That's why the name came up when Snowman mentioned EA.

They've already been EA when they made Dragon Age: Origins, and given how you're listing that one as a prime example for how a Dark Heresy CRPG should look like ... well!

[...]

How that turned out once EA took over.. well. Dragon Age 2. There's not really much more to say on that.

Much of the development of Mass Effect 2 also took place before EA took over, but it suffered the effects harder, most notable in the sub-par DLCs (poorly integrated additional companions, anyone?). Mass Effect 3 was entirely an EAWare product, though, and.. well. Yeah, again, not much more to say on that.

Sufficient to say is that you can't expect EAWare to produce anything resembling quality any more. For whatever reason, EA seems to really have entrenched themselves in the "We ruin everything we touch"-territory. It was really looking like they were going to change for a while, but then.. they didn't.

Dragon Age: Origins was developed before Bioware became EA, and was only published after the fact, hence why many think that it was an EAWare product. The bulk of the development took place well before EA took over, and the intention was always to keep Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins as two distinct franchises focusing on two different markets and approaches.

Not to split hairs, but EA acquired BioWare in 2007. Dragon Age: Origins was released in 2009. Yes, the title has been in development since about 2004, but to make it sound as if EA jumped onboard just as the developer was already busy printing the discs is a gross misrepresentation. At the very least you can't say that the publisher's influence is that much of a corrupting influence, given the end result here.

Regarding Dragon Age 2 ... it's not as good as DA:O, but after having played it, I have to say, it is better than its reputation, and still a good game when viewed independently. Otherwise I wouldn't have purchased the various DLC - given that I only played DA2 a year or so after release due to the lukewarm reviews. So it's not like I went into that title all starry-eyed. On the contrary, it was a lot better than what the internet has led me to believe.

The only thing truly dragging this title down is that lingering feeling of "it could have been a lot better". For the time being, I'm willing to believe them when they say that they've learned from that.

Much of the development of Mass Effect 2 also took place before EA took over, but it suffered the effects harder, most notable in the sub-par DLCs (poorly integrated additional companions, anyone?). Mass Effect 3 was entirely an EAWare product, though, and.. well. Yeah, again, not much more to say on that.

Not much? I'd like to hear it, because I considered ME3 to be quite amazing. I hope you're not one of those who would have preferred the so-called Disney Ending?

I admit I was kind of missing the level of detail of the very first title (switching weapon and armour upgrades, holstering your gun, ... also, dat Mako), but in terms of storytelling the series has only ever moved forward, culminating in an epic finale to a great story. I'm not lying when I say that I've listened to piano music for several days after having finished that game, and I still have vivid memories from many scenes of these three games.

And if you consider Lair of the Shadowbroker a "sub-par DLC", I don't know what to say.

Oh, and before I forget! The addition of multiplayer was also quite nice; I've spent well over a hundred hours just playing that .

For the record: I don't like EA either, and I agree with much/most of the criticism hurled at its way, but I just don't see how this relates to BioWare.

The relationship between studio and publisher is complicated, but as a general rule: the bigger and more important you are, the more leeway you're going to get from the publisher, which makes it seem plausible that BioWare has retained a good deal of immunity from EA's influence/pressure. Not 100%, of course, but apparently enough to still make great games - at least in my opinion and experience.

For a counter-example, see how Obsidian caved in when the publisher pressured for a faster release of KotOR2, and what kind of result that had. Maybe a similar thing happened with DA2, but if so, it must have led to EA becoming more willing to listen to the developers again.

I mean, DA2 was announced in 2010 and went gold in 2011 - DA3 has been announced in 2011 and is still in development (slated for release October this year). Just a year less development than DA:O (though the shorter period can partially be accounted for by a bigger budget, and an already existing game world). Certainly that must be a good sign, at least in this case.

Look at the Witcher series and don't tell me that couldn't be a Dark Heresy game.

With pin-up cards for every female Psyker and Battle Sister the male player character gets to lay with! GRIMDARK and EDGY

Wow one thing you didn't like about the first game that was done years ago. Three more years till a decade to be exact. Lets condemn it all to hell base entirely on that one thing everyone! Lets completely ignore all the other things they had done right like not shove in DRM into their game, be fair to their customers while treating them like grown ups, and when they made their updated version that pass out for free to those that already owned the game. CD Red Projekt did so many things right and are one of the few gaming companies that are doing excellent. Compare that to EA who been letting people go.

I'm generally comparing/looking at developers, not publishers, when I want to hazard a guess as to how a game might turn out. And yes, I haven't even kept "up to date" about the Witcher series, but that little feature suggested a certain level of (im)maturity which I personally wouldn't approve of. And unless they've changed their team, it's likely to still be there, creeping into any sequels - or a 40k game they might make.

Now, this is just my personal assessment, and my views are obviously based on limited observations and experience, but looking at BioWare I just see a studio that seems a bit more sensitive and ... I dunno, serious? about portraying a world that is less blatant catering to a single rather specific target audience, and more concerned about creating a living world, thus creating more immersion.

BioWare is not without fault as well, but if I had to pick, there are very few alternatives.

... and a quick glance at google suggests that the attitude of the developers of The Witcher 1 did indeed carry over into the sequel. But it may just be that our preferences and what we expect from a game are different, mhm?

[edit] On the other hand, one could indeed argue that such a studio is the perfect fit for this IP.

From what I can see, everybody does agree they deliver quality. Just the content is ... a bit controversial.

Oh well a series of controversial games from a book series made in Poland. Really don't care for that. What I do care is how they treat their people, customers, and the fact they are doing well when other game developers are doing horrible. They had spread more good will than EA has done during this decade.

I'd say that assessment is highly dependent on where your priorities lie.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, then!

This is all moot, however. The 40k licence for big-budget games is currently in the hands of a division of Sega, who picked it up when they salvaged parts of the now-defunct THQ. As it happens, the rights for Warhammer Fantasy big-budget computer games is currently in the hands of the people who brought us the Total War series, which makes the dream of "Warhammer: Total War" a distinct possibility...

Given the "invasion" of new 40k games that seem to be churned out by the dozen these days, would it not imply that the license has been split up, i.e. simply is not exclusive anymore?

There's probably a gazillion different ways for clauses and conditions in license agreements, but I'd wager the reason none of the big name has bothered with it is due to various limitations that would be imposed as part of the contract (not being the sole developer of 40k titles being one of them), and which smaller studios seem to be fine with, regarding the franchise name as a chance for the big score. Or it is as simple as this article suggests, and the license is divided by genre. In which case this might cover the RPG sector.

In fairness, though, some few of the new titles such as Armageddon and Eternal Crusade actually seem to have potential, as hard as it is to say anything specific so far.

A Total War version of Warhammer ... I could imagine that, sure. Though somehow I enjoyed the newer games of the TW series not as much as the older ones. But until Sega announces they're actually doing anything in this regard, other than launching a Steam sale (if anyone doesn't have Dawn of War yet ... get it while it's hot) or publishing an allegededly sub-optimal PC port of Killteam, we can only wait and throw theories around.

I don't really want a Total Warhammer game. Empire building would kind of miss the point for me, and a side effect of the TW empire building, is that most battles aren't challenging/balanced.

Meanwhile the RTS portion of TW games have always been build around the idea of showing off how pretty the battles look, to the detriment of the player's ability to control them (compare with FX: Supreme Commander if what I just said confuses you).

I'd much rather have something like Shadow of The Horned Rat or Dark Omen. Or better yet, a true-to-tabletop wargame.

Much of the development of Mass Effect 2 also took place before EA took over, but it suffered the effects harder, most notable in the sub-par DLCs (poorly integrated additional companions, anyone?). Mass Effect 3 was entirely an EAWare product, though, and.. well. Yeah, again, not much more to say on that.

Not much? I'd like to hear it, because I considered ME3 to be quite amazing. I hope you're not one of those who would have preferred the so-called Disney Ending?

Can't speak for Fgdsfg, but I for one would prefer an ending that didn't come absolutely out of nowhere and one that didn't invalidate all the choices I've made across all three games.

Can't speak for Fgdsfg, but I for one would prefer an ending that didn't come absolutely out of nowhere and one that didn't invalidate all the choices I've made across all three games.

I felt my choices were reflected adequately. For example, I saved the Destiny Ascension in ME1, so it showed up for the final battle. If you check the War Assets ( here 's a list of the Alliance-affiliated ones for example), you will also notice how a huge number of decisions you made up until the final confrontation can influence the final numbers. Yes, the War Assets are obviously just an abstraction of the choices you made throughout the games, but I really don't see how it should have been more.

I am of the opinion that the outrage about the ending is, for the most part, an issue of widely exaggerated expectations, multiplied by the mob effect of the internet (working kind of like this ). As mentioned above, the choices the player made obviously mattered, so apparently the criticism is based upon the perception that they did not matter in the specific way the individual player had hoped for.

If, on the other hand, by invalidated you were referring to the "result" of the ending rather than its execution, I'd interpret this either as a different aspect of the aforementioned expectations ("I wanted the game to end this way"), or an unwillingness to use imagination to picture for yourself how your decisions would still affect the post-Crucible era of the galaxy, rather than relying on being presented everything as a pre-scripted cinematic. I created a lot of headcanon to picture how life would go on following this ending (scroll to the last entry here ), so maybe that's why I'm not as turned-down by it.

Just because the Relays were disabled, after all, does not mean the end of all things. It just means that the various worlds throughout the galaxy are now largely isolated from one another until they've found a solution to this problem (either by repairing the Relays, or by coming up with an alternate means of travel). Under these circumstances, the decisions you made earlier may shape the future of entire worlds, and to a much, much larger degree than if they were still connected to the larger galaxy.

By contrast, I would have considered a big reset button that makes life return to how it was before the Reaper threat because the big **** hero saved the galaxy and everyone is safe again incredibly dull and boring. We've had this in just about every videogame for the past twenty years, so personally I'm thankful for the writers blazing a new trail here, and actually telling a story , instead of just planting challenges for the player character to overcome until the big boss is defeated, they get their princess, and everyone lives happily ever after.

Is it possible that the gaming audience has become jaded or even spoiled by many years of the same old formula that always ends the same way, and thus expects to be able to always end a narrative on their terms? Of course, it's just as possible that this is a simple matter of personal preferences, which video games have just always reflected. Either way, I feel glad that Mass Effect did not conform to the standard here, for in my belief it makes for a much better, truly epic story, and a more immersive setting.

To make a comparison between gaming standards and movies: Return of the Jedi would've been a lot less cool if it had been Luke who had killed the Emperor.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, if you believe that games should be defined by how much agency they give to the player character, then yes, Mass Effect might not have been very good in this regard. But if we're talking storytelling, it's a milestone.

Here's a brief preview of 7th Edition:

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/05/a-first-look-at-7th-edition.html

Thanks for the link!

Well, that doesn't sound too bad. Except for the "more bulk" stuff - the comment about the tabletop replicating Imperial bureaucracy was as clever as it was, sadly, all too true (imho).

Never had a problem with Unbound. The option was always there. All that GW did here was to formalise specific advantages for default army lists, and in doing so ram the fandom's collective head into the "did you know you can also do [...]" part of the book in the hopes they'd finally get it.

On a sidenote: another detail I'm noticing is a certain visual similarity to the cover style of the Dark Heresy 2nd Edition, what with that half Aquila on the left side on the two book sleeves in the rear.

Too bad the artwork is, once again, unsurprisingly Marine-centric. Apparently it wasn't enough to print them on "just" one cover and give someone, anyone else a bit of exposure, but I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. At least one non-Marine army made it on one of the covers. That slenderman-style guy with the injectors is a (Dark) Eldar ... right? Right?!

A quick search after reading that article led me to this review of the fluff book that comes with the rules:

http://pinsofwar.com/warhammer40k-7th-edition-review-dark-millennium/

Following the imbalance of cover art, the amount of content seems ridiculously lopsided as well, but at least it seems to be an interesting read either way.

The little map on the Black Crusades made me smirk - it makes the previous attempts look as if the hordes of Chaos were just guessing the way to Terra and slowly but surely getting closer to the right direction with each attempted invasion.

The little map on the Black Crusades made me smirk - it makes the previous attempts look as if the hordes of Chaos were just guessing the way to Terra and slowly but surely getting closer to the right direction with each attempted invasion.

Chaos doesn't believe in asking for directions...

Dragon Age: Origins was developed before Bioware became EA, and was only published after the fact, hence why many think that it was an EAWare product. The bulk of the development took place well before EA took over, and the intention was always to keep Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins as two distinct franchises focusing on two different markets and approaches.

How that turned out once EA took over.. well. Dragon Age 2. There's not really much more to say on that.

Much of the development of Mass Effect 2 also took place before EA took over, but it suffered the effects harder, most notable in the sub-par DLCs (poorly integrated additional companions, anyone?). Mass Effect 3 was entirely an EAWare product, though, and.. well. Yeah, again, not much more to say on that.

Sufficient to say is that you can't expect EAWare to produce anything resembling quality any more. For whatever reason, EA seems to really have entrenched themselves in the "We ruin everything we touch"-territory. It was really looking like they were going to change for a while, but then.. they didn't.

Mass Effect 3 was great, until the last section. It was just the last sequence that messed it up. The Earth ground sequences was underwhelming (the engine and game mechanics couldn't really do it justice), and then we had the travesty of the 3 colour ending. Now, whatever they did was going to be disappointing, at least to some, but until that point I really enjoyed the game, and felt the story largely did the earlier games justice.

Not to split hairs, but EA acquired BioWare in 2007. Dragon Age: Origins was released in 2009. Yes, the title has been in development since about 2004, but to make it sound as if EA jumped onboard just as the developer was already busy printing the discs is a gross misrepresentation. At the very least you can't say that the publisher's influence is that much of a corrupting influence, given the end result here.

Regarding Dragon Age 2 ... it's not as good as DA:O, but after having played it, I have to say, it is better than its reputation, and still a good game when viewed independently. Otherwise I wouldn't have purchased the various DLC - given that I only played DA2 a year or so after release due to the lukewarm reviews. So it's not like I went into that title all starry-eyed. On the contrary, it was a lot better than what the internet has led me to believe.

The only thing truly dragging this title down is that lingering feeling of "it could have been a lot better". For the time being, I'm willing to believe them when they say that they've learned from that.

I admit I was kind of missing the level of detail of the very first title (switching weapon and armour upgrades, holstering your gun, ... also, dat Mako), but in terms of storytelling the series has only ever moved forward, culminating in an epic finale to a great story. I'm not lying when I say that I've listened to piano music for several days after having finished that game, and I still have vivid memories from many scenes of these three games.

For a counter-example, see how Obsidian caved in when the publisher pressured for a faster release of KotOR2, and what kind of result that had. Maybe a similar thing happened with DA2, but if so, it must have led to EA becoming more willing to listen to the developers again.

I mean, DA2 was announced in 2010 and went gold in 2011 - DA3 has been announced in 2011 and is still in development (slated for release October this year). Just a year less development than DA:O (though the shorter period can partially be accounted for by a bigger budget, and an already existing game world). Certainly that must be a good sign, at least in this case.

I have to say, while the ending of Dragon Age 2 was a bit bleh (again), I didn't have much other problem with it, aside from the feeling of "Well, it could have been better", as you say. I felt it was pretty solid gameplay wise, though the really hard wired class/role system wasn't entirely to my taste (I had gone a pretty balanced sword & board in 1, and if I had done the same in 2 I would have been really bored with my character due to the hard wired tank/striker/controller/healer element of 2). I can understand why they did it.

Of the splits between detail and lack of detail on character I thought Mass Effect 3 was the best of the lot. While I like the detail in 1, I understand why they changed it, and I do remember just having millions of upgrades in my inventory I just never used. 2 felt too simplified from that regard, and 3 brought back a little of the detail without being alienating for those that didn't want to deal with inventory issues.

This is all moot, however. The 40k licence for big-budget games is currently in the hands of a division of Sega, who picked it up when they salvaged parts of the now-defunct THQ. As it happens, the rights for Warhammer Fantasy big-budget computer games is currently in the hands of the people who brought us the Total War series, which makes the dream of "Warhammer: Total War" a distinct possibility...

I though Bioware had got the rights to what was going to be the 40k MMO (and then changed into a single player game)? EDIT - Seems I was a little behind the times. Seems that was an unsubstantiated rumour which panned out not to be true.

However, I would like to see a properly realised Warhammer game ala the total war series, though I think it should be more story driven, like the older strategy games, as some others have posted. I don't think the world conquest mode of the Total War series makes a whole lot of sense for Warhammer. Single player with a decent story, and a multiplayer that allows you to play any of the races would be cool though.

Can't speak for Fgdsfg, but I for one would prefer an ending that didn't come absolutely out of nowhere and one that didn't invalidate all the choices I've made across all three games.

I felt my choices were reflected adequately. For example, I saved the Destiny Ascension in ME1, so it showed up for the final battle. If you check the War Assets ( here 's a list of the Alliance-affiliated ones for example), you will also notice how a huge number of decisions you made up until the final confrontation can influence the final numbers. Yes, the War Assets are obviously just an abstraction of the choices you made throughout the games, but I really don't see how it should have been more.

I am of the opinion that the outrage about the ending is, for the most part, an issue of widely exaggerated expectations, multiplied by the mob effect of the internet (working kind of like this ). As mentioned above, the choices the player made obviously mattered, so apparently the criticism is based upon the perception that they did not matter in the specific way the individual player had hoped for.

If, on the other hand, by invalidated you were referring to the "result" of the ending rather than its execution, I'd interpret this either as a different aspect of the aforementioned expectations ("I wanted the game to end this way"), or an unwillingness to use imagination to picture for yourself how your decisions would still affect the post-Crucible era of the galaxy, rather than relying on being presented everything as a pre-scripted cinematic. I created a lot of headcanon to picture how life would go on following this ending (scroll to the last entry here ), so maybe that's why I'm not as turned-down by it.

Just because the Relays were disabled, after all, does not mean the end of all things. It just means that the various worlds throughout the galaxy are now largely isolated from one another until they've found a solution to this problem (either by repairing the Relays, or by coming up with an alternate means of travel). Under these circumstances, the decisions you made earlier may shape the future of entire worlds, and to a much, much larger degree than if they were still connected to the larger galaxy.

By contrast, I would have considered a big reset button that makes life return to how it was before the Reaper threat because the big **** hero saved the galaxy and everyone is safe again incredibly dull and boring. We've had this in just about every videogame for the past twenty years, so personally I'm thankful for the writers blazing a new trail here, and actually telling a story , instead of just planting challenges for the player character to overcome until the big boss is defeated, they get their princess, and everyone lives happily ever after.

Is it possible that the gaming audience has become jaded or even spoiled by many years of the same old formula that always ends the same way, and thus expects to be able to always end a narrative on their terms? Of course, it's just as possible that this is a simple matter of personal preferences, which video games have just always reflected. Either way, I feel glad that Mass Effect did not conform to the standard here, for in my belief it makes for a much better, truly epic story, and a more immersive setting.

To make a comparison between gaming standards and movies: Return of the Jedi would've been a lot less cool if it had been Luke who had killed the Emperor.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is, if you believe that games should be defined by how much agency they give to the player character, then yes, Mass Effect might not have been very good in this regard. But if we're talking storytelling, it's a milestone.

I still find it odd that there were complaints that Shepard died (and I don't like that apparently the updated ending does allow for him to survive). The 3rd game had sacrifice as a major theme. Clearly Shepard had to die (personally I thought all the main characters should have died). It was just the way it happened was a bit lame, and the difference between the endings was... meh. Aside from that I think my main gripes were the random Star Child, which had not been hinted at anywhere in the series until that point, and the line about "Synthetics and organics cannot live by side," which didn't fit how the story had progressed in my play through. I had made peace between the geth and the quarians. I as a player had utterly disproved that, and then the game turns around and tells me that doesn't matter, or even that the themes of the game don't matter that much, as it didn't make much sense in the context of the story as written at that point either (which seemed to heavily deal with trying to achieve understanding between races of vastly different types).

I didn't mind sacrifice, death & changes that would be vastly difficult to overcome afterwards (I would not have been happy with a "happy ever after" ending either. I don't mind the idea that the relay network was destroyed), but the ending felt arbitrary and rushed. This was particularly in the case of an otherwise fantastic game.

Oh, and just to clarify, I did get the green ending, so this is with the best possible ending included.

What I'm getting from all of this is that off topic discussions are okay as long you're not challenging anybody's privilege or making them uncomfortable about things they say.

Never had a problem with Unbound. The option was always there. All that GW did here was to formalise specific advantages for default army lists, and in doing so ram the fandom's collective head into the "did you know you can also do [...]" part of the book in the hopes they'd finally get it.

I don't remember the details but I think a lot of fans didn't understand what GW did there. GW did try to quantify (or counter-balance) the difference between Unbound and Battle-Forged. This isn't a simply "Oh, you can play without FOC too." It's a "If you want to pit FOC against free-form, here's how to balance it." Now whether the result is balanced , I can't tell.

If it was, it'd be an amazing piece of modeling because I'd imagine such to be very hard to balance across all possible combinations.

What I'm getting from all of this is that off topic discussions are okay as long you're not challenging anybody's privilege or making them uncomfortable about things they say.

I have never cared much about thread derailment unless it was constructive thread (aka trying to create rules for Tau voidships or similar). Let people talk about whatever interests them. Conversation flows where it does.

Alex

Mass Effect 3 was great, until the last section. It was just the last sequence that messed it up. The Earth ground sequences was underwhelming (the engine and game mechanics couldn't really do it justice), and then we had the travesty of the 3 colour ending. Now, whatever they did was going to be disappointing, at least to some, but until that point I really enjoyed the game, and felt the story largely did the earlier games justice.

What exactly didn't you like about the endings? Was it really just that they looked somewhat similar?

This issue was, in my opinion, blown widely out of proportion. It seems that the internet was so up in arms about the endings not being "more customised" that they missed out on what actually made them different. Do we really need unique cinematics for every single ending? Is it not sufficient if we get one, if that one is still 100% adequate to what we achieved?

I've only played ME3 once, and I could understand frustration if you were to do multiple playthroughs, because this experience might warrant more diversity. However, what I saw on the internet was more or less the people being enraged about their choices supposedly "not mattering", as if the only thing that would change was the colour of the beam.

Because these people arguably paid more attention to the controversy than the details in the ending itself.

Compare this chart to the usual complaints on the internet - it is actually a table with several intertwined columns and rows, whereas the vast majority of players seems convinced it's a simple flowchart.

I've discussed this criticism with others before, and actually had to remind people of what happened in the cinematic, because for some inexplicable reason half the internet missed that, for example, the Normandy had jumped because general retreat was ordered. There's really no excuse for raging against supposed plot holes when they only exist in people's heads because they weren't actually watching the thing.

Not accusing you of this, mind you - this is mainly to explain my rather defensive attitude, because this here is a fan who cares about what may be perceived as unjustified badmouthing. And ME3 as well as, by extension, BioWare have received a lot of that. (the real irony is that I'm actually working for the competition, but I'm a geek before anything else)

And I'm sad to hear you didn't like the Earth missions - I was very immersed in them, but this might simply be a question of gameplay preferences? I thought the engine captivated the destruction and the ominous atmosphere quite nicely, and the storm on the gateway felt like a scene ripped straight out of a movie. That slo-mo shot was very memorable to me.

Of the splits between detail and lack of detail on character I thought Mass Effect 3 was the best of the lot. While I like the detail in 1, I understand why they changed it, and I do remember just having millions of upgrades in my inventory I just never used. 2 felt too simplified from that regard, and 3 brought back a little of the detail without being alienating for those that didn't want to deal with inventory issues.

I guess that's true. I'm still missing that stuff, but if I really had to choose, I'd pick ME3 over ME1.

It sounds as if they're planning something similar ("the middle ground") for DA3 - one can hope.

I still find it odd that there were complaints that Shepard died (and I don't like that apparently the updated ending does allow for him to survive). The 3rd game had sacrifice as a major theme. Clearly Shepard had to die (personally I thought all the main characters should have died). It was just the way it happened was a bit lame, and the difference between the endings was... meh. Aside from that I think my main gripes were the random Star Child, which had not been hinted at anywhere in the series until that point, and the line about "Synthetics and organics cannot live by side," which didn't fit how the story had progressed in my play through. I had made peace between the geth and the quarians. I as a player had utterly disproved that, and then the game turns around and tells me that doesn't matter, or even that the themes of the game don't matter that much, as it didn't make much sense in the context of the story as written at that point either (which seemed to heavily deal with trying to achieve understanding between races of vastly different types).

I didn't mind sacrifice, death & changes that would be vastly difficult to overcome afterwards (I would not have been happy with a "happy ever after" ending either. I don't mind the idea that the relay network was destroyed), but the ending felt arbitrary and rushed. This was particularly in the case of an otherwise fantastic game.

Oh, and just to clarify, I did get the green ending, so this is with the best possible ending included.

The possibility to survive was actually already in the original game - I know because I got that one due to a high EMS. As I said, I played a lot of multiplayer, and I was a completionist in the trilogy.

For my headcanon, I ignored that "breather" scene, however, because I totally feel the same as you. To me, it just felt "right" to have Shepard go out with a boom, rather than fading into civilian retirement. And I deliberately chose Destroy, as in my mind, this is what my Shep set out to do: put an end to the Reaper threat once and for all. The alternatives were too risky, the prize too important. And so I had her draw that gun and pull the plug - explosions filling the screen, interrupted only by brief flashbacks of her companions and lover as she made the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of an entire galaxy. Epic drama.

Ironically, I didn't really like the "Extended Cut" because it messed with some of the details I came up with on my own after the original ending, but I suppose I can just stick to my headcanon under the premise that this is my Shep's story, so I get to decide.

That said ... I have watched the new/remade Control ending, and ... whoah, goosebumps. Still not my preferred ending, but it was awesome in its own right.

The "Star Child" thing, though, tends to get blown out of proportions too. It's a controlling entity that simply chose to appear in a form familiar to Shep. If it had not been a kid but some sort of giant brain or whatever, nobody would have said a thing - but it appears that a lot of gamers were incapable of accepting stuff like Shep suffering from PTSD and having nightmares, as if such things are "too human" for their vision of a hero...

Also, I loved how the Extended Cut implemented a new choice for the dialogue with the Catalyst, because so many people in the forums campaigned to have an option to say no. So BioWare implemented it. And then people raged about the (quite predictable!) consequences. Well trolled, BW.

The only thing I didn't like about the ending was the Synthetics vs Organics line, where I agree with you. Now, I would point out that Shep making peace between Geth and Quarians doesn't really mean anything in the long term, for who knows how long this peace would last, or what happens when the next species of sentient AI is created.

But if I were a BioWare writer, I would have focused simply on progress alone. The more advanced a species gets, the more dangerous and destructive it becomes, up to a point where they would devastate the galaxy in a way that would make it inhospitable to anyone else. Case in point: entire asteroids being flung across space as giant spatial artillery during the Krogan Rebellion, turning lush worlds into barren hellholes.

Under this doctrine, I would have built up the Reapers as a sort of ancient interstellar "gardener" who goes to cut the trees and mow the grass so that younger flowers don't die from lack of sun exposure or depleted soil, so to say. Let the various species live and thrive for a couple thousand years, then kill everything to ensure that someone else can take their place and life continues in an endless cycle of evolution - reset - evolution - reset ... with the reset button being placed closely before a big switch that reads "galactic devastation or ascension".

But ... bottom line, was Mass Effect 3, then, under the points you mentioned in your previous post, such a bad game that you wouldn't trust BioWare with a 40k RPG? And is there, in your opinion, really really someone else who would be better suited?

What I'm getting from all of this is that off topic discussions are okay as long you're not challenging anybody's privilege or making them uncomfortable about things they say.

For me, personally, it depends how a thread has developed (amount of pages and/or activity), and if there is actually anything left to say on the original topic. As soon as the discussion seems to have died down ... fire away.

Making someone feel uncomfortable always has a much higher chance of drawing attacks, of course, at the very least from the person that has been made feel uncomfortable. That does not necessarily make the respective post any more or less true or important than any other OOC stuff.

I don't remember the details but I think a lot of fans didn't understand what GW did there. GW did try to quantify (or counter-balance) the difference between Unbound and Battle-Forged. This isn't a simply "Oh, you can play without FOC too." It's a "If you want to pit FOC against free-form, here's how to balance it." Now whether the result is balanced , I can't tell.

If it was, it'd be an amazing piece of modeling because I'd imagine such to be very hard to balance across all possible combinations.

That's true. I'm not really expecting balance, but I am under the impression that the default end result of this is not mixed games between Unbound vs Battleforged lists, but rather just a higher number of Unbound vs Unbound compared to before.

There seems to be a sort of development in the player base where tournaments and clubs are simply banning Unbound and keep playing Battleforged, whereas friends will simply go wild with Unbound. At least that's what I've heard from others.

How are y'all approaching this? I admit, Unbound does present me with some interesting ideas ... if I find someone to play me.

How are y'all approaching this? I admit, Unbound does present me with some interesting ideas ... if I find someone to play me.

Vassal or some other internet-based form of play? Personally, I'd Sternguard even more than before. For obvious reasons.

Alex

Very good response, Lynata. Although i am one of those that was disappointed/angry at not getting a DA:O-like epilogue about my companions. Shepard dying is something i do not complain about as long as i see his comrades and the others to 'pick up the torch'. The extended end with some pics depicting what happened to several races helped.

As for 7th edition:

I am somewhat weary that 40k is getting more and more like WH:Fantasy, with a Psi-phase like a Magic Phase, reactions to attacks ...

How soon are we back to formations and save-throw modifiers?

I was going to post some more discussion on 7th Ed and the new fluff, but having just waded through two pages of CPS's crusade attacking anyone and everyone all because someone used the word "fangirl" and ignored repeated attempts to disengage from the argument, I quite frankly cannot be bothered with this thread anymore.

Since you feel like dragging up that unproductive debate again after we had already left it behind...

Just because you disagree with him does not mean his point holds no merit, or that "anyone and everyone" felt attacked by his posts. Indeed, careful reading may have yielded that several posters actually "liked" them, which might constitute support.

Now can we move on?

Yeah, let's just have some 7th edition talk, shall we?

Like Demonology! I mean, just, Demonology... Gate of Infinity and Vortex of Doom are now Demonology/Sanctic powers and not Telekinesis. I wonder if FFG will revise this by introducing Sanctic or leave it as it is. And I don't even start with the Malefic powers. If FFG released a DH 2.0 update to include Demonology, I would be the happiest person in the world.

I want Top KEK moments like summoning a bunch of Nurgle daemons to kill a Nurgle champion .

I hadn't have a chance to read 7E myself yet, but I just heard that the number of Deny the Witch rolls you are allowed to make now depends on how many psykers you bring with your army...

I'm sure all Black Templars and Sisters of Battle players will be absolutely thrilled to hear that.

I want Top KEK moments like summoning a bunch of Nurgle daemons to kill a Nurgle champion .

They just wanted to cuddle!

I hadn't have a chance to read 7E myself yet, but I just heard that the number of Deny the Witch rolls you are allowed to make now depends on how many psykers you bring with your army...

I'm sure all Black Templars and Sisters of Battle players will be absolutely thrilled to hear that.