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

[Zhukov]

[misc sarcasm]

I like this . Although I don't want to sound like I'm hating on ME1. It's still definitely in my Top 10 best games I've played, it's just that ME2 is definitely in my Top 5.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I like ME1 as well.

I just like ME2 better.

It's like the difference between ice cream and ice cream with hot fudge on top.

 

[Laurens Steel]

A story with numerous plot holes and taking away a large chunk of role playing freedom by chaining you to a dubious backstabbing faction.
Mass Effect 2 was a lot of fun as a 3rd person shooter, but hell it was dumb as an RPG.

 

[Megalodon]

They also removed skills. And removing the speech skills was a big annoyance of mine. Replacing it with Paragon and Renegade points was a shallow replacement. Apparently you can't use your convincing ways to be a jerk. Or intimidate someone without it being considered a bad guy thing.

Surely in ME1 though you would sink all your points into Charm for a Paragon playthrough, and Intimidate for a Renegade playthrough? So did it really matter to have them as separate things?

While I did indeed do this, people appreciate the choice in these things, ME2 made it impossible to be renegade and still able to occasionaly charm someone you didn't really want to punch in the face/pull a gun on, or the opposite, be generally nice and diplomatic, but be able to strongarm someone who pissed you off.

This guy! I like this guy. He said the words I was having trouble articulating when I'd been awake for all of eleven minutes.

Why thank you

They also removed skills. And removing the speech skills was a big annoyance of mine. Replacing it with Paragon and Renegade points was a shallow replacement. Apparently you can't use your convincing ways to be a jerk. Or intimidate someone without it being considered a bad guy thing.

You realise that in ME1 you had to unlock the charm and intimidate skills by earning paragon and renegade points anyway, right? You couldn't be a jerk with charm or intimidate someone nicely.

The only change in ME2 was that you didn't have to spend skill points before the good dialogue options became available.

But the lower levels were still available, even at full paragon/renegade you could have about half the possible points in the opposite alignment conversation skill. This was not available in ME2.

 

[Savber]

Oh look... it's this thread again. -_-


*shrug*

Mass Effect was ALWAYS more of a shooter with RPG elements than a pure RPG. It had role-playing in a degree that you control the direction of the story. The skills were more or less there to give players the illusion of choices for their Shepards.

Mass Effect 2 was simply the recognition of Bioware's goal which was to created a shooter with a great story and RPG C&C. I've treated the series as a hybrid and I got what I expected if not more.


Simply put, people are misled if they thought Mass Effect will be like the classic RPGs or The Witcher.


My advice? Get use to it or just stop playing. Mass Effect is shaping up to be a great trilogy on my book and having people bash it for simply not being what THEY expected is getting downright tiring.

 

[DEAD34345]

Well Zhukov summed up my entire opinion quite nicely there, thanks for saving me the trouble.

Yes it did. In Mass Effect 1 you didn't HAVE to have a "Paragon playthrough" and a "Renegade Playthrough". I tried to do the latter in ME1 and by the end my Femshep STILL had a quarter Paragon bar and 80% Renegade, because she refused to be a ***** to her teammates. But since Intimidate was a unique skill, she was threatening strangers left right and center, even though, on the Normandy she was a pretty nice commander...

Don't get me wrong. Mass Effect 2 was AWESOME. But it had quite a few faults. The important thing to remember is evety game has a faults[/i].

Also, it confuses me, how all the Hate for Mass Effect 2 being "dumbed down" started AFTER the news about ME3 started leaking in. What is up with that?

Except for this, if you're complaining that you play pure Paragon or pure Renegade then stop playing it that way. No, you do not have to be either. I have played through with a variety of characters, none of which were pure anything, and the ONLY time I didn't have enough paragon or renegade points to do something, was the scene with Morinth. Either we played completely different games, or you and others like you just assumed this was the case for some reason, and then played pure characters because you thought you had to.

 

[OManoghue]

Less powers, less weapons, less items, less mods, no companion customization.

Less to think about in general.

 

[oplinger]

..It dumbed down the series by making the game much easier. I'll be honest in ME1, I had a few things to think about. Logistics mostly. Tactics were also different in ME1. ME2 amounted to "equip gun, shoot enemy."

I'm going to ignore the inventory, taking out micro-managing is not "dumbing it down" that needed to be cut.

The lack of character customization as far as skills go was also made much simpler, not by much, but it didn't allow for half the fun ME1 had in making a character. in ME1 you could be a class, but still branch off and be different. ...in ME2, you pick a class..and Bioware will be god damned if you don't do it their way.

There's less for the player to think on, less decision making. It was dumbed down so people who hate thinking (I'll be nice and say about 80% of all people) can still have fun and not get overwhelmed.

Also:

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

Nothing to do with dumbing it down.

- there is still a strong emphasis on characterisation

Nothing to do with dumbing it down either, the emphasis stayed. It was just emphasis on something much smaller than before.

- the environments are varied and richly detailed

Not dumbign it down either, graphics don't make you smart or stupid. Just like it having an epic story doesn't make it smart or stupid. Or complicated. Unless it's hard to follow...but then it's just poorly written, writing it better wouldn't be dumbing it down unless you're a snob or something >_>

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

They had non-linear focus in either game? ...I thought all the side missions were like "GO HERE AND DO THIS IN THIS LONG NARROW HALLWAY. Oh and it branches off to a dead end with some stuff in there if you want it. Enjoy I guess." ..but..yeah you could be onto something with that one...I just don't remember a lot of non-linear gameplay... Unless you mean driving around on planets and probing. ..but...why count those? x.x

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

They progress, on a much smaller scale is the problem, which takes away from customization. They dumbed that down by taking away many of the choices. ME2 was made for a much wider audience than ME1 was, so they kinda had to cut some stuff out.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Ya this totally wont turn into a flame war...
Honestly if you can't see it I can only say to you ignorance is bliss so enjoy.

Some of us however have played games with greater complexity before and we miss it.

 

[Zay-el]

Yes, but in ME you had choice, in Mass Effect 2 you are forced to side with Cerberus even if you played a character that hated/s them, there is no option to leave until the end and even then it is implied not to be because Shepared dislikes Cerberus but because Shepard doesn't think he needs them any more.

I would argue, that having a Cerberus ship full of Cerberus operatives and a very keenly monitoring Cerberus AI, I'm pretty sure the moment Shepard even so much as tried to utter the words 'I quit', shit would have hit the fan, especially before you get the loyalty of even the Cerberus people.

Granted, I might have enjoyed seeing that as well, but it would have severely limited what you can and can't do, plus it probably would have required to game to be at least another 30% longer, which would have given way too opportunities for it to overstay its welcome.

True, but they are no longer stat based in the same way. In ME1 a character with a low pistol skill would not be accurate with a pistol. In ME2 the skill trees merely give you new abilities, you are still completely effective in all areas of combat regardless (shield and health is the same, as is regeneration and so on).

I would somewhat argue that by the time of ME2, even with the Lazarus, you're pretty much trusted to know how a gun or certain abilities work. Also, implementing a harsher miss-feature would have been disastrous with the ammo system ME2 had.

In addition, in games such as this, where you have to aim and pull the trigger, actually hitting things is kind of important as well. The biggest penalty I can imagine that would still be acceptable, would be a lower base damage, perhaps. Otherwise, it might just turn into Morrowind, where you visibly stab the monsters a million times with your dinky sword and it still won't really hit them.

On your other counts, I more or less agree.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

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

lack of inventory and ammo selection. i'll admit, the inventory needed refining in the first one, but not removed completely.

the removal of skills, so choosing whether to put points into speech to talk your way out of situations, or put them in combat.

the removal of health, and replacing it with regen health. the shields were the point of regen, if you're gonna make health like that why not make the health bar even bigger? medi gel is now pointless because your teammates are ok at best, but you can still solo nearly everything, and they come back to life after combat is finished anyway.

they were the main differences i saw which i would say made the game dumbed down, but thats about it.

I agree partially, but on the other hand your health bar in ME1 did regen over time anyway, so unless you were literally about to die there was no point in using Medigel there either. Also, in ME2 it's very useful to keep your allies up and fighting if only to direct enemy fire away from you. For example, on Freedom's Progress if you don't keep reviving Miranda and Jacob the YMIR Mech has no-one to fire at but you, and seem as all available cover last about 5 seconds he will very quickly wreck your shit if they don't keep distracting him.

 

[mechanixis]

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.

 

[Zhukov]

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

Yes, but in ME1 you had choice, in Mass Effect 2 you are forced to side with Cerberus even if you played a character that hated/s them, there is no option to leave until the end and even then it is implied not to be because Shepared dislikes Cerberus but because Shepard doesn't think he needs them any more.

And in ME1 you have to become a Spectre, even if you hate the Council.

[sarcasm snipped]

All fair points, although my only disagreement lies with the changing team members armour. The reason I disagree is that the fact that half the team wear spandex or leather into battle now is just plain insanity. In ME1 everyone wore armour except Tali who wore her environmental suit (which are armoured to a degree).

The only squad members who don't wear heavy armour are the ones who can generate barriers with their brains.

 

[Darthbawls77]

They also removed skills. And removing the speech skills was a big annoyance of mine. Replacing it with Paragon and Renegade points was a shallow replacement. Apparently you can't use your convincing ways to be a jerk. Or intimidate someone without it being considered a bad guy thing.

Being a jerk and/or being intimidating is more of a bad guy or antihero thing anyways lol so it does makes perfect sense. You should really read what your typing before posting. And much like the whole topic here of "dumbing down," what do you mean by "shallow?" I saw the paragon/renegade thing as a no brainer upgrade from the ME1 system since they have done stuff like that before and it worked out.

 

[Legion]

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

Yes, but in ME1 you had choice, in Mass Effect 2 you are forced to side with Cerberus even if you played a character that hated/s them, there is no option to leave until the end and even then it is implied not to be because Shepared dislikes Cerberus but because Shepard doesn't think he needs them any more.

And in ME1 you have to become a Spectre, even if you hate the Council.

[sarcasm snipped]

All fair points, although my only disagreement lies with the changing team members armour. The reason I disagree is that the fact that half the team wear spandex or leather into battle now is just plain insanity. In ME1 everyone wore armour except Tali who wore her environmental suit (which are armoured to a degree).

The only squad members who don't wear heavy armour are the ones who can generate barriers with their brains.

You can still hate the council, treat them badly, cut them off, be rude to them, hell, you can even sacrifice them in the end to advance humanities goals. The reason you get no choice to become a Spectre is because you are a soldier following orders. In mass Effect 2 there is no such reason, or any such choice to show that you are anti-Cerberus, "I am not working for them" amounts to "I don't like the way they do things, but we are working for them anyway".

It doesn't matter if they can generate a barrier, the ones in armour also have a tech barrier on top of their armour, it still doesn't make sense, especially when they are going into space such as when boarding the Collector ship. If barriers meant armour wasn't worthwhile then Shepard would not need it either.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

snip

Except for this, if you're complaining that you play pure Paragon or pure Renegade then stop playing it that way. No, you do not have to be either. I have played through with a variety of characters, none of which were pure anything, and the ONLY time I didn't have enough paragon or renegade points to do something, was the scene with Morinth. Either we played completely different games, or you and others like you just assumed this was the case for some reason, and then played pure characters because you thought you had to.

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.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Spoiler: This basically

ME1: Level cap of 60, a dozen abilities to level and a ton of points you can spend on those aforementioned abilities.

ME2: Level cap of 30, a half-dozen abilities to level with those taking up to four points before they become completely matured.

It's difficult to show but ME1 also had dozens-upon-dozens of weapons and, upgrades avalible by a variety of 'companies' which I thought breathed a bit of extra life into the ME Universe. The drawback being, depending on your class you can only really effectively use one or two of the weapon-types.

That's all I've got really. There are more characters in 2 and, I love how you can do paragon/renegade actions during certain conversations. ME1 had infinite ammo going for it though which I sorely miss and won't stop harping on about. I mean it, you can take away my Omni-gel but dammit, I want my infinite ammo back!

 

[DEAD34345]

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.

Then I am incredibly confused, as the only thing I haven't had the points to do is the situation with Morinth. Hell, I've usually had enough points to choose between intimidate or charm. If the difference really is difficulty, I wouldn't know. I played once on insanity (got Garrus and Mordin then decided it wasn't worth the 10000 deaths), and other than that I have only played normal.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

..It dumbed down the series by making the game much easier. I'll be honest in ME1, I had a few things to think about. Logistics mostly. Tactics were also different in ME1. ME2 amounted to "equip gun, shoot enemy."

I'm going to ignore the inventory, taking out micro-managing is not "dumbing it down" that needed to be cut.

The lack of character customization as far as skills go was also made much simpler, not by much, but it didn't allow for half the fun ME1 had in making a character. in ME1 you could be a class, but still branch off and be different. ...in ME2, you pick a class..and Bioware will be god damned if you don't do it their way.

There's less for the player to think on, less decision making. It was dumbed down so people who hate thinking (I'll be nice and say about 80% of all people) can still have fun and not get overwhelmed.

Also:

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

Nothing to do with dumbing it down.

What do you mean? The story and mythology have EVERYTHING to do with it. The story is what Bioware is all about. A well written plot on a solid sci-fi foundation is what evolves it above a simple 'Here are teh enem1es, kill they ass' game. So the fact that it's still there is evidence for it having not been dumbed down.

- there is still a strong emphasis on characterisation

Nothing to do with dumbing it down either, the emphasis stayed. It was just emphasis on something much smaller than before.

Why is it smaller? In ME2 you have more people in your squad, and all of them have been given detailed back stories and are all well fleshed out characters, even the two DLC ones. And as characterisation is a part of the story, see above for why it matters that it is still there.

- the environments are varied and richly detailed

Not dumbign it down either, graphics don't make you smart or stupid. Just like it having an epic story doesn't make it smart or stupid. Or complicated. Unless it's hard to follow...but then it's just poorly written, writing it better wouldn't be dumbing it down unless you're a snob or something >_>

Rich detail helps with immersion (imo anyway). it gives the sense that the designers really cares that you felt like you were actually in a sci-fi fantasy setting, rather than just going through the motions of a game. The variation in the environments also sets it apart from the grey/brown aesthetic of many AAA games. Overall this attention to detail shows that the designers cared about more than just the combat mechanics, just like with the story. So again, it does matter.

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

They had non-linear focus in either game? ...I thought all the side missions were like "GO HERE AND DO THIS IN THIS LONG NARROW HALLWAY. Oh and it branches off to a dead end with some stuff in there if you want it. Enjoy I guess." ..but..yeah you could be onto something with that one...I just don't remember a lot of non-linear gameplay... Unless you mean driving around on planets and probing. ..but...why count those? x.x

I just mean that you could choose when to do missions and in what order (which in the case of Mass Effect is also a factor in the main story missions as well). This level of choice, and the fact that it gives you the opportunity to visit far flung parts of the galaxy that are not part of the main story, adds a level of depth only seen in RPG's and Sandboxes (though not so much non-RPG sandboxes because a lot of the time the side missions in those have no benefit). But still, it is a factor that counters the argument of 'herp derp derp, It's just Shepard meets Gears of War now derpy derpy doo'.

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

They progress, on a much smaller scale is the problem, which takes away from customization. They dumbed that down by taking away many of the choices. ME2 was made for a much wider audience than ME1 was, so they kinda had to cut some stuff out.

OK, this is the one area where I felt they actually did dumb it down significantly, although it was still there and you could buy/research upgrades and new armor pieces. I still don't hold it against them because imo the stats in ME1 were a bit too expansive, and a lot of the areas to sink points into felt kinda arbitrary.