[Mass Effect 3]

From what you sound like you are saying, you seem to indicate that ME2 was dumbed down for the "masses" or in other words, made to appeal to a bigger audience. If that's what you are saying, and if that design actually worked, then it would be stupid to go back to a design which would lessen their appeal, cut their sales, and reduce how many would play the game.

 

In that light, maybe you want to restate or refine whether you think it is stupid and that's what you meant...or if you meant less involving and thus less interesting. One is simply stupid and causes problems...the other isn't necessarily stupid, but it may directly impact how the game flows and feels which can improve or detract (as in your case....detract) from whether one likes the game and the changes or not.

 

I think it's stupid because an RPG is a fundamentally strategic game, and this is clearly changing the system to be less strategic. Note: "less strategic" does not mean "easier." What the system lost in strategic difficulty it gained in increased combat difficulty. However, powers really don't feel like a unique part of combat on a global cooldown system so much as just another weapon - in addition to your main gun, you can shoot a colored missile at the enemy every six seconds. Which missile you shoot depends on which enemy you're facing and how much damage you've done to them. It's really not strategic at all, and I think that's a dumb choice to make in a game claiming to be an RPG.

 

Furthermore, from a purely subjective standpoint, I feel the global cooldown really makes the powers feel less, well, powerful. They're not as fun to use if they're forced into a rigid pattern of using them every time the cooldown is up, and it really cuts down on the feeling of variety when you're essentially restricted to one power against a certain set of foes, as often happened in ME2.

 

As for the "broadened appeal" argument, I don't fully buy that - sure, a global cooldown system will appeal more to the CoD crowd, but is there any convincing evidence that the increase appeal to shooter fans outweighs the lost appeal to RPG fans? I doubt it.

[Mass Effect 3]

Having a hard time seeing how having the option of "shooting my load" makes it more strategic vis-a-vis global cooldown, where I have to actually choose between, say, a buff or an attack. This is just another case of you guys personally preferring the other and trying to turn the other into some kind of mistake in game design.

 

"Mistake," no. I'm simply noting that a global cooldown removes any element of timing from your ability usage. You hit a button every few seconds. Which button you hit is largely determined by which type of armor you want to damage. That's about all the logic there is to the power usage on the global cooldown. The challenge posed by long individual cooldowns is deciding at which point in combat to use your ability for maximal effect. Your complaint about this indicates that you're exactly the type of player to whom BioWare was catering with this change - you didn't make that decision, you simply used your abilities every time they were off cooldown. Of course, if you play in such a manner, you will be ineffective.

 

This is certainly the intended design, not a bug. I'm saying it's a stupid design.

 

Isn't your example in fact more appropriate to an individual cooldown, where the individual cooldown makes your decisions for what powers to use?

 

I'm still trying to parse this sentence. It's not working.

[Mass Effect 3]

I like the global cooldown. I hated it in ME1 when I fired off my powers and then had to rely on my peashooter for the rest of the encounter while the painfully long individual cooldowns reset. IMO saying that you prefer the ME1 version is kind of like saying you prefer premature ejaculation.

 

 

You're basically saying "I disliked the old system because I don't like strategy in my shooter."

 

The new system basically reduces the fairly complex question of which power to use when (and, of course, if you act stupidly and blow them all at once you'll suffer for it) to the utterly mindless question of "which button do I press every six seconds?"

[Mass Effect 3]

They *need* to get rid of that stupid ****ing global cooldown. Combat was so much more satisfying in ME1 because you actually felt powerful when using powers, rather than simply shooting a colored missile every few seconds.

[Mass Effect 3]

Apparently, the ME3 demo has been leaked on XBL.

 

If you wanna watch a video of the first 2 missions and don't mind spoilers, click here.

 

RPG mechanics are expanded from ME2 - good, but still not as nice as they were in ME1.

 

Combat looks identical to that of ME2, right down to that ****ing Global Cooldown (ugh, **** that).

 

Art direction is a bit less grimdark (hooray!), and though it's a bit early to call it does seem the soundtrack is less orchestral and bland than ME2's.

 

The character animations and cinematics are really great, I'm not going to deny that. I hope the content is good enough to match, though.

[Mass Effect 3]

 

Anyone who doesn't like that at least a little tiny bit hasn't a soul.

 

The beginning was promising, but it didn't really develop as I'd have liked. Again, there's too much orchestral stuff - keep it electronic, keep it futuristic.

 

 

I'll agree with you on ME1's soundtrack. That has to be one of the most awesome soundtracks in the past decade for a Video game!

 

ME1 and Sins of a Solar Empire have the two best video game soundtracks of the past decade, I'd say.

 

 

Nepenthe, I hope you're right about ME3's soundtrack being more like that of the first game, because the second game's music was just boring and generic, it left me completely cold. ME1's soundtrack, on the other hand, really stuck with me - it was unique, it was interesting, and it fit the atmosphere *so damn well.*

[Mass Effect 3]

The main question that video raised: what ever happened to the brilliant soundtrack of ME1?

 

I've had enough of these pseudo-hollywood "epic" orchestral soundtracks. ME1's 80's electronic vibe was a welcome, refreshing change. It fit the atmosphere prefectly. The music in that video, however, was generic as hell. What happened?

[Mass Effect 3]

Looks good, but kinda disappointing that the Reapers have gone from invulnerable space gods in ME1 to mooks that can be blown apart in one shot.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, though, and that thing at the end of the video is not a Reaper?

 

It's pretty clear BioWare wrote the plot of ME1 without any particular consideration for possible sequels, and then couldn't figure out any feasible way to have you defeat the foe as they were originally presented so they had to scramble to reduce them to a much less imposing enemy.

[Mass Effect 3]

I guess that TIM as the bad guy is a plausible answer to having Cerberus as a bad guy on ME3. It just really makes Shep look stupid for having spent all ME2 hauling ass for them.

 

Also I get this nagging feeling that this a cheap plot device, but then again this ME and BW. I shouldn't hope for much.

 

My thoughts exactly. If they were planning this from the start, they could have at the very least given Shepard & Co. some better reasons for working for TIM in ME2 other than "herp derp Collectors!" Admittedly, it's a bit more coherent now - it's understandable that TIM would send Shepard to find a crew and attack the relay alone because he'd know that the Collector base is nearly-undefended, so that particular plot hole is closed. Unfortunately, it raises the issue of why Shepard is dumb enough to go along with the whole thing. After all, TIM may know these things, but Shepard (and his crew, which ostensibly contains some very smart people) does not, and I have a really hard time believing anyone with an ounce of sense would agree to TIM's directives of how to prepare for the suicide mission when without that information they simply make no goddamn sense.

[Republican Candidates]

Junai, I honestly have no idea what the hell you are trying to say.

Get some of your friends at the Rotary-club to explain it for you.

 

Anyway, let's get this out of the way once and for all; No, I don't believe there is an all-powerful NWO-organization which runs everything. I don't think the moonlanding was filmed in the Mojave desert, and I don't think little green men planted mini-nukes in the twin-towers. Ok?

 

Republican or not, I'll back any candidate with half a brain who wants to stabilize the economy and put an end to the "unfortunate" habit of initiating undeclared wars. If that's madness, then I'm quite mad.

 

J.

 

Eliminating the fed and reverting to the gold standard will not "stabilize the economy."

[Mass Effect 3]

I could kiss you. It also saves me the trouble of having to reply to the cunning retort

[Mass Effect 3]

Mmh, now we're at the anti-ME2 argument 3b, also known as pedestalising ME1 and ignoring all that was wrong with it. Kind of like what was done with DAO and DA2, 'cept DA2 made it easier for you guys.

 

If you want to see this as some sort of quest to discredit your enjoyment of ME2, be my guest. It's not exactly beneficial to the discussion, though.

[Mass Effect 3]

Honestly, at this point, "bull****" is about the extent of what your newest attempt deserves to be dismissed with...

 

 

"Attempt?"

 

Wat.

[Republican Candidates]

There's a great Dwight D. Eisenhower quote that I think really emphasizes exacty how absurd the Republican party has become of late:

 

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

 

Ah, if only he could see them now. They may still be stupid, but their number is certainly no longer negligible - indeed, they comprise pretty much the entirety of the modern Republican party.

[Mass Effect 3]

This thread is depressing.

 

I've had a blast taking Shepard through these games, I guess that makes me simple, but he's a Marine and he gets stuff done. You guys need to treat this game like a good night out on the town. Play it fast and easy, and don't look too closely at the bathrooms or the girl you take home. Good times

 

That's the thing, though; ME1, while far from perfect, had a respectable plot. It was not simply an excuse for **** YEAH SHEPARD SHOOTS STUFF. The shift in emphasis between the two games is jarring - you can see it everything from the plot, to the gameplay, to the art direction, to the soundtrack. It became less of a sci-fi adventure RPG and much more of a typical, bland shooter, except IN SPACE.

 

In many ways, it's the same sort of "Awesome Button" mentality that defined DA2, except not quite as overt. I can't help but think this is largely a result of the EA merger.

[Mass Effect 3]

I mean, yes, that interpretation works, but only if you accept then that essentially everyone in the game other than TIM is a complete ****ing moron.

The evidence in the game is pretty consistent. It makes TIM look like he's lying, sure. Quelle surprise, there.

 

1) TIM is the one pushing the Collectors as the big bad. No one else (even the Alliance) is very concerned.

2) The evidence presented in game (running from Horizon, losing to NormandyII) suggests they aren't actually a huge threat, militarily. If TIM were an impeccable source that might be a problem, story wise, but he ain't.

3) They may be a threat in other ways. Ironically evidence suggests they may be more of a threat to large, mixed, concentrations of aliens (per the Omega plague) than large concentrations of humans.

 

It isn't even (that) contrived that Shephard gets lead around by the nose by TIM. He spent most of ME1 doing random quests on the word of random people, potentially including such heights of perspicacity as being manipulated by a blue chick mafiosa into bumping off two rival underworld kingpins.

 

It is still very contrived, however, that Shepard, supposedly believing that the Collectors are some sort of legitimate threat, goes about preparing for his "suicide mission" by gathering a load of squadmates and then solving their family issues, only for the final battle to pan out in just the right way such that having done this becomes important. That just doesn't make any damn sense - of all the possible thing he might need to do to prepare to fight a foe he knows very little about, gathering a big crew of specialists is not a very good way to prepare.

[Mass Effect 3]

I mean, yes, that interpretation works, but only if you accept then that essentially everyone in the game other than TIM is a complete ****ing moron. Not only for not seeing that the Collectors are a non-threat and being easily manipulated, but because the steps they take to prepare to combat what they obviously perceive to be a big threat are complete nonsense. This is why I have a hard time believing that this was BioWare's intention. It seems to me far more likely that the Collectors were just thrown together as a clumsy way to link together a game which is composed of largely unrelated character-oriented missions - it really doesn't feel like much serious thought was put into making the whole thing come together in any coherent way (evidenced by the completely contrived "loyalty" mechanic, among other things).

[Mass Effect 3]

Does it really matter whether or not the Collectors could have successfully attacked Earth? They showed they were quite capable of hitting the fringe/colony worlds, and would keep doing so. That's still a rather large swathe of humanity, and I'm pretty sure that Shephard and co were quite frantic over that alone. I mean, remember overhearing some of the crew talking. They had family in those colonies, which is one reason some of them were so motivated.

 

A valid point, but I must ask again - if BioWare never intended the Collectors to be a legitimate threat to alliance space, why do so many of the characters constantly act as if they are? Lines about how they're going to attack Earth are the most grevious examples, but there are plenty of others. The game seems to constantly remind you that Humanity is in danger, when clearly that isn't the case.

 

The fact that human colonies were getting disapeared like that was also having political knock-on effects with the Alliance. They were getting stressed the Council was ignoring the issue, and the other races would see it as Alliance weakness and maneuver for more political benefits. The problem of what the Collectors were doing needed to be solved regardless of whether they could have mounted a successful threat against Earth or not.

 

Well, that's questionable - as the Collector plan (making a human reaper) would never have worked unless they could target Earth, its really not clear that much needed to be done at all, unless somehow Shepard is convinced that human colonies in the Terminus systems are crucial to the well-being of the galaxy. It's a fairly minor issue, and again, the game doesn't present it as a matter of saving fringe colonies, it presents it as a matter of stopping the reapers. This seems much more like an oversight than an intended feature. If this is the only motivation, what need is there for a suicide mission?

 

You've been brought back from the dead after two years, you get shown this pattern of attacks and destroyed colonies. You get given data about a mysterious, race that seems to have very advanced tech. And then you find out that the Collectors were the very people that blew up the Normandy in the first place.

 

You go talk to Anderson and the Council, and they pretty much ignore you and tell you that your visions of Protheans and Reapers from the first game aren't real and they don't believe you. Anderson believes you, but can't actually help you in any real manner. Then later you find out he wasn't sure he could trust you and sent a member of your old crew out "undercover" to find out if Cerberus was behind the missing colonies.. The only people willing to give you resources to look into and potentially deal with the problem are a group you don't like and can't really trust. What are you going to do, walk away and ignore the situation? Or use the resources you can and prepare a backup plan?

 

I can tell you what I don't do - I don't go gather a bunch of squadmates and solve their personal issues, because that's just about the most nonsensical form of preparation for the "suicide mission" that I could possibly think of. Keep in mind, a lot of the reason that Anderson and the systems alliance weren't willing to help you is because you agreed to work for Cerberus in the first place. Doesn't make much sense.

 

At what point did Shephard and Co know that they only had the one ship? Sure, they encountered the same ship several times, but for all they knew, the Collectors might have had a full armada at their home of origin. Until they had definite knowledge, they have to act as if there might be a big fleet and a serious threat there...

 

This would be a great motivation to spend your efforts on gathering intel rather than squadmates. All of your preparations for the suicide mission would have been completely worthless against an enemy with a proper fleet (or even proper defenses for their only base). So, if you're arguing that not only was the Collector thread intended to be small, but that Shepard & Co. were intended to be too thick to realize that the Collector threat was small, then essentially they only succeed due to pure, unadulterated serendipity, as their preparations are completely and utterly moronic given the possible nature of the threat they'd have to face.

 

So, essentially, not only do you have a foe who aren't a major threat to alliance space and who could not fulfill what is ostensibly their main plan (building a human reaper), you have a protagonist who does not realize this but still proceeds to only make preparations that would be useful when this is the case. I'd say this makes precious little sense.

[Republican Candidates]

Yeah, the GOP is falling to pieces this election cycle, and honestly I can't say I'm too surprised. I'm not a fan of Obama, but anything is better than the pack of buffoons the GOP has put forward...

[Mass Effect 3]

It's due to the Hollywood Hero syndrome. This is different then a plot hole, it's to prove how bad arse a hero someone in the story is.

 

I think you're missing my point. My point is not that the Normandy is inordinately powerful. My point is that the collectors are a non-threat.

 

The Normandy almost took out a Reaper which ravaged an entire fleet. It shot the Reaper right through and just about brought it down!

 

That was cinematics - the game makes it pretty clear the entire Alliance fleet is what kills the reaper, not the Normandy itself.

 

No, they aren't a Reaper, they can't take on a colony with a full defense spectrum up (which has several times the firepower of a Cruiser or Battleship), but against an unarmed one...they sure can take it out without anyone knowing the better.

 

That's my very point - the Collectors are not a serious threat to the system alliance. They could never do anything more than taking fringe colonies, despite the fact that at several points Shepard & Co. make it clear that they believe the Collectors would need to target Earth (or at the very least some larger worlds) to accomplish their goal. Now, whether this is a plot hole or simply writing every character as a moron depends on what you think BioWare's intentions were, but I personally lean towards the former. There's no way around the fact that the Collectors could never accomplish what Shepard and his team believe their goal to be, though.

[Mass Effect 3]

Actually, scratch that an armada will probably crash with all the ship debris. So unless there is a way to handle that, they are still untouchable post ME2

Apparently there is. If you turn over the base, you see a bunch of Cerberus ships show up at it. No debris, no IFF, ummm...

 

I had always assumed that after the suicide mission IDI was able to replicate the IFF for Cerberus. Of course, that raises a whole slew of issues by itself - namely, if it's possible to replicate the IFF what sense does it make to immediately hook it up to your ship and rush through alone? Cerberus has resources - send through a probe and see what's there, perhaps, or send a ****ing fleet. Perhaps I could buy that course of action if there were some legitimately believable time constraint which forced immediate action, but there really isn't, especially given how apparently weak the Collectors appear to be (as I've gone over in all my previous posts).

[Republican Candidates]

I think it's important to have folks in DC pushing small government like Ron Paul, I just don't know if I think he should be the President.

 

I absolutely detest any politician who argues for "big government" or "small government." There are no objective criteria against which to judge government size. "Big" and "small" are purely relative, and are not useful in determining what roles governments should fill. Any argument based on the logic that government should be "as big as possible" or "as small as possible" are useless by their very nature, as there are no external boundaries to prevent such logic from essentially arguing for totalitarianism or anarchy (the logical extremes). Any attempt to work around that essentially boils down to "government should be as big/little as possible while still fulfilling the roles that I think are necessary," which really is the key issue here. The issue of governmental responsibility is one that must be approached by deciding upon a specific list of roles which one believes the goverment is responsible for, and designing your policy such that those are fulfilled. You can get absolutely nowhere by operating purely off of these nearly meaningless abstractions of "big" and "small" government.

 

Also, Ron Paul is a nutcase. I don't think anyone who wants to revert to the gold standard is a necessary figure in American politics.

[Mass Effect 3]

If Vietnam and Napoleon (it was actually the British) had something to teach was the importance of mobility, "an army walks on its stomach" if you will.

On a frontal assault the Collectors would be crushed but their strength lies in the Omega 4 relay, they can attack anywhere with little fear of repercussion since (before the events of ME2) no ship can survive the journey.

Actually, scratch that an armada will probably crash with all the ship debris. So unless there is a way to handle that, they are still untouchable post ME2

 

That's the thing, though - they were certainly a thread to the fringe colonies. I'm fine with that. But for all the strength their untouchable base of operations gives them, there's still absolutely no way they could logically attack any colonies in even lightly-defended space given their demonstrated complete inability to win any sort of pitched fight against an actual warship. If the plot had been written with this in mind, that wouldn't be a problem - unfortunately, the plot has everyone in the game acting as if the Collectors are some genuine threat to Humanity's existence. This leaves either the possibility of BioWare simply forgetting to give the Collectors the sort of force they'd require to fill their intended role (gaping plot hole) or of BioWare writing every character other than TIM as a braindead idiot (very questionable plot direction). Of the two, I believe the former is quite a bit more likely.

[Mass Effect 3]

After the top secret, reverse-engineered Reaper technology/quarian ubertech/etc upgrades to Normandy 2, it is, indeed, a "super ship".

 

 

You don't need any of the upgrades to beat the Collector cruiser, and none of the upgrades are "super-secret" other than the weapon upgrade, which even then only elevates your frigate to cruiser-class firepower. The Collector cruiser clearly lacks the strength to pose any threat to actual alliance space, which has been my point all along.

[Mass Effect 3]

No, it just seems you didn't pay heed to what I posted before. In fact some of it you actually blatantly ignored. Put a frigate today against a cruiser of WWI...I'd might actually wager the Frigate may win...however...that aside, even with that, you completely missed the point. Further, just with the frigate/cruiser problem, even if you ignored the real reason and point of it...you never answered why a frigate that survived a reaper and even took down a reaper should be shot down by a Collector cruiser which according to you is far weaker than the aforementioned Reaper...nor did you answer why something two times as big, powerful, and sleek than something that withstood a reaper and took it down later would have a problem with your Collector theory if the collector is indeed much weaker than that aforementioned Reaper.

 

You don't seem to get it. The Normandy is not some super-ship. It is outright stated in the first game that its main innovations are a big drive core and the stealth abilities. It is not primarily a combat vessel. It did not single-handedly defeat a reaper - the alliance fleet destroyed the reaper. It makes perfect sense that it would lose a fight against a cruiser - the fact that the only Collector cruiser is unable to defeat it in a pitched battle at the end of ME2 really puts a damper on the Collectors' supposed ability to threaten alliance space. You cannot talk your way around this. Now, whether or not this is a plothole or simply questionable writing depends largely on what BioWare intended - I've admitted as much in previous posts.

 

Beyond ignoring this little point, you make it more blatant that it's more you complaining about things you don't like when you ignore the other side of the equation. If you have problems with an unupgraded Normandy surviving and crashing...why DON'T YOU have a problem with a fully upgraded Normandy with the latest tech (enough to cut through the Collector ship as easily as it cut through the original Normandy even) also crashing and having problems.

 

Because my problem is not with the Normandy crashing after the fight, or with the similarity in performance between the upgraded and un-upgraded normandy. My problem is with the premise of the game being built around the fact that the Collectors are supposedly some massive threat, when upon closer inspection it's apparent that they're a complete ****ing nonissue. They could never advance past the undefended fringe colonies because they simply did not have the force to do so. They could never have completed their reaper. I don't give two ****s that the Normandy crashes after the fight. You, again, are missing my point.

 

I explained (in one post though, so not multiple...I don't plan on going round and round in circles like you have, I assume you can read, though you might wonder since I just reposted some unanswered points that you ignored) already the real reason why the Normandy is not destroyed and also has problems and crashes into the Collector base.

 

The **** does this have to do with any of the problems I have with the game?

 

I could go on, with various reasons why you haven't convinced me. However it's irrelavant if you actually have so many "plotholes" as you infer. Your list isn't that long, and if you had so many, than you could go listing them on and on and on.

 

You could go on doing what, arguing against points I never made? I made a very concise list of the main problems I have with ME2's plot. They're all fairly large problems - so large, in fact, that the plot ceases to make much sense at all when you take them into consideration. You, however, refuse to discuss any of my actual problems in favor of just saying "I don't agree" over and over again ad nauseam.

 

I might be a fanboi as some may put it, but I'm not oblivious.

 

Why do you keep bringing this up? I don't care how much you like the game. I never attacked you for liking the game. Everyone else here is simply discussing the plot. Why can't you do the same?

 

As far as a game goes, I'd rather have a fun enjoyable one with a fast moving story and defined goals (even if minor steps with each character recruitment and then loyalty missions) then a meandering mess that really doesn't go anywhere

 

Interesting - "meandering mess that doesn't really go anywhere" sums up ME2 fairly well. You're given a foe who upon even a cursory inspection are not really a threat, and are told, in a moment of very questionable strategic sense, to go gather a bunch of teammates to charge through a relay into completely unknown conditions to deal with this non-threat. The entire plot is a throwaway excuse to hold together a bunch of otherwise separate character missions - that would be fine, perhaps, if it weren't done so ham-handedly. The character missions themselves are quite fun. It's a pity they're not brought together in any coherent, sensible manner.

 

I won't deny plotholes, but I want you to at least be honest whether you actually have plotholes (which for what it appears you do not) or you simply didn't like how the game was written.

 

You see, here's the thing - the point I think you're trying to make (I'm not sure, because your posting isn't exactly eloquent) is something which has already been discussed and resolved a few posts earlier. Many of the points I'm bringing up could either be seen as plot holes or simply questionable story directions, depending on what you think BioWare intended. Do you think BioWare intended the Collectors to be a non-threat? If so, then sure, these aren't plot-holes - rather, it simply makes it seem as if every character in the Mass Effect universe is braindead (possible exception for TIM, who would then just be exploiting the fact that everyone else is braindead). So be it, that would be a coherent plot, albeit a really stupid one. However, I don't give BioWare that much credit. If BioWare really did intend for the Collectors to be some huge threat to Alliance space (which I contend they did, based on the dialogue), then they are most certainly plot holes - it's a pretty gaping plot hole if your Big Bad who wants to attack Earth doesn't have a force capable of penetrating even lightly-defended space.

 

I'm saying your attempt to convince me that what you listed as plotholes are actually plotholes doesn't ring true...AND that your real gripe is simply...as I just stated...that you don't like how it's written and would have preferred events to occur differently.

 

By now, I'm not attempting to convince you of anything - you've long ago showed that you have no interest in changing your position. I'm simply trying to get you to discuss what exactly you feel is wrong with my appraisal of the plot and its inconsistencies. This is something everyone else in the forum seems capable of doing. You should try it.

 

Hopefully you can back up your original claim, hence start listing all your plotholes...otherwise you sound more like a disgruntled player of ME2 who is playing armchair general of what they'd have done different. No problem with that, but at least be honest with yourself and us.

 

The **** does "honesty" have to do with it? Everything I've said has been based directly upon game content.

 

PS: One last thing, I actually read this thread more for news on ME3...love to hear more about it rather then some person's gripes about ME2. It's actually far easier to browse these forums for information than Bio's...theirs moves rather quickly, and this place seems to get the news all consolidated in a more accessible nature (one thread) that seems to be more comprehensive with it's total web coverage (find things here that I occasionally don't at Bio's).

 

...So, what? Is this supposed to gain you some sort of legitimacy, because you don't come here to actually discuss the game?