Top
160°

Mass Effect Legendary Edition Visual Improvements

"Welcome back, everyone!
The art of Mass Effect supports and builds a universe in which rich stories and characters can be fully realized. It may sound somewhat counterintuitive, but as artists—especially on this remaster—we want players to be able to experience the trilogy again, or for the first time, without being distracted by the art.
Our goal from the onset was to improve and enhance the visuals while staying true to the original aesthetics of the trilogy that have become so iconic and genre-defining over the past decade. A remaster rather than remake allowed us to build upon the original assets in a way that resembles the polishing phase in a normal development cycle, while also being able to utilize the advantages of much more modern hardware and software."

The story is too old to be commented.
DJStotty26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

£55 for better textures and other whistles?

No thanks, i will just play the originals through BC.

"EA Fleece - it's in the game"

"all remastered and optimized for 4k Ultra HD." Pretty sure the xbox one is not capable of 4K, so how can they even advertise this game for xbox one?

LordoftheCritics26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

All games, all Dlcs, improved graphics, maintained aesthetics and art style, enhanced gameplay, fixed older games to newer standards.

Definitely grabbing it and also a no brainer for anyone who hasn't played them.

EmperorDalek26d ago

Of all the things to bash EA for, this remaster doesn't look to be one of them.

No PS4 Pro or Xbox One X enhanced games should advertise 4K, using your logic.

DJStotty26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

So if you own a vanilla xbox one, what would be the reason for buying this legendary edition, if you own all 3 base games?

PS4 Pro/Xbox One X enhanced games are clear when they advertise you need a One X/PS4 Pro to get the enhancements.

The Xbox One version is listed as advertising 4K, this is the issue, they need to state in order to get the enhancements, Xbox One X/Series S/Series X is required.

BlaqMagiq126d ago

I mean on top of improved textures you get:

60fps
WAY faster load times
Improved mechanics, especially for ME1 in terms of gunplay and Mako
All DLCs except for Pinnacle Station, properly integrated into the game
Fixes to bugs that were around for years for all 3 games
Improved character creator with it being consistent across all 3 games

The only significant thing that's missing is the MP which I personally don't care for. I will take all of that for $60. Can't wait to pop this into my PS5 for the even faster load times and locked 60fps.

DJStotty26d ago

None of what you mentioned you get if you own the xbox one.

You are referring to current gen, how does the xbox one benefit from way faster load times?

This is only beneficial to newcomers to the series, i have all 3, and all dlc's, and in no way am i paying another £60, to play the same games that look better, when i can pop the originals in the tray.

Not to mention the entire series is already on gamepass including Andromeda.

Be careful about justifying full prices for better graphics, it is simply a cash grab, it is not even a remake. If you want a future industry where developers are releasing games, and then charging you another £60 to upgrade the game a few years later, then more power to you.

Graphical upgrades should be free of charge for current owners of said game, not a full £60 brand new release.

Question for you all, why couldn't Bioware/EA just release a Series S|X/PS5 patch for the back compat games? you know like some have done with multiple others? e.g. Doom and Doom 2 have a 360 version, and an xbox one version, why could they not have done that? cash grab, simple, no matter how much icing and sugar you want to put on it.

BlaqMagiq125d ago

"None of what you mentioned you get if you own the xbox one."

Lmfao what? Aside from 4K and 60fps you literally get everything else I just mentioned on base ps4 and xbox one. It's clear you don't know anything about this remaster and are just claiming ONLY better graphics and cash grab.

"You are referring to current gen, how does the xbox one benefit from way faster load times?"

Umm load times IN GENERAL are faster on ps4/xbox one, ps4pro/xbox one x and are made even faster on current gen due to better hardware. Did I really need to explain this?

"This is only beneficial to newcomers to the series, i have all 3, and all dlc's, and in no way am i paying another £60, to play the same games that look better, when i can pop the originals in the tray. Not to mention the entire series is already on gamepass including Andromeda."

And it will look, run, and play worse than the remaster. If you actually saw what they were doing with the remaster you would know that. But you're free to continue playing the objectively inferior originals. Andromeda is garbage in general, don't know why you mentioned that but whatever.

"Be careful about justifying full prices for better graphics, it is simply a cash grab, it is not even a remake. If you want a future industry where developers are releasing games, and then charging you another £60 to upgrade the game a few years later, then more power to you."

Lmfao I literally just listed everything the remaster offers on top of better graphics and you chose to ignore that. That's your problem not mine.

"Graphical upgrades should be free of charge for current owners of said game, not a full £60 brand new release."

Now this might be the dumbest thing you've said. If you really think they're going to release remasters of games that are 10 years old, that's been worked on for 2 years, and overhauls all 3 games in terms of graphics AND gameplay for free you are smoking something fierce. That is nothing but pure entitlement and you clearly don't know how game development works. They are a business not a charity, and this is coming from someone who despises EA.

"Question for you all, why couldn't Bioware/EA just release a Series S|X/PS5 patch for the back compat games? you know like some have done with multiple others? e.g. Doom and Doom 2 have a 360 version, and an xbox one version, why could they not have done that? cash grab, simple, no matter how much icing and sugar you want to put on it."

Umm because first of all, it's not BC on PS4. Second of all, they OVERHAULED all 3 games and included everything like I said before. Doom 1 and 2 on 360 and XB1 are 2 separate versions that run on 2 different engines and the XB1 version you STILL have to pay for. All I'm getting from your comment is that all remasters should be free, which again is nothing but pure entitlement.

DJStotty25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

"Aside from 4K and 60fps you literally get everything else I just mentioned on base ps4 and xbox one."

Faster load times? How?

So you have just clarified, that if you have the base xbox console, you do not get 4K or 60fps, lol, pretty sure i just said that to you and you tried to argue against it?

"Now this might be the dumbest thing you've said. If you really think they're going to release remasters of games that are 10 years old, that's been worked on for 2 years, and overhauls all 3 games in terms of graphics AND gameplay for free you are smoking something fierce."

Resident Evil 2 Remake - A full remake, not a remaster was only £39.99 at launch.

My problem is not with company's remastering games, you simply did not read what i said, and went on an all defensive fanboy rant. The problem is the PRICE!!!!!!

A "remaster" seeing as you implied i do not know what one is, is the same game, with better graphics.

A "remake" is a full bottom to top, remake of a game, with different gameplay elements etc.

Could you provide a link with the load time comparison between base Xbox one and One X/Series X? you must have it as you claimed you know them.

"All I'm getting from your comment is that all remasters should be free"

No, i never said that, that is your tiny brain making assumptions, i will quote myself :-

(From another comment) :-

"I agree fully :-

Remakes - £40 or less.
Remasters - £25 or less."

"Graphical upgrades should be free of charge for current owners of said game, not a full £60 brand new release."

I am talking about the simple graphical upgrades, to 4K textures, not the remaster, not the whole game, the graphical upgrades, when i stated "graphical upgrades"

"This is only beneficial to newcomers to the series, i have all 3, and all dlc's, and in no way am i paying another £60, to play the same games that look better, when i can pop the originals in the tray."

Again, just mentioned the cost, not that i expected a remaster for free, i thought this was quite evident in the fact i never said remasters should be free.

"and overhauls all 3 games in terms of graphics AND gameplay for free you are smoking something fierce."

What are these gameplay overhauls you mention? they did not mention them in the video? Everything the video showed, was a graphical enhancement, watch it again, look for yourself.

"They had to improve over thirty thousand textures for Mass Effect: Legendary Edition, many of them from 720p or lower to 4K — the standard for the new remaster. Most of it has been done using AI-enabled up-res programs, in conjunction with upgrading Unreal Engine 3 (used on the original Mass Effect trilogy) to a “more updated and unified version”."

"Improved mechanics, especially for ME1 in terms of gunplay and Mako"

Have you got a video for the "improved gunplay and Mako"?

If you want to pay £60 for a remaster, that is your choice, just don't be disappointed when you realise what you paid for is exactly the same game, that looks a bit better.

DJStotty24d ago (Edited 24d ago )

ME1 :

improved gunplay :

"Reticule changes/upgraded HUD/no class restrictive weapons"

Mako changes :

"Better handling/better aiming/new reticule/boost"

Loading times :

You claimed they are clearly compared here, but the video you linked, shows next-gen SSD loading times compared to the original, not the xbox one like i was referring to. He clearly says reduced loading times due to faster HDD's. How do i know this you ask? Because the xbox 360, and the xbox one have the same speed HDD, 5400RPM.

Other changes :

Reworked inventory/store/graphical upgrades

ME:2

Changes - mostly graphical and bug fixes

ME:3

Changes - All graphical

So no major changes compared to the originals warranting £60, did i miss anything? what's that? my initial statement of mainly graphical upgrades is correct? even using your video link as a reference? Base Xbox one do not benefit from faster load times or graphical 4K assets? like i stated all along?

I am not paying £60 for a better ME1, and a slightly better ME2 and 3.

I repeat, i am not saying it is bad, i am saying it is not WORTH £60, stop referring to me trying to discredit any work they have put in to the legendary edition.

RE2:Remake in the UK was £39.99 at launch - a REMAKE from the ground up
MA:LE in the UK is £54.99 at launch - a remaster

That is my entire point

Like i said, if you are happy shelling 60 for mainly graphical upgrades, your choice, i personally will not.

Now to go have a conversation with some adults.

BlaqMagiq124d ago

"Faster load times? How?"

Lol there is a video that literally SHOWS load times are faster.

"So you have just clarified, that if you have the base xbox console, you do not get 4K or 60fps, lol, pretty sure i just said that to you and you tried to argue against it?"

Umm I just said ASIDE from 4K and 60fps as in it's NOT on base xbox one. I said you get everything else I mentioned on that list. How am I arguing against if I said it's not there? You're the one it's arguing is a simple upgrade and nothing else. Wow you can't read.

"Resident Evil 2 Remake - A full remake, not a remaster was only £39.99 at launch. My problem is not with company's remastering games, you simply did not read what i said, and went on an all defensive fanboy rant. The problem is the PRICE!!!!!!""

In the US the game launched at $60, the same price as ME Legendary Edition, which I'm perfectly fine with as the work justified the price. I read everything you said and you simply think it's just a simple graphical upgrade and therefore it shouldn't be worth launch price which is laughable seeing that they went through and overhauled 3 games in terms of graphics AND gameplay.

"A "remaster" seeing as you implied i do not know what one is, is the same game, with better graphics. A "remake" is a full bottom to top, remake of a game, with different gameplay elements etc."

No shit Sherlock. I don't recall ever saying otherwise? Did you know you can still remaster a game while improving gameplay, fix bugs, and make major changes as well?

"Could you provide a link with the load time comparison between base Xbox one and One X/Series X? you must have it as you claimed you know them."

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

This shows all the improvements of the remaster including load times. If it runs on PS5/XSX, it's clear they will be even faster due to the SSD. The video just came out a week and a half ago. If you actually took the time to look you would've found this.

"All I'm getting from your comment is that all remasters should be free"

No, i never said that, that is your tiny brain making assumptions, i will quote myself :-

(From another comment) :-

"I agree fully :-

Remakes - £40 or less.
Remasters - £25 or less."

"Graphical upgrades should be free of charge for current owners of said game, not a full £60 brand new release."

Good thing that video I posted shows it's more than just a graphical upgrade. You say my brain is tiny yet with your tiny brain you couldn't even make the effort to seek out what other improvements this game may have and just assume it's ONLY texture improvements and graphical upgrades.

"Have you got a video for the "improved gunplay and Mako"?"

Yeah it's in the video I posted above.

"If you want to pay £60 for a remaster, that is your choice, just don't be disappointed when you realise what you paid for is exactly the same game, that looks a bit better."

Except I know I won't be disappointed because I KNOW what they've done to the remaster entirely so I know EXACTLY what to expect. Good thing I do ALL my research.

BlaqMagiq124d ago

That's a nice list of improvements, albeit simplified, that goes beyond just a simple graphical upgrade that you claim it is which it obviously isn't. But we can go into more detail with this here: https://blog.playstation.co...

"You claimed they are clearly compared here, but the video you linked, shows next-gen SSD loading times compared to the original, not the xbox one like i was referring to. He clearly says reduced loading times due to faster HDD's. How do i know this you ask? Because the xbox 360, and the xbox one have the same speed HDD, 5400RPM."

Lol first off an SSD is not a hard drive hence why SSD and HDD are two different things. Second not once did he say next-gen SSD nor did ever make any references to PS5 or Series X, try watching the video again. Third, while what he said was a general simplification loading doesn't ONLY have to do with the HDD. Since 360 and XB1 have the same speed wanna explain why games both remastered and back compat load faster on XB1 than 360? Because better hardware means better data processing. Need proof?

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

"So no major changes compared to the originals warranting £60, did i miss anything? what's that? my initial statement of mainly graphical upgrades is correct? even using your video link as a reference? Base Xbox one do not benefit from faster load times or graphical 4K assets? like i stated all along?"

Clearly the proof I provided shows that base xbox one DOES benefit from faster load times due to better data processing but you will continue to deny with your flimsy arguments. And I never stated base xbox one got 4K assets so not sure why you brought that up again.

"I am not paying £60 for a better ME1, and a slightly better ME2 and 3. I repeat, i am not saying it is bad, i am saying it is not WORTH £60, stop referring to me trying to discredit any work they have put in to the legendary edition."

Except you are discrediting them by claiming "it's simply graphical upgrades." If that was the case I would also say it's not worth $60 but they went above and beyond that.

"RE2:Remake in the UK was £39.99 at launch - a REMAKE from the ground up
MA:LE in the UK is £54.99 at launch - a remaster
That is my entire point"

Since you're in the UK I won't argue that. However I live in the US and they are the same price and I'm willing to pay $60 for both games at launch. You're free to do with your money however you want.

"Like i said, if you are happy shelling 60 for mainly graphical upgrades, your choice, i personally will not.
Now to go have a conversation with some adults."

You're right. It's clear I'm talking with a child here who doesn't understand much so I'll be on my way and go have a conversation with grown folks who actually have some sort of intelligence. Peace. ✌

DJStotty22d ago

"Lol first off an SSD is not a hard drive"

Intelligence shown, i'm done.

SSD - stands for "solid state drive"
HDD - stands for "hard disk drive"

Both are hard drives, or would you call it a soft drive? SSD just has no mechanical parts, hence the name "solid state"

I did not call an SSD a hard disk drive, another thing you made up.

"Second not once did he say next-gen SSD nor did ever make any references to PS5 or Series X, try watching the video again."

He said increased hard drive speeds, the xbox one and xbox 360, have no increase in hard drive speed between the 2, a child would devise that they are talking next-gen.

"Hard drives in modern computers
Modern computers often use an SSD (solid-state drive) as the primary storage device, instead of an HDD. HDDs are slower than SSDs when reading and writing data, but offer greater storage capacity for the price.

Although an HDD may still be used as a computer's primary storage, it's common for it to be installed as a secondary disk drive. For example, the primary SSD may contain the operating system and installed software, and a secondary HDD may be used to store documents, downloads, and audio or video files."

Source : https://www.computerhope.co...

Note how they have a title "hard drives in modern computers" and then list the SSD.

Read up on knowledge, go back to school, i dunno "shrugs"

BlaqMagiq122d ago

"Intelligence shown, i'm done.

SSD - stands for "solid state drive"
HDD - stands for "hard disk drive"

Both are hard drives, or would you call it a soft drive? SSD just has no mechanical parts, hence the name "solid state""

Lmao what intelligence? Hard drive is literally the short term for HARD DISK DRIVE hence the term HDD. Do your research on what a HARD DRIVE actually is and the difference between that and an SSD. Better yet lemme do it for you. I can't believe I actually had do this for you lmfao.

https://www.google.com/sear...

https://www.avast.com/c-ssd...

"I did not call an SSD a hard disk drive, another thing you made up."

Oh my Lord do you even read what you typed? You literally said this "You claimed they are clearly compared here, but the video you linked, shows next-gen SSD loading times compared to the original, not the xbox one like i was referring to. He clearly says reduced loading times due to faster HDD's. How do i know this you ask? Because the xbox 360, and the xbox one have the same speed HDD, 5400RPM"

I don't think I need to say more on this, seeing it's clear you said it in this very comment.

"He said increased hard drive speeds, the xbox one and xbox 360, have no increase in hard drive speed between the 2, a child would devise that they are talking next-gen."

I literally posted videos showing games loading on XB1 FASTER than the 360 DESPITE both consoles having the same hard drive speeds and it's clear you ignored that. And no it's NOT next-gen as it's clear an SSD is NOT a hard drive. But something tells me you'll ignore that too.

""Hard drives in modern computers
Modern computers often use an SSD (solid-state drive) as the primary storage device, instead of an HDD. HDDs are slower than SSDs when reading and writing data, but offer greater storage capacity for the price.

Although an HDD may still be used as a computer's primary storage, it's common for it to be installed as a secondary disk drive. For example, the primary SSD may contain the operating system and installed software, and a secondary HDD may be used to store documents, downloads, and audio or video files."

Source : https://www.computerhope.co...

Note how they have a title "hard drives in modern computers" and then list the SSD."

Ok it's clear you didn't even read the source you posted. You just posted it and said it lists the SSD. First off they literally abbreviate HDD to HARD DRIVE like I said. Second they listed the SSD IN COMPARISON to a hard disk drive. Not once did they say "An SSD is a hard drive." They even show a picture of what a hard disk drive even looks like. You literally helped prove my point. You seriously need better reading comprehension bruh.

:Read up on knowledge, go back to school, i dunno "shrugs""

I don't think I'm the one here that needs to do that 😂

DJStotty22d ago (Edited 22d ago )

It's sunny outside, just saying, your missing out.

If an SSD is not a hard drive, what is it? you claim it is not a hard drive?

So if i was to say "i'm going to buy an external hard drive this weekend", some might ask "what you going with SSD or HDD?"

You need to read up and differentiate "hard drive" from "HDD" they are 2 completely different things, until you can do that, i can not help you.

Oh, and when i commented this :-

"He clearly says reduced loading times due to faster HDD's. How do i know this you ask? Because the xbox 360, and the xbox one have the same speed HDD, 5400RPM"

I incorrectly put HDD, instead of HD (hard-drive), so what i was meant to say is :-

"He clearly says reduced loading times due to faster HD's. How do i know this you ask? Because the xbox 360, and the xbox one have the same speed HDD, 5400RPM"

But my bad on that one.

DJStotty21d ago

I felt tight, so i thought i would assist in the learning process, i found this :-

"A hard drive is a storage device that, unless explicitly specified, resides inside the computer case. ... Hard disk drive is the mechanical hard drive. Disk drive is any type of storage device in which stores data on a disk. There are hard disk drives (HDD), optical disk drives (ODD), and Flexible/Floppy Disk drives (FDD)."

The most important part here

"A hard drive is a storage device that, unless explicitly specified, resides inside the computer case."

An SSD, is a storage device, so falls under the terminology of Hard Drive.

Hope this helps

BlaqMagiq121d ago (Edited 21d ago )

"It's sunny outside, just saying, your missing out."

I'm good over here bruh. No worries over here.

"If an SSD is not a hard drive, what is it? you claim it is not a hard drive?
So if i was to say "i'm going to buy an external hard drive this weekend", some might ask "what you going with SSD or HDD?"

Umm... an SSD or solid state drive like everyone else?

"You need to read up and differentiate "hard drive" from "HDD" they are 2 completely different things, until you can do that, i can not help you."

Since I seem I need to educate you yet again I will show you why they're exactly the same. As a matter of fact let's use the source YOU posted:

"A hard disk drive (sometimes abbreviated as a hard drive, HD, or HDD) is a non-volatile data storage device."

"It contains one or more platters, housed inside of an air-sealed casing." That doesn't apply to an SSD based on this picture here: https://www.computerhope.co...

Oh look here's the real kicker in your source.

"Should I say "hard disk drive" or "hard drive"?
Both "hard disk drive" and "hard drive" are correct and mean the same thing. However, we recommend using the term "hard drive" in your writing or when describing a hard drive. The term "hard drive" helps to distinguish it from an SSD (solid-state drive), which contains no platters, disk-shaped components, or moving parts."

Your source NEVER refers to an SSD as a hard drive and no one except you ever will as they function mechanically different. YOUR source is literally telling you what I've been saying this entire time. Remember that's YOUR source so you can't claim it to be wrong.

If you STILL can't understand that then I can't help you and we will never budge from our stances. But other than that, you have a blessed day.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 21d ago
glenn197926d ago (Edited 26d ago )

for me anything above 40$ is hell no for me,why? look at the master chief collection
but coming from EA I don't expect anything good from them, there to greedy, the put it 8k or 12k texture if the want ,for me anything above that price is hell no

DJStotty26d ago

I agree fully :-

Remakes - £40 or less.
Remasters - £25 or less.

masterfox26d ago

Mass Effect: Higher Resolution Edition Pack.

After seeing this and Ninja Gaiden """Remaster&quo t;"" , Blue Point Devs are Indeed Gods of Remasters and Remakes of past gen games, also I think a PC modder in its own home, and its standard gaming rig can do create / add way better visuals to old games than this cheap lazy quick cash grab devs from EA imo.

DJStotty26d ago

Exactly,

Gamers complain about MT's and loot boxes, but a game with prettier graphics and faster load times gets a pass at £60? hell no.

Will not be getting my cash, i will just play through the trilogy i already own, free of charge, and get the same experience as all the fools that buy the same game twice.