I preordered on steam and when i opened the forums up i see tons of threads saying they changed cut scenes of her azz so it doesn't show it?
IS this true? That would be a shame because i really don't want to cancel the pre order... But being EA i expected something like this to happen. Old ME versions it is.
If what they did in Mass Effect 2 was just so we can see nothing but booty shots....why don't we have to alter the scenes with Liara, Jack, or Tali? I mean if all the devs cared about was showing * why not show every female character's *? Miranda uses more than her words to get what she wants or to influence people and that is reflected in the cinematics and ONLY her cinematics which is what was intended by the original dev team. If it was just about scopin out dat * then we would have the same shots with the other ladies in the game. Also if they find the booty shots sooooo concerning why aren't they altering the camera angles for Jack and her leather strap nipple cover outfit?
The ultimate point is this team as well as any other devs who engage in censoring established work show a complete lack of respect for the original team's work as well as a lack of respect for the player base of which the majority had no issue with these scenes then nor do they have an issue now. If this change were done during the original development process for Mass Effect 2 then no problem. At that time I would've viewed it as a their choice during the development process, but now with an already completed game for a different team to go back and change it is unethical from an artistic standpoint. It's no different than me going and cutting the Mona Lisa in half so it doesn't show that small part of her bosom. All they are doing is pandering to a small group of people of which the majority have never played the games nor do they intend to. If it's not for an agenda then why do it or better yet why do it and give no options to the individual? Unlike their, "my way or no way" attitude, I'm willing to accept the idea of having a choice in fact I encourage it. Why can't they give that? Why can't they let me choose to have the altered scenes or not? Because they think everyone should think the same way and THAT is the agenda. They talk big about artistic integrity being the reason why they won't change things in the game like when it comes to suggestions to change or improve the ending of the trilogy which is FAR more controversial but as soon as they see something that doesn't fit with the way they think it should be, well all that integrity talk goes out the window.
I couldnt reply earlier on my phone so here i am now replying to a few people.
First off I dont like to be mean but I'll be damned if I dont say this. @RazRaptre that was without a doubt the worst example I have ever seen in my entire life. All 3 of your examples with tali, garrus and jack are serious situations where you are focused on the story and a butt angle would ruin those scenes. Miranda's butt scenes that i can remember are entirely upon the normandy (and maybe on the citadel in me3?) where you are in a casual setting with no rush just talking and asking questions, maybe eating some chips while you play. A proper comparison to miranda"s butt shots would be if they were done when you walked up to Tali in the engine room and chatted to her OR if you saw jacks butt while she paced around the bottom of the ship OR garrus and you saw his butt while he said "can it wait a moment? im in the middle of some calibrations" (imagine the memes about calibrating dat a.s.s if garrus had that ) and in NONE of those situations would a butt shot even matter. It would be just as weird and hilarious as miranda's ones in those casual contexts. Come on man you can do better than that, at least TRY to make your point legitimate holy damn.
@Naalanice, i still dont know how to quote xD When you said that a game with strengths and flaws should be preserved..... bugs are flaws and people want those ironed out..... That was kind of a weak argument not gonna lie. The point of a remaster is to smooth over as many flaws as possibly to bring the game to a state the developers originally intended on. Having 4k 5000 fps isnt the only thing that matters and personally i dont give a damn about graphics. If they brought the games to 1080p 60fps and just make them look better id be fine with that graphically. Also pinnacle station isnt listed in the dlc list because it isnt included in the remaster. The original source code was apparantly corrupt so they had to make a choice between spending 6 months building the DLC again from the ground up or releasing without it. Personally i dont need that dlc :P In regards to changing jacks sexuality, that would be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in a remake. Actually changes part of the game, imagine the rage at that considering this whole thread is just about mirandas butt. It would just look like a j k rowling situation where she announced all this stuff after the books were done and everyone was like yeah alright, whatever, why didnt you put it in the book originally? If they didnt have the balls to put it in the original trilogy, dont try do it now, we see through that * as an attempt to get more good will.
@Fred_vdp those clips were solid points, Mass Effect 1 I wouldnt mind a few of the cutscenes being spruced up like they did with halo, not just prettier but maybe a couple extra seconds of action/content/context and better camera angles. I feel like some of them didnt age well. I see your point about the developers not wanting their content laughed at buuuut I had a thought today. Was wondering if the miranda booty shot was a direct FU by the developers to the media that complained about ME1 being too sexual. LIke a 'we do what we want, complain about this we dare you' type thing. I doubt it cause the devs seemed nice, was just an amusing thought.
@Sky2k5 they said there wouldnt be any new content right? thought i heard that they decided not to add any cut content to keep the game as close to the original as possible. Although i would like more convos with zaeed and kasumi âšī¸
@mcsupersport You arent wrong, a lot of the negative responses to games are just the vocal minority and it isnt until the gave devs change for that minority that the majority finally says oh [CM - Edited profanity] and they actually let their displeasure be known. Sometimes devs just have to stick to their guns and ignore minority. (are we the minority here for wanting the butts to stay? :O )
@SofaJockeyUK That passion for inclusivity does sometimes seem weird to me. The perfect balance of every option and im like đ how often does that happen?
Personally, from a scene setup point of view, I can take or leave the butt shots. I personally think it is a fine butt, but it's removal isn't the end of the world to me. My personal issue is it seems to be a trend of game devs and big business to look at this from one way and not even taking care of all things in this same vein.
What I mean is, you get a shot of Jacob doing sit-ups(shirtless IIRC, in Shadow Broker) and not an eye batted by most. You have Miranda running around in spandex and some raised eyebrows but no real outcry or change, but then they worry about her butt shots.....why not put real armor on her?? Jack has a leather band for a top...yet they don't go either full topless, or some kind of punk armor for her?? They do sex scenes and leave underwear on.....why do they even have sex scenes if they are worried about sexualization and Miranda's butt??
As far as inclusion goes, I don't mind it when it is done like Dorian, a great character who happens to be gay, but I hate it when they do it like the shuttle pilot from ME3 who was put in just to be a homosexual romance for Shepard.
I personally think the butt shot was set up to reinforce the perfect genetically engineered woman angle for Miranda and drive it home visually to go with the telling of it. To me, this makes it work in a story sense and probably should be left in. Will I get the game, yeah, will I play it, yeah....should also enjoy it too, but only time will tell. I just want Bioware, and EA to know I am not happy with some of the directions they are going due to listening to people other than their fans.
@SofaJockeyUK wrote:
To be fair that seems such a vague concern that it's almost meaningless.
I see no sign of editorial decisions being made at a publisher corporate level, nor attempts to 'cater' to anyone. What I do see is a development team at BioWare trying to do what makes sense to them. Anyone who has played BioWare games over many many years knows their style and their passion for inclusivity and that's not going to change, nor would I want it to.
Issue is we don't know that look what EA did with Dead Space 3 Bioware might want to make the game in one way but ultimately it is up to EA they got the final decision.
"Anyone who has played BioWare games over many many years knows their style and their passion for inclusivity and that's not going to change"
ive played them since Baldurs gate and i still play them not to mention Kotor, SWtor etc etc that don't mean they will change we all said the same about blizzard that went to hell xD
no one can know what the future brings but i do not trust EA and neither should anyone after all the bad decisions they done in the past
@Shirow27 wrote:Miranda uses more than her words to get what she wants or to influence people and that is reflected in the cinematics and ONLY her cinematics which is what was intended by the original dev team.
The weird part is that its not only miranda like you said but Jacob was also supposed to be over sexualized and sadly i doubt that is censured out.
if they do it with one they should do it with everyone male and female but i don't think they will or have.
:O if bioware censors miranda but not jacob it wont be equal. Women > Men, Bioware doesnt believe men can be sexualised > Bioware hates equality confirmed :O
Ok now im just stirring the pot, it's late and im bored/tired :P
@GrimReaperTaken
Seems to me you can only quote when you "reply" not "quick reply" pic below shows where and how.
what i mean with flaws is not bugs since they were never supposed to be there in the first place what i mean with flaws is things like these camera angles many see them as a flaw and things like that things that were supposed to be there but were considered out of place or over the top or controversial etc etc those should remain there since they were supposed to be there maybe i should been more clear.
" Having 4k 5000 fps isnt the only thing that matters and personally i dont give a damn about graphics."
Same here plus modders will probably make the graphics look even better eventually anyway so the focus should been on Gameplay, AI, pinnacle station, ME3 ending and animations, and perhaps cut content etc.
"Also pinnacle station isnt listed in the dlc list because it isnt included in the remaster. The original source code was apparantly corrupt so they had to make a choice between spending 6 months building the DLC again from the ground up"
This to me is total BS they could have done it and they should have done it yes more work but this is one of the reasons why it feels like a quick and easy cash grab to me they didn't address many issues with the game and didn't put the work into fixing the issues most people were having why put the work into camera angles but not ME3 ending or work on Pinnacle station so we get all the DLC's that old game has its BS.
" In regards to changing jacks sexuality, that would be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of in a remake. Actually changes part of the game"
I only mentioned that due to one article about it
https://www.thegamer.com/mass-effect-2-jack-gay-pansexual-fox-news/
@Naala wrote:no one can know what the future brings but i do not trust EA and neither should anyone after all the bad decisions they done in the past
You're welcome to hold that opinion, but then why have a discussion about it? You don't trust them and that's the end of it.
Personally I find the notion that any company that has made mistakes in the past is incapable of making good games in the future to be groundless pessimism I can't embrace.
Two recent Star Wars games would be good examples: Both Fallen Order and Squadrons had great success. Squadrons was partly built by the team that made Mass Effect.
@SofaJockeyUK wrote:You're welcome to hold that opinion, but then why have a discussion about it? You don't trust them and that's the end of it.
Personally I find the notion that any company that has made mistakes in the past is incapable of making good games in the future to be groundless pessimism I can't embrace.
Two recent Star Wars games would be good examples: Both Fallen Order and Squadrons had great success. Squadrons was partly built by the team that made Mass Effect.
wow 2 games they got more bad games then good games lately Battlefront II, Anthem, 2 bad vs 2 good and that is only mentioning 2 xD and what about Visceral Games westwood studios not to mention Origin ? and all the other companies they bought up and killed off? they effectively killed the Dead Space franchise by not letting them do the game they wanted
sure they can always improve and get better but that will require a LOT of work they got so many good IP's now that is just sitting there collecting dust
https://heavy.com/games/2017/10/studios-ea-has-killed-visceral-games/
They own all of that but dont do anything with it
True i liked Fallen Order but it was not as good as it could been i trust Bioware but as long as they are under EA there is no telling what could happen with them they are basically hanging by a thread ready to be killed off like all those other companies and Sadly EA has a LOT of of power to affect how Bioware makes the games and force that to happen if Bioware refuse EA might cut the funding and Bioware are fecked.
@Naala wrote:
Sadly EA has a LOT of of power to affect how Bioware makes the games and force that to happen if Bioware refuse EA might cut the funding and Bioware are fecked.
I do wonder where you get your assumptions from.
EA = BioWare.
BioWare = EA.
BioWare is an operating division not a team of galley slaves.
The development teams under their own creative leadership make the games as part of EA.
If a game is good or not so good, that's on the team that made it, not some shadowy corporate puppet play. đ¤
