Brick

Yeah it reveals the full extent of what Sovereign did to him, but it's still weird that he's walking around with a geth arm, and going, "What? I'm not working with the geth! This Shepard person is crazy. Told you humans aren't ready to be Spectres. Pshh."

Yeah I get all those points, and I've heard them before, but I have specifically heard from some vegans I know, and from people I know who know other vegans, that they say milk is not good for you. It weakens your bones in the long run, and gives you cancer all because we are not supposed to be drinking it from a biology/evolutionary standpoint, and that all the info we were feed growing up about how doctors recommend getting enough dairy products in a healthy and balanced diet was just from the dairy industry lobbyists. I'm skeptical of this because there's a lot of bullshit vegans will believe and spread just to try and get people to stop eating animals (not that I have anything against vegans who do it for personal reasons and aren't preachy about it), like I heard from one that we aren't even supposed to eat meat at all, as our digestive tracts are too short to fully digest it...Fucking what? That's delusional. We absolutely are biologically built to eat meat, fuck our ancestors wouldn't have hunted to begin with if we weren't. We maybe eat too much meat in our diets, and that's a fair thing to think, but to say that we're not supposed to eat meat at all is ridiculous. This is what I mean by vegan propaganda. A guy I used to work with was telling me about how his wife is vegan, and showed him this video of some guy spouting out a bunch of this kind of nonsense, "Do you like eggs? Well you're really just eating a chicken period".

I still enjoy cow milk. I have been using almond and oat milk to make my protein smoothies though. I always hear vegans talk about how cow milk actually isn't good for humans, as we were never meant to drink it as it's for baby cows, and has long term negative side effects, like cancer, and while part of me thinks, yeah OK true it is for baby cows, I can't help but think this is all just a scare tactic, and vegan propaganda.

I was thinking a while ago, what if the ending was never the conversation with the Catalyst Child, but instead at the confrontation with The Illusive Man, where he dies as does Anderson, Sherpard activates the Catalyst, and wipes out the Reapers (or doesn't depending on your choices and war resources). Maybe even add in the option to agree with TIM, and attempt to control the Reapers. Basically that scene does mirror a bit the final scene with Saren from the first game where you can convince him he's being manipulated, and to kill himself. I wonder if people would have been more pleased with that.

You guys can milk me if you really want some new nut milk.

Seriously this man is an inspiration. Kept working into his old age, and not retiring because he loved his craft that much. If only we could all feel like that. I know if I made it as a successful actor I wouldn't want to retire.

While they're at it they should make sure that this engine is adaptable, and easy to develop for. If EA wants this to be their in-house, proprietary engine that they use for their franchises, then DICE needs to make sure that other developers aren't pulling their hair out trying to design a game that isn't a first person Battlefield game.

"How stupid are the people of Iowa?" - Donald Trump

As much as I would like that, is it really that short? Isn't it like 10 hours long?

Solomon Grundy Born on a Monday

Well he was just dropped by his agency https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/amp/news/armie-hammer-dropped-by-wme-exclusive?__twitter_impression=true

Yeah about that... Delayed indefinitely

One thing I would really like them to change for Mass Effect 1 because it always bugged me is Saren's geth arm, and other cybernetics. He mentioned in the final mission how Sovereign implanted him, but we saw those augmentations since the beginning of the game, and seriously no one noticed before the council finally labeled him rogue? Nihilus didn't see that shit before getting shot in the back? Would have made way more sense for him to look like a normal turian, and then when you confront him at the end he has that geth arm, tubes, blue lights, and whatnot. Perhaps originally they wanted to have two models, but time and budget got in the way since that was back when BioWare was independent. Really hope that can finally make that change. Anyone on Twitter able to ask Mac Walters, or someone if this is at all planned to address? It is a small thing, but one that would really help to push this remaster further away from just being a quickly done thing for easy money. This might be my favourite gaming trilogy, so I really want this remaster to be worthy.

Not sure I'd want an unproven developer tackling a project of these magnitude and importance. Remember when the team that had only done the multiplayer for Mass Effect 3 was assigned to do all of Mass Effect Andromeda? Look how that turned out. That being said, the idea of a Knights of the High Republic game that takes the ideas of KoToR, and is basically a modern reimagining of that series, and now canon (with hopefully real time combat) is an exciting one. I just hope the team that would do it is a good team, and could pull it off, like say the original BioWare, or Obsidian.

Still don't believe it's worth getting a PS5 yet (not that I would complain if I got one for free as a prize, or gift mind you), but I can't help but admit that the improvements to PS4 games being played on it sure do seem nice.

10 grand!? Damn no wonder he doesn't want to pay it. I thought when you said you made a bet you meant like 100 bucks tops.

Damn

Let's be honest that shot was always weird. Anyone who's ever had any sort of film training, or you know, seen a movie, could tell you that unless the point of that shot is to have Miranda's butt be the subject, like because Shepard is staring at it, getting aroused before a sex scene, or something, it's an odd shot.

Jordan Peterson?

What?!

I get that. First one was basically Battlefield with a proper story, and made for consoles, but now, at this point where consoles can handle Battlefield at its fullest (i.e. large 64 player maps, with jets and tanks all over the place), there really is no distinguishing between the multiplayer of a mainline Battlefield game, and the multiplayer of a Bad Company game. I think they should do something to make them more distinct. Think of it this way, a modern military Battlefield game is released, and the multiplayer is great, and in fact there is no single player this time. It's Battlefield 6. Now instead that exact same game is released, but there's a single player campaign that follows Marlowe, Sweetwater, Haggard, and Sarge Redford, and suddenly it's Bad Company 3. That to me just lacks creativity. If the campaign is supposed to be a parody, jokey kind of game, reflect that in the multiplayer as well.

Wow! This forum does go off topic with food a lot...

For the Bad Company series I'd like them to try and do something different. Go crazy with it. As it stands, what really separates it from the main series? Nothing really other than a campaign with returning characters. Cool, but the multiplayer is what people really play Battlefield for, so make it different than the main series. Even if they want to cut it back to 32 players, and focus on Rush, that's a good start, but not enough. I say since the Bad Company series is more comedic, and goofy, to just reflect that in the multiplayer. Make it more arcadey, have me be able to do outlandish things like grab onto the wing of a plane, and shoot from it as it flies around, have more jokey dialogue, give me crazy executions when I sneak up behind someone. Make it absolutely bonkers and over the top, almost parodic of the super macho, Po-faced seriousness military genre. Part of the charm of Bad Company 2 was that it came out after Modern Warfare 2, and took the piss out of it a little. Ramp that up to 11! Now I know what some people are going to say, "I don't want that in Battlefield", and that's fine, but this would be for the Bad Company sub series, so the mainline series would be the more down to Earth, serious style like 3, 4, 1, and V have been. So if you want the more grounded, military shooter that's a bit more sandbox tactical, instead of arcade twitch, that's what 6 would be for. That being said, if they did go that route for Bad Company 3, I'm not sure if now would be the right time to release something like that when people were disappointed in V, so perhaps it would be better to release 6 to give those people the game they were hoping to get with V, just in whatever setting 6 is (probably modern), and then a few years later release BC3 that's super crazy, and then again a few years later they go back to the me straightforward type with like a Vietnam setting for Battlefield 7.

Technically it goes into your muscle, but have an upvote anyway

Technically we don't know what it's called, and we've just been calling it Battlefield 6 in place of any other name, so for all we know it is going to be Bad Company 3! There was a rumour that BC3 was supposed to come out in 2018, but things got switched around, and DICE put out a WWII theme because that's what EA wanted, and that's part of why it was rushed. I remember Battlefield 1 actually launched in a pretty good state.