[quote name='DarkNessBear']I did laugh at that. But you are the most goddam confusing person in this thread! :lol: You are creepily obsessed with every minuscule detail of this game, putting up charts on weapon damage. Yet none of that matters because the game is not even close to needing that and if you are so obsessed with #crunching and stat details - why the heck would you be satisfied with the changes (making the game more casual)? I would assume you'd be wanting a more richer stat and rpg experience. My wrong.
But again, if you guys are THAT sensitive of me bringing up disappointments about the game in THIS thread, I definitely wont do it anymore. No joke. Just thought it could be an open discussions about all aspects.[/QUOTE]I personally have no problems with people bringing up criticisms of the game (not speaking on behalf of the entire thread, though) and I don't mean my posts to come across as "You're wrong and this is why..." or defensive.
The major difference here is that where you see ME2 as a dumbed down version of ME1, I see it as a more complex and efficient version of ME1. It's not hard to see that the combat system is much, much more technical than its predecessor. Tactics (RPG element), team-building (RPG element), and correct character leveling (RPG element) are all important points of the combat system and are much more fleshed out in ME2 than in ME1. In ME1, I could still manage to go through the game even with bad teammate selection and a decent build on the Insanity difficulty, without suffering great consequences (other than missing out on loot if I didn't have Decryption or Electronics in my squad). The only real tactic was "drop a Singularity and waste away the Immunity spammer's shields before they hit the floor" (exaggeration, I know..you did have to fight Geth Colossi every now and then). In ME2, a bad build or teammate selection - hell, even the wrong gun - is often the difference between life/death. Combat-wise, ME1 is far more "casual" a game than ME2.
Number crunching and weapon damage charts are important when you take into account how complex the combat system is. For instance, it's good to know what the rate of fire for a specific weapon is when you're looking for the best way to waste away enemy biotic
Barriers (other than Warp and Concussive Shot), which are weak to rapid-fire weapons. I link to weapon damage charts mostly when people ask about certain weapons, i.e. "Which gun is better: ___ or ___ ?" and then I show the differences.
I could go into another wall-of-text about the RPG enhancements I've experienced with ME2, but I feel like I've posted all that numerous times (and, the RPG vs. Shooter debate is the most polarizing thing about ME2 discussions - I don't want to add fuel to an already present fire). I will say, though, that my richer experience stems from the fact that everything clicks in ME2.
As far as
casual vs.
hardcore goes, I don't think either are an appropriate term to tag on to either game. I would say that ME2 is more efficient and more accessible than ME1. Efficiency, though, could also be thought of as scrapping a few things that didn't work or combining like ideas/projects together under one category (hence the reason why some people feel that aspects of the first game were completely abandoned). However, for me Accessible =/= Casual.
The best comparison I can give for my line of thinking about the two games is:
Mass Effect 1 is like having twenty $1 bills in your wallet.
Mass Effect 2 is like having one $20 bill in your wallet.
Meaning:
Mass Effect 2 is more streamlined and efficient. In the end, both equal $20 (both equal a great game), but the way they go about it is much different.
...speaking of money, lemme slip a $20 bill under the table to those who have been defending me against this evil man's attacks :lol:
