I'll be curious to hear what you think of Horizon. After taking a couple of hours to get into it, it's become one of my favorite games in a long time. It just feels good to play, in that ineffable way that games sometimes can.

They don't really get into it at all, but I always kind of thought that Garrus went off the deep end a little after Shepard's "death" at the beginning of the game and it was his grief over that which eventually led him to become Archangel.

That's not how I've heard it described in the past, but I'm struggling to find any sources for it so maybe I'm the crazy one.

I honestly thought it was a lot of fun. If you have fond memories of '80s-style movies like Big Trouble in Little China or Buckaroo Banzai, you'll probably dig it.

I think there's a distinction that can be made about a game with a big open world (Dark Souls, Shadow of the Colossus), and an open world "map game" (I do not personally care for that little neologism, but here we are), but in my mind, they're different versions of the same beast- sure, some content is gated by boss…

You have to fuck everything up pretty bad back in ME2 and make the wrong choices in ME3, but yeah enjoy-

I'm trying to think of examples of games that did in fact willingly punish your character in terms of gameplay mechanics, and for some reason all that comes to mind is Fallen London, wherein there is a plotline that will allow you to completely mutilate and destroy your character for, basically, no good reason. Even…

Maybe we're making different distinctions here- I think you're talking about a negative gameplay consequence, while I'm talking about a negative story consequence. Both are, more or less, equally "bad" outcomes, in my opinion.

Re: Garrus

I think the first two Dark Souls (haven't played 3 yet) do a great job of this as well. It's definitely an "open world", but From does a great job of making each area feel unique and distinct from everything else.

The runner of everyone busting on Shepard's terrible dancing is a great example of humor that worked from the original series, I think.

But there are clearly cases where the player is punished if they make "incorrect" decisions- Tali commits friggin' suicide right in front of you if you play your cards wrong. I guess I'm not sure if we're actually disagreeing or not here.

I do think it's interesting that you actually can guide yourself into an unwinnable state by the end of ME2, though you have to try pretty hard to do so.

Oh yeah, I forgot you could sacrifice a bunch of awesome Krogan soldiers in exchange for some dumb bug that sings about how great you are.

It's hilariously stupid. It amounts to nothing, she dies either way, and nobody even tries to make you feel bad if you kill her in the first place.

That's what they did for The Witcher 2, actually- there's a whole different second act depending on a choice you make at the end of the first act. I think it's a bold choice, but I also understand developer's hesitance to spend a bunch of time and resources on areas of the game players might not ever see.

You're right- we need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.

I played a goody-goody Paragon Shepard pretty much through and through, but I doused that Rachni Queen in a tank of acid and didn't feel bad about it for one second. I have no idea what they've been doing to this goddamn thing over the years, why risk it getting out? I'm Commander Shepard, dammit, and this is my…

The synopsis in the article is actually really misleading and inaccurate, so far as I can tell (quelle surprise!). It's more of your standard PTSD drama.

I thought he was pretty great in Fury, too, though apparently he was hell to work with on that one.