I guess they need to fill in the music somehow until the OST is finished.
The GAF 80's style synth-wave music thread has given me tons of similar music that I can't wait to play along with ME.
<snip>
Sounds like you had an origin account already attached to the email that you're using with Xbox Live from a past EA title from before Origin integrated with consoles (back when it was just EA online) thus the prompt that you already had an account that would migrate to origin in a few months (I guess the messaging for those edge cases never was updated).Speaking of Combat, I got a free month of Gold and decided to give it a try and MY GOD, does EA makes it near impossible to start playing!!
I had to make an origin account but it wouldn't let me for some reason, and the game keeps checking for updates so I can't play offline neither when connected to the internet.
Then I make one account on origin.com and it freezes
I try to make another but it says the username is already in use!.
I make an EA account then, it tells me I have an origin account already.
I log in with the EA account and it says the account will turn into a origin one in a couple of months!! (WHAT?)
I manage to log in the origin account from EA site, finally I'm log in but it still doesn't recognize my password on the console.
I try to find the synch accounts button on the page but is not anywhere.
I downloaded origin the program into my laptop and installed, there's no synch option neither.
I go to add friends and there's the connect with Xbox Live option!!!!!! [WHUT?]
Entered the console and it ask me for an online pass, I buy one since thankfully Is free and manage to get online after a couple of inconveniences...
What the hell is wrong with EA?
As much as I loved the characters in ME2 (and all the games, really), there was a single big problem. Having a dozen squad members, with many different possible configurations of who you had and hadn't recruited, meant that there was almost no unique inter-squad banter and dialogue. There was some, of course, on missions; but the characters didn't refer to each other by name, and the lines were much more general, because that dialogue had to work with any combination of squad members. I think the little arguments aboard the Normandy after certain missions were partly there to address this problem.
As much as I loved the characters in ME2 (and all the games, really), there was a single big problem. Having a dozen squad members, with many different possible configurations of who you had and hadn't recruited, meant that there was almost no unique inter-squad banter and dialogue. There was some, of course, on missions; but the characters didn't refer to each other by name, and the lines were much more general, because that dialogue had to work with any combination of squad members. I think the little arguments aboard the Normandy after certain missions were partly there to address this problem.
They really should look to Dragon Age for banter. Origins and Inquisition do a great job with inter-party banter between team members.
Each of the three games have strengths and weaknesses, differences often in the same areas. ME2 has the strongest individual character narrative arcs in the series, but falls apart in the main narrative, where ME1 is the most consistent and focused. ME1 has the most traditional and complex RPG stat building, but I feel ME3 was as step in a more appropriate direction for customisation and leveling relative to real time play. ME2 and ME3 are massively regressive in dialogue choices, but ME3 has some great conclusions to various story arcs with some fun outcomes based on earlier decisions. ME3 has overall far more polished encounter design and combat systems, but totally abandoning the open areas of ME1 does quell some design potential (that ME4 will be trying again).
For me it's just not clean cut, outside of maybe a few very specific examples, as to which game leads in any one area. ME3's combat is really, really tight compared to its predecessors. The multiplayer highlights this. The encounters are smarter, the game systems more balanced, and the feedback satisfying. But I miss the interesting cooldown-over-ammo from the first game, biotics arguably played more interestingly, and the more streamlined encounters aren't quite as unique as ME1's open moments (even if those open moments didn't always play well).
I've never been of the belief that ME1 is some super traditional hardcore RPG where dice rolls and tiny stat increases enhance or supplement the design. To me there's so much more to what defines an RPG-like experience than that. And it's those other areas I hope ME4 explores.
I have a fair bit of faith a lot of what I want to see in ME4 will at least be attempted, based on the next generation console standard, Inquisition's area size as a template, and what Frostbite can do that UE3 struggles a bit with. Whether or not it delivers on quality is another matter entirely.
They really should look to Dragon Age for banter. Origins and Inquisition do a great job with inter-party banter between team members.
If this was already mentioned recently I apologize, but I really appreciated how there was only 1 Morality meter that combined Paragon and Renegade actions in ME3, as opposed to ME1 and ME2 that basically forced a straight Paragon or a Renegade Shep in order to select all the dialogue choices and punished those that had a mixed morality Shep.
Is 360 still active?
I ended up just rebuying the game for PC rather than ever pay for Xbox Live again. It's been on sale for less than a month's subscription too. As of tonight, games are still easy to find.
If this was already mentioned recently I apologize, but I really appreciated how there was only 1 Morality meter that combined Paragon and Renegade actions in ME3, as opposed to ME1 and ME2 that basically forced a straight Paragon or a Renegade Shep in order to select all the dialogue choices and punished those that had a mixed morality Shep.
Easily one of the best parts of ME3. ME2 was especially bad about this; to get the "Golden" ending on a first playthrough you absolutely had to follow either Paragon or Renegade 100% of the time. NO EXCEPTIONS.
Drove me up a wall. Even importing a high-Paragon save, you still had only a few opportunities to go against the grain. ME3's reputation system allowed for much more dynamic roleplaying. I hugely enjoyed punching that Quarian who tried to blow up the Geth Dreadnaught with me onboard.
Also, lol @ that gaming side thread about WRPGs.
LOL that scene is hilarious, specially since the game expects you to agree with the fucker. You can tell that because the scene after that Shepard is taking super calm and casual, so is a very jarring transition.
What? You just had to upgrade the ship and make the proper squad member selections, unless you're talking about something other than getting everyone through the Suicide Mission.Easily one of the best parts of ME3. ME2 was especially bad about this; to get the "Golden" ending on a first playthrough you absolutely had to follow either Paragon or Renegade 100% of the time. NO EXCEPTIONS.
What? You just had to upgrade the ship and make the proper squad member selections, unless you're talking about something other than getting everyone through the Suicide Mission.
Really? I remember yelling at him extensively. I think it only defaults to calm if you pick Paragon-esque options after the punching, which, in all fairness to the game, would be very strange. "Now that I've sucker punched you and gotten it out of my system, let's have a rational discussion about what went down."
Huh. I thought I read that unless you secure the loyalty of your entire squad, one of them is guaranteed to croak.
I think you can mess up one or two loyalty missions and not lose anyone. There's a flow chart or something showing the factors and characters you should choose for any role in the suicide mission.Huh. I thought I read that unless you secure the loyalty of your entire squad, one of them is guaranteed to croak.
No no, I yell at him, punch him, kick him out of my ship, then start a casual conversation with the quarian scientist lady immediately. Is the only transition in the game that's jarring to me.
You don't need full paragon or renegade to complete the any of their missions.
I think you can mess up one or two loyalty missions and not lose anyone. There's a flow chart or something showing the factors and characters you should choose for any role in the suicide mission.
I was actually thinking about the Miranda vs. Jack dispute, where you can only get both of their loyalties with full Paragon or Renegade.
Oooh, you can still save both of them if I'm correctly. It takes a ridiculous amount of paragon points to get ones loyalty back after doing that though.
I did a runthrough recently where I didn't get Jack's loyalty because of this but still ended up getting her out alive of the Suicide Mission.
Each of the three games have strengths and weaknesses, differences often in the same areas. ME2 has the strongest individual character narrative arcs in the series, but falls apart in the main narrative, where ME1 is the most consistent and focused. ME1 has the most traditional and complex RPG stat building, but I feel ME3 was as step in a more appropriate direction for customisation and leveling relative to real time play. ME2 and ME3 are massively regressive in dialogue choices, but ME3 has some great conclusions to various story arcs with some fun outcomes based on earlier decisions. ME3 has overall far more polished encounter design and combat systems, but totally abandoning the open areas of ME1 does quell some design potential (that ME4 will be trying again).
For me it's just not clean cut, outside of maybe a few very specific examples, as to which game leads in any one area. ME3's combat is really, really tight compared to its predecessors. The multiplayer highlights this. The encounters are smarter, the game systems more balanced, and the feedback satisfying. But I miss the interesting cooldown-over-ammo from the first game, biotics arguably played more interestingly, and the more streamlined encounters aren't quite as unique as ME1's open moments (even if those open moments didn't always play well).
I've never been of the belief that ME1 is some super traditional hardcore RPG where dice rolls and tiny stat increases enhance or supplement the design. To me there's so much more to what defines an RPG-like experience than that. And it's those other areas I hope ME4 explores.
I have a fair bit of faith a lot of what I want to see in ME4 will at least be attempted, based on the next generation console standard, Inquisition's area size as a template, and what Frostbite can do that UE3 struggles a bit with. Whether or not it delivers on quality is another matter entirely.
Scrap the dialogue and morality system entirely.
I'm in total agreement with you, except for this. The morality added an extra sentiment to main characters that I would otherwise not care about if they lived or died - not to mention it contributed to replayability in the long wrong.
Oh god no. CDProjekt's sense of "morality" is awful. It's all shades of black. Utterly miserable.Oh there needs to be a sense of morality in the game, but I actually never cared for the Paragon/Renegade meter, or any points-based system either. Honestly I just wish I got a sci-fi game with CDProjekt's storytelling and sense of morality.
Oh god no. CDProjekt's sense of "morality" is awful. It's all shades of black. Utterly miserable.
I was playing the game that gave you the choice of which group of awful people you'd prefer to align yourself with. It's the morality of the childish cynic. Is the saint/asshole meter outdated? Certainly. Is The Witcher's approach (inserting moral "complexity" by making everybody equally bad) any better? I say no.I dont know what game you were playing but The Witcher is a shades of grey game and benefits from never siding with anyone or giving you a stupid meter to chart your goodness, whatever that actually means. Much better than the cartoonish binary saint/sociopath bars. I mean fuck visible karma meters. May they die an swift death. Even more complex systems like alignment are fraught with problems. A video game is better off using a few long term consequence and a reputation system with multiple factions in play (whether they are individual characters or groups). And its better off hiding the numbers. It also helps with your writing when it doesnt center around have a good option, bad option and boring option when talking to people. A binary dialgoue choice that doesnt advertise its morality to the player is far superior to that.
I typically enjoy a little more complexity in the morality at play. I sort of wish that freeing David at the end of Overlord left you at a tremendous disadvantage when dealing with the Geth in ME3.I was playing the game that gave you the choice of which group of awful people you'd prefer to align yourself with. It's the morality of the childish cynic. Is the saint/asshole meter outdated? Certainly. Is The Witcher's approach (inserting moral "complexity" by making everybody equally bad) any better? I say no.
#1 Dump the RPG label. Too much baggage. Hell, call it an FPS. Just keep it a third person sci-fi action exploration game with role playing elements to really mess with people.
Paragon/Renegade just seems like fluff to me. You've no reason to not pick a path and stick to it for the frequent blue/red text that solves your problem. It's a lazily implemented moral choice system that holds no weight, worsened by BioWare's insistence to avoid serious moral dilemmas, or by over rewarding the magic blue/red text.
I mean, The Witcher is sometimes a bit transparent in its dark, edgy scenarios at times, but at least many of the moral choices are just situations you find yourself in with no real distinction of right, wrong, good, or evil. The game doesn't present you with moral choice game systems. The moral choice is your interpretation as a player.
Bring back codex guy.
Codex guy will be back, no doubt.