Man, I can't wait for Mass Effect 3. Same with Assassin's Creed, I just can't enough of them until they end even if I curse at the screen with little ones running about. Well, that's mostly due to Assassin's Creed but ya know.

@Ronald: Typo's aren't what give Patrick away. You guys don't read for a living, do you? Patrick's style is very different, much more streamlined, less adventurous or "edgy" perhaps than Alex's (not even in content, syntactically,) and most of all succinct. It's no different in reviews or articles.

Scenes I want to see in Mass Effect 3:

1. Wrex and Grunt having an arm wrestle

2. Garrus actually calibrating something

3. Tali takes off her helmet

Cannot wait.

@cabelhigh said:

@nemt: Yes, of course, Mass Effect 2 certainly didn't improve the clunky combat, obtrusive load times, terrible AI, and so-so writing of the first game. At all.

.... are you being sarcastic? Mass Effect 2 had clunky and unsatisfying combat, similar load times to ME1 (only this time I had to stare at my lobster ship all the time), equally bad AI, and .... well, I guess the writing is on par with the first game. I actually liked that part.

Anyway, consider me among the ones slightly disappointed by this article. I really do love Alex articles, which is why this seems odd. Alex is one who I trust to cut through the PR bullshit given his more cynical nature. It feels like a missed opportunity to answer some questions that a large portion of the audience are worried about. Instead, it reads like "How awesome is ME3 going to be?" "So awesome". I know there's only so much an article like this can accomplish, but I had hoped for more.

Can't wait to play it....

@Javes said:

"One, we really wanted to be able to present this game to new players" Ok, honestly, who will be playing ME3 and it will be their first game in the ME franchise? Why would Bioware/EA want to structure a game to the lowest common denominator of someone who has never played a ME game?

Of course ME3 will expand the audience. That's what sequels do, ones which don't are a failure. Nobody makes sequels with the goal of steadily decreasing sales. Every medium faces this issue and has to deal with it. Using this to prop up your preconceived notion that they are dumbing down and ruining the game is a real stretch.

@Animasta: Why would they? That would be a Stephenie Meyer-esque move.

Yep, good stuff. Now I am super looking forward to the conclusion even after those annoying story leaks. Thanks Alex!

Won't read for a few months after Mass Effect 3 comes out. Right now I am in full on "Just take my stupid money and give me the stupid game, and I'll just give up like 3 months of my life" mode.

So it's like, "Oh, hey, there's that girl I recognize from TV!"

"it's that lady who likes to lick things for fame"

would be my reaction when Chobot shows up on screen.

Cool beans - can't wait to get my hands on this.

However, if I don't get a "happily ever after" ending with Liara or at least a kind of bittersweet ending à la Babylon 5 (due to the lifespan difference), then I'mma punch someone.

@jakkblades said:

@Animasta: Why would they? That would be a Stephenie Meyer-esque move.

To be honest, I thought the leak pulled a ton of Stephenie Myere-esque moves on its own. There shouldn't be a surprise that they'd change the script, though, that'd be crazy.

Really excited for this game, but still kind of bummed about the whole transition from "your story" to "Shepard's story."

Am I the only one not super stoked about "Galactic Readiness?"

I have to go and play their other games which I have no interest in in order to get a better ending in the game I paid 60 dollars for? Even within the game, I have to play a mode I'm not that interested in to enhance my singleplayer experience?

The whole thing feels dirty.

@Zippedbinders said:

@cabelhigh said:

@nemt: Yes, of course, Mass Effect 2 certainly didn't improve the clunky combat, obtrusive load times, terrible AI, and so-so writing of the first game. At all.

.... are you being sarcastic? Mass Effect 2 had clunky and unsatisfying combat, similar load times to ME1 (only this time I had to stare at my lobster ship all the time), equally bad AI, and .... well, I guess the writing is on par with the first game. I actually liked that part.

Anyway, consider me among the ones slightly disappointed by this article. I really do love Alex articles, which is why this seems odd. Alex is one who I trust to cut through the PR bullshit given his more cynical nature. It feels like a missed opportunity to answer some questions that a large portion of the audience are worried about. Instead, it reads like "How awesome is ME3 going to be?" "So awesome". I know there's only so much an article like this can accomplish, but I had hoped for more.

Don't expect Alex to feel the same way about this as you do. Maybe he isn't cynical about Mass Effect 3, and has a more positive outlook about the situation. Lord knows that Mass Effect fans have been the pinnacle of poorly constructed criticisms and narrow perspectives when it comes to the way the franchise has gone, so don't immediately expect intelligent writers to simply go down that road.

"Oh, hey, there's that girl I recognise from TV" is the complete opposite reaction you should ever want to illicit from a character. I mean, the whole point of screen characters is that they transcend the actor and face playing them, and become instead the embodiment of that persona. Choosing someone specifically to do the opposite is horrendously bad and gimmicky writing, and I can't believe they went ahead with it. It hugely breaks verisimilitude and nukes your suspension of disbelief, which is so ridiculously important in science fiction.

I've generally loved Bioware's writing for the past 2 games, but this is such a huge step in the wrong direction and ultimately undermines the story they're trying to tell. How did anyone other than the marketing department think this was a good idea?

@Javes said:

"One, we really wanted to be able to present this game to new players" Ok, honestly, who will be playing ME3 and it will be their first game in the ME franchise? Why would Bioware/EA want to structure a game to the lowest common denominator of someone who has never played a ME game?

That's my problem with this whole thing as well. They keep destroying so many franchises over and over again just to appeal to more people. Every single change to Mass Effect for this third one is something that makes it slightly more like Call of Duty. We're not dumb EA, we can see this, but copying someone else will never allow you to succeed them. I hate to be negative, but this is what they did to Dragon Age 2 as well, and how did that turn out for them? They also tried to turn The Old Rebublic into WoW, and that's not exactly on steady ground yet. It's simply not good business strategy to alienate the huge base of classic Bioware fans like myself.

It hurts, because EA has genuinely great studios under their helm. The problem is that their marketing teams have no confidence in them making a product that's actually unique and potentially a great seller, as if Bioware or all the others never made a good game before EA came around.

The splitting up the game onto separate devices thing annoys me severely on a whole other level. When I buy a game, I want a complete experience dammit. I don't buy books with missing pages in them. And I don't want to get into Origin, that alone might keep me from finishing this series.

Forgive the bitterness, but EA has been metaphorically stepping on my pet dog for the last ten years.

@Death_Unicorn said:

Am I the only one not super stoked about "Galactic Readiness?"

I have to go and play their other games which I have no interest in in order to get a better ending in the game I paid 60 dollars for? Even within the game, I have to play a mode I'm not that interested in to enhance my singleplayer experience?

The whole thing feels dirty.

Whaaaat? Dirty!? I really hope you don't believe the only way to get a better ending is to play these tie-ins. I thought it was an obvious unspoken truth that it would only help give you more points towards a better ending, points which you could also earn by just playing more of the game. There's no way the non-campaign things would be the only way to get the best ending. I figure it'd be like playing some Mass Effect 2 iOS game that rewarded you with, like,

armor for Mordin so he wouldn't bite it every time you played the ending. Took me 6 tries :(

@Zippedbinders said:

@cabelhigh said:

@nemt: Yes, of course, Mass Effect 2 certainly didn't improve the clunky combat, obtrusive load times, terrible AI, and so-so writing of the first game. At all.

.... are you being sarcastic? Mass Effect 2 had clunky and unsatisfying combat, similar load times to ME1 (only this time I had to stare at my lobster ship all the time), equally bad AI, and .... well, I guess the writing is on par with the first game. I actually liked that part.

The combat in ME1 was kind of unfinished. If you played biotics heavy, as I did, I used that default pistol THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE GAME and never got a chance to try anything else. That was not fun. ME 2 made the combat more fun with a larger variety of more useful weapons and powers. And, seriously, having my allies shotgun a wall during combat in ME1 was terrible. That never happened in ME2. At least they knew how to shoot.

@Brendan: @Zippedbinders That's pretty much it. I realize that there is a portion of the Mass Effect audience that is super up in arms about certain aspects of this game, but I'm not particularly. I did find the Chobot thing off-putting, which is why I asked about it. It was clear from his answers he didn't want to get into it too terribly much, so I could have either kept prodding him and piss him off, or just continue on with my interview. Do you honestly expect the lead writer of ME3 to be like, "Yeah man, it's such bullshit that this is this and that is that!"? I mean, of course he isn't. He's there to promote his game. I can try to get honest answers out of the guy knowing what he'll talk about, or I can try and ambush him for the sake of what, looking like some bad ass journalist when he decides not to answer my questions?

I didn't see much point in it. I was more curious about the stuff I asked about in the article than whatever it is people on Internet forums are grousing about.

@CaptainComedy said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

Am I the only one not super stoked about "Galactic Readiness?"

I have to go and play their other games which I have no interest in in order to get a better ending in the game I paid 60 dollars for? Even within the game, I have to play a mode I'm not that interested in to enhance my singleplayer experience?

The whole thing feels dirty.

Whaaaat? Dirty!? I really hope you don't believe the only way to get a better ending is to play these tie-ins. I thought it was an obvious unspoken truth that it would only help give you more points towards a better ending, points which you could also earn by just playing more of the game. There's no way the non-campaign things would be the only way to get the best ending. I figure it'd be like playing some Mass Effect 2 iOS game that rewarded you with, like,

armor for Mordin so he wouldn't bite it every time you played the ending. Took me 6 tries :(

Here's how the ending stuff gets determined in ME3:

In order to get a "good" ending in ME3, you need a lot of war assets. Those are doled out in ME3 in the form of GAW points. GAW points are earned by making decisions and how certain conflicts play out depending on stuff you did in the past games.

Galactic Readiness in ME3 is what determines the percentage of those war assets(GAW points) you are able to use. The game starts at 50% Galactic Readiness, and you can raise it by doing multiplayer or playing those dumb tie-in games.

Example: if you gather 3000 GAW points throughout the game, and you have a galactic readiness of 50%, you will have 1500 war assets in the final battle.

(^Not actual spoilers or anything, but some people are super sensitive about this sort of stuff, so....)

@Alex said:

@Brendan: @Zippedbinders That's pretty much it. I realize that there is a portion of the Mass Effect audience that is super up in arms about certain aspects of this game, but I'm not particularly. I did find the Chobot thing off-putting, which is why I asked about it. It was clear from his answers he didn't want to get into it too terribly much, so I could have either kept prodding him and piss him off, or just continue on with my interview. Do you honestly expect the lead writer of ME3 to be like, "Yeah man, it's such bullshit that this is this and that is that!"? I mean, of course he isn't. He's there to promote his game. I can try to get honest answers out of the guy knowing what he'll talk about, or I can try and ambush him for the sake of what, looking like some bad ass journalist when he decides not to answer my questions?

I didn't see much point in it. I was more curious about the stuff I asked about in the article than whatever it is people on Internet forums are grousing about.

Like I said, I know there's only so much you can do, it is a promotional "Hey check out our game" sort of thing, not a clinical expose or a post mortem. I'm not insinuating that you attack the man, but that there could have been a few questions that relate to the issues that are popping up. Questions about the supposed reintroduction of gameplay mechanics that were missing in ME2, that whole thing where you decide whether you want more or less combat and story, what are they doing to appeal to new audiences, how are they trying to appeal to the audience that were a bit burned by ME2's changes. You're a journalist, and there are ways to respectfully ask people some hard questions.

I really appreciated you bringing up the Chobot thing, though the response deliberately danced around a real answer. I just wish the rest of it were more like that, as opposed to a run of the mill Q&A I can find anywhere else.

I'd like to note that very likely ALL the real fans of the series just ignored the story hacks of Mass Effect 3 as much as humanly possibly so that they know little or nothing about how Mass Effect 3's story goes.

Hunting down the future story twists and turns is kind of lame in any form of media circle because it detracts from the experience of playing through the final finished product yourself quite significantly.

I mean I don't want to know that such and such a decision will occur at the end of the original Mass Effect that will affect the outcome of two certain characters. (If someone screams SPOILERS then get your ass in gear and go play ME already it's been out for 5 or 6 years at this point.)

The fact the Jessica Chobot is in the game is not so much of a big deal for me but the way they copied her face for the character model just looks strange. I like her in RL but in-game she looks like an adolecent teenager.

I wonder what her role will be, if she's a potetial squadmate or just like Kelly Chambers in that she hangs out on the ship and a potential bed buddy.

So excited for this game, any news is good news!

What pisses me off is the weird low cut one piece exercise/swimsuit getup the Chobot character is shown wearing. What did we just happen to catch this Alliance reporter during her morning exercise or is she really just that unprofessional?

@cabelhigh said:

@Zippedbinders said:

@cabelhigh said:

@nemt: Yes, of course, Mass Effect 2 certainly didn't improve the clunky combat, obtrusive load times, terrible AI, and so-so writing of the first game. At all.

.... are you being sarcastic? Mass Effect 2 had clunky and unsatisfying combat, similar load times to ME1 (only this time I had to stare at my lobster ship all the time), equally bad AI, and .... well, I guess the writing is on par with the first game. I actually liked that part.

The combat in ME1 was kind of unfinished. If you played biotics heavy, as I did, I used that default pistol THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE GAME and never got a chance to try anything else. That was not fun. ME 2 made the combat more fun with a larger variety of more useful weapons and powers. And, seriously, having my allies shotgun a wall during combat in ME1 was terrible. That never happened in ME2. At least they knew how to shoot.

I played Soldier in the first game, and Engineer in the second. Never messed with Biotics.

@Blackout62 said:

What pisses me off is the weird low cut one piece exercise/swimsuit getup the Chobot character is shown wearing. What did we just happen to catch this Alliance reporter during her morning exercise or is she really just that unprofessional?

Don't think so hard. Just accept it for what it is.

Wait so you have to play the co-op AND play the iOS game to get the most out of this game? God this is so dumb, I want to finish the campaign and not feel like I'm missing some extra pieces for no good reason.

Making people like things on Facebook to unlock content is one thing, but demanding you to play co-op (in a series that has never been about multiplayer) and play an iOS game is just ridiculous. I hate that games feel the need to pull stunts like this.

I realise I may be overreacting but I have nothing but disdain for social media and mobile game tie-ins.

@cabelhigh said:

@Zippedbinders said:

@cabelhigh said:

@nemt: Yes, of course, Mass Effect 2 certainly didn't improve the clunky combat, obtrusive load times, terrible AI, and so-so writing of the first game. At all.

.... are you being sarcastic? Mass Effect 2 had clunky and unsatisfying combat, similar load times to ME1 (only this time I had to stare at my lobster ship all the time), equally bad AI, and .... well, I guess the writing is on par with the first game. I actually liked that part.

The combat in ME1 was kind of unfinished. If you played biotics heavy, as I did, I used that default pistol THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE GAME and never got a chance to try anything else. That was not fun. ME 2 made the combat more fun with a larger variety of more useful weapons and powers. And, seriously, having my allies shotgun a wall during combat in ME1 was terrible. That never happened in ME2. At least they knew how to shoot.

Exactly. The combat between ME1 and ME2 was a huge jump. I could not stand ME1's while 2's was a lot of fun.

@mutha3 said:

@CaptainComedy said:

@Death_Unicorn said:

Am I the only one not super stoked about "Galactic Readiness?"

I have to go and play their other games which I have no interest in in order to get a better ending in the game I paid 60 dollars for? Even within the game, I have to play a mode I'm not that interested in to enhance my singleplayer experience?

The whole thing feels dirty.

Whaaaat? Dirty!? I really hope you don't believe the only way to get a better ending is to play these tie-ins. I thought it was an obvious unspoken truth that it would only help give you more points towards a better ending, points which you could also earn by just playing more of the game. There's no way the non-campaign things would be the only way to get the best ending. I figure it'd be like playing some Mass Effect 2 iOS game that rewarded you with, like,

armor for Mordin so he wouldn't bite it every time you played the ending. Took me 6 tries :(

Here's how the ending stuff gets determined in ME3:

In order to get a "good" ending in ME3, you need a lot of war assets. Those are doled out in ME3 in the form of GAW points. GAW points are earned by making decisions and how certain conflicts play out depending on stuff you did in the past games.

Galactic Readiness in ME3 is what determines the percentage of those war assets(GAW points) you are able to use. The game starts at 50% Galactic Readiness, and you can raise it by doing multiplayer or playing those dumb tie-in games.

Example: if you gather 3000 GAW points throughout the game, and you have a galactic readiness of 50%, you will have 1500 war assets in the final battle.

(^Not actual spoilers or anything, but some people are super sensitive about this sort of stuff, so....)

The fact that it is a way is still kind of dirty...

But I'm probably just a disillusioned crazy, old, man complaining about BioWare's golden years, don't listen to me.

@nemt said:

You forgot to ask "So why did you take the best new IP this gen and turn it into a horrible game?"

Mass Effect 2 was the best game Bioware has made in 10+ years. We'll see what happens with 3.

@Sooty No, you don't have to play all of that stuff to 'get the most' out of the single player game. You can do everything you need to do in the game itself and play the game to full completion. The co-op and iOS game are EXTRA layers for people that want more Mass Effect.

@Maffrew said:

@Sooty No, you don't have to play all of that stuff to 'get the most' out of the single player game. You can do everything you need to do in the game itself and play the game to full completion. The co-op and iOS game are EXTRA layers for people that want more Mass Effect.

The 'Galactic Readiness' thing sounds like it may have some sort of impact though, I can't really find any specifics about that stuff.

@Sooty: Yeah it has an impact, but you can increase your galactic readiness in the single player too . The other stuff is an additional way to increase it faster/in more varied ways.

It's my own fault but I've spoiled myself to hell and after reading so much of what they're doing with ME3 I'm just not excited for this game AT ALL.

"We're going to tell an amazing story, regardless of whatever choices you've made before"

You know, that happened in another little game that was disappointing...it was called Dragon Age 2.

In a good narrative, the story should be made up of solid, easy to reference points, that will be unaffected by choices, insofar that the beginning, middle and end should really stick to the plot, with only two real variations in the case of an ME game: Paragon and Renegade. The choices should be integrated into the overall game though, it can't be that hard, I mean, just replace a character model like you did with Wrex, if he died in ME1. But what I'm getting from this interview is that they've all but given up making this experience with the choices of the player in mind, when really, there weren't that many to be made throughout the previous titles. This kind of attitude undermines the entire series, when you choose to ignore a whole gameplay-altering mechanic for no good reason, other than you felt like it.

Chobot isn't on TV, and she isn't that well known outside of internet circles, I want to believe that her character has actual character, not that I know her from IGN. I don't mind Freddie Prince Jr., but his character's reason for existing is fairly counter-intuitive, as he's an apparent fan of the game, but his character is supposed to make the game more accessible to new players...and again...this is the third game in a trilogy, and you can buy both of the previous games for a steal...what's the point?

And didn't they ask people who read the spoilers for feedback? Now they're saying they did nothing? This is pretty sad that you're proud of a game that really, really hasn't gotten any love, as its been severely under-promoted, has a metric pile of useless DLC, several unpopular design choices, developers who seem to come up with answers on the spot, and an overall feel, for everybody I think, of foreboding, as we learn more and more about this game, which leaves us unexcited and wondering just what will be new and improved, other than the combat mechanics. I wish they'd stop treating fans like mindless fools, and give us a little something we can sink our teeth into that's actually significant.

Galactic Readiness, as I've stated frequently and repeatedly, is a crutch for lazy people who don't want to play a SP campaign for the experience, much like how you could play Gears of War on insane co-op and still get the achievements despite not doing it alone. While it won't piss everyone off, at least ME2 had the decency to punish people for not playing the game the way it was meant to be played. It punished the lazy, and rewarded people for playing the actual game...you know...it was a goddamn videogame. And I don't care about anything that effects the game through outside sources, I like playing my games without intrusive extras that I don't need.

Maybe I'm just old and cynical, and I hope that its just the same sense of dread most people are feeling about this game, but I'm seeing red-flags with everything I hear about this game. When I hear a writer talking like he doesn't care about the players effect on the story, what the series was about from the get-go, I get extremely worried. Maybe the demo will change my mind, but Bioware's demo history has been less-than helpful when swaying you one way or the other...seeing as the ME2 demo came out months after its release, and the DA2 demo wasn't a real representation of the overall product at all.

@Phuturist said:

Posting my first thing on the site ever now:

Patrick Alex, you really should have done an interview with him, not just a "tell me how good Mass Effect 3 will be.".

Where is the question about that statement that they want to open Mass Effect 3 for a wider audience?

Where is the question about that Call Of Duty audience character?

What about suddenly Origin in part 3 of a trilogy?

I like your articles, Patrick, Alex, but be tougher in interviews please, this was not what I wanted to read.

Edit: Ooops. Sorry. Back to not posting anywhere.

All of those people giving you crap about this are douches.

So much doubt for Bioware everywhere. I'll just sit back and relax and enjoy the game while people lose their shit over there being co-op or some other little detail, and thus I won't feel like I've wasted my money. Good article, @Alex for putting out hard questions while not being a dick, and calm down everyone else. Just let the game do the thing, and if you enjoy it, great. If you don't, then you haven't killed yourself, and it's only a game.

Side note: this article confirms I'm not crazy. In ME2, first time I met Miranda I thought "Why does she sound so Aussie?" and no one ever acknowledged it, not in the game or in the media or anywhere. It made me think I'd lost my mind somewhat. Now that I know it's Yvonne Strahovski, it makes much more sense, and makes me glad I can actually recognise my own people.

The anger... it sustains me!!  It gives me strength!
 
When the game is actually out, the anger will rise to such a crescendo that I transcend mortality and become the end of all things!

@Phuturist said:

Posting my first thing on the site ever now:

Patrick Alex, you really should have done an interview with him, not just a "tell me how good Mass Effect 3 will be.".

Where is the question about that statement that they want to open Mass Effect 3 for a wider audience?

Where is the question about that Call Of Duty audience character?

What about suddenly Origin in part 3 of a trilogy?

I like your articles, Patrick, Alex, but be tougher in interviews please, this was not what I wanted to read.

Edit: Ooops. Sorry. Back to not posting anywhere.

Relax, I've seen dudes with thousands of posts who got the name's wrong when it came to the authors of articles, forget the assholes giving you shit over it :) You raised some valid points, just as relevant as anyone's.

Mass Effect 3? More like shitty game 3! I've played the whole thing, trust me guys.

Hahahahahhahahahahahah

ahhhhaaahh...*sigh*

@Sooty said:

@Maffrew said:

@Sooty No, you don't have to play all of that stuff to 'get the most' out of the single player game. You can do everything you need to do in the game itself and play the game to full completion. The co-op and iOS game are EXTRA layers for people that want more Mass Effect.

The 'Galactic Readiness' thing sounds like it may have some sort of impact though, I can't really find any specifics about that stuff.

I read somewhere that it does have an effect on the single player, but it's not mandatory to get your perfect playthrough of the game.

Edit: it's called galactic readiness i believe. I haven't read any of the spoiler stuff though. But if you play MP and the iOS stuff it improves galactic readiness, it's extra stuff that helps, but you don't need it.

And i don't want anyone telling me the spoilers to prove if I'm wrong please.

While I'm in deep with Mass Effect with both games and all the books I have no problem walking away from the series if this turns out to be a step down in quality. From what I read and seen this is going to be a shit show of a game, in my opinion of course. I hope I'm wrong and this game comes out and blows the fucking doors off but if it does turn out to be a step down in the franchise I will simply ignore it and remember my fond memories of Mass Effect 2 and especially the original game.

As a mass effect fan myself, we are starting to sound like star trek fans that are the butt of jokes on TV and every other media. It's a little sad. I understand that this is a different media, that we have ownership over our character because some of us have played the character the way that our ideal selves would handle situations, however, to look at the product in advance and to make judgements without information is... lazy on our part. Also, a lot of conclusions based on the most recent BioWare game (DAII), come off as hyperbole; I would go so far as calling the people who have commented negatively on ME3 based on DAII as insincere.

I really want to address DAII. The story was anything but weak. The re-use of environments was terrible and the combat on normal was too easy, I will admit so much. However, I have to repeat myself, the story was not weak. I played the game like I play any other: making decisions through my ideal self. The story shines because the event that defined the conclusion of the game had a very powerful effect (I really consider it up there with other stories based around character development -- the discovery of your identity in KOTOR, the revelation of the Nameless One's story is in Planescape: Torment, the scene with Sinclair in Bioshock). Just like those games, DAII was well written. As a narrative hook, the device of following your character through time instead of space worked well. I developed an understanding of the Hawke family and what drove them (how could my brother turn on me the way he did?), and more importantly, the main character had real bulk in that his future decisions were in line with his prior ones. BioWare for me has always been about their amazingly written characters, and Varrik was useless as a party member, but an integral part of my enjoyment of the game. I enjoyed the game enough to replay it from the exact opposite approach characterwise and I still enjoyed every step of the story. The story in DAII was fine for the medium.

I would also like to argue with people that say DAII's combat was dumbed down. On hard difficulty, the combination of powers from the different character archetypes added an absolutely necessary aspect of tactics that made the gameplay fun and exciting. There were times that I felt like I was in a well-formed group doing a flawless UBRS run for the first time (this was especially true with the Legacy expansion). The addition of better fighting animations made the game less bland, and added the important distinction of when to switch targets in order to do more damage with the 4th hit in a series. Furthermore, I actually liked the appearance of additional enemies because it meant that I had to manage my end-game spells and powers much better (a gameplay decision that was "hokey" when it comes to immersion). I like it because I was challenged by having to re-assess target priority mid-battle. The gameplay, as long as you didn't play it on "normal" had depth (I could be wrong, but I believe that when developers say "we want to make the game accessible," they mean "normal is the new easy because we don't want new players to feel like idiots with a major video-gaming mental deficit.")

But DAII was not perfect. It was a good game, and it would have received a lot of praise if it had been the product of anyone but BioWare. We have come to expect more from BioWare, and they did let us down with the lack of polish and repeated use of environments in DAII. However, it was not the affront to humanity people are making it out to be. It was rushed, it came out too soon after DAO, and it did not meet our expectations of a BioWare game. But the characters were still amazingly written and the story device worked well (if you disagree with me I ask you to do two things: (1)-play the game, put Varric and Merrill into your group and just listen to their bantor; it is on par with anything Minsc ever said (2)-assess how you felt after our mage friend did that thing; anger and a sense of betrayal in a video game means the writers touched you in the right spots).

I conclude with this: I doubt ME3 will be the terrible thing people are making it out to be. Hell, I doubt I'll be even close to disappointed (and my expectations are high). ME3 has not been rushed in the way that DAII was, they are working hard to make a game that even they will enjoy, and I know the writers are not hacks); this is evident in their response to ME:Deception. And to those complaining about the multiplayer, get your hands on the Syndicate demo and play it with a group of friends. If ME3's multiplayer is half of what Syndicate's co-op is, then the path to galactic readiness will be an enjoyable part of the game.

Ahh, one last thing about the iOS game: the video game market is changing. People are spending their entertainment dollars on smaller, more portable choices. I want my favorite publishers to play with this idea so that they can stay afloat, change with the market, and continue to make the games I enjoy. So no, the iOS game is also not the end of the world, they just need to make one for Android.

@msavo: If you can avoid spoiling plotlines, I'd appreciate it, but where is everyone hearing that this game is going to be so bad? Was there something that came out that ruined everyone's expectations or is that a gut feeling?

So very excited. Replaying the first two in anticipation, and I bet I'll play through that iOS game, despite the fact that it'll probably be bad because it's an iOS game.

@Sgykah: ...we're getting information. And just like you said about IOS, the industry is changing. Now we can log onto a dev site and see what they've left for us. Its how the industry works nowadays, we get to speculate from what we're given, its one of the joys of the internet, and maybe one of its greatest follies, still, you can't just say we can't make judgement calls, because we are getting info, and the info is quite sparse and unimpressive. People, like myself, who are using DA2 as a comparative point, are doing so as a means to convey how a game with a lot of potential, can fall flat when the potential elements are ignored in place of something easier to manage, and quicker to release. Its what the game represents that people didn't like, and how it spat on its own franchise. What's more, its actually been speculated that if DA2 wasn't a Bioware title, it would have been destroyed in reviews, with the same people giving it 7s and 8s saying it was only because it was Dragon Age, and a Bioware product. There's a stigma surrounding Bioware, but its not close to the one you're describing. If people speak out against them, no matter what points they have, they get crucified, or thrown into a generalised grouping for the sake of ease, and that is probably why they think they're golden at the moment. DA2 gives apologists pause, because really, without the Bioware trademark, would it have been received any better? That kind of mindset can actually work to everyone's advantage.

Look, I know that somehow, in some way, from a perspective of someone other than myself, you'd have some solid points...but honestly, there were a lot of people who defended DA2 when it came out that, after a relatively short period of time, either turned on the game, or just stopped playing it. For an RPG, that's bad. It was disappointing, it consisted mostly of fetch quests, and if it wasn't for Varric's input, the story would have been boring. The single-city storyline was badly implemented, with little to no showing that time had passed across a ten year period, and the characters were, for the most part, very bland, and sometimes completely wrong, just for the sake of adding a little drama to their stories. Those issues are warning signs, things that could potentially come up if we don't hammer home the point that we don't want to see them in any game, ever, anymore. They took away any possible enjoyment from the game's finer points, and you can't simply ignore them when they effect the aspects that would usually give the game a pass for all of its problems.

It really burns my ass when people use that difficulty excuse, because that isn't a real excuse. You're basically making an already boring system much more frustrating then it has to be...I've tried it, and it didn't help. The entire combat system was supposed to be more fluid and exciting, and ended up needing an update that allowed you to just hit the A button because, and I don't know if this was just me, carpel tunnel would set in after just a half hour of play. Also, it was stated that they didn't want to put in the same tactics button from DA:O because of the new system, and that the game was more about being tactical on the fly. Just saying, this shows how new design ideas are damaged by lack of practical implementation, and lack of confidence in ability.

You're also forgetting that they were going to release ME3 last year, and that the most speculated reason for its push back to this march was because of the addition of a MP Co-Op aspect, which we'll need to see the demo of to really see how its implemented.

And to be honest with you, the sheer number of jaw-dropping issues with plot holes in ME2 and its DLC shows that, in a way, the writers can't keep up with themselves, for what is, in essence, a rather basic story (see the Arrival DLC for a real show of just how pointless the entire story of ME2 was, baring in mind that part of Arrival is actually going to be a plot point in ME3, and for that matter, why the plot of ME2 was barely passable as it was).

I can't stress enough that while you make points, that from a certain perspective are, in a way, relevant, you're glossing over, and outright undermining, some of the more valid points that people have made concerning their issues with this game. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you've done exactly what you're arguing against, from the other side of the fence, with less evidence to back up what you're saying.You can't simply use the word 'hyperbole' (an overused word in the english language, especially in gaming circles) to back what is pretty much an average point of general consensus, that, while you might not agree with, is anything but hyperbolic...I actually feel dirty after saying that. I'm just pointing out that trying to generalise the reasoning behind the air of discontent surrounding ME3 isn't really doing anything useful...it is, as you've stated, lazy. No disrespect intended of course, but I do think that you're overlooking some of the logical reasons behind people's opinions, and it does seem somewhat insulting to the intelligence of those who you're arguing against. People want this game to be good, they do, I know I do, but putting complete and utter faith in a developer is wrong, because it creates a bias that allows their products to get away with things that we'd never let a new-name dev team get away with.