HotChops

I consider it pessimistic because it would be totally lame and cliche. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that exactly what they did in Halo's story. I am optimistically hoping Bioware avoids such lameness.

Because you're a bit of a pessimist?

Mass Effect 3 "coming to a spectacular conclusion...we're building the biggest and best moments in this series. I think the fans are going to just love it." - Casey Hudson http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/04/28/casey-hudson-interview-mass-effect-3.aspx Best interview yet (not that the others were that great imo). Some interesting viewpoints. For example, Hudson explains that one of the reasons characters like Liara were kept unplayable in ME2 is because they wanted them to be alive for ME3.

yet again, Stephen Totilo does a fantastic job. He covered L.A. Noire's showing at the Tribeca Film Festival and asks both Rockstar/Team Bondi, as well as readers, a few very deep questions. http://ca.kotaku.com/5796352/it-was-a-foggy-night-and-i-was-trying-to-get-to-the-bottom-of-la-noire Personally, I don't need guns and car chases to have fun in a game. I've done all that many times before. What's fun for me is seeing a recreation of 1947 LA. What's fun for me is vicariously experiencing the life of a classic detective.

That's not such a stupid question. Mass Effect 1 avoided loadscreens as much as possible, especially within the Normandy or on planets. A lot of people (myself included) didn't like the addition of loadscreens in ME2. Though personally I'm not opposed to the idea so much as the execution. I found the loadscreens in ME2 to be very jarring. That's why I didn't necessarily say it was a dumb question, it's just a frustrating one -- especially for Bioware. They have to make the game load somehow. Either you use conspicuous "airlock"-like hallways, or long elevators, or a semi-dynamic load screen (ala ME2.) But people need to understand that games like Fallout and Mass Effect need to load somehow at some point. and damnit, my comment isn't showing up on GI's site. I don't know if it's because I'm a new user or if the site is just slow, or it needs mod approval, but my goddamn comment better show up soon. I asked good questions that are easily answerable. Not questions like, "Who built the Reapers?" Yeah. "Hey Casey, can you just spoil the whole goddamn game for us right now please?" again, *sigh*

I'm reading the submitted comments/questions for GI's Mass Effect podcast. Seriously -- not to be mean -- but 75% of these people are fucking idiots. - "Will there be a Rachni companion?" Of course not. Rachni, Elcor, Hanar, ect can't be companions because they don't conform to a human skeletal structure. - "Will there be a Mass Effect 4" For fuck's sake. We've known for years that ME was a planned trilogy. - "Will there still be load screens?" *sigh* Ugh. I'm simply not in the mood for this shit today. By the way, interview with Casey Hudson: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/04/26/casey-hudson-interview-how-mass-effect-began.aspx and tomorrow they'll have a Q&A with them on their podcast using submitted questions. Hopefully they'll pick one of mine and not one of the retarded ones.

I don't care very much about hardware anymore. I'll admit that I get excited for new graphics and controls, but what I'm really eager (if not desperate) to see is the evolution of games as a properly matured medium for .... well, EVERYTHING. More than once I've heard people say, "If I want a really good story, I'll read a book." I've never viewed interactive entertainment in such a narrow way. I've always believed that "video games" as a medium are the pinnacle of entertainment and art. They have the ability to deliver the depth of literature, the visual grandeur of cinema, the audio accompaniment of music and sound, the emotion and beauty of art, and most importantly, the ability to interact with these elements all at once. So when I want a great story, I don't think I should have to read a book. If I want to see a beautiful sculpture, I shouldn't be limited to a museum. If I want to learn valuable information, I shouldn't be forced to use a textbook. I truly believe that anything books, movies, music or art can traditionally do, "games" can do just as well if not better. Unfortunately, stigma, commercialization and lack of imagination has stifled the potential of what interactive entertainment can be. Interactive entertainment is just too young at this point. When you really look at history, traditional media are no different from games. Like video games, literature, music, art and film all once had their share of entry barriers and limited expectations of what they could be. For example, reading/writing was originally used almost exclusively for recording history and religion. The ability to use it was limited to the intellectual elite. Art was once severely limited to venerating leaders and recording major historical events. Today, we use those mediums for whatever the imagination desires. Why should interactive media be any different? Why can't a child learn history or algebra through an interactive format? Why can't a person experience a touching romance through a game? The only real obstacle to this evolution is the dependence on technology. Traditional media requires far less to exist. But assuming technology continues to evolve and be readily available, who is to say that our great grandchildren might not experience the vast majority of entertainment and art through an interactive format?

well, maybe not. In real life, sometimes the detective can't solve a case and it's left unsolved. The catch is that you're supposed to be promoted and move up the ranks. I don't think that would happen if you couldn't solve anything.

To be honest, not many people really know. It's relatively open-world, but I think much less so than GTA/RDR. For example, we know that there are landmarks that you can "collect" by visiting, and you can receive calls from dispatch about the occasional crime in progress, but I think most of the game will be spent focusing on specific cases as you move up from street cop to homicide detective.

Reading comments here and on Kotaku. I can't believe how many people keep comparing it to RDR and GTA. I never expected this game to be all that similar to them.

BZZZZZT! You got Elcor and Hanar mixed. whoops. This one is embarrassed. I want an Elcor squadmate too.

Bullshit! I demand an Elcor squadmate! "This one is ready to tear the Reapers a new one." It is a little surprising and disappointing to hear that they didn't put more forethought into the design of Garrus. I wonder if his blue/black colors were chosen for him first, and then applied to C-Sec, or if it was the other way around. And I'm not sure they're committing to showing Tali's face. They just said that they were considering it. Note how they mentioned all the kinky Mass Effect fan art. Since becoming a regular on Deviantart, I've found tons of it. Careful, this is NSFW: I think chicks love Garrus as much as guys love Tali.

GI vid on character design, particularly Garrus. There's a brief glimpse of how Garrus looks in ME3. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/04/22/mass-effect-3-creating-garrus.aspx

Bioware Q&A from GI. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/04/21/mass-effect-a-q-amp-a-for-hardcore-fans.aspx Pretty good stuff, actually. They mention a few things that I'm ashamed to say I never noticed or thought about.

yeah, my Shepard doesn't ever squint. I do love that part in Samara's loyality mission though when

I think this new vid shows more gameplay than ever. http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gameplay-series-l-a-noire/713069

I played it for the first time last night. I enjoyed it. I'm not going to bother throwing in on the discussion (or bash fest) of the gameplay because I'm not exactly a connoisseur of fighting games -- I play them, and either I like them or I don't. The funny thing was that somehow I've developed a reputation among my friends as not being someone who can play fighting games. I guess they thought that b/c I never bothered to actually buy MvC3 or SFIV like they did. Anyway, I picked Sub Zero and after about ten seconds of acclimating to the revised controls, I started kicking the everloving shit out of my friend to the amusement of everyone in the room. In the end I lost, but everyone seemed to feel like I performed better. It's nice when people have low expectations of you.

You must have loved Abrams' Star Trek. I did and dont think I didn't notice the lens flare

I love lens flare. I can't get enough of it. The only problem is that sometimes the light in ME1 would shine through an object.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Here's my thoughts and predictions: - images of the new hardware will be leaked prior to e3, but... - Nintendo will have a strong e3 press conference nonetheless. However... - I will continue to be very skeptical. I stood in line in the freezing cold for my Wii and since haven't invested a dime into it or played it. I also got very hyped for Kinect and that let me down. I don't care how spectacular their claims will be, I'm not buying shit until I see how the first year pans out, and I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way. - Saying that the new system will be "more powerful than Xbox 360 or PS3" doesn't necessarily mean significantly better graphics. I think it's safe to say that the new system will utilize motion controls, and it's possible a great deal of the processing power will be devoted to it. Thus in the end, the graphics won't be that much better. - "More powerful than 360?" "touch-screen controller?" That sounds like a lot of cutting edge technology along with what has to be a high price tag. This completely defies Nintendo's usual approach of affordable hardware with less emphasis on audio/visual prowess. Nintendo is a conservative company that has rarely changed it's business strategy over the last three decades. Something simply doesn't add up, and when something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is -- especially with Nintendo. - The latest rumors point to the next Xbox and PS around 2013 or 14. Some people believe that will allow Nintendo's next console to reign for the next couple of years. Again, I remain skeptical. Nintendo simply isn't an industry leader in the eyes of most developers. Sure, the Wii is a great console to make shovelware for and earn a quick buck, but do you really think Ken Levine, Todd Howard and Casey Hudson are going to make significant plans for Nintendo's new console? And yes, Rockstar is apparently going to make something for the title. And just like with the release of the 3DS, you have all these developers who talk about how "innovative" and "exciting" Nintendo's new technology is. But do you believe all the best developers are going to switch gears to whatever Nintendo's doing? Or do you think they'll finish their next crop of current-gen titles and wait to see what the next Xbox and PS offer? - Nintendo's next system will give any true gamer (myself included) a boner. But whatever Xbox and Playstation have to show in 2014 will look and sound far better. Putting out a new console may benefit Nintendo in the short term, but it could easily bite them in the ass in 2015 when the competition is superior. Plus, by releasing first, Nintendo is showing their hand for the next gen; leaving the competition to copy and emulate whatever features they have. So yeah. I know most of that sounds pretty negative, but 25 years of gaming has made me into a prudent skeptic. The hype will be fun. A graphically-superior Zelda game would make me jizz. But I've been burned too many times to grab my wallet just yet.

Two brand new images from GI. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/04/20/exclusive55_5f00_mass55_5f00_effect55_5f00_355_5f00_screens55.aspx