lord of flies

Quite possibly, but that's not a defense. If every RPG jumped off a bridge, would Mass Effect?

"You don't like it, why are you posting?" is a terrible argument, just FYI. Sorry to burst your bubble about the quality of this game. It will be bad unless Bioware takes the lessons of Mass Effect, which is unlikely since fanboys like yourself slobber all over them and their bad games and awful stories. Beyond which, I have played through many subpar games, from start to finish, and will probably do so in the future. I even acquire some measure of enjoyment from it, though I don't become a fanboy like yourself who can't bear to hear that his bad favorite game is bad. You might call it my one weakness.

Wrong again. Tell me, what's the difference between playing an Adept with Tali in the party and playing an Engineer with Liara in the party? Could it be that the bland and copy-paste game design means there is none? You shoot people from the third person perspective. With a gun. In general - and I don't know if you're aware of this - video games where you shoot people with a gun from a third person perspective are called "third person shooters" and there is an expectation that there will be some difference between doing something yourself and having one of your teammates do it. This is of course in opposition to what Mass Effect does, which is turn the "shooting" aspect into a farce because as long as you aim in the general direction of your target, your hit % is completely mechanical. It's a terrible combat system that is fundamentally deficient, and the only way one could think it was good is if you didn't notice that this was happening - which is certainly possible, since the enemies never react to being shot. Well, it is a plain and simple game, so I suppose you're correct there. It's hardly "awesome," though.

Yes, that is probably correct. However, it is irrelevant since everything will play the same (poorly) and asides from (perhaps) a brief side dialogue with one of your team mates or minor comments on you being a robot, the story will march on, unstopped, because Bioware is incapable of writing anything but the most linear and derivative drek where the only serious difference that will occur based on your choices is the ending. There are never long term consequences in story terms except "remove this character from the rest of the game," which is obviously far easier than anything else.

I liked Starcraft because I was twelve (note: author does not remember how old he was when he played Starcraft). After I went through the story, it was only good for the custom maps.

Wrong. Ripping off the Terminator's design is not cool because it shows the folks at Bioware to be a bunch of hacks (as if the original Mass Effect wasn't proof enough). Red eyes look cool, then? You should see some of my family photographs, we are a bunch of badass mother****ers by your metric.

It is true. Max out pistols, ignore AR, no point in getting into the "prestige" weapons. The only thing you need to do is shoot at bad guys and occasionally open up the ability wheel to cast Marksman or Lift (whether with Shephard or Liara). Hmm... terrible game design where everyone plays the same... how is this different from every RPG ever created? It doesn't matter, it's ****ty design. It's a third person shooter in combat (even if it's a really ****ing bad one), not some turn based RPG. All right, the ones in there I've played are pretty bland crap, but I've heard good things about Planescape Torment. Don't know what your point is; HL2>Daikatana, doesn't make it good.

Bad news. The only thing that allowed its bland, cliche-ridden storyline even the slightest staying power was punching people in the face and the fact that there's a non-zero chance that you might latch on to the personality of one of the stereotypical characters who fill out your crew (I liked Liara for a little while, and even looking back, Garrus was pretty all right). Whoever designed your companions was working pretty hard to prevent that, though; your crew is comprised of a space Republican, a bland character who as far as I'm aware has no outstanding features, an aspergers girl, a space gypsy whose only verbal contribution is her long-ass exposition about the her species, yet another I-love-killing mercenary/soldier character and a "doesn't play by the rules" ex-cop. To the original poster: every class plays the same because the pistol is absurdly powerful at high levels and using Shephard's abilities feels and works the exact same as using your companions' abilities.

No, it doesn't, it looks as bland and derivative as every other character in the game. Red eyes and a ton of scars != cool. Besides which, that's obviously pre-rendered and if that look even features in the game (certainly questionable), it will look nowhere near as good since video game designers have yet to master the difficult art of lighting effects.

Apparently once this scene is over the CIA agent you're controlling gets shot and the whole thing is pinned on the CIA by the nationalists so that the Russians will be pissed as hell. So basically, the CIA kills a bunch of civilians "in pursuit of a greater good" (i.e. American hegemony) then their staggering incompetence ruins everything and helps out the bad guys. Just like real life.

This is my source, he's got a bibliography. PS: Krezack, friendly warning: make an alt or something... just in case.

Oh, so in the first Modern Warfare, the unskippable parts where you play as the President of a middle-eastern country, and are beaten, dragged, watch innocents get executed, et cetera, until you are finally tied to a pole and shot, and where you play as a Marine who is slowly dying in the aftermath of a nuclear bomb going off, those are OK. And in World at War, the part where you had to murder surrendering soldiers, that's OK. But holy ****, shooting some guys in an airport in a skippable part of the game? Now that's just unforgivable.

Translation: I use the apparent character of my opponents to arbitrarily dismiss their arguments when they are too difficult for me to address. I believe that it is my opponent, however, whose position will never waver.

Well, it would appear that you have decided not to respond to my posts, so I must bid you adieu. If you'd prefer to have a conversation, try answering the questions.

Alright, I'll try a different tact: where does "the law" come from, and why is it made a particular way? Please no "gays in Iran are breaking the law!!!" logic. All the rehab in the world will not change the fact that an innocent can still choose to break the law! My god... why bother teaching children morals with ironclad logic like this?

Sounds awesome, definitely gonna be picking up this game.

Whelp, best pack it in. Killian is resorting to making the "free will" argument, wherein he pretends like human behavior has nothing to do with outside stimulus. No point in discussing how to make a better society with people who make this dumb ass argument. However, I'd like to make a quick last-minute snipe: "I ****ing get a boner every time somebody goes to jail!" - Killian Kalthorne Human behavior is influenced by outside stimulus, I agree, but it does not CONTROL human behavior. No matter how much outside stimulus effects a human being, that human still has free will to choose. That is the difference between us and animals. Thanks for playing, Flyboy, but you lose once again. Thanks for playing, Kalthorne, but you still don't understand the most basic aspects of how to run a functional society. Here's a quick tip: don't go with your knee-jerk revenge fantasies in deciding or supporting government policy.

Whelp, best pack it in. Killian is resorting to making the "free will" argument, wherein he pretends like human behavior has nothing to do with outside stimulus. No point in discussing how to make a better society with people who make this dumb ass argument. However, I'd like to make a quick last-minute snipe: "I ****ing get a boner every time somebody goes to jail!" - Killian Kalthorne

Hurf a durf, they made a bad choice, ergo let's engage in behavior which is practically designed to make them make the same choice over and over again!!!!

This is precisely the kind of psychology which I discussed in my post. Its only purpose is to allow the atrocious system to continue; it has no positive societal effect, since prisoners are released from their years-long stay at the rape camp and expected to somehow conform to societal standards while being ostracized by every non-criminal community.

And? Will his behavior be improved or corrected somehow by his seven-year stay at the rape camp? Or will he just come out worse than he came in? Hmm... a difficult question, surely one for the ages.

The problem with believing that criminals act in a completely free manner is that it requires you to believe the corollary - that countries, cities, and neighborhoods where the crime rate is higher are full of inferior people. Which is obviously retarded and racist, so what is the reason people commit crimes? Could it be... economic and social conditions, including the general socio-economic level of their area and the character and source of income for local institutions which provide their social safety net? No... couldn't be. Poor people commit more crimes? Well, since poor people act in a completely free manner and are solely acting on the basis of their own choices, obviously the poors are inferior! Hold on a second, let me get out my poor-stomping boots...

There are two facts regarding the retributive justice system which explains why it is around: Firstly, retributive justice does not work. When punishment is added to simple situations, the human brain goes from "social" mode, where it thinks in positive, empathetic and mutually beneficial terms, to "rational" mode, where it becomes a rampaging monster who acts like a **** as long as he can get away with it. Secondly, people love to punish. We love it, we love it so much it gives us boners and makes us high as hell. Nothing gets people better than someone whose behavior they consider morally wrong (whether it is or not) being punished. Look at the dumb nerds crowing over Jack Thompson's disbarment, or the way that Freepers get all happy any time a liberal gets in trouble, or just look at people pump their fists when somebody goes to jail. People will punish even when they are told it is not in their best interests. If you don't believe me, try a little thought experiment: do you believe that the majority of people in prison would be a lesser financial drain on society if they had never been put in prison in the first place? Let's say the answer is yes. It certainly is in my country. Okay, now try this: do you believe that all those people should never have been put in their in the first place? For another example, take a look at this graph, which represents the Confidence Game. The Confidence Game has two players, the Mark and the Shark. Both get $10 at the beginning of the round. The Mark gets to send some amount of his money over to the Shark. This Stake is immediately trebled when it reaches the Shark, and now the Mark can Request some amount of the tripled Stake back. But the actual amount of the Mark's Winnings are decided by the Shark. Graph A represents the amount that the Mark puts in and the amount he expects back. Graph B represents the amount that the Shark puts back in. The dotted line is the perceived "equitable exchange." The red line is the result without any punishment mechanic; the blue one is the result with a punishment mechanic. Obviously, introducing punishment has negative effects on the Shark's behavior! This happens even if the Shark is told that the Mark has no idea there is a punishment mechanic in play, so it's not just the Shark reacting to the Mark being a jerk. But if we let the Mark decide whether or not to use the punishment, and we tell him that this is what will happen, he will still choose to activate the punishment.

Why can't you just let this forum die? Christ.

I assume I can be loyal to the worldwide revolution, yes? Otherwise, comrade Rorie, I may not end up purchasing this game.