925 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[Gwydden]

@fdrty: I'm not going to answer blow by blow again since that could go on forever. So I'll try to answer in general terms. For starters, I think you're making a lot of assumptions about how I played the game. As I've said, I've liked every Bioware game I've played before this one and I was determined to like Inquisition as well. I did the bare minimum of side content required to proceed with the main story (I should clarify that I was counting all companion content as part of the main story; it's not technically the case, but I tend to do that with all Bioware games, since companions are the main event) and I already found that amount of fetching and questing tedious enough to make me lose my patience. I talked to all the companions and advisers and did their quests. For the most part, I found them just as bad or only slightly better as the other quests in the game. For example, I like Blackwall, but collecting the Warden's secrets or whatever they were called was just as bad as any run of the mill fetch quest you get wandering around.

 

In some games it doesn't matter if the side content is bad, because I can just skip it and focus on what I like. That is what I do with the ME games. I just do the main story and the companion stuff, except for some stuff in the hubs and the odd sidequest that sounds interesting. In DAI I can't do that. I might have written it off as an okay game (not good, but okay) if I could have just done the same there. As it is, I was forced to experience the side content, which was awful, and that soured me to the entire game. Yeah, the main story sucked and only a couple characters were particularly interesting but that's par for the course in Bioware games; I don't expect masterful storytelling from them, just a fun game with decent storytelling and the occasional nuggets of brilliance strewn here and there. DAI was not fun and had very few of the latter. You say I should judge DAI for what it tried, but as an open world game I've played much better e.g. Kingdoms of Amalur and The Witcher 3. Even Skyrim, which bored me, looked more fun.

 

As for ME3... I think the hate it gets is exaggerated. Yeah, the ending sucked, but the game was fun for the most part. It's not like the previous games didn't have their own major flaws. Maybe I'm just not as invested in the series as some people are. I actually have a very low standard for games: they just have to be fun. ME3 was and DAI wasn't; the ending of the former is rather irrelevant in such a basic comparison. That's really the only thing MEA has to accomplish for me to deem it at least "okay," although it will have to try harder for me to think it particularly good or even great.

 

PS: I'm sorry stuff isn't going well for you and hope things improve soon. I'm glad my ranting can serve as a distraction, at least.

[fdrty]

PS: I'm sorry stuff isn't going well for you and hope things improve soon. I'm glad my ranting can serve as a distraction, at least.

 

Thanks, everything's good now anyway.

 

Anyway, I don't think games should always be 'fun'. Entertaining, perhaps. But I don't think 'fun' is the endgame for the medium.

 

As it stands, we're never going to see eye to eye on this. I just don't see the game as badly as you do. I know that the game does some things badly. But, overall, in my opinion the good far outweighs the bad. When I think back to previous playthroughs, I generally enjoyed the game. When I think back to ME3 I can't help but think of the complete aberration that the ending is. I can't play it without knowing how much of a dumpster fire the ending will become.

 

But this is getting a little off topic. The question is: what about DAI made you lose faith in Bioware? Was it just that they made a game that you didn't enjoy? Is doing that once enough to make you lose faith in an entire company?

 

I won't write off an entire dev team because they made 1 game that I didn't like; maybe it wasn't for me, or maybe it was an experiment which backfired. And that sounds like your experience with DAI - the things they tried didn't come off well, or it just wasn't your deal. That's why I said I don't criticise games for not being what I want.

 

Sometimes I dislike games that are good, but I don't think that those games are failures because of that.

 

But the ME3 ending shows that they completely lost the plot. That really was a fundamental failure which made me question whether the ME team can deliver in the future.

[Iakus]

Not impressed. Simply because of who they're singing to.

 

Leliana's singing in DAO was far more touching to me. Her song was In Uthenera (Leliana's Song) and I much prefer the themes of Death they were going for there far more than this.

 

If DAO was death (or survival) and DA2 was family (or home), then DAI is Faith.... except they're all fools about it and can't tackle the subject.

 

The Shepard's lost, and his home is far

Keep to the stars, the dawn will come

 

 

There.  Death theme 

 

I liked the scene, and I liked the theme.  DAI felt like a deconstruction of the "Chosen One" thing, as the Inquisitor really is just a regular person at the wrong place at the right time.  It's how people interpret those circumstances that gives them faith.

[Gwydden]

But this is getting a little off topic. The question is: what about DAI made you lose faith in Bioware? Was it just that they made a game that you didn't enjoy? Is doing that once enough to make you lose faith in an entire company?

 

I won't write off an entire dev team because they made 1 game that I didn't like; maybe it wasn't for me, or maybe it was an experiment which backfired. And that sounds like your experience with DAI - the things they tried didn't come off well, or it just wasn't your deal. That's why I said I don't criticise games for not being what I want.

 

Sometimes I dislike games that are good, but I don't think that those games are failures because of that.

I haven't "lost faith" in Bioware. DAI didn't change my opinion of them or of their games. What I meant was that my biggest concern for MEA is that I'm going to find it as unenjoyable (and that's ultimately what I mean by "not fun") as DAI, since it is also going to be open world and DAI doesn't exactly inspire confidence (to me) in Bioware's ability to deliver the mechanic in an interesting way.

 

As I said, is not that I'm opposed to the whole open world idea on principle. I have enjoyed open world games before. I just don't think DAI handled it well, and until Bioware proves they can do it in a satisfactory manner I am going to be at least a little weary of any games of theirs that come with it.

 

 But yet again, I'm overall optimistic about MEA. For one, I'm sure the Montreal studio has reviewed the criticism, good and bad, that DAI got.  And then I think that the game is starting off with several advantages that DAI didn't have. For example, I found the combat in DAI to be godawful because of a number of questionable and frankly baffling design decisions that I can't wrap my head around. The freaking horse was useless as it made your companions disappear and bumped into ditches every two seconds. In contrast, I expect ME's combat will be more fun and fast paced and for what I've seen some thought seems to have gone into the Mako.

 

One of the main things that makes open world games like KoA or TW3 more palatable for me is that they have a much, much better ratio of cities and villages to wilderness than DAI, and said cities and villages are much better made. I find it is very hard to make endless expanses of wilderness interesting unless you're dealing with a survival game. Now, MEA is probably going to be mostly wilderness as well, but I expect they'll include at least one major population hub and even the wilderness is bound to be more interesting as we'll be exploring a variety of bizarre alien planets, though ultimately it will come down to the implementation.

 

I also think KoA, TW3 and Skyrim do wilderness better than DAI, but that's a more complicated and less relevant debate 

[In Exile]

Not impressed. Simply because of who they're singing to.

Leliana's singing in DAO was far more touching to me. Her song was In Uthenera (Leliana's Song) and I much prefer the themes of Death they were going for there far more than this.

If DAO was death (or survival) and DA2 was family (or home), then DAI is Faith.... except they're all fools about it and can't tackle the subject.

I found that song to be totally nonsensical from start to finish. It made no sense to me why she started signing it, it didn't really have any particular connection to anything that was happening except in the most tangential sense, and ultimately did not tie in with any narrative moment of any worth.

[In Exile]

It fits in a lot of the subtext. It's not heavy handed or anything. Like I said, if DAO has a theme, it's death. Or maybe more specifically, acceptance of death. Whether it's talking to Leliana, or Wynne, or Sten and his admonitions on duty, or Alistair and conflicting with him about the Wardens. It's always kind of being brought up. Most of the main quests generally end with a dramatic death too. Her song is a funeral song. Depending on how things play out, it's a funeral song for you.

But at the same time, it's great because you're supposed to be conflicted and pissed off and Morrigan is sitting in the corner trying to convince you of something else. She's all about survival. She's the anti-Leliana.


I'd like a game that tackles faith, but this isn't it. I could've sworn even Weekes said he wasn't that happy with it.. or thought it could be better. Whatever it is they were going for, it came off like Life of Brian to me. Except Life of Brian is funny and wasn't so serious.

The DAO theme is stupid, because the game isn't about acceptance of anything. The writers just don't grasp how sacrifice or adherence to an ideal works. You can't get drafted into an ideal. They bring it up constantly as if you somehow chose to be a Warden and on the idea that drinking magic Kool Aid somehow makes you care about the ideology of the order that potentially kidnapped you into doing it. Her song is as stupid as Wynne's speech about duty, because the whole thing is desperately trying to fix a motivation and moral to you that not only do you never need to have, but can just end the game with a karmic Houdini that makes oodles of sense more than ritual suicide.

DAO doesn't have a unifying theme. It's a mess in that regard.

[straykat]

I found that song to be totally nonsensical from start to finish. It made no sense to me why she started signing it, it didn't really have any particular connection to anything that was happening except in the most tangential sense, and ultimately did not tie in with any narrative moment of any worth.

 

I don't know what game you played, but it pops up after you complete the Dalish mission. That's the most immediate context. It just has extra meaning, with all of the main themes in the game.

[straykat]

karmic Houdini that makes oodles of sense more than ritual suicide.

DAO doesn't have a unifying theme. It's a mess in that regard.

 

Now you're just being crass for the sake of it.

[In Exile]

I'll give you that about Corypheus. There was a cool idea there. Although I still don't like how it played out.

I think I really started souring by this point because I realized how I didn't matter. The same level of power and faith was bestowed regardless. There's no roleplaying aspect to it. It's like finding out a person who you thought loved you can easily fall for anyone else too. Even the person who hates them. Hah. It brings out disgust in me. Not appreciation. And it gets worse from there. You're accepted and perfect at everything, with very little blowback or regardless of who you are. At least DAO had the excuse of you hiding behind a bigger symbol.. the Wardens. That's convenient enough for me to move on. This wasn't.

And the extreme power and faith presented here wasn't existent in the Chantry before anyhow. Except for Andraste. They're not an interventionist religion. She said herself the Maker has turned away. Yet now they're trying to write Moses or Muhammad into a religion that wasn't even geared for that. Just because it's "faith". As if they're all the same. But now I'm getting on a whole topic of theology, so I'll cut it short.

The whole point is that it doesn't matter what you do. That's the main theme. That heroes are about the stories the people who are saved invent about them. That there's no difference between divine providence and total chance, beyond the desperate need of people to cling to a saviour when it seems like they are beset by death and disaster at all sides. DAI constantly hammers home that who the Inquisitor is or wants does not matter. You have the biggest symbol ever in DAI: being seen as the divine savior. That's the whole point of the story. And it gets repeated over and over - with how the Evanuris became gods and Solas came to be the closest thing the Dalish mythos has to Loki. It's not about what you want - because becoming a symbol for good or ill isn't about you.

As for the Chantry, Bioware retconned that one hardcore in DA2.

[straykat]

The whole point is that it doesn't matter what you do. That's the main theme. That heroes are about the stories the people who are saved invent about them. That there's no difference between divine providence and total chance, beyond the desperate need of people to cling to a saviour when it seems like they are beset by death and disaster at all sides. DAI constantly hammers home that who the Inquisitor is or wants does not matter. You have the biggest symbol ever in DAI: being seen as the divine savior. That's the whole point of the story. And it gets repeated over and over - with how the Evanuris became gods and Solas came to be the closest thing the Dalish mythos has to Loki. It's not about what you want - because becoming a symbol for good or ill isn't about you.

As for the Chantry, Bioware retconned that one hardcore in DA2.

 

Desperate need to cling to a savior wasn't even Andrastian. They are deist. Not theist. They had that moment with Andraste, but even she set the foundation for a deist outlook. 

 

"Our Andraste has gone to the Maker's side. She will not return. The dragon is a fearsome creature, and they must have seen her as an alternative to the absent Maker and His silent Andraste. A true believer would not require such audacious displays of power."

 

This desperate need, as you say, is more about the writers (and some players), suddenly wanting to project real world views that belittle people with faith or why faith exists. It has nothing to do with this faction (the Chantry). For some reason, they decided to ignore what they built in the lore and started making commentary about "sheeple" and how they're all so easily duped by faith, especially in crisis. And how it can be so easily done, even by bums you dug up out of a ditch.

 

I can't enjoy something like this. This is beyond dislike of a mere game. I won't stop you though.

[In Exile]

Desperate need to cling to a savior wasn't even Andrastian. They are deist. Not theist. They had that moment with Andraste, but even she set the foundation for a deist outlook. 

 

"Our Andraste has gone to the Maker's side. She will not return. The dragon is a fearsome creature, and they must have seen her as an alternative to the absent Maker and His silent Andraste. A true believer would not require such audacious displays of power."

 

This desperate need, as you say, is more about the writers (and some players), suddenly wanting to project real world views that belittle people with faith or why faith exists. It has nothing to do with this faction (the Chantry). For some reason, they decided to ignore what they built in the lore and started making commentary about "sheeple" and how they're all so easily duped by faith, especially in crisis. And how it can be so easily done, even by bums you dug up out of a ditch.

 

I can't enjoy something like this. This is beyond dislike of a mere game. I won't stop you though.

 

The writers abandoned the DA:O view of Andrastianism in DA2. It's absolutely a retcon - but it's not one that DA:I made, and it seems to be a little inconsistent even in DA:O, where the writers can't keep it clear in their heads that the Maker isn't God, and Andrastian faith isn't mean to be like Christianity. I appreciate being upset about the setting losing that unique part of itself, but it barely kept it clear in DA:O (with Leliana's heresy being the only place it really comes up) and then by DA2 it all but gets dropped. 

 

You've missed the point entirely, on the theme. It's not that people are "sheeple". It's the opposite. It's that symbols are powerful. That even if you truly and absolutely believe it's all chance, there's no god or meaning in some universal sense, the mere fact that it means something to the people who believe in it is enough to make it a powerful and foundational human experience. I absolutely cannot disagree with you more about what DA:I says about faith or the people who have it. The whole point is about separating the abstract debate about cosmology (is god real? was it providence?) from the incredible personal meaning such things have regardless of their truth.

Honestly, I think it's incredibly sad to think faith only has value if the thing people have faith in is true, and that making the opposite point somehow demeans the idea of faith or the people who have it. And this is coming from someone's who's an atheist and likely would be a nay-theist depending on what faith is or turns out to be true. 

[Gwydden]

Honestly, I think it's incredibly sad to think faith only has value if the thing people have faith in is true, and that making the opposite point somehow demeans the idea of faith or the people who have it. And this is coming from someone's who's an atheist and likely would be a nay-theist depending on what faith is or turns out to be true. 

I hardly see that as an effective way of conveying a theme. DAI beats you over the head with "isn't faith amazing? isn't it beautiful?" to which all I just mentally said "no" and dismissed the whole thing.

 

You can't just brandish a point in people's faces and hope they will find it profound. That's not how themes work. There's no variety of viewpoints, there's no counterpoint, no nuance or subtlety. Frankly, every time Bioware tries to be deep and profound I cringe. They're not good at it, and it just comes across as silly and pretentious i.e. the ending of ME3, or the insistence on "faith" as a theme in DAI.

[straykat]

The writers abandoned the DA:O view of Andrastianism in DA2. It's absolutely a retcon - but it's not one that DA:I made, and it seems to be a little inconsistent even in DA:O, where the writers can't keep it clear in their heads that the Maker isn't God, and Andrastian faith isn't mean to be like Christianity. I appreciate being upset about the setting losing that unique part of itself, but it barely kept it clear in DA:O (with Leliana's heresy being the only place it really comes up) and then by DA2 it all but gets dropped. 

 

You've missed the point entirely, on the theme. It's not that people are "sheeple". It's the opposite. It's that symbols are powerful. That even if you truly and absolutely believe it's all chance, there's no god or meaning in some universal sense, the mere fact that it means something to the people who believe in it is enough to make it a powerful and foundational human experience. I absolutely cannot disagree with you more about what DA:I says about faith or the people who have it. The whole point is about separating the abstract debate about cosmology (is god real? was it providence?) from the incredible personal meaning such things have regardless of their truth.

Honestly, I think it's incredibly sad to think faith only has value if the thing people have faith in is true, and that making the opposite point somehow demeans the idea of faith or the people who have it. And this is coming from someone's who's an atheist and likely would be a nay-theist depending on what faith is or turns out to be true. 

 

There's no symbol here. I do nothing like Andraste. She led armies against the most powerful force in the world, in a seemingly hopeless battle. She freed slaves en masse and in her death, led to creating multiple nations and a religion. Very tangible, amazing things.. and I didn't even have to mention miracles or magic. I'm nothing like Andraste. I'm not her symbol. Racking up my Elfroot count or flicking my green hand doesn't count.

 

Anyways.. I can't be convinced. You shouldn't bother with me. With all due respect... 

[In Exile]

I hardly see that as an effective way of conveying a theme. DAI beats you over the head with "isn't faith amazing? isn't it beautiful?" to which all I just mentally said "no" and dismissed the whole thing.

 

You can't just brandish a point in people's faces and hope they will find it profound. That's not how themes work. There's no variety of viewpoints, there's no counterpoint, no nuance or subtlety. Frankly, every time Bioware tries to be deep and profound I cringe. They're not good at it, and it just comes across as silly and pretentious i.e. the ending of ME3, or the insistence on "faith" as a theme in DAI.

 

I didn't say it was a good portrayal. Just that it was the portrayal. That said, I don't think Bioware beats you over the head with it: it's just that the player is the counterpoint. Sometimes Solas, but mostly the player. As drafted, you get the counterpoint. Anyway, most characters don't tell you any of the bold. They tell you that even if you think it's completely stupid and contrary to everything you experience, it still means something to the people who have it, and asks you to consider whether it has value. Bioware doesn't do debates between NPCs, which is what makes their story not work well without the player serving as a counterpoint, and why, for example, DA:O totally fails to develop a theme - because not even the player gets a counterpoint.

 

But generally, if you're playing a Bioware game, you shouldn't be playing it for it's rich approach to themes. Not that RPGs generally do this particularly well - even Obsidian struggles most of the time to get a coherent theme out there with a point and counterpoint. To whit, their general failure to handle religion in MoTB and POE. 

[In Exile]

There's no symbol here. I do nothing like Andraste. She led armies against the most powerful force in the world, in a seemingly hopeless battle. She freed slaves en masse and in her death, led to creating multiple nations and a religion. Very tangible, amazing things.. and I didn't even have to mention miracles or magic. I'm nothing like Andraste. I'm not her symbol. Racking up my Elfroot count or flicking my green hand doesn't count.

 

Anyways.. I can't be convinced. You shouldn't bother with me. With all due respect... 

 

I'm not going to argue re: what you should believe, but you're just factually wrong in terms of what the Inquisitor does. Believe what you want, but the Inquisitor goes through a laundry list of super impressive feats. 

[Gwydden]

I didn't say it was a good portrayal. Just that it was the portrayal. That said, I don't think Bioware beats you over the head with it: it's just that the player is the counterpoint. Sometimes Solas, but mostly the player. As drafted, you get the counterpoint. Anyway, most characters don't tell you any of the bold. They tell you that even if you think it's completely stupid and contrary to everything you experience, it still means something to the people who have it, and asks you to consider whether it has value. Bioware doesn't do debates between NPCs, which is what makes their story not work well without the player serving as a counterpoint, and why, for example, DA:O totally fails to develop a theme - because not even the player gets a counterpoint.

The problem with making the player the counterpoint in an RPG is that then you have Schrodinger's Counterpoint. Even though I personally disagreed with the implied message of DAI, I didn't play my Inquisitor that way cause roleplaying. So I got even less in the way of that; I honestly didn't feel like the anti-faith position got anywhere near the focus its opponent got.

 

Even Paradise Lost, a staunchly pro-Christian classic, provided so much nuance in its portrayal of Satan and Eve that at times it is questionable on what side Milton is really in.

 

But generally, if you're playing a Bioware game, you shouldn't be playing it for it's rich approach to themes. Not that RPGs generally do this particularly well - even Obsidian struggles most of the time to get a coherent theme out there with a point and counterpoint. To whit, their general failure to handle religion in MoTB and POE. 

Definitely. My approach to Bioware games is more or less the same I have with Marvel movies. They're hardly masterful storytelling but are still entertaining. However, I still think it's important to point out the ways their storytelling falls short because if everyone just accepts it as "as good as games get" then that's bound to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, video games are still technically in their formative period; they haven't been around the block as much as movies and not even remotely as long as literature. There's a lot of room for improvement, unless people settle for "good enough."

[Seboist]

Definitely. My approach to Bioware games is more or less the same I have with Marvel movies. They're hardly masterful storytelling but are still entertaining. However, I still think it's important to point out the ways their storytelling falls short because if everyone just accepts it as "as good as games get" then that's bound to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, video games are still technically in their formative period; they haven't been around the block as much as movies and not even remotely as long as literature. There's a lot of room for improvement, unless people settle for "good enough."

Video Games are an inherently flawed story telling medium from the onset, with the only "advantage" it has over film/tv, books(even comics) is interactivity, and it's a very questionable one that leads to a number of major flaws, such as bad pacing issues(games can be dozens of hours long but most of the time is spent doing mundane things like running around and killing things) and story vs gameplay/player freedom conflicts(story is saying things are urgent but Geralt can dick around with Gwent all he wants).

 

That and let's face it, a lot of the people that are working in game writing are largely there because they were too crap to have made it with books, tv or film. Games like the ME sequels have some of the most embarrassing schlock writing this side of Ed Wood with things like Space Terminator and of course, the ME3 endings.

 

With all this taken into account, video games rightfully deserve to be seen as the bottom of the barrel of story telling mediums. Can it improve with all these things taken into account? Maybe, but don't expect it anytime soon.

[Spirit Vanguard]

...

 
I shouldn't even have to explain this one.

When they started singing I thought: "Shh! You're making too much noise! Corypheus might hear you!!"

I like the song, though, and don't really have a big issue with the scene. It made me feel... uncomfortable, but as a "Herald" who didn't want to be a herald, that's probably fitting.

[TheRevanchist]

That scene made me really cringe when I watched it. It was taking the messiah complex to even newer levels; I really do not get the obsession with this trope. I suspect some marketing / strategy person has decreed that this is what is needed to make things sell. It's a real turn off for me, this quasi-religious symbolism. ME3 fell into this as well.

 

I've said this before, but DA:I was generally pretty ok on a technical level (awful controls and UI/Inventory aside), the main issue is that for me, it was just plain dull. Which is probably worse.

 

Yes yes, it's all the rage right now to say how awful and cringy this is, despite the fact basically everyone loved it when it happend the first time. After spending years on these forums I've noticed The Cycle continue. "Cycle? What Cycle?" I shall tell you. A game approaches release, most ppl get excited, some remain skeptical. It releases, most ppl on these forums gush about it's awesomeness for months. Then as time goes on, all the ppl who like to tear the game apart for various reasons seem to be the only people left, so they sit here and repeat over and over how X game wasted it's potential or how X game was a massive disappointment. ME1 was like this, DAO, ME2, The opposite happend with DA2, and now when it comes to ME3 the token response is "lol it was years ago, get over it." 

[von uber]

Yes yes, it's all the rage right now to say how awful and cringy this is, despite the fact basically everyone loved it when it happend the first time.

 

I didn't. I haven't even finished DA:I, I just ended up thoroughly bored with it all.

Comparing this to ME, where I am currently on my 5th complete playthrough, says quite a bit to me about how I think of that game.

[TheRevanchist]

I didn't. I haven't even finished DA:I, I just ended up thoroughly bored with it all.

Comparing this to ME, where I am currently on my 5th complete playthrough, says quite a bit to me about how I think of that game.

I've completed ME1 over 55 times. Do my completions of DAI equal that? of course not, I haven't had it long enough. 

[von uber]

I've completed ME1 over 55 times. Do my completions of DAI equal that? of course not, I haven't had it long enough. 

 

What's your point? This is about my opinion and reaction to the scene (and to DA:I), not yours.

[TheRevanchist]

What's your point? This is about my opinion and reaction to the scene (and to DA:I), not yours.

 

What was the point in telling us how many times you've completed ME? You had already said how you felt about DAI, tacking that on was just as pointless as me doing it. 

[AlanC9]

It turned out that way, after I figured that out.
 
Again: It confused me when I started playing ME3 anyway, especially because the logs don't properly update. You have to visit the Citadel to notice that the map updated, because on the Normandy that map is not available. That system sure is vague to me.
 
More confusion: One quest I had to finish by talking to a couch (the one with Sommers, I think). Barla Von is another nice variation. He was a character that I at least recognized. It worked for me fine the first time. The second time it turned out that quest was broken for some reason. There was another one where I needed to scan several things on several Citadel levels, but the quest marker didn't update properly. That got me busy.

There were a couple of bugged quests, yeah, but that's kind of a different issue. Bio's had non-updating and unclearable quests before, and likely will again. I agree that they don't really care about journal bugs if the quests can be completed. Bio isn't who you go to for a bug-free experience.

I still don't quite see why so many players ended up adopting counterproductive strategies with this series of quests. Then again, I'm from a generation which didn't expect much from journals. I never look at a journal unless I need something from it; this never happens with the Citadel fetch quests.

[AngryFrozenWater]

There were a couple of bugged quests, yeah, but that's kind of a different issue. Bio's had non-updating and unclearable quests before, and likely will again. I agree that they don't really care about journal bugs if the quests can be completed. Bio isn't who you go to for a bug-free experience.

I still don't quite see why so many players ended up adopting counterproductive strategies with this series of quests. Then again, I'm from a generation which didn't expect much from journals. I never look at a journal unless I need something from it; this never happens with the Citadel fetch quests.

Why are you defending this crap, when there is nothing to defend?