This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Okay, so there are concerns that this topic does not warrant its own standalone article, which is understandable as details are rather sparse at the moment on what features the compilation will have or look like. However, I take the same view as another editor on another page who believe that it is a single entity that includes content from the 3 games and all DLC. As a precedent, I think it's worthwhile to check out other articles about video game remaster compilations, particularly those which compile remastered content from last gen consoles for current/next gen. And there's quite a few of them where there isn't a dramatically different visual change between the old and new ports: notable examples include Metroid Prime Trilogy, which also do not contain any new content which were not already present in the original release of each of the 3 games, and Jak and Daxter Collection. I believe that most importantly, based on the precedent Legendary Edition will attract critical responses which will be different in nature and focus from that of the original games. There's this compilation from 2012, Mass Effect Trilogy, which will never get its own page because it really is just a compilation of three unaltered games with some added content, and they have no Metacritic score or critic reviews which specifically discusses it in detail.
So I propose to keep and improve, as prior to November 7, 2020 there has been consistently substantial coverage from several reliable sources where the writers have been essentially pining for a remastered original trilogy or joined the rumor mill, which haven't been incorporated into this article yet. If more editors believe that it should be merged back into the series article, then that is the consensus everyone should acknowledge and follow. Haleth (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose keeping it here for now but if the reception section or the development section failed to stand out on its own after the game's official release, we can restart this discussion. OceanHok (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BioShock: The Collection seems like a good reference point for where this particular article might end up. Unless anyone has stern objections, I might make some edits and reorganize this article to be more in the BTC vein. Separate sections for Contents, Development and release, and Reception seem clear and logical to me.--Ktmartell (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up splitting up the sections as I mentioned above, and also added more information. I think that most of it is good, but I may have been overzealous in some areas. Feel free to edit or remove certain information as needed. I hope that what I did was a net positive for the article.--Ktmartell (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have had similar discussions with regards to the Mass Effect 3 article, but there seems to be hesitation over whether the term "Mass Effect trilogy" is an accurate way to describe these three games. However, with the recent influx of coverage from reliable sources, I think that we can now definitively say that "Mass Effect trilogy" is accurate. Some examples of reliable sources that have recently used the term "Mass Effect trilogy" to describe these games:
"Adding to BioWare’s determination to keep the project’s ambitions firmly under control was the Mass Effect trilogy being somewhat unique from a technological standpoint, particularly the original game."
"In a blog post on its website, BioWare boss Casey Hudson said this a remastered edition of the Mass Effect trilogy."
With regards to the entire article and the introduction specifically, I think that we have enough information to be confident that "Mass Effect trilogy" or "original Mass Effect trilogy" are accurate descriptions. Perhaps more subjectively, I also believe that they are much clearer and read much better than "first three main games of the Mass Effect franchise" or anything like that. I've been bold and updated the introduction to reflect this. Let's get a discussion going if anyone still disagrees.--Ktmartell (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think either "original Mass Effect trilogy" or simply "original trilogy" would suffice. The issue here is that "Mass Effect trilogy" in and of itself also refers to the last gen retail compilation, released when the franchise was still at the height of its popularity, and represented the first Mass Effect game's debut on PS3. Haleth (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last generation retail compilation is the Mass Effect Trilogy. ME1, ME2, and ME3 represent the Mass Effect trilogy. A subtle difference, but I think it's sufficient.--Ktmartell (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Everyone. Just wanted to mention that as long as the article remains stable for a short while longer, I'll likely be nominating it for Good Article status. Please feel free to bring up any last-minute concerns here, or update the article as necessary, and then I'll get the ball rolling on the next steps. Thanks!--Ktmartell (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take this one on. Will try to make time for this, and feel free to message me if I don't get around to it in the next week. I will likely show up sooner. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is really in excellent shape. I'm going to make a bunch of notes to help improve the quality of the article, but I believe it's already quite close to a GA.
"Development on Legendary Edition" -> "Development on the Legendary Edition"
"direction of Mac Walters" -> maybe clarify who this is (e.g.: writer on ME2 and 3)
"considered other alternatives" -> what alternatives? The body does get into this more, but maybe this is a case where you'd improve the lead by saying less. You already say they decided on a remaster instead of a remake.
The last sentence of the lead runs on a bit, and might work better as two sentences.
"Set in the Milky Way galaxy within an alternate universe during the 22nd century, the trilogy consists of action role-playing games in which the player assumes the role of Commander Shepard, an elite human soldier who must unite the galactic community against a highly advanced race of synthetic-organic starships called Reapers." -> this sentence really runs on too. It might be easier to pull out the ARPG part and say that at the start of the section. (e.g.: "Mass Effect is a series of action role-playing games.")
I ended up not moving everything to the top of the section, but I did remove a big chunk of that sentence. If you feel that more significant edits are still needed, please let me know and I would be happy to make them.
"Shepard is a customizable character" -> I think this might need to be explained with a bit more qualification.
"The compilation includes a launcher that allows players to start all three titles from one place" -> There's a shorter and clearer way to say this. The word launcher isn't useful here, and nor is the link.
"customization options from all three games" -> "customization options for all three games"
{{strikethrough|"rebalancing of the Galactic Readiness system from Mass Effect 3 to compensate for no longer having a multiplayer mode." -> Rephrase for clarity. The sentence assumes I would understand the connection between multiplayer and the system.
I decided to simply remove mention of the multiplayer mode from the Contents section as it already specifies that only single-player content is included and the Development section goes more in-depth on multiplayer. If you feel that multiplayer needs to be mentioned somewhere in this section, please let me know and I'd be happy to find a place for it.
"Mass Effect" -> "The first Mass Effect" for clarity.
"akin to a partial remake" -> these distinctions between remakes and remasters are sometimes more marketing and promotion, so it might be worth qualifying this. Even just to say who believes it's more of a remake than a master.
I decided to just chop this part out as it feels rife for an edit war down the line. I think that the Development section ultimately covers what needs to be covered, but let me know if you disagree.
"expanded layouts" is a little ambiguous, and it might be easier to just say "level".
"to the current version of the engine" -> maybe just remove this, to future proof the article. One day we'll look back at this and it will be easier to say they tried to go from 3 to 4.
"BioWare also sought feedback from fans and modders" -> is there an example of where this feedback made a difference?4
Not only was I unable to find an example, but I've also seen some debate as to whether or not BioWare actually did this, so I simply removed the sentence entirely.
"As part of the remastering process, BioWare increased resolutions for all textures throughout the trilogy. This was accomplished by increasing the engine cap on texture sizes and running the original, uncompressed source art through an artificial intelligence up-resolution program and other custom batch tools" -> There's a lot of technical terms here. It might be helpful to use more plain language, and look for blue links that might help.
"Camera angles were altered for certain scenes," -> was this the only example or were there others?
I believe they also altered the camera angles for some scenes with FemShep. However, it was very minimal and I believe the only reason this part is in the article is because the camera changes caused a minor controversy for about a week during release leadup. Let me know how you think is best to proceed (expand, remove, etc.).
"friction" -> even with the term in quotes, this leaves an unclear picture of what they were trying to do
Based on everything I've read, that word really means "gameplay inconsistencies", so I updated the wording in the article to reflect this.
"went gold" -> this is also a technical term that you and I probably understand, but a lot of readers might not.
The reception section might need the most work, as far as meeting the "broadness" requirement. There's almost WP:UNDUE weight on the first game, with two paragraphs here, but only one paragraph about the rest of the series.
I think you could shrink the ME1 stuff down to a single paragraph, even just for readability. It's a lot to read of reviewers talking about the same things.
I also think you could look for other interesting comments about the other two games, let alone the compilation as a whole. Expand that last paragraph, and maybe even add an additional one.
There is a broken citation to IGN.
Don't suppose we have sales data yet?
I did another search and was unable to find anything outside of PlayStation Store rankings for May 2021. I added those in.
I really appreciate your feedback. I will attempt to get through some of this today and all of it by next Sunday. Please let me know if I need to get to it sooner. Cheers!--Ktmartell (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ended up just putting my head down and barreling through. I did have some follow-up questions above though! I also have one more question I'd appreciate feedback on. Every so often, someone edits the Introduction to say that the game was co-developed by BioWare and Blind Squirrel Games (BSG). In my opinion, this is not necessary because all games have support studios, but those are not usually included in the lead, and I have not found compelling evidence that BSG was on equal footing with BioWare as a developer. Because of this, I talk about BSG in the Development section but not the lead. Do you think that this is sufficient or should I look into changing something?--Ktmartell (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work. Some small comments that would smooth out some of the last few kinks:
Add release dates to the first three games, just to put in context how much time has passed before there was a compilation.
You should explain what a photo mode is in more plain language.
It does feel a little confusing to say they changed camera angles for scenes and then focus on something so specific. If it was more general, then try to sum it up more generally. If it mainly was one scene, then just talk about that one scene and how they came to change that one thing, instead of trying to imply they made more general changes.
Consider giving the "release" paragraph its own section/heading.
Organize the statements in the ME1 reception a little better: lead with the positive ones, and then finish with the more critical ones. Try not to give too much airtime to the criticisms if they're really just one or two critics, and keep in mind WP:DUE weight. Dissenting opinions should be covered more briefly, so as to give the reader an accurate sense of where most opinions lie. (e.g.: "X thought the graphical changes drew too much attention to themselves, while Y felt the changes didn't go far enough." Quick and proportional.)
Speaking of due weight, I suspect some of the reviews might have commented on what is the same, and not just what is different. If the games were already well-received on their initial release, I'm sure a fair amount of the reviews retreaded old ground. I think that's good for WP:WEIGHT, just because the current text might mislead readers to thinking the changes led to the strong reception, when the strong reception might be for what was already there in the first place.
A new line was recently added to the Development section: "In November 2021, post-release, modders restored Pinnacle Station for its unofficial inclusion on the PC version of Legendary Edition." I am not sure if this should stay in because it doesn't actually have anything to do with the development process. I see three potential options: [1] Leave as is, [2] Remove, or [3] Change into a note. I would love to hear some opinions on this. If I don't hear anyone over the next week, I will convert into a note. Thanks much! Ktmartell (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing other articles and determining that modding information is generally not included, I went ahead and removed all modding information from the Development section. Done --Ktmartell (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Ktmartell (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
