. An open world action/adventure game. Core gameplay loop is the same in Wildlands as it was for Far Cry 3/4/5/ND as it was for Watch Dogs 1/2. And that is just Ubisoft's own games. It is what sells, generic, bland, but it sells. It isn't taking a risk, but it is a success.

Which is where taking the right risks comes in. Gives us smarter NPCs that can dynamically position themselves better, better & more precise commands, smarter enemy NPCs. It would be a risk, going back to the series roots, and push the genre forward.

Instead, we get teleporting team NPCs that can walk right up to an enemy and not detect each other until the player is spotted. With 4 commands, one of which is Regroup. They didn't take any of the necessary risks, just went with what they knew would make the most cash.

Taking risks does not have to be financial suicide.

Exactly. And your point is?

And making a game that has a diminishing fanbase. Which is exactly the opposite of taking a risk, it's the known quantity.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about in the bolded part. But yes, it can be a risk to go back and make an improved but similar game with modern technology. A risk is just that, a risk. A risk that not enough players will buy it, which means lower profits. And higher profits are what wins out.

You seem to think taking a risk in game design = swapping genres or making something with lots of mainstream appeal. It isn't.

The risk was to change the formula...

There is no risk in making a generic, mainstream formula that you know sells. Making a product that has higher chances of financial success is the exact opposite.

Remember that's what you wanted, for them to make the same game you are used to...

And if the end result is great there is nothing wrong with that. Imagine if developers didn't push their genres forward and just swapped them every other game. We'd still be stuck playing Doom clones for shooters.

As I already mentioned this above, there is a long distance between financial suicide...

And? There are plenty of good games and genres that can be explored more, especially with modern technology, but they won't have as high returns. Simplified example:

Scenario A - Invest $1 - get $2
Scenario B - Invest $3 - get $6

Most companies will go for scenario B.

Mass Effect1 was an RPG already, you needed to upgrade or sorry, replace your pistol every 10 minutes with a more powerful version of the exact same item. And the ammo, and the mods, it was ridiculous. Forced multiplayer was in ME3, but was patched out in short order. So what you describe aren't the failings of Andromeda. All I want is a solid story with passable and likeable characters, without regurgitating Shepard. I don't mind if it's an action RPG, or FPS, or immersive sim.

Yes, you highlighted the single worst thing about ME1. The horrific inventory system that everyone hated, that was dumped in ME2/3 for the better. I haven't ever heard anyone say they loved the weapon/inventory system of ME1. It sucked in ME1, I don't want to see the same crap brought back. ME3 had the best weapon management by far.

Grenades were fine in ME1 though.
 

Denpepe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
1,938
Mass Effect 5 might use Unreal Engine instead of Frostbite

I’ve confirmed through multiple sources that this is because everything is on the table when it comes to tech for a new Mass Effect — and that includes potentially replacing EA’s in-house Frostbite engine with Unreal...

https://venturebeat.com/2021/09/03/mass-effect-5-unreal/
That sucks, lot's of issues with unreal engine controls, mostly due to me using azerty and devs not caring about implementing that correctly.
 

Colonel Sanders

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 26, 2001
Messages
4,944
That sucks, lot's of issues with unreal engine controls, mostly due to me using azerty and devs not caring about implementing that correctly.
that has nothing to do with the engine and entirely to do with whether developers give a shit enough to cater to fully custom keybinds
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,969
d09066473d3572ef5438b18caef38ac3.jpg


Not much, but maybe they are inching closer.
 

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
4,886
They already did that.

Sheprad's story is done. Or what (s)he would save the world from an even greater threat? Fuck no. I like the universe, but I Don't want the baggage. Frankly having liara in it is already too much baggage. It'd just weigh down any story. Misdirect the focus.

Gamers are a strange bunch. They say they want companies to take more risk, but when they do, they realize all they wanted is a copy of a copy of a copy.
This right here. The original ME story was definitively concluded with ME3. Anything more is a spin-offs or reboot. There is NO way they can continue the story without it being hamstrung and shoehorned -- and that has never once worked in the history of TV/movies/games/literature.

Continue the Andromeda storyline and bring in the reapers, do a more focused spin off of one of the surviving characters e.g. the adventures of Liara and Garrus, completely new set of characters post ME3... Anything but a half-assed continuation of the main story. These types of stories can actually work.
 

HAL_404

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
1,238
View attachment 410569

Not much, but maybe they are inching closer.
ya, a lot closer than my dropping $800 on a $400 GPU is. I hope this game will run well on a GTX 970 (still the most used gaming GPU on Steam). Bioware/EA is excellent when it come to ME and fps without having to turn stuff off to get good fps results @ 1080p ... may that continue on to ME 5 ... here's to hoping.
 
Top