Amentep

I have to admit I couldn't help but wonder how much EA is to blame (or not blame). I never did understand multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 - other than the generic push for online play that companies seems to long for. But it seems to me if they wanted to do that sort of thing they'd have made a new game in the setting instead of shoe-horning it into a game that started as a single player experience.

Isn't Bambam using the wrong hand, though? Nimoy always used the right hand

Soul Calibur has been in development hell for some time. Sammo Hung was originally scheduled to direct it back in 2001. The rights eventually ended with another company which has so far not managed to do anything with them (thankfully as I seem to recall their take on the series was horrible).

Sadly I can't talk and exercise. I end up sitting on the equipment or slowing my walk and thinking more about the conversation than what I'm doing...

I liked Nier - I think it may be the last Square-Enix game I really liked (I just wish the combat had been better). But it had an interesting setting and characters and really tried, i think. Atlus' SMT games are always must buys for me and have been for years; but I also like a lot of the non-Atlus games they choose for localization as well.

I pretty much haven't liked Square-Enix's resurrection/sequels to titles of recent years. I hated the sequels to Final Fantasy Tactics and Valkyrie Profile, two PS1 favorites, so wouldn't expect to like a Vagrant Story 2 (and wasn't VS done by Yasumi Matsuno whose no longer at Square-Enix so any sequel would be devoid of his input?)

Laying groundwork for and properly motivating the ending is one thing; the end actually being a satisfactory conclusion is another altogether.

I wished they'd followed up on Vagrant's Story at the time (but its been so long since I played it, I only have the vaguest memories of it anymore).

Never had Anders hit on me...but never kept him in my party if I wasn't doing one of his quests anyhow. And first time around I couldn't even get to Isabella's romance, much less have her flirt with me unwantedly.

What's funny is today, just for fun, I powered up a CoD MW game. Wow...as far as shooters go, that blew ME3 out of the water and MW 3 came out before ME3 and still rocks all over it. Yeah...ME3 is an RPG...cause if it were a shooter it is epic fail. I like it as an RPG... Then again, people say I'm one of those who are part of the stupid masses instead of some of the elite RPG artiests here. Sometimes it's good to be able to play CoD though. I completely like the ME series as they are, and view them as RPGs. As RPGs they are just as fun as CoD...but not ME3 MP...that actually is pretty bad in comparison after I fired up MW. I'd probably never lasted at ME series if it was pure shooter - I'm kinda hopeless with them.

i found it very Fable like as well (maybe with a bit of Sacred 2 as well). Only I don't really like Fable (or for that matter Sacred 2). I put KoA:R aside to work on the FO:NV expansions (which I in turn put aside to play ME3). Seems like a well enough made game, but I'm not sure I'm going to ever go back to it...

I guess I'm not that into backward compatibility (since I still have those systems if I wanted to fire them up again) But no internet connection means that - if a requirement is to "validate" the game as new even once that I can't ever play the game.

I'm looking forward to it. Hope it'll be good.

Hmm, I'm a bit worried that the implications of the anti-used game protection more or less implies a requirement to be connected online to register the game and thus be allowed to play it.

REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP: FUNDS TRAPPED IN NIGERIA - The Game

Ah I wouldn't know on that score, I was paragon all the way. The only paragon check I couldn't get was the

Volurn is eternal and unchanging (except when he changed from being the "Go Dwarves Go!" guy to the "lolz" guy). I kid, I kid. So...any word as to whether they'll fix thieves' dual wielding? Maybe they'll fix the bug that prevented people from finding the Terrasque?

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!