Mass Effect 2 was NOT "dumbed-down"

[Epic Fail 1977]

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.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I wouldn't say it was dumbed down, most of the RPG elements were streamlined out of the game. It changed from an RPG-Shooter to a Tactical-RPG.

 

[Agayek]

It wasn't dumbed down at all in gameplay mechanics. I quite liked the gameplay and there was absolutely nothing wrong with it.

The problem with ME2 is that they shat all over the story and took one of the best villains in any piece of media I've ever seen and made them pants-on-head retarded.

 

[Mikeyfell]

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.

You forgot to mention the annoying gun leveling system.

You're telling me that Commander Shepard who was a war hero and a professional Infiltrator can't fire his rifle in a strait line until he's level 13?

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

 

[fdbluth]

It really depends on what your definition of an RPG is. If it's all about who's got the best armor, the best gun, the best skills, or generally speaking, the best numbers, then yes, ME2 has become less of an RPG to become more of an action-oriented game.

I, for one, have always thought the point of a Role-Playing Game was the role-playing, a.k.a. the story, and our own role in the story as the character. In that way, ME2 didn't deviate too much from the genre trappings of RPGs. I would go so far as to say that I welcome the direction Bioware is taking its RPGs: streamlining combat while focusing more on characters and letting go of the whole "you're the only one who can save the world" thing.

With that said, ME2 had its flaws, namely its lack of freedom that ME1 provided, which allowed for much more profound immersion. I think people may be confusing that with "dumbing down".

I agree with you wholeheartedly OP, btw, if that wasn't clear.

P.S. I also liked Dragon Age 2, so maybe I'm just one of the "dumb" people.

 

[Eldarion]

/snip

I thought it was dumbed down.

I played an infiltrator. The sniping in mass effect 1 was fun, you had to compensate for rifle sway and recoil against foes that would either take cover or run right at you. Felt great landing that perfect headshot.

In mass effect 2, the rifle sway is gone, the recoil is gone. On top of that, using the scope slows down time, oh you also got a cloak that made all the enemies stop targeting you...that took all the skill and fun out of playing the sniper.

Sorry man, thats pretty dumbed down.

I honestly want someone who played the infiltrator to try and tell me that the mass effect 2 version wasn't dumbed down into something a child could play. Granted it was still a fun game, played it a lot. But its like they thought that the fact that it took timing and skill to play the sniper was a bad thing.

 

[Dark Knifer]

I guess these people think that 'dumbed down' means less stuff in it, even though this improved the experience greatly IMO. I agree with your points OP less things done well is much better then lot's of things done badly.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

I wouldn't say it's dumbed down, it was just made to appeal to a wider audience.

Kinda like EA is doing with ME3.

 

[Phlakes]

The point of RPG elements is progression. In ME1, you start having wear down at Geth Troopers for a while, but by the end you're one-shotting Krogan Warlords. That was the point of the weapon and armor systems. That's the point all leveling in RPGs has. The people who enjoy that kind of thing think ME2 was dumbed down, the people who don't think it was improved.

I don't care, really. Both are great games, but simplifying ME2's formula any more would be very, very bad for the series.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

I'm an elitist PC wanker gamer,

Thank you for saying this.

I have felt this way since I played ME1 (for the story) after loving everything about ME2. I played it on the PS3, though, so my opinion matters not at all to most.

But you, a PC gamer, have said this. So thank you, for saying what the rest of us wanted to say, but would be called trolls for doing so. ^^

And yes, I think WAY more about what I'm doing in ME2 than in ME1.

I noticed the difference the most as an Adept. In ME1, if everything wasn't floating slowly through the air in the first several seconds of combat, I was doing something wrong. In ME2 I can't pull that cheap crap. ^^;; Although having Wide Shockwave and Area Reave... well....

And yes. Once you got Colossus Armor X, you were done. You might as well turn the rest of the loot into OmniGel and never play Frogger again.

The ONLY thing I can think of where the took away a choice was the party balance option.

In ME1, each party member was either Combat, Tech, Biotic, or a combo, and you needed to balance your team.

In ME2, I could pretty much take whomever, because everyone seemed to have a little of everything. Tali and Legion were Techy, sure, but then Legion could shoot as good as Garrus. And Jacob.. he was like a Vangard without shotguns, which was really odd. But, even when I took an all tech or all biotic team, it never really seemed to matter - it just changed the way I handled a given situation.

So in ME1, team choice REALLY mattered, but you had fewer options.
In ME2, team choice matters far less, and you have a ton of options.

... honestly, I liked ME2 better, because I could say "I don't care who I'm fighting - Tali and Garrus AGAIN." Seriously, I play up to Horizon as fast as I can, get Tali, and then nurse the rest of the game taking Tali and Garrus on all the missions (except Loyalties, where I have to take someone else... plus either Garrus or Tali).

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

The point of RPG elements is progression. In ME1, you start having wear down at Geth Troopers for a while, but by the end you're one-shotting Krogan Warlords.

... no you didn't. I mean, yes, there were Krogan at the end, but the enemies all leveled with you. Geth Troopers were just as easy to kill in the first mission on Eden Prime as they were on Ilos. At the end of the game, you had more WAYS to kill them, but they weren't any easier to kill.

 

[Phlakes]

The point of RPG elements is progression. In ME1, you start having wear down at Geth Troopers for a while, but by the end you're one-shotting Krogan Warlords.

... no you didn't. I mean, yes, there were Krogan at the end, but the enemies all leveled with you. Geth Troopers were just as easy to kill in the first mission on Eden Prime as they were on Ilos. At the end of the game, you had more WAYS to kill them, but they weren't any easier to kill.

No, the types of enemies leveled with you. All enemies keep the same health and damage, but you start facing stronger enemies. That's why there are a bunch of Juggernauts and Rocket Troopers in the last few missions.

 

[Saelune]

I was a sentinel. My abillities mattered. Yes I spammed every move once it happened, I had to. Just like a soldier shoots his gun as much as he can. I basically became a handicapped shooter in ME2 who occasionally did some ability. I can agree on some of what was gone being better. The inventory in 1 was cluttered beyond belief. There was some worthwhile stripping needed done, but ME2 went far beyond what they should have. Maybe some classes fared better, but Sentinel is not one of them.

 

[Zakarath]

I felt it was dumbed down somewhat, in that it did take options away from you. In ME1, while the inventory system had it faults, I still liked it. I enjoyed taking every little bit of loot and selling all of it so I could buy an HMWSR (Spectre Sniper Rifle) way ahead of the curve. Choosing what mods I wanted for my gear did allow for a greater variety of play styles, and having all the skills not lumped together meant you had many more paths to follow. In ME2, all of that was gone. It was certainly streamlined, and I did still enjoy it. I even thought I enjoyed it more than ME1... until I started up a new ME1 playthrough a while back and realized what I'd been missing. Playing an adept with my bonus skill being a specialization in sniper rifles was pretty hilarious. Ans so was the HE ammo. The HE ammo was awesome.

 

[Canadish]

*sigh*
You know, judging by the insult at the top of your post, I assume your a moron assuming that all the hate towards the dumbing down of Bioware is being hurled by PC gamers.
I'd like to say I'm a pure console gamer, and I'm also pissed off.

Now, to briefly go over the basics of why Mass Effect to was dumbed down:

A fair few things were cut.
Mass Effect 1 skills:

Mass Effect 2 skills:

You mentioned that you never used all your skills at once.
I'll have to correct you and add that, yes you could.
Combining Biotic powers was great fun.
Lifting enemies into the air and then using a force push to send em flying.
Using singularity to draw them together and blasting a Shotgun rocket into the mass.
Or just lifting an entire room into the air with various Biotics, activating all your damage buffs and start blowing them all apart.

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.

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.
This also lead to the utter idiocy of having the female characters surviving the vacuum of space with nothing but a breather mask.
After all, players will get bored if the tits are covered up right brah?

Oh, and the weapon mods were gone because of this as well.
Which meant rather then having my own gun which suited my play style, I was forced to use standard issue cookie cutter ones. Again, less freedom, less variety, less RPG.

Combat was more focused on cover based shooting. It was much smoother, and I liked it...
But it lost the variety of the first game. That one had enemies that could crawl on the ceiling and snipe, the Krogan were lighting fast melee chargers, more large enemies like Geth Colossus, the environments were not all corridors but instead there were many open spaces and the Geth were just generally more interesting then the Blue Suns/Blood pack.
All the enemies in Mass Effect 2 operated the same.

There was a lack of quest variety. Almost all quests involved mass amounts of shooting corridors and killing. Not as bad as Dragon Age 2, but still more then Mass Effect 1.
The first game had quiet a few quests where you didn't shoot anyone at all and instead had to use your wits and silver tongue.

The Mako was cut in favor of Planet Scanning. Again, lack of gameplay variety. Sense of grandure and exploration lost, even if the Mako did handle like a toaster on wheels.
And planet scanning was boring.
They could have focused on improving the Mako, rather then just scraping it.

The main plot really didn't hold up under scrutiny. Go read Shamus Young's article for a full break down. It's a entertaining and interesting read.
Or watch his show "Spoiler Warning" if you'd rather watch a video.
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=7004
http://www.shamusyoung.com/spoilerwarning/

The collecters and Harbinger were failures and generated no threat.
Compared to Saren, a worthy rival, and Sovereign, famous for the chilling speech about the Reapers motivations. Which leads to...

The awful and silly tacked on final boss. Which also ruined the whole enigma the Reapers had built up. Worst of all, people were laughing, rather then chilled.

Those are some abridged notes on how it was dumbed down.
On the whole, Mass Effect 2 streamlined rather well. Better then Dragon Age 2 and some other titles. Much better actually, presentation and the shooting mechanics were slick.
But it lost alot of the other things that made it great, unique and epic in scope.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Choosing what mods I wanted for my gear did allow for a greater variety of play styles

This one I can agree with, to an extent. There were a limited number of slots for armor/weapon mods, and a lot of different mod types to put in them, so choosing which mods to use was a true choice with actual depth. It's just a shame that the mods didn't make enough difference to be worth agonizing over.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

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.