Calax

I was just surprised when the IOC chair took a quick potshot at putins "anti-gays" law during his speech.

So Figure skating? (or as Robin Williams calls it "Ice ****ing") And why is an orthodox nation saying "Allahu Ackbar" or whatever?

Personally, The ending was one thing, but the lack of a distinct cohesive narrative that followed through the entire game (instead of being almost episodic) bit the game. I mean, the Events of Tuchaunka and that entire segment of the story only have consequence for the 15ish minutes after the segment ends. Then it's onto the next segment of the game with the next "gutpunch". You know how a lot of people say that Call of Duty lost a lot of it's emotional punch when it was killing protagonist characters as a "thing"? With that big moment in MW1, and then in MW2 they do it twice(?) and by the third Modern Warfare it'd just lost all possible emotional impact it may have had. It's like that, but shoved into one game because the devs wanted you to know that WAR IS BAD MMMMK?

I'd argue that is pretty much exactly what ME2 does- it's a contrived plot device to get you to work for Cerberus against everything established in ME IIRC people did complain about not having Wrex, Liara, or the Virmire character as recruitable. Wrex not as much as the other two, because he had a legit "After ME1" story, unlike the Virmire survivor who just said "I don't trust you and you died too!" and Liara who was to busy with information to help you (somehow). My point about the ME2 crew was that the entire game was built around getting their characters loyal to you personally for that suicide mission, and then when you're "arrested" (which makes less and less sense as I think about it) they just shrug their shoulders and move on. Admittedly for some characters this makes more sense than others, specifically Mordin, Grunt and Miranda, as all of their encounters were a direct outgrowth of their loyalty missions. However Jacob, Garrus, Tali, Jack, Legion and Thane really make no sense in why they'd just shrug and wonder off. Samara I admit I could see wandering off. Garrus and Tali are the worst as they've been a follower for way to long. Jack owes her freedom (and emotional stability) to Shepard, Thane is on his last legs and has nowhere else to go, and Jacob has nothing beyond the organization you removed him from. Even as it is, Jack and Jacob are SO shoehorned into the game that their "quests" are almost entirely unconnected with the plot at large. I feels almost like we're arguing similar points (ME2 was not a good game to have as the middle of a trilogy), it's just I'm arguing that if we have to have it as it is, then they should have kept the same squad (or close to it). While you're saying that they should have made the game a side story or something. I am wondering how they'll do a fourth given that the end of three basically wrote them into a corner. Or... how they had no plan whatsoever for their trilogy and start making up **** post-mortem... which wouldn't even mesh with the game several times, just 'cause. It's really not ME3's fault that ME2's plot and basis was such a pile of rubbish and completely designed stand-alone rather than a mid-parter to a sequel. I seriously doubt the crew could have just doubled the teammates with all the plot, cutscenes, dialogue and what-not just cause the ME2 crew thought the suicide mission was a good idea. May look good on paper, and it's easy to say "they should have just used xxx instead as crew" but I doubt most people would realise the work and cost involved. I realize that it's hard, which is why I said that the concept of a suicide mission where EVERYONE can die was an utterly stupid idea on their part. Given how they openly stated "Oh yeah keep your savegames because we're gonna do this again!" in game, it's surprising they made things SO overly changeable.

True but if you know you're a trilogy, you don't have your entire game be "collect your crew" and "End!" without that crew continuing through to the next game. That was my point with ME2's idiocy of having the NPC's killable. The entire game is collecting them for this mission against the Collectors, and for the eventual fight with the reapers. However ME3 shows up and EVERYONE just ran off to the winds, while you're left to collect your original next squad to fight the reapers. Basically ME3 made the bulk of ME2 totally pointless (because the characters that they spent SO LONG fleshing out are thrown to the side), which ME2 didn't do to ME1. ME1 was almost totally about the fight to stop Saren (and the geth). Character moments and quicky conversations were something that would come up in interludes during your various attempts to subvert Saren's organization(s). Thus when you got "killed" and had to remake your squad for ME2, the writing didn't make ME1 seem almost pointless. The ties between games are the same, yes, but the transition between games was different. ME1>ME2 was your character DYING and being put back together over two years. ME2>ME3 was your character being arrested for crimes and sitting on his hands for a few months. Add to that the fact that ME2 is a game very heavily based on the idea that your squad is dedicated and totally loyal to YOU because you helped them with their various issues (usually of the daddy variety), and the conversion of your old squad into token NPC's that are little more than "HEY REMEMBER ME!?" moments, just feels wrong.

glad you're still with us though. It's really hard to see a reason to continue when you know that your career prospects aren't gonna change that much... ever.

I don't know of many people who would have kept their run where crew died. Hell, most people I know of end up using a save from the interwebz to continue the game. And ultimately, the decision to have the entire team (including shepard) killable in ME2 was stupid on any number of levels given they were running for a trilogy.

What would have made ME2 fit better would be to have the basic plot of the game be to grab all the guys you'll need for 3. Maybe sacrifice one or two for the sake of drama (Jacob) but if you're entire game is basically "characterize a bunch of guys" and you make a sequel where those characters are totally demoted, you're wasting everyone's time in terms of storytelling. Hell, have the same squad at the start of 3 get back together, have Jacob and Samara die on Mars, and their roles filled by the Virmire survivor and Liara and you've got a well fleshed out team who know the steaks and are already fairly well meshed together. Instead they just said "After you gathered your elite team of misfits, for the express purpose of stopping the Reapers, you immediately broke up because Shepard was put on trial for warcrimes!" We didn't need EDI to gain a physical form, or random yahoo number four to show up as the "new blood" to the series. I think EDI became to much of a focus in ME3 (what with being on-ship support as well as a team member), and Freddy Prinze Junior wasn't really needed. Look if you need somebody who you need to use as the "new blood" to ask questions, go grab Ashley/Kaiden and use them. They've effectively been "out" of whatever loop you're in since the first Normandy's destruction.

Mind still in "overstressed not that great" territories..

Yeah, my Warrior is 51-52 and slowly plowing through the Makeb story (where each quest bumps a level up). I don't have a guild anymore, and have been scared to run HM's because I barely played and don't know how to make my Warrior make boom boom. Also que times are loooonnnngggggg

Beware the Pinto!

Jack Reacher Honestly? I found the movie kinda boring because it was basically a Tom Cruise Ego trip. I mean it's based off basic airport book trash but Reacher is some sort of Ubermench who can mop the floor with anyone while also doing Holmsian level deduction through the entire movie. It didn't feel like he ever really had a challenge in the entire blasted thing.

Personally it sort of felt like the Genophage/Geth/Quarian/Rachni was all there as background and worked into the characters backstories, but it was more like Vietnam or WW2 would be worked into a game set 20 years later. IMO the reason ME2 was loved by fans is because it's a character piece... you could almost call it a "Bottle episode" if it were on TV. The overarching plot is nothing more than a macguffin to drive everything while the real meat of the game is how your characters bounce off one another. My memories of ME1 were that it felt more like a vast exploration of this world, using your chase of Saren to introduce the universe to you, while 2 fleshed out the characters that you'd be working with. Ideally (were I to magically write the trilogy with those two games "as is") you'd probably see ME 3 be the ME2 squad either fully meshed as a crew, or split up to tackle side objectives while Shepard got a semi-new squad to help out with his own objectives. Sort of like how it is now in ME 3 but with your ME 2 squad being less "we all went our own path" and more "Shepard gave me an objective and I will tackle it!" The problem with 3, to me, is that they didn't actually have a solitary story that you follow through the game. Instead it's a vague objective (save the earth) with little episodes that were mostly disconnected from the overall narrative. Part of this is probably the fault of how they built up the Reapers, it's hard to write yourself out a "Win" when you've made the enemy into an unstoppable force. But the way they got around it is just painful and the whole "War Asset" nonsense is boring. With the way it's structured now it feels like you're not actually progressing towards a victory, it's hard to put my finger on really why (best I got is probably that you don't really feel the effects of what you do in each "episode" after it's done), but it makes what's supposed to be crowning triumphs feel rather hollow. I think they would have done better with a "Chase the macguffin ex machina!" story, it fits with what Shepard is supposed to be (a single agent for the galaxy spanning coalition of governments), and would suit the "small squad of elite operatives" style much better than a "You are a soldier in a war effort" tale. The engine feels like it's not really designed to have a larger scale engagement, and ultimately the enemy they have for that is just to powerful for a ground fight to be plausible. Maybe if we actually saw reapers going down in space battles i'd believe that this could be a war story, but with how "invincible" they are, it'd be stupid to try to make players think that "warfare" will win the day.

I feel lost on my 50, and have no idea what I'm supposed to do. I have god knows how many planetary commendations but very few classic/dailies (go figure). and I feel like I'm permanently behind the leveling curve.

Today I wondered if I could suicide with viagra... research points to yes.

Spent the majority of two days asleep, and now I'm off to drive for work in a blizzard warning (yaaaay )

slowly sinking into a pit of depression and a sincere lack of motivation to do ANYTHING on this planet.

My flippin cat keeps disconnecting my external HD.

Except that, to a degree, in an MMO you have to afford the ability to solo because there will not always be somebody to play with you at all times. Multiplayer content can be the focus of your game, but you have to design a majority of your content (mostly of the leveling persuasion) around only one player being around at any time. This is why most MMO's are endgame focused... because endgame is the only time you can guarantee there will be a large segment of your population twittling their thumbs. Although City of Heroes added layer after layer of things to the midgame and was built around alts.

Here ya go

>.> I totally just reinstalled this. On shadowlands with no idea wtf is going on or how to play anymore.

Still fighting a cold during my first week of classes... Looks like I'm going to be doing two research papers this semester.

This is why I play way to much Dynasty Warriors

CoD Ghosts. It's the first one that I feel actually deserves that whole "uninspired recreation of different set pieces from other games!". I beat it, and the credits kept listing different game dev houses and overall the blasted thing feels like it's missing probably half it's story elements (magically south america is able to rise up and attack the USA... and the USA has orbital weapons without any real explanation). But what really gets into your head and sits there is that your "organization" doesn't feel like a part of the military, no real command structure and ultimately they're pursuing a personal vendetta rather than a military objective. I realize I'm probably digging to deep into this, but ultimately there just starts to build up these little things... A Dad who deliberately raises his kids to be "Tier One" soldiers. A Submarine who managed to get to a frozen lake in the Andes Mountains. The US managing to lose the South West and ends up in a defensive war. A "normandy beach" level where you are defending with a mounted machine gun. A distinct lack of info on what military branch they're in. Basically it's about as jingoistically propagandized as possible. Practically worshipping the military (and more specifically the "tier one" operators), and making them into insane supermen. And while yes this did happen on previous games to a degree, usually the protagonists weren't as Ubermench as these yahoos. The SAS crew in the MW series were a bunch of thugs with moral relativism, and the Treyarch series has a horrible father, a sociopathic cold war russian, and a kid with daddy issues (because of the horrible father). I'll stop ranting now.

So, I have these two Crusader Kings II 50% off coupons... but I own the game. So... up for grabs to [soDOFF]