@Oldirtybearon said:

@bushpusherr said:

Mass Effect 3 doesn't really have a chance because not only does it not live up to Mass Effect 2, but, in my opinion, doesn't really belong up there regardless.

you fucking crazy, son.

I didn't mean not in the top 10 at all, just not in the upper portions of that. It might end up around the 8-10 area for me when all is said and done. I don't have a lot of time to play games the rest of the year :(

@joshthebear said:

If I never hear about ME3 again it'll be too soon.

I must be dumb because I have heard people use this expression my entire life and still have no idea what it means.

Does it mean that never hearing the subject again is still more than you'd like to hear it? Wait, what?

@Daneian said:

@joshthebear said:

If I never hear about ME3 again it'll be too soon.

I must be dumb because I have heard people use this expression my entire life and still have no idea what it means.

Does it mean that never hearing the subject again is still more than you'd like to hear it? Wait, what?

Yes, it's just a hyperbolic way of saying they don't want to hear about it anymore.

@bushpusherr said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@bushpusherr said:

Mass Effect 3 doesn't really have a chance because not only does it not live up to Mass Effect 2, but, in my opinion, doesn't really belong up there regardless.

you fucking crazy, son.

I didn't mean not in the top 10 at all, just not in the upper portions of that. It might end up around the 8-10 area for me when all is said and done. I don't have a lot of time to play games the rest of the year :(

But isn't this more a function of how bad games were this year (or how few)? It's like a return to the 2006-2009 void, just with fewer releases to shit on.

@Fredchuckdave said:

@bushpusherr said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@bushpusherr said:

Mass Effect 3 doesn't really have a chance because not only does it not live up to Mass Effect 2, but, in my opinion, doesn't really belong up there regardless.

you fucking crazy, son.

I didn't mean not in the top 10 at all, just not in the upper portions of that. It might end up around the 8-10 area for me when all is said and done. I don't have a lot of time to play games the rest of the year :(

But isn't this more a function of how bad games were this year (or how few)? It's like a return to the 2006-2009 void, just with fewer releases to shit on.

Maybe looking at big budget AAA titles, there weren't a huge amount of them that were super memorable. Though, I have enjoyed a lot of smaller budget games this year.

@Fredchuckdave said:

@project343: In no particular order: Vagrant Story, Starcraft Brood War, Dark Souls, Valkyrie Profile 2, Unreal Tournament, Doom II, Arkham Asylum, GTA San Andreas, Metal Gear Solid 3, Suikoden V, Xenosaga I, Link to the Past, Super Metroid, Metroid Prime, Witcher 2, and Resident Evil 4.

Honorable mention to Heroes of Might and Magic V and Vanquish for being the hardest

Note I did used to be a Square fanboy so I can relate somewhat to fanboyism, but that must've been like 6 years ago. I don't dislike most BIoware games just dislike how much the press hyped everything for like 5 years, good to see a crash in that regard. I do think Baldur's Gate 2 is overrated as well, but wasn't really interested in western RPGs at the time and it's next to impossible to get into it in retrospect.

Okay. Clearly we come from entirely different camps. Personally, I can't stand the majority of Japanese games--there are obviously exceptions, and quite a few of them are actually in your list.

Pretty big fan of Brood War as a multiplayer experience; Arkham Asylum is a spectacular Batman game; MGS3 is in my top 10, for sure; Metroid Prime is among my favourite Nintendo titles; Witcher 2 is pretty good (I actually enjoy the Dragon Age games more than the Witcher games, but Witcher is still solid); and Resident Evil 4 is probably my favourite horror game ever. The rest I couldn't care less for.

Bioware is (/was) my favourite developer. The games they make tend to come with really interesting WRPG systems, some spectacular character depth, and unlike the majority of games out there, they really give you the opportunity to spend as much time as you like with the characters in their worlds. The Mass Effect series is, bar none, my favourite video game series. Each of the games has something that makes it special, and each has something that really brings it down (for me, the bare-bones plot of ME2 was obviously the weakest part of that game for me, as I've said). I don't know how else to defend this company. I think they do some great things that really cater to what I enjoy. I enjoy forming relationships and enjoying some good writing/acting. And I enjoy creating a character that is truly my own within the world (as opposed to playing specific characters). I'm also a goddamn sucker for Blade Runner and sci-fi in general... so I was eagerly anticipating the Mass Effect series since it's debut trailer at X06, especially after going through both KOTOR and Jade Empire and adoring both.

I even really enjoyed parts of The Old Republic. Obviously the TBC-quality (read: poor) quest design was a real downer, but there are parts of that game's narrative that are truly spectacular. I think they did deliver a sequel to KOTOR2, and I think it was pretty damn solid for the constraints of the genre that they sided with.

Anyway. That's my 'defending Bioware' splooge.

@bushpusherr said:

@Fredchuckdave said:

@bushpusherr said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@bushpusherr said:

Mass Effect 3 doesn't really have a chance because not only does it not live up to Mass Effect 2, but, in my opinion, doesn't really belong up there regardless.

you fucking crazy, son.

I didn't mean not in the top 10 at all, just not in the upper portions of that. It might end up around the 8-10 area for me when all is said and done. I don't have a lot of time to play games the rest of the year :(

But isn't this more a function of how bad games were this year (or how few)? It's like a return to the 2006-2009 void, just with fewer releases to shit on.

Maybe looking at big budget AAA titles, there weren't a huge amount of them that were super memorable. Though, I have enjoyed a lot of smaller budget games this year.

Yeah I could see a top 10 consisting entirely of indy/small development team games this year; which is quite interesting. Love me some quote pyramids.

@bushpusherr said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@bushpusherr said:

Mass Effect 3 doesn't really have a chance because not only does it not live up to Mass Effect 2, but, in my opinion, doesn't really belong up there regardless.

you fucking crazy, son.

I didn't mean not in the top 10 at all, just not in the upper portions of that. It might end up around the 8-10 area for me when all is said and done. I don't have a lot of time to play games the rest of the year :(

I don't understand how people say it's an actively bad game, though. The combat was polished and highly enjoyable, the story was as high stakes as the final chapter needed to be, and the game was full of emotionally charged moments that resonated with Mass Effect fans. I just don't understand how people say it sucked. If you're a wagon jumper and ME3 was your first Mass Effect game then sure, it probably wasn't going to make much sense or be that enjoyable. But that's the players' fuck up, not the designers. They catered to their audience with ME3, as they should have.

Yeah the original ending was the shits, but they added the Extended Cut. Replaying the game with that, the whole final act felt far more cohesive and enjoyable. That's the key word though, enjoyable. Mass Effect 3 wasn't a fun game and, given everything we'd heard about the Reapers and what they do, it shouldn't have been. With every mission I felt the tension of those Cthulhu Space Gods breathing down my neck and near the end when I thought "maybe I've got a snowball's chance of winning," that felt like a huge victory. No other game has done that for me this year. No other game has made me feel the incredible highs and dirt-deep lows that Mass Effect 3 did. A game should be commended for evoking that reaction out of people, not slammed.

Hey, if that's not your (or anyone's) bag, then sure. But to actively dismiss Mass Effect 3 because of a shitty ending (that got fixed) is asinine, and it kind of pisses me off that people are so eager to shit on it.

Consider this: when Bioware announced the plan of a trilogy for Mass Effect where each decision and variable would follow through into the next game for the sake of continuity, people laughed at them. Outright laughed at them. Others wondered how in the hell they would be able to pull that off. If Mass Effect 3 did nothing else, then it outright proved that it could be done. That a three part story could be told with consistent continuity between games that was entirely dependent on the choices you made. That's a hell of an achievement. Especially when you consider just how deep Mass Effect 3 pulls from the first two games to give you that personalized narrative.

@project343: Well there's always this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0yr8WdYS8M Cam Clarke is a monster.

TBC is easily the most successful expansion in the history of MMOs, and the only expansion that increased on an MMO playerbase instead of having a mild or precipitous decline like every other expansion before or since. Now that's not to say its perfect but it's still very impressive from a business perspective. Karazhan is the best small raid ever made, Sunwell is the best large scale raid ever made; though I do think the quest design in Wrath of the Lich King was superior; and WoW has never been great on the PvP front.

I like how you knew you had to justify your bullshit by saying you were drunk.

Mass Effect 3 is far, far, far from GOTY.

@Fredchuckdave: Well, my TBC comparison was mostly just for quest design. SWTOR's quest design was better than vanilla WoW, but not quite as good as Wrath. It feels pretty spot-on with TBC.

I'm surprised anyone would actually want ME3 to get any nods for GOTY. It was kind of a bad. Like not badly produced, but just bad at being a Mass Effect game, and not fun. There were no exploration and quest hubs AT ALL, just the Citadel's awful fetch quest depository in which you had to talk to EVERY npc multiple times to even find them. The story beats were very disappointing steps backward from ME2. The game consisted entirely of just shooting sections, one after another, with almost no diplomacy. And all the plot points just revolved around "Hey remember me?" moments.

Its no wonder that I never finished it, feeling tired of the monotony just past halfway through so I haven't experienced this ending debacle the internet complained about. But, I felt the story just lost all of the bravery in it's fiction, settling for regular action tropes, leaving me no impulse to play the game. And since it was barely recognizable as any kind of role-playing game anymore, there was nothing for me there either. All the roots of brilliance that ME1 seeded and ME2 sprouted, simply bloomed into mediocrity.

There have been better games this year for sure, but none that really stand out to me as THIS WAS AWESOME. Diablo III really didn't do it for me either, while Darksiders 2 was "different" it isn't what I would call "better" than Darksiders 1. Borderlands 2 was certainly longer than it's predecessor, but so very similar its hard to really make it stand out. AC3 is not out yet, but we've already had SO MANY of those games its hard to imagine its really going to blow me away.

So far my year has been spent more enjoying mods as that is where the innovation has been. DayZ I've spent a VERY large portion of the year enjoying because the experience there is so unique. I haven't played too many indie or downloadables but I'm sure there is plenty of quality to choose from there, too. It will be an interesting GOTY discussion indeed since I can't really put my bets on any horse this year, I just don't see any clear winners.

EDIT: However! The multiplayer was fantastic and a LOT of fun.

@project343: I guess a follow up on the JRPG vs Western RPG, I've played both quite extensively. The biggest issue is that the main character being a silent protagonist almost always weakens the narrative considerably. It's rare for an RPG to have particularly outstanding gameplay (Vagrant Story being an exception) so I go for a better storyline in general. Master Li is probably the best Bioware character, but ultimately you still defeat him without saying a word or having a retort for him (though he's clearly your superior intellectually). I hate the moral choice system not having a "gray" center or just having offshoot points like Witcher 2 did. I also think the perfect length for an RPG, if only to have an interesting and comprehensive plot, is 40 hours; and while that amount of content is extremely expensive to produce nowadays I still feel a little "let down" when every RPG except Skyrim is 20ish hours (I realize the first Dragon Age can be a little longer, but man that game is just plain boring)

@ArbitraryWater said:

Mass Effect 3 is a fine game, and honestly I feel like the hate around the ending overshadows a lot of the things that it does right. That being said, the main plot thread is still a bit of a mess, and enough has been said about that abysmal ending.

@Brodehouse said:

@TorMasturba

@BisonHero said:

Haha, yeah they pretty clearly implied that it had a shot at "Biggest Disappointment" except now RE6 is likely going to steal that category.

RE6 will get into the runner's up line-up but I doubt it'll win out right since Jeff and Ryan didn't have anything like high hopes for it beforehand anyway.

Dragon Age 2 won last year despite Vinny being the only person in the office who played it. It's hysterical to listen to Patrick describe the ills of a game he didn't play, and talk about the strength of Origins (another game he didn't play).

Don't forget The Witcher 2 getting on the site top 10 despite (once again) Vinny being the only one who played it. Obviously, Patrick has played it now and can back up those claims, but I always thought it was a bit incredulous that that game made it but Dark Souls or especially Mortal Kombat didn't.

Jeff and Ryan played it too, so nope.

Mass Effect 3, although some of the game is a bit disappointing, is still a phenomenal game. It's my personal game of the year so far. The Walking Dead is probably my number two. 
 
The only game I could see knocking it off my list is Assassin's Creed III.

Nope, Journey, Walking Dead, and Spec Ops I enjoyed way more than ME3, and so far Asura's Wrath is more enjoyable than ME3

@MariachiMacabre said:

Except Journey and The Walking Dead both came out this year

This. As of this moment, those are the only two games in the running.

ME3 was disappointing as all hell but in the end I still gotta give it credit, I was invested in it. I wanted more, but I still got a fair bit.

Right now I think ME3 is in my personal top spot but there are 5-6 games coming out soon that can easily overcome that hurdle if they turn out well. Journey and Walking Dead are both awesome, but I feel that (Walking Dead specifically) they are only awesome as a result of their stories/experience rather then the gameplay.

ME3 was so bad it gave children cancer.

ME3 was pretty boring. Still haven't finished it. Bioware fucked up royally, I loved ME 1/2.

@Wipeout said:

I'm surprised anyone would actually want ME3 to get any nods for GOTY. It was kind of a bad. Like not badly produced, but just bad at being a Mass Effect game, and not fun. There were no exploration and quest hubs AT ALL, just the Citadel's awful fetch quest depository in which you had to talk to EVERY npc multiple times to even find them. The story beats were very disappointing steps backward from ME2. The game consisted entirely of just shooting sections, one after another, with almost no diplomacy. And all the plot points just revolved around "Hey remember me?" moments.

Its no wonder that I never finished it, feeling tired of the monotony just past halfway through so I haven't experienced this ending debacle the internet complained about. But, I felt the story just lost all of the bravery in it's fiction, settling for regular action tropes, leaving me no impulse to play the game. And since it was barely recognizable as any kind of role-playing game anymore, there was nothing for me there either. All the roots of brilliance that ME1 seeded and ME2 sprouted, simply bloomed into mediocrity.

There have been better games this year for sure, but none that really stand out to me as THIS WAS AWESOME. Diablo III really didn't do it for me either, while Darksiders 2 was "different" it isn't what I would call "better" than Darksiders 1. Borderlands 2 was certainly longer than it's predecessor, but so very similar its hard to really make it stand out. AC3 is not out yet, but we've already had SO MANY of those games its hard to imagine its really going to blow me away.

So far my year has been spent more enjoying mods as that is where the innovation has been. DayZ I've spent a VERY large portion of the year enjoying because the experience there is so unique. I haven't played too many indie or downloadables but I'm sure there is plenty of quality to choose from there, too. It will be an interesting GOTY discussion indeed since I can't really put my bets on any horse this year, I just don't see any clear winners.

EDIT: However! The multiplayer was fantastic and a LOT of fun.

I fucking called that shit, I said and I quote

It's gonna be a lot closer to a third person shooter than an RPG. Even more so than Mass Effect 2 if that's even possible.

But people called me insane, they called me a hater, they called me a sad, bitter man. WELL WHO'S THE SAD BITTER MAN NOW!?!?!

Seriously though, if they f***ed up the story, which a lot of people seem to think that they did, then ME has lost the only really good thing it had going. Then again, this year isn't as crazy as the last one. Diablo III, Dishonored, AC3 with possibly Far Cry 3 or Borderlands 2 as GOTY contenders. ME3 might just very well make a GOTY list, just not Giantbomb's GOTY list. Oh and Walking Dead, that game is awesome.

@Fredchuckdave said:

@project343: I guess a follow up on the JRPG vs Western RPG, I've played both quite extensively. The biggest issue is that the main character being a silent protagonist almost always weakens the narrative considerably. It's rare for an RPG to have particularly outstanding gameplay (Vagrant Story being an exception) so I go for a better storyline in general. Master Li is probably the best Bioware character, but ultimately you still defeat him without saying a word or having a retort for him (though he's clearly your superior intellectually). I hate the moral choice system not having a "gray" center or just having offshoot points like Witcher 2 did. I also think the perfect length for an RPG, if only to have an interesting and comprehensive plot, is 40 hours; and while that amount of content is extremely expensive to produce nowadays I still feel a little "let down" when every RPG except Skyrim is 20ish hours (I realize the first Dragon Age can be a little longer, but man that game is just plain boring)

On length, I'd say that the majority of WRPGs are longer than you're stating. Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 all took me around 30-35 hours to finish. Dragon Age 1 was around 60, Dragon Age 2 was around 45. Jade Empire was around 35. KOTOR was around 50. Personally, I never find length to be a real factor in playing games. JRPGs tend to overstay their welcome via terrible plot contrivances, grinding and repeated content. There are certainly some instances where WRPGs employ these tactics, but it always seemed less frequent in WRPGs. Also, I have a lot less time nowadays than I did when I was young. I'd much rather have a concise 20 hour experience over a convoluted and exhausting 100 hour experience.

On silent protagonists, all Bioware actually have non-silent protagonists. While the protagonist may not audibly speak or animate to the dialogue, there is certainly dialogue there--it's what you're choosing through after all. The design choice caters more to role-players who would rather envision their character's voice/tone rather than hear an execution that may not jive with what they imagined (a common complaint for the Mass Effect series is the mis-matched option-to-execution for dialogue choices). I think my big issue with Witcher-styled games here is that I tend to dislike playing characters, and would rather play myself within a world filled with great characters. I love the Witcher's writing, and I love Geralt as a character, but there are certainly times when I feel so disconnected from both him and the world around him that I personally find it very off-putting.

On morality, while I prefer the series of grey choices like Dragon Age or Witcher, I'm not as offended by the binary choices as you. It's comical and fun, but the illusion of choice is an illusion that I will gladly bend over for and let it mystify me.

--

On JRPGs, I think my biggest issue is that they tend to be convoluted as fuck, hit you over the head with 'themes' and 'lessons', rely way too heavily on shallow character and premise archetypes, and tend to involve 0 player input on the narrative. They just feel like exhaustively long, poorly written stories. The voice acting is typically terrible. I also hate the majority of anime for that same reason (exceptions being Mushi-Shi, Fullmetal Alchemist, the Avatar series', Darker Than Black, Ghibli stuff).

As for the non-narrative aspects of JRPGs, I tend to dislike Asian monster design within a more 'animated' art style. Most of the monsters in, say, anything resembling the Tales series feel overly designed, and entirely disconnected from the world itself. Dark/Demon Souls are actually two of the rare exceptions where the world feels really grounded and real, and the monsters themselves feel like they're part of it. But then you go back to any other JRPG and they all feel like hybridized and mis-matched Pokemon rejects that awkwardly walk around the world waiting to be killed by players.

I'm trying to think of JRPGs that I don't hate. I've got: the Pokemon series, Final Fantasy XII, Persona 3/4 (mostly for the style and interpersonal relationships), and Nier (which I admit is a fucking awful, terrible game, but some aspects of it really resonate with me--it's the best worst game I've ever played).

I played ME3 just recently, even after hearing all the negative things about it. I went into it expecting to be disappointed, but right now it's sitting at the top of my list of favorite 2012 games. I really can't figure out what makes people love ME2 and really dislike 3. The action parts in ME3 are more fun to play than ME2, I actually enjoy playing them unlike in ME2. Also it's more of an RPG than ME2 was. ME2 didn't feel like any type of RPG at all. You got pre-determined amounts of exp after each mission so you leveled up the same way each play through and leveling up abilities was only somewhat exciting when you got to the final stage of the ability when it made you choose between like a 7% difference in stats, for example, 25% more weapon damage and 17% more health or vice-versa. ME3 is certainly not the deepest RPG out there, but you can create quite a few different play styles based on how you upgrade. I also don't understand peoples dislike of the ending. I've only seen the extended cut though, so perhaps that makes all the difference. The only bad things I can say about ME3 off the top of my head are that all the eavesdropping quests were very lame, and that it almost seemed like most of the stuff you did in ME2 didn't matter that much.

Not saying people have to like ME3 or anything, just giving my opinion on it. And to be fair, I haven't played many 2012 games, so there's not much competition for it right now in my GOTY.

Mass Effect 3 should be game of the year to anyone who's not a total philistine

Why do you actually care what their Game of the Year is? Does it somehow affect your enjoyment of the game? Is it ruined for you now that someone decided it wasn't their favorite game of the year? Don't be so ridiculous.

Mass Effect 3 is currently my Game of the Year out of what I've played so far this year. Despite all the controversy surrounding the game, I still really enjoyed and was satisfied with my experience with it, and I can't really think of any other games from this year that I've invested as much time and attention to.

Then again, I'm rather enjoying Resident Evil 6 right now, so you're probably not going to trust my opinion anyway.

It should make some top 10 lists (not Jeff's) but I don't see a whole lot of an argument here for the top 3 or anything

I am calling for an official moratorium on the term 'shots fired'.

@project343 said:

@Fredchuckdave said:

@project343: I guess a follow up on the JRPG vs Western RPG, I've played both quite extensively. The biggest issue is that the main character being a silent protagonist almost always weakens the narrative considerably. It's rare for an RPG to have particularly outstanding gameplay (Vagrant Story being an exception) so I go for a better storyline in general. Master Li is probably the best Bioware character, but ultimately you still defeat him without saying a word or having a retort for him (though he's clearly your superior intellectually). I hate the moral choice system not having a "gray" center or just having offshoot points like Witcher 2 did. I also think the perfect length for an RPG, if only to have an interesting and comprehensive plot, is 40 hours; and while that amount of content is extremely expensive to produce nowadays I still feel a little "let down" when every RPG except Skyrim is 20ish hours (I realize the first Dragon Age can be a little longer, but man that game is just plain boring)

On length, I'd say that the majority of WRPGs are longer than you're stating. Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 all took me around 30-35 hours to finish. Dragon Age 1 was around 60, Dragon Age 2 was around 45. Jade Empire was around 35. KOTOR was around 50. Personally, I never find length to be a real factor in playing games. JRPGs tend to overstay their welcome via terrible plot contrivances, grinding and repeated content. There are certainly some instances where WRPGs employ these tactics, but it always seemed less frequent in WRPGs. Also, I have a lot less time nowadays than I did when I was young. I'd much rather have a concise 20 hour experience over a convoluted and exhausting 100 hour experience.

On silent protagonists, all Bioware actually have non-silent protagonists. While the protagonist may not audibly speak or animate to the dialogue, there is certainly dialogue there--it's what you're choosing through after all. The design choice caters more to role-players who would rather envision their character's voice/tone rather than hear an execution that may not jive with what they imagined (a common complaint for the Mass Effect series is the mis-matched option-to-execution for dialogue choices). I think my big issue with Witcher-styled games here is that I tend to dislike playing characters, and would rather play myself within a world filled with great characters. I love the Witcher's writing, and I love Geralt as a character, but there are certainly times when I feel so disconnected from both him and the world around him that I personally find it very off-putting.

Well I can say we just had different experiences with the length of each game; KOTOR took me 30ish hours, Mass Effect 2 took me 20-25 hours, Dragon Age would likely take me about 40 hours if I ever bother to complete it, Jade Empire took me less than 20 hours on both playthroughs, exhaustively doing sidequests. Now I am something of a ringer when it comes to JRPG difficulty wise (I play through entire 40-80 hour games and die once or twice at most) but I've never really had to grind at all unless it was to do some endgame superboss or something (never bothered with the final sidequests in FFXIII since I knew it'd take 20 hours of grinding); though I avoid grind heavy story light games like Disgaea. If anything I try to avoid grinding at all costs in an effort to make the game harder (doesn't really work all the same), because once you reach a certain threshold you'll always be just overpowered enough to make everything trivial for the rest of the game; which is boring even in a game with a mediocre combat system.

What really rubbed me the wrong way about Bioware ages ago was I played Final Fantasy XII and it had 150 hours of content or more, and Jade Empire had 20. I admit Jade Empire had a slightly better storyline, but by sheer size XII had a better fleshed out world, more interesting art design, vastly superior sidequests, and generally more interesting characters with the exception of the antagonist. Yet Jade Empire received superior review scores, to my great confusion.

In terms of "You" being the protagonist; I mean you're choosing between two binary options. Aside from Mass Effect and DA2 those options aren't actually articulated in any fashion; and for the most part you'll probably play both sides if you like the game; so it's just two slightly different storylines and usually one gets more overpowered abilities/speech options. Now, I may prefer Dos Equis but I'm still more interested in a fleshed out, active protagonist in games and literature; even Marlowe in Heart of Darkness is a very interesting character though all he does is talk about Kurtz and Kurtz's influence. It's fine for the protagonist to be a reflection of the viewer/reader; but the viewer/reader themself is likely a boring disinteresting person as compared to someone living in a fantasy world, and thus isn't all that capable of delivering a solid performance as compared to an actual character.

"You" can't become the protagonist and simultaneously be interested in what the protagonist does, in a sense. The protagonist being an extant character also enhances the villain. While Master Li is a great character he doesn't have anyone to interact with so he's kind of talking to the void. Albedo on the other hand (granted Albedo just destroys every other game villain by a huge margin) has an interwoven plot with each of the characters that he converses with and you get a much greater conception of what that character is and his actions grip you.

Most of your other points a purely a matter of taste, can't really debate much about them. I don't care too much for anime either, most of the JRPGs I've played have western inspired design elements and have some grounding in reality or future-reality. FFVIII is probably my favorite game for pure monster design, and there's a pretty solid mix of both western and eastern monsters in that game (essentially no reskins throughout). I find Bioware monster design... unremarkable? Mass Effect 2 is actually the worst offender here, but aside from that they do just have a lot of repetitious encounters with similar enemy types and nearly identical approaches depending on your build. In terms of recent games Witcher 2 and the Souls games are excellent. Demon's Souls' Dragon God is pretty fucking sweet. I'm a dragon, I'm not going to bother breathing on you, how about I just punch you in the face with my fist that's 5 times as big as you. Of course the Souls games don't really have plots to be concerned with, though Gwyn was an emotional experience.

Aside from Triss Geralt is the weakest part of the Witcher 2, but ultimately he's still a more interesting guy than a self-insertion fantasy persona.

If you like Final Fantasy XII I heartily recommend Vagrant Story and Final Fantasy Tactics, both made by the same development team and take place in the same universe; in addition to being excellent games in their own right.

My money is down on a duel between Journey and The Walking Dead. There is no fucking way that Mass Effect 3 even makes the cut for the conversation.

There are multiple $15 downloadable games that deserve GOTY more than Mass Effect 3. The quest system is was just plain awful in parts of Mass Effect, the lead up to and ending was lack luster. The multiplayer was kinda meh, too easy on medium difficulty and too hard on the highest difficulty unless all four players camped in a corner of the map. Staying behind cover and waiting for enemies is un-fun gameplay. The multiplayer should have been done by a separate team and put out as a free to play game but god forbid EA try new business models. Its hard to follow up mass effect 2 but they didn't come to close.

My memory must be bad too because I don't recall people saying "Mass Effect 3 must not happen!" There was preview events where the people who got to see it where concerned about how it looked and behaved. In particular the frame rate very bad but that happens with many games where the performance issues addressed almost in the last days before release (and often in the first/day of release patch). The real crap-storm didn't happen until reviewers got the game and started to grumble about concerns and then buyers started to complain about it days after release.

But none of this is new and has been rehashed a bunch already. So why is this dredged up again?

@Oldirtybearon said:

I don't understand how people say it's an actively bad game, though. The combat was polished and highly enjoyable, the story was as high stakes as the final chapter needed to be, and the game was full of emotionally charged moments that resonated with Mass Effect fans. I just don't understand how people say it sucked. If you're a wagon jumper and ME3 was your first Mass Effect game then sure, it probably wasn't going to make much sense or be that enjoyable. But that's the players' fuck up, not the designers. They catered to their audience with ME3, as they should have.

Yeah the original ending was the shits, but they added the Extended Cut. Replaying the game with that, the whole final act felt far more cohesive and enjoyable. That's the key word though, enjoyable. Mass Effect 3 wasn't a fun game and, given everything we'd heard about the Reapers and what they do, it shouldn't have been. With every mission I felt the tension of those Cthulhu Space Gods breathing down my neck and near the end when I thought "maybe I've got a snowball's chance of winning," that felt like a huge victory. No other game has done that for me this year. No other game has made me feel the incredible highs and dirt-deep lows that Mass Effect 3 did. A game should be commended for evoking that reaction out of people, not slammed.

Hey, if that's not your (or anyone's) bag, then sure. But to actively dismiss Mass Effect 3 because of a shitty ending (that got fixed) is asinine, and it kind of pisses me off that people are so eager to shit on it.

Consider this: when Bioware announced the plan of a trilogy for Mass Effect where each decision and variable would follow through into the next game for the sake of continuity, people laughed at them. Outright laughed at them. Others wondered how in the hell they would be able to pull that off. If Mass Effect 3 did nothing else, then it outright proved that it could be done. That a three part story could be told with consistent continuity between games that was entirely dependent on the choices you made. That's a hell of an achievement. Especially when you consider just how deep Mass Effect 3 pulls from the first two games to give you that personalized narrative.

To me it felt like the way they changed the visuals/effect of abilities vastly diminished their impact.

There were a few good Tali and Garrus moments, but the rest didn't really grab me.

You felt tension troughout the game. ME3 smashed my suspension of disbelief. So there was nothing to feel tense about. When the game announced that it had been 3 weeks since the reapers reached earth. The fact that there was still a resistance or that earth wasn't shattered was just silly. I imagined a transformers version of a reaper having tea with Anders while discussing peace. Which seemed just as likely. When the reapers attacked Thessia i snapped my fingers, and after that the planet was seemingly uninhabitable.

Which leads into another issue which is time. ME3 vs ME2 is like TES4 vs TES3 in this respect. In all of these you have a fair amount of time to devote to leisure or unimportant tasks. ME3 & TES4 have big threats at the doorstep so you shouldn't really do that, but that isn't the case with the other two. Now i understand the need for this ominous presence, but i still felt like i shouldn't waste time at the citadel. On the other hand i wish i had the time. So in this respect it forcefully removed an aspect i liked about ME2. Which had been fine if there was something there to increase and decrease drama. So it didn't become a monotonous one speed affair.

I really wanted to like mass effect 3, but i didn't.

@Fredchuckdave said:

What really rubbed me the wrong way about Bioware ages ago was I played Final Fantasy XII and it had 150 hours of content or more, and Jade Empire had 20. I admit Jade Empire had a slightly better storyline, but by sheer size XII had a better fleshed out world, more interesting art design, vastly superior sidequests, and generally more interesting characters with the exception of the antagonist. Yet Jade Empire received superior review scores, to my great confusion.

I actually enjoyed Final Fantasy XII's ambitious design and reinvention of the series more than Jade Empire. It's the only Final Fantasy game that I actually enjoyed playing. Also, you're a bit wrong on the assumption of review scores. Final Fantasy XII is at a 92 on metacritic and Jade Empire is at an 89, and both those scores appropriately reflect my opinions on them.

@Fredchuckdave said:

In terms of "You" being the protagonist; I mean you're choosing between two binary options.

No? This isn't the case for the KOTOR series, and this isn't the case for Dragon Age: Origins. I mean, it's binary insofar as all inputs for video games are going to be binary to some degree. But both the KOTOR games and DAO tend to have quite a unmarked gradation in the dialogue options. Even Jade Empire had quite a bit of gradation in the dialogue decisions that went well beyond 'two binary options'--and this becomes immediately apparent if you try to delve into a character romance.

@Fredchuckdave said:

It's fine for the protagonist to be a reflection of the viewer/reader; but the viewer/reader themself is likely a boring disinteresting person as compared to someone living in a fantasy world, and thus isn't all that capable of delivering a solid performance as compared to an actual character.

But that's the point. Your character isn't a character--it's you. And the degree of separation between you and that character is what leads to a jarring discomfort with what the character does, and what you would like to do. You get all your character flavour off the companions and villains, not yourself.

@Fredchuckdave said:

"You" can't become the protagonist and simultaneously be interested in what the protagonist does, in a sense. The protagonist being an extant character also enhances the villain.

I think the KOTOR series is one of the best examples of games that give the protagonist enough character and history to make the villains so fucking compelling while giving you the ability to mold that character to yourself. The two 'villains' in the original KOTOR (yourself and Malak) work so well because there's history there, and because you have a solid group of companions to play off of the villain with (i.e. Bastilla).

@Fredchuckdave said:

If you like Final Fantasy XII I heartily recommend Vagrant Story and Final Fantasy Tactics, both made by the same development team and take place in the same universe; in addition to being excellent games in their own right.

I immensely dislike tactical RPGs.

Clearly either Azura's Wrath or Binary Domain will be GOTY

@project343 said:

@Fredchuckdave said:

It's fine for the protagonist to be a reflection of the viewer/reader; but the viewer/reader themself is likely a boring disinteresting person as compared to someone living in a fantasy world, and thus isn't all that capable of delivering a solid performance as compared to an actual character.

But that's the point. Your character isn't a character--it's you. And the degree of separation between you and that character is what leads to a jarring discomfort with what the character does, and what you would like to do. You get all your character flavour off the companions and villains, not yourself.

@Fredchuckdave said:

"You" can't become the protagonist and simultaneously be interested in what the protagonist does, in a sense. The protagonist being an extant character also enhances the villain.

I think the KOTOR series is one of the best examples of games that give the protagonist enough character and history to make the villains so fucking compelling while giving you the ability to mold that character to yourself. The two 'villains' in the original KOTOR (yourself and Malak) work so well because there's history there, and because you have a solid group of companions to play off of the villain with (i.e. Bastilla).

@Fredchuckdave said:

If you like Final Fantasy XII I heartily recommend Vagrant Story and Final Fantasy Tactics, both made by the same development team and take place in the same universe; in addition to being excellent games in their own right.

I immensely dislike tactical RPGs.

As I said "You" will never be as intelligently developed or engaging as an actual protagonist, that's just how it is. The protagonist being silent is a primary reason for disinterest in video games as an effective medium to tell a storyline from a long time ago. Protagonists can suck or vary but ultimately Michael Corleone is a shitload more interesting than anyone you'll ever meet in reality, especially someone like yourself (is there anyone more boring than americans/your respective countrymen?). For fiction to be interesting there has to be a legitimate interest and engagement on the protagonist's part, not a cheap imitation of that that caters to some dumbasses' whim and also filters it through 2 disinteresting archetypes.

I'll say this right now: KOTOR's plot is overrated, plain and simple, it's not that great. If it didn't have the "Star Wars" name slapped on it it never would have received as good of ratings or press and maybe we wouldn't have been blighted by the bioware/ea hype machine. Bastilla is nothing special, you being an overpowered Jedi that utterly annihilates everything if you have any degree of competence adds no credence to any villain. Malak is disinteresting and eh I mean almost every villain in the entire Star Wars universe is kind of lame, following the SW archetypes isn't going to lead anywhere productive. In terms of other Bioware characters, outside of ME2 Master Li is the only one I can remember having any weight or intrigue or control over the plot. This is another thing that's essential in creating a villain is to give him most of the "power behind the scenes," but bullshit binary choice systems give you all of that power and the villain is just a puppet to your every whim; who gives a shit (going so far as making the last boss kill himself in the original Mass Effect).

Now we can compare this to Vagrant Story but I'll just say VS is so insanely superior in virtually every regard. Every fight is a struggle, thus immersing you in the world; you're not some immortal being, while you may be a badass you can still die and you have to play intelligently as a result. A game being too easy generally cripples the plot, every Bioware game is a cakewalk. Ashley is definitely a reflection of the player, but all the same has an interesting and mysterious past (and not a bullshit malleable past like Revan), interest in Ashley could well drive you to finish the game, even though it has two fantastic antagonists. The environment and the city itself is a character, in Bioware games you get 4-6 cities where you run into an extremely predictable plot loop, then it repeats itself on the next planet and so on and so forth. At some point you can be evil or good; you might pick up a character along the way, and hopefully you realize how boring and repetitive this is at some point.

Oh right, every Bioware game has the exact same plot:

http://rampantgames.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/bwcliches.png

If you refuse to play Final Fantasy Tactics then you're missing out on the best character in all of video games in Delita; a modern Iago.

@Cheesebob said:

Clearly either Azura's Wrath or Binary Domain will be GOTY

All I know is that Asura's Wrath better win something because the boss fights in that game are on a whole other level of crazy. I'll even go as far as to say that the DLC ending of the game with the final boss fight is probably the best fight scene in recent video game memory. I dare anyone to challenge that.

@golguin: You, sir, have just spouted utter truths! That true ending is fucking AMAZING.

I liked how Jeff gave it a 4/5. It's also great that when you watch the Quick Look you see Jeff start to realize what a bad game it is.

@Fredchuckdave: I did play Tactics for a good 5-10 hours until I simply couldn't stomach the combat anymore.

You also completely missed my point that DAO, KOTOR, and Jade Empire do not feature silent protagonists. The dialogue you choose from is their dialogue. And if you think this amounts to simple binary decisions, you clearly don't care about actual role-playing. In these games, you can certainly try to min-max light or dark, but there is plenty of room for you to carve out a distinct personality for your own character. While Lee is a character, the majority of that game is you defining your moral compass on a wide variety of issues and conflicts--defining where your limits are as a human being. I think this is/can be equally the case in DAO, KOTOR, and Jade Empire. Just because you choose to craft a boring, binary character does not mean that a compelling one cannot be crafted.

I think DAO is, by far, the pinnacle of modern choice-based narrative (with games like the original Fallouts, or one of it's cousins being more traditional examples). None of major decisions are black and white, and there are so many nuanced elements to the smaller decisions that really allow you as a player to craft your character into something special. But again, if you don't give a shit about role-playing, then clearly this is all going to go over your head. Each of my characters was so vastly different, had such a different outlook on life, had some real emotional arcs, and ultimately many of them did change for the better. What makes video games distinct from other mediums is their interactivity. Embracing this, even in the narrative context, is what we as gamers should be promoting--not overly scripted, linear anime-reject stories with hollow, and static characters (DAO even gives you the power to change the emotional/philosophical state of party members if you rationalize them through difficult situations).

I guess my point is that we're talking about role-playing games within an interactive medium, and you clearly give no fucks about either of those things. I don't doubt that many JRPGs have some compelling, hassle-free stories and character, but I think it's dreadfully boring to have no affect over it.

@RAMBO604 said:

It deserves an honorable mention at least not outright dismissal, 95% of that game is perfect so it mucks it up at the end. It terms of gameplay it was flawless, took what ME1 promised and what ME2 refined and honed it to a point where ME3 has better shooting than most shooters and a dialogue system still unrivaled. The story is good, had some emotionally impacting moments and some jaw dropping ones. But it trips up at the end for some and everyone is going to let that be the only thing taken away from that game. Not the first 25 hours but the last hour.

Gotta disagree with you on this, to be honest.

I won't deny that some of the character stuff was great. Mordin had a great arc that was quite moving, although I didn't see whateve it was that most people saw in Thane's "ending". In terms of the way it handled it's characters and your interaction with them it was much more naturalistic than in ME2 BUT there were also a few less than great moments. I particularly disliked the way they handled the Rachni. Let them go on the basis they could be good guys? Too bad! they get indoctrinated! Kill them all because they are too dangerous? Too bad! They get cloned again or something? I realise that juggling all the variables must have been tricky, but it was still a bit disappointing how much it felt like they dealt with it by trying to funnel everyone into a sharply narrowing hallway.

But whatever, ME3 was an okay ride, I think. I certainly didn't hate it, and the story was presented well even if it was largely stupid.

@thomasnash said:

@RAMBO604 said:

It deserves an honorable mention at least not outright dismissal, 95% of that game is perfect so it mucks it up at the end. It terms of gameplay it was flawless, took what ME1 promised and what ME2 refined and honed it to a point where ME3 has better shooting than most shooters and a dialogue system still unrivaled. The story is good, had some emotionally impacting moments and some jaw dropping ones. But it trips up at the end for some and everyone is going to let that be the only thing taken away from that game. Not the first 25 hours but the last hour.

Gotta disagree with you on this, to be honest.

I won't deny that some of the character stuff was great. Mordin had a great arc that was quite moving, although I didn't see whateve it was that most people saw in Thane's "ending". In terms of the way it handled it's characters and your interaction with them it was much more naturalistic than in ME2 BUT there were also a few less than great moments. I particularly disliked the way they handled the Rachni. Let them go on the basis they could be good guys? Too bad! they get indoctrinated! Kill them all because they are too dangerous? Too bad! They get cloned again or something? I realise that juggling all the variables must have been tricky, but it was still a bit disappointing how much it felt like they dealt with it by trying to funnel everyone into a sharply narrowing hallway.

But whatever, ME3 was an okay ride, I think. I certainly didn't hate it, and the story was presented well even if it was largely stupid.

I heard if you kept the cloned Rachni made by the Reapers alive they end up going crazy and killing a bunch of people on the crucible. I don't know if this is true or not but it would be a cool little twist.

Mass Effect 3 when compared to their original concept game, doesn't feel like a Mass Effect game. It wasn't ambitious enough.

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

@Wipeout said:

I'm surprised anyone would actually want ME3 to get any nods for GOTY. It was kind of a bad. Like not badly produced, but just bad at being a Mass Effect game, and not fun. There were no exploration and quest hubs AT ALL, just the Citadel's awful fetch quest depository in which you had to talk to EVERY npc multiple times to even find them. The story beats were very disappointing steps backward from ME2. The game consisted entirely of just shooting sections, one after another, with almost no diplomacy. And all the plot points just revolved around "Hey remember me?" moments.

Its no wonder that I never finished it, feeling tired of the monotony just past halfway through so I haven't experienced this ending debacle the internet complained about. But, I felt the story just lost all of the bravery in it's fiction, settling for regular action tropes, leaving me no impulse to play the game. And since it was barely recognizable as any kind of role-playing game anymore, there was nothing for me there either. All the roots of brilliance that ME1 seeded and ME2 sprouted, simply bloomed into mediocrity.

There have been better games this year for sure, but none that really stand out to me as THIS WAS AWESOME. Diablo III really didn't do it for me either, while Darksiders 2 was "different" it isn't what I would call "better" than Darksiders 1. Borderlands 2 was certainly longer than it's predecessor, but so very similar its hard to really make it stand out. AC3 is not out yet, but we've already had SO MANY of those games its hard to imagine its really going to blow me away.

So far my year has been spent more enjoying mods as that is where the innovation has been. DayZ I've spent a VERY large portion of the year enjoying because the experience there is so unique. I haven't played too many indie or downloadables but I'm sure there is plenty of quality to choose from there, too. It will be an interesting GOTY discussion indeed since I can't really put my bets on any horse this year, I just don't see any clear winners.

EDIT: However! The multiplayer was fantastic and a LOT of fun.

I fucking called that shit, I said and I quote

It's gonna be a lot closer to a third person shooter than an RPG. Even more so than Mass Effect 2 if that's even possible.

But people called me insane, they called me a hater, they called me a sad, bitter man. WELL WHO'S THE SAD BITTER MAN NOW!?!?!

Seriously though, if they f***ed up the story, which a lot of people seem to think that they did, then ME has lost the only really good thing it had going. Then again, this year isn't as crazy as the last one. Diablo III, Dishonored, AC3 with possibly Far Cry 3 or Borderlands 2 as GOTY contenders. ME3 might just very well make a GOTY list, just not Giantbomb's GOTY list. Oh and Walking Dead, that game is awesome.

Best posts ever!

The whole reason people bought into Mass Effect in the first place was because of the story and characters and exploration and rpg. Developing your character and finding things out for yourself. Why the hell did Bioware get rid of these aspects.

All Mass Effect had to do was have shooting mechanics as fun as gears of war. With a continued consistent great story.

@alternate said:

"shots fired" has become shots tired as an over used phrase on here.

Oh ho! ZING!

@glyn said:

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

@Wipeout said:

I'm surprised anyone would actually want ME3 to get any nods for GOTY. It was kind of a bad. Like not badly produced, but just bad at being a Mass Effect game, and not fun. There were no exploration and quest hubs AT ALL, just the Citadel's awful fetch quest depository in which you had to talk to EVERY npc multiple times to even find them. The story beats were very disappointing steps backward from ME2. The game consisted entirely of just shooting sections, one after another, with almost no diplomacy. And all the plot points just revolved around "Hey remember me?" moments.

Its no wonder that I never finished it, feeling tired of the monotony just past halfway through so I haven't experienced this ending debacle the internet complained about. But, I felt the story just lost all of the bravery in it's fiction, settling for regular action tropes, leaving me no impulse to play the game. And since it was barely recognizable as any kind of role-playing game anymore, there was nothing for me there either. All the roots of brilliance that ME1 seeded and ME2 sprouted, simply bloomed into mediocrity.

There have been better games this year for sure, but none that really stand out to me as THIS WAS AWESOME. Diablo III really didn't do it for me either, while Darksiders 2 was "different" it isn't what I would call "better" than Darksiders 1. Borderlands 2 was certainly longer than it's predecessor, but so very similar its hard to really make it stand out. AC3 is not out yet, but we've already had SO MANY of those games its hard to imagine its really going to blow me away.

So far my year has been spent more enjoying mods as that is where the innovation has been. DayZ I've spent a VERY large portion of the year enjoying because the experience there is so unique. I haven't played too many indie or downloadables but I'm sure there is plenty of quality to choose from there, too. It will be an interesting GOTY discussion indeed since I can't really put my bets on any horse this year, I just don't see any clear winners.

EDIT: However! The multiplayer was fantastic and a LOT of fun.

I fucking called that shit, I said and I quote

It's gonna be a lot closer to a third person shooter than an RPG. Even more so than Mass Effect 2 if that's even possible.

But people called me insane, they called me a hater, they called me a sad, bitter man. WELL WHO'S THE SAD BITTER MAN NOW!?!?!

Seriously though, if they f***ed up the story, which a lot of people seem to think that they did, then ME has lost the only really good thing it had going. Then again, this year isn't as crazy as the last one. Diablo III, Dishonored, AC3 with possibly Far Cry 3 or Borderlands 2 as GOTY contenders. ME3 might just very well make a GOTY list, just not Giantbomb's GOTY list. Oh and Walking Dead, that game is awesome.

Best posts ever!

The whole reason people bought into Mass Effect in the first place was because of the story and characters and exploration and rpg. Developing your character and finding things out for yourself. Why the hell did Bioware get rid of these aspects.

All Mass Effect had to do was have shooting mechanics as fun as gears of war. With a continued consistent great story.

I always felt the exploration and RPG elements in the Mass Effect games weren't that good. The mako stuff was terrible in my opinion, inventory menus were a mess and I felt I never even had to use more than half the stuff I got. Do I wish they would have tried to refine the RPG stuff? Yes I do but I was also perfectly ok with them going the more shooter route. I never felt as a whole any of them were bad games and I always felt I got the character and story stuff from all the Mass Effect games excluding the ending of ME3.

@DeShawn2ks said:

@thomasnash said:

@RAMBO604 said:

It deserves an honorable mention at least not outright dismissal, 95% of that game is perfect so it mucks it up at the end. It terms of gameplay it was flawless, took what ME1 promised and what ME2 refined and honed it to a point where ME3 has better shooting than most shooters and a dialogue system still unrivaled. The story is good, had some emotionally impacting moments and some jaw dropping ones. But it trips up at the end for some and everyone is going to let that be the only thing taken away from that game. Not the first 25 hours but the last hour.

Gotta disagree with you on this, to be honest.

I won't deny that some of the character stuff was great. Mordin had a great arc that was quite moving, although I didn't see whateve it was that most people saw in Thane's "ending". In terms of the way it handled it's characters and your interaction with them it was much more naturalistic than in ME2 BUT there were also a few less than great moments. I particularly disliked the way they handled the Rachni. Let them go on the basis they could be good guys? Too bad! they get indoctrinated! Kill them all because they are too dangerous? Too bad! They get cloned again or something? I realise that juggling all the variables must have been tricky, but it was still a bit disappointing how much it felt like they dealt with it by trying to funnel everyone into a sharply narrowing hallway.

But whatever, ME3 was an okay ride, I think. I certainly didn't hate it, and the story was presented well even if it was largely stupid.

I heard if you kept the cloned Rachni made by the Reapers alive they end up going crazy and killing a bunch of people on the crucible. I don't know if this is true or not but it would be a cool little twist.

It's true. But you don't witness it. It's just mentioned in an email Shepard gets.

@HistoryInRust: Well that sucks then. Would have been cool to do a mission on the crucible where you had to take it back from the Rachni.

@HistoryInRust said:

@DeShawn2ks said:

@thomasnash said:

@RAMBO604 said:

It deserves an honorable mention at least not outright dismissal, 95% of that game is perfect so it mucks it up at the end. It terms of gameplay it was flawless, took what ME1 promised and what ME2 refined and honed it to a point where ME3 has better shooting than most shooters and a dialogue system still unrivaled. The story is good, had some emotionally impacting moments and some jaw dropping ones. But it trips up at the end for some and everyone is going to let that be the only thing taken away from that game. Not the first 25 hours but the last hour.

Gotta disagree with you on this, to be honest.

I won't deny that some of the character stuff was great. Mordin had a great arc that was quite moving, although I didn't see whateve it was that most people saw in Thane's "ending". In terms of the way it handled it's characters and your interaction with them it was much more naturalistic than in ME2 BUT there were also a few less than great moments. I particularly disliked the way they handled the Rachni. Let them go on the basis they could be good guys? Too bad! they get indoctrinated! Kill them all because they are too dangerous? Too bad! They get cloned again or something? I realise that juggling all the variables must have been tricky, but it was still a bit disappointing how much it felt like they dealt with it by trying to funnel everyone into a sharply narrowing hallway.

But whatever, ME3 was an okay ride, I think. I certainly didn't hate it, and the story was presented well even if it was largely stupid.

I heard if you kept the cloned Rachni made by the Reapers alive they end up going crazy and killing a bunch of people on the crucible. I don't know if this is true or not but it would be a cool little twist.

It's true. But you don't witness it. It's just mentioned in an email Shepard gets.

Is it? I'm honestly pretty certain that never happened to me. Or do youmean that if you kill the queen in the first game, and then keep the one's made in the third game that happens?

I FARTED ONCE ON THE SET OF BLUE LAGOON