In regards to a rumor of a current-gen re-release of the Mass Effect trilogy I may have seen or may have dreamed of, I was thinking about how the difference in gameplay style was probably the biggest hurdle to overcome with such a transition. Sure, the first game is actually better than its sequels in some regards, but I'm of the mindset that the much simplified inventory system and combat controls of Mass Effect 2 (and by extension, to a certain extent, 3) were essential improvements that make playing the original game a little hard to swallow. Could/should those improvements be applied to a re-release of the first Mass Effect game - the one game where I think it would stick out like a sore thumb? There are serious developmental hurdles to that, and ones I doubt a developer under EA would be allowed to take, but let's speak in hypotheticals here.

I'd probably be less interested in even a direct port if the PC versions of the series included official and functional gamepad support, but considering the number of games in the past years which have, that always felt like an active decision to undermine the PC versions of the game.

I would enjoy it but they would have to go at it 100% to the point where it really wouldn't be the same game in some respects. Especially in terms of inventory, as annoying as it was at times gear was a huge part of progressing in that game so they would need to rebalance or create a new system to fix that. Also they would need to rework the AI so that you wouldn't be completely dominant as an update to ME2 style gameplay against the ME1 AI would be a massacre.

Changing anything about ME1 would be a sin.

Sure, but only if it was the combat exclusively getting the update. Basically no mako, no sale. And none of this ''Shepard talking for him/herself without any player input for 40% of the game'' BS like in ME3.

Not removing the Mako sequences would be a bigger sin.

Making the combat more ME2 and ME3 style would be plus. NOthing was more infuriating then shooting someone in the head with a sniper rifle only to have it miss because of RNG.

I'd rather they update Mass Effect 2 by giving it an actual story.

I'd buy a re-release of ME2 in ME1 style. Yeah, I'm that guy.

In that crazy hypothetical world, I'd still like to see them beef up the usability of the UI (and perhaps have less junk drops), but I liked ME1's systems better in general, as a whole. They needed to be improved upon rather than simplified.

I wouldn't mind it if Mass Effect played more like the latter games. It would certainly motivate me to replay the games again and experiment with different classes and not have to worry about spending points in weapon proficiency for better accuracy.

Yes, but ME1 isn't the only game I'd change. Updating companions in ME2 to have somewhere near their ME3 utility would be a great change to make, for example, not to mention that the cover controls were much better in 3 than 2. Still, I have trouble seeing them going to that effort. There are enough fans out there who think the game was at its best in ME1 that choosing to change it would be much more alienating than choosing not to.

God no. If anything I want the later games done in the ME1 style, give me an actual damn inventory and let me dress my team in a less ridiculous fashion.

Not really. Some of the things people hate about ME 1 are an integral part of the game (like the Mako sequences, or exploring the planets).

The inventory and weapon overheating I can live without, but the game would have to be balanced in order to work. Its not just about removing them altogether...

That was exactly what I was thinking. The most awkward parts of the first Mass Effect game, to me, are the cover and shooting mechanics. It's a great game hampered by old game control design. I think the extended Mako sections to get to side missions become tedious, but designing around them would ruin the experience of the original game. No need to change the dialog sequences, and agreed that the weakness of ME2 (more particularly 3) was the 3-tiered "good, bad, neutral/useless" choices.

Mass Effect 2 had a fantastic story for an arch that should probably have been 4 or more games long. I'll grant you that the final Terminator robot powered by organic sludge might have been better revealed and designed, but the story might have worked with a better reveal.

The latter point is kind of what I'm getting at, but when you look at the three games as one package with what should probably be similar gameplay mechanics, I felt like there should be some shift to what the second and third game evolved into. The first Mass Effect game was amazing for its era, but even on the PC, and especially given time for control schemes and UI to evolve, it felt the most dated. I did *always* rather they streamline the ability to trash older equipment and move up, but the cover mechanics and the general speed and flow of gameplay just felt blahhh (for lack of a better term).

@hermes That's exactly what I was trying to say. The entire game would require a level of rebalancing that EA would not front the cash for in a simple re-release on consoles where most everyone already played the last releases.

Personally I think they should update ME2 and 3 to play like ME1 instead. Maybe replace all the cover based shooting in the latter two with MAKO driving.

But my main issue with that entire series is the wildly inconsistent writing, especially when it comes to the science. Sure, they seem to have listened to an science advisor when it came to describing the physics with the ships and guns, but not when it came to writing the dialog when they discuss stuff where the scientific method would've been applicable.

sure? if they did a good job 'd have to try it at least.

I would rather play 2 and 3 if they were remade more like 1. I just thought it felt more like an actual RPG and not some mindless shooter. 2 and 3 were hugely disappointing to me.

I never really understood the complaints with the inventory system though. I'm also that guy who sells everything he can after every mission so maybe that's why?

man nothing brings the salt like a ME related thread. :')

Considering ME1 is the best in the series, no, I would not buy a lesser version of it.

I would rather they change 2 and 3 to be more like 1. So no.

@andrewb said:

I don't think gaming was ready for what they had originally planned (concept art exists of this disturbing, cyberpunk alien/human foetus type thing), and considering how utterly dark they got with some of the design ideas (thinking specifically about the artbook that came with ME2) it makes sense to me that they pulled back into something that was ultimately "safe".

I mean, when you think about it, Mass Effect isn't really the type of game where you're essentially breaking into a womb to murder an infant child and have said infant look like a Gigerized baby.

Altering ME1 in any form should be a capital crime.

It would be too monumental a task for EA to even consider this a possibility. The only things that really bothers me in ME 1 is the emptiness of worlds you roam with Mako, in vehicle and on foot in the bases which are basically just remodeled other bases. The worlds themselves are supposed to be empty I guess from a story perspective, since you are exploring uncharted territory...so I don't know what they could do about that.

No, I wouldn't buy it.

Re-releases of ME 2 and 3 that were more like 1? Hmm... no, but at least I thought about it.

I'm gonna stop looking at threads on GB related to Mass Effect because even though the majority of the community prefer 2, everyone who comments on Mass Effect threads talks about how awesome ME1 is. Yeah, we get it. You didn't like the changes made but talking about it in every goddamn thread is annoying.

That being said, I don't think they should change the combat or if they do, they should give you the option to change back to the original. It would make it easier to swallow for newcomers and the people who would bitch wouldn't need to. Update the textures on Garrus' face for god's sake.

As someone who in this very post stated there were aspects of the first Mass Effect game that were superior to any part of the sequels, I still find it hard to believe that anyone might prefer the clunkiness of the control setup. I suppose my experience with the 360 version and my decision to stick with that for the remainder of the series colors that, but to me the evolution of combat responsiveness and being able to stick to cover in a much more intuitive (more perfect, but very much not perfect) manner seems inarguably better. If you don't adopt the dumbed-down inventory system, at least include one which had been tweaked to be managable with the endgame level of loot you'll have acquired. That's pretty much the perfect Mass Effect experience, to me.

Hell no! The evolution/devolution/differences in gameplay aspects is a huge part of what made Mass Effect such an amazing series.

This "pasteurization" of media, where every incarnation of a franchise has to follow the exact same guidelines is bad for the industry, we saw that with Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty, where you had good, sometimes amazing, games, but consumers and developers getting fed up with the product.

No because the first one is the best in the franchise and the combat fits what it is trying to achieve. The combat was never the main focus of the first game where it was put first in 2 and 3. And you can tell with the decline in story telling over the trilogy.

Fuck.

No.

But for a re-release/final release of a series, a more singular melding of gameplay makes sense to me. Otherwise I'd just buy the trilogy release which already exists on PC and begrudingly work to mod in gamepad support. What prompted my thoughts in the first place began with thinking about how different the first game played compared to its predecessors, which are certainly different but much more obviously an evolution between 2 and 3.

Besides, I've always maintained that the first Mass Effect game would be one of the most perfect if it adopted some of the more refined gameplay mechanics of the second, and that would be the only thing to give me reason to pay money for it yet again after so many enjoyable runs through it already.

@andrewb: I played through the games on 360 and I just finished playing through the series on PC and the game isn't any better in terms of controls in the first game. I found the inventory system to be counter-intuitive to the way the game tells it's story. Usually missions in Mass Effect games involve some sort of time constraint (not as a mechanic but in the narrative) which doesn't mix well with having to sort out inventory stuff mid mission. It causes the game to kill any momentum it had at that point. I preferred having to pick guns and assign skill points prior to a mission. It made more sense than Shepard rummaging through shit and messing about with his backpack WHILE TRYING TO SET UP A NUKE ON VIRMIRE.

At the end of the day, I just want to absorb as much of the writing from the games as possible and that inventory system was a hindrance.

I came in here prepared to tell everyone in here that their horrible monsters for wanting to ruin the ONE great Mass Effect game, but I'm very happy to see that a group of human beings are already here to do that for me. Thank you.

As to the question, no I wouldn't change a single damned thing about Mass Effect 1. I would say they should have improved upon the systems in the game, but they shouldn't have gotten rid of everything like they did.

I love the fucking MAKO. It was so much fun exploring the planets that I just read the info about finding minerals, ruins and so on; only to find out that it was replaced with the mind numbingly tedious hell called the planet scanning.

The biggest complaint which I've seen almost universally in criticisms of the first game, and one of the only reasons I don't enjoy playing that game as much, was the inventory system. You don't need to make such a hard cut as the transition between 1 and 2, but maybe make significant UI tweaks to make dealing with a more loot-based system not painful to deal with. One good thing about an Xbox One/PS4 release would be a more consistent framerate and loading time for inventory item scrolling, but it would still be nice to see something more logical rather than relying on horsepower to alleviate a system which was flawed to begin with.

As to the Mako, I already mentioned it was too core to the design of the entire game to cut, and even the team that worked on ME 3 admitted that the planet scanning from 2 was terribly tedious in the way they changed it for 3 (which was also not the best solution, but it's one of the many reasons I and many others feel it was the weakest of the series). I agree that planet exploration should remain largely as it was.

ABSOLUTELY.

I've never told anyone/anything to die in a horrible fire, but if I were to, it'd be to Mako.

Okay. I liked "exploring" the lazily generated terrain with different coloured textures, some landscapes looked amazing. But it's god-awful to navigate, especially with Mako's unreasonable controls.

Fix the shooting and fix the inventory system. The gunplay was never engaging, it was tolerated so you could get to the next story beat. And the inventory system just created an endless morass of busywork without any meaningful decisions to be made.

Hell, no. ME1's systems may have been a bit jankey but they were so much better than the stripped down, simplified, standard shooter stuff in the other games.

Also, the mako was awesome.

I guess it is a bit strange buying a trilogy where the first game is an RPG, and the other two are third person shooters.

It would be cool if the retroactively made ME2 and ME3 rpgs, I agree.

edit - If they just patched the KOTOR combat over the three games, that would be greeeeaaat.

I'd be all for it. Mass Effect 2 was leaps and bounds better in that regard.

I can live with the Mako for the most part since it is integral to the experience but that dice roll shooting has to go.

Depends on what kind of changes they are. Are they going to shrink the areas down into 2, maybe 3 little areas? The one thing I liked about Mass Effect 1 was the fact that I could just walk around the Citadel. Mass Effect 2 was awesome but I didn't like how small everything felt.

I actually didn't like the combat in KOTOR at all. I guess I'm in the minority.

Probably not considering the direction they went.

I think most would concur the combat in KOTOR beats ME1 hands down though since ME1 is basically stuck between what KOTOR did and what ME2 does without convincingly pulling off either and being mostly broken.

Given that the thing that stopped me from replaying ME1 was its clunktacular shooting, I wouldn't mind it being brought in line with the other two games. That won't happen though.

Whereas I would also argue that KOTOR was an even more busted system than Neverwinter Nights before it, given that it was a translation of a pen and paper roleplaying system which was itself in its infancy, with the added caveat that it was trying to fit itself into the Star Wars universe. But honestly I'm not entirely happy with any old style of RPG which was created in the "modern era" of polygonal graphics, and post-Baldur's Gate. The only thing in my mind which has come close to that was Dragon Age: Origins.

At least Mass Effect removed itself completely from the PNP trappings which hampered the computer RPG more than they helped. At least, in my opinion. Mass Effect was a game designed apart from turn-based combat which was stuck in a limbo between old PC rpgs and real-time action driven by gamepad controls.

There are lots of interesting vignettes, I'll grant you that. And yes, I was exaggerating, there is a story, but it's paper-thin, and it doesn't really go anywhere. A summary of the overarching story:

Commander Shepard gets a facial reconstruction (maybe gender reassignment surgery too), recruits a ragtag team of characters in order to kill some aliens, kills some aliens, the end.

This is precisely what my answer was going to be. And I did the exact same thing, too, I just had enough of Mass Effect 1's gameplay. There's an argument to be had for Mass Effect 1 as more of an RPG than a shooter, but I don't think that holds water when you're in the middle of another boring and frustrating firefight.

You're right in saying that Mass Effect 2's story is paper-thin, but it's made up for by excellent character interactions and an almost complete lack of boring filler, except for the anomaly missions (which last five minutes) and the planet scanning (which you need to do about thirty minutes of in the entire game).

You could argue that all of the loyalty missions are filler, and that's fine, but I'll be damned if it isn't the best filler I've ever seen. Bioware made an effort to make every mission in Mass Effect 2 compelling and they did a pretty good job of it.

But hey, I also think the terminator boss fight at the end is fun and entertaining. Kinda dumb, yes, but Mass Effect was kinda dumb from the start.

I did all of the Mako missions on all three of my playthroughs.

I thought ME 2 and 3 weren't nearly as fun to play as 1, so no.

Yes, but it wont ever happen. My issues with me1 have actually prevented me from replaying the whole series. That game was one and done for me, and its because the combat isn't very good, the cover system is bad, and its inventory system is terrible (especially when you're constantly picking shit up). The inventory stuff is probably my biggest gripe. It fucks with my video game ocd, and I really don't wont to deal with it.

Pretty much this. Seemed they responded to every issue by ripping the whole thing out rather than improving anything. I could certainly use less incremental loot or junk, but I Iiked the modding and outfitting.

Yes, ME1 plays like fucking garbage.