150 réponses à ce sujet

[Nashiktal]

You really don't know what dungeon siege is? I say it's what got me through all sorts of dry times back in the day.

[Zulu_DFA]

Nashiktal wrote...

You really don't know what dungeon siege is? I say it's what got me through all sorts of dry times back in the day.

I assume it's some kind of Space Siege, only in a dungeon?

[JockBuster]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
Shield upgrades that didnt work?

Never had this problem.

Try Garrus' loyalty; Shepard's does not work, nor ANY other squadmate. 
Save/reload does NOT work,  Shepard dying does NOT work either!

[InvincibleHero]

glacier1701 wrote...

Having finished my first full playthrough of DA2 I can see how lacking ME2 (and ME for that matter) are in classic RPG elements. DA2 appears to be using the same underlying engine as ME2 (I really havent followed the DA boards so not that up on it) which shows up in how animations are the same (how people drink in cutscenes, how people exit left at the end and so on). ME has more of the classic RPG elements compared to ME2 but even so it is clearly not as heavily into the RPG side of things as DA is. ME2 shows that the core of the ME series is that it is a shooter despite the claims made BW. The whole point of this post though is that DA2 SHOWS what could be done in terms of classic rpg elements within the game engine and that despite that the ME series has not made use of it. So in the end the choice is clear - if you like rpg more than the shooter aspect then ME is the better game, if you favour the reverse position then ME2 is the better choice.

This does not take into account the story (or lack of it). On that side of things ME has a better overall story compared to ME2 though the majority of characters in ME2 do have better stories than within ME. In the end ME does come out on top and to me the only reason that ME2 us garnering so many awards is that there was no competition in its class to run against. This is a shame IF BW takes the number of awards as a reward for quality when they have not really lived up to their own past standards which is the ONLY standard that matters. Indications are that unfortunately the person in charge of Mass Effect believes in the awards and that player 'complaints' are not problems with the game but problems with the players in that they are not playing the game right!!! It is a sad fact that this means that while ME3 is or should be a 'good' game it will not be getting the attention it needs to be a legend simply because the feedback is being written off as bad player gameplay and not the fault of the game.

What I bolded in yours is not factual. I've played hundreds of CRPGs and plenty of pen and paper versions starting with the original D&D basic edition. Thankfully I am not old enough to have played Chainmail.  Yet I am suggesting ME2 was better for RP. I also play very few shooters and tend to more hybrids in that regard like Dark Forces. I have played some like R6 Vegas 2 and the shooter elements cannot compare in the ME series. As a shooter the ME series would fail. It is the story and the roleplaying that creates the magic and ties everything into a breathing universe that people can get lost in. I think you struck out with that opinion.

[UKStory135]

I told my friends that ME2 took the gameplay of Rainbow Six Vegas and blended it with Jade Empire and KOTOR. I dont think that that a good TPS and a good RPG are mutually exclusive.

[InvincibleHero]

Slayer299 wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...
That's why I tried a factual approach. I never said ME2 is superior. Someone can like ME1 better and I have no problem with that.  I said better RPG opportunities to define Shepard and the game universe.

True, but you did say 'better and there I heartily disagree. ME2 isn't a horrible or bad game, but it is overly streamlined in many places.

I don't see the 'better RPG opportunities', I find it with actually less opportunities (not that there were a great many in ME) with Shep. In ME2 Shep seems more robotic; his meeting with the VS don't make any lasting impression or definition, so please elaborate.

Also, I found it to be more polarized along the forced morality of Paragon/Renegade with zero ability to actually RP your Shep without being penalized for not following either path. Case in point, I'm presently finishing a run through LotSB and yet my Para/Ren bar is still at 88(6)/42, this is after the vanillla game, Overlord and 3/4 of SB. The only reason my Para is as high as it is is because I started choosing Para so as not to be completely penalized for everything and that is not allowing a player to RP outside of the game's forced standards. 

I'm saying in ME VS the choice was passive. You had no say in the matter just who dies. It isn't roleplaying to be given a choice where what you do has no effect. Given choice everyone would have saved both. You cannot change the outcome someone dies. BW determined not you.

There are many more plot points and places to gave par/ren points in ME2. The choices wree also moregray less black and white. Deciding genophage data and salvation or damnation of krogan race what could compare in ME1. Rachni Queen maybe. You also get to decide the fate of millions of Geth and Quarians. The choices seemed to me less black and white and more weigh the options and think about it in ME2.

Why wouldn't your "good" Shepard choose most of the paragon options anyway? If you are Role-playing a person down the middle then obviously you aren't going to have enough force of personality to be believable to intimidate or silver tongued enough to persuade. If you are role-playing live with the results not think my metagaming is screwed by this. It will be much more interesting. The only person stopping you is you.

[Elite Midget]

ME2's more choice on Squaddies has doomed them from reappearing as Squaddies in ME3. I say that such extra choice wasen't worth the trade off. Hell, I'm still saddened about what happened to Wrex and VS. Think of the uproar when that exact same thing happens to the ME2 crew for ME3.

There will be hell in this kitchen.

[InvincibleHero]

Hunter-Wolf wrote...

Slayer299 wrote...
Also, I found it to be more polarized along the forced morality of Paragon/Renegade with zero ability to actually RP your Shep without being penalized for not following either path. Case in point, I'm presently finishing a run through LotSB and yet my Para/Ren bar is still at 88(6)/42, this is after the vanillla game, Overlord and 3/4 of SB. The only reason my Para is as high as it is is because I started choosing Para so as not to be completely penalized for everything and that is not allowing a player to RP outside of the game's forced standards. 

What !!! .. zero ability to RP without choosing Paragon or Renegade .. i think not .. there is always a choice on the right side of the dialog wheel the stands for "Neutral" Shepard .. many times the Paragon/Renegade options are grayed out becasue the character i'm roleplaying is nuetral so i pick the choice on the right and it resolves the situation (a little bit less impressive than the other paths but it work).

Dragon Age 2 actually has a better system when it comes to RPing your character .. it rewards consistancy no matter what choice you pick up (Diplomatic, Agressive, Humorous) and it also affects your dialog tone and voice in the conversations that you can't control .. wish to see some of that in ME3.

I agree. Just because your preferred choice might not be there that you have options. Most of the time you get to pick renegade or paragon endings without the red blue ending. You usually get less points and a different ending.

With my paragon with one bar of renegade I got many renegade options throughout the game if I wanted to pick them. You just might miss out on a few extreme ones and that's it. Penalizing you and forcing you to play one way only is not true.

I don't know it seems you have less choice with only 3 outcomes possible from the DA2 way. That is also what they appear to dislike having to constatly pick one way. I would not like not being able to yell if i have been playing a goodie goodie paragon, but felt passionately about something that was just presented to me. Wisecracking at a funeral would be out of place.

[Dave666]

InvincibleHero wrote...

If you are Role-playing a person down the middle then obviously you aren't going to have enough force of personality to be believable to intimidate or silver tongued enough to persuade.

Why? Do you honestly believe that a person must be an extremist to be able to convince someone to take one path or another?  That a person cannot be a charasmatic leader but not be massively Paragon or Renegade in character? That a person who's a dick to enemies but nice to his friends and those he respects is somehow a less consistant person? 

Paragon and Renegon traits have nothing whatsoever to do with a persons ability to sway someones opinion.

The best debates can often be between two people who can both look at a subject from an unbiased position and choose differing sides. Neither of them may agree with the side they've chosen, but they can logically debate the subject matter.

Similarly, a person can persuade or intimidate a person without always doing that to everyone.

I've read somewhere on these forums someone suggesting that if you're a Paragon and then threatened to kill someone, that person wouldn't believe that you were capable because somehow they would magically know everything you have ever done and that you were Paragon.  This makes no sense to me at all. Yes, you can be a public figure, and yes, people can know a bit about you, but can you tell me that you know everything about a public figure in real life? Can you tell me that if someone who was generally known as a nice guy stuck a gun in your face and said 'Do what I want, or I will kill you' that you would just laugh at them and say 'You're a nice guy! Everyone knows that! You don't mean it really!' or would you crap yourself? 

InvincibleHero wrote...
A good person isn;t going to be making evil threats and carying them out and a ruthless person isn't going to be as convincing a diplomat especially with a guns first rep. Makes sense to me.

The neighbours of some Serial killers have often said 'He was such a nice boy, always helped his landlady carry out the garbage' etc. Didn't stop him from butchering people, even though he had a reputation as a 'nice boy'. We know that reputations are not always right, its been shown to us over and over during our lives. Its not unreasonable that if you stick a gun in a Vorchas face he's going to go, 'Oh crap! I thought he was a nice guy, I was wrong!'

On the flip side, lets take an ingame example. Thane's Recruitment Mission, where you meet the merc near the window. When you meet him, he's openly hostile towards you. He goes on about how if you shoot him guards will come so you can choose to push him out of the window. Being a Paragon does not suddenly stop you getting this option. The two character traits are not mutually exclusive. You can be kind to some people and rude to others and still have a consistant character.

ME:1 gave you the option to put points into Charm and Intimidate, it was a choice that the player made for their character. You could choose to spend points in it, or you could choose not to. If you chose to do so, you were rewarded with chances to use said skills.

ME:2 however threw those skills out of the window and decided that you should somehow be Renegade or Paragon and that only Renegades could Intimidate and only Paragons could Charm.  This was in my opinion downright silly.

When I first played ME:2 I played it as I felt my character would, but soon found that options that my character might have chosen were greyed out, and thus I was prevented from playing the role the way I felt that my character should have played.  Many of us soon realised that we had to go one way or the other, that middlegrounds for some options that we felt were right for the situation prevented us from taking a diferent aproach to a completely different scenario.

On this I feel that no, ME:2 is most definately not a better RPG than ME:1. In the first game I could choose to work on my communication skills, (Charm and Intimidate) and so could play the role whichever way I felt was appropriate. In the second, I was prevented from playing the role I wanted to, because aparently Paragon=Charm and Renegade=Intimidate but the only way to work on said skills was to be nice to people or throw them out of windows.

Modifié par Dave666, 18 mars 2011 - 06:41 .

[Sajuro]

Elite Midget wrote...

ME2's more choice on Squaddies has doomed them from reappearing as Squaddies in ME3. I say that such extra choice wasen't worth the trade off. Hell, I'm still saddened about what happened to Wrex and VS. Think of the uproar when that exact same thing happens to the ME2 crew for ME3.

There will be hell in this kitchen.

I have an easy out, if you get them killed on the Suicide Mission, you miss their content. simple.

[Dave666]

Elite Midget wrote...

ME2's more choice on Squaddies has doomed them from reappearing as Squaddies in ME3. I say that such extra choice wasen't worth the trade off. Hell, I'm still saddened about what happened to Wrex and VS. Think of the uproar when that exact same thing happens to the ME2 crew for ME3.

There will be hell in this kitchen.

I've heard this a lot and its just plain silly. Bioware HAS to include the Squadmates from ME:2 because otherwise ME:2 was pointless and its no longer a Trilogy.  They said in one interview where people had criticized the lack of story, one the Bioware people (I forget who cause I'm tired) said something along the lines 'They just don't get it, the characters ARE the story.'  Which one might argue if so many 'just didn't get it' then did they tell the story well? lol Anyway, if you remove the characters from ME:2 what are we left with? Shepard dies for some silly reason and is resurected by Cerberus and then stops a collector plot to build a baby Terminator Reaper, which had no chance of being completed anyway. We learned the fate of the last surviving Protheans, we ended up back at square one as far as the council is concerned, Liara became the SB (I include her because a: she has plot armor and b: she's unlikely to be on our squad in ME:3) and...thats pretty much it.

ME:2 was all about building a group of individuals who trust Shepard but don't interact with each other Team. It would make no sense to do it all over again in ME:3 when we have the Reapers knocking our front doors in.  If you lost anyone then thats it, they're gone. We'll probably get the VS back on our team and maybe another. If you did the worst playthrough like Ecael did deliberately then you have 4 Squadmates to choose from. If you did the No one left behind which lets face it was pretty damned easy then you get everyone back plus the VS and the possible 1 other.

If Bioware tried to Wrex Effect the whole Squad because 'they could have died' then all they will manage to do is insult us and ****** off a fairly substancial part of the fanbase.

[Zulu_DFA]

Dave666 wrote...

I've heard this a lot and its just plain silly. Bioware HAS to include the Squadmates from ME:2 because otherwise ME:2 was pointless and its no longer a Trilogy.

Hate to do this, but...

It's your opinion, dude!

Judging by which I can presume thay you blew up the C-Base in the end, thus making the events of ME2 indeed kind of pointless.

[Dave666]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

I've heard this a lot and its just plain silly. Bioware HAS to include the Squadmates from ME:2 because otherwise ME:2 was pointless and its no longer a Trilogy.

Hate to do this, but...

It's your opinion, dude!

Judging by which I can presume thay you blew up the C-Base in the end, thus making the events of ME2 indeed kind of pointless.

Zulu? You are 100% correct, it is just my opinion, and yes, I could be completely wrong. But if Bioware did take that route, how many people would feel insulted?

Oh, and with the Collector base, I have several of each so I can see what happens. 

*Edit* Kudos to you Zulu for calling me on that one.

Modifié par Dave666, 18 mars 2011 - 06:52 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Dave666 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

I've heard this a lot and its just plain silly. Bioware HAS to include the Squadmates from ME:2 because otherwise ME:2 was pointless and its no longer a Trilogy.

Hate to do this, but...

It's your opinion, dude!

Judging by which I can presume thay you blew up the C-Base in the end, thus making the events of ME2 indeed kind of pointless.

Zulu? You are 100% correct, it is just my opinion, and yes, I could be completely wrong. But if Bioware did take that route, how many people would feel insulted?

Many.

So yeah, BioWare kinda did shot itself in the foot. Not by making the ME2 squad killable, but by making ME2 a sucking game if you take that squad out of it.

[Dave666]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

I've heard this a lot and its just plain silly. Bioware HAS to include the Squadmates from ME:2 because otherwise ME:2 was pointless and its no longer a Trilogy.

Hate to do this, but...

It's your opinion, dude!

Judging by which I can presume thay you blew up the C-Base in the end, thus making the events of ME2 indeed kind of pointless.

Zulu? You are 100% correct, it is just my opinion, and yes, I could be completely wrong. But if Bioware did take that route, how many people would feel insulted?

Many.

So yeah, BioWare kinda did shot itself in the foot. Not by making the ME2 squad killable, but by making ME2 a sucking game if you take that squad out of it.

Yup! Thats why (yes, it's still my opinion and yes, I could be wrong) I still feel its a fairly reasonable one, Bioware must have realized this by now.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

(...)

Many.

So yeah, BioWare kinda did shot itself in the foot. Not by making the ME2 squad killable, but by including a suicide mission in the second chapter of a trilogy.

Fixt.

[Dave666]

Nice one Fiery Phoenix, that was only fair!

[GuardianAngel470]

Elite Midget wrote...

ME2's more choice on Squaddies has doomed them from reappearing as Squaddies in ME3. I say that such extra choice wasen't worth the trade off. Hell, I'm still saddened about what happened to Wrex and VS. Think of the uproar when that exact same thing happens to the ME2 crew for ME3.

There will be hell in this kitchen.

Have you ever done the math on what it would take to have both Wrex and the VS with you in ME2? Every single choice that had three possible outcomes, like the Council, would have at most 27 permutations by ME3. Every single choice that carried over from ME1 to ME2 would be compounded by you affected that choice come ME3.

3 possible outcomes in ME1->9 possible outcomes in ME2->27 possible outcomes in ME3.

That just IS NOT possible to do.

As an example, influencing Garrus in ME1 you could have driven him to return to C-Sec in ME2 or become a spectre. Had those two things played out then Bioware would need for you to either recruit Garrus on the Citadel or recruit him out in space somewhere. They would also need to explain how it is that a man working for Cerberus could recruit a man working for the Council. That would likely require a mission of some sort and because the Spectre's are totally different than C-Sec they would have to be two unique missions.

Because the fact that you persuaded him one way or another in ME1 would affect his psychology, you would need him either agree with your actions or disagree with them (or neither). Any mission you would have with him would have two different and distinct slants and the choices you make, and how they affect Garrus, would be totally different.

If you persuaded him to be lawful and then you execute someone, he may leave (that would be the logical course of action) or he may not be loyal and thus perish in the suicide mission. The reverse would be true as well.

Now lets look at what that all translates into going into ME3. Spectre or C-Sec->If Spectre and spare, disloyal, death/If Spectre and execute, loyal and life/If C-Sec and Spare, Loyal and life/If C-Sec and Execute, disloyal and Death: Four possible outcomes from a two outcome choice in ME1. Death because Spectre, Death because C-Sec, C-Sec, and Spectre.

Another example, even better, is the Council. There are three distinct and very different outcomes from this choice. If you saved them, they are alive in ME2. Is you let them die to pursue the greater objective, they are dead but a MULTIRACIAL council replaces them. If you KILL them, they are dead and an all human council replaces them.

The sociopolitical impact each outcome has on the Galaxy would affect your playthrough in ME2. How you react to that situation would then affect your playthrough of ME3. If you saved them but refused to be a spectre, that is one outcome. If you saved them and stayed out of their way that is another. If you saved them and kissed up to them and the rest of the galaxy, that is a distinct third outcome.

It has taken me hundreds of words to describe to examples, one with the minimum amount of change and one with the maximum. Just imagine how hard it would be to actually pen this for literally thousands of decisions.

It's the ultimate If/Then programming task let alone a writing, animation, design, recording, and producing one. Cut the guys some slack.

[Zulu_DFA]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

(...)

Many.

So yeah, BioWare kinda did shot itself in the foot. Not by making the ME2 squad killable, but by including a suicide mission in the second chapter of a trilogy.

Fixt.

No, Phoenix, writers have right to take the story wherever they want, as long as it's free of plot holes and does not rely too heavily on Idiot Ball devices (Ooops!).

But replacing the sci-fi soul of the series with a hybrid between Gears of War and Tomagotchi gameplay mechanics is the problem with ME2.

Like I've said, if not for the character fanbases, this forum would have looked a lot more like the DA2 one in Feb-10 already.

[ErebUs890]

I don't care what anyone says. ME2 is an RPG, and ME2 is extremely awesome. But, people need to realize that BioWare is known for story, not RPG's.

Modifié par ErebUs890, 18 mars 2011 - 07:56 .

[Elite Midget]

Dave666 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

I've heard this a lot and its just plain silly. Bioware HAS to include the Squadmates from ME:2 because otherwise ME:2 was pointless and its no longer a Trilogy.

Hate to do this, but...

It's your opinion, dude!

Judging by which I can presume thay you blew up the C-Base in the end, thus making the events of ME2 indeed kind of pointless.

Zulu? You are 100% correct, it is just my opinion, and yes, I could be completely wrong. But if Bioware did take that route, how many people would feel insulted?

Oh, and with the Collector base, I have several of each so I can see what happens. 

*Edit* Kudos to you Zulu for calling me on that one.

You'll be surprised how far one will go to make a profit. Besides, look how many got angry about DA2. Guess what? It still sold very well despite what a few angry fans said. The same will happen for ME3. It's best you just gear yourself for the inevitable instead of continueing to live in denial.

If you do go such a path you'll end up just as bitter as the Hardcore DA fans that had hoped since the different Party Member DLC, Awakening, and now DA2.

PS: Bioware doesn't HAVE to do anything that they don't want. ME3 is under the persumption that no dead Squaddie is needed to tell its story or beat it. Not to mention the many reasons why Bioware purposely kept VS and Liara out of the Suicide Mission. One of which is so that every save would have them by ME3.

[Dave666]

Elite Midget wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

I've heard this a lot and its just plain silly. Bioware HAS to include the Squadmates from ME:2 because otherwise ME:2 was pointless and its no longer a Trilogy.

Hate to do this, but...

It's your opinion, dude!

Judging by which I can presume thay you blew up the C-Base in the end, thus making the events of ME2 indeed kind of pointless.

Zulu? You are 100% correct, it is just my opinion, and yes, I could be completely wrong. But if Bioware did take that route, how many people would feel insulted?

Oh, and with the Collector base, I have several of each so I can see what happens. 

*Edit* Kudos to you Zulu for calling me on that one.

You'll be surprised how far one will go to make a profit. Besides, look how many got angry about DA2. Guess what? It still sold very well despite what a few angry fans said. The same will happen for ME3. It's best you just gear yourself for the inevitable instead of continueing to live in denial.

If you do go such a path you'll end up just as bitter as the Hardcore DA fans that had hoped since the different Party Member DLC, Awakening, and now DA2.

PS: Bioware doesn't HAVE to do anything that they don't want. ME3 is under the persumption that no dead Squaddie is needed to tell its story or beat it. Not to mention the many reasons why Bioware purposely kept VS and Liara out of the Suicide Mission. One of which is so that every save would have them by ME3.

A well thought out response, and I can't say that you are wrong about anything you said. Perhaps you are right about just steeling myself, but I'll admit that my confidence in Bioware is a bit shaken at this point. I've played Bioware RPG's for over a decade and until ME:2 came out I always felt that if I saw Bioware on a game then I knew where I stood. It was almost always an quality RPG game. As such when I saw the name of the company on the box, I was much more likely to give it a try than just keep looking. If ME:3 goes the way I fear I'll be much less inclined to do that and likely see it is Bioware and just walk on.

Granted thats perhaps a bad thing, it meant that I was basing initial assumptions on what I'd seen from them before when perhaps I should have been simply looking at each game seperately.



With all that said, I am not saying that ME:2 is a bad game per-se there were a lot of things that I liked about it, there were just a great many things that just felt 'off' for me, little things that on their own don't mean much but when added together... 

Perhaps I'm just getting jaded as I'm getting older. Everyone will experience things diferently and what one will love another will hate. Theres a line from one of the ME games about how if you put three humans in a room you'll get six opinions. 

[Elite Midget]

Sajuro wrote...

I have an easy out, if you get them killed on the Suicide Mission, you miss their content. simple.

That would cause a bigger ****storm than simply bringing a new Squad in.

Bioware has stated time and again that erach ME game of the Trilogy would be a standalone experience and gameplay would be uneffected whether you import or not. Much easier to just have the old Squaddies move on and do stuff off-screen to help Shepard or grant their own special missions if they aren't already dead.

Besides, that would be a Story telling nightmare on Bioware's part.  Thius I will say this again. None of the Killable Squadies are needed to get the ME3 Story or to even beat ME3. It's plainly obvious that this is the case. Maybe you wont get the 'best' ending if they're dead but they aren't needed to beat the game.

[Dave666]

Elite Midget wrote...

PS: Bioware doesn't HAVE to do anything that they don't want. ME3 is under the persumption that no dead Squaddie is needed to tell its story or beat it. Not to mention the many reasons why Bioware purposely kept VS and Liara out of the Suicide Mission. One of which is so that every save would have them by ME3.

Oh forgot to add on this one, I agree and disagree.

Yes, its Biowares Game they can do whatever they want with it, but they still have to cater to their market audience.  If Bioware decided to deal with the Reapers by having the Care Bears apear on the backs of Unicorns unleasing their powers of love on the Reapers and turning them into giant Care Bears that spread peace and love throughout the galaxy, then yes, they can, its their game. But they have to be willing to face the consequences of it.

(I know its a silly example to make a point) 

Bioware has built a reputation and fanbase by this point and its customers have certain expectations of them.  If they upset too many of their customer base then they won't last long as a company.

Btw, I'm not bashing Bioware, as I said, I've played their games for over a decade, started with Baldurs Gate when it first came out etc.

What I hope will happen with regards the Squadmates in ME:3 is simply that we get the survivors as Squadies, but they probably won't have make or break quests (i.e. if you don't have them then you can't win), they might help tip the balance a bit though.  After all they did have the No One Left Behind Achievement so most people will have at least one playthrough with all survivors. 

Just my thoughts.

P.s. Enjoying the discussion. 

[GuardianAngel470]

Dave666 wrote...
Theres a line from one of the ME games about how if you put three humans in a room you'll get six opinions. 

Just wanted to point out, I read the rest of your post in its entirety an this line struck me funnily, that line is actually said by Samara when you ask her what she thinks of humanity.

In fact, a great many of awesome quotes and quality memes came out of this game which in most cases wasn't based on a failure (ala "All your base are belong to us").

I think you should reassess what Bioware did right with this game. Story congruity could have been better and there were missed oportunities as well as poor oversight decisions but at the end of the day they made a very memorable game with excellent dialog.

I'm not going to say it's the best RPG ever (KOTOR had Nine crew and they were each quite deep, as was the romance) since I haven't played many but I will say that it kept me coming back for each and every unique line of dialog I could find as well as interesting and thought provoking characters.

All in all, I'm satisfied.