Mass Effect 2 was NOT "dumbed-down"

[Nikolaz72]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

I fixed this for you.

Reported.

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

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

 

[uc.asc]

I fixed this for you.

Reported.

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

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

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

 

[kelevra]

Okay, some great points Mr Jackson.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Altorin]

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

Ok, a little scenario for you.

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

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

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

Now, think of this scenario

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

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

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

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

 

[Altorin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Nikolaz72]

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

Ok, a little scenario for you.

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

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

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

Now, think of this scenario

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Yarpie]

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

I'm with this guy.

 

[Altorin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Hyper-space]

Citizen Snips

5-star post right there.

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

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

Uhhh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

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

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

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

 

[Altorin]

Citizen Snips

5-star post right there.

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

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

Uhhh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

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

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

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

I like you.

 

[Shock and Awe]

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

 

[Indecipherable]

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

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

 

[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)