James

[quote name='Desbreko' timestamp='1335555723' post='711621'] [color=#4B0082]Oh, that's right. I think I talked to her about it first, but you ended up getting it before her, or something like that. [b]Edit:[/b] Character name is Kira Namir on the Sorrow's Furnace world. I'm playing a charr thief.[/color] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I am on the Sorrow's Furnace world. Just joined in now.[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]I have to agree with the vast majority of what Alex said about Bane. Not only were his motivations questionable as a general rule, but as a character he annoyed me. I am not familiar with Bane from the comics or other mythology, so it's difficult for me to have a clear frame of reference. All I can do is judge Bane based on this film. And on that basis... meh. Bane seems to be advancing a fairly lofty political agenda - at least ostensibly - but in the end, this essentially boils down to little more than a question of doing someone else's dirty work. Maybe I am missing something, but I felt like the air was let out of Bane's proverbial tires close to the end of the film. He was already incredibly generic to begin with, but became painfully so as the movie closed. In terms of characterisation, I agree completely with Alex. Bane's visual representation was, for me, pretty generic and bland. I know that Heath Ledger set a very high bar - and that Joker is probably a fundamentally more interesting character - but Bane was so ridiculously sterile that, for me, I felt like I was continually waiting for his scenes to end. He just didn't strike me as interesting or terribly noteworthy. Also, yes, his face mask... what's up with that? The presence of the mask itself utterly killed the acting, for one thing. He essentially had no varying facial expressions, and it was virtually impossible to see that he was talking, which further limited his potential for expression. Combine that with the weirdly unsatisfying voice (which was understandable only [i]most[/i] of the time, perhaps), and I felt like we were left with a bit of a dud character. In contrast, I genuinely [i]loved[/i] Catwoman. And that, for me, was the film's biggest positive surprise. For me, Michelle Pfieffer as Catwoman is equivalent to Heath Ledger as Joker. In other words, her portrayal was so brilliant and mind-numbingly [i]crazy[/i] that I couldn't imagine the almost-too-soft Anne Hathaway doing justice to the character (and perhaps I was also a bit scarred by that terrible Catwoman spin-off from a few years ago...). In any case, both Hathaway's portrayal as well as the dialogue were pretty spot on for Catwoman I thought. Her character was nuanced and genuinely interesting, funny, sad, and with just a hint of psychopathy and nihilism to round things out. I also really liked her costume - it gave hints while being beautifully grounded in Nolan's "realistic" take. Very well done. Speaking of this, for me... Catwoman was the star of the show. Much like Joker was the star of The Dark Knight, I think Catwoman made The Dark Knight Rises worth watching. Without these key characters, I'm not sure if either film would have interested me nearly as much. In terms of plot, well... yeah. I largely agree with Alex's assessment. I did genuinely enjoy the ending (the twist was... eh, but everything after that was rounded out quite well). Some aspects of the film were a little too drawn-out, I think, particularly some fight sequences. And, as many have pointed out, there were quite a few logical inconsistencies throughout - although I don't really put much stock in this in terms of enjoyment. I mean, it's Batman. Anyway, I enjoyed The Dark Knight Rises probably as much, or more, than The Dark Knight. But for me, Bane was a let down and a wasted opportunity. That really dragged down the film overall in my view. Had either Bane been more interesting - or had we seen a fundamentally more interesting and unique character to replace him - I think the movie would have fared much better, personally.[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]I've missed the beta weekends for Guild Wars 2, but I think I will still be buying this game. I've read some of your comments about it here (as well as bits and pieces across the web), but generally I'm trying to go in with relatively little knowledge about the experience. I do have one question though - based on your experience with GW2 so far, does it feel much different than the original GW? Better/worse generally? I know those are very open questions that can't easily be answered based on a beta experience, but still, I'm curious. In some of the videos I've seen, it doesn't look terribly different than its predecessor. And yet at other times it seems to sport features that are quite dramatically different.[/font]

[quote name='chibi-master' timestamp='1340244584' post='712060'] Dentist's chair. *shiver* My main concern is that I know very well that I would be one of those people that spews words when loopy. I really don't want to end up saying or doing something I shouldn't. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]If it's in the dentist chair, then I don't really see why you'd be loopy. The dentist should use a local anaesthetic, rather than a GA. If you were going to hospital, they'd use a GA, and I think that can have weird effects on people. A local anaesthetic should be pretty OK, unless you are allergic to it or something.[/font]

[quote name='chibi-master' timestamp='1340073435' post='712042'] I'm going to have my wisdom teeth taken out pretty soon and I'm extremely nervous. Not about anything going horribly wrong, but I've been watching videos lately where people are loopy beyond all reason after the surgery. I don't want to be one of those people. O_O [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Here's a tip: don't ever watch surgery-related videos when you are about to get surgery. It never ends well. You should find that it goes pretty smoothly. Are you going into hospital or are you having the surgery done in the dentist chair? I think that can make quite a difference. I've had teeth removed, but only at the dentist so far (at some point I need to organise to have several extracted at once in hospital).[/font]

[quote name='Petie' timestamp='1340022204' post='712035'] [color=#0000ff]You might not actually be too far off the mark, given everything that's happened in the US recently. Not sure if the infection has spread to other parts of the world yet...[/color] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Oh no... well, I guess I'd better not ask you about NJ accommodation options again! (Unless, of course, you know about one of those awesome zombie-proof houses...).[/font]

[quote name='chibi-master' timestamp='1335829131' post='711647'] Your neighbors are in dire need of a swift kick to the collective throat. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]If they have a collective throat, I'd be more worried about the apparent zombie mutation than the loud music or theft. ...sorry, I couldn't resist. ~_^[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]I still have to digest a lot of the E3 info, but for me, the actual press conferences were somewhat disappointing. I think Nintendo really had the opportunity to lead the show with Wii U, but they were very conservative in terms of only showing off stuff that is relevant for 2012. They likely could have displayed some in-progress 2013 content - and I think that would have made a big difference. Nonetheless, I'm very interested in Wii U. I think it has huge potential, and simply being able to play Nintendo titles in HD (finally) will be nice. Very very interested in Pikmin 3, as well. That, Nintendo Land and Zombi U were probably my most-anticipated Wii U games coming out of the show. In terms of MS and Sony, the press conferences didn't do much for me, but there are specific games that I'm very interested in. The Last of Us looks absolutely stunning (no surprises there), and I think it shows that "current generation" games can still wow us in terms of graphics. I am also now [i]really[/i] keen on Halo 4. The early stuff I'd seen looked a bit questionable, but the latest gameplay footage... wow. It just looks so atmospheric. I know it's a little blasphemous, but I'm anticipating Halo 4 more than Reach. I just think this fresh take on the franchise is probably what it needed. The hints of Metroid Prime are definitely helping, too.[/font]

[quote=Allamorph][color=#282828][font=Calibri]I also see a lot of dancing around a tenent on which it seems we all agree, but which no one really wants to come out and say. So here's my best summary: [/font][/color][i]a good RPG requires careful balance[/i][color=#282828][font=Calibri].[/quote][/font][/color] [size=3][font=tahoma, geneva, sans-serif][color=#282828]Well, this is pretty much how I summarised my overall feeling about RPGs: [i][color=#282828]Ideally, there should be some basic structure and direction for the sake of consistency and ease, but the best RPGs (I think) are the ones that take unpredictable turns because people are individually moulding the plot and it progresses very organically. I really like it when that works out well.[/color][/i][/color][/font][/size] [quote=Allamorph][color=#282828][font=Calibri]And this is where everyone seems to be content to stop. We all seem to understand the basic problem, but we don't appear all that eager to proffer any possible solutions.[/quote][/font][/color] [size=3][font=tahoma, geneva, sans-serif][color=#282828]I can't speak for others more broadly, but in terms of the people who have regularly collaborated with me (especially Shy), I can say that there have been almost countless attempts to solve the problem. [color=#282828]We introduced the "chapter system" and its variants (including highly coordinated forms at one end, as with [i]The Von Braun Odyssey[/i] and significantly looser forms as well (I am thinking of a particular RPG and I can't remember the actual title of it at the moment...)[/color] [color=#282828]These systems work to different degrees, but even when these organisational systems work well, the RPG still ultimately relies on the ongoing interest of its participants (and, in the case of an RPG highly-directed by the creator(s), it is also heavily reliant on their continual support and active nurturing).[/color][/color][/font][/size] [color=#282828][font=Calibri][quote=Allamorph][/font][/color][color=#282828][font=Calibri]At core, if you'll allow me to temporarily oversimplify (I know how well that usually goes over =P ), science fiction and fantasy are basically identical. The only discernable caveat between them, as I see it, is that in science fiction you are required to at least partially explain your craziness with something at least partially believable, other than "it's magic".[/quote][/font][/color] [size=3][font=tahoma, geneva, sans-serif][color=#282828]Interesting point - I think that this might be one reason why I usually prefer science fiction, as well. Sometimes I really enjoy digging into the mechanics of "how things work" and coming up with new ideas that have at least some basis in scientific reality. I do think that sci-fi has a way of applying some sort of constraints that help to keep things roughly consistent. [color=#282828]Having said that, one of my favourite RPGs has been [i]The Almagest[/i] series, and it is largely a fantasy story. But I suppose the steampunk nature of it does have a slightly grounding effect - also, it is fairly centrally-directed, and the universe is now quite well established so massive, crazy inconsistencies are pretty unlikely to occur.[/color][/color][/font][/size] [font=Calibri][color=#282828][quote=Allamorph][/color][/font][color=#282828][font=Calibri]What I want to know now is this: are there any other games or stories which you think qualify as good, successful endeavors, and what in particular do you think gave them this distinction?[/font][/color][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif] [/quote][/font][/color] [size=3][font=tahoma, geneva, sans-serif][color=#282828]Having been out of RPGs for so long on OB, it's honestly very hard for me to remember many of the titles that have stood out to me. But I do think that we generally have a particular group of individuals who - in whatever collaborative teams they form - have a tendency to manage and contribute to successful RPGs. Part of that success comes from good writing and creativity, but a big part of it also just comes from effort. [color=#282828]Due to my lack of involvement in recent times, the RPG series that really come to mind are probably a) the [i]Almagest[/i] series and b) the [i]Maverick Hunters[/i] series.[/color] [color=#282828]The former has been among my favourite RPGs as a participant and co-creator. And the latter has been not only a favourite, but also one of the longest (if not [i]the[/i] longest) running RPG series on OtakuBoards. [/color] [color=#282828]I think the success of the former is derived from a genuinely interesting premise, great characters, all-round excellent writing and a combination of good central planning and reasonable flexibility for participants. We did a lot of work in terms of building up the world via the Backstage topic, as well - and I think that also helped. A great deal of care and attention was paid to the foundational elements of the RPGs.[/color] [color=#282828]As for the latter... it wasn't very centrally planned at all, and is one of the most elaborate "free-form" RPGs on the site I think. It really did well due to a story that was genuinely fun to read, and a small group of extremely dedicated participants. I think that, put simply, it was just a labour of love and that really showed.[/color] [color=#282828]Anyway, I am keenly aware of the effort required - especially when creating an RPG - and that has stopped me from launching a couple of RPGs that I've wanted to get off the ground. Maybe I'm being too conservative, but if I don't really think I can contribute the required time to running an RPG or being an active participant... I tend not to get involved at all. I'd rather not get involved than disappoint others.[/color] [color=#282828]Having said that, if I could just be a participant and post occasionally, I might give it another go. I just haven't seen anything new that has really grabbed my attention.[/color][/color][/font][/size]

[font=palatino linotype]For me, the biggest issue I've had with RPGs has also been a symptom of an element that I always prefer - freedom, and true dynamic storytelling. Ideally, there should be some basic structure and direction for the sake of consistency and ease, but the best RPGs (I think) are the ones that take unpredictable turns because people are individually moulding the plot and it progresses very organically. I really like it when that works out well. But there's a big down-side with that - as the RPG progresses, it becomes more and more difficult to follow. An increasing number of tangents develop. Characters start to spread out, and more and more parallel events begin to occur. And then, eventually, the writers have to start sitting down and taking stock about which character is doing what and what the chronology really is. It can get very unwieldy and messy. I think that many of us have tried to find ways to solve this, like using the chapter system, where you set a "milestone" which has key parameters and then the writers fill in the blanks. That can work, but getting the balance right is mostly a matter of luck and context. Personally, I prefer RPGs to have less central planning. But how do you effectively track everyone's whereabouts and the chronology of events? What used to happen to me is that if I didn't post for a few days, maybe half a dozen big posts would appear and I'd have to not only read them all (which is fine), but I'd have to also try to work out where everything is at before I begin writing my reply. It can get so onerous that when you write a post, you have to really go through and edit it a few times to make sure that it doesn't contradict what others have written. So I'm not sure how you get around that problem without having [i]some[/i] type of structure or rule to keep things relatively tidy. I remember that years ago, a lot of RPGs died for this very reason - they just grew out of proportion and were spread all over the place. It became really difficult to manage.[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]Heh, given your reaction to Uncharted 2, Shin... you're going to die and go to heaven with Uncharted 3. ;)[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]I've had a bit of a go at it, but eh... yeah, I think I need to get better at it and play it with people I know. Speaking of which, I've been given a ton of copies to give away - so if anyone wants in, send me a PM on OB.[/font]

[quote name='Shinmaru' timestamp='1334787047' post='711500'] [b]Uncharted[/b] is unfair and not fun at the end. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I never played the original Uncharted, but I've played 2 and 3. And although I liked Uncharted 2, I think Uncharted 3 is substantially better. So in other words, there's a general progression and improvement throughout the series - I'd definitely stick with it, despite your frustrations. :)[/font]

[quote name='Brasil' timestamp='1334025889' post='711389'] So an ending that's basically a total downer...I dig it. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I agree that the somewhat nihilistic concept that over-arches the Mass Effect story is a good idea and worthwhile to explore - for example, the idea that for once, human beings are not necessarily going to "save the day" and that perhaps saving the day doesn't even matter in the grand scheme of things. I do think that's genuinely worth exploring. But Mass Effect does it badly, and dare I say it... superficially. This has nothing to do with the ending, but with the entire plot that runs throughout the trilogy. And I think a lot of this problem is bound up with the incredibly lame explanation for the cyclical nature of the Reaper invasions. The idea of a cyclical mass extinction is definitely interesting in principle, and it has enormous potential to be philosophically powerful and poignant. But in the end, it feels like the Reapers and their ridiculously flawed motivations act to cheapen and "dumb down" what could be a very beautiful and unique idea (at least, unique in the video game world). Maybe I am expecting too much of video game writing, but even acknowledging that is kind of sad. Films have been able to tackle these subjects beautifully and with nuance for years, so why not games? As I said before, I love the Mass Effect universe. I love the broad story, which involves countless civilizations and a very rich galactic history. I just can't help but feel that exploring that galactic history would be far more interesting and fertile ground than the BioWare team attempting to chase a concept that they have difficulty realizing in a meaningful, balanced way.[/font]

[quote name='Boo' timestamp='1334134092' post='711424'] As they were working on FPS material for ME before, I can imagine they'd do something like the Human-Turian conflict and/or the Rachni wars, but then in FPS style. Plus, I'm sure they'll make a game where at one point you come across Blasto the Hanar Spectre, being a stuck up movie star now. It would be way cool to be a Salarian or a Turrian for once though. Humans pissed me off. btw: not enough reference to EMERGENCY INDUCTION PORT. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I wouldn't mind an FPS, but I'd really like to see the Mass Effect gameplay style continue - even if it happens in a totally different franchise. I really like the way the combat system and RPG elements have developed. As of ME3, it's starting to feel really solid and refined. [/font]

[quote name='Gavin' timestamp='1333827700' post='711341'] [font=tahoma,geneva,sans-serif]It does feel quite a bit less intuitive by comparison I've found, but as the old saying goes when you haven't horses you must plough with asses. I was more so annoyed that you have the play the multiplayer in order to access the "best ending" via "galactic readiness", which was a pain for those of us who aren't into that horde mode style multiplayer. Not so enthused by BioWare's "extended cut" DLC, even free which it had to be, I seriously doubt without quite a bit of new content it'll make up for the mess that was the original ending or truly satisfy players the way it should have first time around.[/font] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]The need to play multiplayer truly sucks, but then again, I'll probably still have a go at the multiplayer at some stage when I play through it a second time. I do want to try the "third ending", because it's what I'd naturally choose anyway. In terms of the extended cut DLC, I'm really not bothered by it. My understanding is that it basically just adds a bit of exposition which helps to clarify the existing ending(s). I think that's fair enough, given that the existing endings were relatively confusing to some degree. Although I didn't really have huge issues with the way the game ended as such, except for a couple of inconsistencies (but I still think that these are present throughout the plot anyway, so they came as little surprise at the end in a sense). What I'm really wondering now is where they will go in future. They have said that there will be more Mass Effect games, but that those games will be set during or prior to the events of ME3. Personally, I want to see a new set of games that deal with specific historical scenarios - for example, the human/turian conflict or the origins of the genophage. That sort of thing would justify multiple games with potentially more interesting plots than what exists in the original trilogy.[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]It would be great to get another OB guild going! I've been playing GW a little bit again recently, because I still have a ton of outstanding stuff to do! But I definitely don't play it as much as I used to. It's still such a great (and pretty active) game, though. Not sure how well GW2 will run on my system, but we'll see. I think I'll still pick it up anyway. It looks great, and I've deliberately avoided too many spoilers so that it's very fresh for me when I first play.[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]After finishing ME3 recently, I am now re-playing the triology from the beginning. This time I'm using a female Shepard and I'm pretty much going for the renegade approach. The game has already been quite different, in terms of the responses from other characters, so that's pretty cool. One thing I'm noticing though - the original Mass Effect feels [i]so[/i] clumsy and sluggish compared to ME2 and ME3! It took a bit of getting used to, haha. But it's a great game, and it has some qualities that I'm really enjoying (especially the Mako!)[/font]

[quote name='Boo' timestamp='1333788969' post='711323'] Or just get it for PC like the Cool Kids[b]â?¢[/b]. Actually, don't. Origin and stuff is not working as you'd like it to be. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Even if I had it for PC, I'd still need to play it with a controller. I can't imagine playing Mass Effect with a mouse and keyboard (the mouse would be great, but they keyboard... not so much). I am seriously thinking about playing the entire trilogy again with different choices and character settings. I did start it again with female Shepard, but that was just Mass Effect 2. I'm just wondering if I can be bothered starting with the first game again...[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]The reason that dedicated anime forums were merged together in the past was because they progressively died - activity in each one began to drop, until even the larger dedicated forums became pretty dead. So at the time it made sense to roll them together, rather than to have a bunch of empty forums sitting around. I do like the idea of having dedicated forums though. It would be truly awesome to see dedicated forums come back (with the activity level that keeps them going, too).[/font]

[font=palatino linotype]I finished Mass Effect 3 on the weekend. I was very eager to finish it, mostly because I really wanted to see what all the fuss is about in terms of the ending. I have to marshal my thoughts a bit here. Actually, I really need to finish the game another time, I think. At the moment I am not sure I can really do it justice, except to put forward a few initial thoughts: [spoilerblock]I think I largely agree with Shin in terms of the ending's true problems. My biggest disappointment, I think, was a general lack of closure (I hate that word) in terms of my squadmates. I don't particularly fault BioWare for this though, because you [i]do[/i] get the chance to have final words with most of the other characters prior to the ending anyway. And, depending on the ending you choose, finding out about your squadmates may be a somewhat redundant exercise. I'm finding that what I dislike about the ending is actually fairly different than a lot of people who have complained. It seems to me that many of the complaints relate to the idea that the player's choices essentially don't matter in regard to the ending, or that the ending is boiled down to a very simple game of "choose the door". Maybe my expectations were different, but as Shin said, this is very much in keeping with the rest of the series. In my view, the player's choices in Mass Effect only ever influenced the [i]journey[/i] - not the [i]destination[/i]. The fact that we had three choices for the ending (and multiple variations within those endings depending on the player's score) seems pretty reasonable to me. I can't really complain about lack of choice in that sense. My biggest complaint is probably just that Mass Effect's ending is only slightly more poetic and interesting than the overall story which led up to it. I've always felt that Mass Effect had great characters and a great universe, but with the caveat of a highly derivative plot. I mean, Saren is being controlled by the Reapers. The Collectors are being controlled by the Reapers. The Illusive Man is being controlled by the Reapers. The Reapers are being controlled by... well, [i]someone[/i]. If not the Catalyst, then a least the mysterious "we" to which the Catalyst himself belongs. This aspect of the plot (the Catalyst's "we" controlling the Reapers) appears to me to be over-reaching just a little. In this sense, the ending was really no surprise to me. I already knew long ago that the Reapers were basically attempting to maintain order by continually eradicating advanced biological life. Unfortunately, their motivation is somewhat...stupid. I was hoping for something a little more clever to be revealed, but it wasn't. I mean, the Reapers apparently conduct this "cleansing" every 50,000 years because they are trying to avert a situation where there is a conflict between synthetic and organic life (i.e. the reference to masters always being challenged). So, unless I'm missing something here... they commit mass genocide to avoid mass genocide. What? Mass Effect continually hinted at there being something grander - something "unimaginable" or unfathomable - about the Reapers and their longterm intentions. But I suspect that "unimaginable" is a placeholder for "nothing" or at least "nothing we can explain because we needed villains and we can't think of a clever twist or motivation for them". It was this aspect that disappointed me. All the way along, I strongly suspected that we'd either be hit by a totally predictable ending [i]or[/i] an attempt would be made to produce a clumsy sleight of hand. I think, in some respects, we got both - the ultimate motivation for the Reapers was nothing greater than had already been explained from the very beginning of the franchise. The only difference was that we discover that the Reapers are being controlled by the Catalyst (and/or his "kind") - but this is totally and utterly irrelevant, because the Catalyst adds absolutely nothing to the plot. Having said all of that, the end result is that I can't be too disappointed with the ending. Given the paper-thin plot, I think the multiple endings actually do more justice to said plot than it actually deserves, haha. I really have no issue with the way choices were handled in terms of the ending, as I said earlier. Maybe I would want to see a bit of tweaking in terms of a bit more exposition about what is happening, and it would have been good to know a lot more about the Catalyst - but there was simply no time for this, as a critical piece of the puzzle (which was ironically both critical and utterly redundant) appeared right before the credits rolled.[/spoilerblock] Overall, I can't say I have many complaints about the ending itself. My biggest issues with Mass Effect are, on the whole, related to the overall plot. I found that I enjoyed Mass Effect [i]despite[/i] the story and not because of it, to some extent. Or, to put it another way... the "main" plot about the Reapers was pretty boring. The Reapers themselves were awesome, but the actual story was sort of lame. I was far more interested in the Genophage, the Krogan Wars, the Quarians vs Geth, etc... I'm just really hoping that we see more Mass Effect games in the future. Apparently we will, and I'm actually very keen to see what BioWare will do with that and how they will structure those new games.[/font]

[quote name='Silver Mech' timestamp='1332891110' post='711078'] Oh! Sorry, sorry. Still trying to figure out how things work with my iPad. [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]No worries! iPads can be a bit tricky when using forums and stuff. Thanks for fixing it. :D[/font] [font=palatino linotype]I have read so many things about the ending (as in, the reactions rather than direct analysis) so I'm very keen to see it for myself. When I do, I'll definitely post my thoughts here.[/font] [font=palatino linotype]It's interesting to note that Bioware have already basically apologised and said that they may be addressing this in future DLC to some extent, which is a little scary. Haha.[/font]

[quote name='Shy' timestamp='1332877680' post='711064'] Almagest? Hm? Call me on Skype or something, James. Almagest has always been near and dear to my heart. I was actually chatting with an artist yesterday about working on a small Almagest comic for our portfolios. With Expedition I think we overextended ourselves a bit, but I would certainly like to wrap up some of those plot threads and figure out what the next step is. - Shy [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]I'm not sure that I can write any further for Expedition - I mean, it's possible, but I feel very distanced from the RPG now. And it's a bit difficult to jump back in when it would probably only be you and I doing the writing. On the other hand, Expedition just kind of stopped... I remember we were going to end up in Al-Ahmar before the third RPG. Hrm. There's a big part of me that wants to do a new RPG in Al-Ahmar, partly because of the different setting and partly because it would be an excuse not to basically utilise the entire family. If particular characters went there, we could easily move characters in and out of that setting as required. Whereas if we set another RPG on their home turf, it will possibly become necessary to do a lot more cross-referencing all the time. And with the huge cast of this RPG, that would just be annoying I think. Anyway, maybe we can continue this discussion in the Almagest backstage topic. As for Evangelion, I would really like to re-visit it but I can't dedicate myself to more than one RPG at once. And I'm kind of keen to work with Almagest again. ~_^[/font]

[quote name='Silver Mech' timestamp='1332887727' post='711073'] Also! Also. [spoiler]What's up with the old man and kid at the very end? Why couldn't they do something with the device Liara made to record everything about the Reaper war and Shephard?[/spoiler] [/quote] [font=palatino linotype]Dude, please... spoilers! >_< Several of us haven't reached the ending yet.[/font]