What would you like to see in a updated Mass Effect Trilogy?

For those of you who don't know, Bioware has DISCUSSED the possibility of bringing an updated Mass Effect Trilogy to the next gen consoles like what was done with Tomb Raider with the release of the Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition. Before I start, let me be frank, I LOVE the Mass Effect Trilogy and would love to see it brought to next gen consoles but I don't have high hopes of seeing it break daylight. With all that Bioware and EA have going on, it would be foolish for them to divert resources from current projects and release two of their own franchises to compete in the same time frame.

That being said, I still would like to believe that they are at least considering the possibility. Mass Effect created a game experience like no other, allowing players to shape their own paths and carry the consequences through 3 games. I've played through the trilogy multiple times and was still finding new ways to change the course of the game for months on end. But when you play something so much, you cant help but get ideas of what you'd like to see. Here's just a few things I'd like to see if it ever does get put into motion.

NOTE: I apologize in advance if this my opening post seems like a blog post. I've been eager for awhile to express my ideas and hear others.

--A revised combat model for ME1--

By far, this is the largest change I would like to see made. When you play ME2 & ME3, going back to ME1 to restart the trilogy just seems sluggish and boring. You couldn't run outside of combat (even then being ridiculously limited), Sniping was next to impossible without leveling the skill, the weapon heat system was inefficient, melee combat wasn't worth it, and the inclusion of armor restrictions by class was just awful. I'd like to see it brought up to speed.

• Add the ability to actually run rather than dash for 20 meters before Shepherd sounds like his/her asthma is kicking in.
• Revise the sniper rifles. If Shepherd can't even hold it steady for a couple seconds, he/she shouldn't have one.
• Replace the heat syncs with the Thermal Clip. If the gun fires the "allowed" amount, I shouldn't have to wait 5 seconds in the middle of a huge firefight.
• Make melee combat effective. Running up to an enemy and performing a generic melee attack was risky and not really effective. For tougher enemies that get in close, it would be a nice change.
• Don't restrict armor by class. I don't care if you can't customize the color scheme or anything like that, it just bugs me that playing as a soldier, if you find even light armor that's better than your heavy armor that you can wear it, but ANY OTHER class can't wear Heavy and/or Medium armor.

--Loosen up on the romance consequences--

That probably sounds like I don't like it but let me explain. I just never really cared for how much it could effect gameplay. If there's a character in ME2 that you want to save yourself for, that's too bad. Even if you reject your current "locked-in" partner, you have a falling out with them in ME3 and are accused of being unfaithful. If you had a relationship with Miranda in ME2 and break it off in ME3, she dies during the Sanctuary mission regardless if you performed everything correctly or not.

--Don't make Soldier the obvious choice--

In all 3 Mass Effect installments, Soldier was the most obvious choice. The class was well rounded, being highly efficient in all firearms and defensive abilities. Every other class was a hassle. In ME1, Soldier was the only class that you didn't really need to worry about leveling anything but defensive skills simply because you could become a walking tank. In ME2 you had no weapon restrictions, literally becoming a walking arsenal. In ME3, playing your points right would make you an unstoppable force and you had the highest weight capacity despite that Infiltrators and Vanguards primary weapons were the heaviest and took up half the inventory space. Give the other classes some room to play with.

--A packaged deal--

Bring the Mass Effect world to next gen in all its glory, all the DLC on the disc and incorporated into the games. I don't mind paying a little extra for a collective re-release if it has everything. Buying the trilogy for 360 or PS3 left you shelling out over $120 for all the DLC if a few DLC codes weren't included. If I get an updated and improved trilogy of games, then I don't mind paying an extra $20-$40 for everything that came with the originals.

--A better Genesis 1 & 2--

Although this is technically DLC, it nonetheless frustrated me. If you simply didn't feel like playing ME1 or ME2, although using Genesis would abridge key decisions, you would miss out on EVERY side mission and fail ALL optional objectives in the previous game. The best example is if you use Genesis in ME2, it is decided that Cpt. Kirrahe dies on Virmire because Shepherd didn't complete the optional objectives to ensure the safety of Kirrahe's platoon. As a direct result, he doesn't aid you in ME3, therefor lowering your Strength and Readiness ratings, not to mention that it could affect side missions and other characters directly related to said character in ME2 or ME3. This doesn't sound like much, but when you consider how many side missions and decisions there are that directly affect a minor character's survival, and subtract the possible minor influence they would have had in a later mission and Galactic Readiness, it's plain to see that it alters the gameplay experience.

--What do you think?--

I created this thread so everyone could share their ideas simply to see how others felt. Did I miss anything? Do you disagree with one of my choices? Feel free to add your own thoughts.

The biggest thing I would want is more being able to Role play win Mass Effect 2 and 3. There is only two choices in the second game that affect your character role and one is not the very big.

Do not make him a master of all the weapon. Have it where you need to the more skilled with the weapon to get more accurate shots and then like the player pick any weapon to carry.

Organized the gear better and not get rid of it like in ME2.

Let me chose to Par or Reg skip dialog so I can get back to role playing faster.

The reason why 3 and 2 do not have many upgrades is because of few opportunities you have to gain experience. Mass Effect 1 not only gave you exp when you completed missions, but also when you killed an enemy. However, I do feel like reducing the amount of talents was the right choice. I do feel like limited weapons based on class is fine if it is handled right, but upgrading stats to handle a weapon better like in first game is something that I would hate to see in the others.

@ cooolio

Agreed ! Not to mention how mind numbingly repetitive and heavily padded that would make the game. It would be like Borderlands all over it is.

And why can't skill Mastery actually be you know..... Mastering an actuall instead of assigning arbitrary points to ungimp your character ?

If you ask me, I think class differences should be more pronounced... Some classes should be able to go completely weaponless.

I have a Super Nerdy question to ask. So Running a negative charge through an Eezo Core will Create Kinetic Effect and Running a Positive Charge throught it will create a Space-Time Effect. Somewhere the word Mass Effect fits in this lore and logic.

Anyway, under which category does Warp and The Biotic Barrier fall under and most importantly can you use a negatively charged Mass Effect to diffuse a positively charged Mass Effect abilty or is it vice versa ?

@Lulu_Lulu: The biotic class should have been the weaponless class, but it was only that in cutscenes. Also, I cannot answer your question.

@ cooolio

What bothers me is they can only do this in the Next Game. Can't do anything about it now... Not properly anyways.

It needs to be part of the inception.

Definitely remake Mass Effect 1's combat and redesign the planets so you don't need to drive the Mako. I always wanted to romance Dr. Chakwas. She's pretty hot in an older woman with a slim body and grey hair kind of way. Plus she stays with a bottle of scotch and heals wounds. I'd smash Aria too, in game of course.

keep mass1's combat the same, but, with better implementation. meaning, the combat in mass2 is a simple 3rd person cover shooter that takes out all rpg pretenses. in fact, i'll take a pure turn-based system over the simplistic and boring type in 2.

as for 2, return and reinstate true rpg elements.

for both, make decisions less simplistic and meaningless and have the world change around one's choices.

It is not like Drakensang where each XP can be used to increase stats. There are ways you can still have different values to be added up. Removing the talents made each class have the same role with little different for character of the class.

They took all the role playing in ME2 and ME3. Do not tell me that pretending to be the character is role playing. You need progression in a RPG like getting better with the weapons. A RPG where you start at the top and only get superficially get better is not a good RPG. There is so little that I can say is better about Mass Effect 2 when you compare it to the first one.

They need progress in the important action the character does during the game play like abilities and suing a weapon. I have no reason the play ME2 or ME3 since there nothing to them that is makes game play stand out.

I agree.

I want ME3 to disappear completely.

Oh and remaking ME1 and ME2 on Unreal Engine 4 would be sick.

@Lulu_Lulu: I may be wrong but I was under the impression that passing a negative current through element zero creates a field which decreases the mass of things within it, while a positive while increase the mass of objects (now the name mass effect makes so much more sense). Barrier creates a field of high density which aid in blocking projectiles and energy. Warp creates a fluctuating mass effect field that which causes radical differences in density on the atomic level in an object, these differences effectively tear it apart at the atomic level(nasty way to go). Warp's effectiveness against barrier is due to assumption that mass effect fields behave like a wave. Since waves can cancel each other out (Young's double slit experiment) this interference pattern could destabilize the high density field created by barrier. (nerdy enough answer for you?)

Listen, I do not believe that nor was about say that. Honestly, my main gripe with ME2 and ME3 is the lack of a real open world. I believe that something that is present in a game should be there for a reason. You are right. You should have progress in RPG, but it should line up with the story, but a sniper class should not have to level up to be able to master a sniper when the character has been established as a trained operative. Upgrades should not only increase stats, but also change how some abilities work. Thankfully, they started doing that in ME2, but they took a lot away from the progression.

As far as differences go, ME1 felt more open, but the combat was more refined in 2 and 3. The only things that were different were the different defenses and less open areas. Also, it was good to finally have headshots. As far as weapons go, I like what destiny is doing. I do not see ME2 and 3 as bad games, but I could see them as stripped down RPGS. Even so, an rpg should not be restricted to what we define as an rpg.

@udubdawgz1: We all know that they are not going to do that much work to it.

More of a open world...I am not a fan of pure open world shooters. I find the shootouts to be not as good as when the developer have more control. I am not a fan of the narrow hallway shooters like the doom game. Their shootouts are also not that good. There need to be a balance. What about having some different routes being open up base off the skill and/or gear your team have? Like an engineer with the repair skill can make repair a crane to make a new path.

I believe that game play and that should be first even if the it make the game less realistic. I like the ideal that you need to make a character more skilled with a person the more accurate the character get with they type of gun and also have a head shoot box that get larger. Then let the character be able to use any weapon but for a price. I am fine with having your character being a more skilled sniper at the start of the game but I do not want the character start as a master sniper. Firing your weapon is one of the most important action in ME combat and that should be reflected in the leveling system.

Lets combine the two. Lets have a it where you pick an infiltrator and pick a starting perk or two that reduce the cost to upgrade sniping skills or the cloaking or allow the character move in uncommon paths. So you can make a character that can move into uncommon path and cloak to take down the enemies. A sniper that get to different location to snipe from. Or a snipe that stays with the group but cloaks to aim for a head shoot.

I know many that would say that ME1 was not the best RPG, but it had some much potential and is still the best balance of a shoot and RPG. I just want to see the potential to be fulfilled. I did not want a generic third person shooter with some hints at a RPG. I want both shooting and RPG to be the best it can be and help each other.

I can name a number of things I would like to be improved in ME games if you want to hear them.

The games are not very old at all. There is no need for an "updated" version. I can play them on my 360 and they look beautiful.

@wiouds: I would not mind hearing your suggestions.

Realistically I wouldn't mind updated visuals and more stable framerate. Possible tweaks to Mass Effect 1's combat. However, the games aren't old at all and playing them on previous gen tech still looks pretty damn good.

Unrealistically, I'd like a completely reworked Mass Effect 3. I loved the game but it feels so out of place. The entire Reaper war just went against everything else you had done and all the previously established lore. The deus ex machina twist of finding a weapon to beat them just as they showed up was dumb as hell. I had hoped Mass Effect 3 would be keeping the Reapers at bay and leaving them as these mysterious, Cthulhu like machines in deep space that played on cosmic terror.

@bayernfan:

i agree and i don't think it will ever get redone, at least, anytime soon. however, changes you'd make-type discussions are always interesting to yap about.

@cooolio:

First mix the gear system of ME1 ans ME3. Your character has a weight limit and you can carry any load out as long as it under that weight limit. Like using heave armor takes up more weight. You can get an item that allow you to carry more clips or med-kits.

Second clean up the item system. Have it where you pick the weapon upgrade type and it automatically pick the best one it has. Have it sell off worthless upgrade on it own or have an unlimited number of upgrades you an have on the ship. Have it where you can short the weapons base on their different stats.

Some scripted commands for your teammate would be since. So you can create one that is called "ready ambush" In it you tell them to "stay in cover", "fire when the player does", and then "hold fire". That way you can ready yourself to attack the enemies.

The last is a better level system. I find a few that would agree that ME1 was a great RPG system. There need to be a way to have two character of the same class to be different. To me a good role playing game play means that the player have meaningful control of the stats, abilities and gear. A character have three area that they can upgrade in, perks, skills, and weapons. Perks are special talents you have. There is no way you can have all these on one character. Weapons is just how character the character is with the weapons. A character can become more skill in any weapon. As you increase your skill with a weapon the more accurate you are with the weapon and the critical box also get larger. In real life the more you use a gun the smaller the spread would be. Skill is the rest. To improve weapon or skill you need to spend points so skill points for skill and weapon points for weapons. The higher you go in a skill the more points it cost. When you character start you get to pick some starting perks and points to spend. Leveling up you get some many points for weapon and skill and some time you can pick a new perk. So you want to make a sniper well one perk that some classes get is "Specialty Training: Sniper Rifles". The does not make you a master sniper. In real life months of trains does not make you a master in real life so why should it in the game. What the perk gives a discount on the cost of increasing the sniper rifle skill and allow for that player to increase it farther than most. In real life the sniper training does not make you are master sniper but it gives you a better foundation that make it so you can get more skilled with the sniper rifles faster and can even get more skill with them.

The last thing to do with the level system is to allow for a more simple way to level the characters. Have it mimic what ME3 does. I know some like ME2 level system more than the first and I do not want to take it away from them but I still want more depth in it.

Personally, I doubt they will change anything game play wise. They will probably just tweek the graphics, add in the DLC, and try to sell it for $60.

@Ceadre: We already have a Mass Effect Trilogy, and I wish people would stop supporting this business model. 60$ for Tomb Raider with updated graphics was awful, and I would rather more developers at Bioware work on making their next game better.

@IMAHAPYHIPPO: Look, I could care less about the graphics. I have to agree with most people, that the graphics looked great on a standard 360. To be honest, the talks weren't really about updating anything, it was really just about bringing a still popular game trilogy over to next gen and simply IMPLIED the possibility of tweaking it if they did. All this this topic is about is seeing what people would like to see on the off hand chance that it did happen. Truth be told, this "business practice" isn't going to die off. I agree that a certain amount of time should pass before considering the idea of an "hd remake", but backwards compatability is becoming a lost feature and some people like seeing old games they had great memories with given an updated look and some "rewards". Another reason is that there are some games that are just hard to come by and when you do they demand rediculous sums. I don't like seeing the game industry shifting towards MMO's but that's what's popular right now. There's no point in getting mad about something that's out of your hands.

Nobody's mad, I just it's something that's swindling gamers out of their money. They slapped a new coat of paint on Tomb Raider -- which was being sold for under 20$ on ps3/xbox 360, and even less than that on PC, where you could get those assets at no extra cost -- and took advantage of the barren wasteland that is the January after a console launch to tune of 60$ a copy.

I'm not against remaking games, I'm against what developers charge for them. I've always believed a game's price should reflect its development costs. At the beginning of 2013, Tomb Raider was rightfully a 60$ game because Square invested millions in the title. A year later they spent a tiny fraction of that updating it for next-gen consoles and charged full price again.