ME3 had excellent gameplay. It was an interesting dichotomy for me. I loved the story of ME1 but the gameplay became a bit of a chore after ME2 released. ME3 was the opposite. The gameplay was awesome but the story was hit or miss. I've never seen such an  uneven game. The highs were exceptional the lows were awful.

Well, despite what the storyline could've been mass effect 3 is still a good game. It still has great characters, galaxy impacting events and great gameplay. Surely because you would've prefered a diferent storyline it doesnt magically becomes a bad game.

My problem with DA:I is it poops all over what you accomplished in the previous games, beeing that they are contained stories, unlikely ME wich was a single arc. I worked hard for those ending i got. They were part of my journey on those games. I don't want bioware to bring them back just to poop all over that. I'm fine wirh bringing them back, but their "ending" from the previous game shouldnt be impacted by it. 

My problem with DAI isnt just that though. It was the repetitive and boring objectives aswell as the short main plot. There was toomuch focus on useless secondary tasks.

I thought it was an amazing game. Like you said the gunplay was so great I really loved the improvements to it. People's main issue was the ending but to me ME3 was one big ending not just the final 5 minutes of video that we saw. That whole game was me ending my adventure that had started back in ME1 years before when the reapers first threatened all life as we know it.

There are a few things from ME3 that I'm actually saw we didn't really see the after effects of. The problem the game had in a sense of decision making is that it was the last in the story so things should be being resolved not left open, so while the Geth/Quarian War ending had a good, galaxy changing outcome. While the Krogan decision can affect the galaxy but only after the game (and man if you had the guts to pull the trigger...).

The problem Dragon Age series has is that while Bioware is trying to make it a complicated story like Mass Effect (dialogue wheels etc), they really shouldn't be. Dragon Age, unless they intend on doing a story in the world that is like ME where you have 1 character in 3 games, works better as a world, not a larger story. The story aspects of DA:I and the ramifications of it after don't work because they can't focus on those aspects in the next game UNLESS it's a direct sequel. Things are only mentioned in passing, a big decision in DA:O was to kill Morigan's mother, yet they just reverse this for their overall story anyway. Many big story moments in DA:I are not in our control at all and I think this is because Bioware are trying to control where the story is going instead of letting us say (I mean they tried to make out like the Warden's were bad in it, we started as a Warden in DA:O and they were good, trying to turn us against the Wardens was a bad idea).

This is one of the reasons I want the DA series to be more about individual games set in the same world with the same gameplay mechanics. While you can mention certain things, each game should stand on their own and not be controlled by decisions before.

"First of all. I am willing to apologise to you on mutual grounds. I felt "attacked" by your from the beginning. I am sorry if you felt that I was attacking you, that was not my intentions. Which is why I was clear to state that I believe you are intelligent, but I do feel that you may have an inferiority complex simply because you are displaying indications of this to me. Just as I am displaying indications to you that I am lying. Unfortunately, I am not. I did post a link to the web-site of one of guys I talked to. An ex-founding father to be exact. One of the men behind the Baulders Gate games. He gave a very interesting lecture on the game industry and the way it works. A great guy. "

No, I don't accept that.  If you call someone a jackass and claim that they have an inferiority complex then it was clearly your intention to insult them.  Especially with the word jackass which is pretty much only used as an insult when you're not talking about donkeys.  So don't call me a jackass and pretend you weren't insulting me.  That's a lie.  

You are not "displaying indications" that you're lying.  You lied.  It's in black and white.  I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but if you say you talked to 2 people, then you say you talked to at least 7, you lied at least once.   It's not a case of me making unfounded accusations to discredit you.  Furthermore, I mentioned that you are a liar, because it is entirely relevant to this conversation.  We're talking about Mass Effect 3, so if you're lying about information in Mass Effect 3, then that's relevant.  Whether or not I have an inferiority complex is entirely irrelevant.  So why are you bringing it up AGAIN if not to insult me?  "Oh I'm sorry if I offended you by saying you have an inferiority complex... but you know, I'm pretty sure you do."

This slimy "sorry not sorry" is quite offensive.  Is my supposed inferiority complex relevant to this conversation?  If not, then kindly stfu about it, and don't insult me again.  I'm more than happy to defend my claims and my opinions.  I am not going to defend my personality.

I could claim that  you are lying about a masters degree as. I haven't seen evidence for a lot of your claims. Like myself. I only see a wall of text. I haven't seen you post your degree online. Feel free to do so if you want to rest your case on this matter. 

I don't appreciate being called a liar without good reason.  I've actually given evidence to support ALL of my claims.  When I said what I thought the theme of the game is, I gave details from the game.  When I called you a liar, I showed where you lied.  When I claimed authors do not have total authority over their work, I showed it with logic, examples, and gave you links to important scholarly essays on the topic.  If you think my evidence does not support my claim, then you can question that, but don't claim that you don't see evidence.  I have given a HUGE abundance of evidence even on minor points.  If you see a wall of text, then you do not know what evidence is. Can you show me a lot of claims I made without evidence? Cause if not, that's a lie.

Plus that's just rude.  Because I didn't come in here shouting you're a liar.  I called you a liar once I had conclusive evidence that you lied.  WHen you said "I spoke to two people at Bioware" and then "I spoke to 7 people at Bioware", I knew you lied, so then I said it.

And, your claim that you spoke to people at Bioware is directly relevant to the conversation. So, it is justified to doubt that claim.  I only brought up my degree to show strong evidence that I do in fact understand theme.

Your position, that organics vs synthetics is the main theme of Mass Effect, is COMPLETELY dependent on your supposed conversations.  My argument does NOT rest on me having a degree.  So, if you don't believe me, that's fine.

With all that said,

https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/12046951_10100785576131210_5494754248596277221_n.jpg?oh=164d24281346979535959c99fe8b53ea&oe=57028B35  (copy paste if the link doesn't work).

Because if I bring something up, I can prove it.  Where's your proof?

And don't claim that I just don't get how theme works unless you can show that ^_^

You are correct about brining peace to the galaxy is a major theme that overlays in the series. The theme of that was drawn from one word "Unity". As far as themes in game development goes. You remain incorrect. You ignored my God of War example. Probably the simplest example. Would you like me to give you more?

I'm not correct about that because I never said that. Which goes to show why I wouldn't accept your statement from Bioware even if I believed it and cared about author's intent.

What I said was that the theme was cooperation vs individualism.  All of my examples were related to that, and I never said the word peace in any context.  If you can't even properly relay my own message back to me, I have serious doubts that you can relay a message from Bioware. This is yet another reason why "Bioware told me so" does not hold up, even if your claim was true.  Because you're showing an inability to take in and accurately convey information.  And no, this is not a personal attack because it is actually relevant to the topic of whether or not I should believe your claim about the theme.

And what exactly do you expect me to say about God of War?  You said the theme of God of War was violence and gor or battling the greek gods.  Yay.  I don't see how that comment warranted any comment from me.  I understand how concepts work in gaming and I didn't feel I needed to say anything.

But since you insist on having me comment on every irrelevant tangent you go on, fine.  You're misusing the word theme.  I have never ever seen the term theme used in that way, probably because that's not what theme means.  I'd call it a concept.  You have concept art that gives you an idea of what the game would look like, and story concepts that draft out the story, and gameplay concepts that help shape the gameplay.  

If you can find links to anyone reputable talking about theme in the way you are, provide a link.  

Andromeda will be an all new chapter in the Mass Effect universe. It will have some relations to the original trilogy but it will feel new and fresh. We likely will not see the Reapers as it should be outside of the cycle. Keep in mind that not all the Reapers just go to one galaxy lol. The will be a new type of enemy. Should it remain unchanged. Feel free to record this. The enemies will be know as "The Revenants". The game will be heavily focused on exploration and colonisation. You will be a pathfinder. I will refrain from any more details. It will very much feel like a Mass Effect game, but it will be a very different game. It will bring in new fans and hopefully please all of the existing fans. At least that is the goal. Again, feel free to copy paste this into a note pad for next holiday season. November should be the sweet spot. It will be a more human story. 

Hmmmmmm... so you can't say who told you the MAIN THEME of the game, but you CAN tell me details about the story in a NEW game?  Really? And you wonder why I don't believe this bs?

And I am going to again call you a liar.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/109774/20151123/mass-effect-andromeda-leak-maybe-reveals-new-gameplay-information.htm

http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/gaming/571570/Mass-Effect-4-News-leak-Andromeda-setting-online-Strike-Missions-premise-story

You're portraying publicly leaked information as some kind of insider info. Coincidentally all of the "insider" information you have was also leaked about half a year ago.  And I guess you're hoping that I don't have google or something.  Please, stop trying to get me to believe bullshit.  I have ample reason now to doubt every single thing you say, so unless it is backed up by evidence, expect me to not believe it.

And the name of the enemies supposedly leaked is the "remnants".  Not revenants. 

All Bioware games follow the dialogue wheel. The new Bioware IP from the main studios in Edmonton will once again use the standard Bioware formula. This game is top secret. I am happy to say that there has been no leaks as of yet. All that has and can be stated about the game is that one of the main focuses that Bioware is working on is motion capture. This is to be expected and they feel that the facial expressions in the Mass Effect and Dragon Age series did not capture the essence they wanted. Bioware is taking a look at what Naughty Dog has done with Uncharted and The Last of Us. This game will be very different from other Bioware games and will capture the best of their work. The game may or may not be more modernish. That last part is just a wild guess on my part. Oh and by all means. Please do press the print screen button and copy this into paint and save a copy. It would be greatly appreciated. Unfortunately the evidence may come late, but it's better late than never. After all, as you stated. I am a pathological lair. // sarcasm.

Oh wow.  It may or may not be more modernish?  How can that statement possibly be proven right or wrong?  This paragraph says nothing concrete about the game except that it uses motion capture which falls under the realm of no shit.  Even if I cared enough, there's nothing here that could really verify or not verify your insider status.  

What details are here that I could look back on and say "wow that liar was actually right"! That it uses the conversation wheel?  Duh.  Anyone could predict that.  That they're going to use motion capture?  No shit.  Of course they're going to work on technical aspects of the game for a new gen.  Bioware is taking a look at Naughty Dog games?  How on Earth could I definitively say whether or not they looked at those games?  The game will capture the best of their work?  Subjective and vague.  The game will be very different from other Bioware games?  Subjective, and contradicts the idea that they will "once again use the standard Bioware formula".  The game may or may not be more modernish?  Lolol.  Great prediction Nostredamus.  That literally can't be wrong.  Let me try.  "The game may or may not involve lemons".  Whether the game has or doesn't have lemons, I'm right.  For an insider, or contact or whatever you're claiming, you've provided nothing that even comes close to worthwhile information. 

The idea that you have "insider" info on Mass Effect 4 (which has been leaked) that contains concrete details, and can not provide any concrete "insider" info on this game where there have not been leaks makes me further doubt your claims.  It seems that your "inside" source is google, since all the inside information you're claiming to have can be found there.

As for printing the screen, I really really don't give a shit.  This is what you're not getting.  I don't care at all if you're a liar.  Whatever you do outside of this conversation is your business.  The only reason I brought up you lying is when you lied about something that is not relevant to the debate or if you told lies about me.  You seem to be getting really defensive and trying to prove yourself, but I dont care.  And you're lying about me having called you a pathological liar. But, you are starting to convince me.

This comment may sound a little bit of an asshole. So I apologise in advance. You dodged my comments regarding game design and it's core themes that are expanded on. Why is this? Do you have any experience what so ever in game design, or knowledge of how the game industry works? Or do you just merely play games and talk about them online? Just a curious question that must be asked at this point. Because again, I am fabricating bullshit on such matters. You seem to flaunt your English degree around to prove your point. You don't and won't see me doing such a thing. But what do I know? 

I won't see you do such a thing?  Lol... 

" I can claim that I do my own writing anomalously, which I do, and that I have a strong understanding of philosophy, which I also do. I studied what a lot of philosophy and A.I. as a form of intelligent life and becoming self-aware is one of the studies in university. I had to write one hell of an essay on that."

" I do have a little side project that I do where I write and create content in an anonymous matter. What started out as a simple concept to prove a point, has surpassed my expectations and milestones. I occasionally interact with the followers and produce more content. I get to reflect on various philosophies, stories, polarity, and contrasts. I play with plethora of ideas of various themes. To say it isn't fun or intriguing would be a lie"

"One of the greatest things about writing is that there is no right or wrong for an author. The challenge is to portray that vision to your audience. I fell into this trap in a recent script I wrote. I over complicated it, and was restricted to 45 seconds. The result of the draft was revealing to me. Only 40% of the people understood the meaning behind it. That is not good. That is bad. Some people might say "Oh well the 60% are stupid." I've had people say that to me. On the other hand. I picked a subject that required more time to flesh out the explanation and emotions."

"As for that authority thing you posted. It made me laugh a little because I am quite the opposite of that. As someone who is quite philosophical and scientific. I delve into a lot of research to form my own opinions on various matters. "

You keep talking about how much you've studied things, how much you've written, and how "scientific and philosophical you are".  And I know the scientific part of that statement is wrong, because if you don't think you need to present evidence for a claim, you ain't scientific.

How exactly is "I have a strong understanding of philosophy" or "as someone who is quite philosophical and scientific" and different than "I have a degree in English"?  It's not any different, besides the fact that my claim to knowledge has been validated by outside sources.  

So don't accuse me of doing something and claim you haven't to try and make me look bad.  Cause you did, and I showed it.  This lying thing... it has to stop.

Plus, I never made such claims as "I am a philosophical person" or "I wrote a hell of an essay" or "I play with plethora of ideas of themes" (which btw is a totally malformed sentence.  Among other issues you would need to say "a" plethora of ideas.  Don't use big words if you don't know how to use them). This is just bragging as it doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about.   I didn't use my English degree to show how smart I am.  I used it to show that, unlike you, I actually do have special knowledge on a topic, in this case an author's authority, that was relevant to the conversation, and to defend myself against the claim that I don't understand theme.  If you claim I don't, you are at odds with well over a dozen professors who have attested to the fact that I do.  My degree is relevant, because I assure you, I did not earn an English degree without understanding one of the most basic of literary concepts.  Your bragging about how scientific you are is not relevant to the conversation in any matter.  Frankly, it's quite unbecoming.

And I did not use my degrees to prove any point.  I mentioned them, and then linked you to two scholarly essays on the matter, which I'm guessing you ignored, provided examples, explanations, and logical proof.  I did use the degree to show that I am a reputable source on the matter but I also included evidence.  The only "point" I used my degree to prove was to address the attack you made against my knowledge of theme.  Because, yes, my degree is strong evidence that I do know a little something about that.

And why even bring this up?  Because you can not support your own claims, so you're implying that I'm arrogant (which you actually said before... I missed that personal attack, but you're throwing out so many it's hard to keep track) in lieu of actual defending your point of view with evidence.

And hey, maybe I am arrogant.  And that apparent arrogance is probably just going to get worse as you lie, insult me, imply that I am lying, and question my knowledge on a subject about which I am very knowledgeable.  Regardless, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not what I say is right.  So keep your personal feelings about me out of this conversation unless they somehow relate to the theme of Mass Effect 3.  

As for my game design experience, no, which is entirely irrelevant (I'm noticing a theme here).  Because I do not need to design a game to realize the theme of this game.  I never said I was a developer, and this is not a site that mainly has game developers, so you should have known from the beginning I was not talking from a development perspective.  Your comments at the beginning CLEARLY indicated you were talking about story and not game design.  To quote.

"I'm going to need to agree to disagree because the main plot of the series was indeed the interaction of Organics and Synthetics."

"The main philosophy of the series is regarding both Organics and Synthetics in various forms and points of views. Verses does not necessarily mean fighting, but comparing the two and the aspects of them."

When you gave examples, you did not give game design examples, you gave story examples.  You also gave most of your examples based on non-interactive media like movies and writing which show that you are (or at least were) focusing on literature and not game design.

When you're talking about philosophy and plot, you are clearly talking about the story and not game design (although there is some overlap).  And instead of addressing my questions about the story, you're now switching the conversation to being about game design.  And now, you are again making ad hominen attacks.  Instead of actually addressing what I said, you're just saying "what do you know about game design." 

It doesn't matter if I'm a game designer.  Is what I say not true?  If not, then show evidence that it is not.

And even if we are talking about game design YOU HAVE GIVEN NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOURSELF.  I showed you how most of the game is not spent fighting synthetics, and how the non-combat sections of the game revolve around another theme, which you ignored, and instead simply opted to attack me instead of my claim.

You have gone out of your way to talk about everything in the world besides the theme of Mass Effect 3. 

 I want to give a shout out to Darc Requiem for stating the following. He is 100% dead on the mark. I want to thank him for pointing out something very insightful to the conversation regarding Mass Effect. This is something I brought up in my original posts. I can confirm that what he said is true. Oh but I suppose you'll call me a lair again for not being able to prove it. Either way. I want to thank Darc Requiem for his contribution do the table.

"The original theme of ME was dropped completely after the original lead writer, Drew Karpyshyn, left Bioware. This resulted in the sudden "organics vs. synthetics" motivational change for the Reapers. The original motivation of the Reapers was tied to the Dark Energy story point brought up in ME2. I'll try to be brief. The Reapers original motivation was to solve the Dark Energy issue. In ME2, Tali's team on Haelstrom was studying Dholen a star that was aging rapidly. The source of the rapid aging was Dark Energy. The Mass Effect Field technology that powered the ME Universe was the source. The Reapers cycle wipes out all advanced life to stop the proliferation of Dark Energy. This was to buy  time to resolve the problem. Without the Cycle's the dark energy would continue to build, this would cause all stars to exihibit the aging present in Dholen. This would lead to the eventual end of life in the galaxy. Shepard original was going to have the choice destroying the Reapers and hoping the Council races could resovled the dark energy problem or letting the cycle continue to ensuring that some form of life would go on."

Your constant asides about "oh but you think I'm a liar" are incredibly childish and a really silly way to deflect criticism.  Look, we've already established that I don't believe your claim, and you've already admitted that it was at least partially a lie.  So, either prove what you can prove, or drop it.  I said this REALLY long ago. Stop repeating dubious claims you can't prove, and I won't call you a liar.  Simple.  But if you keep repeating absurd claims that you know I don't accept without backing it up, then don't get pissy when I call it a lie.

And I don't know why you keep bringing up entirely irrelevant stuff over and over again.  Requiem is talking about the motivation of the reapers being organics vs synthetics.  And this absolutely was the motivation.  He didn't say anywhere that the theme of the game was organics vs synthetics.  

And, notice what he did that you have not been doing.  He didn't just say Drew Karpshyn said the plot was supposed to be about dark matter.  He said that, and then brought up an example from the game (the aging star) to back up what he said.  He is not making an argument from authority.  He is looking at what the author says, and then seeing if it matches up with the game itself.

Oh, and congrats on being able to confirm it.  I can confirm it too because it was in a public interview he did. -_-;  Again, don't pretend that public information was shared directly with you.  It won't prove to me that you're being honest, and it won't make you seem any more important.

I also state for a multiple times (I won't give a number because I am too lazy to look back and do not have the time, and you'll call me a lair if I am one number off :3 ) companies contain certain rules regarding the flow of information. I would like to respect that for the people I have talked to. So yes, I will refuse to give you information on this. Feel free to call me out on this one, but hey. It's better to be safe than sorry ;) In this case. Being called a liar or an idiot is much more preferred on my part. I should learn to keep my mouth shut while sharing. Perhaps you'd agree that I should be a little more.... selective?

No, I'll call you a liar when you are one number off, and then five numbers off, and then admit that you lied to make your information seem more important. You admitted that you lied about that, so I don't know why you keep whining about it.  You lied, I caught you, so simply drop the bs claim.

But, I don't really care if you say you spoke to someone at Bioware, or if you say god came down and told you the plot.  But, if you want me to actually take what you say into consideration and use it to inform my view, then yes, you need to prove it.  To suggest that I should just accept it without evidence is insulting my intelligence.

I didn't want to say it before, but I actually spoke to at least 8 people from Bioware, who all told me you're wrong.  Unless one of us can provide evidence to support ourselves, then both claims are equally valid.  If we accept yours, we have to accept mine.  If we reject mine, we have to reject yours.

I think this is enough for now. I am sorry that I did not address as much as possible this time. I intentionally did that because of the amount of time we spent on arguing. You said we were going off subject

, so I turned this back on subject. Feel free to say I'm dodging your questions. I feel that it's time that if we are going to talk about Mass Effect. We shall return to the subject of Mass Effect as you have subtlety suggested when I went off subject. Forgive me for my hasty reply.

I was not very subtle... To simplify this.  Here are the questions that I feel were relevant and not addressed.

1. How can we tell if an author's comments about their work are wrong?  If what the author says disagrees with the actual text, which do we accept?

2. Whether or not you talked to someone at Bioware , there should still be evidence in the games themselves that organics vs synthetics is the main theme. Right?

3. Following # 2, do you have any evidence that, from a design and literary perspective, organics vs synthetics is the main theme?  Prove this, using evidence from the games.

4.  Should people accept claims without any sort of evidence?  If they should not, why do you keep insisting I should and that I am "desperate" for arguing against your claim?

These are really simple questions that I've brought up several different times.

I didn't dislike ME3 because I wanted different story. I wanted a good story. ME3 doesn't have overall good story. It had its moments but it was terribly inconsistent. The dialogue took a huge step back.

Shepard had more limited options. The bulk of your interactions with you party feature no dialogue wheel. It was like the ME2 conversations with Kasumi and Zaeed.

The story I listed was the original arc. ME3 reminded me of when Spielberg finished AI for Kubrick. The theme changed completely. The theme of Mass Effect was unifying disparate people's against an overwhelming foe. Not "organics versus synthetics. The Geth/Quarian conflict contradicted the  "logic" of the Reapers anyway. The synthetics turning on their masters nonsense The Catalyst spewed didn't apply. The Quarians attacked the Geth and tried to wipe them out. The Geth could have wiped out the Quarians but they let them escape. They even preserved Rannoch for them despite their on going conflict.

I loved mass effect 3, as did the critics and the vast majority of people. The single player was phenomenal and the mp while I was skeptical of its inclusion delivered. What pisses me off is the vocal minority came out whining there tushes off and made some truly awesome people retire from the industry.

Ah yes "vocal minority". If it were a vocal minority. They wouldn't have released the Extended Cut for free.

It's a good game... not sure why people wouldn't like it.

The game was trash. The outdated engone,the crappy shooting mechanics and sloppy cover system that was stiff,the bad A.I.,the screen tearing and frequent framerate drops,the horrible story and repetitive missions,the poor animations and no improvements over ME2.