Amentep

Typrically upper right is paragon and lower right is renegade dialogue choices (was it just me or did ME3 mostly do away with middle right choices?). I took the upper left/upper left choices as effects of extreme reputations not a special reward (other than a reward for playing particular paragon/renegade). Mind you most reputations systems in games don't make a lot of sense to me so I just roll with them.

I'm not sure I'd call it stupid, but its an oversimplification of reputation/alignment ideas in some ways. its a step up from Baldur's Gate's "oh no, I'm too good, I'll go whack a villager" reputation but it does make an assumption that all choices fall into an easy order/chaos structure (however this runs into the same problem IMO as even more complex systems like D&D's Law/Chaos Good/evil axises which is that some choices may be both depending on how you look at them and what the end result might be (and whether intentional and unintentional consequences of choice matter). I'd say the big flaw is that the choices can't really change the game world significantly so that no matter how paragon or renegade you are you're still required to walk the same path and push the same buttons.

Oh, yeah thought I'd caught all those ME3/2/1 problems in my post. Yes I meant ME1 (never played the hammerhead? stuff in ME2) and the Mako. It does seem odd that a Spectre would be prosecutable by other Citadel races, I could see a non-Citadel race like the Batarians being able to do it, but it somewhat violates the original idea that the Spectres were a "law unto themselves" as an arm of the Council setup in the first game. In fact the first game pretty much implies that humanity can't prosecute Saren for crimes on Eden Prime unless the Council declares him a rogue Spectre (which they initially refuse to do due to lack of evidence).

So I've finally finished playing Mass Effect 3. The beginning was a bit shaky because of the import from ME1 -> ME2 -> ME3 problem. Never got past the fact that my Shepard looked close, but not exactly, like the character I'd been playing and it was distracting to me during the cut scenes. But that's probably just my hangup. Still how do you miss that in testing - seems an obvious thing to check and make sure works. I admit to being one of the few people who liked the Mako sections from ME2 but that's probably because I just liked driving around. ME3 does a good job building on the scan and fly in system of the previous game in that the scanning and stuff doesn't take an inordinate amount of time away from the gameplay narrative; however with no "sekret" places to find it did feel a bit less engaging (yeah you could find war resources but they're not gameplay involving and all the place you have to land are flagged through dialogue or eavesdropping. Gameplay was fun for the most part; there seemed to be less options (but ME2 had streamlined a lot of options so not surprising). I would recommend that if Bioware does another game with dream sequences that they consider not forcing the player to run in slow motion through them. Speaking of Dream Sequences I felt a bit of disconnect with my Shepard's background (Colonist and Sole Survivor - essentially lost all their family in an alien attack and lost all of their team to a thresher maw) and the emotional attachment to the boy they'd seen briefly before they'd gotten killed. I'd like to think that my Shepard had better coping skills after the previous losses suffered and this seemed to be in the game to add a somewhat funereal thread to the proceedings and nothing else. I suppose that the child is part of a "war is hell" approach to the third game that a part of me feels is at odds with the rest of the serious. Its like watching Star Wars and suddenly finding yourself viewing the D-Day invasion from Saving Private Ryan; one is an adventure and one is a war movie. ME was an adventure but this feels more like its trying to be a serious war story. And I'm not sure it is a change for the better. But your mileage may vary. So that brings me to the inevitable controversy: the end. To be honest I don't mind the three choice system in and of itself - the game has been predicated on the idea of paragon-neutral-renegade dialogue options (and actions); these are ultimately tied to order-neutral-chaos concepts and in that sense having the game have a final paragon/renegade choice makes sense. I'm more dismayed at the fact that the choices don't seem to matter at all as they all roughly end up at the same place - Shepard dead, the citadel and Mass relay system destroyed and the Reaper menace neutralized (and, nonsensically, the Normandy marooned on an alien planet after being knocked out of the Mass Relay system without explanation as to why they were IN the Mass Relay system or even why any of the Crew besides Joker is aboard as they were all on Earth for the final push in the endgame (it varies but Liara, Garrus and EDI were in the various ends I saw but they were all back on Earth for the final push with each actually being able to join Shepard in the run for the light)). As it is structured the end doesn't tell us what the choice actually means or why it was important (or even necessary). We don't find out why the Reapers were created or why those creators believed in the inevitability of machine-organic conflict (bonus problems in not allowing Shepard to even debate this with the creator representative The Catalyst by using the in-game possible Geth-Quarian alliance as proof of the fallacy inherent in their beliefs) nor do we find out why they created what is tantamount to a way "out" of the cycle for organics (since the game pretty much implies that the Crucible is a creation of the Reaper's creators and not a Prothean device). Why does destroying the Reapers also necessitate the destruction of the Mass Relays and also seem to require Shepard's death? Why was the Collectors making a humanoid Reaper (the creator/catalyst says that the Reapers were preserving organic life, but all the other Reapers look exactly the same). Again the game doesn't motivate an answer to these (and many other) questions In the end, I felt constrained and optionles; forced into a scenario where the end result of my choices in the game doesn't matter as they essentially go to the same conclusion. This is made worse by the coda where Stagazer seems to tantamount tell the Player that the story may not even have happened the way as shown! I can't help but feel that the game developers were trying for a 2001 type "mindblowing" end but in doing so failed to pull tight the story arcs they'd created for the characters and the main narrative. While I feel that it could be possible to "put back" the Mass Effect Universe if they wanted to (to some degree, anyhow) the end kind of feels like a bit of a middle finger to the player whose spent the time to play the game (made worse if the player has spent even more time in the previous games only to have all their choices and actions made irrelevant). Its hard not to wonder if Bioware bit off more than they could chew with the trilogy; I'd wondered once I played Mass Effect 2 whether the game developers had problems figuring out how to work with some of the choices (most notably the lack of support by the council if you saved them so that you can't shortcut parts of the game by having multi-racial support in your missions). To have done proper ends would have required a good deal of work just to create something to satisfy the player that their characters actions mattered. [As a side note, some may argue that Shepard's actions matter by default since the Reapers were defeated; but that's the point of the game and an inevitable end (unless Bioware was going to force the player to lose, which they'd never do). By "matter" I mean the alliances brokered, the allies and enemies made, the worlds changed by Shepards interactions are ultimately irrelevant. Even assuming the destruction of the Mass Relay systems doesn't destroy the galaxies holding the Asari, Salarian, Human, Turian and Krogan homeworlds these worlds aren't left with any way to rebuild interstellar travel (unless they understand the Mass Relay systems better than shown in the game and can build their own - but if they can build their own why bother destroying the existing system in the game?) so whatever actions Shepard has taken to help or hinder these groups don't matter as the nature of the relationships in citadel space is changed permanently.] Its also hard not to feel a bit frustrated that Mass Effect 3 picks up where one of the expansions left off; having been unable to play the expansions since I don't have a way to download them it felt weird having all the talk about Shepard being stripped of rank and grounded given that the end of ME2 had my Shepard saving the universe (and humanity in particular) from the collectors. But apparently according to ME3 that's enough for the alliance to remove Shepard from active duty (and we thought the Council gave Shepard a hard time - at least they kept Shepard's Spectre status active!). I'm playing the game through a second time - while I doubt much will change I noticed a couple of dialogue points that I couldn't get to as they required extreme renegade/paragon status to do. And it was a fun game to play; its a pity the ends were unsatisfying. That's my take on it, anyhow.

ME3 rather. Hah-hah. (Fixed it)

We had two hamsters as kids and both died after figuring out how to open their cage doors and getting trapped in places with no food. Also we tended to overfeed goldfish and they died. We had a great dog and cat though for many years (until they both died). Consequently, I'm not too big on pets...

I think that would be Enhancement! in DA. The origin of Sandal - revealed at last!

I liked Dragon Age 2 although I accepted that it was a short turn around game and understood there would be limitations within that framework. I'm also enjoying ME3 (although not at the end) but not as much as I did ME 1 or ME 2 (which may be down to feeling THE END written in everything that happens in ME3 - its a bit funereal in tone, really).

The same trend is showing in movies (and to be honest probably any entertainment field with high production cost). As an example last years Green Hornet film (no comment pro or con on quality of same film) made a small profit for the studio that put it out - but not a big enough profit to warrant making a sequel. One of the producers said, essentially, that the studio wanted to spend $120 million dollar to make a film that would return a $300 million profit, not $50 million.

You know I can't really remember BG2's expansion ending. I vaguely remember the Jon Irenicus from BG2 proper end. Of course I usually never played BG2 through to the end when I played it. Have more half-started campaigns in the IE engine than I think any other games I played...lol. Most of the time and end is an end; there are a few that disappoint me but if the game is fun I'll keep playing it. I hated Secret of Mana's ending with a passion (easily one of the top worst game endings - at least the US English Translation it came out with - I've ever played) and yet I kept playing the game because it was fun (then ChronoTrigger came out and I never bothered with Secret of Mana again). I'll be interested to see how I feel finishing ME3 (so far I'm not as fond of ME3's gameplay as I was about ME1 and 2).

IIRC they specifically mashed up A PRINCESS OF MARS and GODS OF MARS (I read the first three books - which would add WARLORD OF MARS) decades ago so I can't really remember the specifics other than a lot of the Thern stuff comes from GODS and spices up the Princess plot (but leaves out the stuff about Issus, where the Therns live of the "Black Martians"). But agreed it matched my memory of the spirit of the novels if not actually being a literal, page for page adaption.

If they designed ME3 around any intention to be able to continue the universe past the ending, then it'd be an almost unrecognisable gameworld. It's basically designed with the opposite of that intention. From what I've heard about the end-game I don't think they broke anything that couldn't, conceivably, be "fixed" to give a ME universe similar but certainly still feeling post-Reaper invasion. But maybe I'll feel differently once I get to the end.

Well Dejah Thoris is wearing clothes so there is some departure from the book series (I guess whether that's good or bad is in the eye of the beholder).

I haven't got to the end yet, but having been spoiled somewhat on the basics on it, I can't help but wonder if the problem is that they were hamstrung by certain choices they made early on in ME1 and (i suspect) the desire to be able to continue with the world of Mass Effect (if not the Shepard character) past ME3. Mind you as far as I recall Bioware have said that you create your Shepard within a certain set parameters (ie Shepard wasn't going to be a fly fisherman from Arcturus) so there has always been an inherently limiting concept with ME that the characters and stories were going to have certain things that always happened (at least that's how I always took it).

Saw John Carter (of Mars) again this weekend. Enjoyed it again. Such a fun film that really captures the early Planetary Romance feel.

Yeah, I thought the storyline aspect was a lot weaker than 2. Still enjoyed the game, but felt it didn't match what I really liked about 2. Was working through the DLC of FO:NV; switched to do ME3 (with ME1->2->3 character - thanks face generation issue that made me have to try and recreate my face (and failed)). I'll go back to FO:NV when I finish ME3 so I can do Lonesome Road.

Taking the question seriously, I think we'd have to be able to quantify what a soul is to be able to answer that question, which AFAIK we are not able to do (at this time and assuming they exist). Arguments I've seen in various religions (for example, the idea that souls already exist and are born into the world vs the idea that a soul is created at conception) would have to indicate different potential origins. Also while creationism can be supportive of evolution, the idea of a creator could also add in the possibility of things created without the benefit of evolution which could throw any argument...

I thought he just sang the song, pretty sure Shaft was Roundtree. Hayes was though...

I'm of mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, sometimes quests that don't have any connection to the main plot can be WTF? moments (particularly if the end resolution of the quest proves harder than the end of the game). On the other hand, its nice to not have everything be connected easily to the overarching plot either in that it gives the game world an illusion of breadth; that everything hasn't up and stopped to deal with the opponent's plan.

It definitely sounds strange; and while I'm not sure its a vanity project the interview I read with the SP creators did sound a lot like "We like video games and wanted to do an RPG" kind of thing. That said, it could be fun. Could also be a big mess. I'm hoping for fun though (and I say that as someone who has never watched an episode of South Park).

And yet if you've been playing as a goody-goody character odds are you won't need the Karma point gained anyhow since Karma usually has an upper cap to it; ergo you're really opting to take the good path simply because that's the path your character would take with no inherent game related benefit. The first IMO breaks the game; why is this slave so expensive and how can the seller possibly know my carried wealth to constantly price her out of my buying range? Also as an option, this essentially gives me as the player no choice - so why include it? Seems to me that if you're looking for this kind of quest to be muddied then you're better off at looking at the ramifications of the action involved - seller will only sale if you do something for them that is morally reprehensible (which is the lesser of the two evils to do?) or you buy the slave but the slave doesn't want to be free so now you're stuck with a slave affecting people's perception of you, etc. The second, I can't imagine any legal system that would allow the substitute hand for punishment; it makes no sense in the intent of that kind of sentence (and taken to its logical conclusion is silly - "hey we won't hang this cattle thief but only if we can hang you instead! Because, you know, we actually are only in this to see people hang"; the player's choice is going to have to be to either take on the legal establishment or leave the urchin to their fate. Pragmatically, creating a new hand-less character model and programming the inability to use the hand might not be worth the time/effort to add it into your game. The third IMO only works if its reasonable for someone to have seen the weapon (again I hate it when game characters can see into my inventory - wtf?) but could be an interesting consequence (although it'd also be nice to see nice loot you sell back be bought by people and possibly end up on your opponents too - but I imagine programming could be difficult to do that) Pissing off any faction (as a hero or villain) should have broader consequences, I think. This is a problem IMO between creating what's fun for a game vs what would really happen. I'm not sure the vast majority of gamers are ready to try and spend time trying to figure out which NPCs are trying to scam them; it also I think would be problematic to properly motivate the npc involved (why, for example, would they mess with the "newcomer asking basic questions like a tourist" rather than just tell them to piss off?)

She was good; I was afraid she'd feel too modern but she fit in - I liked all of the actors though and the fact that they didn't have everyone speak english. I do think there are a couple of bits that don't match up - I'd heard there were reshoots and I think that's why.

Err...I'm not sure if you're serious or not but my first post WAS about the movie. My second post is kinda about the movie too. As I mentioned I liked the prequel. I think - as I mentioned it really mirrors the base under seige feel of the original movie adaption of 'Who Goes There' - The Thing from Another World, The Thing (2011) makes sense to be more action oriented than the other version of The Thing which was more paranoid driven and less about action but picking off the characters one by one. But it also dovetails nicely into the earlier film while also establishing enough details that they could do a sequel that happens after the events of the existing films.

Based on what I read the combat is fairly similar to what is generally referred to as jRPG combat - the description makes it actually sound like ChronoTrigger a little bit ("monsters" on the field, you can choose to fight or not, combat is TB) Of course the jRPG style combat is really similar to early US RPG game combat (like SSI's Phantasie) so...

Dude, you rather would have named them the movie "The Thing: Begins" or something? Calling two movies about a creature that takes over people and becomes virtually indistinguishable from the original by the same name is soooo metatextual though!