greylord

Maybe this is why I stick around Obsidian...he recently did an interview question with PCgamer...and his response reminded me why I stick around and remain so interested in Obisidian's games. His portion of the interview http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/23/mass-effect-3-ending-what-do-game-writers-think/

Still doing my ME series playthrough. About to go through the relay and get a whole bunch of people killed (just to see what happens in ME3 if they are missing)! Then it's off to my second playthrough of ME3, this time with a Renegade lady Shepard.

Better to ask, why don't you have Freespace 2 ? I used to, then I moved a couple of times and have no idea what happened to it.

Nice, i should play it sometime in the near future. So if we don't have Freespace 2, I guess it's a wash?

Exactly. In other news http://www.techreign.com/tag/max-payne-3-release-date/ Max Payne in some places is said to be releasing on May 15...exact same Date as diablo III. If true...I think they are taking some really big missteps with that game.

What do you mean by this? As I understand it, shep manages to resist being fully indoctrinated by the destroy "ending" and stays in control of his body/mind, unlike in the other endings. I don't have a clue how he could get rid of all of the effects of indoctrination later, but I don't think it would be the most far fetched thing it the trilogy if they would allow him to do just that somehow. That's nonsense. Why does he get to resist it if he chooses the Destroy option? the only reason people are saying that is because of the bonus portion at the end. They've made up all sorts of excuses on it, but in reality, it was designed as the worst choice. You get it as the first choice because you are ill prepared and not ready in any fashion to face the Reapers with the lowest EMS options. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what you decided previously, others have had solid ideas on resisting in that manner and are basically just husks instead of being more like Saren. Once it controls your mind, you're indoctrinated, hence if you are having this mass illusion for the length of time that this crowd is calling for, you are already indoctrinated. Destroy could easily just you destroying your mind and becoming a husk instead of retaining some higher purpose such as Saren or TIM had with their indoctrinations.

That's sad, if true. Means their project lead is a wacko, heh. Also puts a kind of kink in the "it's art, you can't criticise it" when crucial "artistic" staff is ignored and marginalised. And is criticising the ending. Having followed Patrick Weekes for a while, I have little trouble accepting that as genuine. IIRC he also made a rather odd tweet yesterday evening which seems to be missing from his feed, but frankly, I'd been up for almost two days straight so I could've been hallucinating. Anyway, I believe he's a stand-up guy (and a skilled game writer), so I hope he doesn't catch any fallout for that, in any case. Weekes is in trouble for disrupting Bio's status quo right now. At least I assume he is. This is UNCONFIRMED and I have no source for it. The official channels go.... Accordingly, he's [had to] deleted his posts in relation to the "leak" and the twitter has also been deleted and Bio has stated that it is a false leak and a false statement. There has also been a rumor put out that his account was hacked.

I've leaned towards indoctrination...but overall I'm against it as I think it actually opens MORE plotholes than the current ending. I did an experiment on the bio forums where I explained some of the ending, and offered to explain other "plotholes" on it. No one was actually interested in defending the entire plotholes argument...or even asking about them. Which made me realize that what many of them are really after is a happy ending as some have claimed all along. I'd want an ending where my choices were shown to have some impact on the ending....more than allowing me to choose blue light, red light, or green light. The Indoc theory is really ridiculous in that they have Shep "waking up" from indoc if he chose the destroy option. He's just as indoctrinated with destroy as any of the others...and so him freeing himself of the shackles of indoc in that ending doesn't make any sense really. He'd have to kill himself or be simply crazy for life. Plus, it means we got an incomplete game. Not cool with that. Tweak the ending and have more clarity and more closure (not necessarily happy though) for people. Don't bow to the whims of those pushing this indoc stuff though. The way they've pushed it and the way they aggressively attack anyone who doesn't like the indoc ending (but may not like the endings in general) is sort of turning people off to the entire idea...I know I'm no longer as big a fan of the current Indoc ending. I would like different endings...but the entire Indoc ideas they have floating around now don't really jive with me.

That would have made far more sense. If the first game had a massive impact as we thought, and delayed the Reapers for at LEAST a couple decades, if not centuries...that would be FAR more notable and reasonable why they wanted to go to the Citadel (not just for Mass Relay control, but to truly cut down their journey time). Have the last one about a small strike force that had one last back door or something, have it end Shepard's journey...and then you have it all set up for another trilogy 50 years (or maybe a couple centuries) into the future.

I'm not too interested in DA 3 currently. If the PLAYER reviews rave about it, I could buy it, but if not...then probably not.

Blade runner is interesting to debate. There is more than two versions out there...I'd have to look at my disks, but I think there are at least 3 to 4 versions. The Theatrical, the Directors, and the Final. I personally like the Theatrical best. Maybe it's because I like monologues...or perhaps maybe I am simply a sucker for happy endings. I remember watching another version with my wife, the elevator closes and the movie ends and she says...that's it? I grinned (still liked it...have no fear), and...dare I say it...mocked her? Okay...didn't exactly mock her...simply said yes, and went to finish my popcorn in another room. I don't think it really rewrote itself. It added to the idea that the main character was a replicant himself. It doesn't conclusively state that however, so there's "Lots of speculation for everyone."

That's a nice idea. Would it actually work in practice though?

I think it had some good parts and some very good parts, but it also had a lot of not so good bits, not just the ending. All the stomach acid about endings just make people overlook the other annoying bits, like long and boring intro, frustrating slow "dream sequences", mostly boring and annoying party members (James and EDI being possible exceptions, Javik if you've got him), tedious, boring "side quest" system (fly around and scan planets to find 'x' for somebody on the citadel) and while the citadel was nicely made, it was about the only non combat location you got to set foot on when off the Normandy. Only redeeming factor for the combat was the improved enemy AI, otherwise it's as boring as ever and there is a *lot* of it. That's just from the top of my head. The story? Some of it was good and some of the characters delivers outstanding performances, but the overall story has more plot holes than a sieve. You feel it was written by a committee rather than a visionary. Hmm...now that's an interesting idea. I don't know how to say it without making it sound bad...because it's actually a good thing. Yes, from my understanding...ME3 WAS written by a committee. Perhaps it would make you feel better if I said that committee did have a HEAD writer who was sort of the person who had to make it all fit together and work?

Just so you know Volourn... He's not talking about Street Fighter II or IV...he's talking about Mass Effect 3.

Not that I'll be a part of that (despite being a HUGE fan of D2 and the original...not planning on getting D3)...that's a funny.

One of several things that never made any sense... However, at that time I was just getting bored by the constantly increasing grind you had to go through to get there, so I didn't pay too much attention beyond breathing a sigh of relief that the grind had stopped. Edit: In hindsight, the green option was really the most ludicrous option, as it can't be rationalised in any way, no matter how generous your suspension of disbelief is.

My buddy Oblarg may like what I'm about to post, as it actually would kind of go along with his Collectors were weak enemies idea. I thought an idea of where the entirety of ME2 was pertinent, but not in the way we think. Instead it was a test to see if Shep could accomplish a mission against impossible odds...aka...a test. I posted this at bio boards...but thought I might get more thoughtful and better responses here... NOTE...there are MANY spoilers spread throughout...skip if you don't want to read them.... This takes the idea that the Indoc Theory isn't correct, OR AT LEAST you don't have it affecting you with choices until AFTER you meet TIM at the end of ME3...OR that you are fighting Indoc and events are really occuring because of your choices, but twisted due to Indoc and your perceptions of them. What if TIM was fighting Indoc at the beginning of ME2. He KNEW he was fighting it and felt that it was something he could not, and would not win. However, he still had humanities best interest at heart (That's Humanity, with and H...he doesn't care for the alien, the heretic, the unbe...etc. Only Humanity and that it becomes better then all). He wants someone that will continue the fight and be able to not only continue it, but to continue and win that fight as he would have done had he not been Indoc, and who could win against the Reapers eventually. Perhaps that's the REAL reason he made Shepard. If I recall he didn't want a control device in Shepard...perhaps THAT'S why. Shepard HAD to be independant of TIM in order to suceed, to be able to continue the fight regardless of what happened to TIM, Cerberus, or anything that was under TIM control. Shepard was TIM contingency...or maybe even primary...plan if or when TIM fell to indoc. Maybe TIM had the idea for Reaper control all along, maybe that's really was the best answer...but TIM ALSO knew that by trying to do that there was a HUGE chance (perhaps nigh 100% chance?) that he'd be indoctrinated in it's attempt. He needed someone that could fight the entirety of TIM's resources, the Reapers, and still win it out for Earth and Humanity. Hence, he brought back Shepard, WITHOUT a control device, not purely for the suicide mission as we are told in ME2 (that would actually only be a test to see if Shepard could actually resist the Reapers and indoc in order to suceed against impossible odds), but for the future, which we see in ME3, when TIM was turned and unable to do what he had planned to do all along. THAT'S the REAL reason for Shep...and the REAL reason for what occurs in ME2 (test of Shep's abilities). Thoughts?

I have to admit I'm more partial to III. I also really liked IV. There was something about V that struck me wrong though. I think it was V and not IV...which one decided to go all hexes on you? I think many loved it...it didn't do much for me though.

In response to Oblarg: AS I said no way are we going to agree on the points. I'd say forget the collectors...Normandy is the ONLY ship in the galaxy to basically take down a Reaper on it's own that we've seen. How powerful do you consider a Reaper? Is that good enough for you yet? Going back to my post above though, even if we can't agree, we can still agree to be chums and not let a trivial disagreement on the strength of the Normandy be the divisor. You're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you...so let's say cheers all and agree upon that.

You know, I don't agree with your ranking (especially in regards to the DA's) BUT...something about the way you phrase it and say it simply just make me want to say...sometimes I just love your posts. Absolutely Ace in your statement.

Their number would be insignificant to Bio/EA. I mean they made it so you couldn't get the best ending without playing MP. So obviously non-online players aren't important. I'm not saying the Indoctrination theory is correct, just that non-online people have little value to EA, since they can't milk them with DLC. I'm a bit curious, what is considered the "best" ending? In my game, I picked the green ending. I've never touched the multiplayer. Pick I suspect it's more of a bone throw by bio to not commit to . But conspiracy theorist believe it's evidence of indoctrination. I suspect that Bio is indicating that the Green light is the best ending though, hence even with the other ending with high enough EMS...it's not considered the best ending (unless you buy into the indoc ideas).

Have you read the codex? It's a frigate. Frigates are not built for pitched combat. In large battles they never directly engage a larger ship alone. The Normandy is not a particularly powerful warship - it's stealthy and quick, yes, but nothing special in a battle (especially un-upgraded). It certainly shouldn't be able to fight a heavy cruiser head-on, (unless you've upgraded the weapons, but that's irrelevant as it's not needed to win the fight) and it's absolutely negligible compared to a dreadnaught. This indicates that the only Collector ship was fairly weak in direct combat, and would not make any sort of meaningful impact on the outcome of a large battle. Have you PLAYED MASS EFFECT 3 (Thought I'd bold it so that you could have the obviousness for yourself). They define that Anderson wanted it for his flagship there. It's not because it's a frigate, but because of all the upgrades. It indicates that it could be one of the most powerful ships around...and on top of that it has instant communcation abilities making it the prime ship for Anderson's Admirality ship. It's also implied the Normandy is the most advanced ship in the fleet (at least at the beginning of ME3). Admirals do NOT go on the weakest ships simply because they are easy pickings. It doesn't do to have your admiral on a ship that can be destroyed rapidly and easily. It's like in a carrier group...the carrier and important ships are the biggest, and are protected by all the other ships. Admirals don't simply sit in a gunboat to get blown up by a small canon on the enemies battleships. PS: Anyways, this is not something I think you and me will ever agree upon...we've been over this before and neither convinced the other. I can agree that we won't see eye to eye on this, so cheers and we'll think what we want.

It's still spec'd to the original normandy, and it's still a frigate whose primary purpose is not combat. Do you really think the Collectors would be able to avoid all detection and bypass entire fleets in order to do any sort of damage in a large war? Nah, not by a long shot. They encounter one bulk cruiser and they're done for. In ME3 it was going to be the personal ship of Admiral Anderson, and indications seem to have that it would have been a flagship. AS I said before, flagships are NOT your weakest ships of the fleet, in fact typically they are the strongest.

I hadn't even started looking at the mod scene yet. That stinks if that holds true. Looong way from NWN glory days in that case. One other thing to those wanting to say the Normandy 2 was weak and hence the Collector cruiser was weak... I'd say it was the strongest ship in the fleet, strong enough that the Admirals wanted to make it a flagship. Flagships are typically the big ship of the fleet or group they are in.....not the weakest.