Icinix: It's funny, well not really, but how people feel about the differences between them. I think the first one is the best. The stronger RPG, the greater player agency, the grittier space opera humans rise as players in the galactic stage etc....I feel they let a lot of those things drop (including importance choices) in 2 and 3 for the boom boom visceral "romance? It's like THIS IS WAR - WHO CARES!" mindset.They went safe for 2 and especially 3...when what made Mass Effect great was that they dared to be different.
Regardless - I can't see myself buying a remaster or a remake if they're not here on GOG, as much as I'm a Mass Effect fanatic.
real.geizterfahr: The first one definitely is the best when we're talking about story and choices. But it has some really horrible gameplay decissions, too. The first assault rifles have a shorter range than a shotgun, because of how widespread the bullets are flying. If this is your weapon of choice (later assault rifles are great), you'll suffer early in the game (on harder difficulties).
Planet Exploration with the Mako was... well... Honestly, I still don't get how anyone at BioWare thought this would be fun! Most of the planets were just a bunch of high mountains with ridiculously steep cliffs that the Mako almost couldn't climb. And all you had to do this for was to collect nonsense ressources or artifacts. They had absolutely no meaning. And the three different types of bases became lame, too. Bunker, container building or mine... They always looked the same. Same layout, same boxes, same useless loot. They totally failed in making the planets interesting.
Then there was the horrible, horrible inventory/loot/shop-system. It was worse than anything Bethesda ever did! No wonder they ditched the inventory in the later games.
Let's be honest: Mass Effect 1 had the best story, characters and a tight atmosphere. But BioWare failed to add some good game mechanics to it. They tried some 3rd person shooter/RPG hybrid, but they forgot to put the RPG in it (top answer = paragon, middle answer = wasted points, bottom answer = renegade) and butchered the shooter part with the worst gunplay I've ever seen. That's why I'd prefer a proper remake instead of a simple remaster with improved graphics (graphics are still fine, if you ask me).
Again it's interesting how much opinions and feelings vary, but rather than debate the merits of the games (since hey, love what you love) that last paragraph brings up a good point, because not only did Mass Effect 1 have paragon, middle, renegade - but it also had charm / intimidate. Which could actually net you very different choices. The charm one for instance allowed you to negotiate with two criminal people at different points where as the paragon choice shot one and turned the other in.
It wasn't until the 2nd that the blue / red choices became paragon / renegade and removed the last of player agency.
With that in mind, I'd be wary of what a true remake would do to the core of the game.
Best to leave it for now and focus on new experiences in the universe - because if they removed the overheat mechanic, charm / intimidate, Mako exploration on worlds etc for a remake - people like me would cry blue bloody murder, and if they did remove them - people like you would wonder why they bothered.
I wonder if that's why BioWare has struggled so much since - they can't pin down what it was that people loved about their games because people literally just love different parts of them.