@RonnyRarko: I've played through every class in ME2 (I'm a total Mass Effect whore) and, frankly, you can't go wrong with any of them.
And I don't just mean that they're all balanced out -- they just really don't make that much difference.
Soldier is, far and away the most popular. But it is Easy Mode to the extreme. Even on Insanity difficulty the game is woefully easy (outside the first bit of the game where ammo is extremely tight before you skill up Adrenaline Rush). If you just want to play the game, enjoy the rich story, and don't want to be challenged in the firefights, this is the option to go with.
All the other choices are about equal for difficulty. Infiltrator and Vanguard will allow you more usage of more weapons, while the other classes allow slightly more damaging ability via your abilities (tech/biotic), but overall they tend to dish out similar damage. And at a certain point in the game the other classes get the ability to get more firepower skills anyway. Sentinel is probably still a tiny bit weaker than the others if you're out for a challenge, though not even remotely as much as it was in ME1 where it was a hardcore challenge.
Playstyle differences don't come into play all that much because of your teammates you can have. So you can be well-rounded no matter what. Who cares if you don't get the "Overload" biotic if you bring along a team-mate with it. So the fact that you get X ability over Y ability doesn't really mean much because you can still get it via a team-mate or, in the case of the unique ones, they're really not that big a deal and, in most cases, wouldn't be terribly useful for other classes anyway.
In the end the only practical differences between all the classes in ME2 is what weapons you get to wield (and even this can change about halfway through where you can add a new weapon proficiency to your pick) and even then it really only effets the Infiltrator who gets a Sniper Rifle proficiency, everyone else is in the same boat of weapon profiency -- Pistols and SMGs which is more than enough. Vanguards offer Shotgun proficiency but it's fairly useless until you can upgrade to one firing slugs or you're playing on an easier difficulty so you can just run in there and shoot people in the face (I don't recommend this on Insanity).
And I don't just mean that they're all balanced out -- they just really don't make that much difference.
Soldier is, far and away the most popular. But it is Easy Mode to the extreme. Even on Insanity difficulty the game is woefully easy (outside the first bit of the game where ammo is extremely tight before you skill up Adrenaline Rush). If you just want to play the game, enjoy the rich story, and don't want to be challenged in the firefights, this is the option to go with.
All the other choices are about equal for difficulty. Infiltrator and Vanguard will allow you more usage of more weapons, while the other classes allow slightly more damaging ability via your abilities (tech/biotic), but overall they tend to dish out similar damage. And at a certain point in the game the other classes get the ability to get more firepower skills anyway. Sentinel is probably still a tiny bit weaker than the others if you're out for a challenge, though not even remotely as much as it was in ME1 where it was a hardcore challenge.
Playstyle differences don't come into play all that much because of your teammates you can have. So you can be well-rounded no matter what. Who cares if you don't get the "Overload" biotic if you bring along a team-mate with it. So the fact that you get X ability over Y ability doesn't really mean much because you can still get it via a team-mate or, in the case of the unique ones, they're really not that big a deal and, in most cases, wouldn't be terribly useful for other classes anyway.
In the end the only practical differences between all the classes in ME2 is what weapons you get to wield (and even this can change about halfway through where you can add a new weapon proficiency to your pick) and even then it really only effets the Infiltrator who gets a Sniper Rifle proficiency, everyone else is in the same boat of weapon profiency -- Pistols and SMGs which is more than enough. Vanguards offer Shotgun proficiency but it's fairly useless until you can upgrade to one firing slugs or you're playing on an easier difficulty so you can just run in there and shoot people in the face (I don't recommend this on Insanity).
@Eternal: Being that, at the least, they're including the PS2, which came out almost 11 years ago, and the Xbox, which came out 9 years ago, I fail to see why they should only consider PC games released in the last couple years -- that's hardly apples-to-apples.
Certainly the VAST majority of PC games being widely torrented are games from the previous decade.
And if "Playstation" were to include PS1 games as well, and there's no reason to assume it doesn't, then you've got game library going back to 1995.
Certainly the VAST majority of PC games being widely torrented are games from the previous decade.
And if "Playstation" were to include PS1 games as well, and there's no reason to assume it doesn't, then you've got game library going back to 1995.
@Mister Jack: The interaction with Liara in "Lair of the Shadowbroker" if you 'cheated on her' in ME2 was pretty good I thought. If nothing else it was probably the most obvious form of the decisions you carried over between games.
I actually felt bad that I had hurt 'her'. And she actually seemed genuinely hurt, a compliment to both the writers and her voice-actress.
You see, in the first game, my FemShep wanted to be with Garrus. But that wasn't a possibility. So I 'settled' on Liara. But then in ME2 I would've stayed with Liara but she wasn't around, so I went with my 'first-love' Garrus. To me it wasn't a decision so much forced by the design decision made by BioWare to take Liara out of the game, but it was what my character genuinely wanted and the situation presented itself nicely.
I really doubt all that was a conscientious design choice by BioWare; I mean how many people really were thinking and made the same decisions I did. But it made for a very interesting and very realistic situation. And the fact that both Garrus and Liara recognized this and spoke to it, and even emotionally-responded to it, is something I hadn't seen in a game before.
I actually felt bad that I had hurt 'her'. And she actually seemed genuinely hurt, a compliment to both the writers and her voice-actress.
You see, in the first game, my FemShep wanted to be with Garrus. But that wasn't a possibility. So I 'settled' on Liara. But then in ME2 I would've stayed with Liara but she wasn't around, so I went with my 'first-love' Garrus. To me it wasn't a decision so much forced by the design decision made by BioWare to take Liara out of the game, but it was what my character genuinely wanted and the situation presented itself nicely.
I really doubt all that was a conscientious design choice by BioWare; I mean how many people really were thinking and made the same decisions I did. But it made for a very interesting and very realistic situation. And the fact that both Garrus and Liara recognized this and spoke to it, and even emotionally-responded to it, is something I hadn't seen in a game before.
Come on. Talk about making something of nothing. OF COURSE the "capability" is there. The fact that the Kinect can count people in its view is nothing new and, is in fact, kind of important to its functionality.
The fact that this COULD be used for advertising and/or nefarious purposes doesn't take a genius to figure out.
The fact that this COULD be used for advertising and/or nefarious purposes doesn't take a genius to figure out.
eutate emos em evoL
@Eternal: Yeap. I mean come on, does that really look like a cup that would let you down if you really needed lead poisoning?
That's the kinda cup that really comes through for you in those sort of tough times when you really need your brain to swell from lead exposure.
That's the kinda cup that really comes through for you in those sort of tough times when you really need your brain to swell from lead exposure.
From the looks of the thing, I wouldn't trust it not to give me lead poisoning anyway...
@resonance462: Yes, and then some.
I may be married and work full-time (and then some), but I'm also a chronic insomniac who only sleeps about 3-4 hours a day. That leaves a LOT of time for playing games. Tack on an extra 4 hours a day to play than most people have, and you can blow through games pretty darn quick.
Doesn't hurt that you can beat a lot of games in a single sitting thesedays, and something that takes 3 days (like then 10hrs or so that Reach on Legendary Solo took me) is a fairly long game. Which is certainly an argument for renting them and saving a lot of money, but we won't go there. ;)
I may be married and work full-time (and then some), but I'm also a chronic insomniac who only sleeps about 3-4 hours a day. That leaves a LOT of time for playing games. Tack on an extra 4 hours a day to play than most people have, and you can blow through games pretty darn quick.
Doesn't hurt that you can beat a lot of games in a single sitting thesedays, and something that takes 3 days (like then 10hrs or so that Reach on Legendary Solo took me) is a fairly long game. Which is certainly an argument for renting them and saving a lot of money, but we won't go there. ;)
@MrGOH: Because thesedays Amazon is giving $10-$20 credit on just about every game release out there. I've had (or still have) I think 11 games on preorder this "game season" (Sep-Nov) and all but 2 of them have $10-20 credit on them. That adds up to some pretty big savings. I'll be getting 2 or 3 titles in the first quarter for completely free.
And combined with super-cheap Release-Date shipping that's only $1-3 (no idea why it changes by title) and no sales taxes, you're crazy to buy a game anyplace else but Amazon.
I still have Fallout pre-ordered at Gamestop though. Partly because they get the better preorder exclusive, but mostly because I got a free overnight release-day shipping from them so it's the same price as Amazon. If Amazon decides to throw on a $10 or $20 credit though I'll probably change it.
And combined with super-cheap Release-Date shipping that's only $1-3 (no idea why it changes by title) and no sales taxes, you're crazy to buy a game anyplace else but Amazon.
I still have Fallout pre-ordered at Gamestop though. Partly because they get the better preorder exclusive, but mostly because I got a free overnight release-day shipping from them so it's the same price as Amazon. If Amazon decides to throw on a $10 or $20 credit though I'll probably change it.
@DunnCarnage: Actually someone has made a "true" FPS peripheral before. It was the NOVINT Falcon and it's still around but it's never taken off the ground.
@ScriptedError: If the law was using ESRB ratings then the ESA would have significantly less of an issue with it.
One of the main problems with the legislation is that it's not using ESRB ratings, it's using its OWN VAGUE guidelines of what "violent content" is that is completely open to interpretation of an individual person. You and I and everyone else would have a very different ideas of what "violent content" is. Under this law, even stuff in ESRB-rated games for young people would be "violent content" and unsellable to anyone under 18. This law puts the onus on the retailer to not sell the content to minors without clearly laying out what titles are and are not allowed and making them criminally-responsible if they don't comply.
One of the main problems with the legislation is that it's not using ESRB ratings, it's using its OWN VAGUE guidelines of what "violent content" is that is completely open to interpretation of an individual person. You and I and everyone else would have a very different ideas of what "violent content" is. Under this law, even stuff in ESRB-rated games for young people would be "violent content" and unsellable to anyone under 18. This law puts the onus on the retailer to not sell the content to minors without clearly laying out what titles are and are not allowed and making them criminally-responsible if they don't comply.
@MarcianTobay: It's all self-censorship. The MPAA and its movie ratings, the ESRB and its game ratings, it's all industry-created rating agencies and retailers voluntarily following said guidelines.
There are no LAWS that keep minors out of R-Rated movies and it's not CRIMINAL to allow one to see it. Imagine if it was -- theatres would have to put ushers outside every single door in the theatre for the whole run of a movie to keep them out.
If there were some compelling reason for doing it, that's great, let's do it. But the entire reason California was allowed to create such a law was on the supposed evidence that violent games created significantly more violent minors therefore it was society's interest to stifle their access to this entertainment by making it a criminal offense to provide it to them.
It puts the burden on the retailer to ensure their consumers are of legal-age without providing any real guidelines for what this "violent content" is. It's not saying that any "M-rated" game can't be sold to a minor, it uses its OWN guidelines that are rather vague at what is a "violent" game and puts the onus on the retailer to ensure they don't sell one to them.
No other form of entertainment medium is faced with this burden or free-speech implications.
There are no LAWS that keep minors out of R-Rated movies and it's not CRIMINAL to allow one to see it. Imagine if it was -- theatres would have to put ushers outside every single door in the theatre for the whole run of a movie to keep them out.
If there were some compelling reason for doing it, that's great, let's do it. But the entire reason California was allowed to create such a law was on the supposed evidence that violent games created significantly more violent minors therefore it was society's interest to stifle their access to this entertainment by making it a criminal offense to provide it to them.
It puts the burden on the retailer to ensure their consumers are of legal-age without providing any real guidelines for what this "violent content" is. It's not saying that any "M-rated" game can't be sold to a minor, it uses its OWN guidelines that are rather vague at what is a "violent" game and puts the onus on the retailer to ensure they don't sell one to them.
No other form of entertainment medium is faced with this burden or free-speech implications.
@-MasterDex-: The law doesn't put the responsibility in the hands of the parents -- that's precisely what the ESRB rating system does and precisely what the ESA wants to continue. They're not trying to change that at all. That's the point they're trying to make -- facts indicate that parents already ARE involved in the game-buying decision, far more than the purchase of any other entertainment medium, therefore (in addition to the fact that it's unconstitutional with no compelling reason to put that aside) there's no reason to stifle free speech.
The entire POINT of the California law is to remove that responsibility from parents. And the entire reason the ESA is taking the case to SCOTUS is because it entirely removes that responsibility and places it on the retailer. The law makes retailers CRIMINALLY-RESPONSIBLE for selling video games with "violent content" to minors without providing a clear means of dinleneating precisely what titles those are.
Retailers are forced to decide themselves what titles are okay or not okay to sell to those under 18, meaning they err far on the side of caution and not allow the sale of anything even remotely "violent" -- a far different story than what is allowed with ANY other form of constitutionally-protected free speech.
As an example, the law indicates that a retailer will be fined for selling a video game that depicts, "killing... another human being". It doesn't say how said person has to die (except for "deviantly" -- when is killing NOT a "deviant" behavior). It doesn't have any rating board to indicate precisely what "deaths" are violent or not. It simply says ANY game that depicts killing a person in any way is ILLEGAL to sell to a minor. A PG-rated movie made for 8 year-olds can include the death of a human being but now selling a game with a similar scene in it to a 17-year old will land one a huge fine.
There is no disagreement that the law stifles free speech. That fact is not in dispute by either party -- the State of California agrees that they ARE stifling free speech.
What is at dispute is the fact that the law was created based on the fact that there was compelling evidence to stifle free speech on the supposed facts that violent video games create violent minors. And therefore therefore society was compelled to stifle free-speech rights for the greater good. It is that "fact" that is at dispute here. And THAT is the dangerous slippery-slope that the ESA is talking about.
The entire POINT of the California law is to remove that responsibility from parents. And the entire reason the ESA is taking the case to SCOTUS is because it entirely removes that responsibility and places it on the retailer. The law makes retailers CRIMINALLY-RESPONSIBLE for selling video games with "violent content" to minors without providing a clear means of dinleneating precisely what titles those are.
Retailers are forced to decide themselves what titles are okay or not okay to sell to those under 18, meaning they err far on the side of caution and not allow the sale of anything even remotely "violent" -- a far different story than what is allowed with ANY other form of constitutionally-protected free speech.
As an example, the law indicates that a retailer will be fined for selling a video game that depicts, "killing... another human being". It doesn't say how said person has to die (except for "deviantly" -- when is killing NOT a "deviant" behavior). It doesn't have any rating board to indicate precisely what "deaths" are violent or not. It simply says ANY game that depicts killing a person in any way is ILLEGAL to sell to a minor. A PG-rated movie made for 8 year-olds can include the death of a human being but now selling a game with a similar scene in it to a 17-year old will land one a huge fine.
There is no disagreement that the law stifles free speech. That fact is not in dispute by either party -- the State of California agrees that they ARE stifling free speech.
What is at dispute is the fact that the law was created based on the fact that there was compelling evidence to stifle free speech on the supposed facts that violent video games create violent minors. And therefore therefore society was compelled to stifle free-speech rights for the greater good. It is that "fact" that is at dispute here. And THAT is the dangerous slippery-slope that the ESA is talking about.
@Ghetto_godlike: Debit cards do not charge the user any fees for using them. They are 100% without fees with the exception of using them to withdraw cash at ATMs outside of your own banks (and some banks even refund those charges).
As for how they make money -- they do it by charging the retailer you used the car at a small merchant fee.
As for how they make money -- they do it by charging the retailer you used the car at a small merchant fee.
@EvilCheeseWedge: This is not a "specific factory". It is a factory COMPLEX that employs somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 people. That's bigger than the entire towns/cities most of us live in. They also don't spend just 8 hours a day there, they LIVE there. If 1.3% of people in a whole given city in the US killed themselves in a year (and they do) would anyone think there was something amiss? Absolutely not, it's what happens every single day.
You could not compare the statistic to a "specific GM factory". For that matter you couldn't even compare it to GM's entire workforce across the entire globe. To get a comparable number of people, you'd have to add up the ENTIRE workforce of GM, Ford, Chrysler and you'd still be 100,000 short. And this is for a SINGLE Foxconn facility. I bet you 1.3% of the entire combined workforce of the former Big Three kill themselves in a given year.
We, today, (unlike about 100 years ago) can't fathom a single factory complex employing several hundred thousand employees or living on company property and what that really means. I'm sure they also have an inordinate amount of fires, an inordinate amount of domestic abuse, and countless other social problems that, to us, would seem unheard of in a workplace environment and indicative of severe problems. But it's NOT a "workplace environment" -- it's an entire CITY. So you can't compare it to what we experience, or expect to experience, while at work -- but rather what we do in our communities. And suicide, domestic abuse, etc, etc, etc, are all very real in our own societies as well; and at rates exceeding that there at Foxconn.
You could not compare the statistic to a "specific GM factory". For that matter you couldn't even compare it to GM's entire workforce across the entire globe. To get a comparable number of people, you'd have to add up the ENTIRE workforce of GM, Ford, Chrysler and you'd still be 100,000 short. And this is for a SINGLE Foxconn facility. I bet you 1.3% of the entire combined workforce of the former Big Three kill themselves in a given year.
We, today, (unlike about 100 years ago) can't fathom a single factory complex employing several hundred thousand employees or living on company property and what that really means. I'm sure they also have an inordinate amount of fires, an inordinate amount of domestic abuse, and countless other social problems that, to us, would seem unheard of in a workplace environment and indicative of severe problems. But it's NOT a "workplace environment" -- it's an entire CITY. So you can't compare it to what we experience, or expect to experience, while at work -- but rather what we do in our communities. And suicide, domestic abuse, etc, etc, etc, are all very real in our own societies as well; and at rates exceeding that there at Foxconn.
My bet on the "very coolest part" of the DLC is a 3rd companion in your party, as in the shot from the cinematic above.
Which, if true, hopefully means some really big firefights to make the game challenging as it's already a pushover at Lvl 30 with 2 party members.
Which, if true, hopefully means some really big firefights to make the game challenging as it's already a pushover at Lvl 30 with 2 party members.
@Batman: Being that Kotick expects the game to make $500M to $1b in PROFITS, that means that they're projecting retail sales somewhere quite a bit north of $2.5 BILLION.
So unless those 2.5M copies you speak of are selling for $1,000 each, it's gonna take a LOT more than that for them to reach their goal.
To hit the figures they're talking about, sales would have to get in the 12M unit range per release at the very least -- so a total of somewhere well north of 30M units.
So unless those 2.5M copies you speak of are selling for $1,000 each, it's gonna take a LOT more than that for them to reach their goal.
To hit the figures they're talking about, sales would have to get in the 12M unit range per release at the very least -- so a total of somewhere well north of 30M units.
@Shindokie: Funny since you've got 6 "bets" and the rules say you must have 5.