Log in or sign up to comment
371 Comments
Posted by ptys

Great episode, Mass Effect discussion goes on for like an hour but a few good laughs.

Posted by paulunga

Okay, Corpse Party is nowhere near the same level as 999 or VLR. Check it out, by all means, just don't expect too much.

Posted by Dallas_Raines

It's funny Jeff made the exact same comments about MGS and MGS 2 in 2008 GOTY bombcast.

Posted by Mercanis

@Venatio said:

Well I just finished Mass Effect 3, I had been putting it off because I wanted to wait for atleast most of the DLC to be released and because I simply didn't want it to end. I bought it on release day. I haven't listened to the spoilery part of the podcast yet but I kinda liked the ending. I played the extended cut along with all the DLC and I don't know why everyone is so pissed off. Do I need to see the original version of the ending for that?
I liked synthesis

As someone who appreciates the "synthesis" conclusion to the trilogy, I've never understood the ME3 outrage either.

I've completed the game with the original ending and with the extended cut. I've also completed Leviathan. Neither DLC retcons the original ending; they simply fill in details (that honestly, people could have figured out on their own).

(For this next point I could be mistaken, so please correct me if I'm wrong.) I think it's important to point out that on the podcast, Vinnie was the only person to have played the original ending and then the subsequent DLC. He's also the only person to not have a problem with it.

Brad only experienced ME3 with the DLC, and Jeff and Patrick without. Their outrage about ME3 getting "EA'd" and shamelessly retconned is hard to take seriously when they only experienced the differences vicariously.

Posted by DedBeet

@Marokai said:

And thus the Bombcast gets to have their cake and eat it too. 9 Months ago, if forum commenters said such things about ME3 as "it betrayed me" "it's disgusting" "a blight on the Mass Effect name" "it tarnishes the franchise" "it spit in my face" "it's infuriating" you dismissed them as "well, there's goes the internet again, just being crazy and entitled!" And now here you are, saying the same stuff that the people you shit on way back when said, now that the controversy has come and gone. I'm happy you finally got into a ME3 discussion (and happy Brad finally played the damn thing) but this is every problem I've ever had with the Bombcast distilled into a single hour, basically. You want to seem "above" the general consumer when there's a controversy, even when you actually agree with them and would go so far as to use similarly hyperbolic language to make your case, and it shouldn't take you until the end of the year to get real about this stuff. Dragon Age 2 was a great example from last year, when the people were up in arms about it, you poked vague fun at the game but shied away from discussing your worries about Bioware, until the end of the year. It shouldn't take this long to get raw honesty from the bombcast, when it's the best thing you guys do. Don't treat disappointed consumers as if they're a lower class, when you privately agree with them. You should instead have the consumers back, and have it when it counts.

Yes! YES! Though, to be fair, I felt most of the gaming journalists at the time were more appalled at consumers reactions than they were with EA's shoddy handling of the franchise (I know Bioware should bear the burden of responsibility, but my belief is that Mass Effect was "EA'd" to death). I remember reading one article on Forbes where the journalist took the consumers side but the rest of the industry seemed to be siding with the developer/publisher which is the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do. Plus, they seemed to check out of the conversation, not really trying to understand why consumers were reacting so strongly, as shown by Jeff's implication that we demanded that Bioware "fix" the Normandy so it could fly again at the end. None of the conversations I saw were raging about anything so small, but more about the lackadaisical way everything was wrapped up after so many years in the making. Hearing the bombcast rage at ME3 now just makes me wonder, where were you guys when we needed you?

Posted by DedBeet

@Shingro said:

@KalAl: Regardless of whether you think he should have dropped everything for this I can't imagine this conversation being as deep or as comprehensive without Brad. No one on the Bombcast does deep dives into a thing like brad does, and this topic *needed* him.

I agree. That's one of the many things I enjoy about Brad.

Posted by Binny

Old wounds have been open again after listening to this podcast.

Edited by Venatio

Well I just finished Mass Effect 3, I had been putting it off because I wanted to wait for atleast most of the DLC to be released and because I simply didn't want it to end. I bought it on release day. I haven't listened to the spoilery part of the podcast yet but I kinda liked the ending. I played the extended cut along with all the DLC and I don't know why everyone is so pissed off. Do I need to see the original version of the ending for that?
 
I liked synthesis

Posted by ThatIndianGuy7116

I am sure people have figured this out by now, but just in case you haven't listened to this yet, the Mass Effect 3 talk ends right at the 1 hour mark. They have a small little segment at the beginning of the show where they dont talk much about Mass Effect 3 spoilers but if you don't want to be spoiled at all, the 1 hour mark is basically where they start

Posted by Y2Ken

@BaconGames: Wait you guys show latest comments first? Madness. :p

Posted by hermes
@TruthTellah

The Asura's Wrath discussion has made me resolute in my belief that Giant Bomb should play Asura's Wrath in a livestream so that everyone can enjoy it as Jeff suggested. Watch people play the insanity and enjoy premium Giant Bomb commentary.

It should be an endurance run.
Posted by mnzy
@Tarsier said:

people really still think chemtrails are a 'conspiracy' . .. : (

Please, elaborate.
Online
Posted by Nights

Yeah, fuck Steel Reserve!

Edited by mutha3
@Shingro said:

@KalAl: his topic *needed* him.

Not really. This conversation stopped being relevant about....half a year ago? Now its just tedious to hear people talk about ME3, and I can do without hearing someone repeat "oh man, the dlc is awesome!".
Posted by mrpandaman

@TheKing said:

@dvorak said:

@TheKing said:

Why do they keep talking about New Super Mario U like it's a bad game? They may not like it, but it's far from a bad game.

It is their opinion that it is a bad game. Right or wrong, it's what they think. I'm not sure what you hope to understand here.

It received a 3/5 on this site yet they talk about it on the podcast like it's not even worth playing. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

The way I see it, and I think I've heard them talk about it before (might've been somewhere else) is that it is the middle of the road games, 3/5 games, that are the "worst" games. Like the game really just squanders itself and any potential that it had and achieves mediocrity. I don't know how to explain it, but when they talked about Super Mario U that was it sounded like.

Posted by TruthTellah

The Asura's Wrath discussion has made me resolute in my belief that Giant Bomb should play Asura's Wrath in a livestream so that everyone can enjoy it as Jeff suggested. Watch people play the insanity and enjoy premium Giant Bomb commentary.

Posted by strandiam

@Ryan said:

NOTE: If you want to avoid any major Mass Effect 3 spoilers, skip ahead to the 1-hour mark. Enjoy!

Thank you very much.

Edited by Pop

Finally finished ME3, I get why people hated the ending when it came out but with the extended cut it's not really that bad, okay 3 choices at the end are pretty shitty So for me I thought it was pretty good, compared to other games that came out this year ME3 is top 3 for sure maybe even game of the year.

One of the best franchises of the past decade.

P.S. I love Liara <3. That smile of hers at the end after you make your decision is so cute and it brings a tear to my eye

Edited by Shingro

@KalAl: Regardless of whether you think he should have dropped everything for this I can't imagine this conversation being as deep or as comprehensive without Brad. No one on the Bombcast does deep dives into a thing like brad does, and this topic *needed* him.

Edited by TheKing

@dvorak said:

@TheKing said:

Why do they keep talking about New Super Mario U like it's a bad game? They may not like it, but it's far from a bad game.

It is their opinion that it is a bad game. Right or wrong, it's what they think. I'm not sure what you hope to understand here.

It received a 3/5 on this site yet they talk about it on the podcast like it's not even worth playing. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Posted by Hunter5024

Damn it, I should really beat Mass Effect 3. I'm almost tempted just to listen anyways, but I've made it like nine months now without the spoilers.

Edited by KalAl

@ArtisanBreads said:

@Humanity said:

@Terramagi said:

@ArtisanBreads said:

@KalAl said:

Whether or not the statute of limitations on ME3 spoilers is up, the fact that Brad thinks "it's been long enough" just because he's finally finished the game makes him sound like such a selfish jackass. Just like Jeff says, Brad doesn't care if it's spoiled for any of the listeners, just as long as it's not spoiled for Brad.

haha oh Jesus just don't listen! You know exactly what not to listen to, skip an hour in.

Some people are so dramatic.

No, he's completely right. This isn't the first time this sort of shit has happened. The entire crew has been ready to go, but because Brad hasn't beaten something all of a sudden everybody needs to shut the fuck up.

One of my biggest pet peeves is this and not because they spoil something or not but because some current games get completely sidelined because one of the crew, usually Brad, hasn't beaten something. They should just leave the room for half an hour then or something. How insane is it that were having an indepth plot discussion of Mass Effect 3, in December, when everyone is already kinda shaky on what the hell actually happened.

I think we can all remember those 4 podcasts in a row where they'd all get so hyped up talking about how you GOTTA play Saints Row the Third and they were so ready to just get into it but Brad just kept on playing Skyrim and totally ignored it. In the end, we never really got to hear that discussion as it took Brad forever to get into that game and he didn't even like it all that much.

Plenty of really good discussions have died because of this issue and it's not only Brad to blame but they should really just excuse the person who hasn't finished the title in question and go on with the discussion. Once that single member of the crew has finally beaten the game they can just discuss it in the office at their leisure with the rest of the guys. We as the viewers get to hear the Podcast once a week and it's kinda shitty that instead of hearing this awesome indepth discussion about Mass Effect 3, Saints Row, Spec Ops, Binary Domain or whatever we instead get "oh XYZ hasn't beaten it ok ok well Ryan did you finally go get your tired rotated on the car?"

The discussion was far better because now the DLC can be added in, a very important element to discuss in relation to the plot of the game itself and then the business/developer side of things.

So your complaints don't add up. They'd rather have them all chip in on these things, it's not too hard to figure out. There is always enough to talk about. Even if this didn't happen this episode, they would have GOTY.

Again.... who cares? They got to it. It's not that big of a deal. The other duders don't really care and some of you guys are really worked up for some reason.

You missed the point of my original post entirely. I don't care that they spoiled ME3. My issue is that Brad is a jackass. He would have whined like a baby had someone spoiled the ending for him a month ago. But now that he's personally finished it, it's "been long enough". Despite what he thinks, it's "been long enough" for quite a while now.

Posted by Lashe

All this hunk talk. IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW.

Bitch get hunked.

Posted by dvorak

@TheKing said:

Why do they keep talking about New Super Mario U like it's a bad game? They may not like it, but it's far from a bad game.

It is their opinion that it is a bad game. Right or wrong, it's what they think. I'm not sure what you hope to understand here.

Posted by TheKing

Why do they keep talking about New Super Mario U like it's a bad game? They may not like it, but it's far from a bad game.

Posted by SonicBoyster

@Marokai said:

And thus the Bombcast gets to have their cake and eat it too. 9 Months ago, if forum commenters said such things about ME3 as "it betrayed me" "it's disgusting" "a blight on the Mass Effect name" "it tarnishes the franchise" "it spit in my face" "it's infuriating" you dismissed them as "well, there's goes the internet again, just being crazy and entitled!" And now here you are, saying the same stuff that the people you shit on way back when said, now that the controversy has come and gone. I'm happy you finally got into a ME3 discussion (and happy Brad finally played the damn thing) but this is every problem I've ever had with the Bombcast distilled into a single hour, basically. You want to seem "above" the general consumer when there's a controversy, even when you actually agree with them and would go so far as to use similarly hyperbolic language to make your case, and it shouldn't take you until the end of the year to get real about this stuff. Dragon Age 2 was a great example from last year, when the people were up in arms about it, you poked vague fun at the game but shied away from discussing your worries about Bioware, until the end of the year. It shouldn't take this long to get raw honesty from the bombcast, when it's the best thing you guys do. Don't treat disappointed consumers as if they're a lower class, when you privately agree with them. You should instead have the consumers back, and have it when it counts.

Amen. Jeff is having some serious cognitive dissonance in this too, talking shit about the internet getting what it wanted out of one side of his mouth while talking about how shit the ending was out of the other. I think sometimes it's just a matter of the journalist feeling like he has to be 'above' his audience to be able to give his opinions to others.

Posted by prestonhedges

@Marokai said:

And thus the Bombcast gets to have their cake and eat it too. 9 Months ago, if forum commenters said such things about ME3 as "it betrayed me" "it's disgusting" "a blight on the Mass Effect name" "it tarnishes the franchise" "it spit in my face" "it's infuriating" you dismissed them as "well, there's goes the internet again, just being crazy and entitled!" And now here you are, saying the same stuff that the people you shit on way back when said, now that the controversy has come and gone. I'm happy you finally got into a ME3 discussion (and happy Brad finally played the damn thing) but this is every problem I've ever had with the Bombcast distilled into a single hour, basically. You want to seem "above" the general consumer when there's a controversy, even when you actually agree with them and would go so far as to use similarly hyperbolic language to make your case, and it shouldn't take you until the end of the year to get real about this stuff. Dragon Age 2 was a great example from last year, when the people were up in arms about it, you poked vague fun at the game but shied away from discussing your worries about Bioware, until the end of the year. It shouldn't take this long to get raw honesty from the bombcast, when it's the best thing you guys do. Don't treat disappointed consumers as if they're a lower class, when you privately agree with them. You should instead have the consumers back, and have it when it counts.

"Glitches? What glitches? I never ran into any glitches when I played the game! Five stars!"

*two months later*

"Man, that game was glitchy as shit! It also played awful. What a horrible waste of money that was! I hope no one wasted their time and money on that piece of shit!"

Posted by MattGrant

@PHEDIA said:

Mass Effect spoilers did not need to be in this podcast. I hate skipping around on podcasts.

The podcast's description says the crew discusses the story's conclusion. That sorta implies they would be talking about the goings-on of the Mass Effect games in great detail.

Posted by PHEDIA

Mass Effect spoilers did not need to be in this podcast. I hate skipping around on podcasts.

Posted by Tarsier

people really still think chemtrails are a 'conspiracy' . .. : (

Posted by WiqidBritt

@Terramagi: did you miss the part where you could end up with one race completely destroyed in a war, one race going extinct in the long run and another race back from what was believed to be an extinction, and that another player could have the complete opposite results?

that's pretty god damn significant

Posted by mrpandaman

@JBrosk89 said:

As much as I didn't hate the end of ME3 like some online, I think they fell short of where I wanted them to go with it. They focused too much on combat, not enough "Mass Effecting" in like talking to people and having your choices alter the outcome of the game in 3. That and bottlenecking themselves into 3, or 4, endings, instead of leaving it more open ended was a little upsetting, but not HATRED worthy as some. That being said, it was a great game. Loved it, had a great emotional journey, about to start it again, with another ME2 character, AND all the DLC in succession...ready for a different game and emotion. My continuing questions:

1. Was Shepherd's REAL name Shepherd...or was it altered by the "narrator" because he was the Shepherd of salvation? John Shepherd seems very much in the same vein as John Smith, or John Doe.

2. Was Shepherd indoctrinated by the end of ME3? Was the paragon, Control, option REALLY the renegade choice...but the reapers had warped Shepherd to choose the choice they wanted you to make?

To answer your questions, in my own opinions of course:

1. Well Shepard's last name was Shepard... and they just call him that because of the fact that you could change his first name. Shepard was given the name SHEPARD was after the first American who went into space, Alan Bartlett Shepard. Also, since it is the same pronunciation as shepherd, Shepard could be the shepherd of salvation.

2. No, the Control option was THE Paragon choice, because with Synthesis there's is no forcing synthetics and organics to be combined and with the Destroy option you are effectively killing off synthetic sentient life just so organics could survive. It wasn't about the Reapers trying to survive by having Shepard control them through indoctrination, it was about the Reapers giving Shepard control of them so that he could control the Reapers to ensure that the synthetics do not kill the the organics and vice versa.

The reason it shows the Illusive Man as Paragon, is because the Illusive Man would have wanted to control the Reapers for human superiority over other races. It's not as if the Illusive Man wanted the destruction of the other races, just human dominance, therefore both synthetic and organic life would go on. It shows Anderson as the Renegade, because Anderson has no ties to synthetics and would end the Reapers at the cost of those synthetics. I would say the Reaper's choice would've been the Synthesis, because that would effectively end the need of the Reapers as organics would themselves be synthetics and the other way around.

Posted by JBrosk89

As much as I didn't hate the end of ME3 like some online, I think they fell short of where I wanted them to go with it. They focused too much on combat, not enough "Mass Effecting" in like talking to people and having your choices alter the outcome of the game in 3. That and bottlenecking themselves into 3, or 4, endings, instead of leaving it more open ended was a little upsetting, but not HATRED worthy as some. That being said, it was a great game. Loved it, had a great emotional journey, about to start it again, with another ME2 character, AND all the DLC in succession...ready for a different game and emotion. My continuing questions:

1. Was Shepherd's REAL name Shepherd...or was it altered by the "narrator" because he was the Shepherd of salvation? John Shepherd seems very much in the same vein as John Smith, or John Doe.

2. Was Shepherd indoctrinated by the end of ME3? Was the paragon, Control, option REALLY the renegade choice...but the reapers had warped Shepherd to choose the choice they wanted you to make?

Posted by Terramagi

@WiqidBritt said:

@Terramagi said:

@WiqidBritt said:

@Terramagi said:

@sodapop7 said:

@Terramagi: Worked out? At least one of your team dies for sure, you lose the entire governing body of the galaxy or most of the human fleet and the main hub of the galaxy is left in shambles... Where in all that is everything alright? There's no quip and then engage to the next planet anywhere in the first Mass Effect as far as I can see.

Gary Whitta and the PC Gamer podcast crew got it right months ago, the ending did not ruin the series or that game for me. Still a fantastic journey.

Hey, Red Shirts died on Star Trek. And Ashley wore pink for most of my game, so that was close enough.

The rest of it is all choices. The Council survived, the Citadel survived. Maybe it's been a little while since you played ME1 (or seen the marketing for it, since I vividly recall the explanation for the film grain), but the series was founded on choice. It's only after they fucked up everything about the series so spectacularly at the end of ME3 that "we" started touting the "diamond shape" of storytelling as damage control.

You're insane if you thought this trilogy was ever going to have multiple, completely different endings all taking place in different places with different possible outcomes. Modern videogames are too expensive to make to have something different for every possible series of choices made. Maybe if it was a sprite based game with no voice work then you could possibly expect every ending to be completely unique and involving different characters.

That said, the universe in each person's game can turn out to be very different. You decide the fates of four different species in this game alone, and could potentially have Earth be completely devastated by the battle.

Again, the only reason "you're insane if you ever thought" is even a thing is BECAUSE they fucked it up. They SOLD the trilogy on the concept of choice. Just because they didn't deliver doesn't mean you can retroactively go back and excuse them because "well OBVIOUSLY they were blowing smoke out their asses, you're just retarded if you believed them". They had 3 games worth $200 and a budget in the hundreds of millions. They had all the money and opportunity in the WORLD to do it. They just decided not to, because they're incompetent.

They most certainly did NOT have unlimited time, money, and resources. BioWare isn't Valve, they don't have a self-sustaining money machine on the side that lets them spend ten years working on a game that may never come out. Complain about EA's involvement all you want, but no publisher is willing to give a studio they own all the time in the world.

Also, don't forget that Mass Effect is a console (specifically Xbox 360) franchise first and foremost, so it needed to be released before the new consoles come out (or were even officially announced) or risk losing out on a number of sales.

Then they shouldn't have made the promises they made before ME1 came out.

BEFORE they got EA's resources, even.

You can damage control their incompetence all you want, it doesn't eliminate the fact that they promised one thing and delivered NONE of it. The fact that Mass Effect 3 has AN ending should be your first hint as to how badly they fucked this up.

Posted by WiqidBritt

@Terramagi said:

@WiqidBritt said:

@Terramagi said:

@sodapop7 said:

@Terramagi: Worked out? At least one of your team dies for sure, you lose the entire governing body of the galaxy or most of the human fleet and the main hub of the galaxy is left in shambles... Where in all that is everything alright? There's no quip and then engage to the next planet anywhere in the first Mass Effect as far as I can see.

Gary Whitta and the PC Gamer podcast crew got it right months ago, the ending did not ruin the series or that game for me. Still a fantastic journey.

Hey, Red Shirts died on Star Trek. And Ashley wore pink for most of my game, so that was close enough.

The rest of it is all choices. The Council survived, the Citadel survived. Maybe it's been a little while since you played ME1 (or seen the marketing for it, since I vividly recall the explanation for the film grain), but the series was founded on choice. It's only after they fucked up everything about the series so spectacularly at the end of ME3 that "we" started touting the "diamond shape" of storytelling as damage control.

You're insane if you thought this trilogy was ever going to have multiple, completely different endings all taking place in different places with different possible outcomes. Modern videogames are too expensive to make to have something different for every possible series of choices made. Maybe if it was a sprite based game with no voice work then you could possibly expect every ending to be completely unique and involving different characters.

That said, the universe in each person's game can turn out to be very different. You decide the fates of four different species in this game alone, and could potentially have Earth be completely devastated by the battle.

Again, the only reason "you're insane if you ever thought" is even a thing is BECAUSE they fucked it up. They SOLD the trilogy on the concept of choice. Just because they didn't deliver doesn't mean you can retroactively go back and excuse them because "well OBVIOUSLY they were blowing smoke out their asses, you're just retarded if you believed them". They had 3 games worth $200 and a budget in the hundreds of millions. They had all the money and opportunity in the WORLD to do it. They just decided not to, because they're incompetent.

They most certainly did NOT have unlimited time, money, and resources. BioWare isn't Valve, they don't have a self-sustaining money machine on the side that lets them spend ten years working on a game that may never come out. Complain about EA's involvement all you want, but no publisher is willing to give a studio they own all the time in the world.

Also, don't forget that Mass Effect is a console (specifically Xbox 360) franchise first and foremost, so it needed to be released before the new consoles come out (or were even officially announced) or risk losing out on a number of sales.

Posted by OneManX

@shinluis said:

@evanbower said:

@shinluis said:

@evanbower said:

@WiqidBritt said:

@evanbower said:

@WiqidBritt

Listening to Patrick talk about ZombieU sounds like someone just figuring out how to play videogames.

You spelled ZombiU incorrectly in your attempt to take someone else down a peg, you video game god.

If they want to give their game a retarded name they should expect people to spell it wrong.

Yeah! And if they wanted you to remember that "video games" is not one word then, well... At least that, in addition to your use of the word "retarded" has removed any credibility from your earlier criticisms.

Whatever, making a typo doesn't invalidate his point. It's really cringeworthy listening to patrick and sometimes jeff & brad whining about "animation priority" as bad game design; dark souls being such a great example: punching someone unarmed in dark souls is fast and responsive, but to convey how heavy and cumbersome it is to use a giant two-handed sword, making that slow set up and sometimes slower recovery is just what the game needs to do so. Also, as much as it takes skill to wield different weapons, it should take the player skill to understand the timing and spacing in which he can use the weapons effectively. "Animation priority" is key to that. Making them all fast and responsive, cutting frames to undo mistakes easily.. it's just lame and lazy. A videogame journalist, of all people, should understand that.

Is that not the exact point Patrick is making about ZombiU? Did you even listen to the podcast yet?

My point is how come he took so long to realize this??? They've been bitching about this since forever and NOW he understands it? With ZombiU? That sure took a while. But oh well, better late than never I suppose.

MY guess is the window dressing (the survival horror) is what kept Patrick interested. And since he loves horror, it kept him interested and he learned the mechanic, at least that is what I got from it.

Posted by OneManX

@Terramagi said:

@WiqidBritt said:

@Terramagi said:

@sodapop7 said:

@Terramagi: Worked out? At least one of your team dies for sure, you lose the entire governing body of the galaxy or most of the human fleet and the main hub of the galaxy is left in shambles... Where in all that is everything alright? There's no quip and then engage to the next planet anywhere in the first Mass Effect as far as I can see.

Gary Whitta and the PC Gamer podcast crew got it right months ago, the ending did not ruin the series or that game for me. Still a fantastic journey.

Hey, Red Shirts died on Star Trek. And Ashley wore pink for most of my game, so that was close enough.

The rest of it is all choices. The Council survived, the Citadel survived. Maybe it's been a little while since you played ME1 (or seen the marketing for it, since I vividly recall the explanation for the film grain), but the series was founded on choice. It's only after they fucked up everything about the series so spectacularly at the end of ME3 that "we" started touting the "diamond shape" of storytelling as damage control.

You're insane if you thought this trilogy was ever going to have multiple, completely different endings all taking place in different places with different possible outcomes. Modern videogames are too expensive to make to have something different for every possible series of choices made. Maybe if it was a sprite based game with no voice work then you could possibly expect every ending to be completely unique and involving different characters.

That said, the universe in each person's game can turn out to be very different. You decide the fates of four different species in this game alone, and could potentially have Earth be completely devastated by the battle.

Again, the only reason "you're insane if you ever thought" is even a thing is BECAUSE they fucked it up. They SOLD the trilogy on the concept of choice. Just because they didn't deliver doesn't mean you can retroactively go back and excuse them because "well OBVIOUSLY they were blowing smoke out their asses, you're just retarded if you believed them". They had 3 games worth $200 and a budget in the hundreds of millions. They had all the money and opportunity in the WORLD to do it. They just decided not to, because they're incompetent.

To be honest, this game needed one MAYBE 2 different outcomes, expecting multiple endings for everything... IS kinda crazy. Because you are setting your expectations at a level that realistically the game was never gonna hit.

Posted by ripelivejam

spoilers for everything everywhere

Posted by Terramagi

@WiqidBritt said:

@Terramagi said:

@sodapop7 said:

@Terramagi: Worked out? At least one of your team dies for sure, you lose the entire governing body of the galaxy or most of the human fleet and the main hub of the galaxy is left in shambles... Where in all that is everything alright? There's no quip and then engage to the next planet anywhere in the first Mass Effect as far as I can see.

Gary Whitta and the PC Gamer podcast crew got it right months ago, the ending did not ruin the series or that game for me. Still a fantastic journey.

Hey, Red Shirts died on Star Trek. And Ashley wore pink for most of my game, so that was close enough.

The rest of it is all choices. The Council survived, the Citadel survived. Maybe it's been a little while since you played ME1 (or seen the marketing for it, since I vividly recall the explanation for the film grain), but the series was founded on choice. It's only after they fucked up everything about the series so spectacularly at the end of ME3 that "we" started touting the "diamond shape" of storytelling as damage control.

You're insane if you thought this trilogy was ever going to have multiple, completely different endings all taking place in different places with different possible outcomes. Modern videogames are too expensive to make to have something different for every possible series of choices made. Maybe if it was a sprite based game with no voice work then you could possibly expect every ending to be completely unique and involving different characters.

That said, the universe in each person's game can turn out to be very different. You decide the fates of four different species in this game alone, and could potentially have Earth be completely devastated by the battle.

Again, the only reason "you're insane if you ever thought" is even a thing is BECAUSE they fucked it up. They SOLD the trilogy on the concept of choice. Just because they didn't deliver doesn't mean you can retroactively go back and excuse them because "well OBVIOUSLY they were blowing smoke out their asses, you're just retarded if you believed them". They had 3 games worth $200 and a budget in the hundreds of millions. They had all the money and opportunity in the WORLD to do it. They just decided not to, because they're incompetent.

Posted by shinluis

@evanbower said:

I actually think you're under-informed if you think the issue is that straight forward. The discussion isn't simply about learning how to play a game. It's specifically about animation priority and its role in games, which is still an ongoing debate not only between game writers but developers, as well. There is a subtle but important difference between animation priority as a deliberate game mechanic, which people argue for in ZombiU and Monster Hunter, and poor design not in service of the game, like people complained about in Lost Planet 2.

There's no benefit to denying that there are two schools of thought on the issue, especially when it is largely divided between eastern and western game design. God of War or Bastion allow you to cancel an animation at any time in favour of your most recent input, and that's largely where modern games have gone design wise.

I agree with you on that, mate; sometimes it does happen because the game designer's lazy or just didn't know better , but the Bombcast's fail to understand how it's a valid design decision (and sometimes improves the game experience) is really bewildering, considering they play games so much. OK, Patrick finally got it, but I can only wonder how come he didn't realize this sooner.

What you said about western and eastern mindsets is also true, and though I personally prefer the japanese take, I don't just disregard games that do the attack cancel thing as badly designed.

E.g. I like the fact that James can't handle a firearm (or anything, really) in Silent Hill 2, because, you know, he shouldn't; and it's kinda cool that it's so hard to chokehold a soldier and shoot someone accurately at the same time in MGS3, because it sure as hell looks like a hard thing to do; at the same time, freely cancelling attacks in Bastion also shows how nimble the Kid is. So.. as long as it makes sense in the context... all is good. It's better than just deciding everything has to be responsive because "that's what we're used to in games nowadays."

Posted by GioVANNI
@Godlyawesomeguy said:
Can someone mark where they begin Mass Effect 3 spoilers and where they end?
Ends at about an hour in.
Posted by Godlyawesomeguy

Can someone mark where they begin Mass Effect 3 spoilers and where they end?

Edited by evanbower

@WiqidBritt said:

@shinluis said:

Whatever, making a typo doesn't invalidate his point. It's really cringeworthy listening to patrick and sometimes jeff & brad whining about "animation priority" as bad game design; dark souls being such a great example: punching someone unarmed in dark souls is fast and responsive, but to convey how heavy and cumbersome it is to use a giant two-handed sword, making that slow set up and sometimes slower recovery is just what the game needs to do so. Also, as much as it takes skill to wield different weapons, it should take the player skill to understand the timing and spacing in which he can use the weapons effectively. "Animation priority" is key to that. Making them all fast and responsive, cutting frames to undo mistakes easily.. it's just lame and lazy. A videogame journalist, of all people, should understand that.

Listening to him talk about mastering the mechanics of the game like it's some super deep epiphany, and that sometimes games are designed a certain way for a reason doesn't seem like something that should be coming from someone that has spent all of their professional life playing, writing, and thinking about games.

Video games are better when you make the effort to learn how to play them right! What a concept!

I actually think you're under-informed if you think the issue is that straight forward. The discussion isn't simply about learning how to play a game. It's specifically about animation priority and its role in games, which is still an ongoing debate not only between game writers but developers, as well. There is a subtle but important difference between animation priority as a deliberate game mechanic, which people argue for in ZombiU and Monster Hunter, and poor design not in service of the game, like people complained about in Lost Planet 2.

There's no benefit to denying that there are two schools of thought on the issue, especially when it is largely divided between eastern and western game design. God of War or Bastion allow you to cancel an animation at any time in favour of your most recent input, and that's largely where modern games have gone design wise.

Posted by shinluis

@evanbower said:

@shinluis said:

@evanbower said:

@WiqidBritt said:

@evanbower said:

@WiqidBritt

Listening to Patrick talk about ZombieU sounds like someone just figuring out how to play videogames.

You spelled ZombiU incorrectly in your attempt to take someone else down a peg, you video game god.

If they want to give their game a retarded name they should expect people to spell it wrong.

Yeah! And if they wanted you to remember that "video games" is not one word then, well... At least that, in addition to your use of the word "retarded" has removed any credibility from your earlier criticisms.

Whatever, making a typo doesn't invalidate his point. It's really cringeworthy listening to patrick and sometimes jeff & brad whining about "animation priority" as bad game design; dark souls being such a great example: punching someone unarmed in dark souls is fast and responsive, but to convey how heavy and cumbersome it is to use a giant two-handed sword, making that slow set up and sometimes slower recovery is just what the game needs to do so. Also, as much as it takes skill to wield different weapons, it should take the player skill to understand the timing and spacing in which he can use the weapons effectively. "Animation priority" is key to that. Making them all fast and responsive, cutting frames to undo mistakes easily.. it's just lame and lazy. A videogame journalist, of all people, should understand that.

Is that not the exact point Patrick is making about ZombiU? Did you even listen to the podcast yet?

My point is how come he took so long to realize this??? They've been bitching about this since forever and NOW he understands it? With ZombiU? That sure took a while. But oh well, better late than never I suppose.

Posted by MasturbatingestBear

@Humanity said:

@NTM said:

@SAC said:

@ZeroV2 said:

Really now bombcast, if you must spoil ME3 just do a ME3cast where that's all you talk about. I have to skip around and hope that I land on a part that doesn't totally ruin the story of a game with an extreme emphasis on story? Thanks

my sentiments exactly... it's pretty annoying because now we must listen to a significantly shorter bombcast.

This simply has to do with your love of the bombcast, and lack of time playing or buying games you should and want to play. There was a lot of time from that games release and people finishing it up to here, so you shouldn't just expect them to be sensitive about it by now. At some point in the future, everything has to be expressed. This is just like complaining for any game or even film that came out in the past; "Wait... At the end of Sixth Sense Bruce Willis was actually dead!? Why would you guys spoil that!? I haven't seen it yet! You should have made a spoiler-cast for that." I would personally say after everyone that works on the site goes through it, they should have the instinctual go ahead and talk about it if they want to without people whining about it. It doesn't matter how long it has been out, it should be that when they want to talk about it on their podcast, they should talk about it, and they should expect no complaining over it.

Those are MY sentiments. I get so irritated when instead of a thoughtful discussion they all say "oh well it hasn't been out long enough lets not spoil it" and then they move on to talking about Dennys for 40 minutes. I love tangents on the Bombcast, but if they are in lieu of actual game talk thats shitty. I wouldn't mind if they talked about game spoilers even sooner. Mass Effect 3 came out a long time ago, you can't expect the world to wait for you to get around to an almost year old game and walk around on tip toes in case you overhear a spoiler. Frankly I'm surprised with the amount of talk online that you haven't had it inadvertently spoiled already.

The tangents are great.

I haven't finished ME3 yet, got back into it a week ago. But I am still going to listen to the Bombcast because I want to hear what they have to say, and I don't care about the Mass Effect story. If people could stop arguing with each other in the comments that would be great.

Posted by evanbower

@shinluis said:

@evanbower said:

@WiqidBritt said:

@evanbower said:

@WiqidBritt

Listening to Patrick talk about ZombieU sounds like someone just figuring out how to play videogames.

You spelled ZombiU incorrectly in your attempt to take someone else down a peg, you video game god.

If they want to give their game a retarded name they should expect people to spell it wrong.

Yeah! And if they wanted you to remember that "video games" is not one word then, well... At least that, in addition to your use of the word "retarded" has removed any credibility from your earlier criticisms.

Whatever, making a typo doesn't invalidate his point. It's really cringeworthy listening to patrick and sometimes jeff & brad whining about "animation priority" as bad game design; dark souls being such a great example: punching someone unarmed in dark souls is fast and responsive, but to convey how heavy and cumbersome it is to use a giant two-handed sword, making that slow set up and sometimes slower recovery is just what the game needs to do so. Also, as much as it takes skill to wield different weapons, it should take the player skill to understand the timing and spacing in which he can use the weapons effectively. "Animation priority" is key to that. Making them all fast and responsive, cutting frames to undo mistakes easily.. it's just lame and lazy. A videogame journalist, of all people, should understand that.

Is that not the exact point Patrick is making about ZombiU? Did you even listen to the podcast yet?

Posted by WiqidBritt

@shinluis said:

Whatever, making a typo doesn't invalidate his point. It's really cringeworthy listening to patrick and sometimes jeff & brad whining about "animation priority" as bad game design; dark souls being such a great example: punching someone unarmed in dark souls is fast and responsive, but to convey how heavy and cumbersome it is to use a giant two-handed sword, making that slow set up and sometimes slower recovery is just what the game needs to do so. Also, as much as it takes skill to wield different weapons, it should take the player skill to understand the timing and spacing in which he can use the weapons effectively. "Animation priority" is key to that. Making them all fast and responsive, cutting frames to undo mistakes easily.. it's just lame and lazy. A videogame journalist, of all people, should understand that.

Listening to him talk about mastering the mechanics of the game like it's some super deep epiphany, and that sometimes games are designed a certain way for a reason doesn't seem like something that should be coming from someone that has spent all of their professional life playing, writing, and thinking about games.

Video games are better when you make the effort to learn how to play them right! What a concept!

Posted by shinluis

@evanbower said:

@WiqidBritt said:

@evanbower said:

@WiqidBritt

Listening to Patrick talk about ZombieU sounds like someone just figuring out how to play videogames.

You spelled ZombiU incorrectly in your attempt to take someone else down a peg, you video game god.

If they want to give their game a retarded name they should expect people to spell it wrong.

Yeah! And if they wanted you to remember that "video games" is not one word then, well... At least that, in addition to your use of the word "retarded" has removed any credibility from your earlier criticisms.

Whatever, making a typo doesn't invalidate his point. It's really cringeworthy listening to patrick and sometimes jeff & brad whining about "animation priority" as bad game design; dark souls being such a great example: punching someone unarmed in dark souls is fast and responsive, but to convey how heavy and cumbersome it is to use a giant two-handed sword, making that slow set up and sometimes slower recovery is just what the game needs to do so. Also, as much as it takes skill to wield different weapons, it should take the player skill to understand the timing and spacing in which he can use the weapons effectively. "Animation priority" is key to that. Making them all fast and responsive, cutting frames to undo mistakes easily.. it's just lame and lazy. A videogame journalist, of all people, should understand that.

Posted by Zamir
Posted by evanbower

@WiqidBritt said:

@evanbower said:

@WiqidBritt

Listening to Patrick talk about ZombieU sounds like someone just figuring out how to play videogames.

You spelled ZombiU incorrectly in your attempt to take someone else down a peg, you video game god.

If they want to give their game a retarded name they should expect people to spell it wrong.

Yeah! And if they wanted you to remember that "video games" is not one word then, well... At least that, in addition to your use of the word "retarded" has removed any credibility from your earlier criticisms.