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

[RanD00M]

It completely scrapped the inventory system. It did need a little redefining, but just throwing it out the window is not they way to go.

The choices you make don't seems to have as much affect on you at all, and are way too black and white compared to the first one, which was black and white enough.

Many conversations felt pointless and there are some that were just plain retarded in their execution.

The ammo system is pointless. You find bullets by the shit load so you never run out. At least overheating your gun in ME1 could fuck you a little over, even if by so little.

My squad mates were just there in ME2. The only thing they did was accompany me through the game and to the suicide mission. In ME1 I felt like they had an impact on combat, and that they were useful. I never once used a companion ability in ME2 but I did it multiple times in ME1.

It is a lot easier, or I found so at least. The combat is easier and cocking up a conversation to a degree where it comes to bite you in the ass felt impossible in ME2, while in ME1 it was possible.

The leveling up and skill system felt unnecessary.

The story was a lot weaker than the epic story of morals and doing whats right despite it being wrong of the first game.

One small nitpick before the end. When I do the genophage mission on the Krogan planet, why is it considered evil to shoot out that gas tank beneath the bad guy there? It might have been dishonourable but it was not evil.

A SYMPATHETIC AND IDENTIFIABLE VILLAIN. You could honestly feel bad for Saren when you learned his motif and you could put a face on him. You could understand where he was coming from and how he thought he was doing the right thing.

 

[Ranorak]

[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.

Oh, I'm going to quote you.
But not the way you thought I would.

I agree.
ME-2 did everything better then ME1.
I would have liked the mod system to stay, but alas, that would be my only loss.

It wasn't dumbed down. Get over yourself.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

My main problem with ME2 was the plot. Everyone acted stupid and there was no central antagonist. Did I prefer ME's overall gameplay to ME2's? Yes. Did I get over it? Yes. I hate how the story of the damn game is praised.

 

[bob-2000]

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.

The speech skills were essentially paragon and renegade points as they appeared in proportion to your p/r status. The only difference is that you had to spend your points on them.

Essentially this is 'Dragon Age 2' syndrome that most people here have. "Oh nooo! They took out the absurd, unnecessary parts of the game that had no place there in the first place! I think I'll point out petty, trivial flaws and act as these break the entire game.". This mentality is neither reasonable, nor does it bring about any legitimate reasons why the game is bad.

 

[Ranorak]

It completely scrapped the inventory system. It did need a little redefining, but just throwing it out the window is not they way to go.

They didn't.

If for some randomly stupid reason you wanted to use your older, weaker gun, you could still select it in the weapon list.

They changed the different armour colours into a fully custimizable paint job system.
And you still get new and better equipment as you progress along the way.
The only difference is, you now alter your already existing equipment instead of finding pre-set loot that magicly was your size and intact.

You see, plot wise it made NO sense for Shepard to start with a crappy pistol and crappy skills at the start of ME1. (S)he was a fully trained soldier and already a candidate for the Spectre program.
Now give me one good reason why he should train those exact same skills back at ME2.
"Because Cerber-" No, shut up, Cerberus made Shepard exactly the way he was at the end of ME1, he wouldn't have lost his skills.
"Other RPG's make you lose your skills when they make a sequel." So?

 

[Worgen]

it was dumbed down but I think it was the plot that was dumbed down the most, I mean the original game was pretty good and tight about things but so much of the me2 plot doesnt make sense, like cerebus suddenly being this super organization when in the original they were just kind of idiots, how the elusive man kept lying to shepard despite the fact he also felt the need to not implant shepard with anything, all the bitching people do about having to work outside the system when thats pretty much what the specters were all about and suddenly everyone deciding that the reapers dont exist even after the main "city" was half blown to hell by one

to me it reeks of a series that wanted to do certain things but decided to stop thinking about why they were doing said things and Im worried that me3 will be worse about it, from the looks of it, the plot will be massively stupid

 

[linwolf]

For me it comes down to this.
I like RPGs, ME1 is a RPG with shooter in it.
I dislike shooters, ME2 is a shooter with RPG elements in it.

When they made ME2, they made it a pure shooter there are no way around this. In this process most of the RPG elements from the first was removed and replaced with noting. And that of me is of me is dumbing it down.

 

[The Abhorrent]

"Dumbing down" is an over-used term as it is, usually just thrown out when an old-school RPG purist (read: user of poor logic) is unhappy with things being more streamlined in gaming these days. The only real difference is that the numbers are pushed further into the background, and quite frankly it's not numbers being right in front of you all the time which should be considered the definition of an RPG.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
"RPG" stands for "Role-Playing Game", not "Roll-Playing Game".


As for Mass Effect 2, what was done with the gameplay was it being streamlined. They trimmed away a lot of the negative aspects of first game, resulting in a brilliant experience for combat. However, I would like to say that Bioware over-did it a bit; the combat itself is perfectly fine... it's some of the non-combat aspects of the game which got a bit too streamlined.

Here's the main changes I disliked about ME2:

The Removal of Upgrade Slots
I believe this was one of the first things to be addressed when ME3 was announced, but the main thing here is that upgrade slots allowed you to tweak your gear that much more. All the different ranks was probably a bit superfluous (especially with the clunky inventory which can't be sorted), but simply the option to change the functionality of a weapon that little bit made ME1's customization that much more interesting. Also, I very much prefer ammo slots to ammo powers.

More Linear Level Design
That and shorter levels in general, and this is mostly concerning the main storyline missions. While there are MUCH more levels in ME2, and the fact you can do just about all of them in any order, they're all very linear in their design. ME1 gave you more options for how to do each mission, and one of the best examples is on Noveria: no less than three ways to get the garage pass (to access the labs), and getting into the hot lab has multiple access routes as well. ME1 may have been a shorter game, but there was more variance (different gameplay styles between the classes not withstanding) in how you could accomplish those few missions.

Addition of Thermal Clips
Mostly a pet-peeve, but I liked the heat build-up system from the first game; I didn't have to go around looking for clips on the ground. And to tell the truth, many of the sections of ME2 had respawning thermal clips... so yeah, what was the point of adding them other than to make ME2 conform with to more standard shooter mechanics?

Removal of Vehicle Sections
While this was somewhat re-implemented with the Overlord DLC, and the fact the Mako was very clunky (and occassionally a bit buggy)... it changed up the gameplay a bit, you weren't always doing the standard shooter thing. Removing all the side missions on the out-of-the-way planets was a mild annoyance as well (aside from the cookie-cutter environments). I didn't mind the Mako, and maybe I'm a tad crazy because of that.

Better Crafted Storyline
ME2 focused primarily on your squadmates, which wasn't a bad idea but it did push the main conflict of the game to the side for most of it. You only encounter the Collectors on the select few missions dedicated to them, they only get a passing mention otherwise; and the Reapers' involvement is minimal. As interesting as it was to flesh out the crew, the plot lacked a cohesive momentum. ME1 had a better storyline by having all of the core missions draw back the primary objective: Stop Saren (and the Reapers). Each of the four primary missions all contained part of the puzzle needed for you to get to Ilos: you need Liara to understand your vision (Therum?), the location of a lost mass relay (Noveria), the ability to decode the vision (Feros), and the second half of the vision you first received on Eden Prime (Virmire). Fighting geth all the time may have made things a tad monotonous (though there was a good variance of them), but it ensured that the main missions all had a link to Saren as well. Anyhow, ME1's storyline was more coherent.


Anyhow, that isn't to say I didn't enjoy ME2. In fact, I think it did a lot of things better than ME1. The weapons each have a more-or-less unique functionality, compared to simply the stats being changed. The combat itself is much smoother and enjoyable, even if you weren't allowed to fiddle with the upgrade slots. Interrupts are a great addition to the dialogue system. ME2 is more fun to play (as a minute-to-minute experience) than it's predecessor, but ME1 had more depth to it (which is why I've replayed it more often).

All ME3 just has to strike the balance between the two (ME1's more ambitious design with ME2's better gameplay) and it'll be damned near-perfect.

 

[4RM3D]

First off, I don't think Mass Effect 2 is a bad game. I enjoyed it, but could have been a lot better.

People use the phrase 'dumbed down' to describe how the gameplay has become more action centric with less RPG elements. At first that seems easy enough to understand, but on closer inspection I really don't think that means it has dumbed down.

/rant
No, but EA wants a big an audience as possible; they want the game to be attractive to everyone. So they had to "smooth" things out what could normally repel casual gamers. Incidentally that also meant another shift from RPG to action.

This trend is a hot topic with gamers. Games are reaching a bigger audience now that also includes casual gamers. And game companies have been noticing how profitable that market has become. And they all want a piece of it. Games like Mass Effect get pulled into that vortex.

Now I understand it's all about the money. But you would think the big companies would try to invest in something new. Instead you see indie developers come up with new game concepts and try to realize those with a budget 1/50 of that Mass Effect 2. And they usually succeed. I can only imagine what would happen if certain indie developers get a budget like that of Mass Effect 2. A new Holy Grail could have been made. Instead we get Call of Duty 5812 and counting. More overhyped cash cows.

The gaming days of old did have their issues and a lot has improved over the years. But some, if not all, of the magic has been lost. (R.I.P. SNES and Black Isle)

About your point...

All the things that make RPG's the deep and 'smart' experiences that they are are still present in Mass Effect 2.

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

I disagree. The story is like a generic Sci-Fi flick and the way the story is told is mostly very simple and straight forward, not taking full potential of the fact its a game not a movie.

They did write some background info, or mythology if you will, you can gather while exploring. So that's at least something. But they could have incorporated it into the game better.

- there is still a strong emphasis on characterisation

That's at least one thing that has remained the same with Bioware games.

- the Galaxy Map still makes the world feel appropriately huge

- the environments are varied and richly detailed

"feel" is the key word here. Because the actual world you can play in is very small and very linear. The environments might be varied and detailed, but they don't give a lot of space to move in. It reminds me of the Gears of War hit and run gameplay. What I want to see is a more open world to explore, not just pretty pictures of planets you can NOT visited.

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

*cough* Planescape: Torment *cough*
Anyhow, the dialogue is mostly interesting and pretty well written. Though I personally didn't like the standardization of the dialogue options, e.g. the first is good, the 2nd neutral, the 3rd bad.

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

Yes, that is an improvement over Mass Effect 1.

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

Yes, but it's only become a very small part of the whole and it has been made very simply and, incidentally, also very unbalanced.

I guess as long as I think of Mass Effect 2 as a shooter with a few RPG elements, it's not a bad game.

 

[DustyDrB]

[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.

Oh, I'm going to quote you.
But not the way you thought I would.

I agree.
ME-2 did everything better then ME1.
I would have liked the mod system to stay, but alas, that would be my only loss.

It wasn't dumbed down. Get over yourself.

[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.

Oh, I'm going to quote you.
But not the way you thought I would.

I agree.
ME-2 did everything better then ME1.
I would have liked the mod system to stay, but alas, that would be my only loss.

It wasn't dumbed down. Get over yourself.

[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.

Oh, I'm going to quote you.
But not the way you thought I would.

I agree.
ME-2 did everything better then ME1.
I would have liked the mod system to stay, but alas, that would be my only loss.

It wasn't dumbed down. Get over yourself.

I'm agreeing with the two of you...mostly. I've said it before:
Mass Effect's inventory was bad because it was overabundant without providing any depth or true choice (it was ALWAYS clear cut which armor/weapons/mods were better. There were very few instances where one would have advantages and another would have different, but equal advantages). Mass Effect 2's inventory was bad because it was nonexistent.

Mass Effect's leveling erred on the side of making improvements extremely incremental, without providing very much variety. Mass Effect 2's leveling wasn't incremental enough and also didn't provide much variety.

People are way to revisionist about Mass Effect. It wasn't deeper than the second game, it was just flawed in different ways.

 

[Flare_Dragon123]

I wish I could point out or say something that hasn't already been said. In the end it comes down to taste, and what Mass Effect 1 had that Mass Effect 2 DIDN'T have was a unique feeling experience.

Sure, that experience was chock full of unnecessary and unimaginative complications (seriously don't just add another roman numeral to the end of the thing, come up with a new name for the damn equipment at least) and haveing X ranks of everything was completely worthless and unnecessary when all they were really doing was gaging what level the player was and giving them more powerful loot (there should be a chance to get rare and or epic items that set you above the level while everything else keeps you about par, at least in perfectly balanced game world) but that didn't change the fact that those, way over done, way too tedious, way too complicated exercises made the gameplay in Mass Effect 1 unique.

Mass Effect 2 however, just felt like the complete opposite. They traded completely over done, tedious and complicated with under done, click a button, completely simple choices that really didn't matter. I think I spent about 10 minutes in all of Mass Effect deciding what do to with my character. They didn't need to take it that far, and what came out of it was the complaint (by gamers like me) that the game was "dumbing down" too much because it now feels exactly like every Gears of War Call of Duty clone out there, even though its still my Mass Effect Universe. It's now become every space trooper game made in the last 6 years, so now my gameplay has to be sold to the masses rather than made to suit me, to suit itself?

What Bioware did was sell it to the masses, this wasn't similar to saying like Green Day sold out because they wrote a song they wanted to write, Bioware specifically targetted the masses with their new system and that for one PISSED ME OFF! Mass Effect was a big game, big big game, it was one of the most popular games on the face of gaming despite its flaws. Everyone loved it and everyone was going to play and buy the sequel anyways, SO WHY THE **** would they go mainstream now? They pushed for that, and from the sounds of Mass Effect 3 they plan on putting even less hard work into that, so as far as I'm concered, what ev. I'm going to play the game either way but they need to figure themselves out, and if this is where they plan on going with it then I plan on letting them know that they are just clones of the big AAA industry, and against most things I stand for on the platform of innovative artistry.

But damn that game is going to be epic.

 

[oplinger]

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".
.

You get no choice to work with Cerberus because you need Cerberus. That's explained. Just like you needed to become a Spectre to have the access to -everything- in order to catch Saren. Cerberus gives you the equipment, the information, and the resources you need to achieve the goal you're after anyway. If you were like "Screw you Cerberus! D:<" and left. You wouldn't have stood a chance.

 

[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.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

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.

Well, seem as Bioware let you import your entire codex from ME1 to ME2 along with everything else, that would suggest they were still taking the detail of the first gamer into account.

I guess Bioware are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Yes, there was a tonal shift, but if there hadn't been people would have just got pissy with the old sequel argument of 'They're just selling us the same game for full price again!'.

In regards to Cerberus... In the first game you learn nothing about their command structure or the true extent of their organisation's reach. So who's to say they were ever meant to be just a terrorist organisation. They were large and well resourced enough to track down, abduct, and kill an Admiral in the Alliance Navy in what must have been a matter of day's, so they can't have been that small, and who's to say they couldn't have grown in the 2 years that Shepard was dead.

As far as the plot goes... No, you don't slow the Reaper advance or do anything quite as significant as the end of the first game. But of course you don't, the second installment of a trilogy isn't supposed to be as climactic as the first or third. And you do still deal the Reapers a blow. Although they would never admit it, the Reapers are scared of facing humanity in a fair fight after what you did to Sovereign, so they try to use the Collectors to subtly remove humans from the picture, paving the way for the invasion. They also want to use human genetic material to create the next generation of Reaper, the logic being that they will become stronger if they use the DNA of their strongest adversaries.

This is just my opinion, but I thought the dialouge added pacing far better than the vehicle sections or the equipment swapping did, which is what I was referring to by 'faffing about'. and the dialouge is still there in ME2.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

-They removed the Experience system in favor of "grats you beat a level, here's a level-up!". It's amazing how much this detracts from my enjoyment of shooting dudes in the face.

-They removed the inventory entirely in favor of one of the worst materials and upgrades systems I've ever seen in a game. I'm not sure who at Bioware thought planet scanning was a good idea, but I sincerely hope they lost their job.

-The story was mediocre at best in my opinion. It was told very well as usual from Bioware, but the plot itself was a letdown.

-Slimmed down skill trees. I enjoyed the power evolutions, but it would be nice if there were a few more options so that you could actually customize a character to your liking. By L30 in ME2 you could max all but one skill.

ME2 was still an incredible game though.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The biggest mistake ME2 made was having to many fucking team members.

I've played it through a few times, and everytime I started a new game I felt a sense of exhaustion washing over me at thought of having to once agian pick up every team member, and then later on be submitted to those fucking personal missions again.

I ultimately don't really care that much how complicated are simplified a game is, but please just make the gameplay diverse enough. Especially with a game like Mass Effect 2 where you'll want to play it through multiple times to experience all the choices.

 

[UnderCoverGuest]

Had this conversation with a buddy the other day.

Mass Effect 1 = Sci-fi Adventure
Mass Effect 2 = Action Thriller

Mass Effect 1 was Mass Of Knights Old Republic Effect, but had that space adventure feeling. Mass Effect 2 is Mass of Gears of War Effect...2.

Both great games though. Just finished ME1 again (this time taking my time and finding all the side missions) and am starting on ME2 again (using same formula).

 

[Fursnake]

I found the planet scanning mechanic in ME2 to be far more boring then driving the Mako around planet surfaces in ME1, even if the Mako did perform like a twice drunken pillbug. I didn't mind the lack of real inventory and the weapon/armor upgrade system. In fact I am rather tired of endless gear hunts in games and always swapping out old gear for new gear, Iwould prefer to see more limited weapons/armor collections and have extensive upgrading, customizing and modifying of failry static weapons and armor. The character/skill mechanics in ME2 felt as minimal as ME1. The combat didn't feel a little slower than ME1 because of the extensive emphasis on cover mechanics. ME2 was a decent game but didn't really wow me in the manner of ME1. The story was decent and kept me going until the end though, just like ME1. However the end battle felt very console-ish and reminded me more of Super Contra than anything, it was kind of disappointing.

 

[-Dragmire-]

- Mass Effect 1 allowed me to drive around featureless mountain ranges and raid a series of identical bases. Deep, I tell you!

Don't you think it would have been better to use this as a starting point and improving it? Identical bases is a limitation that was no longer a problem in ME2. Enough random bases with resources would have taken away the need of the planet scanning mechanic.


... I wanted Wrex to wear space crocs...

I prefer to level up based on enemies killed, not stages completed.

 

[Kathinka]

the dumbing down didn't start with me2. the first part was already heavily..."simplified" for console audiences, if you compare it to the usual bioware/black isle/obsidian rpg's. just gameplaywise i mean, story and dialogue and such is great.

still a great game.