HotChops

It could be this: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/04/13/exclusive-bioware-s-doctors-talk-mass-effect-3.aspx but it's not on their ME3 hub page. It's a pretty lame interview. Nothing all that insightful, revealing or truthful.

I know, I've been refreshing all day. It's probably nothing too big. Just more teasing for their next issue.

I'm hardly bothered. Most of these "exclusive" missions and weapons and whatnot are pretty superficial these days. For example, I never got anything special when I bought Red Dead Redemption, but it hasn't kept me from loving the game. On the flipside though, I'm still a tiny bit bummed that the Xbox version of Batman didn't get the playable Joker challenge stages. Since that became one of my favorite games, it became a sorely missed feature.

I never implied that anymore was being done besides the preliminary production work, but as far as I'm concerned, that's the first step in "making a movie." I simply use that fan wiki as a helpful source guide. The news of a Mass Effect film was aggregated across every major gaming blog and news site when it was announced. The Mass Effect franchise is continuing to grow and be commercially successful. There's no particular reason beyond the usual skepticism about game-to-movie adaptations to lead us to conclude that the film won't be made. And let's try not to compare it to Halo, because then you'll force me to say very negative things about Halo. And my mommy taught me that if you can't say something nice about Halo, then don't say anything at all .... especially when there are so many diehard Halo nuts in the world.

I'm surprised you missed that announcement. It was made official in May of 2010.

I don't know how people ever manage to assemble for videos like that. I've never found any friends in my life that would be willing to look so stupid and silly -- even off camera. I can't even get my friends to play motion-controlled games.

Official Trailer #3 is up. I'd say that about does it. I'm sold.

are you referring to the anime or the Game Informer cover that -- like Mass Effect 2's box art -- depicts an angry, gun-wielding Shepard with a war-torn background? You guys understand that the live action film is still being made, right? ... Or at least I thought it was.

I'm always glad to get more Mass Effect. They really are starting to branch Mass Effect out. I hope all these different tie-ins don't dilute the quality of the franchise. Do we have any anime experts who can tell us what to expect from that production company?

I am very interested in participating, even if our first efforts are a mess. I listen to gaming podcasts every day, and I've also been told on a number of occasions that I'm eloquent and possess a "radio voice." out of curiosity, what gaming podcasts do any of you listen to? I listen to Bitmob's Mobcast, the Game Informer Show, Orange Lounge Radio, and back when it was still around, Kotaku's Talk Radio. I listened to IGN and Screw Attack about two years ago and thought they were both terrible. I probably owe it to them to try them out again and see if they've improved.

Brace yourselves, I'm back. I thought about it for a few hours before going to bed last night, and I thought about it for a couple more hours this morning. I'm not yet convinced that Cerberus is a full-fledged terrorist group, or space Nazis. To Cyber Rat and Badmin, last time I checked, your assertion was that Cerberus was a terrorist group. That is not what Agamemnon is saying. Agamemnon is saying that they're space Nazis. And all of us agree that Cerberus are bad guys. Ironically enough, I'm more inclined to believe that Cerberus is a terrorist group than a group of human supremacists (ie, "space Nazis"... btw, a game where you fight actual space Nazis would be pretty cool.) With respect to the question of whether or not Cerberus are terrorists, I think it's mostly a matter of semantics. The question of whether or not they're Nazis means asking if the members of Cerberus are simply interested in maintaining human strength and independence, or if they're interested in subjugating and/or wiping out the other species of the galaxy. Are they the same thing? Does one lead to the other? When we compare them to the Nazis, are we comparing them to the Nazi party during its early years, or the years following their invasion of Europe? I'm not disregarding anyone's opinion here. I'm just reminding you guys that I'm not completely convinced one way or the other yet. Obviously, Agememnon put a decent amount of work into his examples, but to be certain I have to go back to the primary sources and re-evaluate each instance on a case-by-case, word-by-word example. (Obviously, I have no life ) Because -- just for example -- I think you have truly racist attitudes by some people who aren't even within Cerberus. For example Ashley Williams. I was replaying the early part of ME1 last night, and when you talk to her on the Citadel, she says: "I can't tell the aliens from the animals." And she works for the Alliance. Contrast that with Jacob, who never says anything like that. Arguably, this may be a matter of individuals. Miranda is obviously a much more sinister character than Jacob, but both are high-ranking Cerberus officers. Likewise, some characters change. Navigator Presley made some pretty xenophobic remarks in the first game, but when you recover his personal log in the Normandy wreckage, we see that he comes to regret his views. So please don't take this as me ignoring or just crapping on your opinions, because it's just the opposite. I'm saying that you guys have given me a lot to think about while I replay and re-read this stuff.

okay...um, not to come off as argumentative, but I don't think that's true either. Cerberus occasionally works with aliens. The Nazis never and would never share resources with non-Aryan races. I still believe Nazi Germany would have turned on the Japanese as soon as the Allies were defeated. Likewise, Nazi Germany was an aggressive military force that attacked everyone around them. Cerberus's stance is simply that human safety and stature should not be a secondary priority to appeasing other species. Granted, the desire for security easily transitions into a first-blood attack policy. Likewise, a species-partisan stance easily turns into a species superiority stance, which easily leads to genocide. Also like (and unlike) the Nazis, Cerberus conducts sick experiments on people. However, like the terrorist label, I don't think it's fair to call them space Nazis. Heck, the Nazis were wholly devoted to Hitler. Disagreeing with Hitler was typically a death sentence. Jacob openly defies and disagrees with the Illusive Man and he doesn't even lose his job. Look, I don't disagree that Cerberus is a bad group with an immoral leader. I just feel obligated to jump in when people throw around labels like "terrorist" and "Nazi" because in some cases, it minimizes how bad real terrorists and Nazis are. I totally concede that Cerberus pushes itself awfully close to those groups. If I were living in the ME world, I sure as hell wouldn't support them. I don't even hook up with Ashley because I think she's bigoted. Let's take a look at Cerberus's activities. In ME1: They set Thresher Maws loose on civilians and soldiers just to see what the reaction would be. They use the Geth spikes on civilians just to see what the reaction would be. They set Rachni loose on civilians just to see what the reaction would be. They try to use a Thorian on a civilian population just to see what the reaction would be. They kill an Alliance admiral when he gets too close to exposing their operation. In ME2: They strap an idiot-savant into a nightmare-fuel torture chair just to see what his reaction would be. They kidnap children and perform psychoanalytical and torture experiments just to see what biotic children would do. They purposely let slip where Commander Shepard is supposed to be going just to see what the Collector response would be (in the process getting half [if not all] of Horizon's colonials abducted). From the Shadow Broker's dossier: They infiltrate news media organizations (10 to 1 says Khalisah al-Jilani is a Cerberus operative). They kill off the Salarian corner market on narcotics trade on Trident just so they could take over their business. They capture Asaris to test their biotic powers. They kill the Pope to replace him with one that is more militaristic and centered toward humanity. They assassinate an Alliance politician just to forward another one in their pocket. They assassinate some more Alliance politicians just to forward their gains to ensure new laws are passed to allow them to create new shell corporations. They "neuter" a Matriarch's biotic powers because she was a political opponent. So really, we can stop pretending that they're baby Jesus or something. They literally are the new space Nazi party in Mass Effect. Everything they do--whether it is murder, extort, torture, harass, blackmail, or embezzle--is done for the sole purpose of "ensuring humanity stays on top." How no one sees the "master race" tones on this one I've no clue. It sort of reminds me of the people who defend Loghain from Dragon Age. Both are complete monsters. Give me a break. I repeatedly condemned their actions as illegal and immoral. I never "pretended they were baby jesus." Nonetheless, nice post. :bravo: I'm replaying those parts of ME and re-reading Ascension right now. I'd like to believe that if Cerberus was that bad, I would have felt the same way. So either I missed a few things, or we have different interpretations of their actions.

okay...um, not to come off as argumentative, but I don't think that's true either. Cerberus occasionally works with aliens. The Nazis never and would never share resources with non-Aryan races. I still believe Nazi Germany would have turned on the Japanese as soon as the Allies were defeated. Likewise, Nazi Germany was an aggressive military force that attacked everyone around them. Cerberus's stance is simply that human safety and stature should not be a secondary priority to appeasing other species. Granted, the desire for security easily transitions into a first-blood attack policy. Likewise, a species-partisan stance easily turns into a species superiority stance, which easily leads to genocide. Also like (and unlike) the Nazis, Cerberus conducts sick experiments on people. However, like the terrorist label, I don't think it's fair to call them space Nazis. Heck, the Nazis were wholly devoted to Hitler. Disagreeing with Hitler was typically a death sentence. Jacob openly defies and disagrees with the Illusive Man and he doesn't even lose his job. Look, I don't disagree that Cerberus is a bad group with an immoral leader. I just feel obligated to jump in when people throw around labels like "terrorist" and "Nazi" because in some cases, it minimizes how bad real terrorists and Nazis are. I totally concede that Cerberus pushes itself awfully close to those groups. If I were living in the ME world, I sure as hell wouldn't support them. I don't even hook up with Ashley because I think she's bigoted.

Your quote: Your initial post makes it sound like terrorist organizations are some G.I. Joe villains. Cerberus uses radical and terrorist means to achieve whatever goal they have set. Whether the goal is one that would benefit humanity or not is irrelevant. A human organization trying to advance human goals at other races' expense is not unlike a country-specific organization trying to advance their country's goals at the expense of the rest of the planet. And in both cases, you'll have humans and countrymen disagreeing with the organization that fights "for their benefit". Note that one of those quotes is my opinion, the other is the opinion of two professors. Cerberus's actions do not meet either definition. You also seem to misunderstand me. You think that I'm justifying Cerberus's actions or labeling them based solely on their motivations. Again, let's examine known Cerberus actions: All of these examples are criminal actions that involve civilians, but the acts themselves and their aims do not meet any academic criteria for terrorism. If Cerberus were terrorists in the more narrow definition of the term, they would attack alien civilians in order to scare their population and/or motivate their policies. To my knowledge, they've never done that. Likewise, they might stage an attack on humanity and pin the blame on an alien species in order to motivate public policy towards a hawkish stance. They don't do that either. Take Commander Shepard's actions at the end of Arrival: In summary, Cerberus may use civilians as a means to an end, they may conduct violent, criminal actions to meet their objectives, but because they do not aim to scare or intimidate the populace, wield violence purely for political aim, or go out of their way to get the public's attention, they do not fit the definition of terrorists. It's more accurate to simply call them extremists and criminals.

Your opinion is wrong. Well, since you have yet to offer any contradicting definition, let's try to be a bit more objective and academic about it. According to Joshua Goldstein and Jon Pevehouse (2009), "terrorism refers to political violence that targets civilians deliberately and indiscriminately. Beyond this basic definition other criteria can be applied... Generally, the purpose of terrorism is to demoralize a civilian population in order to use its discontent as leverage on national governments or other parties to a conflict." Furthermore: - "traditionally, the primary effect of terrorism is psychological" - "is usually the calculated use of violence as leverage" - "related to this is the aim of creating drama in order to gain media attention for a cause" So, terrorism is a subjectively defined term. The truth is that terrorism is ultimately a one or more acts of criminality, and the application of the term terrorism is directed towards the means and the motivation. Thus, we can only examine Cerberus's actions and how they apply to the above criteria. From what I've seen, Cerberus's actions are not terrorism. They are undoubtedly illegal and unethical. Many times the motivations of their actions are political, but they still avoid meeting enough criteria to be labeled terrorists.

The events of Mass Effect: Ascension? But that's not terrorism in the traditional sense. Today, many governments like to label any criminal activity as terrorism, but it's arguably not so. In my opinion, terrorism is the act of committing violent crime (usually against civilians) for the purpose of inciting fear and terror within a population. In ME Ascension, Cerberus commits sabotage, kidnapping, assassination and blackmail, but not for the purpose of terrorizing people into action. They do it in part to shape humanity's political policies, but primarily to advance humanity's capabilities. To be specific: At times it can be a pretty fine line, but I don't think it's accurate to call Cerberus a terrorist organization.

I called them a terrorist organization without really thinking about it because that's how they're described in the games and books. However, putting aside your dislike for the label generally, I would agree that it doesn't really apply to Cerberus; I can't think of anything they've done that really seems like terrorist activity. I'm not sure what the most appropriate term for Cerberus is either, but we do know that members of Cerberus have been involved in: -kidnapping -assassination -election rigging -media manipulation -illegal experimentation -torture -blackmail Ultimately, they seem to simply be a shadow political group that will do anything to meet accomplish their goals. In that respect, they don't seem too different from a lot of political groups.

It's my experience that Morgan Spurlock's films go beyond face value. For example, "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden" was less about Osama Bin Laden and more an examination of American foreign policy and the question of whether or not the ends justify the means in the war on terrorism. Likewise, I'm sure that his latest film is about more than simply advertising.

I think that it's part of the moral ambiguity that Bioware wanted to inject into the franchise, much like 2004's Battlestar Galactica. The idea is that we're facing galaxy-wide extinction and you have to ask yourself what you'd be willing to sacrifice to prevent that. Indeed, the actions of Cerberus have proven to be immoral, but what if Illusive Man was truly convinced that those actions were necessary to prevent massive extinction? What if he was also convinced that the Alliance and Citadel Council were not going to take the necessary action? Bioware is running with this trope with EVERY SINGLE GAME however, and it's starting to get old. Mass Effect 2 had you playing Dr. Phil for 75% of the game just because "the best of the best" were all mentally screwed up. What exactly was wrong with keeping with the Alliance being the saviors of the galaxy and then building off of that instead? Nothing. If someone told me that I'd be working for Cerberus as part of the main plot in Mass Effect 2 after I had beaten Mass Effect 1, I'd punch them in the neck for lying. This hardly coincides with what they usually say. Male default Shepard is on all advertising and they specifically say your Shepard dying in ME2 is not canon. So yes, there certainly is a canon play-through. "canon" is the wrong word to use. Yes, they do have a default Shepard for the sake of advertising and functionality in the absence of a previous save file, but it's not canonical.

You probably don't know about scalable maps in bf2. The maps themselves are pretty big, but the actual size of a battle zone depends on number of players. I think it will be the same in bf3. Take a look at this picture. I did not know about that. I'm a BF veteran, but I never played BF2.

-Do they plan on making significant improvements to their maintenance of the current Battlefield game once it's out? I feel like DICE has done a piss-poor job of fixing bugs and glitches for Bad Company 2. -Do they have a cohesive plan for dealing with the console versions of BF3? So far, all I've heard is that they intend to have fewer players in larger maps. I don't see how that's a good decision.