Mass Effect 2 was NOT "dumbed-down"

[Altorin]

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?

you sir, seem to be on the level, and even if you did disagree with me, I think I would respect you all the same. I am however definitely of the opinion that what I think about ME1 is pretty definitive. I've played the game... a lotttttt. If you disagree, you're probably doing it wrong, or working in some crazy convoluted way that might give you some slight edge, but definitely not enough to be worth the work you're putting into it. I try not to think of these wrong people as stupid though... misinformed perhaps.. perhaps they see value in absolute tedium and stupid choices that make no difference or actually make you worse for choosing incorrectly.


Seriously, everything I've said bad about ME1, it was my favorite 360 game, bar none, until ME2 came out. Absolute favorite, I've beaten it more times then I'd like to admit, even among such ravenous fans as these. I love it. I'm still playing it today. But I think a lot of people looked at things like the lower number and scope of skill upgrades, the lack of a traditional inventory or loot system, and other things, and just made some incorrect assumptions about what it all means. ME2 isn't a dumbed down ME1. ME2 took everything that was good about ME1, and made it better (except arguably the story.. and I do mean arguably, I think ME2's story was great, but that's really not what we're arguing about here)

 

[uc.asc]

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.

Do you ever wonder if you might be overthinking it?

I mean, okay, hard difficulty, sure, go nuts with optimal builds. Call me a casual gamer if you like, but I'm pretty sure most people just use mods that make things more fun and increase usability. I don't use specter gear because it's overpowered and takes the fun out of the game; I'm sure it's necessary on insanity, but the number of players who have ever even tried that is negligible.

 

[AlternatePFG]

It wasn't dumbed down, but it was streamlined to the point in which almost all of the RPG elements were gone. It was still better than the muddled mess that was stat building and inventory in Mass Effect 1 but BioWare should have improved that, not taken it out.

 

[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.

Do you ever wonder if you might be overthinking it?

I mean, okay, hard difficulty, sure, go nuts with optimal builds. Call me a casual gamer if you like, but I'm pretty sure most people just use mods that make things more fun and increase usability. I don't use specter gear because it's overpowered and takes the fun out of the game; I'm sure it's necessary on insanity, but the number of players who have ever even tried that is negligible.

Overthinking it? I don't think so. The idea of any RPG is to be the best and get stronger. So I do that. I don't really have to put that much thought into it at all. I'd wager that people who fiddle with shitty builds or switch their mods when it's not necessary to do so are the ones who are "overthinking it". And in any case, the whole argument of this thread is that ME2 is "dumbed down". How is "Overthinking it" seen as a bad thing?

My main argument is, if you want to be the best and get stronger, like.. most people do, in an RPG, ME2 gives you less "sure thing" upgrades. Less instances where it's clearly obvious what the best choice is. Hence you need to (or even are ALLOWED TO, if you don't want to gimp yourself) give things more thought and contemplation. In ME1, unless you're dancing around on Casual, not caring about your character's strength, there is really only a couple "right" ways to do things. The other ways are "wrong". That's not so in ME2, where there are many different ways to do things.

ME1's systems are hilariously bloated when compared to ME2.

 

[Joccaren]

I agree that in ME2 each class has a certain skill which is their main skill, but I disagree that it's the only skill to be used or even that it has to be used at all.

For example, my preferred soldier build in ME2 actually forgoes AR entirely (I use Retrain Powers to get back the 1 point that's in there by default) and focuses mainly on ammo powers. I'm not saying your way is wrong and my way is right, I'm saying that there's choice and therefore depth. Personally I find AR to be useless until it gets to the fourth rank, at which point you get some damage reduction (which is nice but not worth a 10-point investment IMO).

Yeah, I was just pointing out that the same 'useless skills' ME1 downside applies to ME2 as well. It all depends on your playstyle.

 

[Zing]

People think ME2 was dumbed down? If anything they just improved the clunky mechanics.

 

[Vault101]

People think ME2 was dumbed down? If anything they just improved the clunky mechanics.

well obviously the console-tards couldnt get their heads around the inventory management or see how vital it was to the game!

haha I'm kidding I agree completley (and I love ME2)

 

[Joccaren]

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.

This got pretty pointless for me in the end. I just maxed out incendiary ammo and used SMGs/assault rifles. Rapid fire weapons get a damage boost against shield and the flaming ammo gets a bonus against armour AND stops regen. no real choice there for me. Sure, if your an adept or engineer their might be more, but for any class with incendiary ammo and a rapid fire weapon, it was the obvious choice (Some weapons also flat out stated 'does more damage to shields', making the choice even easier).

 

[uc.asc]

snip

snip

Do you ever wonder if you might be overthinking it?

I mean, okay, hard difficulty, sure, go nuts with optimal builds. Call me a casual gamer if you like, but I'm pretty sure most people just use mods that make things more fun and increase usability. I don't use specter gear because it's overpowered and takes the fun out of the game; I'm sure it's necessary on insanity, but the number of players who have ever even tried that is negligible.

Overthinking it? I don't think so. The idea of any RPG is to be the best and get stronger. So I do that. I don't really have to put that much thought into it at all. I'd wager that people who fiddle with shitty builds or switch their mods when it's not necessary to do so are the ones who are "overthinking it". And in any case, the whole argument of this thread is that ME2 is "dumbed down". How is "Overthinking it" seen as a bad thing?

My main argument is, if you want to be the best and get stronger, like.. most people do, in an RPG, ME2 gives you less "sure thing" upgrades. Less instances where it's clearly obvious what the best choice is. Hence you need to (or even are ALLOWED TO, if you don't want to gimp yourself) give things more thought and contemplation. In ME1, unless you're dancing around on Casual, not caring about your character's strength, there is really only a couple "right" ways to do things. The other ways are "wrong". That's not so in ME2, where there are many different ways to do things.

ME1's systems are hilariously bloated when compared to ME2.

Nothing to do with ME2, you've just made me curious. I tend to feel that the point of games is to have fun; and while obviously optimal builds do that for you, there may be people who think that, say, acid rounds are a lot of fun. If they can get by with that on their difficulty setting of choice, that isn't "wrong".

There's no moral imperative to build the the strongest possible character. It may be necessary at times, but if I'm staying ahead of the difficulty curve I really prefer to optimize for fun gameplay rather than stats.

 

[ninja51]

Well I will have to respectfully disagree for some points of the game. Companions became simply a "talk to and do quest" thing, they didnt really evolve. You essentially just lost when they died, it wasnt like the first where a decision had to be made, depth with them was gone. In ME2 it seemed alot more like there was a simple good and bad answer for everything, when to me, the first had alot of grey area things, being good meant making the hard choices, the second game lacked those.

I would say it was dumbed down. There rearely if ever was a "do this or do that" thing in the game, there were upgrades, and you had to get the companions to like you. Companions didnt really evolve based on you, they eveolved based on if you talked to them after a couple missions and then went and killed someone for them. It became a shooter first and an RPG second, which to me, is a dumbed down game

 

[Zaik]

I tend to agree, though I'm less positive about it than you are. Its less of a dumbing down, which would require removal without replacement, and more of a mid-trilogy entire direction change.

They more or less just made it so *every* class in ME2 uses guns, rather than ME1 where you had future military space wizards who didn't know which end of the assault rifle the bullets came out of despite being a Commander in the Navy.

The problem ended up being that they were still future military space wizards, so some stuff happened and 90% of powers got completely gutted and were pointless, or had superior alternatives. The requirement to lower the 17 different layers of defenses to use powers just ended up making them worthless on harder difficulties, and it was faster to just gun everything down on easier ones. The powers that specifically stripped defenses were great, but that, ammo powers, Geth Shield Boost, and adrenaline rush is all I have *ever* found a use for in that game. Some people like the infiltrator cloak, I don't.

Makes it seem like all six classes are just variations of the old Soldier, rather than actual classes.

Still, it was a pretty fun game. I'd never play any other class than Soldier in it because the other 5 are weaker soldiers with fewer functioning powers and crappier weapons with worse available upgrades, but it's a fun game.

 

[Sharalon]

Tro I'm with you on this one! Me2 removed some of the worst parts of me1, and I'd say that its better in every way.

 

[Xaositect]

Mass Effect 2 WAS dumbed down, its a fact based on clear observations, and if you disagree you are just simply wrong.

Take your pick really, from the disconnected short storylines taking precedence over an actual major plot arc that affects the trilogy, to the overwhelming focus on shooter combat.

In ME1 during the main missions I would land on fully realised, plot defining planets where not everything was structured around some gears ripoff combat.

In ME2 nearly every single area was the same, regardless of main or side plot status: a linear combat corridor where 95% of everything revolved around (shooter) combat. The only areas that bucked this trend were the universally recognised as fucking awful so called "hubs", and the Normandy. That makes 5 in total, all of which were fucking tiny. Combine all of them, and they are probably on slightly larger than the citadel of ME1, if that even.

Mass Effect 2 offers up a series of linear missions where the game holds your hand between them all as you gun down countless hordes of generic enemies.

Id say thats definitively dumbed down for sure.

ME1 had its problems, no doubt. But in ME2 they didnt even try to fix them, they just made easy and cheap levels and filled it to the brim with their new, visceral "point and shoot from behind cover solves everything" take. Even the dialogue only comes in staccato bursts between repetative shooter combat every 10-15 minutes max.

If you find yourself out of dumbass shooter combat for 20 minutes or longer, you are either deliberately wasting time or getting too caught up in planet scanning.

 

[Hive Mind]

They didn't dumb anything down.

No. They just got rid of all the RPG mechanics.

Can't dumb down what isn't there!

 

[AnAngryMoose]

I assume your a moron

Hmm, well, they say imitation is the highest form of flattery, so I'll take that as a complement.

You mentioned that you never used all your skills at once.

In ME1? I think you should re-read my post, as that's the exact opposite of what I said. I said there was no reason NOT to use all the skills at once.

The new way the karma bars worked encouraged extremism in either Paragon or Renegade.
In the old game you had to focus your skill points into diplomacy, which allowed you to play a morally grey Shepard and still be effective.
In Mass Effect 2 you had to be either a Saint or Devil in order to be good at diplomacy.

True, the changes to the Paragon/Renegade system were not good.

The inventory was gone. Say it was crap all you like, I'd agree with you.
But Bioware just got rid of it, instead of making it more user friendly. That was not streamlined, that was tearing out a whole part of the RPG experience.

But that doesn't equate to dumbing-down. You can't say a game was dumbed-down because it's missing an improvement that you feel should have been made.

The Mako was cut in favor of Planet Scanning. Again, lack of gameplay variety.

Again, this does not equate to dumbing-down.

The main plot really didn't hold up under scrutiny.

I totally agree, and I suppose that does constitute dumbing-down of a sort, but the people who rant about the dumbing-down of ME seem more focused on the gameplay changes and that's what my post was focused on.

While I do think that you made a very good arguement and some good points, I still feel that there were elements missing, such as the inventory, weapon mods and Mako. They did add more depth, rather than just giving you three or four different assault rifles ranging from bad->Alright->good->Godly. I liked the inventory. Sure it was awkward, to say the least, but it was better having a few different types of armour (although I hope ME3 mixes the different choices of armour with the different armour mods a la ME2). The Mako made everything feel exciting when exploring planets rather than just popping into orbit, seeing if there was an anomaly and popping back off. I wouldn't say it was dumbing down, I would just say that it was streamlining. I still loved the game and I'm still playing it, but I'm hoping ME3 will strike the perfect balance between the two: keeping the variety of the first, but the accessibility and just cleaner system of the second.

PS: I agree and disagree with your mention on abilities. At times, it is fun to launch an entire room of people around the place with biotics in ME1, but I do agree with the need to choose what powers you're going to use in ME2. Especially with the Soldier.

 

[Mikeyfell]

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.

What they said they're doing is a lot closer to stripping away more RPG elements in order to make ME3 appeal to a wider audience.

The RPG elements can't possibly be more refined or streamlined than they were in Mass Effect 2, unless they start automatically implementing them on level up or just take them out.


Just so long as they don't pare down the story at all it won't be such a big deal. I mean you get enough level points to pretty much fill up all your stats so there's really not too much choice involved at the moment.

If it even seems like they reallocated any money away from the writers and voice actors Mass Effect 3 could easily become just another shitty shooter clogging up the market.

 

[Frotality]

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?

how exactly is going from a dozen or so levels of progression to 1-2 levels of progression an improvement? there was no choice in ME2, there they went from levels 1-10 to levels 1-3. there were slgiht variations (as there were variations in ME1) but there was a clear linear progression; the second smg, shotgun, and machine gun was universally better than the first and the third was better than those; whether you like burst fire or not, the next level up was still better to use. the only argument that can be made is for the 2nd sniper for being radically different than the first, though im sure you still get a better ammo/kill ratio out of it.

there is still one right answer, and its still hidden behind the same illusion of choice. the only difference is that it is far more obvious because your options are far fewer. the same equation, made more obvious and less complex; that sounds like dumbing down to me.

 

[The Lunatic]

Liked being able to equip my party members, use different armours and such forth, the mods and other aspects of the game were really good, and to get rid of them was really idiotic in my opinion.

Less skills as well, also a huge let down.

With those two points, I can't see how anyone can say it wasn't "Dumped down".

 

[Atmos Duality]

The combat in Mass Effect 1 sucked. The combat in Mass Effect 2 was a bit better, but still sucked. It's literally just Gears of War style whack-a-mole, which takes little to no skill at all to play. You regenerate, they regenerate much more slowly. Your bullets hurt a lot more than theirs. Most importantly, you aren't a braindead retard (I hope anyway) and know how to move around while most of the enemies are firmly rooted to their chest-high walls OR they suicide charge directly into your killzone.

I can recount ONE mission in ME2 that was challenging solely because of its level gimmick. I actually had to plan a path while dealing with enemies who didn't.

So for me, eliminating the weapons dump at the end of every mission was a boon. Oh, and Infiltrator was pretty cool. It let me pretend that skills mattered for a short while at least.

So I didn't find ME2 to be "dumbed down". It's painfully difficult to dumb down what is already barebones combat.

 

[Hyper-space]

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?

how exactly is going from a dozen or so levels of progression to 1-2 levels of progression an improvement? there was no choice in ME2, there they went from levels 1-10 to levels 1-3. there were slgiht variations (as there were variations in ME1) but there was a clear linear progression; the second smg, shotgun, and machine gun was universally better than the first and the third was better than those; whether you like burst fire or not, the next level up was still better to use. the only argument that can be made is for the 2nd sniper for being radically different than the first, though im sure you still get a better ammo/kill ratio out of it.

there is still one right answer, and its still hidden behind the same illusion of choice. the only difference is that it is far more obvious because your options are far fewer. the same equation, made more obvious and less complex; that sounds like dumbing down to me.

All of the items in ME2 were a matter of choice, sure there were upgrades and stuff like that, but every item is unique and has something over the next one.

Lets take the heavy pistol for example: The M-3 predator does not have as much stopping power as the Phalanx or Carnifex, but it has much more ammunition and each clip is 12 rounds, compared to the 6 rounds per clip of M-5 and M-6. This makes the M-3 invaluable if you find yourself needing a stable back-up with enough ammo. This is the same with the Assault Rifles, Sniper-rifles, SMGs, shotguns and heavy weapons.

So no, its actual choice, there is an actual trade-off for picking the one over the other. Though i am sure that you will soon find your favorite weapon as it fits your play-style much better.