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

[shinobi602]

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...

It's a question that can be extrapolated to many games from last gen. I'm not sure why the original Mass Effect is singled out. There was no 'pass' given that I can see at least. It's sitting at a 91 MC, not some GTAV/LoZ tier 97-98. Reviewers clearly pointed out things like technical issues and some design problems. The narrative, world building and characters were excellent in ME1, which is what propelled its status.

The point is ME1 felt fresh in 2007, despite its issues. There's no way it'd be as well received today simply because it should be viewed as a product of its time. Since then, many studios have implemented conversation wheels, characters as squadmates, branching narrative, sprawling sci-fi worlds, etc. It wouldn't really stand out.

 

[dgrdsv]

Sure, it's an RPG so the sole fact that the shooting wasn't good in it - which in itself is quite arguable since it's fine on PC at least - wouldn't matter much.

 

[SofNascimento]

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.

Click to shrink...

I think I could argue all your points but that one... I strongly disagree with. The plot developments (even if not directed connected with the Reapers) and characters developmenst in ME2 are a necessity for ME3. Try to imagine playing Priority Tuchanka or Rannoch without playing ME2 first. The first in particualr would go from what I consider to be one of the pinnacles of storytelling in gaming to an empty mission.

 

[Edgar]

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.

Click to shrink...

I really liked the low budget uncharted planet exploration. It felt like somehow real to me, just due to negative space and 60s Sci fi film feel. There's just something about the idea that humanity is just starting to explore other systems while still underdeveloped and with shoe string budget, makes it more believable.

 

[Bramblebutt]

Mass Effect is pretty unique in that I can't think of a game or series in its genre that simultaneously put as much emphasis as it did on narrative choice and consequence, scope, and cinematic action. I can think of games with gameplay similar to Mass Effect that put emphasis on two of those (Alpha Protocol has C&C and cinematic action, but not much scope. New Fallout has C&C and scope, but not much cinematic action. STALKER has cinematic action and scope, but not much C&C), but it's difficult to come up with one that touches all three in the TPS RPG category. The Witcher series may be the closest comparison in these priorities, but it's hard to make direct comparisons considering they play so differently.

All that in mind, I think Mass Effect actually would do probably just as well if it were released now with proportionally upgraded presentation as it did when it was released back in 2007. It kind of stands on its own, even today.

 

[SofNascimento]

It's a question that can be extrapolated to many games from last gen. I'm not sure why the original Mass Effect is singled out. There was no 'pass' given that I can see at least. It's sitting at a 91 MC, not some GTAV/LoZ tier 97-98. Reviewers clearly pointed out things like technical issues and some design problems. The narrative, world building and characters were excellent in ME1, which is what propelled its status.

The point is ME1 felt fresh in 2007, despite its issues. There's no way it'd be as well received today simply because it should be viewed as a product of its time. Since then, many studios have implemented conversation wheels, characters as squadmates, branching narrative, sprawling sci-fi worlds, etc. It wouldn't really stand out.

Click to shrink...

It sure can, and it should be. I don't mean to imply that ME1 is unique in that aspect. I'm only using ME1 as example because it's a game I feel extremely familar with and there is the added aspect of how BIoware was seen back then and how it is seen today. And Anthem launched recently.

 

[nightstalker962]

Mass Effect is probably in my top ten, but certainly my top 15 games of last gen and I don't know how it would be received today, but to me it's a timeless classic. I was over the moon excited when this game got announced.

 

[Trickster]

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




Modern games still struggle to have moments this impactful.

Click to shrink...

Imagine if Anthem had been a good shlooter AND had story moments like these

One can't help but weep

 

[Nashira]

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.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for outlining this. I always feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read that ME2 somehow is a much better game than ME1 when it was clear that ME2 simply scrapped a lot of the elements in ME1 rather than improve or refine them. Especially the narrative and level design and music style took a heavy hit when Bioware decided to make the Mass Effect into a shootbang game rather than an ambient 70's/80's sci-fi RPG inspired by Star Trek.

 

[VaporSnake]

The first game was a sci fi novel come to life, so as long as the writing was there to support it, yeah it would still be good today.

Because believe it or not, good writing is still incredibly hard to come by these days.

 

[DontHateTheBacon]

The core of the game is good. So if they modernized the paint on that core, sure.

However most decade old games wouldn't do as well today as they did in the past.

 

[Ralemont]

Thank you for outlining this. I always feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read that ME2 somehow is a much better game than ME1 when it was clear that ME2 simply scrapped a lot of the elements in ME1 rather than improve or refine them.

Click to shrink...

Arguably, elements of a game can be bad enough that their removal is still a net positive, even if refinement would be an even bigger net positive. This is how I feel about the Mako, copy/paste side worlds, and inventory in ME1.

The reason why ME2 is the most replayable is that there's almost no fat to trim from its 30 hours. It's red meat content start to finish. ME1's main campaign and worthwhile side quests are shorter and a smaller % of meat, by comparison.

Edit: I'll admit the planet mining in ME2 is a few hours of that 30.

 

[Fishook]

No as the overall gaming market is completely different to 2007, A 20-30 hour game would not sell especially a RPG.

It could work from a AA perspective, something like Technomancer but not a full price game.

 

[SofNascimento]

Arguably, elements of a game can be bad enough that their removal is still a net positive, even if refinement would be an even bigger net positive. This is how I feel about the Mako, copy/paste side worlds, and inventory in ME1.

Click to shrink...

I think what a lot of people miss is that games are not individual elements, they are an end result. And the end result of ME2 is much better than that of ME1. You don't have an traditional inventory? No, but the game is better for it. You still can collect weapons and upgrade them, you can still buy different pieces of armor and customize your look. In a way the inventory still there, but it's the Normandy rather than a magical pack.

 

[IIFloodyII]

The art style/direction, story and characters would hold up well. I guess it'd depend on how modernized the rest was, because that's were it's aged badly.

 

[Jarmel]

hahahaha no

Buggy as shit, long load times, suspect character writing, mediocre graphics, and lackluster gameplay.

It would get savaged.

 

[JusDoIt]

I don't think any game has captured the magic of the Citadel in ME1, but the Mako alone would make it a 7/10 in 2019.

 

[IIFloodyII]

No as the overall gaming market is completely different to 2007, A 20-30 hour game would not sell especially a RPG.

It could work from a AA perspective, something like Technomancer but not a full price game.

Click to shrink...

There's plenty of recent 20-30 hour games that sell well today.

 

[Ralemont]

I think what a lot of people miss is that games are not individual elements, they are an end result. And the end result of ME2 is much better than that of ME1. You don't have an traditional inventory? No, but the game is better for it. You still can collect weapons and upgrade them, you can still buy different pieces of armor and customize your look. In a way the inventory still there, but it's the Normandy rather than a magical pack.

Click to shrink...

Like with most respects, I feel Mass Effect 3 did this the best. It added more customization and depth back into the "inventory" with gun mods and such and was a nice middle ground between ME1's bloated skill system and ME2's extremely sparse one. Similarly, it was able to balance Mass Effect 1's scope with Mass Effect 2's character moments.

Mass Effect 3 Complete is the best of the bunch, even with that ending.

 

[BarryFishFinger]

I thought it was a tedious load of Ole' Shart on release.

 

[SofNascimento]

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)

Click to shrink...

Why, thank you for your kind words. And by "same strengths and problems" I mean something like this: Let's imagine a game today that looks very good and pushes narrative storytelling further than ever before. Would be ok if all other aspects of the game were terrible?

 

[DestroyerOfWorlds]

Not in its current state. Combat is too clunky and some of the areas are pretty unpolished. Not to mention how the visuals have fallen behind in quality over the years (as is expected).

The core concepts could still make for a great new game today. Just need to pull it up to modern standards and polish it a bit and it would still be one of the best series available.

 

[Nashira]

HOW DO YOU MESS UP THIS BAD

Click to shrink...

No. But I think 2 would

Click to shrink...

No, but I think that ME2 would.

Click to shrink...

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.

Click to shrink...

2 though, sure.

Click to shrink...

ME2 would be eviscarated for its level design, its narrative, its disjointed flow between dialogue and action, and its mind-numbing planet scanning in today's environment. Its gunplay isn't all that great either, and it's mostly remembered positively thanks to how relatively bad ME1's combat was.

Arguably, elements of a game can be bad enough that their removal is still a net positive, even if refinement would be an even bigger net positive. This is how I feel about the Mako, copy/paste side worlds, and inventory in ME1.

Click to shrink...

But after removing the exploration of planets with huge space vistas, the Mako, etc., they added the grueling planet scanning. Moreover, the tone shifted to a much more fast-paced action game and the level design became much more constricted. The immersion also took a hit when we got Mission Accomplished screens in between missions, making the game feel more like an amalgamation of disparate elements rather than a holistic narrative with purposeful gameplay moments.

 

[.exe]

Hell yeah. Not as groundbreaking now, but it's still a good ass game even with the lackluster combat. Played it again last year and loved it.

Best game in the trilogy too.

 

[inner-G]

It would have proper controller support if it came out today at least

 

[Yopis]

Tried playing again on PC early last year it didn't age well but it's still one of my favorites.

 

[SofNascimento]

ME2 would be eviscarated for its level design, its narrative, its disjointed flow between dialogue and action, and its mind-numbing planet scanning in today's environment. Its gunplay isn't all that great either, and it's mostly remembered positively thanks to how relatively bad ME1's combat was.

Click to shrink...

ME2 would still be seen today as the timeless masterpiece it was in 2010. All necessary adjustments made, of course.

 

[Menelaus]

hahahaha no

Buggy as shit, long load times, suspect character writing, mediocre graphics, and lackluster gameplay.

It would get savaged.

Click to shrink...

you could make the argument that load times are partially a product of the hardware and it MIGHT be better on today's consoles.

I think the gunplay is simply too dated to be relevant today. The story arc, however, is a classic.

 

[Akita One]

I played Mass Effect 2 just last year and was shocked at how bad the gameplay is. It's super shallow and basic.

So...a hard no. And as I've said, an argument can be made that the Dragon Age games are the only all-around solid games Bioware has made in the past decade.

 

[.exe]

you could make the argument that load times are partially a product of the hardware and it MIGHT be better on today's consoles.

I think the gunplay is simply too dated to be relevant today. The story arc, however, is a classic.

Click to shrink...

In 2, the loading screens are actually tied to a fixed length video file, so loading wouldn't be quicker without that being changed (thank god for mods, loads in seconds on PC).

 

[Dreamwriter]

I think the people who think the combat in the game wasn't fun were people who didn't play it as an RPG, but instead as a shooter. I thought the shooting was fine, because I played it as an RPG, and thus didn't expect precision shooting/dodging (in fact, that was the only game in the trilogy where you could play as a pure magic user without shooting at all). Which of course is why I wasn't happy with the entire genre change in ME 2 and 3; they were entirely different games, but continued the story.

Personally I think if it were first released today, but with modern graphical upgrades, it would have a similarly good response, because what other good space-RPGs are there? Sure, there were flaws, but the game was fun, had amazing music, great settings, and a fun "save the universe" story.

 

[wondermagenta]

My opinion is that the game already sucked in 2007. Even then I'd already played larger and more detailed games with way more polished mechanics. I don't know WHY so many people always need an extra ten years of hindsight to get over the initial novelty/flash of some of these releases.

 

[Hey Please]

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




Modern games still struggle to have moments this impactful.

Click to shrink...

I understand the relevance of the second video and the first one sent chill down my spine the fist time I saw it but in retrospect, that info/exposition dump could have been more elegant.

Why, thank you for your kind words. And by "same strengths and problems" I mean something like this: Let's imagine a game today that looks very good and pushes narrative storytelling further than ever before. Would be ok if all other aspects of the game were terrible?

Click to shrink...

I do wonder how would such an attempt begin to look like with regards to purveying and consumption of information and the scope of the interaction with the world beyond what the Mass Effect as a franchise accomplished.

That said, if the game is not enjoyable to play then it would see players refuse to make meaningful progress. Consequently, all the efforts to push narrative boundaries will go to waste.

 

[collige]

With the exact same performance and graphics as the original? People would first ask why EA was releasing a last gen game in 2019. If we're just talking about the design, writing, and gameplay, i think it would get around an 75-80 Metacritic today as a new IP.

 

[Jawmuncher]

ME1 exactly as it is now no, as said it's a big technical mess and rather janky. However, ME1 as a whole but more polished like ME2 and 3 would definitely be highly regarded outside the barren planets.

 

[edo_kid]

Mass Effect 1 is still the best of the three. The one with the best and well thought-out story (with a twist), the one that is a true rpg and the one that feels the most love was put into. Mass Effect's scope has been shrinking since then. It's also the last true great Bioware game.

What it would need is an overhaul of the Mako mechanics ;)

Click to shrink...

Fully agree with this, with the exception that Dragon Age 1 was really the last true great Bioware game.

 

[LuckyLinus]

It would be an instant Classic even if it came out today. Theres nothing else like it.

 

[Hero_Select]

Definitely not. The combat is way too clunky and dat inventory is horrible.

Remaster the Trilogy already you cowards!

 

[Mockerre]

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.

Click to shrink...

Some of these things are definitely subjective, but ME2 and ME3 felt smaller and more claustrophobic in scope than ME1 (and not in a good Alien claustrophobic way). ME2 and ME3 became more action oriented, more shooter than exploration. Again, this is all IMO.

I think I could argue all your points but that one... I strongly disagree with. The plot developments (even if not directed connected with the Reapers) and characters developmenst in ME2 are a necessity for ME3. Try to imagine playing Priority Tuchanka or Rannoch without playing ME2 first. The first in particualr would go from what I consider to be one of the pinnacles of storytelling in gaming to an empty mission.

Click to shrink...

The main plot - that of Harvesters and the Human Reaper - might not exist and nothing of substance would be lost.
As for the side stories, the genophage - and the Krogan dillema - was heavily set up in ME1 (you could even kill Wrex for it).
Rannoch I will give you - but it does not hold the weight of a whole game - for me, that is.

I really liked the low budget uncharted planet exploration. It felt like somehow real to me, just due to negative space and 60s Sci fi film feel. There's just something about the idea that humanity is just starting to explore other systems while still underdeveloped and with shoe string budget, makes it more believable.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for outlining this. I always feel like I'm taking crazy pills when I read that ME2 somehow is a much better game than ME1 when it was clear that ME2 simply scrapped a lot of the elements in ME1 rather than improve or refine them. Especially the narrative and level design and music style took a heavy hit when Bioware decided to make the Mass Effect into a shootbang game rather than an ambient 70's/80's sci-fi RPG inspired by Star Trek.

Click to shrink...

Both these comments hit the nail on the head. ME1 was about space exploration in the vein of genre classics, it was slower paced, oriented towards the weird, towards the alien.

ME2 and ME3 went the shooter route and WAR!, jettisoning what made ME1 atmospheric and unique. There is a reason for that and it's not artistic vision. Andromeda and Anthem are a logical conclusion of the route mapped out with ME2. Anyway, I don't want to start a ME measuring contest, just sharing an opinion.

 

[SpotAnime]

I would hope it would be as well received, if not better, in today's world. The combat mechanics were all dice rol based, but disguised as a shooter. That's why people hated it at the time. It was KOTOR without the pause menu.

Flash forward to ME2 and they actually tried to make a more traditional shooter, which is where I felt they started to lose their way. They bowed to the pressure they were getting to be more akin to the popular shooters of that time, IMO never succeeding to be either a great shooter nor a great RPG.

Today's audience I feel would be more kind to the fact it was trying to be it's own thing. And they need to bring back the film grain!

 

[Menelaus]

In 2, the loading screens are actually tied to a fixed length video file, so loading wouldn't be quicker without that being changed (thank god for mods, loads in seconds on PC).

Click to shrink...

I'm talking about DA GOAT ME1, not that trash-ass sequel.

 

[Mockerre]

Fully agree with this, with the exception that Dragon Age 1 was really the last true Bioware game.

Click to shrink...

I'm really torn on DA1, never having finished it, so I reserve the right to be wrong on omitting it as the last great ;)

 

[Hella]

A mediocre RPG, bad shooter, and terrible adventure game bound together with some charm and cinematic flair aren't really great component parts. Bioware made it work with Mass Effect 1, but I don't think that sort of game would fly today. The closest equivalents (in DAI or Mass Effect: Andromeda) were terribly disappointing to me, personally.

I think what I want most of all from Bioware is a game that focused on what they do best--characters. So a Turian Citadel Detective game, with street-level storylines, would still--after all these years post-ME1--be the dream Mass Effect game. I don't think Bioware can greenlight such unspectacular pitches, but I firmly believe they can pull it off better than anybody.

 

[.exe]

I'm talking about DA GOAT ME1, not that trash-ass sequel.

Click to shrink...

Ah I see you are a man of culture too.

Never had an issue with loads in ME1. The elevator rides were nice and relaxing.

 

[Driggonny]

Nah, the game is clunky and messy in a way that I can only forgive *because* it was the first and in 2007. It's my second favorite of the 4 games, but without context in mind it'd be much harder to justify that placement

I will say though, I completely don't understand people's complaints with the shooting. Maybe I was missing something, but just keep it in the circle and everything is fine? God, now I'm suddenly getting reminded of all the things ME2 changed that annoyed the hell out of me, like suddenly needing ammo.

 

[SofNascimento]

The main plot - that of Harvesters and the Human Reaper - might not exist and nothing of substance would be lost.
As for the side stories, the genophage - and the Krogan dillema - was heavily set up in ME1 (you could even kill Wrex for it).
Rannoch I will give you - but it does not hold the weight of a whole game - for me, that is.

Click to shrink...

Just imagine Tuchanka without Mordin. We got an entire new point of view concerning the Genophage in ME2, not to mention personal stakes in the conflict.

 

[Menelaus]

Ah I see you are a man of culture too.

Never had an issue with loads in ME1. The elevator rides were nice and relaxing.

Click to shrink...

The only reason people like ME2 is because it modernized the controls. Every other aspect was a step away from the magic of 1.

 

[Ralemont]

A mediocre RPG, bad shooter, and terrible adventure game bound together with some charm and cinematic flair aren't really great component parts. Bioware made it work with Mass Effect 1, but I don't think that sort of game would fly today. The closest equivalents (in DAI or Mass Effect: Andromeda) were terribly disappointing to me, personally.

I think what I want most of all from Bioware is a game that focused on what they do best--characters. So a Turian Cital Detective game, with street-level storylines, would still--after all these years post-ME1--be the dream Mass Effect game. I don't think Bioware can greenlight such unspectacular pitches, but I firmly believe they can pull it off better than anybody.

Click to shrink...

Yeah even Anthem shows they can still do characters as well as ever.

Some of these things are definitely subjective, but ME2 and ME3 felt smaller and more claustrophobic in scope than ME1 (and not in a good Alien claustrophobic way). ME2 and ME3 became more action oriented, more shooter than exploration. Again, this is all IMO.

Click to shrink...

No, I think those are pretty objective statements that I agree with. I just don't particularly feel they are negatives in this case but lateral moves. The claustrophic scope is what allowed Mass Effect 2 to flesh out so many of its races for the player to care about; did anyone think that after completing ME1 they'd end up caring about the fate of the geth? If I had told you that to end the Reaper threat you'd have to sacrifice the geth and that legions of players would be upset about that, would you have believed me? And considering I think ME2/3 do action better than ME1 does exploration, well...

 

[Furnace Inferno]

Yes, ME1 easily had the best story and the universe it built was incredible. Just like GTA which gets a pass on it's many issues so would ME1 IMO.

Sure ME2 had better gameplay and ME3 better again but in ME2 nothing happened to really progress the story which kind of killed the dramatic ending from the first and ME3 had to try and make sense of the stupidity of 2. Yes 2 had great character stories but what's the point if nothing else interesting happens, you may as well be watching Downtown Abbey!

 

[Ralemont]

Yes, ME1 easily had the best story and the universe it built was incredible. Just like GTA which gets a pass on it's many issues so would ME1 IMO.

Sure ME2 had better gameplay and ME3 better again but in ME2 nothing happened to really progress the story which kind of killed the dramatic ending from the first and ME3 had to try and make sense of the stupidity of 2. Yes 2 had great character stories but what's the point if nothing else interesting happens, you may as well be watching Downtown Abbey!

Click to shrink...

Can I romance Abbey?