My biggest problems with the endings were that 1) they were not sufficiently distinct (seriously, the biggest difference between each ending is the color of the resulting shockwave), and 2) in a game so focused on character development, they failed to provide any sort of epilogue for any of the character plots. Yes, you get resolution to the reaper invasion, but the reapers have virtually no presence as real characters in the game. They are an ominous, distant force throughout, and closure to their story fails to close the stories of all the characters and planets in the galaxy that we really came to care about throughout the series.

It's a start, but the romance plots don't play out any differently regardless of Shephard's gender, and none of the romance plots really impact the main story outside of the romance. Mass Effect could make a bolder statement by having factions react differently, if not to a same-sex relationship, then certainly to an inter-species romance standing in as a proxy for any taboo real-world pairing. Maybe the point was to make a statement by avoiding making a statement, to treat same-sex relationships as though they are exactly the same as opposite-sex relationships. They should be someday, but they certainly haven't reached that level of social equivalence yet.

Welcome to the internet. Somebody could write a post about how much like they like grapes and it wouldn't take five replies before they're being hit with racist, sexist, or homophobic insults and at least two comparisons to Hitler and/or Stalin. See John Gabriel's Greater Internet Bleepwad Theory. Grapes are yummy, btw.

So, do Itagaki's awesome games make up for Michael Bay's terrible movies? Tough question. Ninja Gaiden was one of the greatest games ever. But the Transformers movies felt like Bay was molesting my inner child.

Piracy is a real problem, but the solution is for content publishers to find novel ways to appeal to consumers and effectively monetize their offerings on the internet, not for them to use legislation to strong arm and muzzle any possible competition to their aging business model. Targeting illegal uploads and downloads of products that are easily available from authorized distributors is fine, but the bill clearly goes too far beyond that. Censorship should only be employed when absolutely necessary to protect the public. Applying it excessively will only suppress freedom of expression and stifle creativity.

@TheTrueMagusX1, Why is it that every time I ask for evidence, you reply by making something up that I never said? Seriously, you need to go look up the term "straw man argument". @Doubleb14, just keep talking. You make the case against young earth creationism far better than I ever could. Sea fossils are found in ground that was previously under a sea but has shifted or risen due to known geological processes. Fossils look like they got hit by something? Really? You can tell? What should fossils look like, accounting for various environments and scavengers? As for creation museums, well, Disney Land exists, therefore Mickey Mouse is real, right? Your polemic arguments also fail to live up to the true challenge: they don't explain all the evidence that evolution does. Come up with a theory that explains everything evolution does, but more, or that is simpler, and I guarantee you'll be an icon in the world of science.

@TheTrueMagusX1, Looking over that article, the conclusion seems to be that someone has a theory, but no evidence to back it up. If you want to overturn evidence, then you need to present evidence.

I think what we really need are more Professor Layton style games. A number of gamers apparently need to work on their logical and critical thinking skills.

@Doubleb14, I'm wasn't even talking about dinosaurs. They are a small piece of the fossil record. As for the global flood destroying nearly all life on Earth, it never happened. There are no traces of it in the geological record. The archeological record, even in just the Middle East shows no traces of it. The fossil record is too well organized to have been deposited by such an event. And genetic analysis that can show extinction events within a species or lineage fail to show such a mass extinction event across all species simultaneously. Not too mention that the flood/ark scenario would directly contradict the observed geographic distribution of biodiversity. Aside from being physically impossible, there's just no evidence in its favor. So again, we can either side with all of the available evidence against it, or assume that god played another practical joke after the flood and erased all traces that it had happened.God really Punk'd us with that one. I don't know about you, but I for one refuse to accept that Ashton Kutcher is god.

The bible is not a book of science. To pretend that it is, is to do grievous injury to both parties. Scientifically, evolution is about as close to incontrovertible as a theory can get. It happened. Whether you look at the geographic distribution of biodiversity, at the biological progression of the fossil record, or at the genetic markers mapping out the history of life, all of the evidence points to evolution, which is why this has long been a settled topic for scientists. All the experts are in agreement, and those who oppose that agreement have an obvious conflicting interest. So, how to explain this? Three logically plausible (though not equally probable) theories exist: Theory 1: Evolution just happened. A logical, naturalistic process is responsible for the diversity of life. Theory 2: Evolution happened because god wanted it to. He/she/it created life and set it on its course, using evolution as his/her/its tool to bring about the diversity of life. Theory 3: Evolution didn't happen, but when god created the earth six thousand years ago, he/she/it thought it would be really funny to bury all these fossils, separate species into geographical groupings, and write DNA that makes it look exactly like evolution had occurred when it really hadn't. Jokes on us. Take your pick.