That's nothing to do with inventory, that's all to do with weapon design. Yes, weapon design was slightly improved in ME2 [I say slightly because it still had the same problems, + some, but it somewhat minimised these problems, but more on that later]. Inventory is about resource management and having a stock of each item/modification. NOT about having 50 versions of the same but slightly different item/modification. Give the ME2 guns, but have them drop occasionally as loot, with the rarity of the plainly better guns [Which yes, ME2 had] being lower and reserved to the more 'boss' mobs you encounter. Re-read what I said about the Widow in my previous post, introduced in ME2. Have it drop, and there be only one, so you organically acquire it and can choose where to assign it, rather than the ME2 method of you find one Vindicator Assault Rifle, and suddenly you can equip everyone and their dog with it. You've got to choose who has what weapons, and what their roles in your group are, and the limited number of weapons and mods you have limits the often plain 'best' strategies, forcing you to think more about your loadouts and such and adding further depth.TT Kairen said:Having more shit that doesn't add anything to deal with isn't depth either. The inventory was a mess, and was scrapped because it didn't add anything. There were no meaningful gameplay choices to any of it. Can you tell me the difference between the Lancer III Assault Rifle, the Avenger IV Assault Rifle, and the Spectre Master VIII Assault Rifle? No, you can't. Because there is no difference. It was the same "+Weapon damage" upgrade you claim removed depth, but it was the same thing, just more convoluted. Mass Effect 1 had 4 guns. An assault rifle, a shotgun, a sniper rifle, and a pistol. The Katana VII shotgun is not a different gun from the Scimitar II. It's a damage upgrade.
Inventory management has nothing to do with Lancer III and Avenger X, that's weapon design, one thing that was streamlined in 2.
Not really. Mass Effect 2 had 5 guns. The same "More accurate, faster fire rate, lower/higher damage" that you talk about between the Avenger and Vindicator existed in ME1 as well. Things weren't just damage upgrades. Lancer was a balanced all rounder with middling fire rate, damage, cooldown and accuracy. Tsunami range was heavy damage, lower accuracy, lower heat management, and slightly lower fire rate IIRC, haven't played the series since 3 TBH so I only somewhat remember the exact stats. But, as you noted, it all ended up coming down to which did more damage - same in 2. Best weapons in 2, excluding the one off 'rare' weapons that had their close equivalent in the spectre series weapons in 1:Mass Effect 2 had 19 guns. Again as an example let's use Assault Rifles. The Avenger was a different gun than the Vindicator. The Avenger is a fully-automatic, mid range all-rounder, while the Vindicator is a pinpoint accurate, burst fire long-ranger. These are different weapons, and picking between them is a meaningful gameplay choice. Mass Effect 3 had somewhere in the area of three times that number of weapons, as well as modifications that weren't just statistical numbers boosts, but actually changed how you used a weapon, such as cover penetration, or adding a scope to a normally iron-sighted weapon. They had more depth.
SMGs: Tempest/Locust, depending on DLC
Assault Rifles: Vindicator/Mattock, depending on DLC. Vindicator is just plainly the better gun, with ammo being its only 'downside', something that a skilled player should easily be able to deal with [If I can never run out of ammo on a Widow on insanity, you shouldn't be running out on your Vindicator].
Shotguns: Scimitar/Geth Plasma depending on DLC. Scimitar is just a plainly better version of the Katana, and the Geth Plasma is notably overpowered.
Sniper Rifles: Viper, regardless of DLC or anything else. Its DPS is just insane, its clip size is fantastic, it has by far the most ammo, and being a sniper is pin point accurate. If you're not using this sniper, you're doing it wrong. [Naturally Widow is the exception, but I said excluding the super weapon choices, which make this even easier]
Heavy Pistols: Carnifex/Phalanx depending on DLC. Carnifex just does better DPS overall, even with its slower fire rate. Phalanx is extremely similar, but has the laser sight for increased accuracy, and it ends up dealing slightly more.
Heavy weapons are a bit more varied, but that's another system added to the game entirely. Additionally squad mate use of each weapon varied its effectiveness in their hands, but that's an AI touching issue rather than a weapons related one. If you prefer to play a certain way, you may prefer a different weapon - same as in ME1 where even sub optimally I'd use a 1 shot then overheat sniper rifle with explosive bullets and the most kinetic ramps I could for a literal one shot explode room crossing kill - but in terms of effectiveness there were still clear best weapons. The game just didn't tell you the stats, so it took a little longer to figure them out.
That said, having fewer gun types was a better choice than having 10 of the exact same gun type, but again, weapons streamlining rather than inventory removal.
Great in theory, in effect there was again only one ability that ever got used in ME2. In ME3 they somewhat fixed this, allowing you to use 2 abilities instead of one. Once you'd maxed the primary ability though, every other level up was wasted points [Naturally excluding class bonuses, but that only takes it so far]. This became especially true on any difficulty higher than normal, where abilities plainly wouldn't work on anything because of shields and armour.The cooldown system was changed because at the start of the game, playing as an Engineer or Adept was mind-numbingly dull. Having to wait a full minute for your ONE power to recharge when your pistol can finish fights in half that time is pretty useless. In Mass Effect 2 and three, they were changed to a universal cooldown system to allow you to use powers more rapidly, and the ability to choose in what way your powers evolved, changing the way you use them. Again, meaningful gameplay choices.
It removed depth from the variety of abilities you could use, didn't add any depth to replace it - simply let you use your one ability faster. It wasn't a streamline, but a 'dumbing down'.
Now, levelling up of abilities, another aspect entirely different from the cooldowns of abilities, was improved, and then improved further in ME3. Note, I do say some things were indeed streamlined, and things like this that are separate from the complaints I've raised have been improved. That doesn't mean things weren't removed as well though.
Unfortunately true, and the biggest culprit here is level design, rather than the open worlds they tried to do with one. Noveria and Feros were closed worlds, but they had level design that incorporated long range aspects into its play, as well as long distance travel. ME2 could have done similar, but kept it entirely short range. IMO it was probably a choice resulting from increased focus on console players, where long distance pinpoint aim is much more difficult, and thus designing to not force them to use that seems like a good idea. Choice, however, IMO, always wins out over trying to protect players from problems, but that's a common issue Bioware has =/The one point I will totally concede though, is how the world feels less open and more... instanced, in 2 and 3. It makes the galaxy feel small, and since the separation between "talky" areas and "shooty" areas is distinct, it lacks the organic flow of perhaps being ambushed or provoking a fight at any given time.