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

[Mockerre]

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.

Click to shrink...

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying everything in ME2 is horrendously bad, a lot of the stories are quite enjoyable. I'm saying I could live with it and the overarching story (that of Repear cullings) would continue undisturbed. Imagine saying that about Empire Strikes Back or the The Two Towers.

 

[bytesized]

I somewhat enjoyed it when it was released but even then there were so many things wrong with it. It could've been much better for sure.

 

[Fizie]

No, its issues from 2007 would be amplified today.

But then the story, atmosphere etc. have aged so well. It probably wouldn't be critically acclaimed, but it would no doubt develop cult status.

 

[zombiejames]

Considering how dumbed down RPGs are these days? Oh yeah. Compared to Fallout 4 or Andromeda, going back to Mass Effect 1 is actually a leap forward.

 

[Deleted member 5864]

It's still the best one, so yes.

 

[SofNascimento]

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying everything in ME2 is horrendously bad, a lot of the stories are quite enjoyable. I'm saying I could live with it and the overarching story (that of Repear cullings) would continue undisturbed. Imagine saying that about Empire Strikes Back or the The Two Towers.

Click to shrink...

The funny thing is that a lot of people compared ME2 to Empire Strikes Back.

 

[Juraash]

By the masses probably not. There are certain expectations for what a game like that should be today that the original probably doesn't meet.

That said, I'd almost certainly still view it as highly. The things that make it the best in the series to me really aren't byproducts of its gameplay or level design .

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

Ignoring the graphical differences, ME1 was an exceptionally janky game and standards are way higher for big budget releases today. It also had awful mechanics, everything from shooting to inventory management and itemization. It would ripped to shreds by reviews for everything except story/characters, which would probably still be well received.

 

[texhnolyze]

Mass Effect's combat hasn't aged well. I recently replayed it and it was pretty bad and janky.

Graphically, it still looks stellar in high resolution. The artstyle is just special.

 

[The_R3medy]

No, not at all. It's gameplay is the jankiest in the whole series. The story is great, but the issues would be the same as if KOTOR was released today. The combat and gameplay are janky.

Also, the elevator rides would be meme'd to all hell.

 

[Slim Action]

I think Mass Effect 1 does a brilliant job at throwing you into a world full of strange alien races / places / technology without it either being overwhelming or tediously overexplained. You're told only what you strictly need to know. If you want to know more, the Codex (and the Investigate option in dialogues) is right there. That careful worldbuilding, and the game's strong aesthetic (moody music; lens flare & film grain done right, with the intent of capturing 1970s sci fi) hold up perfectly.

However, I feel that audiences and reviewers have grown increasingly critical of games lacking a high degree of polish or refined gameplay mechanics. A game with the polish level and gameplay style of ME1 would not receive the scores now that it did at the time. Whether this is a good thing is up to you, I guess.

As an aside, the trilogy plays a lot better on PC these days, as mods can provide better texture quality, controller support, and a variety of quality of life enhancements such as removing the repetitive minigames in ME2.

 

[Yabberwocky]

I think the gameplay, bland planets, inventory, and the Mako would be divisive, but ME1's main quest, side quests, and characters still shine. I guess probably not that different to how ME1 is received now? I still think it would hit at least 80 for Metacritic.

I'm playing ME:A at the moment (Ryder's at Lvl. 40, I'm about 40 hours in, trying to do all the quests outside of Tasks as I go), and god. There is so much content, but so little of it is quality, including the main quest line. It's so frustrating, because I really wanted to like it. I've always adored ME1, but playing ME:A has made me even more impressed with the writing and mission design retrospectively. While there is absolutely some filler in ME1, the main quests and the side quests are genuinely worth the player's time. (I would also say the same for ME2. ME3 shares some of Andromeda's issues with mission design and filler side quests, but at least the main quest line in ME3 is really engaging up until the end.)

That being said, ME1 did have the benefit of more intimidating and atmospheric enemies. Being trapped in a Kett mine or a maze-like room full of Kett? Meh. Being trapped in a mine full of husks or a maze-like ship filled with husks? HOLY SHIT FUCK SEND HELP KILL THEM WREX FUCK FUCK FUCK

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

Click to shrink...

I played ME2 before ME1, so I have to disagree. I love both games, and they both definitely have their strengths and weaknesses. Whilst ME2 became more linear, it still had a really memorable main quest and side quests. Like in ME1's Citadel, there's still a portion of side quests where you're just running back and forth through the Citadel and Omega, but ME2 had an impressive amount of entirely unique areas for side quests, and not just companion quests. I didn't realize how many unique levels/areas ME2 had until ME:A... well, didn't.

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...

Greaaaat. I'm now picturing Mary as a no bullshit Miranda-esque biotic, and Lady Crawley as an Asari Matriarch. I feel like Robert Crawley is a salarian, and I don't know why.

This is the weirdest crossover ever. I don't even really like Downtown Abbey!

 

[Tuorom]

But like the sequels haven't happened yet??

If so then yes. Everything good about it is still there, with no bias from what they improved upon.

If the sequels already happened then the game will have ignored many evolutions which doesn't make sense, and thus this question is kinda unanswerable. A paradox.

 

[pswii60]

I thought ME1 was meh and yet ME2 is one of my favourite games of all time.

 

[Gatti-man]

The story and characters would be lauded but that gameplay lol yeah. It would get trashed for the combat.

 

[Jarmel]

Mass Effect 1 with the combat system of ME3 is the dream.

 

[low-G]

No. Because it was always bad.

ME2 is the good ME game.

 

[Parenegade]

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...

This post made me actually sick. ME2 is and always will be the best of the trilogy.

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

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

Click to shrink...

By "modernized the controls" you actually mean "had a functioning cover system and competent shooting mechanics instead of the garbage systems that ME1 had". You can't really sweep this change under the rug because in ME1, 2 and 3, shooter combat is roughly 35-50% of what you do in the game. It's huge. Even then, that's certainly not the only positive thing in ME2.

The cast of characters is fantastic, the side missions are great, it replaced the simon says lockpicking stuff with a better minigame (PC version already had a different one compared to 360 version for ME1, please note), and it had far superior DLC expansions. Lair of the Shadowbroker and Overlord are both great, the former in particular. It's dramatically more technically polished, especially on console where the performance was far more stable, far fewer instances of texture popin, and shorter loads. Combat added the defense layers (the optimal difficulty for this is the 2nd highest - insanity is too hard to be fun but just below that everyone gets defense layers and its heaps good) and power combos so that team synergy was more of a thing. Classes felt more distinct by adding a signature power to each and changing the weapon proficiency so you only carried what you were proficient with, rather than lugging around useless guns for no reason.

Even where ME2 axed systems or condensed systems, they were usually systems that were bad in ME1. Fewer levels, but more meaningful ability upgrades for example replaced the "there are 25 levels of this stat but each of them just adds a 1% buff until you get to the 3 actual milestones" system. There are way fewer weapons, but they actually feel like different weapons, instead of reskins with minor stat differences. The itemization systems were unnecessarily vast in ME1, and without that there was no longer any need for an inventory to juggle and endless procession of weapons and armor you're looting from random corpses. For people who played on PC you don't know the struggle of the Xbox 360 version's inventory fuckery whereby if you omnigelled your equipment in the field to make space, it teleported you back to the top of the list, which was sorted so your best equipment (That you didn't want to get rid of) is on top, and the scroll speed is painfully slow, and you can carry 150 items.

UNC worlds and the Mako were very badly implemented in ME1. ME2 removing it hurts the expeirence for some people, but did not stop reviewers and audiences from loving ME2 heaps and it's not a controvertial opinion that No Mako is better than Bad Mako.

 

[-COOLIO-]

videogames generally age terribly compared to other media

 

[SpokkX]

Of course not. Time changes expectations. Definitely not.

Like come on, OP. Of course not.

Click to shrink...

Yeah how is this even a question?

 

[Remember]

No, its issues from 2007 would be amplified today.

But then the story, atmosphere etc. have aged so well. It probably wouldn't be critically acclaimed, but it would no doubt develop cult status.

Click to shrink...

Pretty much this. It would sit up there in high regards with a lot of other Eurojank RPGs, because they all contain two common qualities: ambition and passion. That makes your review score go up a little.

 

[BossAttack]

No, it would be received even better. Praised as some new standard in AAA RPGs.

 

[Euron]

It's pretty clunky and slow right now mainly thanks to 2007 hardware but that part would be upgraded I imagine. The story is still better than nearly every AAA game released these days (that's not even an insult to AAA games) so that plus the promise of decisions carrying over through a trilogy would be big for it. Some critics would hate the complexity but overall if you remove the technical limitations through modern hardware, it's still a damn good game albeit a bit of a cluttered one.

 

[Manatron]

Having just finished the original Mass Effect again last weekend I would say that it probably would be received poorly if it came out now.

However, that's because time changes expectations. It was before third person shooter controls and standards had been firmly set in place. The cover system is super janky and the shooting is pretty rough. If it came out now it would be rightfully compared to other games of a similar type.

However, the character development and world building are still excellent. So it's probable that the story telling aspects would be praised, while combat would get trashed.


It's especially jarring going to ME 2 right after, because the shooting and cover mechanics are VASTLY better.

 

[skeezx]

i first played it in 2013 and was pretty blown away, though the cracks were apparent here and there. a rough 2019 equivalent i'd be equally impressed with i'd imagine.

 

[Deleted member 2533]

Obviously a 2019 version of a 2007 game (modern engine), I do think ME would be well received. I don't think The Witcher 3 or AC:Odyssey for example has deeper dialogue choices or leveling/inventory/skills systems. The only knock on ME is that it isn't open-world, but I don't think people necessarily need their ARPGs to be open-world. The CRPG crowd enjoyed Pillars of Eternity and Shadowrun, and those games were linear, Tomb Raider and God of War are linear action games and those are well received. There'd be an audience for Mass Effect.

The game had great graphics, production value, and the non-technical elements like the story, the conversation system were great. The biggest knock would be the combat, which was maybe not great, but I enjoyed the combat in ME more than Skyrim, The Witcher 3, or ELEX.

 

[Deleted member 31104]

Its problems today would still be the same problems it had in 2007, but I think people would still be just as receptive to the idea of "your decisions matter" now as they were then. It's not like there have been all that many advances in that area of video games since Mass Effect. Telltale didn't raise the bar in that area. Until Dawn and Quantic Dream's games never tried to carry your decisions across sequels, they were self-contained singular games. ME made the promise of carrying your decisions through an entire trilogy right from the beginning.

It's still an off-the-charts ambitious idea and would still be a standout feature of any new game, just like it was then, and people would be willing to overlook glaring gameplay (combat) flaws for it.

Click to shrink...

Alpha Protocol, despite it's almost unreal levels of jank, is still the king of Western console games for reactivity: hell's it's basically the only functional part of the game.

 

[Avitus]

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.

Click to shrink...

The Vigil conversation actually slams a mission to a halt and recontextualizes the entire game and what is about to happen in the climax. It's actually really incredible the first time it happens and you have no idea it is coming. It was certainly a decision and one I'm glad Bioware made. I think the length is irrelevant, a five minute convo or fifteen, so long as it is engaging and adds to the story, which it absolutely does. Anthem is full of completely meaningless conversations by comparison.

 

[Strangelove_77]

I don't think so. I played it in 2012 when it first came out on PS3 and it was already total ass to play.
Story over gameplay works when the gameplay isn't 50% or more of what you do in the game and the game isn't 20+ hours long. Doesn't matter how exceptional the writing is.

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

It's pretty clunky and slow right now mainly thanks to 2007 hardware but that part would be upgraded I imagine. The story is still better than nearly every AAA game released these days (that's not even an insult to AAA games) so that plus the promise of decisions carrying over through a trilogy would be big for it. Some critics would hate the complexity but overall if you remove the technical limitations through modern hardware, it's still a damn good game albeit a bit of a cluttered one.

Click to shrink...

The thing about ME1 is that in aggregate it's not even that complex, it's just complex in unnecessary ways. Compared to the RPGs that came before it and even modern RPGs, it's extremely streamlined. Your party shares all XP and levels in full synchronization, your squad kind of just manages itself, your inventory is this huge pool that sucks up all loot automatically (don't even need to pick it up manually), and until you crank the difficulty very high there's little need to pay attention to the itemisation options beyond just picking something you like and selecting whichever one has the highest stats. The whole game level scales, the combat has auto-aim that gets extremely generous to the point of parody when you upgrades your gun skills a lot, regenerating shields in combat, no character deaths outside of scripted story beats, unlimited ammo on all guns at all times, you carry every type of gun at the same time, all quests have map markers to point you straight where you need to go, etc.

Compared to Baldur's Gate or NWN it's baby's first RPG, for sure. Mass Effect 2 feels like it's cutting off partially atrophied limbs when it eliminate the itemisation and inventory or stat-based aiming because ME1 was already so basic and it clearly wants to be an Action RPG but just had all this baggage from back when the company used to make Pen & Paper derived games.

 

[saiko]

I beat it recently and it was a janky mess. So 100% no.

 

[Aztechnology]

The combat and elements even sucked at the time. It's the universe, story, dialogue and core gameplay concepts that made it a winner.

Playing it was awkward to say the least. But it was still an amazingly memorable game.

 

[panthermodern]

People dunked on this game then. "Elevator simulator 2k7" etc. I loved it despite its quirks, but it was clunky as hell and ran like garbage. If released today I don't think it would pass critical muster, but would probably still have a dedicated following.

 

[firstromario]

No, Mass Effect was half baked game. I didn't even realize how good it was until I played ME2. After that ME1 made a lot more sense and it was a lot easier to ignore all of its shortcomings (like gameplay).

 

[ClarkusDarkus]

Loved ME1, Best in the trilogy, I'd play it in a heartbeat as at least the worlds would be fleshed out abit more. ME2 a close second, Series died then as I pretend ME3/A don't exist.

LOTSB was my ending.

 

[theAllseeingEYE]

Not even close, but it was a still a great game for its time.

Mass Effect 1 was an 18-20 Hour game, with an excellent story, setting, and visual style, but with very poor combat, and an especially poor cover system. They could revamp the combat and cover system to be on-par with Gears 4, and add about 20-30 hours of extra gameplay and meaty side missions ot the game to get even close to that metacritic nowadays.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

Of course not. Time changes expectations. Definitely not.

Like come on, OP. Of course not.

Click to shrink...

Yea, I remember the janky combat of ME1 distinctly.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

Would any game?

Let's be honest even Tetris would be lost to the dark side of the Google play store with 5 reviews..

Games are products of the time.

 

[Mud]

Mass Effect is in my top 5 best ever. Great story and gameplay. One of the first games I felt attached to the protagonist. Awesome world as well.

 

[Soneji]

ME1 created a good deal of the standards by which it'd be judged by nowadays...yeah someone eventually might come along and create some of those in their own time but this is a really strange question to be asking. The best answer is that if you upgrade it to 2019 standards(modern day equivalent in terms of graphics, frame rate and being mediocre as a TPS), then it would without having been there prior to set certain bars still be praised highly for it's story, world building and characters. It is still the best in it's series and one of the best RPGs of all time.

Mass Effect split base leads to some really ludicrous hot takes.

 

[Jeronimo]

No. Expectations have changed.

 

[Last Jon Standing]

Mass Effect had the luck(?) to come out in a generation in which bugs, technical problems, iffy gameplay and subpar performance were all pretty much expected. Games that performed well or at least had some stability were the exception, and that was the opposite of what we have today.

Mass Effect had:

• Serious framerate drops during more intense firefights;
• Constant 20-second-long pauses to autosave whenever you reached a checkpoint or entered a different area;
• One of the worst inventory management systems in gaming (I don't think I'm being hyperbolic, by the way);
• Bad UI;
• Intensely reused assets (few equipment models, the same three or four rooms with rearranged boxes for almost every sidequest in the game, few haircuts and facial traits);
• Pallete-swapped planets with terrain so uneven it made no sense, and usually so barren that exploration felt like a waste of time;
• Combat that was serviceable at its best and infuriating at its worst. It had great ideas but the execution wasn't anything to write home about.

And yet I loved it because it was the best space opera experience we had up to this day in gaming. Its writing, plot, characters and lore carry the rest of the game on their backs, and that is a testament to how great these elements are. Today, however, people wouldn't be tolerant to the stuff I wrote above. The Witcher 3, excellent as it was, had combat a lot of people deemed subpar, and that alone was enough to make many of them give up on the game and never look back. Mass Effect: Andromeda is a lot better than ME1 performance- and gameplay-wise, and its improvements still weren't enough for a game of its time.

Mass Effect, if it released today, would certainly be panned by reviewers and the average player, and it would also have garnered a cult following. Something like the first Nier and Deadly Premonition.