243 réponses à ce sujet

[Onyx Jaguar]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Then by that the vast majority of RPGs fail

Also that means whether or not an RPG is a failure is extremely subjective

I completely disagree with that opinion

Just to add that line of thinking goes against everything I believe in when talking about RPG's, Morrowind had pretty nonexistant Characters and almost nonexistant storyline.  The Ultima games were pretty barebones due to their time.  The Fallout games had a little but were also contrained by their times.  Neverwinter Nights did a pretty poor job of characterization and the plot was presented in an unegaging manner.  Baldur's Gate and Jade Empire had a strong plot but also a bit of a disconnect in how it was told (intentionally in those cases, same could be said for KOTOR but much of that revolved around the plot twist).  Final Fantasy barely had any plot, characters built from the ground up similar to Pool of Radiance, Eye of the Beholder and the Icewind Dale games (those also barely had much of a plot, namely due to the time they were made).  Final Fantasy 4 had some characterization and plot, but much of that is based on what the player imposed upon the characters as in hindsight there wasn't that much.  Final Fantasy 5 was pretty barebones.  Final Fantasy 6 jumped around all over the place.  Final Fantasy 7 barely made sense at certain times and much of the characterization was cringe worthy.  FInal Fantasy 8 had a terrible plot and terrible characters.  Final Fantasy 10 had some annoying characters but an intersting plot.  Final Fantasy 12 had issues tieing the player properly within the plot.  Dragon Quest due to its time was mainly nonexistant in charactirizations and plot.  Dragon Quest 8 had quite a disconnect.  Oblivion had an awful main plot where most of the meat of the story was in the sidequests.  Fallout 3 had an awful plot that contradicted itself and the characterizations needed improving much the same way Oblivion did.

I could go on and on.

With the exception of Planescape Torment and KOTOR 2 I can't think of many RPG's where whether or not it failed was subjective.

Two of these RPG's I would call failures.  The US version of Final Fantasy 4 was broken and some of the skills didn't work and KOTOR 2 was released incomplete.

[SkullandBonesmember]

jasonontko wrote...

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

Return it, and buy something else. We will all miss you.

I dont understand why you either must love a game completely or if you find fault with you must return it.  I like ME2 I just want it to be better.  What is with this reductionism?

Exactly. Not everything is black and white.

[SimonTheFrog]

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

Return it, and buy something else. We will all miss you.

That's pretty much all there is to say.

You can't call ME2 a "fail" because you "prefer dialogs over shooting". You can call it a personal disappointment. But, like i said, many people were disappointed with ME2 concerning the RPG-features and already expressed their feelings in threads. There is no need to start a new one.

That being said, i wonder if slow paced, dialog heavy RPG's will have a renaissance at some point. They still are developed (e.g. The black eye / Drakensang) but very few in number and i don't know any with a convincing sci-fi setting... 

[Dave the Seagull]

jasonontko wrote...

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

Return it, and buy something else. We will all miss you.

I dont understand why you either must love a game completely or if you find fault with you must return it.  I like ME2 I just want it to be better.  What is with this reductionism?

I'm pretty sure it's just a shot at people who make posts listing all the faults in the game without giving any good points whatsoever, in a way that mocks people who actualy like the game.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Exactly. Not everything is black and white.

Your thread-starting post would imply otherwise.

Modifié par Dave the Seagull, 21 mars 2010 - 01:47 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Dave the Seagull wrote...

I'm pretty sure it's just a shot at people who make posts listing all the faults in the game without giving any good points whatsoever, in a way that mocks people who actualy like the game.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Exactly. Not everything is black and white.

Your thread-starting post would imply otherwise.

I said it failed as an RPG, not as a game.

You really want me to list the very few things Bioware got right? Humor and for the most part, characters. And no, that's NOT a contradiction. Most of the characters were very likable, if you remove the horrendous lack of dialogue and the fact we barely got a chance to get to know them.

Fixed the title Simon.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 21 mars 2010 - 01:52 .

[jasonontko]

Dave the Seagull wrote...

jasonontko wrote...

Mr.BlazenGlazen wrote...

Return it, and buy something else. We will all miss you.

I dont understand why you either must love a game completely or if you find fault with you must return it.  I like ME2 I just want it to be better.  What is with this reductionism?

I'm pretty sure it's just a shot at people who make posts listing all the faults in the game without giving any good points whatsoever, in a way that mocks people who actualy like the game.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Exactly. Not everything is black and white.

Your thread-starting post would imply otherwise.

Look I can undertsand that in the context of this posts, but there have been many post who did list things they liked and still get flamed.  Personally I like critical posts because there is an actual argument to support or defend.  A post with nothing but praise is a nice pat on the back for the devs but really does not advance discusion about game.

[SimonTheFrog]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Then by that the vast majority of RPGs fail

Also that means whether or not an RPG is a failure is extremely subjective

I completely disagree with that opinion

Just to add that line of thinking goes against everything I believe in when talking about RPG's, Morrowind had pretty nonexistant Characters and almost nonexistant storyline.  The Ultima games were pretty barebones due to their time.  The Fallout games had a little but were also contrained by their times.  Neverwinter Nights did a pretty poor job of characterization and the plot was presented in an unegaging manner.  Baldur's Gate and Jade Empire had a strong plot but also a bit of a disconnect in how it was told (intentionally in those cases, same could be said for KOTOR but much of that revolved around the plot twist).  Final Fantasy barely had any plot, characters built from the ground up similar to Pool of Radiance, Eye of the Beholder and the Icewind Dale games (those also barely had much of a plot, namely due to the time they were made).  Final Fantasy 4 had some characterization and plot, but much of that is based on what the player imposed upon the characters as in hindsight there wasn't that much.  Final Fantasy 5 was pretty barebones.  Final Fantasy 6 jumped around all over the place.  Final Fantasy 7 barely made sense at certain times and much of the characterization was cringe worthy.  FInal Fantasy 8 had a terrible plot and terrible characters.  Final Fantasy 10 had some annoying characters but an intersting plot.  Final Fantasy 12 had issues tieing the player properly within the plot.  Dragon Quest due to its time was mainly nonexistant in charactirizations and plot.  Dragon Quest 8 had quite a disconnect.  Oblivion had an awful main plot where most of the meat of the story was in the sidequests.  Fallout 3 had an awful plot that contradicted itself and the characterizations needed improving much the same way Oblivion did.

I could go on and on.

With the exception of Planescape Torment and KOTOR 2 I can't think of many RPG's where whether or not it failed was subjective.

Two of these RPG's I would call failures.  The US version of Final Fantasy 4 was broken and some of the skills didn't work and KOTOR 2 was released incomplete.

I'm sorry, i'm confused here: P.T. and KOTOR 2 did fail or did not fail? There are too many negations 

Anyway, the RPG genre is known for being incredibly hard to develop. It's usually also the genre where the developers put the most love/dedication into. 
Well, that's just a feeling i have from years of reading statements, forums, stuff and playing... can't prove it.

So,.. uh... bottom line: RPG often have very ambitious goals and lots of technical issues. Both can lead to very messy sh*t. But many ooze the love of the developers. For me a game fails when i can't feel the love and dedication of the developers. It might still be polished and refined gameplay, but i tend to forget about those games quickly. 

ME2? I see some questionable decisions, but i also see a lot of love put into it 

[ramdog7]

i agree with the OP except ME 2 being a "fail"

bioware should have kept armor and the inventory and just included the badass combat system,even if they did this man die-hard rpg fans will be crying and ****ing about me2 being a TPS.

Im not a fanboy of any genre of games,  I just love good video games and mass effect 2 is a good game. lets just hope for ME 3 the include armor and inventory and our choices make a more impact on the story.

Modifié par ramdog7, 21 mars 2010 - 01:57 .

[SimonTheFrog]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Dave the Seagull wrote...

I'm pretty sure it's just a shot at people who make posts listing all the faults in the game without giving any good points whatsoever, in a way that mocks people who actualy like the game.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Exactly. Not everything is black and white.

Your thread-starting post would imply otherwise.

I said it failed as an RPG, not as a game.

You really want me to list the very few things Bioware got right? Humor and for the most part, characters. And no, that's NOT a contradiction. Most of the characters were very likable, if you remove the horrendous lack of dialogue and the fact we barely got a chance to get to know them.

Fixed the title Simon.

[Onyx Jaguar]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Then by that the vast majority of RPGs fail

Also that means whether or not an RPG is a failure is extremely subjective

I completely disagree with that opinion

Just to add that line of thinking goes against everything I believe in when talking about RPG's, Morrowind had pretty nonexistant Characters and almost nonexistant storyline.  The Ultima games were pretty barebones due to their time.  The Fallout games had a little but were also contrained by their times.  Neverwinter Nights did a pretty poor job of characterization and the plot was presented in an unegaging manner.  Baldur's Gate and Jade Empire had a strong plot but also a bit of a disconnect in how it was told (intentionally in those cases, same could be said for KOTOR but much of that revolved around the plot twist).  Final Fantasy barely had any plot, characters built from the ground up similar to Pool of Radiance, Eye of the Beholder and the Icewind Dale games (those also barely had much of a plot, namely due to the time they were made).  Final Fantasy 4 had some characterization and plot, but much of that is based on what the player imposed upon the characters as in hindsight there wasn't that much.  Final Fantasy 5 was pretty barebones.  Final Fantasy 6 jumped around all over the place.  Final Fantasy 7 barely made sense at certain times and much of the characterization was cringe worthy.  FInal Fantasy 8 had a terrible plot and terrible characters.  Final Fantasy 10 had some annoying characters but an intersting plot.  Final Fantasy 12 had issues tieing the player properly within the plot.  Dragon Quest due to its time was mainly nonexistant in charactirizations and plot.  Dragon Quest 8 had quite a disconnect.  Oblivion had an awful main plot where most of the meat of the story was in the sidequests.  Fallout 3 had an awful plot that contradicted itself and the characterizations needed improving much the same way Oblivion did.

I could go on and on.

With the exception of Planescape Torment and KOTOR 2 I can't think of many RPG's where whether or not it failed was subjective.

Two of these RPG's I would call failures.  The US version of Final Fantasy 4 was broken and some of the skills didn't work and KOTOR 2 was released incomplete.

I'm sorry, i'm confused here: P.T. and KOTOR 2 did fail or did not fail? There are too many negations 

Anyway, the RPG genre is known for being incredibly hard to develop. It's usually also the genre where the developers put the most love/dedication into. 
Well, that's just a feeling i have from years of reading statements, forums, stuff and playing... can't prove it.

So,.. uh... bottom line: RPG often have very ambitious goals and lots of technical issues. Both can lead to very messy sh*t. But many ooze the love of the developers. For me a game fails when i can't feel the love and dedication of the developers. It might still be polished and refined gameplay, but i tend to forget about those games quickly. 

ME2? I see some questionable decisions, but i also see a lot of love put into it 

No basically I said that if I thought like the OP the only RPG's that wouldn't fail in my mind were Planescape Torment and KOTOR 2. 

But I also gave my own opinon that KOTOR 2 did actually fail because it was incomplete.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 21 mars 2010 - 02:01 .

[SimonTheFrog]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Then by that the vast majority of RPGs fail

Also that means whether or not an RPG is a failure is extremely subjective

I completely disagree with that opinion

<snippalot>

With the exception of Planescape Torment and KOTOR 2 I can't think of many RPG's where whether or not it failed was subjective.

Two of these RPG's I would call failures.  The US version of Final Fantasy 4 was broken and some of the skills didn't work and KOTOR 2 was released incomplete.

I'm sorry, i'm confused here: P.T. and KOTOR 2 did fail or did not fail? There are too many negations 

Anyway, the RPG genre is known for being incredibly hard to develop. It's usually also the genre where the developers put the most love/dedication into. 
Well, that's just a feeling i have from years of reading statements, forums, stuff and playing... can't prove it.

So,.. uh... bottom line: RPG often have very ambitious goals and lots of technical issues. Both can lead to very messy sh*t. But many ooze the love of the developers. For me a game fails when i can't feel the love and dedication of the developers. It might still be polished and refined gameplay, but i tend to forget about those games quickly. 

ME2? I see some questionable decisions, but i also see a lot of love put into it 

No basically I said that if I thought like the OP the only RPG's that wouldn't fail in my mind were Planescape Torment and KOTOR. 

But I also gave my own opinon that KOTOR 2 did actually fail because it was incomplete.

Ok, thanks for rephrasing 
I was thinking it might mean that because planescape torment is usually an example for a well made game. I personally havent played it enough to tell, i must admit, but i will someday :happy:
KOTOR2 really is very unlucky. It seemed to me that Obsidian were actually quite proud, even after it received quite a lot of criticism. I wonder what went wrong there... 

[Onyx Jaguar]

I actually like KOTOR 2 more than KOTOR plotwise, character wise and hell even gameplay wise. Its just that it was a buggy mess and 3/4 through the game everything comes crashing down and the game ends abruptly in a confusing mess.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

No basically I said that if I thought like the OP the only RPG's that wouldn't fail in my mind were Planescape Torment and KOTOR 2. 

But I also gave my own opinon that KOTOR 2 did actually fail because it was incomplete.

Said it before, but...

Look. Shooter fans have all these games that cater to their tastes released every year. How many story driven games are released for RPG fans every year? Not many. But it's not enough that you guys have Halo, Resident Evil, Gears Of War, Grand Theft Auto, Dead Or Alive, among countless other 'SPLOSHUN games. You had to whine, moan, and bi*** until you got your way and the result was ME2. I'm not saying YOU PERSONALLY were one of the ones who complained, I don't know. But there were A LOT who saw the trailer for ME1, thought 'SPLOSHUNS, and weren't happy with the product, despite the fact the RPG fans were happy with the product.

Yes, 'SPLOSHUNS are what makes money, but it's not like there isn't a market for story driven fans. We'd welcome a 40 hour hybrid of ME1, Alan Wake, and Heavy Rain with open arms.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 21 mars 2010 - 02:12 .

[ramdog7]

Luc0s wrote...

Well, atleast ME2 was hella better than FF XIII, talking about boring RPGs...

only in the beginning. as you advance it gets alot more harder.

[ramdog7]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

No basically I said that if I thought like the OP the only RPG's that wouldn't fail in my mind were Planescape Torment and KOTOR 2. 

But I also gave my own opinon that KOTOR 2 did actually fail because it was incomplete.

Said it before, but...

Look. Shooter fans have all these games that cater to their tastes released every year. How many story driven games are released for RPG fans every year? Not many. But it's not enough that you guys have Halo, Resident Evil, Gears Of War, Grand Theft Auto, Dead Or Alive, among countless other 'SPLOSHUN games. You had to whine, moan, and bi*** until you got your way and the result was ME2. I'm not saying YOU PERSONALLY were one of the ones who complained, I don't know. But there were A LOT who saw the trailer for ME1, thought 'SPLOSHUNS, and weren't happy with the product, despite the fact the RPG fans were happy with the product.

Yes, 'SPLOSHUNS are what makes money, but it's not like there isn't a market for story driven fans. We'd welcome a 40 hour hybrid of ME1, Alan Wake, and Heavy Rain with open arms.

so wat your saying is that you would welcome back the cheap mindless boring ass combat system of me ??

[Onyx Jaguar]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

No basically I said that if I thought like the OP the only RPG's that wouldn't fail in my mind were Planescape Torment and KOTOR 2. 

But I also gave my own opinon that KOTOR 2 did actually fail because it was incomplete.

Said it before, but...

Look. Shooter fans have all these games that cater to their tastes released every year. How many story driven games are released for RPG fans every year? Not many. But it's not enough that you guys have Halo, Resident Evil, Gears Of War, Grand Theft Auto, Dead Or Alive, among countless other 'SPLOSHUN games. You had to whine, moan, and bi*** until you got your way and the result was ME2. I'm not saying YOU PERSONALLY were one of the ones who complained, I don't know. But there were A LOT who saw the trailer for ME1, thought 'SPLOSHUNS, and weren't happy with the product, despite the fact the RPG fans were happy with the product.

Yes, 'SPLOSHUNS are what makes money, but it's not like there isn't a market for story driven fans. We'd welcome a 40 hour hybrid of ME1, Alan Wake, and Heavy Rain with open arms.

???

You obviously haven't played the games you lsited.

Gears of War is a 3rd person shooter that acts almost like a horizontal platformer.  Halo is a simplified FPS, Call of Duty (game not mentioned) is more akin to an objective based shooting gallery.  Resident Evil has slow awful controls.  Grant Theft Auto is an open world game and the shooter part comes secondary (like the First Mass Effect).


...........

Dead or Alive... Is a fighting game!

Its a tournament fighting game more akin to Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat and Virtua FIghter (which it is a clone of)

That game is way way way way more niche than RPG games!

[BaladasDemnevanni]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
I said it failed as an RPG, not as a game.

You really want me to list the very few things Bioware got right? Humor and for the most part, characters. And no, that's NOT a contradiction. Most of the characters were very likable, if you remove the horrendous lack of dialogue and the fact we barely got a chance to get to know them.

Fixed the title Simon.

You know, there are some who would argue that ME1 fails as an RPG? It's a 'bad fps with a good story'. I personally don't think this, but ME2 just happens to be a tad further down the slope than the original. The story wasn't brilliant, but it did a great job of fleshing out the universe, presented some extremely realistic character animations, and sets the stage for some interesting developments in ME3. It was meant to be the Episode V of the ME trilogy.

Edit: And this is the opinion of a long-time DnD fan.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 21 mars 2010 - 02:17 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Grand Theft Auto 4 is also VERY VERY story driven



Gears of War has a crap story/characters, Halo has backstory yet no real in game story. Call of Duty is all about the in your face action. Resident Evil is a Japanese game, TONS of irrelevent story to the plot. etc.

[ramdog7]

think the op has no clue on genre of games.

[ramdog7]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Grand Theft Auto 4 is also VERY VERY story driven

Gears of War has a crap story/characters, Halo has backstory yet no real in game story. Call of Duty is all about the in your face action. Resident Evil is a Japanese game, TONS of irrelevent story to the plot. etc.

I like GoW i like the story.

[GodWood]

I'll at least try to be civil..

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
ME1 had a few immersion problems, but not like ME2. First, why don't Jacob and Miranda have any body armor or helmets?

ME2 was far more immersive than ME1 cinematic wise and environment wise, ME1 felt like a sandbox to me, ME2 felt like a dynamic world.
The outfits I agree with you (and actually just never use Miranda because of it)
 

Second, Michael and Rebeckah. So Shepard could recognize everybody and talk to them but won't/can't talk to those two? It would have been better if there were excluded from the game all together.

That was a tiny sidemission from ME1, it showed how it turned out, what more do you want?
 

Third, the side quests of Garrus, Tali, and Wrex were pointless and there was only a throw away line referencing the geth data. It makes no sense that Garrus and Tali aren't loyal upon joining Shepard.

 
As you know in those 2 years you were gone Garrus became a vigilante and had his own squad that eventually got betrayed from within.
He currently knows the whereabouts of the person that betrayed him and wants to kill him, in reality this isn't you earning his loyalty just more or less getting rid of all distractions. (you could argue Garrus' sidequest in ME1 is even more pointless)
Same with Tali, shes loyal to you, just distracted that she might be exiled if she doesn't hurry back to the Flotilla for her trial.
And Wrex didn't have a sidequest technically...

Fourth, I heard leading up to release a lot more dialogue was recorded. Uhhh, I don't think so. Almost every single time I went to talk to somebody they go "not now". Even with Tali who I romanced every time I went to speak with her she just repeats "I can't tell you how much what you said means to me". Tali, you rock, but you've made that perfectly clear the last 15 times.

There was more dialogue actually but the problem (it annoys me too) is that because the game is so big the characters eventually run out of personal dialogue for inbetween missions.
Personally I hope they fix the spacing of dialogue inbetween missions for ME3.

This is all even after another's loyalty mission or post main mission. My entire team survived the suicide mission and when I went to speak to my entire crew, they act like nothing happened. And I'm sure it's the same damn thing even if only Shepard and one other squad mate survives. So much for this being the game where you get to know your team.

Personally I think they shouldn't of had the option to continue after the main quest its just caused complications.
 

There wasn't really an abundance of dialogue in the first, no. But that was compensated by the fact missions didn't take forever because of a need to "strategize".

huh?  

We got an overload of combat with a watered down plot in every way possible. But at least the Halo tards got their 'SPLOSHUNS.

Thats your opinion, in my opinion even though ME2 has its flaws its still a far superior game to ME1.

Modifié par GodWood, 21 mars 2010 - 02:25 .

[Flamewielder]

Two points I'd like to raise:

1) Just because "loyalty" missions were called like this don't mean Tali or Garrus weren't loyal... had the missions been called "focus" missions, people wouldn't raise this as an issue. The idea of these missions was to give an opportunity to explore the character further and help them resolve a distracting problem. I think that worked out fine.
I agree with the OP that more dialog and perhaps more "informal" moments (similar to the Serrice Ice brandy sharing with Dr. Chakwas) would have built the sense of immersion further. But what was there was "good enough".
I'm a completionist but didn't push conversations to the end before completing the main mission, perhaps because my Shep remained loyal to his ME1 LI. I played ME1 numerous times and there was not much more dialogue than ME2.

2) RPG stands for "role-playing game"... it is not defined by a complex or refined inventory system. In fact, no inventory system in necessary, only your imagination is required. Now I DO agree that appearance customization adds to immersion, and thus improves the quality of your role-playing experience. I DO agree that some characters' attire didn't make much sense in hazardous environments (even if I thought them great as "shipboard clothes"). The lack of an automatic "helmet toggle" for cut scenes was also annoying that way. But I certainly didn't feel the TPS streamlining took much away from my personal role-playing experience.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

???

You obviously haven't played the games you lsited.

Gears of War is a 3rd person shooter that acts almost like a horizontal platformer.  Halo is a simplified FPS, Call of Duty (game not mentioned) is more akin to an objective based shooting gallery.  Resident Evil has slow awful controls.  Grant Theft Auto is an open world game and the shooter part comes secondary (like the First Mass Effect).


...........

Dead or Alive... Is a fighting game!

Its a tournament fighting game more akin to Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat and Virtua FIghter (which it is a clone of)

That game is way way way way more niche than RPG games!

You didn't get my point. The appeal for Grand Theft Auto is certainly not the story or the "open world". Every new GTA all the fans are screaming "ZOMG I CANT WAYT 2 GET IN THAT HELICOPTER AND START FIRING AND C HOW ROCKSTAR IMPROVED IT THIS YEAR".

My signature stands. That is pretty much an accurate representation of gamers today. Not all of them, no, but for most, combat/tactics/gameplay are what makes a game great and an intriguing plot and characters are secondary.

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

You know, there are some who
would argue that ME1 fails as an RPG? It's a 'bad fps with a good
story'. I personally don't think this, but ME2 just happens to be a tad
further down the slope than the original. The story wasn't brilliant,
but it did a great job of fleshing out the universe, presented some
extremely realistic character animations, and sets the stage for some
interesting developments in ME3. It was meant to be the Episode V of
the ME trilogy.

Edit: And this is the opinion of a long-time DnD fan.

Sure, I'm hoping ME3 will be closer to ME1 plot wise and more character interaction, but I'm not holding my breath.

[jasonontko]

[quote]GodWood wrote...

I'll at least try to be civil..



[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...
ME1 had a few immersion problems, but not like ME2. First, why don't Jacob and Miranda have any body armor or helmets?[/quote]ME2 was far more immersive than ME1 cinematic wise and environment wise, ME1 felt like a sandbox to me, ME2 felt like a dynamic world.
The outfits I agree with you (and actually just never use Miranda because of it)
 


[quote]Second, Michael and Rebeckah. So Shepard could recognize everybody and talk to them but won't/can't talk to those two? It would have been better if there were excluded from the game all together.[/quote]
That was a tiny sidemission from ME1, it showed how it turned out, what more do you want?
 


[quote]Third, the side quests of Garrus, Tali, and Wrex were pointless and there was only a throw away line referencing the geth data. It makes no sense that Garrus and Tali aren't loyal upon joining Shepard.[/quote] 
As you know in those 2 years you were gone Garrus became a vigilante and had his own squad that eventually got betrayed from within.
He currently knows the whereabouts of the person that betrayed him and wants to kill him, in reality this isn't you earning his loyalty just more or less getting rid of all distractions. (you could argue Garrus' sidequest in ME1 is even more pointless)
Same with Tali, shes loyal to you, just distracted that she might be exiled if she doesn't hurry back to the Flotilla for her trial.
And Wrex didn't have a sidequest technically...



[quote]Fourth, I heard leading up to release a lot more dialogue was recorded. Uhhh, I don't think so. Almost every single time I went to talk to somebody they go "not now". Even with Tali who I romanced every time I went to speak with her she just repeats "I can't tell you how much what you said means to me". Tali, you rock, but you've made that perfectly clear the last 15 times. [/quote]There was more dialogue actually but the problem (it annoys me too) is that because the game is so big the characters eventually run out of personal dialogue for inbetween missions.
Personally I hope they fix the spacing of dialogue inbetween missions for ME3.



[quote]This is all even after another's loyalty mission or post main mission. My entire team survived the suicide mission and when I went to speak to my entire crew, they act like nothing happened. And I'm sure it's the same damn thing even if only Shepard and one other squad mate survives. So much for this being the game where you get to know your team.[/quote]
Personally I think they shouldn't of had the option to continue after the main quest its just caused complications.
 


[quote]There wasn't really an abundance of dialogue in the first, no. But that was compensated by the fact missions didn't take forever because of a need to "strategize".[/quote]
huh?  
We got an overload of combat with a watered down plot in every way possible. But at least the Halo tards got their 'SPLOSHUNS.
[/quote] Thats your opinion, in my opinion even though ME2 has its flaws its still a far superior game to ME1.[/quote]

The last point you made I find very interesting. I agree with you that ME2 is a better game than ME1, but it if they had incorporated the major plot advancements of ME1 in ME2 plus continued the attention to detail, (like hard suits instead of brethers in a vacum) it would have been a even better game.  To me its like they took two steps forward and one step back.  I lament that one step backwards but still like the game.

Modifié par jasonontko, 21 mars 2010 - 02:30 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Sure, I'm hoping ME3 will be closer to ME1 plot wise and more character interaction, but I'm not holding my breath.

And a d20 critic might call you a ME1 fanboy for this just because it's a shooter.

Plus, character interaction was better in pretty much every way with ME2. People, you see, actually aren't like robots when they interact. They move around, stand up, sit down, turn their heads, etc. This beats talking to Tali for 10+ minutes while she stands there, reciting Quarian history to me.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 21 mars 2010 - 02:31 .