GhostofAnakin

Still playing Max Payne 3. Story's pretty good, combat is decent (a little wonky trying to target), but that blur stuff is a bit annoying.

I wish there was a way to "like" this multiple times.

Finally got around to playing Max Payne 3. A couple of niggling issues for me thus far: 1-Only autosave function. At one point, I wanted to leave because I had something else I needed to do, but couldn't until the next checkpoint. I know this is a common feature in a lot of games, but God do I hate when you can't manually save any time you want. 2-Are the cutscenes supposed to ... blur? Is that supposed to represent Max being drunk, and you're looking through his drugged/drunk eyes? Or did I get a bad game disc? The story's pretty good so far. Shooting mechanics are a little wonky, but tolerable.

Does that list differentiate between the types of gun-related killings? For instance, a country like Mexico, who is higher on the list than the US (per capita) has quite a few murders that are linked to the drug cartel wars. Would that list change dramatically if you excluded gun deaths associated with widespread either military action or drug wars, and focused exclusively on what can be better described as "domestic" gun murders? The type where "average citizens" end up going on a shooting spree?

Psycho goes nuts in a school in the US with a gun, 27 wounded, 20 killed. Psycho goes nuts in a school in China with a knife, 22 wounded, 0 killed. There will always been nutcases who snap and go on these sort of violent sprees, but I find it hard to believe that a stricter control over firearms wouldn't at least curb the overall extent of the damage when someone with mental issues decides to go on a rampage.

He must have been talking about DA:O

Finished the Legacy DLC for DA2. I found I enjoyed the story in Legacy much more interesting than what the main game offered. Maybe I'm just more of an "ancient evil" fan than a "templar versus mage" fan.

I've never understood this obvious misinterpretation of the ending. Probably due to one of the pre-EC ending scenes where the Normandy crashes on a jungle planet, thus suggesting they're stranded there.

That whole dead kid and Shepard dreaming about him was a terrible failure of trying to evoke emotion from the player, IMO. Well, emotions other than annoyance and a feeling of "wtf? another dream sequence?!". Honestly, I know where BioWare was trying to go with it. But the attempt came off as bad as when my 5 year old nephew tries to tell a joke he heard in school, but forgets the majority of the details and has to pause every two seconds to correct himself and says, "No wait, this is how it goes ...".

As I'm playing through Chapter 3 of DA2, I'm starting to realize why (for me) it falls short of other games. IMO, the main story feels more like a collection of two or three different ideas that don't necessarily flow from the beginning of the game until the end, rather than the usual overarching epic plot of most other Bio games. In essence, it's like I'm playing three different games, rather than one game. Flaws or not, I think that's why I rate DA:O's story higher than DA2. The main story has a central focus that carries on throughout (building an army to fight the Arch Demon), so it's kind of like you're building toward a climax. DA2's main story was first about gathering enough money to get into the deep roads expedition, then about the Qunari threat, then about the Mage/Templar thing. Just feels less connected.

I think the problem with Vega has more to do with the fact he's just a boring character that doesn't have much depth to him. There's nothing quirky, nothing that stands out about him. To varying degrees, most of the other party companions had more depth to their characters that made them unique from just the average red shirt. Vega's the equivalent of Jenkins from ME1, both shallow "grunts" who fill a role to bring the player up to speed. Only difference is Jenkins was killed off after he fulfilled his function, while Vega was kept around the whole game.

Isabela, is that you?!

I couldn't bring myself to do this, since I was romancing her at the time, but I can also understand wanting to. Her betraying me when we were in the Fade during Feynriel's quest sealed her fate. We'd just had sex and she was just about maxed out friendship with me, yet she still give in to the demon all over the promise of a boat. I never forget.

More than the writing issues, I think this is the biggest reason I found the faction sidequests lacking in Skyrim. After completing them, they didn't seem to matter in the grand scheme of the world.

Haha! Take that, Isabela! Didn't see it coming where I'd turn you over to the Qunari, did you? Mike Hawke - 1 Isabela the betraying tramp - 0

A lot of games seem to like to use the "swarm" tactic for making combat challenging. Typically, the game will go to a cut scene, then suddenly you're surrounded by enemies with no chance to actually strategize to make sure you're not being flanked, or that your weaker party members (usually mage) is protected.

Where's the all of the above option?

The concept of the Diana Allers character was, IMO, a good one. A war journalist tagging along for the ride, etc. What fell apart was the actual character of Diana Allers, in large part because Jessica Chobot has the acting skills of a dead rodent. If Emily Wong (and the voice actress who portrayed her), or if that chick with the long name that Shepard likes punching, was used instead of Allers, I think it would have been a really neat addition. But I can't stress enough how much of a waste of space Chobot is.

I think quite a few of the single player fans have left the BSN. A lot of the threads there recently are co-op and MMO fans pleading with BioWare to make ME4 co-op/multiplayer. Which, as a single player gamer, makes me sad.

Pretty good trailer. Kenny's a princess, eh?

Still playing through Mark of the Assassin. It's kind of creepy how much Felicia Day really does look like an elf.

But at least Harbinger (or another "boss" Reaper) would have already established motives for trying to convince Shepard not to hit the "destroy all button". Keep in mind that at the point I was mentioning, Harbinger is basically desperate because he knows Shepard's literally a hand-length away from annihilating the Reapers. So in his AI mind, it's better to convince Shepard of a Synthesis choice (which could actually be a fully indoctrinated state, which he doesn't tell Shepard) than the alternative of Shepard outright activating the Crucible and destroying them. Also keep in mind that I'm talking about a possibility where no other aspect of the story or game is changed. Thus the limited scope of what I'm suggesting. As I said before, it would take massive re-writes of a lot of the game that came before that final 15 to 20 minutes with the Star Child, to effectively alter the ending in any other way. But at least my suggestion doesn't introduce a new character right out of the blue with no build up between them and Shepard. Harbinger being the one trying to convince Shepard which "button" to press at least follows up on the story threads previously established of a]Indoctrination, and the Reapers using it to convince beings to do as they want and b]Harbinger and Shepard's showdown that was suggested at the end of ME2. So I'm not necessarily saying what I suggest would turn the ending into a "good" ending, but rather it would at least tie in with a lot of the lead up to the ending (ie. indoctrination, Harbinger/Shepard confrontation, etc.).

I have some ideas, but it would be a pretty big re-write of the last, oh, hour or two of the game. But if we want to talk simple, and while not "great" (Bio kind of painted themselves into a corner with the way the last couple of hours is structured), at least it would build upon the rest of the series is by simply having Harbinger play the role of the Star Child. Alter it a bit, like when Shepard rides the platform up to the spot he talks to the Star Child, instead he confronts a weakened Harbinger and so Harbinger then goes into desperation mode and tries to convince Shepard to choose Synthesis, and explains why the Reapers exist to Shepard as part of that attempt. The Destroy option would be Shepard's big FU to Harbinger about not listening to him, while the Control ending would be the "power hungry" Shepard's FU to Harbinger. Obviously the above can be tweaked a little to make more sense, but the basic point is that it's Harbinger trying to "control" Shepard into selecting Synthesis because it's the outcome that the Reapers want most -- still alive, with no Shepard controlling them, and trying to convince him (through the dialogue the Star Child had with him) that Control and Destroy are a bad option to take. Again, BioWare basically still gets there Red/Green/Blue ending, except at the very least it's after a confrontation with a villain that's been built up since ME2, not some random AI thing that takes the form of an annoying child. I can't disagree with that entirely, but I still think ME2 left enough wiggle room leftover (including a new "main villain" in Harbinger) to finish off the series without having to come up with something as lame -- and possibly more importantly, the introduction of the Star Child practically out of the blue at the very end -- as they did.

I just don't understand how those responsible actually thought the inclusion of the Star Child and all that last bit would be a *good* thing. I'm all for "tragic" endings, or endings that don't leave you all warm and fuzzy at the end. So it wasn't the fact that the endings tended to be a downer that I have a massive issue with, it's the inclusion of the Star Child and his/its impact on the ending. Seriously, even people who generally liked the ending aren't particularly fond of the Star Child. He's more of a "well, it's not that big a deal" or "he's not that bad". Is that what we're striving for, here? To end games with "it's not that bad" or "I can look past this", rather than actually end games on notes that are a high point for the game? Nevermind lack of player choice, or lack of happy ending, or lack of whatever else the complaints are about the ME3 ending. I just don't know how those folks who came up with the Star Child actually thought it was going to be an actual positive to the narrative. At the absolute best, the Star Child seems to be "wasn't how I'd end it, but I can look past it" to even the most biased of fans.

Just played that section where you go into the Fade to help Feynriel, where the demon tempts two of your party members into turning on you, and remembered how annoying that part was. I had Merrill and Isabela turn on me, and while Merrill's is understandable (I didn't have max friendship with her), Isabela turning on me with near max friendship and for such a stupid reason was ... well, at the risk of being redundant, stupid. That was a perfect example of one of DA2's flaws -- it limited your impact on the world in order to tell their story. If the world was more reactive to the player's actions, what should have happened was anyone with a certain amount of approval (friendship) would turn on you, but if you'd managed to get someone's almost full approval, they'd fight the demon's offer. Just for that, she doesn't know it yet, but I'm turning Isabela in to the Arishok. See how she likes betrayal from someone close for the dumbest of reasons.