Mass Effect 2 was NOT "dumbed-down"

[Epic Fail 1977]

The last 8 posts have been more nonsense from shooter fans happy they removed all the common RPG elements from the game.

Because RPG's shouldn't have annoying things like loot of course. What RPG fan would want something stupid like that in their RPG? Picking up a new weapon which gives me +2 to my stats over my previous one?! SO TEDIOUS! No RPG should have these elements! Who enjoys these kinds of things anyways? Certainly not RPG fans. DUH!

Bloody hell, you still here and bitching about loot and how none us are real RPG fans? You seem to have missed the point entirely, and your presumptuousness is getting on my tits.

Torchlight

I think this is a good example of an RPG which has a little depth to it. Not a huge amount of depth, but a lot more than the ME games for sure. Loot drops like rain in Torchlight, and it does get better over time as you'd expect, but it gets better very slowly and it's randomly generated, so most of the time you're weighing up pros and cons. Do I keep my 100 damage axe, or swap it for this new sword with only 50 damage but 25 health stolen on hit? Should I put on this new helmet which increases my elemental resistance but lowers my armor? Should I instead put on that helmet which increases my dex, which will in turn allow me to wear those great gloves I found? Torchlight is full of this kind of choice/depth. And it's not just the loot; the skill trees are also well done, offering meaningful choice and a variety of equally viable builds. The game is a snooze-fest on Normal difficulty, but on Very Hard Hardcore it's a real challenge and the placement of skill/attribute points requires a lot of thought.

THIS IS WHAT IS MISSING FROM ME1. And yes, it's missing from ME2 as well but that's not because it's been taken out, it's because it was never there in the first place. All that has been taken out is pointless crap that never made any difference to anything.

 

[uc.asc]

Mass Effect 1

I think this is a good example of an RPG which has a little depth to it. Not a huge amount of depth, but a lot more than ME2 for sure. Loot drops like rain in Mass Effect 1 and it does get better over time as you'd expect, but it gets better very slowly and it's randomly generated, so most of the time you're weighing up pros and cons. Do I keep my 230 damage assault rifle, or swap it for this new rifle with only 200 damage but better accuracy and more shots before overheat? Should I put on this new armor which increases damage and biotic resistance but lowers my shield? Should I use the amp which greatly decreases cooldown, or the one which increases duration? Mass Effect 1 is full of this kind of choice/depth. And it's not just the loot; the skill trees are also well done, offering meaningful choice and a variety of equally viable builds. The game is a snooze-fest on Normal difficulty, but on Insanity it's a real challenge and the placement of skill/attribute points requires a lot of thought.

THIS IS WHAT IS MISSING FROM ME2.

I fixed this for you.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

I fixed this for you.

Reported. Please don't edit my posts.

 

[Trolldor]

I fixed this for you.

Reported.

Daww, he doesn't like his own idea being used - successfully - against him.
It's adowable.

So go on, please explain how Mass Effect 2 removing all semblence of depth in both gameplay and story is not dumbing down?

 

[Laser Priest]

Mass Effect 2 was a great game but did you hear about what they're doing to Mass Effect 3?
Depressing shit.

You mean improving the shooter elements while trying to also add and refine more RPG elements or trying to make the story on a more epic scale?

Because that is all BioWare has announced that they're doing with the game.

 

[Altorin]

Mass Effect 1

I think this is a good example of an RPG which has a little depth to it. Not a huge amount of depth, but a lot more than ME2 for sure. Loot drops like rain in Mass Effect 1 and it does get better over time as you'd expect, but it gets better very slowly and it's randomly generated, so most of the time you're weighing up pros and cons. Do I keep my 230 damage assault rifle, or swap it for this new rifle with only 200 damage but better accuracy and more shots before overheat? Should I put on this new armor which increases damage and biotic resistance but lowers my shield? Should I use the amp which greatly decreases cooldown, or the one which increases duration? Mass Effect 1 is full of this kind of choice/depth. And it's not just the loot; the skill trees are also well done, offering meaningful choice and a variety of equally viable builds. The game is a snooze-fest on Normal difficulty, but on Insanity it's a real challenge and the placement of skill/attribute points requires a lot of thought.

THIS IS WHAT IS MISSING FROM ME2.

I fixed this for you.

the answer to your first question about the assault rifle is "lol, wait for Specter 7, then never look back til you get specter 10, and just go for highest damage until then"

The answer to the question about the armor is in the beginning, go for more shields, in the end go for more damage protection when it gets to a ridiculous amount, and don't worry about Biotic protection. If you're getting beaten by biotics, even on Insanity, you're doing something wrong.

For the amp, it doesn't matter, because once you can get Savant Amps, there's literally no reason to use any other one.

I say wait for specter and savant amps and you might think "but those are end game items, there are plenty of choices before then", and the answer is largely no. Cooldown is almost universally better then duration. Not all of your powers are effected by duration, or if they are, it might not even be important, but being able to use all of your powers rapid fire is almost always better. So even before Savant, there's very little choice. Go for Cooldown. It's better.

A multitude of different builds, this I don't even understand. A level 60 shepard in Mass Effect 1 and a Level 30 Shepard in Mass Effect 2, Skillwise, look almost the same. They have about the same percentage of their skills maxed.

And yeah, I beat the game on Insanity, and on insanity, these "choices" become even clearer. The only choices that aren't right are bad choices. That's BAD.

 

[Laser Priest]

Mass Effect 1

I think this is a good example of an RPG which has a little depth to it. Not a huge amount of depth, but a lot more than ME2 for sure. Loot drops like rain in Mass Effect 1 and it does get better over time as you'd expect, but it gets better very slowly and it's randomly generated, so most of the time you're weighing up pros and cons. Do I keep my 230 damage assault rifle, or swap it for this new rifle with only 200 damage but better accuracy and more shots before overheat? Should I put on this new armor which increases damage and biotic resistance but lowers my shield? Should I use the amp which greatly decreases cooldown, or the one which increases duration? Mass Effect 1 is full of this kind of choice/depth. And it's not just the loot; the skill trees are also well done, offering meaningful choice and a variety of equally viable builds. The game is a snooze-fest on Normal difficulty, but on Insanity it's a real challenge and the placement of skill/attribute points requires a lot of thought.

THIS IS WHAT IS MISSING FROM ME2.

I fixed this for you.

Actually, you completely broke it.

 

[Nikolaz72]

I'm an elitist PC wanker gamer, and I hate the dumbing-down of games as much as the next guy. But something I've seen said over and over is that ME2 was a dumbed-down game compared to ME1, and that just isn't true. So here comes my rant.

RPG elements are only of value when they add depth. Depth is only added by choices that matter. The basis of my argument here is that the additional choices in ME1 (such as what armor to wear, or where to put skill points) didn't matter at all.

ME1 had a cumbersome inventory system that added no depth whatsoever to the gameplay because there was never any choice. I've played ME1 a dozen times, and not once have I ever had a dilemma over whether to use this weapon or that weapon, or this armor vs that armor. Whenever I get new loot I just look to see if any of them are bigger and better than what I have and then swap out accordingly. In order for there to be a choice there has to be a situation such as this: you have two weapons to choose from, one with great range and the other with great damage, which do you choose? Or like this: one armor protects you from damage type A, the other from damage type B, which do you choose? This kind of choice never, ever happens in ME1. New armor is always better than old armor in every way, so there is no dilemma, no choice, no depth. Removing the inventory system did not strip the game of any depth, it just streamlined it.

ME1 had more skills than ME2, and the skills had independent cooldown timers. In ME2 there were fewer skills and they shared a single cooldown timer. Again, this was critised as "dumbing-down" but it's actually the opposite; by having a single cooldown timer ME2 actually introduced a new choice (which skill to use) that actually matters, thereby adding depth to the game (in comparison to ME1 where there was no reason not to use every skill at once).

ME2 also merged similar skills together. For example ME1's Sabotage, Overload and Decryption were merged in ME2 to form a single skill called Overload. This would equate to a lack of depth if there were times in ME1 when you would use one of those skills and not the others, but I for one never encountered such a situation. It was always a case of either spamming all three or spamming none of them, so again this is not a lack of depth, it's just streamlining.

It's almost ironic, really; the people who claim ME2 is dumbed-down are only demonstrating how dumb they really are, as they have mistaken choices that don't matter for choices that do.

I disagree with that. When I found a new gun that was the same as I had and an upgrade. 'granted' I would upgrade. But what was good about the system was the ammo and addon modifications for the weapons that they completely stripped out in the second. Removing doesnt improve.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

I fixed this for you.

Reported.

Daww, he doesn't like his own idea being used - successfully - against him.
It's adowable.

I reported him for editing my post. What idea did he use against me? Or are you saying I've edited other people's posts?

 

[uc.asc]

I fixed this for you.

Reported.

Daww, he doesn't like his own idea being used - successfully - against him.
It's adowable.

I reported him for editing my post. What idea did he use against me? Or are you saying I've edited other people's posts?

You can find your post by scrolling up a little more, hope this helps.

 

[kelevra]

Okay, some great points Mr Jackson.

Combat did have alot more depth to it in ME 2... but as its been mentioned, there's more to it than just plain old combat. ME2's roleplaying and exploration got nuked pretty massively: I actually miss the Mako- not for its shitty controls- but as a means of seeing some alien planets from the ground.

Also, I love tanks: the Mako felt like a big solid death machine with its uber doom railcannon. The Hammerhead felt like a pussyfoot gunship with its retarded little seeker missiles, and it took hits like one too. Couldnt we have gotten a HoverMako- a bit slower, but with a big cannon and shields and the ability to sideslip?

Another thing brought up has been the extremism of Paragon/Renegade choices... I RAGED against this in my first playthrough. The DLC's have lessened the need for you to be too pure, but at first launch... Goddamnit Bioware. Also, having to chose between a specialist class which gave you a 70% paragon/renegade cap and specialised combat powers and a 100% cap and less good powers just smacked of Neverwinter Nights era stupidity: the choice between the bard and the warrior essentially.

The big thing though, and Yatzhee mentioned this in his review, is how its all so very... not huge compared to the first game. A lot of time and effort went into making ME2 all shooty (and some of it, like having to pick up thermal clips doesnt really make sense in the setting of the game)- and thats great! I fucking loved the new combat system. I just wished there were less corridor shooting sections.

I miss the lifts too. They were lame, yes. But better than loading screens- AND they keep a good sense of immersion going.

 

[Altorin]

I disagree with that. When I found a new gun that was the same as I had and an upgrade. 'granted' I would upgrade. But what was good about the system was the ammo and addon modifications for the weapons that they completely stripped out in the second. Removing doesnt improve.

Ok, a little scenario for you.

You have Ice Rounds that lower cooldowns, radiation rounds that give general damage increase and damage over time, fire rounds that give damage over time, and electricity rounds that do shitty damage, but destroy shields.

You don't want to have to change damage every single time you encounter an enemy that's slightly weaker against one specific type of ammo, because that involves going into your inventory screen, finding the item, switching the ammo, finding it among a mountain of garbage you've picked up, taking you right out of the game.

Which do you choose? - I'm pretty sure the answer for almost anyone is "the one that does the most damage". If you kill a biotic faster, what does it matter if their cooldowns are longer? If you do MORE damage and can rip through the shields anyway, what difference does shield killing ammo make? None.

Now, think of this scenario

You have Disruption Ammo, which destroys shields, Inferno Ammo which destroys armor and prevents regeneration., and Cryo Ammo that freezes unarmored and unshielded enemies.

You can switch between these ammos on the fly - it takes 2 seconds. You choose the ammo out of a radial wheel and can even hotkey them. Which do you use? Remember that armor and shield will stop cryo ammo and your powers from being super effective.

You change them. You use the Disruption Ammo against shielded targets, and because it's so easy to change, if you want to, you switch to cryo or inferno ammo to deal with unarmored foes.

I can't fathom how people think the ammo power system is worse then the ammo mod system in ME1.

 

[Altorin]

Also, having to chose between a specialist class which gave you a 70% paragon/renegade cap and specialised combat powers and a 100% cap and less good powers just smacked of Neverwinter Nights era stupidity: the choice between the bard and the warrior essentially.

That's pretty much the choice you made in ME1 when and if you added points into Intimidate/Charm.

Do I gimp myself in the future to be super scary today?

The big thing though, and Yatzhee mentioned this in his review, is how its all so very... not huge compared to the first game. A lot of time and effort went into making ME2 all shooty (and some of it, like having to pick up thermal clips doesnt really make sense in the setting of the game)- and thats great! I fucking loved the new combat system. I just wished there were less corridor shooting sections.

I miss the lifts too. They were lame, yes. But better than loading screens- AND they keep a good sense of immersion going.

This is actually the first argument that I've seen here against ME2 that I completely agree with. ALTHOUGH, I did think that the loading screens that were in ME1 are much worse then the loading screens that are in ME2. Every loading screen in ME2 is actually showing you what's happening. They are numerous, but at least they're dynamic. However, I do agree with Yahtzee's idea that the game lacks a continued immersiveness. It feels sometimes like a bunch of levels, instead of an actual world, at least when you're doing missions.

But I think most of the arguments against it are just silly, and are just people complaining because they have to think about Ammo counts now.

 

[Nikolaz72]

I disagree with that. When I found a new gun that was the same as I had and an upgrade. 'granted' I would upgrade. But what was good about the system was the ammo and addon modifications for the weapons that they completely stripped out in the second. Removing doesnt improve.

Ok, a little scenario for you.

You have Ice Rounds that lower cooldowns, radiation rounds that give general damage increase and damage over time, fire rounds that give damage over time, and electricity rounds that do shitty damage, but destroy shields.

You don't want to have to change damage every single time you encounter an enemy that's slightly weaker against one specific type of ammo, because that involves going into your inventory screen, finding the item, switching the ammo, finding it among a mountain of garbage you've picked up, taking you right out of the game.

Which do you choose? - I'm pretty sure the answer for almost anyone is "the one that does the most damage". If you kill a biotic faster, what does it matter if their cooldowns are longer? If you do MORE damage and can rip through the shields anyway, what difference does shield killing ammo make? None.

Now, think of this scenario

You have Disruption Ammo, which destroys shields, Inferno Ammo which destroys armor and prevents regeneration., and Cryo Ammo that freezes unarmored and unshielded enemies.

You can switch between these ammos on the fly - it takes 2 seconds. You choose the ammo out of a radial wheel and can even hotkey them. Which do you use? Remember that armor and shield will stop cryo ammo and your powers from being super effective.

You change them. You use the Disruption Ammo against shielded targets, and because it's so easy to change, if you want to, you switch to cryo or inferno ammo to deal with unarmored foes.

I can't fathom how people think the ammo power system is worse then the ammo mod system in ME1.

Because for example. In Mass effect 1 you had addons. One increased accuracy but decreased damage, another increased damage but decreased accuracy. The first one is maybe good for an assault rifle while the second would be awesome for a shotgun. The you have bullets that stagger the enemy or stun him. And other bullets that just does damage, its a good choice here aswell. While in Mass effect 2 it seems like nothing of it matters, I mean you choose a kind of ammo and you are done with it. Most people go for Warp, others for Armor Penetration. Having the weaponmods makes sure that 'you' create your own weapon. In Mass effect 2 it is very restricted as a kind of (Weapon-selection for Dummies)

For example, in the addon you encounter a sniper upgrade which is a burstfire weapon. It automatically says its an upgrade instead of just explaining what it actually is, so what if the guy with the semi-auto Sniper Rifle picks this up thinking its an upgrade? Its misinformed. Theres too little description on the weapons ,you just get a name. Thats it.

 

[Yarpie]

I've linked it before and I'll link it again: http://www.cynicalbrit.com/oldsite/gaming-express/mass-effect-2-editorial/

I'm with this guy.

 

[Altorin]

Because for example. In Mass effect 1 you had addons. One increased accuracy but decreased damage, another increased damage but decreased accuracy. The first one is maybe good for an assault rifle while the second would be awesome for a shotgun. The you have bullets that stagger the enemy or stun him. And other bullets that just does damage, its a good choice here aswell. While in Mass effect 2 it seems like nothing of it matters, I mean you choose a kind of ammo and you are done with it. Most people go for Warp, others for Armor Penetration. Having the weaponmods makes sure that 'you' create your own weapon. In Mass effect 2 it is very restricted as a kind of (Weapon-selection for Dummies)

For example, in the addon you encounter a sniper upgrade which is a burstfire weapon. It automatically says its an upgrade instead of just explaining what it actually is, so what if the guy with the semi-auto Sniper Rifle picks this up thinking its an upgrade? Its misinformed. Theres too little description on the weapons ,you just get a name. Thats it.

Everything falls apart as soon as you get specter weapons. Every argument. Even the "addons" It doesn't matter that you can get slightly better accuracy. It really doesn't. What you do in ME1, is stack Scram Rails until the weapon overheats, then maybe throw on either a frictionless materials, and if that makes it so the weapon NEVER EVER overheats, THEN you put on the accuracy addon. Because if you could put 2 scram rails on the weapon, it would be the best choice, but you usually can't, so you have to put something else on there to compensate the Scram Heat. There are only really 2 choices (3 if you count combat scanners, which you only need 1 of in your whole team).. Frictionless Materials, which is only good if you're weapon is badly overheating, and the Accuracy addon, which is technically better then Frictionless Materials, but only because too much heatsink is redundant. They both give the same boost to damage, so if you don't need the FM, then you go with the accuracy one.

The choices in ME1 are really really really shallow. There's no actual strategy or thought involved other then "Make myself do more damage and take less damage". It's because of how the protections work. Shields are utterly useless defenses in the game, for you and the enemy, because of the existence of Immunity (and if you build your character correctly 100% uptime master immunity). In ME2, you have to deal with 3 different types of defenses, and they're all handled very differently. Biotic Barriers needs Warp or Concussive Shot, Shields needs Overload and Armor needs Warp or Incinerate. Failing those things, you need to use the right weapons to take them down, or else you will run out of ammo. And if you want to take them down quickly, and hence conserve ammo, you need to use the right ammo powers.

I seriously don't know what else to say on this.

As for the second point about the sniper rifle, I think I can agree there. I don't have a HD TV, so reading the text in ME2 was almost impossible (that's really my only major complaint with the game), but I think better descriptions of the weapons would be nice. The Widow says its an upgrade to the Viper, which is just wrong, it's an upgrade to the Mantis rifle, at least in playstyle, the Viper and Widow/Mantis play entirely differently.

 

[Hyper-space]

Citizen Snips

5-star post right there.

ME1's less meaningful but larger variety of choice gave it fifty-billion times more replayability than ME2's barely existent choice. ME1's item system was broken, but at least it existed, and flawed as it was gave you at least a SENSE of progression and variety; ME2 had a starter weapon, a second one that was universally better than the stater, and a specialist one universally better than either.

the exact same concept with the exact same results, but simplified to the extreme.

Uhhh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ME1's equipment system was a matter of problems (where there is one right answer), while ME2's system was a matter of choice (where there is no right answer). THATS actual choice, ME1 was just faux-depth, having 8 different levels and names of the SAME ITEM is not choice.

So ME2 changed it from "meaningless problems" over to "intelligent choice", meaning that its the OPPOSITE of dumbing down.

Also, how the hell did you get "replayability" from essentially doing the same problems with the same results in ME1?

 

[Altorin]

Citizen Snips

5-star post right there.

ME1's less meaningful but larger variety of choice gave it fifty-billion times more replayability than ME2's barely existent choice. ME1's item system was broken, but at least it existed, and flawed as it was gave you at least a SENSE of progression and variety; ME2 had a starter weapon, a second one that was universally better than the stater, and a specialist one universally better than either.

the exact same concept with the exact same results, but simplified to the extreme.

Uhhh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ME1's equipment system was a matter of problems (where there is one right answer), while ME2's system was a matter of choice (where there is no right answer). THATS actual choice, ME1 was just faux-depth, having 8 different levels and names of the SAME ITEM is not choice.

So ME2 changed it from "meaningless problems" over to "intelligent choice", meaning that its the OPPOSITE of dumbing down.

Also, how the hell did you get "replayability" from essentially doing the same problems with the same results in ME1?

I like you.

 

[Shock and Awe]

I agree on all except one thing; weapon mods. I was constantly switching up my ammo type and other mods to fit the situation and trying to find just the right mix. Fortunately that is the one major thing they are bringing back, so ME3 is looking good to me.

 

[Indecipherable]

Moving past the staggering superiority the OP takes (ie: if you're disagree you're a hypocrit and stupid), there are some things that were 'dumbed down'. Most crucially was the vast reduction in dialog, both for choices and in pure quantity. The Citadel for instance was some people's biggest complaint,about its size and amount of talking 'you had to put up with'. ME2 simply did not have anything of this sort. There were other examples (the VI on Ilos had a great deal of dialog) where ME 1 outshone ME 2. Both ME games have serious issues whereby you can largely say anything and the plot pushes on irrespective of this. You just either be mean or be nice and it's back on the railroads again.

As for the combat, it may be arguing semantics but they made the right choices. I prefer to call it streamlining rather than dumbing down. Perhaps I'm influenced on the unforgivable FPS elements missed from ME1 (hit locations...) but choices that were largely meaningless (fractions of percentages to different powers as a 'level up' option) don't do it for me. Further it has been stated in here that the inventory system did not improve choice either, and that I am in agreement with. In ME1 the weapons were almost universally 'better' or 'worse' than others, rather than being situational. When one choice dominates another then it truly isn't much choice at all, is it?