HotChops

And that's okay. You're free to have that preference. My best friend is the same way. He just loves to challenge the "rules" of games -- jumping for minutes on-end until he surmounts a cliff, melee-ing a vehicle in Halo until he pushes it over a barricade, etc. I enjoy it sometimes too. I used the physics to pull all kinds of tricks in the Oblivion realms such as creating a shortcut by jumping over lava, or dropping from the top of a tower and surviving because I managed to "slide" in certain areas. I feel like a PR guy for Game Informer, but I'm pretty sure all of my info on Skyrim has come from there. There's the main feature on the game, a few videos, and the GI podcast with Todd Howard. All can be found here.

Well this is what I was planning on doing, but when you can't climb onto a rock and slaughter the witless AI from out of reach where's the fun? Has there been any news whether spears are back in? The question of spears was addressed a couple months ago in a Game Informer podcast. Todd Howard said that at that time, there were no spears. He tried to make it sound open-ended, but it sounded pretty clear to me that there won't be any spears. At the time, I thought it was an interesting idea. I didn't know that Morrowind had spears. In regards to the archery-from-atop-a-boulder thing, we don't know that you can't do that. What Howard has said is that they want the gameplay to feel more realistic and to cut down on cheap moves -- he didn't say anything about removing all cheap moves (btw, sorry to call them cheap, I'm not trying to hate). In my opinion, what I took away from Howard's comments is that they want Skyrim to be less video gamey and more realistic. If a big ass troll were bearing down on an archer, I think it's realistic to say he'd try to secure the high ground. But there are still changes that I'd welcome to the gameplay. For example, I didn't like how when you inevitably leveled up your acrobatics skills that you basically could moon-jump all over the place. I also hated how most sword battles devolved into super-fast move in, slash, move back patterns.

You're gonna be moving a lot more in ME3, from the sounds of it. Bioware is apparently reworking enemy AI so that they coordinate attacks and actively flank, instead of just hiding behind stuff and popping up to shoot at you. That's the weird thing. The enemies in ME2 don't just hide behind cover and pop out. They flank you all the time. Hell, they flank you so often that off the top of my head I can think of three or four notorious locations in the game where I'm extra cautious about it. Maybe Bioware means that they want the flanking to be less scripted or predictable. Maybe they just want the enemies to be more aggressive in general so that the player can put the new melee moves to use. To be honest, I thought the enemy AI was perfect in ME2. One enemy would lay down fire while another would move forward. The tough or fast enemies such as Krogan and dog mechs would rush you -- sometimes with a flame thrower enemy alongside them. Nine out of ten times when I died it was because an enemy successfully flanked and/or rushed me.

I totally agree that's how ME2's combat works, but I'm don't think it requires less thought than ME1. In fact, I feel it's the opposite. For example, in Mass Effect 2 you have to constantly re-evaluate the situation as enemies try to flank or rush you. You have to carefully choose the right power and weapon for the enemy. On the other hand, I was playing ME1 last night and at one point was ambushed by an Asari/geth combo on Noveria. All I did was point at the asari in the middle, used my powered-up throw ability and the fight was instantly over. All the enemies were thrown across the room -- regardless of their full shields or biotic abilities. Granted, it was fun to watch, but it required no strategy or tactics on my part. I wish that I had played ME with different classes more recently, but I haven't played it with an assault or tech class in years. Perhaps it's because I'm playing the 360 version, but the combat (as always) is kind of a mess in ME1. Most of the battles are over in just a couple of seconds, the framerate is so bad I can barely keep track of things, and I don't have to carefully choose whether to use Overload, throw or whatever -- As long as they're all powered up, they all seem to be (almost) equally effective. And like I said before, I don't disagree with your description of ME2's combat, I just don't have any problem with it. Are you saying that you actually like ME1's combat better than ME2? Or perhaps I'm confusing the issue of combat with the class system.

I'm doing another replay of ME1 right now. I hate to say it, but I once I unlocked the shotgun for new game+, I just used that in conjunction with the biotic classes every time because it's the only thing that works for me. The framerate chops up too much to use the assault class well, so I just use throw, lift and shotgun. can you expand on that, because I don't see it. I thought ME2's classes were far more varied. Granted, the entire game has a stronger focus on fire fights.

Sounds like they nailed the vampire experience to me. I think that most of this debate is kind of stupid. Like the Mass Effect thread, so much of this is based on speculation or semantics. God forbid you guys wait until you've actually played the completed game before you tear it a new asshole. It's almost funny. When I first came to this forum, I was excited by how many Mass Effect and Elder Scrolls fans there were. But when I read most of the posts about those games, they're (imo) hypercritical. I never thought Oblivion or Mass Effect 2 were perfect games, but for the most part I loved them. When it comes to their sequels, I try not to be too harsh on the developers because I at least understand the monumental undertaking it is to make one of those titles. It's not the work of one artist, but a major project consisting of many different viewpoints and approaches. The gameplay is constantly being pulled in different directions because developers have to appease the hardcore, but also welcome new players. Obviously, not everyone is going to be 100% happy. Maybe I'm just a little bit of a fanboy, but I already know that ME3 and Skyrim will be my favorite games of the year, and quite possibly my favorite titles this generation.

Whatever character you choose -- whatever race or class -- will be the dragon born.

From what I've read of the original GI feature on Skyrim, the days of circle strafing and standing on rocks are over. Todd Howard said there will be fewer "cheap tricks." They did things like reduce the speed of back stepping so that you can't just run backward anymore. I agree that a Khajiit should naturally have more agility than an Orc, so I'm interested in seeing how this all plays out.

GI video on the sound of the game: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2011/04/18/the-sound-design-of-mass-effect-3.aspx

I was familiar with most of that, but this: sounds really cool.

I take it you enjoyed Snake Eater? Sounds like he wants a Trauma Centre mini-game in his BF3. While it might be "cool" to patch up your team mates once or twice, they're going to be constantly shot at, which means you'll spend more time dragging and patching up than you would actually playing the game proper. Either that or you would only do the Trauma Centre stuff at scripted points which would make the game feel "staged" and "linear" and all that jazz. You assume I'm referring to a game that at its core is just like CoD. The game I'm envisioning wouldn't have the player constantly healing squadmates because there wouldn't be nearly as many enemies, and squadmates would be far more intelligent. In other words, they wouldn't be wounded that often. Likewise, my ideal FPS war game wouldn't focus solely on shooting with a "Trauma Center minigame." It would evenly break apart the entire game into a far more realistic and diverse soldier experience. But that's an entirely separate subject, I'd like to get back to BF3. I don't think BF3 should have a CoD-style single player because what it really needs to do is serve as a tutorial for the multiplayer. BF has done this in various ways in the past. When I first played Bad Company 2, I had no problems acclimating to its play style because I'm a BF veteran. However, I was repeatedly surprised how often my noob friends joined my matches and were totally clueless. One of them bought the game and didn't even know that their were vehicles in the game. And that's the problem. Like BF3, BC2's advertising was aimed at the Modern Warfare 2 crowd, and that's what many of those consumers expected. I expect a similar problem with BF3. EA/DICE are going to snag a number of CoD players with the single player, but they'll be helpless when they try the multiplayer (but who cares? They already bought the game.) What EA/DICE fail to realize is that it's not CoD's single player that makes the game sell like hotcakes. CoD enjoys massive presale figures because it's a destination multiplayer game. It's a game that entire groups of friends decide to collectively purchase and play. DICE has already messed that up imo by creating a vastly-better PC version of BF3. Half of my friends who played BC2 with me are already planning on getting the PC version now instead of the 360 version. Our group just got split in two. That dramatically decreases my interest in the game. I'll still purchase/play BF3, and I only care about the absence of online friends so much because I played BF for years by myself and I'm used to it. But I think that if the same thing that's fractured my group of friends affects others consumers, then DICE has already shot itself in the foot. Will the game sell well? Of course. But if they're going after CoD's sales numbers, then they can't make errors like that.

new screenshots available. A couple good ones of the different races. Look at this Khajiit! The rest are so far on GI's site.

No, I hated Snake Eater.

That's another thing I've mentioned in my notes. Cerberus is not Terra Firma. (and yes, I know about Cerberus' influence of Terra Firma.) I'll get to all that in time. I'm assembling something quite comprehensive on the matter.

I don't understand the Ash hate to be honest. The usual argument I hear is, "lol racist" but I imagine that comes from people who don't read the back story to Mass Effect (you know, that one bit where turians show up and start blowing up human ships without so much as a chance to surrender?). That or they are people who specifically believe in Kumbaya Theory (and she doesn't subscribe to that). [/facepalm] You're killing me, you know that? In my opinion, Ashley's views are pretty much the same as Cerberus'. I'd rather not go into that again yet, as I'm still compiling my essay on Cerberus. Back to Ashley though, I disliked her for a number of reasons, including that she's occasionally rude as hell. Personally, I remember when I started playing Mass Effect that I loved the feeling of being in a much larger, more progressive universe. I'm all, "Oh wow, humanity is finally united. The big religions have all been humbled before tangible evidence that contradicts their ideas. There's so much room to learn and grow...." And then I meet Ashley, and she acts like all the "For God and Country" types that I run into at local Texas bars. btw, got my scanner working: way hotter than Miranda imo.

The truth is that BF's multiplayer will (as usual) be a completely different beast from Call of Duty... But EA wants to go after the CoD franchise while it's underbelly is exposed. So they're copying CoD's scripted single player experience. I personally don't give much of a shit. Scripted or open-ended, what I'm looking for in a war game will likely never exist. For example, you'll note that in that demo when the NPC is shot by the sniper, the player drags him to safety and then -- nothing -- it cuts ahead. If they really wanted to create an original experience, they would allow the player to apply tourniquets, check for vital signs, and inject morphine. How amazing would it be to play a game in which you actually try to save your squadmates when they're hit, or you help escort wounded civilians to aid stations? But no. According to video games, the only thing the world's most professional soldiers do is kick down doors and shoot at people. Those are the kinds of innovations I want to see in war games. Ironically enough, the only thing Homefront was good for is that it dared to drag civilians into the conflict -- albeit from a terribly jingoistic, pro-American perspective. That's the state of the gaming industry though. I for one am completely sick of getting on turrets and mowing down nameless, faceless enemies, but those kinds of games sell the most. Thus, they'll continue to be made. And even when you have a game that actually breaks from that mold, say like Battlefield or Mass Effect, then it it's only a matter of time before they abandon what made those games unique and they start copying CoD.

so, I've had time to read the article more closely, and there's more info. Be warned though, this info is more moderately spoilerish -- it refers to possible locations and plot details: Going back to this new guy for a second...

I just finished reading the Game Informer feature on Mass Effect 3. A lot of it was posted earlier by Pirandello, but I'll confirm, reiterate and expand on things: Mild Spoilers Anyway, I'm sure most of this will be on GI's website in the near future.

12 mins of BF3 gameplay: http://www.gameinformer.com/games/battlefield_3/b/xbox360/archive/2011/04/16/full-12-minute-fault-line-series-in-one-video.aspx gah! I'm busy writing my impressions of their ME3 story and this too? overload edit: bah, it's just all the previous demo segments sewn together. Nothing new.

video about making Legion's voice. http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/04/15/mass-effect-creating-the-voice-of-legion.aspx GI's coverage of ME3 seems more like short features on ME2, but what the hell, I'll take it.

GameInformer: asking those questions that everyone already knows the answer to. Nice how 'The Doctors' completely skirt the topic though. It makes me wish more developers were like Ken Levine. His answers would have been completely different.