the hell is wrong with masic?

It isn't any good. It's just a portmanteau, and not the good kind of portmanteau that has a pleasant sound to it. No imagination, it doesn't sound good, it's just kinda weak.

Well I'm up for a debate on that if you are but if not then take care, man. Hope the game works out for you.

It's subjective, ultimately. I see just as much variety and maneuverability in Mass Effect as you probably do in Halo. The difference is that you can't jump like you're on the moon in ME, so it's more about a foot-based approach. But, again, you can be just as much of a running, gunning, sliding action hero who isn't married to cover in ME2 and 3 as you can in the Halo franchise, even without the zero-G jump. Take, for instance, the fight in ME2 where you protect Archangel's sniper position. There's so many ways to run around in his little base, gunning down mercs. Intentionally or not, I've done it differently just about every time. ME2 having waist-high walls you can duck behind doesn't somehow remove your ability to run around being a badass.

So, no, I'm not looking to debate you, because you don't see what I see. And, I don't mean to say that in a condescending or insulting way. You're convinced what I see isn't there, in the same way that I don't see how Halo makes combat any more dynamic than does Mass Effect. To me, it just doesn't. I get more satisfaction being an earth-bound guy who has to vault over cover than a guy who can moon-jump over everything. I'd rather customize Shepard's appearance, weapons, and skill set than be stuck with Master Chief, where my only sense of agency is weapon choice. There's nothing to really argue.

Wow, that felt pretty passive-aggressive.

But you seem to assume that I'm incapable of changing a viewpoint before we even start a debate so maybe this isn't a good idea.

It'd be more accurate to say I'm being realistic about the prospect of anybody changing their viewpoint. I've been in these sorts of debates before, they're exhausting, and usually pointless back and forth. We experienced the same products differently. There's not much to argue there.

But, as a for instance, you've got perhaps my favorite ME gameplay video, the Cryoguard. The player actually uses her frozen enemies as a sort of soft cover. It's a beautiful thing to behold: youtu.be/SjT15-mrwDo

I wish I had video of me doing similar shenanigans with my Soldier in ME2. I went through Lair of the Shadow Broker with Squad Cryo Ammo and used Adrenaline Rush to get into close quarters so I could melee stun and freeze enemies into being my human shields. Unfortunately, not many people on Youtube seem to play Soldier as aggressively as I do.

(Cont.) Now, I'd like to highlight where I think that kind of mechanical progression would be natural to the ME universe's style of play.

If you could pick up a lot of different weapons within the gameplay then the ME universe would arguably have more ways to access them than the Halo universe does. Using Biotic powers to pull weapons from hard-to-reach locations or perhaps even out of the hands of weakened enemies, using the meaty soldier style to pull guns out of the enemy's hands or maybe they can move faster whilst carrying larger weaponry.

By putting elements that change up the gameplay into the levels themselves rather than just having it be something that is selected through the progression system outside of the combat, the game would open up new styles of play for each class.

If the ability to jump was added and the game moved away from being cover-based it would allow more environmental hazards whilst playing into the more physical aspect of the Soldier or perhaps the more magical aspect of the Biotics. Imagine being able to accidentally jump off of ledges to your death, but also being able to perhaps shoulder-barge people off of those same ledges instead of the world being surrounded by invisible, but certainly tangible walls.

I'm not saying I want the game to play like Halo, more that I want to see the game play more like it does in the cutscenes.

Well that's a decent example of games design. The cryo effects are transformative to the environment, allowing the player more freedom to dictate the flow of combat. It makes the puts more depths into the one variable element of the environment (the enemies). It also ties into one of the defining physical mechanic of the basic gameplay, namely the cover mechanic.

A similar example of the same principle in context would be the physical presence of enemies in the Halo games. They have collision effects in the same manner that the scenery does so occasionally you will find a situation where jumping on their heads is really valuable to you as a player, or how you can bounce grenades off of them to reach hidden enemies. The same can be said of the explosives in the game as they provide a shockwave and, used properly, they allow players greater mobility within the game through techniques like the grenade/rocket jump, and can be used to deflect certain projectiles or kill enemies via flying debris.

Those are clear examples of using the style of gameplay to add depth to the experience.

However, returning to the notion of level design that was brought up before. That room in ME2 is a fairly decent room design-wise. It doesn't really encourage all that much mechanical exploration but it doesn't hinder it either. The trouble with this is ultimately the trouble with the gameplay in ME2 as a whole. There is little to no discovery in the gameplay, and little to no variety either. Variety comes in the form of playing different classes on different playthroughs, or a few classes like the warrior have one or two ways to enjoy them so a re-play with a different spec can work.

However, the trouble with this is that it punishes experimentation quite harshly if things don't work out for the player. Compared to a similar system of classes like that of Diablo III the ME system is strict and punishing. Gameplay changes occur in minimal increments unlike in the Diablo system where each new level will unlock a new ability, or a new style on an existing ability, that leads to the player experiencing and experimenting with a lot of different play-styles and ability combinations, that can freely be swapped out if the encounter calls for something different.

Now, in fairness Diablo III doesn't really give the level of challenge I'd like (similar to Mass Effect) but that element of the character-building is solid.

However, to bring this back to the Halo comparison, whilst Mass Effect locks its gameplay variety behind a class and progression system (not a bad thing, btw) Halo's gameplay variety is always evident within the levels and players are free to change their styles on the go due to the gameplay being locked into the variety of different weapons, and how those weapons are obtained (usually from the corpses of enemies you have killed). It allows for a more free-flowing run & gun style of gameplay, and combined with the movement physics it encourages the player to usually be moving around the map, up and down drastic elevations, trying different techniques, picking up different weapons.

Whilst I will concede that that room in ME2 certainly does allow you to go around it in a different style every time you play through the game, the levels in Halo allow that for every sub-section of the game, and each one is built to play differently from the last.

That's why I want Mass Effect to mess about with its gameplay mechanics. Instead of multiple variations on 3 weapons (+ the more variable Heavy Weapon options) I would appreciate if there was a lot more variety in the sort of weapons you could get. I'd love to have more movement options in the gameplay and more variety in how I defeat my enemies.

I'm really not a fan of the ground-bound, 3rd-Person, Gears of War style of cover combat. The tab-targeting of the powerups and companions does add to the flavour of the combat but never enough to make encounters feel different from the last.

You can also fling objects, or even enemies, around using the physics of certain powers in Mass Effect. It does the same sort of thing. Grenade/rocket jumping is a little silly, and the game isn't about jumping, so while that would add a layer to the gameplay it would take away from its presentation. You're getting into TF2 territory there, which is a great shooter but has a certain aesthetic which is not Mass Effect's aesthetic.

There's quite a bit to discover in ME2 and beyond's gameplay. Like any other game, you can discover its logic and systems. Power combos, physics, reload canceling, the use of the different unlockable powers Shepard can get from their squadmates, how enemies differ in defenses and attack strategies. Variety comes in the form of how you approach the encounter, just like in Halo. The same class can use different powers and different weapons, or move through the room in a different way, play aggressively or stick to cover, use different strategies like the Cryoguard's improvised ice statue cover, take advantage of environmental factors like barrels and crates that can be shot or flung at enemies.There's a lot of tools in your toolbox. Meanwhile, in Halo, you've got your different weapons, the explosion physics, and moving through rooms in different ways. You're being reductive of Mass Effect's attributes while exaggerating the variables Halo presents. The way I see it, ME gives you more to play with overall.

In ME2 and ME3 you can respec. There's not really any punishing, since virtually any build can run through any difficulty with varying levels of success based on execution by the player. You can unlock new abilities you didn't have before in ME games, too. That's not unique to Diablo. You haven't described anything that isn't present in ME.

Again, this is why this argument is largely pointless, because we both have our biases. You're kind of just projecting this simplistic, reductive view onto ME2 and 3, whie I see there being even more variables to work with than Halo provides. Aside from jumping, Mass Effect has everything that Halo brings to the table and more. There isn't just the one room in ME2 that presents multiple encounter solutions, the vast majority are like that.

There's 5 main weapon categories in Mass Effect, not 3. And, especially in ME3, you have a lot of variety in those categories, easily as much as Halo. In shotguns you've got the Graal spike thrower, which can be charged for greater damage and fires a spray of spikes into the enemy that continually damage them. In that same category there's the more typical shotguns, like the semi-auto Scimitar and the one-shot blunderbuss that is the Claymore, as well as other unique weapons like the Reegar Carbine that basically functions as a flamethrower.

i agree. really its a nitpick for me. It's just a piece of flavor i like to add to my campaign settings.

At least use a better name than masics, then. Jesus Christ.

the hell is wrong with masic?

It isn't any good. It's just a portmanteau, and not the good kind of portmanteau that has a pleasant sound to it. No imagination, it doesn't sound good, it's just kinda weak.

Could have done it in the sequence right before the final rush to the Citadel. After your conversation with Javik, he turns to face a bunch of Awakened Collectors like Wrex does with his soldiers.

Vanguard was my main because cover is pain. Charge nova charge nova. Then I won the game. 2-Button gameplay was satisfying for a few minutes but I soon got over it because the moment the tough enemies show up you just end up with your screen shuddering about and you're rolling and ducking out of sight until the health bars of the enemy go down and then you move onto the next big baddie.

And I don't like Chief for being durable, I like him because he is mobile, but more than that I like Halo for it's level design (something that stopped being interesting/important after Halo 4 it seems). The levels are built to flow from one centre of combat into the next seamlessly and most of them are iconically memorable for their own reasons. The game really does feel like it is changing up the gameplay multiple times in every level.

Arbiter: When you land you get the sword and for a while the level is about using the invisibility to strafe around the enemies and the availability of the Energy sword encourages you to be up close and personal and use the invisibility to manouver. Then it changes up into a fantastic banshee section. Then the flood show up and shit gets tense. Then you're going down a lift. Then you gotta climb to the top of this big room. Then you gotta cut the cables and run your way back through the platform whilst it's in freefall, optionally avoiding the combat until you reach the Heretic Leader.

With Mass Effect I can't come up with any examples of really good level design. The gameplay has never been very good in the series, nor really has the level design, and it feels like one is getting in the way of the other.

Halo has recently become like that too though, with the level design and gameplay becoming mostly tawdry and unmemorable, but for the first three games it is mostly very well designed.

Anyway, Mass Effect never sold itself on gameplay anyway. First one I played was ME2 and I think the only reasons I stayed with the series were Mordin, Edi, and Joker. The other characters were okay (except Kaiden, Ashley, and token black guy) but it was Mordin, Edi, and Joker that I think summed up the best of the series. The conflicts, dangers, and progression of new technology.

Mordin is a tragic character in a thoroughly Greek sense. EDI is an entertaining, worrisome, yet ultimately optimistic look into what A.I. could be, and Joker was just a fun character. The others wouldn't have sold the series for me but those three did, and I happily muscled my way through the gameplay to get more from them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the level design and gameplay has been stellar since ME2.

Well I'm up for a debate on that if you are but if not then take care, man. Hope the game works out for you.

It's subjective, ultimately. I see just as much variety and maneuverability in Mass Effect as you probably do in Halo. The difference is that you can't jump like you're on the moon in ME, so it's more about a foot-based approach. But, again, you can be just as much of a running, gunning, sliding action hero who isn't married to cover in ME2 and 3 as you can in the Halo franchise, even without the zero-G jump. Take, for instance, the fight in ME2 where you protect Archangel's sniper position. There's so many ways to run around in his little base, gunning down mercs. Intentionally or not, I've done it differently just about every time. ME2 having waist-high walls you can duck behind doesn't somehow remove your ability to run around being a badass.

So, no, I'm not looking to debate you, because you don't see what I see. And, I don't mean to say that in a condescending or insulting way. You're convinced what I see isn't there, in the same way that I don't see how Halo makes combat any more dynamic than does Mass Effect. To me, it just doesn't. I get more satisfaction being an earth-bound guy who has to vault over cover than a guy who can moon-jump over everything. I'd rather customize Shepard's appearance, weapons, and skill set than be stuck with Master Chief, where my only sense of agency is weapon choice. There's nothing to really argue.

Wow, that felt pretty passive-aggressive.

But you seem to assume that I'm incapable of changing a viewpoint before we even start a debate so maybe this isn't a good idea.

It'd be more accurate to say I'm being realistic about the prospect of anybody changing their viewpoint. I've been in these sorts of debates before, they're exhausting, and usually pointless back and forth. We experienced the same products differently. There's not much to argue there.

But, as a for instance, you've got perhaps my favorite ME gameplay video, the Cryoguard. The player actually uses her frozen enemies as a sort of soft cover. It's a beautiful thing to behold: youtu.be/SjT15-mrwDo

I wish I had video of me doing similar shenanigans with my Soldier in ME2. I went through Lair of the Shadow Broker with Squad Cryo Ammo and used Adrenaline Rush to get into close quarters so I could melee stun and freeze enemies into being my human shields. Unfortunately, not many people on Youtube seem to play Soldier as aggressively as I do.

(Cont.) Now, I'd like to highlight where I think that kind of mechanical progression would be natural to the ME universe's style of play.

If you could pick up a lot of different weapons within the gameplay then the ME universe would arguably have more ways to access them than the Halo universe does. Using Biotic powers to pull weapons from hard-to-reach locations or perhaps even out of the hands of weakened enemies, using the meaty soldier style to pull guns out of the enemy's hands or maybe they can move faster whilst carrying larger weaponry.

By putting elements that change up the gameplay into the levels themselves rather than just having it be something that is selected through the progression system outside of the combat, the game would open up new styles of play for each class.

If the ability to jump was added and the game moved away from being cover-based it would allow more environmental hazards whilst playing into the more physical aspect of the Soldier or perhaps the more magical aspect of the Biotics. Imagine being able to accidentally jump off of ledges to your death, but also being able to perhaps shoulder-barge people off of those same ledges instead of the world being surrounded by invisible, but certainly tangible walls.

I'm not saying I want the game to play like Halo, more that I want to see the game play more like it does in the cutscenes.

Well that's a decent example of games design. The cryo effects are transformative to the environment, allowing the player more freedom to dictate the flow of combat. It makes the puts more depths into the one variable element of the environment (the enemies). It also ties into one of the defining physical mechanic of the basic gameplay, namely the cover mechanic.

A similar example of the same principle in context would be the physical presence of enemies in the Halo games. They have collision effects in the same manner that the scenery does so occasionally you will find a situation where jumping on their heads is really valuable to you as a player, or how you can bounce grenades off of them to reach hidden enemies. The same can be said of the explosives in the game as they provide a shockwave and, used properly, they allow players greater mobility within the game through techniques like the grenade/rocket jump, and can be used to deflect certain projectiles or kill enemies via flying debris.

Those are clear examples of using the style of gameplay to add depth to the experience.

However, returning to the notion of level design that was brought up before. That room in ME2 is a fairly decent room design-wise. It doesn't really encourage all that much mechanical exploration but it doesn't hinder it either. The trouble with this is ultimately the trouble with the gameplay in ME2 as a whole. There is little to no discovery in the gameplay, and little to no variety either. Variety comes in the form of playing different classes on different playthroughs, or a few classes like the warrior have one or two ways to enjoy them so a re-play with a different spec can work.

However, the trouble with this is that it punishes experimentation quite harshly if things don't work out for the player. Compared to a similar system of classes like that of Diablo III the ME system is strict and punishing. Gameplay changes occur in minimal increments unlike in the Diablo system where each new level will unlock a new ability, or a new style on an existing ability, that leads to the player experiencing and experimenting with a lot of different play-styles and ability combinations, that can freely be swapped out if the encounter calls for something different.

Now, in fairness Diablo III doesn't really give the level of challenge I'd like (similar to Mass Effect) but that element of the character-building is solid.

However, to bring this back to the Halo comparison, whilst Mass Effect locks its gameplay variety behind a class and progression system (not a bad thing, btw) Halo's gameplay variety is always evident within the levels and players are free to change their styles on the go due to the gameplay being locked into the variety of different weapons, and how those weapons are obtained (usually from the corpses of enemies you have killed). It allows for a more free-flowing run & gun style of gameplay, and combined with the movement physics it encourages the player to usually be moving around the map, up and down drastic elevations, trying different techniques, picking up different weapons.

Whilst I will concede that that room in ME2 certainly does allow you to go around it in a different style every time you play through the game, the levels in Halo allow that for every sub-section of the game, and each one is built to play differently from the last.

That's why I want Mass Effect to mess about with its gameplay mechanics. Instead of multiple variations on 3 weapons (+ the more variable Heavy Weapon options) I would appreciate if there was a lot more variety in the sort of weapons you could get. I'd love to have more movement options in the gameplay and more variety in how I defeat my enemies.

I'm really not a fan of the ground-bound, 3rd-Person, Gears of War style of cover combat. The tab-targeting of the powerups and companions does add to the flavour of the combat but never enough to make encounters feel different from the last.

You can also fling objects, or even enemies, around using the physics of certain powers in Mass Effect. It does the same sort of thing. Grenade/rocket jumping is a little silly, and the game isn't about jumping, so while that would add a layer to the gameplay it would take away from its presentation. You're getting into TF2 territory there, which is a great shooter but has a certain aesthetic which is not Mass Effect's aesthetic.

There's quite a bit to discover in ME2 and beyond's gameplay. Like any other game, you can discover its logic and systems. Power combos, physics, reload canceling, the use of the different unlockable powers Shepard can get from their squadmates, how enemies differ in defenses and attack strategies. Variety comes in the form of how you approach the encounter, just like in Halo. The same class can use different powers and different weapons, or move through the room in a different way, play aggressively or stick to cover, use different strategies like the Cryoguard's improvised ice statue cover, take advantage of environmental factors like barrels and crates that can be shot or flung at enemies.There's a lot of tools in your toolbox. Meanwhile, in Halo, you've got your different weapons, the explosion physics, and moving through rooms in different ways. You're being reductive of Mass Effect's attributes while exaggerating the variables Halo presents. The way I see it, ME gives you more to play with overall.

In ME2 and ME3 you can respec. There's not really any punishing, since virtually any build can run through any difficulty with varying levels of success based on execution by the player. You can unlock new abilities you didn't have before in ME games, too. That's not unique to Diablo. You haven't described anything that isn't present in ME.

Again, this is why this argument is largely pointless, because we both have our biases. You're kind of just projecting this simplistic, reductive view onto ME2 and 3, whie I see there being even more variables to work with than Halo provides. Aside from jumping, Mass Effect has everything that Halo brings to the table and more. There isn't just the one room in ME2 that presents multiple encounter solutions, the vast majority are like that.

There's 5 main weapon categories in Mass Effect, not 3. And, especially in ME3, you have a lot of variety in those categories, easily as much as Halo. In shotguns you've got the Graal spike thrower, which can be charged for greater damage and fires a spray of spikes into the enemy that continually damage them. In that same category there's the more typical shotguns, like the semi-auto Scimitar and the one-shot blunderbuss that is the Claymore, as well as other unique weapons like the Reegar Carbine that basically functions as a flamethrower.

You know what would have been a good thing for them to add after Leviathan?

Javik with a platoon of Awakened Collectors.

Could have been cool, but tough to implement with Javik being a squaddie.

Could have done it in the sequence right before the final rush to the Citadel. After your conversation with Javik, he turns to face a bunch of Awakened Collectors like Wrex does with his soldiers.

From what I understood he came from the future to kill Barry, in his rage of the failed plan he killed his barry's mother who was alive in Eobard's future, therefore altering the timeline to the one in which the serie takes place.

There is a second reason this has to be true, because if Eddie killed himself, and Eobard thawne was never born, how can he come from the future to kill Barry's mother? They would have created a time travel paradox.

PS and 2 were both the purest definitions of rooty tooty point and shooty.

Borderlands 1 will always have a special place in my heart because Brick is a hilariously fun class to play. There's nothing quite like the visceral pleasure of punching people so hard they explode.

I thought Kai Leng was awfully written. Rannoch turned the Geth from being robots who turned on their creators into good boys who didn't do nuffin wrong, and turned the Quarians pretty much evil. No comments on Thessia other than that I didn't personally like it. Sanctuary I don't have a problem with by itself, I have a problem with how Cerberus is written as a whole.

Kai Leng himself wasn't a super interesting character, but he was a pretty great mirror of Shepard in terms of conflict. An image of what might have been if things between Shepard and Cerberus had gone differently. And, of course, his actions actually made me hate him and want to utterly destroy him, and that's rare for me. Cerberus did get weird, but that's because they were indoctrinated. They pushed the at-any-cost doctrine too far and got fucked up because they were standing right next to Reaper tech all the goddamn time.

Well, the geth were largely not at fault for the uprising from the get-go. Even through Tali's bias, that much was evident from ME1 and onward. They didn't throw the first punch. A major theme of the franchise has been that blind hatred of AI is irrational and ultimately just leads to horrifying conflicts. Still, nothing on Rannoch excuses the geth following suit and committing war crimes of their own during their uprising. All Rannoch missions end up confirming is that the quarians shot first and weren't too nice about it. And, while the geth are shown to be more sympathetic, that's because again, the game is driving home that blind fear of AI is stupid (EDI is awesome) and has terrible consequences (Reapers).

You know what would have been a good thing for them to add after Leviathan?

Javik with a platoon of Awakened Collectors.

Could have been cool, but tough to implement with Javik being a squaddie.

Could have done it in the sequence right before the final rush to the Citadel. After your conversation with Javik, he turns to face a bunch of Awakened Collectors like Wrex does with his soldiers.

ME2 and ME3 had great DLCs, and as long as they keep microtransactions confined to buying loot crates in multiplayer, I'm golden.

Honestly, I hope the gameplay is more like Halo than traditional Mass Effect. Whilst I enjoyed the games the series over time became more and more preoccupied with corridors and at harder difficulties you almost never have enough ammo to get the job done.

I've never liked cover-based shooters because of how badly designed the cover-based system is, giving you vision without risk and removing your ability to dictate the flow of combat. Repeat play-throughs of Mass Effect have you hiding behind the same cover and moving the same ways through the same maps whereas traditionally I have always preferred games that encouraged movement to being stationary (though Mass Effect's severely limiting movement controls are probably a part of that.)

I had hoped you would give me some hopes for the changing mechanics of the series but it seems that's not what you meant. Ah well, I hope it's worth the wait for the people that are waiting for it, but if it still plays the same way then I'm probably not gonna be buying it. I've had enough lazy cover-shooter combat for one lifetime.

If you played the ME franchise hiding behind cover like a bitch 100% of the time, I feel bad for ya. Ya done goofed. For one thing, for the times when you NEED cover or you'll die, the cover system has been very much improving ME2 and onward. But, there's classes, like the Soldier, Sentinel, and Vanguard, (and also the Infilitrator in ME1) that are specifically built to minimize your need for cover. I would play through again, and this time play more risk-reward style, be a bit gung-ho. Charge out of cover and blast a motherfucker away with a shotgun, then punch his friend to death.

Shepard's not quite as durable as Master Chief 100% of the time (though the Soldier and Infiltrator in ME1 can basically become invincible), but if you play smart and maneuver around the battlefield you can be just as much of an unstoppable action hero.

Vanguard was my main because cover is pain. Charge nova charge nova. Then I won the game. 2-Button gameplay was satisfying for a few minutes but I soon got over it because the moment the tough enemies show up you just end up with your screen shuddering about and you're rolling and ducking out of sight until the health bars of the enemy go down and then you move onto the next big baddie.

And I don't like Chief for being durable, I like him because he is mobile, but more than that I like Halo for it's level design (something that stopped being interesting/important after Halo 4 it seems). The levels are built to flow from one centre of combat into the next seamlessly and most of them are iconically memorable for their own reasons. The game really does feel like it is changing up the gameplay multiple times in every level.

Arbiter: When you land you get the sword and for a while the level is about using the invisibility to strafe around the enemies and the availability of the Energy sword encourages you to be up close and personal and use the invisibility to manouver. Then it changes up into a fantastic banshee section. Then the flood show up and shit gets tense. Then you're going down a lift. Then you gotta climb to the top of this big room. Then you gotta cut the cables and run your way back through the platform whilst it's in freefall, optionally avoiding the combat until you reach the Heretic Leader.

With Mass Effect I can't come up with any examples of really good level design. The gameplay has never been very good in the series, nor really has the level design, and it feels like one is getting in the way of the other.

Halo has recently become like that too though, with the level design and gameplay becoming mostly tawdry and unmemorable, but for the first three games it is mostly very well designed.

Anyway, Mass Effect never sold itself on gameplay anyway. First one I played was ME2 and I think the only reasons I stayed with the series were Mordin, Edi, and Joker. The other characters were okay (except Kaiden, Ashley, and token black guy) but it was Mordin, Edi, and Joker that I think summed up the best of the series. The conflicts, dangers, and progression of new technology.

Mordin is a tragic character in a thoroughly Greek sense. EDI is an entertaining, worrisome, yet ultimately optimistic look into what A.I. could be, and Joker was just a fun character. The others wouldn't have sold the series for me but those three did, and I happily muscled my way through the gameplay to get more from them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the level design and gameplay has been stellar since ME2.

Well I'm up for a debate on that if you are but if not then take care, man. Hope the game works out for you.

It's subjective, ultimately. I see just as much variety and maneuverability in Mass Effect as you probably do in Halo. The difference is that you can't jump like you're on the moon in ME, so it's more about a foot-based approach. But, again, you can be just as much of a running, gunning, sliding action hero who isn't married to cover in ME2 and 3 as you can in the Halo franchise, even without the zero-G jump. Take, for instance, the fight in ME2 where you protect Archangel's sniper position. There's so many ways to run around in his little base, gunning down mercs. Intentionally or not, I've done it differently just about every time. ME2 having waist-high walls you can duck behind doesn't somehow remove your ability to run around being a badass.

So, no, I'm not looking to debate you, because you don't see what I see. And, I don't mean to say that in a condescending or insulting way. You're convinced what I see isn't there, in the same way that I don't see how Halo makes combat any more dynamic than does Mass Effect. To me, it just doesn't. I get more satisfaction being an earth-bound guy who has to vault over cover than a guy who can moon-jump over everything. I'd rather customize Shepard's appearance, weapons, and skill set than be stuck with Master Chief, where my only sense of agency is weapon choice. There's nothing to really argue.

Wow, that felt pretty passive-aggressive.

But you seem to assume that I'm incapable of changing a viewpoint before we even start a debate so maybe this isn't a good idea.

It'd be more accurate to say I'm being realistic about the prospect of anybody changing their viewpoint. I've been in these sorts of debates before, they're exhausting, and usually pointless back and forth. We experienced the same products differently. There's not much to argue there.

But, as a for instance, you've got perhaps my favorite ME gameplay video, the Cryoguard. The player actually uses her frozen enemies as a sort of soft cover. It's a beautiful thing to behold: youtu.be/SjT15-mrwDo

I wish I had video of me doing similar shenanigans with my Soldier in ME2. I went through Lair of the Shadow Broker with Squad Cryo Ammo and used Adrenaline Rush to get into close quarters so I could melee stun and freeze enemies into being my human shields. Unfortunately, not many people on Youtube seem to play Soldier as aggressively as I do.

(Cont.) Now, I'd like to highlight where I think that kind of mechanical progression would be natural to the ME universe's style of play.

If you could pick up a lot of different weapons within the gameplay then the ME universe would arguably have more ways to access them than the Halo universe does. Using Biotic powers to pull weapons from hard-to-reach locations or perhaps even out of the hands of weakened enemies, using the meaty soldier style to pull guns out of the enemy's hands or maybe they can move faster whilst carrying larger weaponry.

By putting elements that change up the gameplay into the levels themselves rather than just having it be something that is selected through the progression system outside of the combat, the game would open up new styles of play for each class.

If the ability to jump was added and the game moved away from being cover-based it would allow more environmental hazards whilst playing into the more physical aspect of the Soldier or perhaps the more magical aspect of the Biotics. Imagine being able to accidentally jump off of ledges to your death, but also being able to perhaps shoulder-barge people off of those same ledges instead of the world being surrounded by invisible, but certainly tangible walls.

I'm not saying I want the game to play like Halo, more that I want to see the game play more like it does in the cutscenes.

Well that's a decent example of games design. The cryo effects are transformative to the environment, allowing the player more freedom to dictate the flow of combat. It makes the puts more depths into the one variable element of the environment (the enemies). It also ties into one of the defining physical mechanic of the basic gameplay, namely the cover mechanic.

A similar example of the same principle in context would be the physical presence of enemies in the Halo games. They have collision effects in the same manner that the scenery does so occasionally you will find a situation where jumping on their heads is really valuable to you as a player, or how you can bounce grenades off of them to reach hidden enemies. The same can be said of the explosives in the game as they provide a shockwave and, used properly, they allow players greater mobility within the game through techniques like the grenade/rocket jump, and can be used to deflect certain projectiles or kill enemies via flying debris.

Those are clear examples of using the style of gameplay to add depth to the experience.

However, returning to the notion of level design that was brought up before. That room in ME2 is a fairly decent room design-wise. It doesn't really encourage all that much mechanical exploration but it doesn't hinder it either. The trouble with this is ultimately the trouble with the gameplay in ME2 as a whole. There is little to no discovery in the gameplay, and little to no variety either. Variety comes in the form of playing different classes on different playthroughs, or a few classes like the warrior have one or two ways to enjoy them so a re-play with a different spec can work.

However, the trouble with this is that it punishes experimentation quite harshly if things don't work out for the player. Compared to a similar system of classes like that of Diablo III the ME system is strict and punishing. Gameplay changes occur in minimal increments unlike in the Diablo system where each new level will unlock a new ability, or a new style on an existing ability, that leads to the player experiencing and experimenting with a lot of different play-styles and ability combinations, that can freely be swapped out if the encounter calls for something different.

Now, in fairness Diablo III doesn't really give the level of challenge I'd like (similar to Mass Effect) but that element of the character-building is solid.

However, to bring this back to the Halo comparison, whilst Mass Effect locks its gameplay variety behind a class and progression system (not a bad thing, btw) Halo's gameplay variety is always evident within the levels and players are free to change their styles on the go due to the gameplay being locked into the variety of different weapons, and how those weapons are obtained (usually from the corpses of enemies you have killed). It allows for a more free-flowing run & gun style of gameplay, and combined with the movement physics it encourages the player to usually be moving around the map, up and down drastic elevations, trying different techniques, picking up different weapons.

Whilst I will concede that that room in ME2 certainly does allow you to go around it in a different style every time you play through the game, the levels in Halo allow that for every sub-section of the game, and each one is built to play differently from the last.

That's why I want Mass Effect to mess about with its gameplay mechanics. Instead of multiple variations on 3 weapons (+ the more variable Heavy Weapon options) I would appreciate if there was a lot more variety in the sort of weapons you could get. I'd love to have more movement options in the gameplay and more variety in how I defeat my enemies.

I'm really not a fan of the ground-bound, 3rd-Person, Gears of War style of cover combat. The tab-targeting of the powerups and companions does add to the flavour of the combat but never enough to make encounters feel different from the last.

You can also fling objects, or even enemies, around using the physics of certain powers in Mass Effect. It does the same sort of thing. Grenade/rocket jumping is a little silly, and the game isn't about jumping, so while that would add a layer to the gameplay it would take away from its presentation. You're getting into TF2 territory there, which is a great shooter but has a certain aesthetic which is not Mass Effect's aesthetic.

There's quite a bit to discover in ME2 and beyond's gameplay. Like any other game, you can discover its logic and systems. Power combos, physics, reload canceling, the use of the different unlockable powers Shepard can get from their squadmates, how enemies differ in defenses and attack strategies. Variety comes in the form of how you approach the encounter, just like in Halo. The same class can use different powers and different weapons, or move through the room in a different way, play aggressively or stick to cover, use different strategies like the Cryoguard's improvised ice statue cover, take advantage of environmental factors like barrels and crates that can be shot or flung at enemies.There's a lot of tools in your toolbox. Meanwhile, in Halo, you've got your different weapons, the explosion physics, and moving through rooms in different ways. You're being reductive of Mass Effect's attributes while exaggerating the variables Halo presents. The way I see it, ME gives you more to play with overall.

In ME2 and ME3 you can respec. There's not really any punishing, since virtually any build can run through any difficulty with varying levels of success based on execution by the player. You can unlock new abilities you didn't have before in ME games, too. That's not unique to Diablo. You haven't described anything that isn't present in ME.

Again, this is why this argument is largely pointless, because we both have our biases. You're kind of just projecting this simplistic, reductive view onto ME2 and 3, whie I see there being even more variables to work with than Halo provides. Aside from jumping, Mass Effect has everything that Halo brings to the table and more. There isn't just the one room in ME2 that presents multiple encounter solutions, the vast majority are like that.

There's 5 main weapon categories in Mass Effect, not 3. And, especially in ME3, you have a lot of variety in those categories, easily as much as Halo. In shotguns you've got the Graal spike thrower, which can be charged for greater damage and fires a spray of spikes into the enemy that continually damage them. In that same category there's the more typical shotguns, like the semi-auto Scimitar and the one-shot blunderbuss that is the Claymore, as well as other unique weapons like the Reegar Carbine that basically functions as a flamethrower.

I thought all of 3's story was weak after Tuchanka. The ending was incredibly bad when compared with their promises. Inquisition's exploration was alright, but it still felt way too much like a single-player MMO.

The attack on the Citadel, the quarian homeworld, asari homeworld, and Sanctuary all happen after Tuchanka, though. Those were all excellent sections for their own reasons. And, after Tuchanka, you get what I think is the first successful rival character in a Bioware game, Kai Leng, who pretty much everyone genuinely wanted to kick the shit out of and murder.

Some of the collecting in Inquisition could have been tedious if it weren't 100% optional. Eventually you're swimming in Power and can just worry about finding the resources you actually need to craft rad stuff. MMOs necessitate grinding, while Inquisition merely allowed it.

I thought Kai Leng was awfully written. Rannoch turned the Geth from being robots who turned on their creators into good boys who didn't do nuffin wrong, and turned the Quarians pretty much evil. No comments on Thessia other than that I didn't personally like it. Sanctuary I don't have a problem with by itself, I have a problem with how Cerberus is written as a whole.

Kai Leng himself wasn't a super interesting character, but he was a pretty great mirror of Shepard in terms of conflict. An image of what might have been if things between Shepard and Cerberus had gone differently. And, of course, his actions actually made me hate him and want to utterly destroy him, and that's rare for me. Cerberus did get weird, but that's because they were indoctrinated. They pushed the at-any-cost doctrine too far and got fucked up because they were standing right next to Reaper tech all the goddamn time.

Well, the geth were largely not at fault for the uprising from the get-go. Even through Tali's bias, that much was evident from ME1 and onward. They didn't throw the first punch. A major theme of the franchise has been that blind hatred of AI is irrational and ultimately just leads to horrifying conflicts. Still, nothing on Rannoch excuses the geth following suit and committing war crimes of their own during their uprising. All Rannoch missions end up confirming is that the quarians shot first and weren't too nice about it. And, while the geth are shown to be more sympathetic, that's because again, the game is driving home that blind fear of AI is stupid (EDI is awesome) and has terrible consequences (Reapers).

You know what would have been a good thing for them to add after Leviathan?

Javik with a platoon of Awakened Collectors.

Could have been cool, but tough to implement with Javik being a squaddie.

Could have done it in the sequence right before the final rush to the Citadel. After your conversation with Javik, he turns to face a bunch of Awakened Collectors like Wrex does with his soldiers.

Those details are hard to notice when youve got assloads of weapons waiting to be shot, exploded, thrown, or straight up bullet rape the enemies with. But your right.

It's true. Pre-Sequel was a fun romp of high-powered shootin'-'n'-lootin', indeed.

PS and 2 were both the purest definitions of rooty tooty point and shooty.

Borderlands 1 will always have a special place in my heart because Brick is a hilariously fun class to play. There's nothing quite like the visceral pleasure of punching people so hard they explode.

But... Inquisition's gameplay was the second weakest in the Dragon Age series.

And ME 3's gameplay was the only good thing about it.

Strongly disagree. Inquisition combined Origins' more tactical style with Dragon Age 2's superior character progression (skill trees, skill upgrades, etc.), and added a very meaty crafting system and a much wider world to explore than Origins on top of that. ME3 was pretty much 99% amazing, gameplay and story included. The last 1% is that ending, which believe it or not was merely meh and not literally worse than Hitler.

But, anyway, when I say Inquisition, I mostly mean how the exploration sounds like it'll play out. Each planet will be fairly large and open, similar to ME1, but with a more Inquisition-like population of stuff to find and do. The crafting sounds a bit more like Inquisition's, too, with you finding schematics and putting things together, occasionally combining crazy technology you find in the alien ruins with your creations. It's been a while since I saw the leak story, so that's all I really remember. It was mostly based on leaked in-house questionnaires and memos, so it may not be what the game 100% ends up like, but it sounded very promising.

ME2 and ME3 had great DLCs, and as long as they keep microtransactions confined to buying loot crates in multiplayer, I'm golden.

Honestly, I hope the gameplay is more like Halo than traditional Mass Effect. Whilst I enjoyed the games the series over time became more and more preoccupied with corridors and at harder difficulties you almost never have enough ammo to get the job done.

I've never liked cover-based shooters because of how badly designed the cover-based system is, giving you vision without risk and removing your ability to dictate the flow of combat. Repeat play-throughs of Mass Effect have you hiding behind the same cover and moving the same ways through the same maps whereas traditionally I have always preferred games that encouraged movement to being stationary (though Mass Effect's severely limiting movement controls are probably a part of that.)

I had hoped you would give me some hopes for the changing mechanics of the series but it seems that's not what you meant. Ah well, I hope it's worth the wait for the people that are waiting for it, but if it still plays the same way then I'm probably not gonna be buying it. I've had enough lazy cover-shooter combat for one lifetime.

If you played the ME franchise hiding behind cover like a bitch 100% of the time, I feel bad for ya. Ya done goofed. For one thing, for the times when you NEED cover or you'll die, the cover system has been very much improving ME2 and onward. But, there's classes, like the Soldier, Sentinel, and Vanguard, (and also the Infilitrator in ME1) that are specifically built to minimize your need for cover. I would play through again, and this time play more risk-reward style, be a bit gung-ho. Charge out of cover and blast a motherfucker away with a shotgun, then punch his friend to death.

Shepard's not quite as durable as Master Chief 100% of the time (though the Soldier and Infiltrator in ME1 can basically become invincible), but if you play smart and maneuver around the battlefield you can be just as much of an unstoppable action hero.

Vanguard was my main because cover is pain. Charge nova charge nova. Then I won the game. 2-Button gameplay was satisfying for a few minutes but I soon got over it because the moment the tough enemies show up you just end up with your screen shuddering about and you're rolling and ducking out of sight until the health bars of the enemy go down and then you move onto the next big baddie.

And I don't like Chief for being durable, I like him because he is mobile, but more than that I like Halo for it's level design (something that stopped being interesting/important after Halo 4 it seems). The levels are built to flow from one centre of combat into the next seamlessly and most of them are iconically memorable for their own reasons. The game really does feel like it is changing up the gameplay multiple times in every level.

Arbiter: When you land you get the sword and for a while the level is about using the invisibility to strafe around the enemies and the availability of the Energy sword encourages you to be up close and personal and use the invisibility to manouver. Then it changes up into a fantastic banshee section. Then the flood show up and shit gets tense. Then you're going down a lift. Then you gotta climb to the top of this big room. Then you gotta cut the cables and run your way back through the platform whilst it's in freefall, optionally avoiding the combat until you reach the Heretic Leader.

With Mass Effect I can't come up with any examples of really good level design. The gameplay has never been very good in the series, nor really has the level design, and it feels like one is getting in the way of the other.

Halo has recently become like that too though, with the level design and gameplay becoming mostly tawdry and unmemorable, but for the first three games it is mostly very well designed.

Anyway, Mass Effect never sold itself on gameplay anyway. First one I played was ME2 and I think the only reasons I stayed with the series were Mordin, Edi, and Joker. The other characters were okay (except Kaiden, Ashley, and token black guy) but it was Mordin, Edi, and Joker that I think summed up the best of the series. The conflicts, dangers, and progression of new technology.

Mordin is a tragic character in a thoroughly Greek sense. EDI is an entertaining, worrisome, yet ultimately optimistic look into what A.I. could be, and Joker was just a fun character. The others wouldn't have sold the series for me but those three did, and I happily muscled my way through the gameplay to get more from them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the level design and gameplay has been stellar since ME2.

Well I'm up for a debate on that if you are but if not then take care, man. Hope the game works out for you.

It's subjective, ultimately. I see just as much variety and maneuverability in Mass Effect as you probably do in Halo. The difference is that you can't jump like you're on the moon in ME, so it's more about a foot-based approach. But, again, you can be just as much of a running, gunning, sliding action hero who isn't married to cover in ME2 and 3 as you can in the Halo franchise, even without the zero-G jump. Take, for instance, the fight in ME2 where you protect Archangel's sniper position. There's so many ways to run around in his little base, gunning down mercs. Intentionally or not, I've done it differently just about every time. ME2 having waist-high walls you can duck behind doesn't somehow remove your ability to run around being a badass.

So, no, I'm not looking to debate you, because you don't see what I see. And, I don't mean to say that in a condescending or insulting way. You're convinced what I see isn't there, in the same way that I don't see how Halo makes combat any more dynamic than does Mass Effect. To me, it just doesn't. I get more satisfaction being an earth-bound guy who has to vault over cover than a guy who can moon-jump over everything. I'd rather customize Shepard's appearance, weapons, and skill set than be stuck with Master Chief, where my only sense of agency is weapon choice. There's nothing to really argue.

Wow, that felt pretty passive-aggressive.

But you seem to assume that I'm incapable of changing a viewpoint before we even start a debate so maybe this isn't a good idea.

It'd be more accurate to say I'm being realistic about the prospect of anybody changing their viewpoint. I've been in these sorts of debates before, they're exhausting, and usually pointless back and forth. We experienced the same products differently. There's not much to argue there.

But, as a for instance, you've got perhaps my favorite ME gameplay video, the Cryoguard. The player actually uses her frozen enemies as a sort of soft cover. It's a beautiful thing to behold: youtu.be/SjT15-mrwDo

I wish I had video of me doing similar shenanigans with my Soldier in ME2. I went through Lair of the Shadow Broker with Squad Cryo Ammo and used Adrenaline Rush to get into close quarters so I could melee stun and freeze enemies into being my human shields. Unfortunately, not many people on Youtube seem to play Soldier as aggressively as I do.

(Cont.) Now, I'd like to highlight where I think that kind of mechanical progression would be natural to the ME universe's style of play.

If you could pick up a lot of different weapons within the gameplay then the ME universe would arguably have more ways to access them than the Halo universe does. Using Biotic powers to pull weapons from hard-to-reach locations or perhaps even out of the hands of weakened enemies, using the meaty soldier style to pull guns out of the enemy's hands or maybe they can move faster whilst carrying larger weaponry.

By putting elements that change up the gameplay into the levels themselves rather than just having it be something that is selected through the progression system outside of the combat, the game would open up new styles of play for each class.

If the ability to jump was added and the game moved away from being cover-based it would allow more environmental hazards whilst playing into the more physical aspect of the Soldier or perhaps the more magical aspect of the Biotics. Imagine being able to accidentally jump off of ledges to your death, but also being able to perhaps shoulder-barge people off of those same ledges instead of the world being surrounded by invisible, but certainly tangible walls.

I'm not saying I want the game to play like Halo, more that I want to see the game play more like it does in the cutscenes.

Well that's a decent example of games design. The cryo effects are transformative to the environment, allowing the player more freedom to dictate the flow of combat. It makes the puts more depths into the one variable element of the environment (the enemies). It also ties into one of the defining physical mechanic of the basic gameplay, namely the cover mechanic.

A similar example of the same principle in context would be the physical presence of enemies in the Halo games. They have collision effects in the same manner that the scenery does so occasionally you will find a situation where jumping on their heads is really valuable to you as a player, or how you can bounce grenades off of them to reach hidden enemies. The same can be said of the explosives in the game as they provide a shockwave and, used properly, they allow players greater mobility within the game through techniques like the grenade/rocket jump, and can be used to deflect certain projectiles or kill enemies via flying debris.

Those are clear examples of using the style of gameplay to add depth to the experience.

However, returning to the notion of level design that was brought up before. That room in ME2 is a fairly decent room design-wise. It doesn't really encourage all that much mechanical exploration but it doesn't hinder it either. The trouble with this is ultimately the trouble with the gameplay in ME2 as a whole. There is little to no discovery in the gameplay, and little to no variety either. Variety comes in the form of playing different classes on different playthroughs, or a few classes like the warrior have one or two ways to enjoy them so a re-play with a different spec can work.

However, the trouble with this is that it punishes experimentation quite harshly if things don't work out for the player. Compared to a similar system of classes like that of Diablo III the ME system is strict and punishing. Gameplay changes occur in minimal increments unlike in the Diablo system where each new level will unlock a new ability, or a new style on an existing ability, that leads to the player experiencing and experimenting with a lot of different play-styles and ability combinations, that can freely be swapped out if the encounter calls for something different.

Now, in fairness Diablo III doesn't really give the level of challenge I'd like (similar to Mass Effect) but that element of the character-building is solid.

However, to bring this back to the Halo comparison, whilst Mass Effect locks its gameplay variety behind a class and progression system (not a bad thing, btw) Halo's gameplay variety is always evident within the levels and players are free to change their styles on the go due to the gameplay being locked into the variety of different weapons, and how those weapons are obtained (usually from the corpses of enemies you have killed). It allows for a more free-flowing run & gun style of gameplay, and combined with the movement physics it encourages the player to usually be moving around the map, up and down drastic elevations, trying different techniques, picking up different weapons.

Whilst I will concede that that room in ME2 certainly does allow you to go around it in a different style every time you play through the game, the levels in Halo allow that for every sub-section of the game, and each one is built to play differently from the last.

That's why I want Mass Effect to mess about with its gameplay mechanics. Instead of multiple variations on 3 weapons (+ the more variable Heavy Weapon options) I would appreciate if there was a lot more variety in the sort of weapons you could get. I'd love to have more movement options in the gameplay and more variety in how I defeat my enemies.

I'm really not a fan of the ground-bound, 3rd-Person, Gears of War style of cover combat. The tab-targeting of the powerups and companions does add to the flavour of the combat but never enough to make encounters feel different from the last.

You can also fling objects, or even enemies, around using the physics of certain powers in Mass Effect. It does the same sort of thing. Grenade/rocket jumping is a little silly, and the game isn't about jumping, so while that would add a layer to the gameplay it would take away from its presentation. You're getting into TF2 territory there, which is a great shooter but has a certain aesthetic which is not Mass Effect's aesthetic.

There's quite a bit to discover in ME2 and beyond's gameplay. Like any other game, you can discover its logic and systems. Power combos, physics, reload canceling, the use of the different unlockable powers Shepard can get from their squadmates, how enemies differ in defenses and attack strategies. Variety comes in the form of how you approach the encounter, just like in Halo. The same class can use different powers and different weapons, or move through the room in a different way, play aggressively or stick to cover, use different strategies like the Cryoguard's improvised ice statue cover, take advantage of environmental factors like barrels and crates that can be shot or flung at enemies.There's a lot of tools in your toolbox. Meanwhile, in Halo, you've got your different weapons, the explosion physics, and moving through rooms in different ways. You're being reductive of Mass Effect's attributes while exaggerating the variables Halo presents. The way I see it, ME gives you more to play with overall.

In ME2 and ME3 you can respec. There's not really any punishing, since virtually any build can run through any difficulty with varying levels of success based on execution by the player. You can unlock new abilities you didn't have before in ME games, too. That's not unique to Diablo. You haven't described anything that isn't present in ME.

Again, this is why this argument is largely pointless, because we both have our biases. You're kind of just projecting this simplistic, reductive view onto ME2 and 3, whie I see there being even more variables to work with than Halo provides. Aside from jumping, Mass Effect has everything that Halo brings to the table and more. There isn't just the one room in ME2 that presents multiple encounter solutions, the vast majority are like that.

There's 5 main weapon categories in Mass Effect, not 3. And, especially in ME3, you have a lot of variety in those categories, easily as much as Halo. In shotguns you've got the Graal spike thrower, which can be charged for greater damage and fires a spray of spikes into the enemy that continually damage them. In that same category there's the more typical shotguns, like the semi-auto Scimitar and the one-shot blunderbuss that is the Claymore, as well as other unique weapons like the Reegar Carbine that basically functions as a flamethrower.

I thought all of 3's story was weak after Tuchanka. The ending was incredibly bad when compared with their promises. Inquisition's exploration was alright, but it still felt way too much like a single-player MMO.

The attack on the Citadel, the quarian homeworld, asari homeworld, and Sanctuary all happen after Tuchanka, though. Those were all excellent sections for their own reasons. And, after Tuchanka, you get what I think is the first successful rival character in a Bioware game, Kai Leng, who pretty much everyone genuinely wanted to kick the shit out of and murder.

Some of the collecting in Inquisition could have been tedious if it weren't 100% optional. Eventually you're swimming in Power and can just worry about finding the resources you actually need to craft rad stuff. MMOs necessitate grinding, while Inquisition merely allowed it.

I thought Kai Leng was awfully written. Rannoch turned the Geth from being robots who turned on their creators into good boys who didn't do nuffin wrong, and turned the Quarians pretty much evil. No comments on Thessia other than that I didn't personally like it. Sanctuary I don't have a problem with by itself, I have a problem with how Cerberus is written as a whole.

Kai Leng himself wasn't a super interesting character, but he was a pretty great mirror of Shepard in terms of conflict. An image of what might have been if things between Shepard and Cerberus had gone differently. And, of course, his actions actually made me hate him and want to utterly destroy him, and that's rare for me. Cerberus did get weird, but that's because they were indoctrinated. They pushed the at-any-cost doctrine too far and got fucked up because they were standing right next to Reaper tech all the goddamn time.

Well, the geth were largely not at fault for the uprising from the get-go. Even through Tali's bias, that much was evident from ME1 and onward. They didn't throw the first punch. A major theme of the franchise has been that blind hatred of AI is irrational and ultimately just leads to horrifying conflicts. Still, nothing on Rannoch excuses the geth following suit and committing war crimes of their own during their uprising. All Rannoch missions end up confirming is that the quarians shot first and weren't too nice about it. And, while the geth are shown to be more sympathetic, that's because again, the game is driving home that blind fear of AI is stupid (EDI is awesome) and has terrible consequences (Reapers).

You know what would have been a good thing for them to add after Leviathan?

Javik with a platoon of Awakened Collectors.

Could have been cool, but tough to implement with Javik being a squaddie.

Could have done it in the sequence right before the final rush to the Citadel. After your conversation with Javik, he turns to face a bunch of Awakened Collectors like Wrex does with his soldiers.

Divulge.

Now.

>>#56,

but its less about the instance of flirting and more of the "fucking hate men" statement and sympathy that pushes his more towards the socjus side. Im not the most well versed in this specific argument and theres alot more "proof" if you wanna call it that. Just google shit my nigga

idk man, to me its just looking like hes saying he's into guys to be a good progressive, and part of the cuck thing is all the other evidence that the open relationship stuff was pushed by his wife

He's a goober, and he may have dun goofed up his marriage, but agreeing that some guys do some shitty, overly aggressive things to women when flirting hardly makes one an SJW.

but its less about the instance of flirting and more of the "fucking hate men" statement and sympathy that pushes his more towards the socjus side. Im not the most well versed in this specific argument and theres alot more "proof" if you wanna call it that. Just google shit my nigga

He's bisexual, in an open relationship, and writes gay/bisexual characters for no other reason than to spice things up. Nothing about that screams "SJW."

There's generally never a "reason" to make a character gay unless you're writing about the struggles of gay people. There's, after all, no "reason" for people to be gay in real life. They simply are.

idk man, to me its just looking like hes saying he's into guys to be a good progressive, and part of the cuck thing is all the other evidence that the open relationship stuff was pushed by his wife

He's a goober, and he may have dun goofed up his marriage, but agreeing that some guys do some shitty, overly aggressive things to women when flirting hardly makes one an SJW.

but its less about the instance of flirting and more of the "fucking hate men" statement and sympathy that pushes his more towards the socjus side. Im not the most well versed in this specific argument and theres alot more "proof" if you wanna call it that. Just google shit my nigga

but Burch is an SJW and also a cuck for real tho

Why, exactly?

He's bisexual, in an open relationship, and writes gay/bisexual characters for no other reason than to spice things up. Nothing about that screams "SJW."

There's generally never a "reason" to make a character gay unless you're writing about the struggles of gay people. There's, after all, no "reason" for people to be gay in real life. They simply are.

idk man, to me its just looking like hes saying he's into guys to be a good progressive, and part of the cuck thing is all the other evidence that the open relationship stuff was pushed by his wife

He's a goober, and he may have dun goofed up his marriage, but agreeing that some guys do some shitty, overly aggressive things to women when flirting hardly makes one an SJW.

but its less about the instance of flirting and more of the "fucking hate men" statement and sympathy that pushes his more towards the socjus side. Im not the most well versed in this specific argument and theres alot more "proof" if you wanna call it that. Just google shit my nigga