80 replies to this topic

[cap and gown]

I've done that a few time. I even hit an armature hard enough that the thing fals into the lava on Therum

 

 

[cap and gown]

No.  I especially liked ramming Colossi on Vermire over and over again and instant-killing them by tossing them over rock boundaries and into the ocean.

 

[MsKlaussen]

Am I the only weirdo that liked the Mak0? 

 

Hells NO I LOVE the Mako. I hated that litle ultralight hover-y...thing in ME2. Firewalker or whatever they called it. Thing couldn't take damage for the life of it and in was an absolute PITA to maneuver around. People say the Mako was hard to drive and fight in but I simply don't know what those people are on. At all.

 

Glad it's back for Andromeda and planet exploration too. It's about time.

[KaiserShep]

The controls may have been trickier depending on the platform. I love the Mako on PS3, but it might have been a pain on PC. I'm certainly glad our six-wheel friend is returning.

[Aren]

Mass effect 1 is superbe,the entire trilogy is fantastic.

[MsKlaussen]

The controls may have been trickier depending on the platform. I love the Mako on PS3, but it might have been a pain on PC. I'm certainly glad our six-wheel friend is returning.

 

I played all three games on PC actually. I'm just ultra used to it I guess because I've been playing on PCs since well...Thrax Lair on Atari 400?

 

ANYWAY, I think what really prepared me for the Mako was Uprising. If you can handle that Wraith tank with all that extra firepower, warping in units, fighting on the ground and then jumping up into a Citadel to fight from there also, you can handle the Mako.

 

That might have been the greatest war/fighting vehicle game I have ever played. Too bad they ruined it with the Star Wars blaster sound effects in the two sequels after the original. Nothing sounded like all out war the way Uprising did.

[geth47]

As I like to say, ME1 is a great game in spite of itself. It´s very flawed, and some of the decisions of the creators are very questionable, but nevertheless the good aspects of the game are so pleasing that they somehow make up for the bad parts. 

 

In a sense, it reminds of that old music "One Moment In Time". To taste the sweet. I face the pain. When I was a child, every time my parents would take me to the doctor in order to receive an injected vaccination they would always promise that if I behaved myself, did not cry nor tried to run that I would be treated by a prize. It could be going to my favorite place, eating my favorite dessert, gaining a new toy of my choosing. Of course I always faced the vaccinations bravely and never caused any trouble. Even the doctor would find unusual (if not ghastly) to see a small kid so calm or sometimes even smiling while being needled. 

 

And you can enjoy most of the pleasure in ME1 while avoiding a great deal of pain by simply not making the collections side-quests. That´s what I do (or rather, what I refuse to do). To this day I did 3 or 4 full plays of ME1 collecting everything. The landscapes were great, specially back in the day, but now It´s unbearable. The only celestial body I always do is the asteroid because of the missing engineers. I normally refrain from going to pinnacle station and pretend it does not exist. It´s hard, boring, nonsensical (specially the bet) and totally out of place when you´re dealing with urgent threats, but the same could be said for most of the side-quests.

 

I actually can choose on my PC version how I want to enjoy the game each time I replay it. If I want to focus on balancing equipment and administrating the inventory (I hate this!). If I want to experience it with a focus on combat, or by merely enjoying the story and focusing on characters. 

 

I dislike many things in ME1, like the reputation points. Why would they lock certain decisions? It would serve to stimulate people to not only stick to a certain order of missions (instead of having the freedom to do in the order or their choice) and use strictly renegade or paragon shepards. Paragades of complex morality and broad perspective are not recommended because they´re difficult to handle.  Simplicity is rewarded. Complexity is punished. I could understand certain conversations on the citadel being different based on shepard´s genre, background or whether or not he or she is already a spectre, but such differences are extremely rare. 

 

Most of the times prior to leaving the normandy for the first time I use the console commands to fill my reputation bar and persuasion. Don´t be judgmental. This can be quite liberating and allow you to enjoy the game a lot more having no worries about the decisions you make and the order you want to take each assignment . 

 

ME2 also has some weird creative rules, like having the different kinds of rounds/ammo for weapons becoming an ability. Jacob can place flaming rounds on his weapons, but Miranda and Kasumi somehow are unable. But he can also - after gaining experience - press a magic button and distribute this ability with everyone close to him. Yeah this makes all the sense in the world. Not to mention that even the heavy weapons in ME2 (cain might be the sole exception) never gave us the same punch as having the explosive rounds on a sniper in ME1.

 

The entire trilogy is flawed in its parts in some way or another. But what matters is that I don´t let it refrain me from enjoying it. There´s way too much good involved to be neglected because of a few issues.

 

ME1 can be enjoyable or tiresome depending on if you will do the collections missions. I usually only do the matriarchs. I use the wikia and only descend on one planet surface to obtain 3 pieces. The remaining pieces I collect from orbit. It can be done in less than 12 minutes I think.   

 

Is ME1 game of the year material? Hard to say... I think it´s way too flawed. And the side-missions visiting the same modular  structures again and again are too uninspired. I think such title should be reserved most of the times for games that excelled in all areas. ME1 certainly did not. But at the same time, it became very dear to me. A kind of guilty pleasure. And most of the times I can remove the olives from the pizza since I don´t  like them. 

 

If I don´t like the collectibles, I can simply not do their side-quests. Or use consoles to cheat my way in. If I don´t think the reputation system is fair, well-implemented or even rational, I can bypass it. Is the inventory system boring? That´s ok. As soon as I finish eden prime I can simply give me whichever items I want and have everything set for my squad-mates to pick when they arrive. 

 

Or not. The original, untouched game is still there for me should I desire to play it without altering the parameters. I would recommend that everyone should play it in its natural state the first time. But after having beaten it (multiple times) the console commands become a great way to extend the life of the product and give it new flavors. Along with graphical mods, this is another reason why I simply love the pc version of this game. If there´s one particular gameplay aspect that bothers you there´s usually a way for you to ignore it or circumvent it. 

[cap and gown]

<snip>

 

Well said, and well argued. But I still dislike ME1. I started in ME3 before ever getting ME1 and ME2. I very much liked ME3 as a game. Then I got to ME1 and I was shocked at just how primitive it seemed. The inventory system was abysmal. Squad control was almost non-existent. A total of one hotkey? The cover system was a joke. The enemies were a joke. Their AI was so poor the only thing BW could do was make them flip around really fast to make them hard to shoot. There were no real tactics at all; this was simply an arcade game pasted together with a make your own adventure story. The story was fine up until I talked to Vigil. It was at that point I understood why the entire thing fell apart in ME3. Cthulhu has no motivation, it just is, and since Drew K was basically doing a Cthulhu story he had no way to explain why the reapers were doing what they were doing. Thing is Cthulhu is not about what we can do to defeat it. It can't be defeated. Cthulhu is how we react to the knowledge of the existence of Cthulhu. This is clear from Manuel's dialogue on Eden Prime. But then the hero spends the rest of the story trying to defeat Cthulhu.

 

 

Moreover, when the Conduit turned out to be a way to get to the Citadel, something we had already done at the start of the game, I just face-palmed. Why all this worry about the Conduit? It certainly wasn't the key to the return of the reapers as everyone had been saying. The Citadel was the key. Why didn't Saren just go there? Why did he even bother to attack Eden Prime? Did the Reapers, a hyper-advanced intelligence, and the keepers, the Citadel's care-takers never notice this mini-mass relay sitting on their station? And why would the galactic government be based on a space station no one knew anything about? Would the Defense Department simply set up it's headquarters in a building made by some hostile power like Russia? The entire Vigil conversation just ruined what there was in the game for me to appreciate.

 

Despite my dislike for ME1, I still play it quite regularly. There is really no other way to set up your Shepard unless you actually play out that Shepard from beginning to end. Using the gibbed editor to set flags here and there is not the same as being in the moment and deciding how your particular Shepard would react to a given situation.

[Barbarossa2010]

Disagree OP, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

ME 1 was a breath of fresh air in a diluted pool of gaming mediocrity. Despite the few mundane criticisms you've cited, I think depth of story, atmosphere, themes, even gameplay...if not more than a bit on the clunky side, more than make up for it. Not saying it's perfect...it clearly wasn't...just saying it was well presented, and certainly stood out among it's contemporaries of the time. I recently played it and was surprised at how well it has held up.

Bioware had the magic with ME1, and of course Drew was much of the reason for it imo. They unfortunately slowly squandered that over time, and shaved and cut corners, until we were left with ME3. Sure, now their games sell great to the masses (who for the most part probably don't even finish them), too bad the games themselves aren't.

They've almost completely lost that atmosphere of beauty and new frontiers that I personally found so enthralling in ME1. The atmosphere and story were so good, I really didn't give a damn that I might have to grind a few near-empty planets, conveniently slap Omni-gel on things as a quick bypass, was able to pay my way into high end gear, or endure more than a few boring combat encounters. A small price to pay for an overall great experience where Bioware, with more than a little success, managed to fit the galaxy into a box.

You don't like it for you're reasons stated. No problem. I get it, I suppose. Their games now are shorn, cinematic, graphically precise, and action-y. I find them just OK. Different strokes; different folks; different preferences; everybody's got an opinion...I just happen to completely disagree with yours.

[StarcloudSWG]

The main reason to set up shop at the Citadel is the fact that it's the control hub of the mass relay network. This is a known property of the Citadel and the controls are apparently accessible. Because otherwise, there's no reason to stay there at all other than "place to live on".

[JohnAlekseyev]

I only recently played all 3 games in a row, for the first time each... and I must say that I rank them 1 > 2 > 3. Sure, the combat gameplay improved quite a bit as the series passed on, but the story and RPG side suffered. In ME1 you have a lot of dialogue choices (even if many are cosmetic, it doesn't matter), in 2 you still had a lot, but in 3 there are even some conversations where you don't pick a single reply! ME1 is a RPG with action combat, at least that's how I treat it. And then it's a truly amazing game. I also loved the story, I think it just suffered from "demystification" in 2 and 3.

[Fawna]

I imagine all the Squadmate Responses:
 
Liara: By the Goddess
Kaidan: Shepard, you want me to drive?
Garrus: I need to calibrate this thing...
Ashley: Don't do it again, or I'll stick up the mako in your as$
Tali: Commandeeeeeeeeer! My Helmet is being brokenn! I'm gettin Bacteria.
Wrex: Hahahaha. Now it gets fun! Remind me of those earthquakes days on Tuchanka!

I think you have them all true it funny love it. I like the mako but I'm one of the ones that does have to do everything an it's okay. It has flaws but what game doesn't an it being made in 07. Just found out about Me in August here I love it honestly.

[Whitering]

There are a lot of recycled environments, the itemization is a bit of a mess, but...well, you don't have to drive around in the Mako, very much at all. Every map there is a way to most of the items that does not involve driving up the side of a mountain, but it's not the shortest route.

 

You don't even have to do most of the side missions, you can just do the ones that have an impact in ME2 (mostly that involves and email or a news story).

 

On the other hand, you can go to the Nexus and download many different saves for use in importing a character. Playing ME2 though, running around Illum is much worse than running to the merchant on Noveria.

 

Overall, I love the game, but it's mostly because of the music. As dumb as that may sound, the music pulls me back to it. Also, I can remember that first trip on the Normandy and how special that was, and how hot my femshep is.

[MsKlaussen]

I don't really get how anyone who starts the trilogy at ME3 can realistically comment on the viability of ME1's design. I mean not that they can't, but what would be the point of expressing disappointment in it? It's an older game. Of course it will feel dated.

 

After playing through ME2 so many times, and then what I played of ME3 (plus 150+ mod Skyrim) I was shocked going back to ME1 for the lulz. Everyone was blocky and whatnot. That was a real peek into how fast technology really evolves in a year or two. But it didn't make me forget how amazing the game was the first time I played it, which wasn't even within 6 months of its launch. I was on the late train.

[KaiserShep]

I don't really get how anyone who starts the trilogy at ME3 can realistically comment on the viability of ME1's design. I mean not that they can't, but what would be the point of expressing disappointment in it? It's an older game. Of course it will feel dated.

 

After playing through ME2 so many times, and then what I played of ME3 (plus 150+ mod Skyrim) I was shocked going back to ME1 for the lulz. Everyone was blocky and whatnot. That was a real peek into how fast technology really evolves in a year or two. But it didn't make me forget how amazing the game was the first time I played it, which wasn't even within 6 months of its launch. I was on the late train.

 

Putting aside the game's clunky mechanics, I have to say all three games are aging rather well. Even ME1, rough as it is, still looks kind of good. The polygon mountains are eh, but the characters and such still look decent for what it is. 

[Youknow]

Putting aside the game's clunky mechanics, I have to say all three games are aging rather well. Even ME1, rough as it is, still looks kind of good. The polygon mountains are eh, but the characters and such still look decent for what it is. 

Honestly, I like the transitions into battle from ME1 more than any of the others in the series. Walking around and getting into gunfights felt more natural in ME1. You never knew when they would pop up. In ME2, you walk in a room and suddenly couches are placed in cover areas and you know ... It's funny, but ME2 and ME3 feel considerably more "this is a TPS video game first rather than simply a RPG with shooter mechanics." 

[MsKlaussen]

Honestly, I like the transitions into battle from ME1 more than any of the others in the series. Walking around and getting into gunfights felt more natural in ME1. You never knew when they would pop up. In ME2, you walk in a room and suddenly couches are placed in cover areas and you know ... It's funny, but ME2 and ME3 feel considerably more "this is a TPS video game first rather than simply a RPG with shooter mechanics." 

 

Agreed. They both felt far more scripted. ME1 felt dynamic and that's a must if you're going to even bother referring to your game as a CRPG.

[Cheviot]

ME1 was good for it's time, but it aged badly.  Only Virmire really stands out nowadays.

[sortiv]

Replaying the trilogy, mid-way through ME2 currently. Playing ME1 on a semi-speed run (about 10 hours; only main quest, but still chatted up all teammates, and did Garrus/Wrex missons) was maybe some of the best time I've had in the series. When you skip the side stuff, and keep on the main track, it's a blast. In it's own way, it's best in the series. 

[Vendigo]

Well, I think Mass Effect is great, which is sadly far behind of it's true potential. It's not about aging gracefully or otherwise, certain decisions were bad from the start. I guess problems like these only become apparent over time. QA focuses on technical issues like bugs and glitches, while audience is engrossed with the story. I could do a lengthy list of shortcomings in Mass Effect, but it's pretty much identical to the list of things where sequels differ from the first game, to the credit of developers.

 

One thing I do feel like commenting about, though. It's the illusion of variety. There are ten different weapons manufacturers (plus the geth pulse rifle), and each weapon has several sophistication levels. However every gun in the game plays the same, regardless of which weapon you use the style of play doesn't change within weapon classes; it all narrows down to the damage rate; the other stats have negligible difference, there are simply better weapons and worse weapons. Hahne-Kedar's Storm X shotgun is marginally better than Haliat Armory's Tornado II, but such level discrepancy is impossible in normal gameplay. This makes the Alliance standard issue weaponry far, far below par, which you would ditch for *any* other weapon, even several sophistication levels lower. Only a hardcore role player would use them for their "reliability" and "ruggedness" and "ease of service" as the description text tells about their redeeming qualities (if they really had resistance against Sabotage and other debuffs it would make them a viable weapons in some cases and give gameplay diversity).  Same goes largely to the armor. The only gameplay difference is with Devlon armors, which reduce planetary hazards by one level. Even most of the side missions are the same, regardless of the mission description: drive to the objective, enter the building, purge the room from enemies through the doorway. Again and again. I have a sneaking suspicion publishers' demands are involved somewhere here.

[MrFob]

ME1 definitely had it's issues even back in 2008. However, I still think it's a great game and here is why:

 

- This combination of game mechanics was not seen before (or since, really): I like 3rd person shooters, I like to spice the shooting up with special powers, I like the ability to command a squad without going full-on tactical with the gameplay (love e.g. Republic Commando),  I like to progress my main character by improving skills, etc., I like to be able to tinker with my equipment a lot, I like vehicle sections to change things up a bit, I like to experience a well crafted story and have a lot of in depth dialogue with NPCs, I like to be able to make decisions within the plot. ME brought all of these elements together and balanced them perfectly for my taste. Add to that a huge universe of dozens of worlds that you can explore in what felt like a seamless open world game (because when there were loading screens, they made sense because they displayed a time leap, such as when flying to a new system for example). It was simply the game I had been waiting for for a long time. Yes, there were issues in almost all of these categories (the MAKO could have handled better, the shooter part could have been more crisp, the worlds could have been more lively and the inventory could have used a better interface) but the fact that we finally got this awesome combination more than made up for these deficits.

 

- The scifi universe they crafted in the first game was simply stunning to me. The art style, the characters and the added layer of more in depth explanations for things in the codex, it was simply a perfect mix for me. I also really liked the story, so that alone let me forget a lot of the smaller problems that the game undoubtedly had. One of the great things about the story was that the writers seemed not to fall into the standard pattern for video game plotlines, where they start fairly strong but derail as the story goes on with a fairly anticlimactic ending (which devs probably do because they know that 85% of their audience are never going to see the ending anyway). No, in ME1, it was very clear that the story for this game, including its end, was conceptualized first. That's why ME1's ending is the perfect mix of closing up the immediate plot and at the same time arranging the perfect set-up for the trilogy (which the sequels unfortunately squandered miserably but that's another story). So great kudos for that, it's not an easy thing to pull of in this expert fashion.

 

So while yes, ME1 has its considerable flaws, its true strength lies in a unique combination of elements that I have never seen anywhere else, at least not in a game with high AAA production values. I really hope that Andromeda will go back to giving us all these features again and - the most difficult part - balance them against each other to form a similarly great gameplay experience.

[JJ Likeaprayer]

I think the point is keeps getting better...yes,ME1 is not the no.1 game in history but the series just keeps getting better and better. It was one of their first new millennium games and what they haven't found yet in ME1,they sure found them later in ME2 and ME3...if you know what I mean. The series just keeps getting better and better,and that's very rare in gaming world.

[Myalzalean]

People can nitpick over the games flaws all they want but what defines a great game for me is how many hours I spend playing the game.

 

I've played Mass Effect for hundreds of hours, and that's not even counting the hours on ME2 or ME3.

 

I originally played on the 360 when it first came out. Just before ME2 came out I bought ME for my shiny new gaming laptop and completed numerous additional playthroughs making sure my character imports were just the way I wanted.

 

I even ponied up for the PS3 trilogy version when I was on the road a lot and only had my PS3 with me.

 

I could have just as easily done the whole Genesis shortcut or downloaded saved games but I chose to play Mass Effect again and again because I actually enjoy it. Not once has it ever seemed like a chore or something I had to slog through.

 

It's not like I'm the only one either, people are constantly replaying the entire trilogy from beginning to end, including the original Mass Effect, when there are options available not to. If that doesn't meet the criteria for a "great" game then I don't know what does.

 

Let's not forget that ME was originally only on the 360. The fact that it was released on the PC almost a year later and again for the PS3 in 2012 is a testament to just how popular and successful the game truly is. 

[Vendigo]

I have 550 hours on Mass Effect alone. And I find it extremely insulting to be called a nitpicker.

[Myalzalean]

I have 550 hours on Mass Effect alone. And I find it extremely insulting to be called a nitpicker.

I don't understand why you feel my post was somehow singling you out as one who picks nits, especially when we are in agreement that Mass Effect is a great game.

If anything you perceive as a flaw in the game didn't prevent you from logging 550 hours then my comment obviously wasn't directed at you my friend