Would Mass Effect 1 receive the same acclaim if it was released today?

[Ralemont]

The gameplay, from the bad combat to the Mako to the inventory, would be eviscerated.

The cast of characters would be seen as sterile and uninspired (as other than Wrex, they are largely undeveloped in ME1).

The design of exploration would be seen as unacceptably bland and empty and fetch questy.

It would be praised for its inventive world, extensive lore, and good final third of story and get a lot of 7s for its heart.

 

[Zugma]

It would be admired for its ambition, but for little else. Even in 2007, this was how I felt. A terrible inventory system, bland planets, bad controlling Mako, bad shooting, etc...

I appreciated what it was trying to do from a scope and narrative perspective, and I definitely wanted to see a sequel, but anyone that I had talked to about the game was definitely getting warned about how poorly it played. Dragon Age Origins was definitely the better of these two games that Bioware released to kick off their respective franchises, but Mass Effect ended up getting the better sequel

 

[GMM]

In terms of story, player choice and world building, absolutely, but the core gameplay is severely lacking these days and it wasn't that good back in 2007.

 

[TheMrPliskin]

This is impossible to answer without you outlining what exactly would or wouldn't be updated. Are we talking just releasing the exact same game but it looks nicer?That definitely wouldn't be received in the same way.

 

[Clickypen Champion]

It was kinda dated gameplay when it came out. It had decent polish, visuals, and antagonist for 2007. It also might be the weakest plot in the trilogy, worst enemy design and gunplay.

If you were talking about Mass Effect 2, I think you'd have more of a discussion. That game is way better than a 9 year old game has any right to be.

 

[Ratazk]

I mean... if it was the exact same game with the same graphical and gameplay limitations from more than a decade ago, it would undoubtedly be criticized. But that's any game from 2007.

However, it was far and away the best game in the series. I'm still waiting on a game that captures ME1's feeling of space exploration and world building.

Were they to add the bells and whistles now available in 2019, I think the game would be a hit.

 

[balohna]

It's the best RPG and worst shooter in the franchise.

 

[Kill3r7]

It depends on whether or not it could find a strong community that would overlook the performance flaws. Unlikely on ERA at least at launch but with a few mods on PC and improved performance folks might sing its praises.

 

[Akai]

The story, atmosphere, world-building, characters and enemies are still incredible, so that would be a huge plus. However, the gameplay (powers, weapons, controls, Mako, etc.) and the inventory UI would need some modernizing.

Can't believe that they essentially threw away everything that they have created, just because they don't want to ever touch that ME3 ending again... Get over yourselves and admit defeat.

 

[Acorn]

It's my fave entry but it's very much a product of its time Game play wise. Everything else is still top of the line

 

[SofNascimento]

There's no way to accurately answer this.

ME1 was released in a completely different time. To update it to modern expectations would be a significant change.

Click to shrink...

I think there are some underline questions to mine that I thought more people would touch upon. Which is, how much can be forgiven in a game if some aspects of it are good? And also, can the same issue be more of a problem in a game than another? I believe this are not easy to answer questions and involve a lot of variables, but I find them to be interesting.

 

[John Rabbit]

To the game or development?

Click to shrink...

I for one cannot think of a single thing that's changed in the medium that would affect the impressions of a 12 year old game.

 

[Demacabre]

A lot of older games benefitted from less tallied review sites/magazine. So maybe?

Edit: Wasn't that the height of the 7-10 as the scale for AAA games (barring some truly horrible, broken games?). I think reviews have shifted to 4-10 so, there's that.

 

[VectorPrime]

It was the best of the series by far with some rough edges.

 

[Garlador]

I still love Mass Effect, but it's a game that feels held together by bubblegum and scotch tape. Definitely a product of its time, and many issues were brought up even at its launch. One reason I still ask for a proper remaster is it's a great opportunity to iron out some of those early-launch issues and bringing it up to modern standards. It's GREAT at world-building, it's still enjoyable, but it's very rough around the edges.

 

[Asbsand]

When Mass Effect 1 was released there were very few games that had the scope it did.

Click to shrink...

Maybe the scope of the game world was big then... but I don't remember many being like "Oooh this game has this big open world!" because even back then people said they were too barren.

It's more that they have an incredible IP scope right out of the gate, where each location is tied to extensive in-game lore that people actually bothered to read through in the Codex and ask about in conversations. That's what made the game great. That's also why fans like me were increasingly alienated when 3 moved super heavily into more military-themed goals and dropped a lot of conversational elements.

 

[RDreamer]

Lol no. I played like a year or two after release and already it was a janky fucking mess. It was worth it to play if only to make ME2 a better experience and I'm glad I did, but the game has A LOT of problems. It's by far the worst in the series. Andromeda is much better in most ways.

 

[Akela]

It's a bit like asking whether Ocarina of Time would have the same amount of critical acclaim if it was released today.

 

[YourFriendLevi]

No. And I think it's part of why there hasn't been a trilogy remaster. Mass Effect 1 is not fun to play combat wise, but it's fun to explore and has excellent atmosphere. Going through it a second time feels like a chore because once you know the characters, side quests, and overarching plot, the actual game you're left with leaves a lot to be desired. They would have to entirely overhaul, fundamentally, how the shooting and skills work in Mass Effect 1 to make it feel good to play today. Not to mention the performance issues.

 

[Detail]

I think in terms of the story and the characters it would be praised but in terms of the gameplay and the amount of bugs it had, no, it would get panned for that alone.

However, ME was ahead of it's time and ambitious for when it was released, was guilty of trying to do too much if anything.

 

[Gasoline]

There'd be a lot of youtube rants about how unrealistic FemShep is and how Ashley is not hot enough

Oh and about how there are a lot of PoC in all kinds of roles, like Anderson

 

[Dreamboum]

Mass Effect 1 is still the best ME game by FAR, but the question is loaded because few games would stand the test of time, ESPECIALLY when it comes to shooters

 

[Denamitea]

As is, I don't think so simply because it looks and plays "poorly" for today's standards.

If it was "updated" to fix some of its 2007 engine and gameplay quirks it would be considered a great game I think.

It's still one of my favorite games, personally

 

[Mesoian]

No, 1 ages poorly.

2 though, sure.

 

[Jiraiya]

I for one cannot think of a single thing that's changed in the medium that would affect the impressions of a 12 year old game.

Click to shrink...

That can be true and a game can still feel dated. They don't always age gracefully. Inventory system would be an area that would get slammed today.

 

[Thardin]

This is why I think people like ME1 more because of what they think it is rather than what it actually is. If we examine ME1's RPG systens then I believe there are no grounds to defend they made it a better game. ME1's inventory was a mess, it had poor weapon and armor variety, skill progression was convoluted and inflated. What is left is dialogue and character building, which was the only thing that truly worked, but was better in ME2.

Click to shrink...

ME2 character building was all fluff. Oh, uh, gotta go find my pops after all this time because that's gonna make me feel better before going on this mission.

Gotta go blow up this empty building where I was abused as a kid otherwise I might die on this next mission.

ME2 was just running errands for the Illusive Man and your squad mates. It was definitely a much more polished experience, but the intrigue and mystery behind tracking down Saren, finding the Conduit, and figuring out what the hell Sovereign was is a much better story than all of 2.

 

[shinobi602]

I'm confused by the question. Of course it wouldn't...games have evolved since then, expectations have changed, possibilities have changed, and the gaming landscape has since implemented a lot of things that are found in Mass Effect. It wouldn't feel fresh.

PS: Just to clarify, I don't mean the exact same game. But a 2019 version of it with the same strengths and problems.

Click to shrink...

This still doesn't make sense. 2019 version?

 

[Dreamboum]

1 still has the quality that it is an actual RPG and not a third person shoote with space being made the equivalent of Dysneyland like 2 and 3.

Space felt like SPACE. Solitude, hopelessness, silence. It was a RPG with the code of the horror genre. It wasn't a showcase of human technology, it was a showcase of the fearsome reality that you are nothing, will return to nothing.

ME2 and 3 is playing techno-jesus to the point of being galaxy's saviour while being on a guided sight-seeing tour. As far as I'm concerned they aged worse than 1 by far and will not stand the test of time.

ME1 has very strong ideas that are worth re-exploring, and a sense of place that will demarcate it from literally every other shooter in the market, not to mention the RPG elements and strategy were actually worth something. ME1 has the better ideas, because it had ambitions that went beyond being a crowd-pleaser. It also didn't compromise itself like ME2 unironically going back to limited ammunitions

 

[Cranster]

No, atleast not without polishing up it's gameplay, having each side mission have unique layouts, and fixing it's janky framerate.

 

[Landford]

Game is dated as hell. It did well because games at that time, especially aaa ones, were plagued by really bad writing and storytelling.

I actually dont think Bioware got any worse with Andromeda and Anthem. They are Bioware games through and through.

 

[Megatron]

Even at the time I remember reaction being ver y mixed.

But sure any 12 year old game is going to struggle if it was released brand new today.

 

[K' Dash]

I actually stopped playing ME1 after a few hours, then a year later came back and fell in love with it.

 

[komaruR]

no, because of gunplay.
back when i played it for the first time i dropped it before i even got to citadel. i played it and dislike the gunplay because i was expecting better action.
i got bored and gave it a 2nd shot with a lower gunplay expectation and thats when the dailogue and story option start sinking in which end up being a great game for me.

so by todays standard, the gunplay is the weakest link

 

[Chivalry]

No. It was a janky, buggy, glitchy mess with a terrible combat and rpg systems. The story is also not particularly impressive by today's standards.

 

[SofNascimento]

I'm confused by the question. Of course it wouldn't...games have evolved since then, expectations have changed, possibilities have changed, and the gaming landscape has since implemented a lot of things that are found in Mass Effect. It wouldn't feel fresh.

This still doesn't make sense. 2019 version?

Click to shrink...

Try to abstract things a little.

Another way to ask this question is this: Would a Bioware game with all the massive issues ME1 had be well receveid today if some aspects of it, namely narrative, world building and characters, were excellent?

Or... what allowed Mass Effect to get a pass for all its problems back in 2007? Are these elements still present today?

 

[Crossing Eden]

Of course not. Time changes expectations. Definitely not.

Like come on, OP. Of course not.

Click to shrink...

^^^^

Especially when it comes to games that set precedents. It's like asking if AC2 would be as critically acclaimed in a world where a ton of titles are heavily influenced by AC2.

 

[John Rabbit]

That can be true and a game can still feel dated. They don't always age gracefully. Inventory system would be an area that would get slammed today.

Click to shrink...

I was being facetious. I don't think ME would be reviewed favorably at all today.

 

[NoPiece]

no, because of gunplay.
back when i played it for the first time i dropped it before i even got to citadel. i played it and dislike the gunplay because i was expecting better action.
i got bored and gave it a 2nd shot with a lower gunplay expectation and thats when the dailogue and story option start sinking in which end up being a great game for me.

so by todays standard, the gunplay is the weakest link

Click to shrink...

Yes, because it is the best written game of the generation. You are right, the gunplay doesn't hold up. But he is talking about remaking it today. It would be a lot easier to fix the gunplay (use what they did in ME:3 or ME:A) in ME:1 than to fix the story in ME:3. PC version of ME:1 already fixes the worst parts of the inventory system, and the Mako is a killing machine with a mouse.

 

[Kill3r7]

Try to abstract things a little.

Another way to ask this question is this: Would a Bioware game with all the massive issues ME1 had be well receveid today if some aspects of it, namely narrative, world building and characters, were excellent?

Or... what allowed Mass Effect to get a pass for all its problems back in 2007? Are these elements still present today?

Click to shrink...

I think most of the popular RPGs from the 00s would not get a pass today. Gamers are highly critical of minor performance issues let alone crashes, corrupted saves and games running sub 20fps. Let's not even discuss the lackluster gameplay.

PS. I have beaten ME1 at least 5 times and generally speaking really like the game.

 

[Trickster]

As someone that loves ME1, obviously it wouldn't. No game would really, especially not one with as many technical and gameplay mechanical issues as ME1. The ME formula also feels kinda outdated now, as evidenced by Andromeda.

A fullblown reboot remake of ME1 could be amazing if done well though. Though it would lack that new IP excitement that helped make ME1 so magical

 

[Deleted member 14663]

I just got the trilogy on 360 ready to play on Xbox One, I will let you know, going to play all three for the first time. Although I did play the first one on PC yeaaars ago for a lil bit, don't remember much of it.

 

[Mockerre]

This is why I think people like ME1 more because of what they think it is rather than what it actually is. If we examine ME1's RPG systens then I believe there are no grounds to defend they made it a better game. ME1's inventory was a mess, it had poor weapon and armor variety, skill progression was convoluted and inflated. What is left is dialogue and character building, which was the only thing that truly worked, but was better in ME2.

Click to shrink...

Yes, some of the systems were unrefined. But ME2 and ME3 didn't refine them, it removed them. ME1 had the flawed premise of visiting dozens of worlds, while ME2 and ME3 had resource scouting. ME1 had an ambitious story, ME2 was a glorified side-quest, which can be entirely skipped without anything of (storytelling) vaulue being lost, while ME3 narrows the scope and delivers an unsatisfying ending to the trilogy.

Of the three, only ME1 had the feeling of alienness and visiting other worlds and meeting alien races. ME2 and ME3 were space shooters. This is of course all IMO.

 

[Yasuke]

I'd enjoy a remastered trilogy so I could find out. Never played any of em.

 

[carlsojo]

Yeah basically if you redid the original gameplay to be more in line with 2 and 3, along with a graphical update, it'd be well-received.

If you just copy pasted the original with only the graphical update, it wouldn't be.

 

[Plasma]

No Mass Effect 1 has a lot of rough edges and the shooting just isn't that fun at all.

 

[Avitus]

I love ME1 the same way I love KOTOR; it is amazing for its time and still holds up as a story.

The combat in ME was never good. It was always the thing you did between excellent story/mood bits.

 

[Ralemont]

Of the three, only ME1 had the feeling of alienness and visiting other worlds and meeting alien races. ME2 and ME3 were space shooters. This is of course all IMO.

Click to shrink...

Going to jump in here as I might have a different perspective than some, having started with ME2:

That still definitely exists, it is just a different tone. Mass Effect 1 has the Citadel sure, but Mass Effect 2 had Afterlife, and imo it was just as effective an introduction to the universe.

 

[Apollo]

The lore was and is out of this world. At the very least, that would still have drawn a serious cult fanbase at the bare minimum.

 

[Hey Please]

This is an interesting query, dear OP. I have voted in the categories of "No" and "May be". In summation, May be Not.

Let me preface by asking, what do YOU mean by a " same strengths and problems" in a 2019 edition? If the only improvement is to be made to the visuals then my answer is a most definite "No".

Mass Effect 1, to me, is my favourite ME game because:

1. Still has the best (fight me) assortment of musical score in the franchise courtesy of its esoteric nature
2. It does a wonderful job at setting up the story, the world, the politics, the characters and the stakes
3. Gives the illusion of being the most expansive ME game
4. Citadel was a hoot to hang out in
5. Delves into possible scenarios for the plausible technological advancements like in firearms
6. Codex (especially given that someone painstakingly narrated so major portions of it)
7. Great dialogues for most part
8. There was nothing like it when it came out. That sheen is now, unfortunately gone.

However, the problems that plague the game are far too great of an impediment, especially, in light of how far the industry has moved forward hence its release over 11 years ago. They include:

1. Poor QoL design with regards to resource management
2. Poor performance on consoles
3. Poor handling of Mako
4. Rinse repeat design "errand quests". Copy pasta AF including that Thresher Maw, which in retrospect makes zero sense
5. Stat based aiming for a game designed as TPA WRPG made very little sense and encounters became tedious
6. Elevators
7. Karma system (life is grey. Sticking to the ambition of creating space Jesus or Devil will not do well today after the world has seen games like Horizon and The Witcher series)

 

[Avitus]

The lore was and is out of this world. At the very least, that would still have drawn a serious cult fanbase at the bare minimum.

Click to shrink...

Music also was great, did a lot of heavy lifting. Totally absent from Andromeda.




Modern games still struggle to have moments this impactful.