Wasn't the harder AI and skills for enemies (grenades, shields, flanking, etc.) a big point of the revised combat?
I loved the demo (not playing the game until I finish with Reckoning) for its difficulty. Every time I died while playing on Insane, it was because I was too risky, or the enemies outflanked me. It felt WAY better then in ME1 & 2 where they just had more health/armor/shields.
Personally I was most disappointed with how it seems you have to run from the Reapers pursueing instead of there being a space combat mechanic implemented.
They couldn't implement space combat with the reapers that chase you because you CAN'T FIGHT THE REAPERS ALONE. That's what the whole damn series is about, how to stop this insanely powerful race of sentient machines from killing everyone. The WHOLE GAME is about rallying the forces of the entire galaxy to fight them.
But yeah, let's just have the little ole' Normandy fight 4 of them at a time. No biggy.
OT: I LOVED this game right up until the ending. It wasn't terrible, but it certainly left me less than fully satisfied. That being said, I'd still give this game a 9.5/10 easy, not even counting the many hours I'll be putting into the multiplayer. It actually has that emotional investment that the Bioware Docs have been talking about for years. I was almost tearing up at several moments, and the lead up to the end was one of the most "oh my god how is this going to end?!?" sequences I've ever had in gaming. Truly spectacular.
I tend to disagree with your comments about not being able to fight the Reapers alone. It depends on the Reaper in question. The Normandy after the upgrades in ME2 is carrying state of the art technology, a lot of which was based on the Reapers own tech. While the warning was ignored and such tech was not implemented on a truely huge scale, it should be noted there WAS enough preparation that the military forces in ME are also doing a fairly good job of holding out under the circumstances... it's taking the Reapers a lot of effort to dig everyone out and it's an actual war of sorts despite the good guys clearly on the losing end to begin with. I very much doubt there aren't Reapers being destroyed, it's just that in the course of making the point for the story we aren't seeing that.
In the scope of the Normandy scanning, The Reapers are probably responding with their smaller ships... drones, small destroyers, etc... to be able to intercept something like The Normandy to begin with. I DO think the Normandy should be able to fight those. Indeed it already demonstrated it could during it's confrontation with the Reaper/Collector ship at the end of ME2, and if your fully upgraded you don't even lose any crew despite a hull breach allowing one of the drones on board (which is so mighty you kill it with hand weapons).
We might have to agree to disagree here, but to me it seems like sloppy game design. Having played the sequence to me it seems like some half arsed mini-game they glued on because they really had no idea what to do with the mining/planetary aspects of things.
What do you mean the Alliance is holding out okay? Every time you talk to someone they keep talking about how horrible everything is going. The Reapers are going straight for the most defended planets on each species and absolutely crushing them. Just look at what was happening on Palaven. The largest military in the galaxy was getting absolutely spanked on their own turf. The galaxy was not ready in the slightest for the Reapers.
As for the Normandy fighting the Reapers, um, NO. The Normandy is a tough ship, but even the big bad Destroyers of the Alliance fleet are getting destroyed instantly by the Reapers. The Reapers hit harder, take hits longer, and move faster than anything the Alliance can muster. The very idea of the Normandy taking on a Reaper is silly, unless something happens later to prove me wrong (I am not through with the game yet).
Alright. I've had my cookie and juice box and gotten over my tantrum over all this. What it all boils down to is that internet rage breeds internet rage. Works in video games, works in movies (Lord of the Rings fans, I'm looking at you) and it especially works in politics. But he who is loudest is not necessarily right
There is no right answer. At the end of the day, the only opinion that matters is yours. Zeel, the so called Biodrones, even Susan Arendt don't matter in this equation. I am going to pick up ME3 at some point in the future. I may love it, I may hate it, I may think it's mediocre. But that's for me to decide. Point being, the hate, the love, the perfect scores, it's all valid and a matter of subjective taste.
First, the nitpicky stuff. Graphical bugs aside, the game looked overall great, BUT the new human faces? Whatever they did to them caused them to be even more stiff than before. Kinda pulled me out of it. Not to mentioned (good GOD this scared me) every now and then someone would go all exorcist on me when talking to me while I was behind them. Made me jump more than once.
I won't even touch the Tali picture fiasco. Everything that needs to be said about that has been said.
Now, some story issues. They shoehorned a lot of encounters. Most played off fantastically, but some just felt "hey let's stick this guy in here". And the fact that they made it look like you lost Grunt all dramatically and then he was back gave me high hopes for emotional impact of actual losses, but the only one that made me really feel something was when Thane died. Yeah, I was VERY sad when Mordin died. But the scene wasn't as well done as it could have been.
Also, only one peaceful place to walk around other than the Normandy. It was cool walking around and shopping on Omega and Illium as well as the Citadel, rather than just the citadel. That, and the Citadel felt very boring to me this time around. 'Cept for the Spectre office. That was awesome.
Worst was how there was so little interactive dialogue within the game. People loved that. Why it changed, I'll never know. I honestly can't think of a single situation where we had the full three choices we used to get from ME1 and 2 (the "middle ground" just didn't exist). In retrospect that legit pisses me off.
Now the tough part... the ending.
It disregards the vast majority of stuff you did through ALL the games. Certain people you could recruit (Aria's army, Batarian fleets, etc.) aren't even mentioned in the final conflict. You see no Geth fighting. Or Krogan. Or Quarians. The Normandy doesn't get any last hurrah. You're extremely disconnected from your part members from the moment the grand finale starts (in fact, I thought the two I brought were dead, but they somehow got back to the Normandy?). Considering the finale of 2, this was far too disconnected from your crew.
As for the actual END(ings)... I still don't know what I think. The choice you had to make was cool. Very difficult (in fact, I was standing there thinking for so long that a message popped up saying the crucible was destroyed... which was lame, as nothing happened other than the message). But as for the outcome... no real epilogue. Seriously. That I didn't like. Other than some crash landing, we don't know what happened. That bothers me. A lot. But I still don't know if I liked it or not. I'm leaning towards "no". Looks like it might actually be changed, too...
So I'd have to say that I enjoyed the game moreso than any other Mass Effect game up until about half way through, then I started to miss some of the scenarios from ME2. BUT that may have just been fatigue. I was playing it non-stop. Still loved it, a LOT. It's a worthy finale, nitpickings aside.
Also... fuckin' love the mutliplayer.
EDIT: A few more last thoughts...
Just remembered another two problems I had. First and foremost, the lack of a climactic final boss. Having the final real battle be nothing more than a Brutefest is an insult compared to the first two games.
Lastly, the lack of a final talk with Harbinger was just wrong. After playing him up as the leader of the Reapers, only talking to that one reaper on Rannoch was just so disappointing. I wanted to see Shepard wave his dick at him! (Metaphorically, of course). A last battle of words between two sworn foes! I mean, come ON, to have the last encounter with a Reaper go like that? Fitting, I suppose, but I'd rather have a slightly-less-realistic encounter where they talked. Would have made things better.
I see you neglected to mention the bullocks ending of this game. This is NOT the ending the series deserved. The Game was stellar, my GOTY easily - until the ending. the horrible, horrible ending, with it's binary choices, no ability to save before these choices... and all the choices were aweful.
Was a happy ending where I get to retire with Tali -so much to ask-?
A word of warning, i finished the game yesterday, the ending is so s**t you can't even imagine.
I'm not going to spoil anything, just put you in the right mindset not to be disappointed later: There is no closure for ANY of the characters. You don't get to see what impact you had on their lives and there is no indication of who survives the final struggle, so don't expect a nice clean ending a-la animal house with "so-and-so became such-and-such, then did this and that and died" for each character. If you're actually interested in that kind of stuff, like i was, prepare for a disappointment, it will hurt less later.
Also, right now to get the best ending the multiplayer is crucial, since there are not enough military assets to attain the 5000 points necessary without also having your galactic readiness up to 100%, since there is about 6000 points worth of assets and if you don't play the readiness multiplier is stuck at 50%, which means you can expect to have a grand total of about 2800 +- 100. So if, like me, you're not going to shell out for a gold subscription for your Live account, prepare to be fucked over.
None of the characters introduced in ME2 have any relevant role in ME3 (No one gets to join your party, they're just more military assets), they pop up for a couple of scenes and maybe one actual dialogue only scene, then you're done. On the upside, said scenes are generally very good.
This is all i can do to warn you of the bad choices made by the writers without going in serious spoiler territory. Be warned, there is much more to complain about the ending.
Play the game, it's a good game, just don't expect it to end well, as in "well written" not as in "Happily ever after".
Either that or she hates the mass effect universe. That being said, the ending to me hurt almost as bad as if it had the star wars universe exploded, or the lotr universe.........exploded? The journey was the most flippin fun of the series, but the last 20 minutes was extremely painful.
Mass Effect 3 is acutally nearly as good as Dragon Age 2. In comparison to its predecessor and to other so called RPGs.
If you like Call of Duty, you will like this one.
Else the clumsy controlls, lack of content (besides chest-highwalls), stupid squad AI, day-one-dlcs, dumbed-down dialogs, some awful background textures, a small sized citadel, bugged face import (WTFFFFF? Didnt they test that stuff?), some stuck-quest chains and many more will probably piss you off.
Having just finished Mass Effect 3, I can safely say that this is an utter lie. The ending of ME3 absolutely ruined the entire series. The big reveal at the end about the reason for the Reapers is more than enough ruin all three games by itself, and that doesn't even begin to take into account the other glaring flaws.
The gameplay is very much improved over its predecessor, with a proper mix of RPG elements and action to satisfy both the action junkie and the crunch nerd. I was actually quite happy with that. The problem is the rather aggravating trend Bioware appears to have fallen into where the actual story and narrative are ignored until far too late and are thrown together at the last minute.
1) The Reapers were created and set to killing advanced organic life in order to solve a problem. What is that problem you ask? Fucking robots killing organic life. What the fuck would you have to be smoking to go "You know, in order to avoid people making robots that will kill them, I'm gonna make robots to kill them first."
2) Your choices in previous games are almost entirely irrelevant. There's a number of callbacks and returning characters, but it doesn't affect the actual storyline in any meaningful way. For example, no matter who you supported in ME1, Udina is the councilor, solely so that Cerberus could attack the Citadel.
3) The Crucible is probably the most egregious example of Deus ex Machina I've seen in years. Instead of creating an interesting plot where it actually feels like an apocalypse, you run around building an ancient doomsday device that was shoehorned in in a singularly painful fashion and hope it works.
4) All of the endings suck. They're all depressing, poorly implemented and extremely clunky. I could see Shepard having to sacrifice himself, but the fact that the only choices are "Return to the stone age", "Enslave the Reapers" and "Murder everything in the galaxy" is rather grating. The problem is mostly that the narrative leading there is atrociously implemented, but they could have at least had some kind of happy ending.
5) The whole thing with the Crucible where they bang on "We have absolutely no idea what this does, but it must be the solution to our problems!" is utterly ridiculous. There's no grounding in logic, science, or even rationality for such a thing. The fact that anyone was willing to go along with it within days of the Reaper invasion (meaning they're not particularly desperate yet) destroyed my suspension of disbelief so hard it gave me a migraine.
It was made even worse every time Hackett mentioned that he didn't know what it did, but he knew it was the solution. I'll lay it out pretty clearly: it's not physically possible to build something and not have some idea of what the end result is. They should have been able to figure out A) what the thing did, whether it was to act as a signal amplifier or whatever else and B) what the Catalyst was. They built the couplings that link the two together for fuck's sake. You can't do that without understanding how they couple in the first place, and from there it wouldn't be that hard to narrow down the possibilities.
Long story short, ME3 was the final nail in the coffin. I, for one, am never again buying a Bioware game. They've proven repeatedly they've lost all ability to tell a decent story.
If the game ended about 30 minutes before it actually did, I would have given it a 3.5-4/5. With the ending though, it's definitely dropped down to a 2.
My personal favourite is the fact you can rush to finale with scraps of assets. You will be annihilated, but it will have nothing to do with... lack of assets XD I guess Mass Effect 2 and the fact you could decimate your team or even get killed in final cutscene was still too complicated for new target audience of BW.
All creation eventually rebels against creators. So I have created reapers to solve that problem.
Oh, wait...
I have created reapers because synthetics were going to completely wipe out organic life and that is solid rule for everything else.
Oh, except that I have never seen it happen. But my reapers were pretty close. What do you mean it doesn't count?
So, synthetics are the biggest threat to organic life there is. I mean, geth, totally aggresive and invading one system after another. Oh, and reapers, see how dangerous they are? And hey, I am the Citadel, so that makes me... synthetic. Totally too dangerous to left unchecked.
Riiight, so my point was... self-destruction? Nah...
We are preserving life instead of destroying it. In a form of goo and random additions to synthetic units. Meanwhile, we are totally fine with new species eradicating others. But they suddenly become worth saving-in-a-goo after 50k years.
Wait, what are we saving that goo for? Future reincarnation as husks?
And the list goes on... I am amazed how "final explanation" game offers can be ignored by any revievewer and justified with some "but it was fun before" phrase. Sorry, that excuse does not work for a game advertised as "great story". This is not Quake or Farmville kind of "journey", or at least - it shouldn't be.
I just finished ME3 yesterday and it's a very good game. Not perfect, but very good. I experienced very few glitches actually, and I liked that the combat is more tactical and a bit harder than 1 and 2. Finishing the previous games in the normal difficulty was dead easy (I replayed ME1 in Hardcore recently and it wasn't much harder). In ME3 your squad composition, weapons and battle tactics make a difference in many encounters.
The story manages to integrate a lot of elements and choices from the previous 2 games, even if some only in minor ways. Even so, what is done results in a very complicated game to make. I don't envy people working in Bioware having to finish ME3 in 2 years. About the ending, yeah, I can see why some people got pissed with it. I think the idea of the ending is good, though; maybe the execution could be better. Bioware went for something riskier that won't please people who expect a perfect action-movie-happy-ending where all the characters hug themselves after conquering the enemy.
But I think that people who like the series should very much play it and get to his/her own conclusions. I'm perfectly ok with people playing it and not liking it based on their own opinions, but I feel sorry for people who won't play it or are determined to hate it because they got into the Bioware-hating bandwagon. They are possibly missing a great gaming experience.
As a Biodrone I've got to say I completely agree. I am pissed off.
Again for those who didn't get it the first time: The problem with the endings is that no matter which ending you pick, it always destroys the setting as it was, and gives no specifics on the ramifications of your actions: The mass relays cease functioning, and the Normandy crew crashes into an unknown planet only to skip generations ahead and say 'countless generations later, they became a fairy tale'.That's it.
Even what you can infer from the ending is bleak: Shepard, even if he/she lives, won't see his/her crewmates again, homeworlds have been razed, and without the relay network distant colonies like feros will perish on their own. As unlikely as it is that the Normandy crew could foster a civilization, there are a number of characters that would live short, painful deaths out of this. For instance, the dextro chyrality crewmembers Tali and Garrus would starve to death. Joker would not have access to medical treatment of his chronic disease.
TLDR; They took away player's freedom to choose, that's why in the end, no matter how hard you fought, how much you cared for every living being in this fictional universe, it was all for naught.
One of the conspiracy theories running amuck on the BSN is that this is a marketing ploy to prime all Biodrones to pay through the nose for any remedy to this gaping wound.
Having just finished Mass Effect 3, I can safely say that this is an utter lie. The ending of ME3 absolutely ruined the entire series. The big reveal at the end about the reason for the Reapers is more than enough ruin all three games by itself, and that doesn't even begin to take into account the other glaring flaws.
I don't think that "everything is ruined forever" because of the ending. I don't think Star Wars was ruined by the prequels either, or that the final season of Lost ruined it all, so I can like something even if something bad happens along the way. Yes, the "explanation" seems iffy at first analysis, but the idea of the ending is not so bad, though different from what most people were expecting.
Agayek said:
1) The Reapers were created and set to killing advanced organic life in order to solve a problem. What is that problem you ask? Fucking robots killing organic life. What the fuck would you have to be smoking to go "You know, in order to avoid people making robots that will kill them, I'm gonna make robots to kill them first."
I think the point is that the "younger", less advanced organic races keep on, so organic life is not completely wiped out. It makes a tiny little bit more of sense, but not enough to make it a "good explanation". I'm still thinking about this part of the story, though.
Agayek said:
2) Your choices in previous games are almost entirely irrelevant. There's a number of callbacks and returning characters, but it doesn't affect the actual storyline in any meaningful way. For example, no matter who you supported in ME1, Udina is the councilor, solely so that Cerberus could attack the Citadel.
The problem is that resources are finite and making a game that would be completely different for every possible story choice in 1 and 2 would be infeasible. Even so, the choices aren't irrelevant. Most make almost no difference, sure, but some critical ones change the paths in the middle of the game significantly. What's there is already complex enough.
Agayek said:
3) The Crucible is probably the most egregious example of Deus ex Machina I've seen in years. Instead of creating an interesting plot where it actually feels like an apocalypse, you run around building an ancient doomsday device that was shoehorned in in a singularly painful fashion and hope it works.
I was thinking about this yesterday. It seems a huge Deus Ex Machina when you see it, but when you consider the end, it makes sense. The Prothean VI from Thessia says that the plans for the crucible were passed from cycle to cycle and no one knows where it came from. The catalyst/citadel/thing in the end recognizes that Shepard was the first to get so far and presents him with choices to end the cycle and stuff, so it's quite possible that the catalyst planted the idea for the crucible in the first place, predicting someone could pull it off, like a test or something. I agree that the way it was presented in the beginning of the game was bad, though.
Agayek said:
4) All of the endings suck. They're all depressing, poorly implemented and extremely clunky. I could see Shepard having to sacrifice himself, but the fact that the only choices are "Return to the stone age", "Enslave the Reapers" and "Murder everything in the galaxy" is rather grating. The problem is mostly that the narrative leading there is atrociously implemented, but they could have at least had some kind of happy ending.
As I said, I think the idea for the endings is good. I feel that the cycle is something that's just too big to shrug off and end with an ID4-type happy ending with everyone hugging. The need for a dramatic change in the galaxy to end the cycle makes sense. And if you get the "good" ending, Shepard ends the cycle once and for all, solving not only the immediate problems but ensuring it will never happen again. I think this is a great victory, even if people stay isolated because the relays were destroyed. But I agree the presentation could be better there.
Agayek said:
5) The whole thing with the Crucible where they bang on "We have absolutely no idea what this does, but it must be the solution to our problems!" is utterly ridiculous. There's no grounding in logic, science, or even rationality for such a thing. The fact that anyone was willing to go along with it within days of the Reaper invasion (meaning they're not particularly desperate yet) destroyed my suspension of disbelief so hard it gave me a migraine.
It was made even worse every time Hackett mentioned that he didn't know what it did, but he knew it was the solution. I'll lay it out pretty clearly: it's not physically possible to build something and not have some idea of what the end result is. They should have been able to figure out A) what the thing did, whether it was to act as a signal amplifier or whatever else and B) what the Catalyst was. They built the couplings that link the two together for fuck's sake. You can't do that without understanding how they couple in the first place, and from there it wouldn't be that hard to narrow down the possibilities.
Well, they had some idea what the end result would be. Something with a great release of "dark energy". And it was. To know that it coupled with the Citadel was not easy in the hurry they were building it. As for the desperation, the war would last for decades or more than a century, but the game couldn't wait all this time for the desperation to sink in But yes, it could have been done better.
In the end, I think it's a good game and the story is enjoyable, although not without its flaws. They had to deal with a complex story and tie the loose ends from the previous 2 games, and went for something riskier than just "beat the reapers, then everyone is happy", but the execution failed in some key points. But it's a sci-fi game, not high literature; it's more Star Trek than Tennessee Williams, so I still think it's a very good experience, all things considered.
As a Biodrone I've got to say I completely agree. I am pissed off.
Again for those who didn't get it the first time: The problem with the endings is that no matter which ending you pick, it always destroys the setting as it was, and gives no specifics on the ramifications of your actions: The mass relays cease functioning, and the Normandy crew crashes into an unknown planet only to skip generations ahead and say 'countless generations later, they became a fairy tale'.That's it.
Even what you can infer from the ending is bleak: Shepard, even if he/she lives, won't see his/her crewmates again, homeworlds have been razed, and without the relay network distant colonies like feros will perish on their own. As unlikely as it is that the Normandy crew could foster a civilization, there are a number of characters that would live short, painful deaths out of this. For instance, the dextro chyrality crewmembers Tali and Garrus would starve to death. Joker would not have access to medical treatment of his chronic disease.
TLDR; They took away player's freedom to choose, that's why in the end, no matter how hard you fought, how much you cared for every living being in this fictional universe, it was all for naught.
Yes, it destroys the setting as we know it. But it was not for naught. The extinction cycle has ended, and now life in the galaxy can proceed without the lumbering threat of annihilation by the reapers. That's something. I understand that people get pissed because it effectively destroys the setting, but it makes sense that a dramatic change was necessary to end a cycle that has lasted for millions of years and was woven into the nature of galaxy itself in the setting. The explanation for how the cycle worked and why it was there is not very good, but the idea of the ending makes sense to me. I think they had balls, actually, to try something as risky as this, and it was not perfectly executed, but still makes sense to me.
How do the levels feel for a sniper/infiltrator? From your video they look like close quarters combat. I know you have said they have some open places in the game. But in ME2 my sniper used her sniper rifle maybe 3 times. I also hope my crew of Liara/Jack, Garus and my sniper still work. I love Tali but you said we need a nice mix so two techs might be too much.
I may have to look into this game after Risen 2 comes out.
My Shepard is an Infiltrator and I'd found lots of opportunities for her to use her sniper rifle. Heck, in some instances, like when fighting Cerberus Guardians who have the riot shields, I'd say that marksmanship is being encouraged. Besides just basic sniping all of your class abilities are very useful, especially Incinerate and, at times, Sabotage.
As a Biodrone I've got to say I completely agree. I am pissed off.
Again for those who didn't get it the first time: The problem with the endings is that no matter which ending you pick, it always destroys the setting as it was, and gives no specifics on the ramifications of your actions: The mass relays cease functioning, and the Normandy crew crashes into an unknown planet only to skip generations ahead and say 'countless generations later, they became a fairy tale'.That's it.
Even what you can infer from the ending is bleak: Shepard, even if he/she lives, won't see his/her crewmates again, homeworlds have been razed, and without the relay network distant colonies like feros will perish on their own. As unlikely as it is that the Normandy crew could foster a civilization, there are a number of characters that would live short, painful deaths out of this. For instance, the dextro chyrality crewmembers Tali and Garrus would starve to death. Joker would not have access to medical treatment of his chronic disease.
TLDR; They took away player's freedom to choose, that's why in the end, no matter how hard you fought, how much you cared for every living being in this fictional universe, it was all for naught.
Yes, it destroys the setting as we know it. But it was not for naught. The extinction cycle has ended, and now life in the galaxy can proceed without the lumbering threat of annihilation by the reapers. That's something. I understand that people get pissed because it effectively destroys the setting, but it makes sense that a dramatic change was necessary to end a cycle that has lasted for millions of years and was woven into the nature of galaxy itself in the setting. The explanation for how the cycle worked and why it was there is not very good, but the idea of the ending makes sense to me. I think they had balls, actually, to try something as risky as this, and it was not perfectly executed, but still makes sense to me.
I agree on the major points of your argument, even if it's hard to swallow the 'needs of the many' logic. What would you have changed about its execution? Expand on the ramifications, rather than tack on the
Here's a note of hope for the fans that feel betrayed by the ending:
Since there is a way for Shepard to survive destroying the Reapers you can still hope for a happy ending offscreen if you consider the following points.
1. Civilization just survived the proverbial apocalypse. Scientists know more about Reaper technology than they ever knew. In all likelyhood, they could rebuild-reactivate the relay network within a lifetime.
2. Every race, every living being in the galaxy is now indebted to Shepard, for Shepard has saved them from anhilation.
3. If Shepard lives, Shepard won't give up until the Normandy crew is rescued.
4. The Normandy crew is resourceful, they have lived through worse things than a shipwreck, no doubt they can survive until they are found.
All in all, I can still picture my Shepard, years/decades ahead... finally reuniting with Liara for good.
I agree on the major points of your argument, even if it's hard to swallow the 'needs of the many' logic. What would you have changed about its execution? Expand on the ramifications, rather than tack on the
First I'd like a better explanation for why the cycle exists and how it works. I'm still processing this, because I don't read spoilers and just finished the game yesterday, but the whole Reaper thing to exterminate organics before they create synthetics that will exterminate organics is a bit loopy. The thinking seems to be that they exterminate the more advanced races before they create the synthetics, and let the less advanced races live so not all organic life is wiped out. But this is kinda flimsy as an explanation, unless there's some angle I'm not seeing.
And yes, I think a lot of people would like to see some closure for the characters. We got to know and care for them for a long time (for those of us playing since the first), and not seeing they get this closure is a bit grating. They are shown to live, after all, so their fate could be different from what it was.
And about the whole "needs of the many" thing, this was foreshadowed in conversations with Garrus during the game. Not easy to swallow, but still.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
