Revisiting Mass Effect: Part 1

Nearly nine years ago BioWare released the first Mass Effect and launched one of the most beloved and well received franchises of the last console generation. With the trilogy recently being put on sale on PC and Mass Effect: Andromeda on the horizon I felt like it was as good a time as any to revisit the series.

Our trip down memory lane starts after getting about 13 hours into Mass Effect. At this point Shepard has become a Spectre and has begun her search for Saren, although she has spent most of her time exploring uncharted worlds and doing missions for Alliance Naval Command.

Meet Kylie Shepard

The best place to start is by introducing our heroine, Kylie Shepard. I tried to make a custom face but nothing looked good. In the end I went with the default female Shepard. Before starting I took some time to come up with a rough outline of her personality, skill set and worldview. It was a different approach than I have taken with this series in the past. Usually I build the character as I go based on what I feel in the moment but this time I wanted to roleplay a character from the beginning. The hope is that by having a defined personality I can limit my input on these decisions and avoid using knowledge gained from playing through the entire trilogy.

Kylie was space-born and a military brat, enlisting with the Alliance as a Soldier as soon as she was old enough. After seeing her unit wiped out from a thresher maw attack on Akuze and living to tell the tale she was pegged as humanity’s candidate for the Spectres; an elite group of operatives who enforce the Citadel Council’s rule through any means necessary.

Kylie is loyal to humanity and the Systems Alliance however she also realizes that they are part of a larger galaxy. She recognizes the need to coexist and cooperate with the other species to maximize humanity’s potential. She doesn’t care what you look like or what planet you’re from as long as you do your job. As a leader she expects her crew to follow her lead and obey orders. She doesn’t mind her crew freely speaking their minds as long as they recognize that she has the final say. While she is skilled with an assault rifle she prefers to handle situations through diplomacy first, although she isn’t above intimidation or coercion if it means she can get the job done without bloodshed.

Welcome to the galaxy

After getting through the initial character creation the game wastes little time introducing you to the Mass Effect universe. Between the Codex and the early dialogue options there is plenty of information to bring you up to speed and give a basic understanding of how the world works.

One of the things I noticed this time through is how well the dialogue asks questions without making Shepard seem like an idiot. Shepard doesn’t have amnesia, unlike almost every other RPG protagonist, and it wouldn’t make sense for her to be unaware of major historical events or galactic institutions. At the same time, the player is unaware of these things. The way this plays out is that rather than simply asking “What is a Spectre?” Shepard might say “What kind of missions does the Council send Spectres on?” The end result is still the same; the other character gives you an idea of what Spectres do. The difference is that the second line makes it feel more like Shepard is a part of this universe. She has heard of the Spectres and understands they answer to the Council. Instead of being a vessel for the player Shepard is someone who has lived in and experienced this galaxy.

Visually I was also surprised by how much I still was moved by some of the establishing scenes early in the game. Scenes such as the Normandy’s first approach to the Citadel gave me the same goosebumps and excitement I got when I saw them for the first time years ago. The approach to the Citadel and the scene in the Council chambers when Shepard is named a Spectre still felt powerful even seeing them again for the fourth or fifth time. It’s a testament to the direction and art design that even though the graphics haven’t aged particularly well (even on PC) the sense of wonder is still present.

Space racism is everywhere

One part of the galaxy I forgot about was just how much of a role racism and xenophobia played. It’s almost impossible to make it out of a conversation without having someone mention something negative about one of the races in the galaxy. It isn’t even limited to humans vs. aliens; a Turian will tell you all Krogan are bloodthirsty killers while a Salarian will tell you the Asari are too content to sit around and do nothing instead of taking action.

The one place I thought I would be free of this was on the Normandy, where aliens were valuable members of my crew. It was a bit of shock to speak to Ashley and Navigator Presley and be reminded exactly how racist these characters started out. Sure, by the end of the game they will both have come around, but it was still disgusting to realize that it was happening on my own ship.

This feeling was made even worse with the way the game handled dialogue around the issue. When speaking to Presley he expressed concerns that this was a human mission and we shouldn’t need help from aliens. My response was that Saren is a threat to the entire galaxy, not just humanity, and this dialogue choice the Renegade option. For comparison, when the game presents you with the option to kill or capture/arrest another character the Renegade option is to kill them. Based on how the game handles their morality system a stern objection to racism is the same as killing someone. It’s the most disappointing moment I have had so far with the morality and dialogue systems.

The misunderstood Mako

After you have taken time to meet your crew and explore the ship it’s time to head out and explore the galaxy. The game offers a selection of various star systems to visit and many have uncharted planets begging to be explored. Shepard’s means to explore the planet might be the most hotly debated part of Mass Effect lore, perhaps second only to the ending of Mass Effect 3.

The Mako is a six-wheeled tank that Shepard uses to get around on these unexplored planets. Most of the criticism came from the way it controlled. It’s unwieldy, bouncy and just generally hard to maneuver. On top of that the planets are covered with mountains, with the objectives located at their peaks. It was often a chore to reach the top of these mountains. Once there it was easy to fall off and be forced to find another route up. Despite all of this I was always a member of Team Mako.

The Mako, coupled with the uneven terrain, really made these uncharted planets feel unexplored. You were seeing this world in its most natural state and may have been one of its earliest visitors. After enough time I became adept at controlling the Mako and the thrill of exploring outweighed the poor control. Navigation was also helped by a much more useful map than I remember. It does a good job of showing elevations and using it I was able to plot pretty easy routes to most points of interest. In fact, with enough searching most of the time I could find what appeared to be a deliberate route up mountains. These just weren’t clearly marked. It’s disappointing that rather than try to fix the problems with these sections BioWare instead chose to cut them from the sequels and rob players of this sense of discovery.

The one negative worth mentioning is the repetitiveness of the environments on these uncharted planets, specifically the structures. There are really three types of structures you will encounter; the warehouse, the underground base and the mine. The floorplan is the same for each and the only difference is where cover is located within them. This time through I figured I would come up with an in-world justification for this. I decided it had to be because the companies doing the exploration/excavation would use low cost, prefabricated structures that could be brought in by spaceship. While it makes sense that explorers would use prefab buildings and these would have the same layout it doesn’t mean it’s not boring.

Going in guns blazing

Exploration and conversation make up two-thirds of Mass Effect but the game wouldn’t be complete without combat. This is the part of the game that was most different from what I remembered. Playing as a Soldier (on Veteran difficulty), and thus focusing heavily on weapon combat, exposes the game’s shortcomings a third-person shooter. Additionally, the game’s roots as a BioWare RPG place a stronger focus on squad management than its sequels.

In all of my previous playthroughs I have played as a Biotic or Tech class. This gave access to several abilities that could be activated from the tactical pause menu to deal damage or incapacitate foes. The Soldier is a pure combat class however and relies on weaponry. I have found that after years of playing shooters, the Mass Effect combat has become much more challenging for me. Part of this is because the game doesn’t handle like a modern shooter. The sway on a sniper rifle is extremely difficult to compensate for, especially without a “hold breath” option. The assault rifle, which should be my primary weapon in most encounters, is almost comically inaccurate after any amount of sustained fire. It has forced me to embrace shotguns, a weapon I never used in any Mass Effect game until now. My combat strategy is to take cover and let the enemy come to me. Once I have thinned their ranks I then storm them and take out the stragglers.

The combat in Mass Effect also has more in common with Dragon Age: Origins than it does Gears of War. While your squad will use powers on their own, positioning is almost exclusively managed by the player. It has resulted in plenty of situations where I have forgotten to put my squad into cover and have to fight my way out of battles on my own. It also means that in order to tip the scales in your favor you need to actively manage your entire squad and not just Shepard. While this would be second nature to someone trained on classic BioWare RPGs it hasn’t been as easy to come back to, especially when the sequels have moved away from it.

Into the great wide open

With about a third of the game behind me (based on previous play times) there is still plenty to see. Now that I have gotten the broad strokes of gameplay and world building out of the way it’s time to focus on the decisions ahead. In Part 2 I expect to discuss the plot and some of the major decisions coming up. I’m looking forward to checking back in on Kylie Shepard in another 10-15 hours.

It is my favorite mass effect by a large margin, even if I know ME2 is so much better as a game. I am one of those people that like Mako and uncharted planets. Exploring these copy pasted bases gave me sense of isolation and Space Odyssey vibes. I also liked the idea of managing heat on your gun without having standar clip. And that sounctrack, god damn it is so good, why they decided to not include music during conversations in ME 2 and 3 is beyond me.

I dont see it as an morality system based on political correctness which the later Bioware games turned into. Its more caution vs guns blazing in ME1, how much of a loose cannon are you?

The best ME game by far.

The last time I played any Mass Effect was August 2014 when I played through the entire trilogy again. It was my first time playing as femshep and my first adept, both of which turned out to be my favorites.

Thinking about it now, I don't think I could play ME 1 again. Between the lackluster shooting, the mako, and the hours spent running around the Citadel... ugh. I just can't do it.

First Mass Effect, best Mass Effect (at least on PC).

I played it again before starting ME2 and then again (together with ME2) before starting ME3. The more I played each game the more I realised ME1 is the best game of the trilogy.

Is it wrong that I want them to make an updated version of the trilogy for PS4.

I really liked that you had to use experience points to raise your speech abilities in ME1. First, it meant that if you wanted to be able to talk your way out of something you would have to make sacrifices in other areas. And secondly, it allowed you to take a more natural approach to dialog options. In the later games I always felt that I had to go paragon or renegade whenever they were available so that I would level that side up and be able to use those speech options later in the game. Took my middle path character and turned him into a full paragon or renegade.

@sterling said:

Nope. I held out on buying the Mass Effect Trilogy on PS3 in hopes that it would come to PS4. Still no word... Glad I held out, though, because my PS3 died pretty shortly thereafter and I wouldn't have had nearly enough time to finish the series again.

@hassun: Critical path, I think I agree with you. But if you spend a long time on sidequests one after another, playing beach comber on difficult to navigate planets and shooting your way through cookie-cutter environments, it loses a lot of steam.

By the way, OP, I'm racist against people who are racist against space racists.

@bane: I think I have hit a point where my gear is beginning to severely outclass my enemies so the combat has gotten easier now that I can just kind of tank the damage instead of needing to play as cautiously.

The ME1 system is only marginally better than the system they used for the other two games, but I think all of it is pretty terrible (don't forget your ability to spend points in charm and intimidate was still gated by your paragon and rengade progression, so the same issue of having to commit to one path still applied). In my opinion, there's no need to add progression mechanics to speech and decision making at all. Dialogue choices should be interesting in and of themselves, and adding a layer of unnecessary game mechanics just adds a needless barrier to what should be an inherently engaging aspect of the game.

In general, whether you call it good and bad karma, dark side and light side, paragon and renegade, or good and evil, I find the whole concept of alignment points to be one of the worst and most counter productive gameplay mechanics applied to dialogue and decision making in gaming. This unnecessary "gamifaction" of a concept that has so much potential for interesting gameplay and narrative turns the whole thing into just another meter to be filled.

The games with the best dialogue and decision making mechanics are the ones where the decision itself, and potential consequences that result from it, is what drives the player to make a choice. If your first though when presented with a dialogue option is "I should have dumped more points into a speech skill" or "which of these choices will fill the alignment meter I decided to fill 20 hours ago when the game started," rather than "what are the potential ramifications to other characters or the game world," a game has failed in this department.

@ll_exile_ll: I certainly don't disagree with your point about two sided morality systems. I prefer systems that track your alignment to individuals rather than overall "good or evil" points. I think games in general have moved away from the old two sided system with games like The Witcher being a pretty good example.

I like skill points being tied to charm or intimidate. I enjoy building the weaker, smarter, more charismatic character and seeing if i can find a way around my problems. If anybody is able to take that path then it cheapens it a little. That said, there should still be interesting dialog and branching options for those who focus on other skills.

I do hope they bring back that exploration feel for Andromeda. I still can't get behind the Mako, but roaming some cool looking planets like those dark ones with a nice blue light to them was just amazing.

Mass Effect 1 could really use a remaster, just to get rid of the inventory clunkiness. The amount of garbage loot in the game is astounding. All the guns function exactly the same, barring the geth rifle, you just progress through non-interesting +1% stat upgrades until you can afford the Spectre X guns and then you never bother looking at your weapons again.. though you still have to deal with automatically picking up all the crap you find along the way.

They could have made the gun types entirely cosmetic and just tie the upgrades to your skill allocation and the effect would be exactly the same.

The ammo types were a neat idea and actually kinda fun to mix and match, but having to go through all the different versions of them, with the same +1% stat upgrades was a pointless chore.

Also, soldier is the most overpowered class in the game once you level up a bit. Whatever the damage reduction skill is called is incredible broken. You can just wade through enemy fire and (i might be misremembering this part) its cooldown is shorter than its duration so you can just keep popping it and never take significant damage.

@veektarius:I'm racist against people who are racist against people who are racist against space racists.

@duluoz: The inventory management hasn't been as tedious thanks to mouse control. The interface is still garbage and there is too much trash but its not as time consuming this go around, at least compared to my memory.

The idea of a ME 1 remaster has always been interesting to me because I feel like in order to do it right you would have to rebuild it from the ground up to handle more like ME2 in combat otherwise its a clunky shooter that just feels old. I would definitely get behind a ME1 remaster/remake that handles like ME2/3 in combat but I don't know that EA would put in the amount of work needed to rebuild and rebalance that game to play completely different.

@sterling: A remastered edition of the Mass Effect Trilogy is basically the only remake that deserves to be made at this point. It is a travesty that there is no easy way to get the entire trilogy with all DLCs included in a single package. Having controller support for all three games on PC would be great as well. How EA has not capitalized on this yet is beyond me.

@darth_navster: While a game that just uprezzed the games a bit and consolidated them into one place would be cool, it's not actually what I'd prefer. I'd hope for them to actually put some time and effort into it. Mess with the mechanics in 1, maybe let you bring a couple more of your crew members along in 3 if you did things right. Changed those cinematics so that you aren't always carrying an Avenger assault rifle regardless of whether your class can even use one. Maybe it's because they'd rather do right like that too.

Mass Effect 1 did some awesome stuff and felt like an evolution of KOTOR and Jade Empire, but they didn't have their footing right out of the gate. There was plenty of downtime, gameplay felt imprecise to me, the frame rate wasn't great, and it seemed like they weren't quite sure what type of game it should be.

With that being said, the world-building was so damn strong from the start. The Sovereign conversation and the last 3 or 4 hours were absolutely incredible when I played it back then. It is a classic, and 2 built on the gameplay and characters but fumbled on the main plot.

But this all led to Mass Effect 3, one of my favorite games of all time. Can't wait to see what Andromeda ends up being. I'm just wondering how you can top the Reaper war in terms of scale, or if they'll even attempt to.

Yeah that ME1 weapon system, yeesh. I still cannot believe when ME2 came out there were people who complained about its weapon system in comparison to ME1, saying former gave them more "freedom" and wasn't "dumbed down". There was nothing that demanded intelligence with ME1s weapons - there were barely distinguished from one another and gave the illusion of choice rather than actual meaningful choice. It's funny how some people absolutely agonized over whether 2 extra points of damage was worth the loss of 3 points of accuracy or similar, when ultimately the minor differences between guns of the same level barely made a notable impact in combat. All that really mattered was using the highest level gun you had on hand, regardless of manufacturer, and so you were constantly going through completely brainless busy work of swapping weapons for higher level versions as you obtained them.

The sequels switching to a more limited set of pre-defined weapons that actually had notable differences in behavior was far better. However, they didn't really get it right until ME3, because being limited on the types of weapons you can use based on class was annoying. For a game that's still more shooter than RPG, getting to use only two kinds of weapons the whole game sucks. ME3's system where you could equip whatever guns you want, you'd just take an equip load based penalty on skill cooldowns, was far smarter.

I wish it was possible for there to be a remastered trilogy that took the best elements from all 3 games, fixed the things that were broken in them, removed some of the cruft and unified them into a single 60-80 hour game. However, for the amount of effort that would take, I would rather those resources be spent making a new games set in the universe - which they're doing of course. Honestly, I wouldn't even mind if they made the ME trilogy main plot "non-canon" so they could basically keep the all the world building and have more stories in the same setting without having to deal with the state the trilogy left that universe in (or come up with a contrivance like setting the game in an entirely different galaxy as with Andromeda).

The ME1 Soldier is by far the most overpowered class in the entire trilogy. With the right combination of skills and armor, you are looking at a damage reduction of 99% or something absurd like that. It makes playing the hardest difficulty level completely trivial (I think it was called Insanity?), to the point that you can just stand there as the final boss fires shot after shot into you with little to no effect. There's nothing that comes close to that level of power in either of the sequels, and that made me a bit sad, although I understand why.

Also, fuck the Mako.

The world building in ME1 is without a doubt the strongest, and if you are into that it is easy to see it being a favorite. But realistically it is the first of the series as an introduction, of course it has to be strong in that department and by default the freshest in a player's eyes. You don't need Tali and Liara telling you the ins and outs of their race, cultures, and stereotypes 2 more times in subsequent titles. Nor do you need a run down on the political chessboard between the races and the reapers threat over and over again.

In hindsight It should also be pretty clear Bioware struggled with the Paragon and Renegade system in ME1, quite frankly it is too one sided, of course you are going to do the "right" thing most of the time (don't be a space racist) since you can't really turn evil anyways. Flip flopping just seems ever so slightly off. They made much better stride with it in ME2 and ME3 with cleverer writing and almost encourage you to try both at least at some point in the game. Although I must say Shepard is a real character in the world is something worth praising, S/he isn't just a blank state s/he is his own character regardless what decision the player pick and they get better in later games when s/he seems like someone that would pull a Paragon or a Renegade depending on the situation and the more extreme red and blue decisions can only be unlock if s/he has been making tamer Paragon/Renegade choices in the past.

Also am I the only one that played Sentinel in ME1? Before they change the recharge mechanic to affect all skill in ME2 and 3 each ME1 skill has its own cooldown so with enough of them you can be casting non stop. Just Shepard alone can disable 3 enemies at once with Kaiden and Wrex or Liara you can nearly fight enemies one at a time.

Ah, Mass Effect. Bought it on the 360. Had it lying on a shelf until I decided to try it. During the initial stages my 360 red-ringed. After I got the replacement Mass Effect kept lying on a shelf for months until I decided to pick it up. Plowed through it on Normal difficulty with a Soldier. Never really saw what was so great with it.

Then I got into achievements, and picked up this game again with a achievement guide. It required three playthroughs on different levels, with different characters and with different alignment. One of the achievements was to read some of codex-entries. This is where I got hooked. It built a universe which felt so thought-out and that you really were a part of it. Reading the technical information on the Normandy and how lasers were supposed to work with ships that flew faster than light? Incredible.

I played it over and over, I came back to it after ME2 was released just to see how my actions in ME1 would affect the play of ME2. I even brought the trinket to the ruins.

While I enjoyed ME2 really much, it never really caught up to the magic of ME1. It felt too constrained. ME3 was a disappointment. Didn't even get all the achivements, nor played the DLC (although I heard Citadel is amazing). I did put in around 1000 hours in ME3 multiplayer though, but it was a strange time in my life. ;)

It was only a couple of months ago I finished my playthrough again on the PC. Doing all missions except Cerberus (because there is no continuity of that towards ME2) and Pinnacle Station (because who needs X mods when the game is over) took around 24 hours. Which is a good hint for anyone thinking about next Extra Life stream.

Wonderful read buddy! It really takes me back to my first encounter with the game.
I'm about to go through the trilogy with my friend who hasn't played any of the games before, and I can't wait! I think this would be a good read for him to "get in the mood".

You are not alone. Its the only HD/Remake/updated port I've ever wanted

I love Mass Effect so much. Seriously considering digging out my 360 copy now...

Is the PC version any different?

@jaycrockett: Much faster loads, easier inventory management with K+M, overall better performance.

This reads like someone who hasn't really delved into the rpg mechanics of the game, no offense intended just this isn't the first time I've had to refute similar sentiments on these forums over the years. The gun customization system in ME1 combined with the skill trees, could enable very different builds and many different versions of the same guns. You could say make a sniper rifle that contrary to OP's statement for example had little to no sway and great accuracy, or you could make a sniper rifle with abysmal fire rate but that didn't matter if you put a set of upgrades on it combined with explosive ammo that one shot anything except Geth Armatures, making enemies fly due to extreme impact, yet overheated after 1 shot, requiring reload. Make an assault rifle with stability upgrades that basically had next to 0 recoil and spread, or one that never overheated thus never requiring reload by sacrificing some fire rate and damage or a gun that would basically perma freeze enemies, or a straight up dps machine but with poor control or heat management. Sure individual differences from tierX to tierX+1 were minor, but there were tier breakpoints on mods, weapons/armor manufacturers, ammo, and how these things could combine that made a whole lot of impact.

I'm not going to sit here and say it's the best system for everyone as it's clear many people never really made full use of it, aka the Bomb crew, or people who were more into shooters rather then the nitty gritty numbers. Hence the guns felt inaccurate a shooting loose for so many. Whereas you could really easily achieve pinpoint accuracy with a lot of the guns that Modern Warfare would envy.

@duluoz see above

Dude this is probably my favorite game...Its a slow start but it just gets so good

I need to just sit through the trilogy again...okay be right back

Yep sentinel was basically like playing the space wizzard. Using abilities non stop, especially when using armor focused on that stuff. You could lock down whole battlefields at a time. I played the class in one of my playthroughs and greatly enjoyed just the different approach to encounters you used. The global cooldown introduced in ME2 was a real party pooper in that regard.

@tennmuerti: I was writing on my experience 13 hours in. At that time I hadn't found any stabilizers or sniper rifles above a 37 accuracy rating. Playing last night I found a kinetic stabilizer and it made a huge difference on the assault rifle I was using.

I still don't feel like the combat is better than 2 or 3 but my experience at the time I wrote this was one of frustration. At least now I feel like I can use the assault rifle as intended.

@meteora3255: Yea I hear you, at the start of the game the weapons are definitely quite loose. But that's also the part that I love about it is that you can like you said find loot and mods to change the guns to your liking! Glad to hear you are having a better time of it now.

@tennmuerti:Point is it was never necessary to do any of that, and at the end of the day whether it takes 2 or 3 shots to kill any enemy doesn't make that big a difference in how you engage with the game - even on higher difficulties. My first playthrough of the game I obsessed over those numbers and made killer guns; my subsequent 4 playthroughs I mostly didn't bother tweaking the weapons and found it barely impacted how I played the game other than saving a bunch of time that would otherwise be wasted on what I found to be largely brainless busywork. It's not a matter of not delving into the RPG mechanics, it's a matter of not being easily distracted by minutiae while being oblivious to the bigger picture.

@sweetz: Not really arguing personal preference here. If you found it unnecessary that's perfectly fine, it's not necessary to do most things in most modern games and get by ok. I am only pointing out the factual information regarding the possibilities and enabled differences of the system, which your original post dismissed as nonexistent or minute, when they are clearly not such.

@tennmuerti: Allegory: If a gun does 100 damage and you increase it to 10000, but every enemy only has 50hp, have you made a significant modification to that gun? You would say yes I suppose, I would say no. I stand by how I characterized it's system; it's mostly just busywork to distract from that the reality that the game effectively only has 4 guns that get better as the game goes on but never really "feel" that different - except maybe with explosive rounds.

I like the mods and ammo types in general, but there was no need for 10 different levels on everything and different manufacturers with stat trade-offs that didn't make a big difference. Mass Effect 3 struck a good balance of having pre-defined, well distinguished weapons and letting you feel like you were meaningfully tweaking them without the busywork of constantly swapping stuff out for incrementally better versions that still behave the same.

I love the first Mass Effect but I cannot go back to it for some reason. I've tried going back for several reasons, nostalgia, series playthroughs, etc...but I can't. The combat, the ultra slow pace, the crippling inventory setup, etc. Mass Effect 2 or 3? Super easy to go back to and play through again. I always just end up loading up the cutscenes I want to see and experiencing the story that way.

I would pay full price for a remade ME1 if it played and handled like ME2 or ME3.

@sweetz: I gave you several concrete examples in my initial post, that are not even an exhaustive list. You are free to try and refute them, because so far that is yet to be done and my argument still stands.

Your "allegory" is non applicable as it is a false one, see above. Again, need is a separate issue you don't need to fight any bosses to beat Darksouls nor do you need to sneak to play say Dishonoured. The tier levels are there for progression. That does not remove from the variety of separate types that exist. Manufacturers might not be hugely different by themselves, but their differences play into the strengths of certain guns or combine well with particular combos of mods you are going for and usability wanted.

Again... sight. What system is better largely comes down to personal preference. If you believe ME3 was a better experience for you I can't argue that, and I don't. In fact I will actually support you in saying that ME3 did a good job overall with its gun system and go further, with it's class system too.

@sterling: No, it isn't, and Bioware were thinking about it, but EA said that's not going to happen unfortunately. They said they feel Bioware should focus on new games rather than old, and that if we went back, we would be disappointed, as the reason. I don't think that's true. I just went through them all a couple of months ago. I've beaten them all multiple times, but I didn't get all the DLC, so I finally did and went through them one more time. It didn't really change how I felt about them, other than the ending of three (which was more positive, though I wasn't one to be as disappointed by it as others, it just gave more resolution to everything than I originally felt), they were still great, but no more and no less than they already were. I had initially held out because I was hoping for a remastered trilogy, but after the news of it not happening, I went ahead and just bought all the DLC.

I think the Mako is still, not great. How it controls isn't perfect, but it's not really my complaint. I don't like the worlds you explore, and it being 'more realistic' doesn't make it fun. It's just kind of dull, and to me, it isn't immersive as if I were a discoverer of a new world, it's just a chore. Also, yes, the interiors are repetitive. It would be a nice fix if the boost that the Mako had wasn't one that made you boost into the air, but forward, as that'd make getting around much faster, and even the intimidating, steep hills easier to get up. The Mako can climb, but not fast. Luckily, the game indicates where to climb best with the color of the environments, so I never really had an issue there, but it is still slow. The first Mass Effect to me, while great now on its own (and the last time I played, I really enjoyed), I have always felt it was the weakest one, and prior to the last go through, wasn't a great game on its own. It really works as a trilogy. I fully recommend those that haven't, go back through them all back to back.

@tennmuerti: I didn't try to refute your differences, I said they mostly don't matter. The allegory applies (it should not be taken literally, which is why it's an allegory...), but you're myopically focusing on stats and missing the big picture - in the same way that going from 100 to 10000 damage is a huge difference on paper, but meaningless if it doesn't make a noticeable difference in how the game feels to play.

The tier levels are there for progression yes, but if they are doled out in a manner linear to player progression and enemy HP similarly scales in relation to player level - then there's effectively zero difference in the end. Again, it's more the illusion of progression while the gun play effectively remains the same throughout the entire game. It's kind of like a clicker in that respect. The numbers get bigger, but if all the numbers get bigger, is the game really different?

In any case, what's important is that the developers apparently felt the same way about the ME1's system, which is why they ditched it in the sequels for unique guns that actually felt different in character. To that end, defense of ME1's system is kind of moot at this point...

Ok so if you are going to just argue around the topic and not the point in question itself like a politician there is little left to do here. I've shown you very directly that 1+1=2 , i've shown how there are significant differences. If you are going to keep telling me that 1+1=1.1 and how everything I have brought up as examples are insignificant, without anything to back it up, have fun with that. Wait you didn't even manage to do that, just stated it in the most general sense. So if you are not going to engage with my actual points, there is little point to me engaging further with you either, it'd just be insane right.

If you want to bring up developers direction we can then hop into debating the ME2 marketing push, catering to a more mass market audience and the (mixed) results that came from that. As well as how Dragon Age followed a similar trajectory. But that's a far bigger topic. Or for funnzies the developers story direction and where they felt it needed to go. Developers are human and make human decisions, based on various circumstances and reasons (real reasons we are frequently not privy to) and to different effect. It's not some grand validation in the slightest.

What not so positive sales? ME2 is the highest selling ME game by a very substantial margin. ME3 even outsold the original ME.

Link to figures even if they are a bit outdated http://www.vgchartz.com/article/250066/mass-effect-a-sales-history/

I know they are bigger, trust me. But a 3mill sales game going to a 4 mill sales game is not a relatively (healthy) niche rpg going mainstream or breaking any significant new ground. Especially considering they got those one mill sales just from also putting the game out on PS3. The audience basically stayed the same, hence making the game appeal to a wider audience didn't work out.

@tennmuerti: You didn't "show" anything conclusive. You said:

•You can make a sniper rifle with zero sway: Not the in early game (where it would actually matter) you can't, and greater accuracy mostly just comes with leveling up the sniper skill. Careful manufacturer choice and modding might give you a zero sway gun a little bit sooner in the game progression, but not enough for it to be meaningful IMO.

• You can make an assault rifle with zero recoil: See above. Once you get the higher level guns or higher level in the skill the recoil is small enough that enough shots are on target to that it's not a big deal anyway. Modding is similarly unimportant here.

• You can make a gun that doesn't overheat: Again largely unimportant since overheating decreases with the linear progression of the gun levels and eventually you're doing enough damage that you rarely you have to worry about overheating in most engagements anyway.

•You said you can make a sniper rifle that one shots most everything with explosive ammo: Explosive ammo is the one thing I'll grant makes a fairly noticeable difference in how the game feels, but again, no need for multiple levels of the stuff, a singular explosive ammo option would have the same end result on gameplay.

I didn't break down your specific points because I didn't think being that pedantic was necessary and you would understand the larger argument.

Mostly everything you pointed out still boils down to: the guns get better as the game progresses, if you futz around with mods you can make them better sooner, but not in a way that really meaningfully impacts the game. In the sequels they pruned all the fluff away and just made your skills more directly dictate the progression - which is effectively how ME1 worked anyway because of how the equipment was doled out according to player level. It just removed a bunch of brainless inventory management.

Let me get this out of the way - Mass Effect is a good game. Ok, now that we're done with that, whenever I see people getting all wistful for the first Mass Effect I kind of have to roll my eyes. It has problems, major problems. In fact in almost everything it attempts to do, there are problems except for maybe the story and dialog options which were handled great.

• The Mako and exploration in general - total garbage. Every planet is the same rocky terrain just colored differently to confuse you. There's zero flora, and almost no fauna. I find it hard to believe that you venture across the galaxy and can't find one single different ecology. I remember one planet had snow and one had lava. Boring. I applaud the ambition to explore the galaxy but if you couldn't pull it off better than that, maybe it should've been cut.
• Inventory management - don't bombard me with tons upon tons of useless weapons and equipment that you know I won't ever use. It just gums up my inventory and I can't wait to get back to the citadel where I can offload all this crap. And why are there so many crates and boxes? If this is meant to be the economy of the game they should've just given you a salary as a spectre for your equipment purchases.
• Combat - the tutorial presents you with squad commands as if this is some necessary thing. It's not. I beat the game on the hardest difficulty just going Rambo the whole time, and using my squads abilities when they were up. Other than that I just set them to assist me. Set it and forget it. If you build the game with these squad commands like it's going to be this tactical experience but don't punish the player for ignoring them, even on the toughest difficulty, that is a failure in my eyes.
• Technical hiccups - texture popin and slowdown like motherfucker.

All this being said, I would have liked it if Bioware had kept going down this path instead of making ME2 a straightforward shooter because they had a good foundation with the story and all these things could've been ironed out in the sequel.

@sweetz: See there we go. That's something. The sniper rifles I was contrasting an example a sniper rifle that does decent damage and is very reliable, due to stability and accuracy mods. But the one with explosive ammo I used, you can make one that tries to manage that heat, or go all the way with say 2 scram rails (if memory serves on the names) to really exploit the explosive ammo damage to the fullest and fold in the fire rate into the reload form overheat, together with a manufacturer that has dmg at the expense of everything else. Or we can go for a middle of the road option and make a rifle with no explosive ammo but 2 damage upgrades that will be a bit rougher to handle require reload after only a few shots but still do better damage then the more stable version. For the assault rifles i'd say it's a huge deal, considering the guns can vary from where people think the random dice are rolling the spread is so big to one that can head shot enemies with an entire clip and the reticulated not getting a millimeter bigger, I'd say that's a significant difference. To make a gun that does not overheat you actually have to lower it's fire rate to a significant enough degree where it will output much less damage, still good enough to get the job done but it will not kill things anywhere near as say an assault rile with damage upgrades that will overheat in 2 seconds but kill the enemy several times faster. Again I fully understand how at the end of the day you might not find any of this meaningful. But the systems are there and for me and for many players they opened up a lot of interesting possibilities, especially on higher difficulties. You could basically recreate the difference in a pistols between the what was it Carnifex in ME2 and a standard issue normal fire rate gun you get at the start, just using the internal ME1 system, and then some. These systems certainly have far far more impact that a 2 dmg vs 3 stability hypotheticals as you tried to paint them. At the end of the day that's all I am trying to show here. A. There was a robust enough system in place and B. that for me and many others was very meaningful.

And likewise which assault rifle you choose in say ME2 can be just as easily argued to make very little difference to overall gameplay, and enemies died just the same overall. The variance was even less.

Lets also please not go down the second rabbit whole of the ME2 skill system, the stunted little thing that it was. It's marginal impact to overall gameplay is far more far reaching then it's predecessors by an order of magnitude.

If you want to talk bout the larger argument, and argue what's a meaningful and meaningless game system, oh boy dude, that's a massive topic you can write essays and dissertations on. Firstly like I've stated before, personal preference will play a huge part in that discussion. I will say that the Bloodborne stat system was meaningless and completely marginal to me playing the game, another will say that it was a big draw for them. There is very little ground here to reconcile and it will be a super subjective conversation that will ultimately not lead anywhere 9 times out of 10. Secondly most games under the sun have elements frequently major elements that can be circumvented sidelined or underused. But just because say I don't feel there is almost any meaningful choices in the Walking Dead for example I am never going to argue that that system is not there for the people who got engaged by it; just because say Drew has bumbled his way through MGS5 without engaging with most of the mechanics, does not invalidate other peoples playthroughs where they play it like a stealth game, do all the research, base management or listen to tapes, the examples are as vast as the games themselves.

That's the important distinction here. Debating the very real existing range of options. (like in our ME1 example). Versus debating whether or not these options were meaningful to an individual players experience.

Indeed but at least they felt different because one was burst and one wasn't. There was something for a player to make a preferential choice about. You didn't spend any time swapping in higher numbered versions of equipment on mental auto-pilot.

The mods system in general isn't what I took umbrage with anyway; as said, I welcomed it's return in ME3. It's the multiple levels of everything which didn't serve much purpose other than to feed that clicker psychology of numbers getting higher. It's fine in a fantasy RPG where you're mostly choosing one weapon and you typically get some nice "visual reward" in terms of the swords looking progressively cooler or glowing or whatever. In a game where all guns are just palate swapped versions of 2 different models that all shoot the same, and you have multiple of them on multiple characters to equip and they're handed out linearly with game progression - it's just busy work.

@sweetz: I will agree with you that the tiered progression system specifically could be done without or at the very least it didn't need 10 levels. Heck I even take umbrage with shoving diablo/mmo style colored loot progression into rpgs for lack of better ideas (he says with 100s of D3 hours). And much prefer the more interesting distinctions of say the Demon's Souls system or even the older style of Baldur's Gate 2 d&d style loot variance for example.

@hippie_genocide: I certainly don't think the game is without gameplay problems but I have found different things are frustrating me this time. The Mako and the repetitive nature of exploring planets hasn't bothered me. After putting more time in I still think the Mako is remembered as much worse than it is. Also I still get a rush from the idea of exploring a planet so that carries me through the repetition.

Combat continues to bother me. I just still haven't gotten into a groove with it and still feel like I am fighting the game itself more than the enemies.