How has Mass Effect 2 'dumbed down' the series?

[conflictofinterests]

The roleplay elements that were removed in ME2 were a pretty big part of RPG flavor. What if you're a silver-tongued snake? That's not Shepard all of a sudden? What if you're a Lawful Good Paladin and use promises of smite evil to cow the weak of conviction to follow the straight and narrow? That's not Shepard either? Those are two of my favorite types of characters...

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

- the epic story, and richly detailed mythology behind it are still present

- there is still a strong emphasis on characterisation

- the Galaxy Map still makes the world feel appropriately huge

- the environments are varied and richly detailed

- the vast dialogue trees are still their and (most) are relevant and interesting

- the side missions still have a non-linear focus and vary greatly in length and importance

- your abilities and equipment still progress as you progress further in the story

Firstly, only the last two have anything to do with the video game genre "RPG." One of the things you have to understand here is that the video game term RPG Cannot actually be summed up as its abbreviation for "Role Playing Game," Otherwise every game where you take the role of a character would be considered an RPG. As such, the background of the game, the characters, the size of the world, the environments and the dialog, do not have anything to do with the RPG genre.

Equipment "Progresses" in the sense that you get some useful, though low impact, upgrades to weapon types as well as new weapons for that type placed sporatically throughout the game world, a vast majority of which are a trade-off instead of a straight upgrade (a sniper rifle with more bullets per clip but less damage per shot for example). Overall, this doesn't create a deep sense of progress. It's there, but it's not as obvious or fulfilling.

Which brings me to the abilities, which act the same way. You get some useful, if again low impact, upgrades to skills (and only to skills) which eventually leads to a more obvious upgrade, but aside from unlocking the skills to use in the first place do you ever notice this? do you ever care about it? Do you play a different way or use different skills because they were upgraded or do you mostly stick to the same strategy regardless of how you've been spending those upgrade points? It's a shallow system that doesn't have a very big impact on things.

And to elaborate on that earlier complaint, that you can only upgrade skills, I'll tell you what (to me at least) makes or breaks an RPG, progress of the character. In the first ME (which was hardly the deepest RPG in the world itself don't get me wrong) you could spend upgrade points on various combat skills, the ability to hack things or decrypt messages, the ability to persuade or intimidate people, or, and most importantly to my point, general statistics. How good you are at using a gun, how much protection that armor gives you, that is determined by the points you spent in the first ME. In ME2 Shepard is shooting just as well the moment he wakes up from being revived to the last where he's firing at a baby reaper, the player behind him may have gotten better with the gun but Shepard hasn't. Statistically, Shepard hasn't advanced in the slightest.

And that's where the problem is. All of the advancement and progress, admittedly baring the abilities, is going on around Shepard. He gets new guns or nondescriptly upgrades them, he buys a nominal new piece of armor, but Shepard himself does not feel like he's advancing at all, and that's where the issue is.

Admittedly yes, only the last two are closely connected with the genre of RPG. However, all the point before that are closely linked to story and setting; and as we all know, story and setting is kinda Bioware's 'thing'. It's the one area that Bioware has always done better than anybody else and having those things still there still makes for a deep and engaging experience imo.

I acknowledge that they streamlined the RPG elements from Mass Effect 1, but the original point I was making was 'what does that have to do with dumbing down?' Surely what separates a 'dumb and shallow' game from a 'smart and deep' game, is attaching the game mechanics (ie. The shooting of the dudes), to a well written, detailed and meaningful experience in interesting and engaging environments. And as far as I can see, all that stuff is still there in ME2

 

[Littaly]

Oh it dumbed it down alright, but in the case of Mass Effect, it was actually appropriate. Everything it removed was dead weight, it was more stuff there but it didn't really fill any function or add to the game. Sure they could have gone the other way and make it deeper, but that would have detracted from the core of the gameplay even more, maybe it could be an interesting idea, but it's something better suited for a spin-off. No, streamlining Mass Effect 2 was the right thing to do, the mistake was to take the same approach to Dragon Age II, but that's another story.

 

[Canadish]

I guess not everyone takes story as seriously as I do, but there was a pronounced tonal shift from the first game to the second. The first one takes the universe and science fiction elements very seriously, and great care was taken to ensure everything was consistent. Just listen to the codex entries from the first game: serious thought and research went into making this setting plausible. Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, veers into "flashy action movie" territory. While the first game has a very restrained, hard sci-fi aesthetic - technology like weapons, armor, and ships all look drab and functional rather than flashy - the second game slaps unnecessary glowy lights and bulky shoulderpads on everything. Lots of characters are ushered into the plot because they're 'cool', rather than being relevant to the story (Jack, for instance, brings hardly anything to your team you can't get from a mentally stable Asari.) Cerberus is changed from a terrorist organization to a benevolent, omnipotent Illuminati that gives you a massive ship, gets all your friends back together to crew it, and knows everything at all times (but, again, can't find anyone more professional than Jack to join your squad, because someone on the dev team thought she was a badass.) A new villain is introduced that has almost no bearing on the overarching plot. Think about it: what progress has been made in stopping the Reaper invasion from the end of ME1 to the end of ME2? Did the events of the game even delay them?

All of these things are writing genocide to a franchise that had a lot going for it. The first game had a really tight narrative with a well-conceived mystery plot ("What is the Conduit?"), strong antagonist (Saren), strong reveal (Sovereign), and meaningful finale (a climactic battle that cements a new position for mankind in the galaxy). It had a classic three-act structure that any fiction writing student can immediately recognize. All the characters and events were an organic part of the plot. Comparatively, Mass Effect 2 was a string of unrelated action scenes, culminating in a silly fight with a giant terminator.

Lastly, what the "faffing about" provided was pacing. Mass Effect 2 consisted almost entirely of pointing a gun at things and shooting them; the original involved a lot more exploration and negotiation. It did get rather slow at times, but it felt more like it was a game about a space adventure, rather than being a game about shooting things.

Anyway, that's my dissertation. I thought Mass Effect 1 was Bioware's crowning achievement, and the sequel took away a lot of the elements I lauded the first one for. I honestly don't mind the reduced RPG elements; it's everything else getting dumbed down that frustrates me.

This. A thousand times this!

No one ever mentions this, but it was a big deal for me. Mass Effect had such good attention to detail.
It was a reconstruction of the Science Fiction genre.
Mass Effect 2 scrapped that and played all the silly tropes of Sci Fi straight.
It was really disappointing to lose that.

Bioware's response to dealing with the problems of ME1 was to just scrap anything people didn't like, rather then try and make them better. It was almost childish.

And then of course, the railroaded, idiotic plot. It lacked a proper 3 act structure, lacked a formidable antagonist, didn't actually contribute to the overarching story (Stop the Reapers reaching the Galaxy). New bad guys introduced. Gather team. Beat new bad guys. Reapers show up.
But how did they reach the Galaxy? I thought they were asleep in Dark Space!? This was the WHOLE point of Mass Effect 1! Saren was going to wake them and use the Citadel to warp them in. Why did that even matter if they could just fly there? Because it takes 3 years?
Whats 3 years to a Reaper "We are eternal. We have no beginning and no end."
This makes no sense and cheapens Mass Effect 1.
Now, if the Collecters had done something to assist the Reapers in getting closer, THAT would have made sense to me. But no. Terminator Baby was a obviously a better plan.

 

[Kahunaburger]

As such, the background of the game, the characters, the size of the world, the environments and the dialog, do not have anything to do with the RPG genre.

I'm not sure about this, actually. RPG is a very poorly-defined genre on a good day, but "long, involved plots with lots of dialog trees" are a hallmark of the genre.

Equipment "Progresses" in the sense that you get some useful, though low impact, upgrades to weapon types as well as new weapons for that type placed sporatically throughout the game world, a vast majority of which are a trade-off instead of a straight upgrade (a sniper rifle with more bullets per clip but less damage per shot for example). Overall, this doesn't create a deep sense of progress. It's there, but it's not as obvious or fulfilling.

This I think is an improvement, actually - I'd rather have real customization where I'm making actual choices with how I want to build by character than simply being forced to go through the motions of upgrading.

Do you play a different way or use different skills because they were upgraded or do you mostly stick to the same strategy regardless of how you've been spending those upgrade points? It's a shallow system that doesn't have a very big impact on things.

Generally I think you're right on this one - the only set of abilities I saw as being profoundly affected by what upgrade level they were at and what path you chose were the unique class abilities, and even then the difference mostly only mattered on Insanity. And maybe the squad ammo upgrades?

Can't agree there. I played ME2 with a "Leaning heavily on Paragon" Shepard who occasionally foul-mouthed TIM and certain other people.

....and I didn't have the Persuasion to stop Morinth. I didn't have the Persuasion to keep Jack's Loyalty. I didn't have the persuasion to do a few other things (Tali's loyalty, I think?) in spite of being a "Nice" guy, JUST because I refused to kiss Illusive Man's ass.

Maybe it was a difference in Difficulty level? Maybe you get less Paragon/Renegade points in Hard......which would be dumb and broken.

I think this is a big problem with this game. It ties Paragon/Renegade scores to a gameplay mechanic that punishes you for getting both Paragon and Renegade points, which defeats the purpose of having a Paragon/Renegade system instead of a morality slider in the first place. I'm much more a fan of the dragon age-style "pick your favorite response out of these 6" alternative.

 

[Duskflamer]

- the epic story, and richly detailed mythology behind it are still present

- there is still a strong emphasis on characterisation

- the Galaxy Map still makes the world feel appropriately huge

- the environments are varied and richly detailed

- the vast dialogue trees are still their and (most) are relevant and interesting

- the side missions still have a non-linear focus and vary greatly in length and importance

- your abilities and equipment still progress as you progress further in the story

Firstly, only the last two have anything to do with the video game genre "RPG." One of the things you have to understand here is that the video game term RPG Cannot actually be summed up as its abbreviation for "Role Playing Game," Otherwise every game where you take the role of a character would be considered an RPG. As such, the background of the game, the characters, the size of the world, the environments and the dialog, do not have anything to do with the RPG genre.

Equipment "Progresses" in the sense that you get some useful, though low impact, upgrades to weapon types as well as new weapons for that type placed sporatically throughout the game world, a vast majority of which are a trade-off instead of a straight upgrade (a sniper rifle with more bullets per clip but less damage per shot for example). Overall, this doesn't create a deep sense of progress. It's there, but it's not as obvious or fulfilling.

Which brings me to the abilities, which act the same way. You get some useful, if again low impact, upgrades to skills (and only to skills) which eventually leads to a more obvious upgrade, but aside from unlocking the skills to use in the first place do you ever notice this? do you ever care about it? Do you play a different way or use different skills because they were upgraded or do you mostly stick to the same strategy regardless of how you've been spending those upgrade points? It's a shallow system that doesn't have a very big impact on things.

And to elaborate on that earlier complaint, that you can only upgrade skills, I'll tell you what (to me at least) makes or breaks an RPG, progress of the character. In the first ME (which was hardly the deepest RPG in the world itself don't get me wrong) you could spend upgrade points on various combat skills, the ability to hack things or decrypt messages, the ability to persuade or intimidate people, or, and most importantly to my point, general statistics. How good you are at using a gun, how much protection that armor gives you, that is determined by the points you spent in the first ME. In ME2 Shepard is shooting just as well the moment he wakes up from being revived to the last where he's firing at a baby reaper, the player behind him may have gotten better with the gun but Shepard hasn't. Statistically, Shepard hasn't advanced in the slightest.

And that's where the problem is. All of the advancement and progress, admittedly baring the abilities, is going on around Shepard. He gets new guns or nondescriptly upgrades them, he buys a nominal new piece of armor, but Shepard himself does not feel like he's advancing at all, and that's where the issue is.

Admittedly yes, only the last two are closely connected with the genre of RPG. However, all the point before that are closely linked to story and setting; and as we all know, story and setting is kinda Bioware's 'thing'. It's the one area that Bioware has always done better than anybody else and having those things still there still makes for a deep and engaging experience imo.

I acknowledge that they streamlined the RPG elements from Mass Effect 1, but the original point I was making was 'what does that have to do with dumbing down?' Surely what separates a 'dumb and shallow' game from a 'smart and deep' game, is attaching the game mechanics (ie. The shooting of the dudes), to a well written, detailed and meaningful experience in interesting and engaging environments. And as far as I can see, all that stuff is still there in ME2

RPG fanatics tend to view RPGs as more complex and deeper than FPS games (which I am not qualified to pass judgement on because I am an RPG fan who dislikes FPS games). As such, the shift in focus from the RPG elements to FPS elements becomes interpreted as "dumbing down" the game overall. Face it, there's a lot less thought and chance in ME2 compared to ME. This may not be a bad thing, nobody's saying a game has to be deep to be good, or that a deep game is automatically better than a shallow one, but it's hard to deny that ME is a much deeper game than ME2, for better or worse.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

- the epic story, and richly detailed mythology behind it are still present

- there is still a strong emphasis on characterisation

- the Galaxy Map still makes the world feel appropriately huge

- the environments are varied and richly detailed

- the vast dialogue trees are still their and (most) are relevant and interesting

- the side missions still have a non-linear focus and vary greatly in length and importance

- your abilities and equipment still progress as you progress further in the story

Firstly, only the last two have anything to do with the video game genre "RPG." One of the things you have to understand here is that the video game term RPG Cannot actually be summed up as its abbreviation for "Role Playing Game," Otherwise every game where you take the role of a character would be considered an RPG. As such, the background of the game, the characters, the size of the world, the environments and the dialog, do not have anything to do with the RPG genre.

Equipment "Progresses" in the sense that you get some useful, though low impact, upgrades to weapon types as well as new weapons for that type placed sporatically throughout the game world, a vast majority of which are a trade-off instead of a straight upgrade (a sniper rifle with more bullets per clip but less damage per shot for example). Overall, this doesn't create a deep sense of progress. It's there, but it's not as obvious or fulfilling.

Which brings me to the abilities, which act the same way. You get some useful, if again low impact, upgrades to skills (and only to skills) which eventually leads to a more obvious upgrade, but aside from unlocking the skills to use in the first place do you ever notice this? do you ever care about it? Do you play a different way or use different skills because they were upgraded or do you mostly stick to the same strategy regardless of how you've been spending those upgrade points? It's a shallow system that doesn't have a very big impact on things.

And to elaborate on that earlier complaint, that you can only upgrade skills, I'll tell you what (to me at least) makes or breaks an RPG, progress of the character. In the first ME (which was hardly the deepest RPG in the world itself don't get me wrong) you could spend upgrade points on various combat skills, the ability to hack things or decrypt messages, the ability to persuade or intimidate people, or, and most importantly to my point, general statistics. How good you are at using a gun, how much protection that armor gives you, that is determined by the points you spent in the first ME. In ME2 Shepard is shooting just as well the moment he wakes up from being revived to the last where he's firing at a baby reaper, the player behind him may have gotten better with the gun but Shepard hasn't. Statistically, Shepard hasn't advanced in the slightest.

And that's where the problem is. All of the advancement and progress, admittedly baring the abilities, is going on around Shepard. He gets new guns or nondescriptly upgrades them, he buys a nominal new piece of armor, but Shepard himself does not feel like he's advancing at all, and that's where the issue is.

Admittedly yes, only the last two are closely connected with the genre of RPG. However, all the point before that are closely linked to story and setting; and as we all know, story and setting is kinda Bioware's 'thing'. It's the one area that Bioware has always done better than anybody else and having those things still there still makes for a deep and engaging experience imo.

I acknowledge that they streamlined the RPG elements from Mass Effect 1, but the original point I was making was 'what does that have to do with dumbing down?' Surely what separates a 'dumb and shallow' game from a 'smart and deep' game, is attaching the game mechanics (ie. The shooting of the dudes), to a well written, detailed and meaningful experience in interesting and engaging environments. And as far as I can see, all that stuff is still there in ME2

RPG fanatics tend to view RPGs as more complex and deeper than FPS games (which I am not qualified to pass judgement on because I am an RPG fan who dislikes FPS games). As such, the shift in focus from the RPG elements to FPS elements becomes interpreted as "dumbing down" the game overall. Face it, there's a lot less thought and chance in ME2 compared to ME. This may not be a bad thing, nobody's saying a game has to be deep to be good, or that a deep game is automatically better than a shallow one, but it's hard to deny that ME is a much deeper game than ME2, for better or worse.

But what do RPG element have to do with depth is what I'm asking??? Isn't depth measured by how immersed the player is in the narrative and the mythology that surrounds it, not by how many skill trees you can sink points into. I'm not saying the lack of RPG elements isn't a valid complaint, I'm just asking what it has to do with depth? And even though ME2 was streamlined, the story and game world still made it a much deeper experience than a 'go here and kill things' shooter.

 

[Free Thinker]

I like the complex, often tedious item comparing and swapping. I used to play WoW and was heavy into stats and maximizing damage, so Mass Effect 1 had me at Cryo Rounds I and Heat Sink I. Mass Effect 2 added things that were much needed. Mass Effect 1 felt a tad bit clunky at times, but the action was good enough to make up for it, as well as the glorious story and immersion into the universe. Sadly, sequels are never perfect. I was a tad bit saddened to see Mass Effect 2 end up less as an RPG and more of a 3rd Person Shooter with a few stats and something more tedious, scanning. Plus, I wouldn't mind the revival of side quests and the more open world. Mass Effect 2 just seemed so much more confined. All your side missions were set and had no, or little flare to them aside from extra cash or potential research that made you scan untold amounts of Paladium. I hope Mass Effect 3 turns out to be a healthy mix of 1 and 2 with a more open universe with no scanning and infinite ammo back with the overheating. Thermal Clips are not an, "upgrade"!

 

[Duskflamer]

- the epic story, and richly detailed mythology behind it are still present

- there is still a strong emphasis on characterisation

- the Galaxy Map still makes the world feel appropriately huge

- the environments are varied and richly detailed

- the vast dialogue trees are still their and (most) are relevant and interesting

- the side missions still have a non-linear focus and vary greatly in length and importance

- your abilities and equipment still progress as you progress further in the story

Firstly, only the last two have anything to do with the video game genre "RPG." One of the things you have to understand here is that the video game term RPG Cannot actually be summed up as its abbreviation for "Role Playing Game," Otherwise every game where you take the role of a character would be considered an RPG. As such, the background of the game, the characters, the size of the world, the environments and the dialog, do not have anything to do with the RPG genre.

Equipment "Progresses" in the sense that you get some useful, though low impact, upgrades to weapon types as well as new weapons for that type placed sporatically throughout the game world, a vast majority of which are a trade-off instead of a straight upgrade (a sniper rifle with more bullets per clip but less damage per shot for example). Overall, this doesn't create a deep sense of progress. It's there, but it's not as obvious or fulfilling.

Which brings me to the abilities, which act the same way. You get some useful, if again low impact, upgrades to skills (and only to skills) which eventually leads to a more obvious upgrade, but aside from unlocking the skills to use in the first place do you ever notice this? do you ever care about it? Do you play a different way or use different skills because they were upgraded or do you mostly stick to the same strategy regardless of how you've been spending those upgrade points? It's a shallow system that doesn't have a very big impact on things.

And to elaborate on that earlier complaint, that you can only upgrade skills, I'll tell you what (to me at least) makes or breaks an RPG, progress of the character. In the first ME (which was hardly the deepest RPG in the world itself don't get me wrong) you could spend upgrade points on various combat skills, the ability to hack things or decrypt messages, the ability to persuade or intimidate people, or, and most importantly to my point, general statistics. How good you are at using a gun, how much protection that armor gives you, that is determined by the points you spent in the first ME. In ME2 Shepard is shooting just as well the moment he wakes up from being revived to the last where he's firing at a baby reaper, the player behind him may have gotten better with the gun but Shepard hasn't. Statistically, Shepard hasn't advanced in the slightest.

And that's where the problem is. All of the advancement and progress, admittedly baring the abilities, is going on around Shepard. He gets new guns or nondescriptly upgrades them, he buys a nominal new piece of armor, but Shepard himself does not feel like he's advancing at all, and that's where the issue is.

Admittedly yes, only the last two are closely connected with the genre of RPG. However, all the point before that are closely linked to story and setting; and as we all know, story and setting is kinda Bioware's 'thing'. It's the one area that Bioware has always done better than anybody else and having those things still there still makes for a deep and engaging experience imo.

I acknowledge that they streamlined the RPG elements from Mass Effect 1, but the original point I was making was 'what does that have to do with dumbing down?' Surely what separates a 'dumb and shallow' game from a 'smart and deep' game, is attaching the game mechanics (ie. The shooting of the dudes), to a well written, detailed and meaningful experience in interesting and engaging environments. And as far as I can see, all that stuff is still there in ME2

RPG fanatics tend to view RPGs as more complex and deeper than FPS games (which I am not qualified to pass judgement on because I am an RPG fan who dislikes FPS games). As such, the shift in focus from the RPG elements to FPS elements becomes interpreted as "dumbing down" the game overall. Face it, there's a lot less thought and chance in ME2 compared to ME. This may not be a bad thing, nobody's saying a game has to be deep to be good, or that a deep game is automatically better than a shallow one, but it's hard to deny that ME is a much deeper game than ME2, for better or worse.

But what do RPG element have to do with depth is what I'm asking??? Isn't depth measured by how immersed the player is in the narrative and the mythology that surrounds it, not by how many skill trees you can sink points into. I'm not saying the lack of RPG elements isn't a valid complaint, I'm just asking what it has to do with depth? And even though ME2 was streamlined, the story and game world still made it a much deeper experience than a 'go here and kill things' shooter.

depth in this sense refers to complexity. You can't deny that the skill trees and equipment management of ME is far more complex than the equivalent systems in ME2, thus, ME2 has less depth. Again, this is not a quality judgement, I'm just explaining the term. I think ME2 was the better game personally.

 

[Kahunaburger]

and infinite ammo back with the overheating. Thermal Clips are not an, "upgrade"!

You could even do a combination - wait for the clip to cool down the gun, or pop the whole thing and slap in another clip from a small pool if you need to shoot right now.

 

[Kahunaburger]

depth in this sense refers to complexity. You can't deny that the skill trees and equipment management of ME is far more complex than the equivalent systems in ME2, thus, ME2 has less depth. Again, this is not a quality judgement, I'm just explaining the term. I think ME2 was the better game personally.

I don't really agree with the complexity = depth thing. CoD is more complex than chess, but chess is a deeper game, for instance. It's more about how much depth each option actually adds to the system.

 

[MightyMole]

I'm confused... I thought the main thing about RPGs was the story and customization of characters(in appearance or slillset). There a games considered great RPGs that don't even allow for as much freedom as ME2. Do we really need to customize how much paragon and renegade we have, or should it be derermined by our actions? As I recall, you don't get a reputation for being a good guy/bad dude for filling out a bar graph in your room and using it trying to convince people how good you are, people give you that reputation based on your actions.

Also somebody said something along he lines of, "You were a trained soldier, why do we have to fill out those skills". That's a good point. Do we really have to control how good we are with a weapon? Those who played the first game probably already did this, so why do it again in ME2? I played through both games 3 times, ME1 on Easy, Hardcore and Insanity and ME2 on Easy and Insanity twice and I can say I did not find ME1 harder than ME2 because of bunch of tedious micromanagement that was totally thrown out the window anyway with the introduction of spectre weapons anyway. In fact, what made ME harder than ME2 was all the glitches it had, getting stuck in/under objects has a tendency to make a game hard.

I'm not saying that there weren't aspects of ME1 that weren't better than aspects in ME2, I just though I'd rebuttal those 2 arguments. IMO, ME2 is a GAME, and gameplay is a huge part of a game. I found the gameplay in ME2 more enjoyable than that of ME1. I honestly don't like the combat gameplay you find in MMOs, KotOR or DA:O. It doesn't feel as engaging and I don't feel like I am that character. It feels more like I'm commanding a character. I can understand if you don't like shooters and don't like ME2 as much as ME1 because of its increased focus on shooting, but don't say you don't like it because it's dumbed down. Not only is it insulting to anyone who does enjoy ME2, it's just not true.

 

[Agayek]

TL;DR... When did 'faffing about' become synonymous with 'smart gameplay and story', and when did 'trimming the fat' become 'dumbing down'?

From my perspective, there really wasn't a whole lot of "dumbing down" between ME1 and ME2. They are roughly the same level of complexity.

I do, however, avidly support the idea that ME1 was the by far superior game.

I have two reasons for believing as such. First, the leveling system in ME2 was just rather dumb in my opinion. It was much more streamlined over the original yes, but the point system, where you had to have an increasing number of points for each skill level annoyed the hell out of me. The first time through, I ended up with 2 points I simply couldn't use anywhere. A more gradual upgrade system that let you use all of your level up points no matter how you specialize would have been much better.

My second, and primary, reason is that the main story in ME2 makes no bloody sense. It's a completely random sequence of events with only the vaguest hint of logical connection, rife with characters acting in utterly asinine (or out of character) ways.

And that doesn't even begin to mention what that game did to the Reapers.

 

[DYin01]

[engage sarcasm mode]

- Mass Effect 1 allowed me to swap out my Heat Sink II for a Heat Sink III. It was so deep and complex and intelligent.
- Mass Effect 1 allowed me to drive around featureless mountain ranges and raid a series of identical bases. Deep, I tell you!
- Mass Effect 1 allowed me to change Wrex's shoes! Oh, the complexity.
- Mass Effect 1 allowed me to add 2% to my boomability skill. None o' those dumb action gamers could've figured that out!
- Mass Effect 1 allowed me to swap my weapons for identical ones with bigger numbers. I like big numbers.
- Mass Effect 1 had terrible AI, just like all real RPGs must.

[/sarcasm mode]

Mass Effect 2 trimmed that shit to hell and back, and resulted in a significantly better game. The only thing I missed from ME1 was having to exit the ship via the airlock.

Oh, and Wrex. More Wrex would have been nice.

EDIT: Before I get quoted to death, I should make it clear that I really liked ME1. The good bits more than made up for the annoying stuff. However, I still think ME2 was a better designed game. Although it did suffer a bit plot-wise from being in the middle of the series.

This. Exactly this and nothing but this. I also really liked Mass Effect 1 but it was unpolished. Then the sequel came around and did pretty much everything the first part but, but better. Bioware made a fantastic game and made a sequel like it should be. I couldn't stop playing either one of them.

What's the thing with ''dumbing down'' anyway? It usually has nothing to do with challenge, just with how tedious a game is. If you feel special for understanding all those tedious things then good for you, but not all of us enjoy number crunching.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

TL;DR... When did 'faffing about' become synonymous with 'smart gameplay and story', and when did 'trimming the fat' become 'dumbing down'?

From my perspective, there really wasn't a whole lot of "dumbing down" between ME1 and ME2. They are roughly the same level of complexity.

I do, however, avidly support the idea that ME1 was the by far superior game.

I have two reasons for believing as such. First, the leveling system in ME2 was just rather dumb in my opinion. It was much more streamlined over the original yes, but the point system, where you had to have an increasing number of points for each skill level annoyed the hell out of me. The first time through, I ended up with 2 points I simply couldn't use anywhere. A more gradual upgrade system that let you use all of your level up points no matter how you specialize would have been much better.

My second, and primary, reason is that the main story in ME2 makes no bloody sense. It's a completely random sequence of events with only the vaguest hint of logical connection, rife with characters acting in utterly asinine (or out of character) ways.

And that doesn't even begin to mention what that game did to the Reapers.

What do you mean about the Reapers? The Reapers were barely in ME2. For the most part their involvement was just you gathering more information about what they actually are from souces like Legion. Why is that so bad?

 

[Duskflamer]

depth in this sense refers to complexity. You can't deny that the skill trees and equipment management of ME is far more complex than the equivalent systems in ME2, thus, ME2 has less depth. Again, this is not a quality judgement, I'm just explaining the term. I think ME2 was the better game personally.

I don't really agree with the complexity = depth thing. CoD is more complex than chess, but chess is a deeper game, for instance. It's more about how much depth each option actually adds to the system.

I don't mean technically, behind the scenes complex, I mean the complexity of what the player is asked to do. CoD may have a million things going on in the background but the player is mostly just asked to walk around and shoot enemies. Chess is a simple game, but every move must be thought out with care and there are thousands if not millions of possibilities for what could end up happening.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

There's no grind
There's no micro management of weapons and armour
There's no options for creating the character the way you want to

I've been over this before in other threads so I'll try and be briefer this time.

In ME1 it was entirely possible to go from start to end and only ever play the story missions and still be a high enough level to win and have experienced enough content to not make you feel like you'd been gypped out of a game. However if you wanted more then almost every world had at least 1 and often 2 or 3 sidequests so you could get to ridiculous levels and get more abilities, and experience a really rich and well crafted game world that sucked you in completely.

In ME2 the side missions were the main missions, if that makes any sense. You recruited members htrough sidemissions, made them loyal through sidemissions, then at the end all geared up for one of only three missions I would honestly call main plot missions. Any other side quests were disappointingly brief, like the little thing with patriarch that can literally be finished in two conversations. In fact almost every 'side quest' basically consists of 'talk to man a, then to man b, return to man a to receive reward.' That's not a side quests, in Mass Effect 1 that would have been the beginning of a side quest.

Micro Management of weapons and armour speaks for itself. In ME1 you got to outfit yourself and your squad any way you wanted, giving yourself the high power ammo that could shoot through schools while your squad all got the rapid fire stuff to help them bring down the enemy shields, or you could theoretically set up an assault rifle that would fire forever without ever overheating and basically make yourself into a human version of Halo's Warthog tank. In ME2 you have vun und precisely vun gun which is any damn good, and it can't be upgraded or personalised in any way. You don't get to choose to buy new gear, you don't get special armour with extra numbers of mod slots, you just get the same generic armour everyone player on the planet has. The game loses some of its individuality to make you play BioWare's Mass Effect, not your own.

This carries over into the levelling system. Dumbing it down to less than half the available options from the first game makes me sad. For example in ME1 I usually set up my character as a Paragon with skills in infiltration, stealth and stealing things. It was unique because I knew that other people might want a Renegade who stole and was an absolute tank on the battle field. Or a paragon soldier who soaked up bullets and didn't know how to decrypt even the simplest of doors. My Shepard felt like exactly that, mine. I spent the time and points upgrading her the way I wanted to, adding the skills and abilities I would use to play and ignoring those that I didn't need.

In ME2 I don't even have the option to ignore anything. If you play the main campaign you will level up at the rate that BioWare wanted you to, and with so few options for upgrading you will basically upgrade along the paths that they wanted you to. So you're using BioWare's conversation options, BioWare's weapons, and BioWare's upgrade path. I know that that's true of any game, but a good RPG like Mass Effect 1 or Fallout will make you fell like your characters is yours, and only you will have upgraded them in exactly the way that you have. Mass Effect 2 is not a good RPG, it is in fact barely an RPG at all. It is a shooter with the option to choose the order of your missions and an overly elaborate conversation wheel.

So yes, dumbed down. And the revelations about how they are focusing even more on shooter combat for ME3 makes me weep for a series I once loved.

 

[Duskflamer]

- the epic story, and richly detailed mythology behind it are still present

- there is still a strong emphasis on characterisation

- the Galaxy Map still makes the world feel appropriately huge

- the environments are varied and richly detailed

- the vast dialogue trees are still their and (most) are relevant and interesting

- the side missions still have a non-linear focus and vary greatly in length and importance

- your abilities and equipment still progress as you progress further in the story

Firstly, only the last two have anything to do with the video game genre "RPG." One of the things you have to understand here is that the video game term RPG Cannot actually be summed up as its abbreviation for "Role Playing Game," Otherwise every game where you take the role of a character would be considered an RPG. As such, the background of the game, the characters, the size of the world, the environments and the dialog, do not have anything to do with the RPG genre.

Equipment "Progresses" in the sense that you get some useful, though low impact, upgrades to weapon types as well as new weapons for that type placed sporatically throughout the game world, a vast majority of which are a trade-off instead of a straight upgrade (a sniper rifle with more bullets per clip but less damage per shot for example). Overall, this doesn't create a deep sense of progress. It's there, but it's not as obvious or fulfilling.

Which brings me to the abilities, which act the same way. You get some useful, if again low impact, upgrades to skills (and only to skills) which eventually leads to a more obvious upgrade, but aside from unlocking the skills to use in the first place do you ever notice this? do you ever care about it? Do you play a different way or use different skills because they were upgraded or do you mostly stick to the same strategy regardless of how you've been spending those upgrade points? It's a shallow system that doesn't have a very big impact on things.

And to elaborate on that earlier complaint, that you can only upgrade skills, I'll tell you what (to me at least) makes or breaks an RPG, progress of the character. In the first ME (which was hardly the deepest RPG in the world itself don't get me wrong) you could spend upgrade points on various combat skills, the ability to hack things or decrypt messages, the ability to persuade or intimidate people, or, and most importantly to my point, general statistics. How good you are at using a gun, how much protection that armor gives you, that is determined by the points you spent in the first ME. In ME2 Shepard is shooting just as well the moment he wakes up from being revived to the last where he's firing at a baby reaper, the player behind him may have gotten better with the gun but Shepard hasn't. Statistically, Shepard hasn't advanced in the slightest.

And that's where the problem is. All of the advancement and progress, admittedly baring the abilities, is going on around Shepard. He gets new guns or nondescriptly upgrades them, he buys a nominal new piece of armor, but Shepard himself does not feel like he's advancing at all, and that's where the issue is.

Admittedly yes, only the last two are closely connected with the genre of RPG. However, all the point before that are closely linked to story and setting; and as we all know, story and setting is kinda Bioware's 'thing'. It's the one area that Bioware has always done better than anybody else and having those things still there still makes for a deep and engaging experience imo.

I acknowledge that they streamlined the RPG elements from Mass Effect 1, but the original point I was making was 'what does that have to do with dumbing down?' Surely what separates a 'dumb and shallow' game from a 'smart and deep' game, is attaching the game mechanics (ie. The shooting of the dudes), to a well written, detailed and meaningful experience in interesting and engaging environments. And as far as I can see, all that stuff is still there in ME2

RPG fanatics tend to view RPGs as more complex and deeper than FPS games (which I am not qualified to pass judgement on because I am an RPG fan who dislikes FPS games). As such, the shift in focus from the RPG elements to FPS elements becomes interpreted as "dumbing down" the game overall. Face it, there's a lot less thought and chance in ME2 compared to ME. This may not be a bad thing, nobody's saying a game has to be deep to be good, or that a deep game is automatically better than a shallow one, but it's hard to deny that ME is a much deeper game than ME2, for better or worse.

But what do RPG element have to do with depth is what I'm asking??? Isn't depth measured by how immersed the player is in the narrative and the mythology that surrounds it, not by how many skill trees you can sink points into. I'm not saying the lack of RPG elements isn't a valid complaint, I'm just asking what it has to do with depth? And even though ME2 was streamlined, the story and game world still made it a much deeper experience than a 'go here and kill things' shooter.

Storywise, depth is based on immersion and mythology yes, but I'm more concerned with the gameplay. There's plenty of novels you can read if all you want is a deep story, when I talk about depth in a game I'm referring to the gameplay.

 

[Kahunaburger]

depth in this sense refers to complexity. You can't deny that the skill trees and equipment management of ME is far more complex than the equivalent systems in ME2, thus, ME2 has less depth. Again, this is not a quality judgement, I'm just explaining the term. I think ME2 was the better game personally.

I don't really agree with the complexity = depth thing. CoD is more complex than chess, but chess is a deeper game, for instance. It's more about how much depth each option actually adds to the system.

I don't mean technically, behind the scenes complex, I mean the complexity of what the player is asked to do. CoD may have a million things going on in the background but the player is mostly just asked to walk around and shoot enemies. Chess is a simple game, but every move must be thought out with care and there are thousands if not millions of possibilities for what could end up happening.

Yes, but there are orders of magnitude more possibilities for positions in CoD (and Quake, and Halo...) than there are in chess. (I.e., a CoD player is running around and shooting people in the same way a chess player is pushing pieces around. It's where you run to and where you push the piece that makes the game complex, and CoD gives you many more places to run to.) CoD also lets you customize your set-up before-hand and select game types, neither of which is an option in chess.

But chess is deeper because there's a bigger tactical difference between choosing which of its 20 initial moves you want to open up with than in choosing where in Highrise you want to run to first. So simplicity =/= shallowness, in other words.

 

[Duskflamer]

depth in this sense refers to complexity. You can't deny that the skill trees and equipment management of ME is far more complex than the equivalent systems in ME2, thus, ME2 has less depth. Again, this is not a quality judgement, I'm just explaining the term. I think ME2 was the better game personally.

I don't really agree with the complexity = depth thing. CoD is more complex than chess, but chess is a deeper game, for instance. It's more about how much depth each option actually adds to the system.

I don't mean technically, behind the scenes complex, I mean the complexity of what the player is asked to do. CoD may have a million things going on in the background but the player is mostly just asked to walk around and shoot enemies. Chess is a simple game, but every move must be thought out with care and there are thousands if not millions of possibilities for what could end up happening.

Yes, but there are orders of magnitude more possibilities for positions in CoD (and Quake, and Halo...) than there are in chess. (I.e., a CoD player is running around and shooting people in the same way a chess player is pushing pieces around. It's where you run to and where you push the piece that makes the game complex, and CoD gives you many more places to run to.) CoD also lets you customize your set-up before-hand and select game types, neither of which is an option in chess.

But chess is deeper because there's a bigger tactical difference between choosing which of its 20 initial moves you want to open up with than in choosing where in Highrise you want to run to first. So simplicity =/= shallowness, in other words.

Positioning is far more vital in Chess than in Cod though, in Cod, it doesn't matter if you're a few more feet to the right when you get shot. In chess, a rook being a space or two off from where it could be can make all the difference.

Also, just a little OCD from my end, there's 24 possible opening moves in Chess. 10 pawns each of which could move one or two spaces, as well as two possible moves for each of your two knights. 10X2 + 2X2 = 20+4 = 24.