Mass Effect 2 was NOT "dumbed-down"

[Epic Fail 1977]

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.

thats dumbing down. whether you think thats a good thing or not, and you are quite welcome to think so, is irrelevant; its the definition of dumbing down.

No, it isn't. The key is in the name: dumbing down. That which requires less intelligence. Tell me how the "exact same concept with the exact same results" can require any less intelligence.

 

[Eldarion]

No, it isn't. The key is in the name: dumbing down. That which requires less intelligence. Tell me how the "exact same concept with the exact same results" can require any less intelligence.

Are you kidding? If you come to the same result you didn't have to think less?

So if the game auto aimed at the bad guys for you that would not require less thought than aiming at them yourself? They die either way right? Thats what your saying.

How is planet scanning not dumbed down compared to the mako? You had to fight in the mako, dodge rockets, shoot bad guys. Planet scanning needed no thought at all, you just scanned till it told you to stop.

 

[Ozzythecat]

I never really though that ME2 was "dumbed-down", because like the OP said a lot of the "choices" removed didn't make the game easier or any less "deep". I do however believe that the game was over-streamlined, like the complete lack of an inventory and a massive cut to the skill list and other things.

One of ME's biggest failings was the inventory in my opinion, mainly because everyone and their mothers cat dropped a million Fking guns and mods when they died to the point that I spent more time selling loot than doing mission. That doesn't mean the whole system should have been removed, I would have like it if they had reduced the amount of guns in the game but made them much more different. One thing I loved about ME2 was the variety and quantity that the Heavy Weapons had, I would like to have seen more and diverse regular weapons as well, because even though it was a minor choice I felt like I didn't have much choice for weapons in ME2. It also would have been nice to have not seen Mods removed also.

I'm hoping ME3 will have kind a middle ground between ME's "arbitrary" depth and ME2's "Streamlined Protocol".

That's my two cents

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

No, it isn't. The key is in the name: dumbing down. That which requires less intelligence. Tell me how the "exact same concept with the exact same results" can require any less intelligence.

Are you kidding? If you come to the same result you didn't have to think less?

So if the game auto aimed at the bad guys for you that would not require less thought than aiming at them yourself? They die either way right? Thats what your saying.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and I have no idea how you got from the inventory system to auto-aiming.

 

[Eldarion]

No, it isn't. The key is in the name: dumbing down. That which requires less intelligence. Tell me how the "exact same concept with the exact same results" can require any less intelligence.

Are you kidding? If you come to the same result you didn't have to think less?

So if the game auto aimed at the bad guys for you that would not require less thought than aiming at them yourself? They die either way right? Thats what your saying.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and have no idea how got from the inventory system to auto-aiming.

Avoiding the point then, fine.

You said-Tell me how the "exact same concept with the exact same results" can require any less intelligence.

So I used an example to explain why that is silly.

 

[Vault101]

eh

bottom line haters gonna hate,and lovers gonna love and "fans" need to stop having rage attacks over nothing

and ME3 is going to be awsome

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

No, it isn't. The key is in the name: dumbing down. That which requires less intelligence. Tell me how the "exact same concept with the exact same results" can require any less intelligence.

Are you kidding? If you come to the same result you didn't have to think less?

So if the game auto aimed at the bad guys for you that would not require less thought than aiming at them yourself? They die either way right? Thats what your saying.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and have no idea how got from the inventory system to auto-aiming.

Avoiding the point then, fine.

You said-Tell me how the "exact same concept with the exact same results" can require any less intelligence.

So I used an example to explain why that is silly.

But your example does not satisfy your own criteria: "exact same concept with the exact same results". Having the computer aim for you is not the same as aiming yourself, and it does not have the same results (if you aim yourself, you'll sometimes miss). More relevantly to this conversation, having the computer aiming removes player choices (those things I keep banging on about) such as which target to aim at.

Now if I could play a shooter where the computer aimed for me, but I chose the weapon, where my character moved, which target he shoots at, and made all the other intelligent decisions, then no, I would not say that that game was dumbed down.

 

[Zhukov]

*gasp*

What are you talking about? It was totally dumbed down!

For example, in Mass Effect 1 I got to switch my Heat Sink II for a Heat Sink III. It was all so very deep and complex!

And don't forget the inventory system. Remember how you got to accumulate several dozen useless items for every one that you might actually use? Then you got to go through the thrilling process of selling them all to the nearest vendor to clear the inventory space for more useless items. And then once you unlocked the spectre weapons it all became completely obsolete anyway. Awesome stuff!

Ohh ohh, and the skill system. After all, nothing beats the absolute game-changer that resulted from adding 2% to my throw strength.

Oh, and for the icing on the cake, I got to drive around twenty different featureless pallette swapped planets in a tank with dodgy physics. Now that's what I call depth!

...

In all seriousness, I loved ME1 despite it's flaws. But I am thankful that they trimmed off the fat for ME2 and consider the sequel to be better in every way. If that's what people are referring to when they say "dumbed down", then I say bring on the dumb!

 

[Lyri]

*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.

Arrgh a decent argument and I need to play "That internet guy" and be the other side to your coin.
So without further ado.
I'm just going to use headings and you can follow on from your post onto mine, saves me dicking around with quotes.

Powers
Let's be honest Mass Effect 1 did not need ALL those powers. Depending on your class depends on what you do.
I'll take my girlfriends class and character of fem shep infiltrator and here's the thing. As a total novice to playing a on a keyboard and mouse system she struggles with this kind of game play.
ME1 had notoriously silly AI and the enemies are no exception here, yet her choice of powers is limited to 2 things mostly.
Marksman and Singularity, she'll only ever stray from those if she needs something on the fly.
She doesn't need those extras, not saying ME should only have 2 powers but lets face it. It's a messy amount and half aren't required.
The tech ones just boggle me for the most part, I don't even know what they do.

ME2 all the powers had a purpose that was clearly definable and noticeable, biotic has a barrier up? No problem, warp him.
Engineer is running towards you guns blazing, sunlight glaring off his swanky tech armour? chuck an overload on him.
It works, it's streamlined and most of all it makes sense. Having 12 powers is great, less so when you only use 2 of them. (No, I didn't count the actual amount)

Karma
I'm not entirely certain what the kerfuffle is here. The points systems in both games are completely the same, well and truly.
Mass Effect one just has a little bar that you adjust yourself. If you go renegade you're just as much of an ass hole than in the second game.
So no, you're not making any point here other than "They removed my visual representation and I can't put points where I want"
*Hint: Make different choices when it comes to it, you can play morally grey Shepard by -being- morally grey and not by how many points you have.

Invent
I actually liked it but I don't see a problem with it disappearing either. Again it makes sense to do so, there was a tonne of useless crap in it.
They removed all the useless stuff and just kept the good parts, the guns. That's all you needed, in ME1 the only decent thing to do was to stick acid ammo in all your guns and burn holes in people.
Again, my girl is discovering this herself. She hasn't any need to swap anything over at all because she knows her team will just destroy stuff already.
The weapon mods are entirely pointless besides adding an instant death mechanic to shots.

Combat
I think it got smoother because of an improvement of AI, some of the enemies in ME1 just bumrushed you for no reason. They just ran.
At least in ME2 when a Krogan charges at you the shoes fits. That aside, I liked both sections of combat but no matter how we look at it combat in both games was repetitive.
Corridors and open spaces both of them, there's no real argument to "Just filling corridors" Mass Effect has always been so.

Quests
I agree but the side quests became a tool for more personal insight into our companions, the shooting just acted as filler.

The Mako
Yeah, Planet sweeping was dumb as balls. The mako was bad but sweeping for minerals was just painful.

I'm tired, some stuff may have gotten lost in all of that.Brain melting.
Bllaaaargh.

 

[crudus]

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.

I actually never noticed a difference in the sniping from ME1 to ME2(I played ME2 on a computer and ME1 on Xbox. That might have something to do with it). Although you do realize you only got those things to set the infiltrator class apart from the others, right? I always played an adept and I actually found battles to be a lot harder since I had to choose when to throw what power.

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.

You can actually see the same argument happen in WoW. A lot of people thought that the less buttons you had to press meant your class was easier to play or "dumbed down". It either happened over time or from class to class.

 

[uc.asc]

*gasp*

What are you talking about? It was totally dumbed down!

For example, in Mass Effect 1 I got to switch my Heat Sink II for a Heat Sink III. It was all so very deep and complex!

And don't forget the inventory system. Remember how you got to accumulate several dozen useless items for every one that you might actually use? Then you got to go through the thrilling process of selling them all to the nearest vendor to clear the inventory space for more useless items. And then once you unlocked the spectre weapons it all became completely obsolete anyway. Awesome stuff!

Ohh ohh, and the skill system. After all, nothing beats the absolute game-changer that resulted from adding 2% to my throw strength.

Oh, and for the icing on the cake, I got to drive around twenty different featureless pallette swapped planets in a tank with dodgy physics. Now that's what I call depth!

...

In all seriousness, I loved ME1 despite it's flaws. But I am thankful that they trimmed off the fat for ME2 and consider the sequel to be better in every way.

Murrrrr makes me cry

I'm pretty sure most of this is facetious, but you remember in ME1 that planet with the spectacular binary star system, with a blue dwarf and a red giant? The physics may have been dodgy, but it enabled amazing scenery which is conspicuously absent from ME2. ME2 gives you... florida, complete with palm trees. And a few deserts.

ME1 was far from perfect, but they also threw a lot of good stuff out and I don't think that not having to press 'sell' really fast every couple of hours makes up for it.

 

[Eldarion]

No, it isn't. The key is in the name: dumbing down. That which requires less intelligence. Tell me how the "exact same concept with the exact same results" can require any less intelligence.

Are you kidding? If you come to the same result you didn't have to think less?

So if the game auto aimed at the bad guys for you that would not require less thought than aiming at them yourself? They die either way right? Thats what your saying.

No, that's not what I'm saying, and have no idea how got from the inventory system to auto-aiming.

Avoiding the point then, fine.

You said-Tell me how the "exact same concept with the exact same results" can require any less intelligence.

So I used an example to explain why that is silly.

But your example does not satisfy your own criteria: "exact same concept with the exact same results". Having the computer aim for you is not the same as aiming yourself, and it does not have the same results (if you aim yourself, you'll sometimes miss).

You played a vanguard didn't you?

If I aim myself with my infiltrator, I don't miss. Even if I did, thats not important. Arguing semantics isn't getting us anywhere.

The fact is, several gameplay elements did in fact get dumbed down. The inventory system was annoying, happy to be rid of it. The skill tree wasn't a big deal cause everyone used the same one at the end anyway. But weapon mods mattered more in the first game, the removal of rifle sway and time dilation on the scope made sniping stupid easy.

Mass effect 2 had its strengths, I just don't think the new combat system was one of them.

 

[MercurySteam]

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.

I can't be the only one who thought the rifle sway was the most annoying thing on the planet (or in the galaxy, whatever). ME2 sniping was great because I actually felt like a sniper and not someone who was waiting for another swing to come around so that I could try the same shot for the hundredth time. Headshots were satisfying and the recoil was there, it just wasn't noticeable because by the time you had reloaded the reticule was back to it's regular size.

So uh, yeah, ME2 Infiltrator is made of win.

 

[uc.asc]

The tech ones just boggle me for the most part, I don't even know what they do.

The one with a broken shield breaks shields. The one with a broken bullet breaks guns. The other one breaks biotics.

It took me several playthrough to figure that out

 

[Korolev]

Some people like choice for choice's sake. ME1 had more choice than ME2 in terms of how you played it. I've played ME1 again, like you, about a half dozen times. An Adept in ME1 handles A LOT differently than a Soldier in ME1, whereas a adept in ME2 handles about the same as a soldier in ME2, except that they don't have as many weapons and a few more abilities. With an adept in ME2, I can play pretty much as I did as a soldier in ME2 (charge in, shoot some guys, use powers, move to another piece of cover, shoot some more guys). With the adept class in ME1, you COULDN'T play like a soldier - you'd be eaten up in no time.

ME2 was more restrictive. Was it "dumbed down"? That's a pejorative term hurled out to make fans of the new stuff feel stupid. Frankly, it was not "dumbed" down. It was simplified and stream-lined. "Dumbing down" implies that they reduced complexity to allow "stupid" people to enjoy it, but if you thought it required ANY great deal of intelligence to play ME1, you're arrogant. You can't "dumb down" something that was never very complex, or required a great intelligence to play with in the first place.

Understanding protein folding or the role macrophages have in bone micro-environments and prostate cancer metastasis (to the bone) requires intelligence.

But does playing ME1 require "intelligence"? In fact, does playing any sort of video game require a mental ability greater than basic pattern recognition? Don't make me laugh. A high-school drop out could play ME1 and finish it easily. A lot of PC gamers have this idea that somehow they are "smarter" than console gamers, as if playing a PC RPG actually requires a great deal of intelligence. I'm sorry, but you really think that playing Dragon Age: Origins is the mental equivalent of reading Polybius's "The Histories" or solving physics problems with Calculus, you're super arrogant.

ME2 was simplified. Can you really dumb down something that was never very "smart" to being with? Don't get me wrong, the Mass Effect universe IS very interesting and well crafted and it has a pretty good story and interesting characters. But ME1 was not very complex, mechanically speaking. If it was as complex as some fans make it out to be, I can guarantee you it wouldn't have been as popular as it was.

PC players, stop think that just because you can handle Dragon Age: Origins somehow makes you more intelligent than those who play Halo or God of War. PC players are no more intelligent than console players, or vice-versa. They might be slightly richer, or maybe they have more time on their hands, or maybe they're more familiar with PC equipment. But none of that indicates that they have a superior intellect.

I've met scientists. You could even say I am one (I'm a PhD student, so technically I'm a scientist-in-training). And I have to say to you that if you think PC RPGs require any sort of special intelligence to handle, you obviously haven't tried to handle any serious intellectual problems. Again - designing an assay to test the toxicity and membrane-crossing potential of rationally designed inhibitors? Complex. Learning what buttons to press to defeat the virtual dragon or space wizard? Not that complex. Believe me. I play games like ME1 to get AWAY from complex thinking.

 

[uc.asc]

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.

I can't be the only one who thought the rifle sway was the most annoying thing on the planet (or in the galaxy, whatever). ME2 sniping was great because I actually felt like a sniper and not someone who was waiting for another swing to come around so that I could try the same shot for the hundredth time. Headshots were satisfying and the recoil was there, it just wasn't noticeable because by the time you had reloaded the reticule was back to it's regular size.

So uh, yeah, ME2 Infiltrator is made of win.

Imma go ahead and copy from the other ME2 flame war that I'm in at the moment.

Using the example of sniper rifles to compare the two games, in ME1 they were initially tricky to use, yet effective with some luck, and over the course of the game became devastating and highly accurate with investment in the skill and appropriate weapon configuration. In ME2 you dropped a few points into the rifle skill at the beginning and spent the rest of the game grinding instakill headshots.

It's completely accurate to say that the ME2 infiltrator is made of win, but I found the gameplay to be tedious and excessively easy. In ME1 I never found that rifle swing caused me to miss so much as it make the shot take longer to set up, but I imagine it could be a lot harder with a console controller.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

ME2 is not even tactical in terms of what shooters do. Though that seems to be rare these days. Shame what happen to SOCOM 4. Though if they make the biotic, tech, and the cloak be more potent, and make the main team smaller to 6, and give full abilities while increasing the team AI and commands it could be useful. But they might have to do a whole engine to put in some things that can be done in the tactical side of shooters, along with the other skills.

Was ME2 dumb down? Yes in some areas, no in others. The Charm and intimidate being stuck in P/R skill was stupid, and reinforce my point that it was useless in ME1, or as close to it if you wanted to put increases in stats. Nerf the hell out of the caster classes, though the engineer drone skill made it seem like they were going somewhere with messing enemies, and disrupting the battle field. On the other hand guns are unique, need balance though as the Avenger is pretty much outclassed. The attributes increases were low though. Bad when the only difference between two specialization is base on the stat increase of paragon and renegade. The rest of the boost was meager outside of partymates. Defense was useless as you where a glass cannon, or Sentinel/ Vanguard a tank.

To many chest high walls, when will they just make a level be big and have natural cover? Seems better to many, and forces players to improvise.

So ME2 would be a cover-shooter with tactical-rpg elements? I have never played the SOCOM games, so I don't really know what a pure tactical game is like.

The Engineer's drone is bit of a waste; has a long CD, weak armour and low dps.

 

[Eldarion]

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.

I can't be the only one who thought the rifle sway was the most annoying thing on the planet (or in the galaxy, whatever).

It was an acceptable skill check for a class that could one shot most bad guys with enough practice.

Headshots were satisfying and the recoil was there, it just wasn't noticeable because by the time you had reloaded the reticule was back to it's regular size.

So the recoil might as well not have been there.

ME2 sniping was great because I actually felt like a sniper and not someone who was waiting for another swing to come around so that I could try the same shot for the hundredth time.

If you where trying "that same shot for the hundredth time" you just lacked the accuracy and patience to play the class in the first game.

So uh, yeah, ME2 Infiltrator is made of win.

The time dilation on the scope made it so you don't have to actually try.

I'm glad you had fun with it, but you had fun with it because Mass effect 2 sniping was made to be easy.

 

[uc.asc]

snip

Irony, definition of: Asserting that education level is the same as intelligence, bragging about your own education and intelligence, and accusing other people of being arrogant. IN THE SAME POST.