BioWare Announces Post-Ending DLC for Mass Effect 3 [Updated!]

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
 

Mikeyfell:

PS. If they don't play "Shout" over the ending sequence that's a deal breaker.

this is.....GENIUS!

i thought more of 'asteroids falls, everyone dies'
image

Diana Kingston-Gabai:

Vault101:
Indoctrination theory makes ALOT of things make sense

It might be too much too hope for but they havnt directly refuted it yet

And then there's this.

Look, with all due respect to the Indoctrination Theory fans - yes, I've read the videos and the articles and the discussions, and I understand where you're coming from - it's not an ending. It's even less of an ending than what we have in that it loops back on itself. How is this a better option?

That is the point, it does loop back on itself. It effectively makes everything that happened after you get blown up false if you picked the "red" option. If you picked the "red" option then you break free of the control and wake up to go on to the "real" endings that reflect your choices in the previous games. That is why it is such an appealing option.

I have no doubts that Bioware will never do something so cleaver as this is just them trying to put another coat of paint on this wall and call it good...
image

Even if the ending was awful at least we have free DLC.
I believe the ending was supposed to be thought provoking but it was just delivered incorrectly. I am looking forward to the epilogue.

Sarge034:

That is the point, it does loop back on itself. It effectively makes everything that happened after you get blown up false if you picked the "red" option. If you picked the "red" option then you break free of the control and wake up to go on to the "real" endings that reflect your choices in the previous games. That is why it is such an appealing option.

It really isn't, because the implicit assumption is that there are "real endings" that we're not seeing. So if you accept the indoctrination theory as valid, you have even less closure than you would have by just taking the ending, terrible as it is, at face value.

Zachary Amaranth:
Moviebob won't be happy with this.

I can't be the only one who thought that.

I thought it, too, albeit with a grin of ill-concealed delight on my face at the time. I'm gonna love seeing how he reacts to this.

Uber Waddles:
Its interesting that its free. But just adding additional scenes to an already complete game just feels tacked on.

If you wanna look at a game that retconned their ending in a good manner, look at Fallout 3. Yeah, the ending wasn't really that good - especially for the people who ignored the "you cant go back after this point" message. But for those who wanted a deeper investment, we got Broken Steel, which let us continue where we left off and gave us a much deeper ending.

They didn't say "Our bad, this sucks, have an extra cutscene". This wont pacify the people who are crying about the ending to begin with - part of the problem was the ending gave no closure because their actions had next to no effect on the ending. Unless they add a LOT of cutscenes, which I am doubtful of, people are still going to complain.

Make a DLC that expands the ending. Make it a playable scenario. That way people fine with the ending (most the people I know and myself included) can just let the series fade, and people who want more can pay the premium and get more (or wait for a GoTY Addition). Then everyones happy.

As much as I like the idea of post-ending gameplay for ME3, I think Fallout 3 and ME3 are sufficiently different beasts that what had to be done in Broken Steel isn't a necessity for ME3.

In Broken Steel, you could expand on that epilogue 'til the cows came home, and it wouldn't change how mind-blowingly stupid it had been. You had to be given freedom after the end, because it was the only way they could redeem such a terribly-structured forced choice.

But with ME3, I think cutscenes/epilogue are more than capable of fixing what was wrong. You don't need to jump back into Shepard's boots for it to be revealed that, for instance, he was being slowly indoctrinated and a chunk of the ending was hallucination. Just take a look at the Marauder Shields webcomic. It starts of pretty much as a joke, but Jesus tapdancing Christ, does it get serious and amazing fast. And best of all, the way it's told? All easily done through cutscene.

BakaSmurf:
"We are all incredibly proud of Mass Effect 3 and the work done by Casey Hudson-"

Credibility, GONE.

On another note, this DLC had damn well better explain how in the hell space magic managed to make its way into my Mass Effect, making the ending all the more enraging than it already was. Seriously, had they just taken the time to explain how in the fuck the Crucible works and maybe NOT cut out the vast majority of Anderson's final conversation with a Shepard that hadn't gotten involved in a romantic relationship on Hudson's whim the ending wouldn't have stung nearly as much as it did.

Casey Hudson decided to cut most of this conversation out, because he thought it would have been TOO LONG, just FYI. Really says a lot about his creative process.

I heard that a couple weeks back, and I have no problem admitting that it nearly brought me to tears. It was fucking heartbreaking to hear that from Anderson, and it made perfect sense given his interactions with him/her over the course of the games. It was the best deathbed speech I've heard outside of goddamn Shakespeare.

...and then I remembered in astonishment that it was followed by a hitherto unknown 'character' telling me that I could save the galaxy from the Reapers by fusing all organic life with goddamn robot DNA. It was as stark a contrast as seeing death camp footage spliced into a Disney movie.

BakaSmurf:
This DLC had better be breathtaking if Bioware hopes to regain the fans it has lost. I'm not expecting much myself, though hopefully I'll turn out to be incorrect in my assumptions.

Well, it's free. That's a step in the right direction, and shows (at least somewhat) that this isn't just another case of EA looming over Bioware's shoulder like some sort of money-vampire.

BakaSmurf:
OFF-TOPIC: One thing I'm certain that we can all agree on, is that the melancholy piano piece that plays during the final cutscene is, in spite of the various terrible things going on in front of our very eyes, a freaking masterpiece.

Damn straight. And again, stark contrast. Those are the moments when I'm sure even Robert Ebert would concede that video games can be works of art.

Diana Kingston-Gabai:
And then there's this.

Look, with all due respect to the Indoctrination Theory fans - yes, I've read the videos and the articles and the discussions, and I understand where you're coming from - it's not an ending. It's even less of an ending than what we have in that it loops back on itself. How is this a better option?

In itself? It isn't. It's an opportunity for a better ending. That's why it has so much appeal. Basically...

Sarge034:
That is the point, it does loop back on itself. It effectively makes everything that happened after you get blown up false if you picked the "red" option. If you picked the "red" option then you break free of the control and wake up to go on to the "real" endings that reflect your choices in the previous games. That is why it is such an appealing option.

...this. It allows for the ending to be expanded on (as Bioware says they'll be doing) without requiring a massive retcon (as they seem to say they won't do). Again, as it stands, the indoctrination theory allows for a better ending; it isn't a better ending on its own.

Diana Kingston-Gabai:

Sarge034:

That is the point, it does loop back on itself. It effectively makes everything that happened after you get blown up false if you picked the "red" option. If you picked the "red" option then you break free of the control and wake up to go on to the "real" endings that reflect your choices in the previous games. That is why it is such an appealing option.

It really isn't, because the implicit assumption is that there are "real endings" that we're not seeing. So if you accept the indoctrination theory as valid, you have even less closure than you would have by just taking the ending, terrible as it is, at face value.

Incorrect, the implicit REQUIREMENT is that there are "real endings" that we're not seeing, and yes the point of the indoctrination theory is to allow Bioware an easy out to add ending where our choices matter without retconning the current endings out. The "Blue" and "Green" options would be akin to Shep dying in ME2. You failed. You were indoctrinated and the reapers won. Sucks to be you. Bioware could then add on the "real endings" for those who chose the "red" option and everyone is happy. Like the current endings? Don't download the DLC. Don't like the endings? Download the DLC if it is free or wait to see/hear about it else ware before making your purchase. Just depends on how much closure you got from the current ending.

But yes you are right, at face value the indoctrination theory offers less closure without a DLC expansion. But then again at face value this is just some plastic circle until it is put into a machine...

I'm in two minds about this. The ending just fails on so many levels that I would think it would be so much better to completely scrap it. Or just use indoctrination theory, I mean that allows them to extricate themselves from this problem.

But I doubt that, I think we are going to stick with the god child, space magic and the like. Which is a shame. I really struggle to see it being salvaged but who knows, they might be able to make it work. I really doubt it but it might work.

I have a few problems with the idea of them using the indoctrination theory to change the endings. First of all, the whole "It's a dream" thing is the biggest cop-out in writing there is, which is what the theory boils down to. It would not make the endings much better from a writing standpoint. Secondly, as sarge even mentioned, it screws over all the people who didn't pick the red ending, and considering that it's harder to unlock the other endings, especially the green one, that makes no sense at all, so everyone who didn't pick red still has the same endings, except now they're even worse because they supposedly died and didn't actually stop the reapers at all, so really there's just more pissed off people. Thirdly, to make it fair on everyone in regards to my previous point, they'd have to actually drop hints that Shepard was indoctrinated in order to make it a ^valid^ cop-out to use. Basically, the dlc would have to make you start up just as you get on the citadel again, and some stuff would have to be changed in order to go that route. Then personally, I don't think it should wake you up if you take the red option, as that's still taking one of the options the kid presented to you, so they should be able to keep you under control. I think that all three endings would have the game over screen come up once it finishes, dropping you off back at the main choice again to try again when you reload. Then at this point the only correct option is to turn around and attack/give a stern talking to the kid, (to maintain the renegade/paragon thing) and at that point you would wake up and get the real endings. However, what all that amounts to is absolutely nothing, and since you'd have to change several things anyways to make it even slightly less rage inducing, you might as well just rewrite the endings, instead of making people go through what amounts to a pointless scene just to make them go down a different road. From what I understand, the indoctrination theory is proposed as a way of allowing them to keep the endings they have, while still allowing them to add new one, however since so much would have to be added or changed to the game around that sequence, you might as well just ask for them to delete it and do the endings over again.

My overall problem with the indoctrination theory is that it's an overly convoluted way of saying, "Delete this ending and replace it with a better one" which is why most of us aren't writers. Because they might as well just rewrite the ending, rather than going with this conspiracal styled ending to change. The only reason I would say that they could actually use the indoctrination theory to undo the endings and have it lead up to different ones, is because it might make for an interesting puzzle. However it's sorta spoiled by the fact that everyone would know the answer to it now, since we all made it up. If the game were shipped such that you could turn around and beat the up the kid and wake up to a better ending, then it might actually have been one of the more awesome and controversial moments in gaming, but no, because at best they could do that with dlc, and we already know they aren't going to. There's basically no reason to support this theory, as it's just a roundabout way of saying you don't like the endings. So just say, "Change the Endings" rather than trying to do their job for them.

Buretsu:

They won, because they had the Crucible, inside which was millions of years of work, and the essences of the countless numbers of races that the Reapers made extinct. In other words, they won because they had the power of ridiculous Deux ex Machina bullshit on their side, not just 'because they tried'.

Nope, the Crucible is just another thing that doesnt make sense. There was no mention or hint of anything before ME3 to do with the Crucible... then all of a sudden LUCK guided them to blueprints of a "superweapon", that every cycle had fucked with before and it had not worked... but no, its humans so blah, blah, blah. As though tampering with something and not even knowing if the additions that you made worked because not a single other cycle did what Shepard did and actually got the Crucible to the Catalyst, and you only find that latest version of the blueprints NOT the original blueprint or any of the earlier ones... so you are building the latest in a string of untested fuck-ups too numerous to count AND IT WORKS!

Is it smart to make an addition you dont test? No, but given the situation you had to. Is it smart to make additions upon the already untested additions, of which you also cannot test? REALLY, REALLY NOT SMART!

The Crucibles entire existence within ME3 is based on luck, which is acceptable... you can stumble upon things accidentally, no matter how unlikely it is to find exactly the only thing you need just before you are destroyed when you have the entire universe to search. But making countless alterations to alien technology without testing the initial purpose or if your addition (or any of the others) even works is pure bullshit for the purpose of ending a story. They may as well have said "Shepard woke up and it was all a dream.", at least that can actually fucking happen.

Diana Kingston-Gabai:

Kinguendo:
And as I said, I would not end the entire franchise on "You Lose. Byeeeeeee!". It would allow for a legitimate continuation of the franchise while giving a reasonable end and explanation for the events, are you honestly saying you didnt expect to beat the Reapers since the first Mass Effect? Because I was never under the illusion that this "vastly superior race of super-sized, sentient weapons of mass destruction" wouldnt lose to a bit of human elbow grease.

The Reapers are vastly superior, but they're neither invincible nor infallible. And this cycle is already substantially different from the others: the Reapers are facing not one dominant species but several working in unison (different races means different strategies, different approaches to war, etc.), they're not in control of the Citadel and the Relay system, and - most significantly - Sovereign's destruction has allowed for the reverse-engineering of Reaper technology (ie: Thanix cannons).

Given all these elements - most of which is largely due to Shepard's direct efforts - you at least have a fighting chance.

No, they didnt have a fighting chance. They were fighting the Reapers in the Sol system... as you and I saw before you do the last mission, every system bar the Horsehead Nebula(?) which you were just in is under Reaper control. And even against just the Reapers in the Sol system, its still only an even fight. If you go to war and your entire army is equal to a single battalion of the enemy... you have lost.

And who says that there has only ever been just 1 dominant species in each cycle before Shepards cycle? And if there was only 1 Dominant species in each cycle before (again, highly unlikely) that means they have been numerous enough, intelligent enough and strong enough to dominate the rest of the universe before the Reapers came along and wiped them out. Something the Krogan nor the Rachni were capable of who apparently posed a large threat to the Universe and STILL EXIST, so these single dominant species are significantly better than every race that exists within Shepards cycle... yet got wiped out without them even taking out 1 Reaper, is your argument?

Xaositect:

Kinguendo:

So... the fans want a completely unrealistic ending where they beat a vastly superior race who uses your own bodies against you and not to mention everything that made every race in the Universes lives better was controlled by the Reapers. Its like going to war with someone whos army is better in every way AND they control your transport AND base of operations, those are literally unwinnable odds. Saying "You win because you tried." is freaking patronizing, they would not win!

Yeah, since thats what the first games were all about. Just because you, mac walters and casey hudson decided that some pretentious "war is hell, this battle is unwinnable" motif in the last five minutes is all cool, edgy and grimdark doesnt mean it actually works.

Go take a look at fiction that has nihilistic and bleak endings. They COMMIT to it from the beginning. They dont spend 2 installments worth telling a soaring space opera about one mans battle against all odds and being victorious only to turn around in the last five minutes like an immature child and renege on that style.

Like it or not, the artistic integrity of Mass Effect was violated by its own writers and their clear difference of opinion where to take the trilogy at the end. That its fucking terribly written is bad enough. That its written in a manner that harkens to a a teenage school pupil getting bored of writing something for school so he half-asses in the ending in a way that doesnt make sense to get it done quicker is even worse.

One of the central themes for Mass Effect has NEVER been "the futiliy of war against a vastly superior race". You are just PLAIN WRONG if you think that is the game.

The theme of mass effect is TRIUMPHING AGAINST THESE ODDS AND MAKING THE CHOICE IN HOW YOU WANT TO DO THAT.

Do you go for the themes of galactic unity, cooperation, friendship. i.e. PARAGON.

Or do you go for the hardass route of sacrifices, hard decision making and victory at any cost. i.e. Renegade.

Instead of something reflecting that with the ending, we get some weird, disjointed piece of shit that looks like it was cobbled together from the initial main ending and several terrible ideas, and ultimately leaves the story in a state where virtually nothing has been accomplished and nearly everything has been destroyed or tossed aside in a manner that suggests nothing but a bad end.

You know the ending your proposing? Well in a Bioware game, or at least a game made by what used to be bioware, that kind of of ending is one among many and reached by YOUR CHOICES.

Really? Because I quite specifically say the reason you should lose is because... *shock and surprise*... you should lose. Its unwinnable odds that you win for stupid reasons that dont make sense, not all that crap you said. "Ooooh, people I am never going to meet and who dont even know my name are going to think I am cool!"

And I think you will find your choices have very little bearing on the actual ending of the story, so dont try to bullshit me with this "Its your choices that makes the ending blah, blah, blah."... you have a choice between three similar endings that are all stupid. Stop pretending that "not winning" is a bad end, it happened to every person Shepard fights but you didnt shit your pants with rage screaming "What a poorly planned ending for that guy!". Not winning is THE most likely scenario, yes they die but the stories of how they died would have been changed by your input rather than "It REALLY doesnt matter. *GREEN EXPLOSIVE WAVE ACROSS THE UNIVERSE*".

Kinguendo:

No, they didnt have a fighting chance. They were fighting the Reapers in the Sol system... as you and I saw before you do the last mission, every system bar the Horsehead Nebula(?) which you were just in is under Reaper control.

Not at all - read the "Miracle at Palaven" entry in the Codex. The Reapers may be present in every cluster, but they aren't necessarily winning every battle.

And who says that there has only ever been just 1 dominant species in each cycle before Shepards cycle?

Javik indicates as much when he names the inusannon as the Protheans' predecessors, suggesting that - like the Protheans - they were a single species that spanned the galaxy. In fact, it's strongly implied that the only reason this cycle has multiple species working together is due to Prothean interference: their presence on Mars, the beacon on Thessia (and is it a coincidence that the asari then reached the Citadel first and, rather than conquer the salarians, invited them to join as equals?) and so on.

And if there was only 1 Dominant species in each cycle before (again, highly unlikely) that means they have been numerous enough, intelligent enough and strong enough to dominate the rest of the universe before the Reapers came along and wiped them out. Something the Krogan nor the Rachni were capable of who apparently posed a large threat to the Universe and STILL EXIST, so these single dominant species are significantly better than every race that exists within Shepards cycle... yet got wiped out without them even taking out 1 Reaper, is your argument?

Again, you're simply ignoring established canon here. Vigil is very clear about this in the first game: the reason the Reapers manage to wipe out every species that dominates the galaxy is because their first move is to take the Citadel. Javik repeats this in the third game: the Reapers begin their invasion by destroying the central government, shutting down all the Mass Relays, and gaining access to all the information on the dominant species: how they fight, what technology they use, defensive strategies and so on.

This does not happen in the current cycle. You - and every species fighting the Reapers - can use the Mass Relays. The Reapers have little active knowledge of how different species fight (again, read the "Miracle at Palaven" entry). Yes, they're still technologically superior, but guess what? The Rebellion shouldn't have defeated the technologically and numerically superior Empire. The Ura should have easily crushed a single boy with a hammer. And Sauron's armies would have conquered Minas Tirith if a bunch of ghosts hadn't decided to turn the tides. The point of these scenarios in fantastic literature isn't to give you a dry analysis of who would win in a direct, brute-force confrontation, but possible ways a superior entity can be felled by a combination of its own mistakes and the other side's determination and intelligence.

And if you're so insistent on realism, look up the fall of the Roman Empire for a historical example of how sometimes, being the most powerful and advanced force in a conflict doesn't guarantee victory.

Diana Kingston-Gabai:

Kinguendo:

No, they didnt have a fighting chance. They were fighting the Reapers in the Sol system... as you and I saw before you do the last mission, every system bar the Horsehead Nebula(?) which you were just in is under Reaper control.

Not at all - read the "Miracle at Palaven" entry in the Codex. The Reapers may be present in every cluster, but they aren't necessarily winning every battle.

And who says that there has only ever been just 1 dominant species in each cycle before Shepards cycle?

Javik indicates as much when he names the inusannon as the Protheans' predecessors, suggesting that - like the Protheans - they were a single species that spanned the galaxy. In fact, it's strongly implied that the only reason this cycle has multiple species working together is due to Prothean interference: their presence on Mars, the beacon on Thessia (and is it a coincidence that the asari then reached the Citadel first and, rather than conquer the salarians, invited them to join as equals?) and so on.

And if there was only 1 Dominant species in each cycle before (again, highly unlikely) that means they have been numerous enough, intelligent enough and strong enough to dominate the rest of the universe before the Reapers came along and wiped them out. Something the Krogan nor the Rachni were capable of who apparently posed a large threat to the Universe and STILL EXIST, so these single dominant species are significantly better than every race that exists within Shepards cycle... yet got wiped out without them even taking out 1 Reaper, is your argument?

Again, you're simply ignoring established canon here. Vigil is very clear about this in the first game: the reason the Reapers manage to wipe out every species that dominates the galaxy is because their first move is to take the Citadel. Javik repeats this in the third game: the Reapers begin their invasion by destroying the central government, shutting down all the Mass Relays, and gaining access to all the information on the dominant species: how they fight, what technology they use, defensive strategies and so on.

This does not happen in the current cycle. You - and every species fighting the Reapers - can use the Mass Relays. The Reapers have little active knowledge of how different species fight (again, read the "Miracle at Palaven" entry). Yes, they're still technologically superior, but guess what? The Rebellion shouldn't have defeated the technologically and numerically superior Empire. The Ura should have easily crushed a single boy with a hammer. And Sauron's armies would have conquered Minas Tirith if a bunch of ghosts hadn't decided to turn the tides. The point of these scenarios in fantastic literature isn't to give you a dry analysis of who would win in a direct, brute-force confrontation, but possible ways a superior entity can be felled by a combination of its own mistakes and the other side's determination and intelligence.

And if you're so insistent on realism, look up the fall of the Roman Empire for a historical example of how sometimes, being the most powerful and advanced force in a conflict doesn't guarantee victory.

Yes excatly in those same entries it mentions how taking Palavan and Thessia 'cost the reapers dearly' they took Thessia but they took losses. Hell Large parts of Palavan are retaken by the Turian and Krogan's. They have never faced a combined force this large, so many different races, ships, plans of attacks. Patterns of attacks. They have taken more losses this cycle then any other. It is possible to beat them in fight. The fleets will take heavy losses I'm not saying they won't but the reapers are not invincible. They can die, make mistakes, miscalculate. They have weaknesses and they did not blind side us like they did in every other cycle.

Char-Nobyl:

But with ME3, I think cutscenes/epilogue are more than capable of fixing what was wrong. You don't need to jump back into Shepard's boots for it to be revealed that, for instance, he was being slowly indoctrinated and a chunk of the ending was hallucination. Just take a look at the Marauder Shields webcomic. It starts of pretty much as a joke, but Jesus tapdancing Christ, does it get serious and amazing fast. And best of all, the way it's told? All easily done through cutscene.

.

holy shit that was awsome

it almost makes me sad...as a "what could have been"

What was wrong with the original ending again?

So, a few things about that.

1. The fact that they aren't changing the frankly idiotic ending is a little perturbing, I mean they're basically saying, "Apparently you thickies weren't classy enough to understand our complex and artistic vision for this incredibly series so I guess we'll have to spell it out for you, *siiiiigggghh*".

2. The problem wasn't just with clarity. It was with the fact that they introduced bullshit plot holes at the last minute that had no build up in any of the three games, it was also with the near-identical endings that were helpfully color-coded for our convenience.

So I'm thinking Bioware is still dead to me.

Char-Nobyl:

I thought it, too, albeit with a grin of ill-concealed delight on my face at the time. I'm gonna love seeing how he reacts to this.

Kinda glad someone else experienced schadenfreude here.

Zachary Amaranth:

Char-Nobyl:

I thought it, too, albeit with a grin of ill-concealed delight on my face at the time. I'm gonna love seeing how he reacts to this.

Kinda glad someone else experienced schadenfreude here.

Damn right I do. To be frank, I come to this site for fun. It's usually a funny place, filled with entertaining stuff that also keeps me up-to-date on games and whatnot.

And while I like people like Yahtzee and Moviebob, I can still see where the comedy ends and the self-righteous indignation begins. The last time I saw it, it was the Extra Punctuation about Space Marine and 40k in general, it was like watching a normally racy but funny comedian devolve into a plain old racist rant.

I felt the same thing again when I read Yahtzee side of the ME3 debate. I'm baffled that he could've missed the mark on guessing the theme of the entire Mass Effect series, and after he spends every review prancing about in bright-pink armor and calling himself 'Titty Shepard,' following up the final review to talk about how he was such an expert and everyone else was a dullard felt like logic was being flipped on its head and beaten with the crazy stick.

I guess it's that when someone is making incorrect assertions, it's not much of a step to say something to try and correct them. But when it's someone saying blatantly incorrect things and calling anyone who disagrees an idiot, then the sense of goodwill evaporates.

So, quasi rant aside, yes. I'm going to enjoy the shit out of the wake the new ME epilogue creates. I'm not sure if the more vocal opponents will just clam up, or if they'll try to show how this outcome actually proves their point. Either way: squirming!

Char-Nobyl:

I felt the same thing again when I read Yahtzee side of the ME3 debate. I'm baffled that he could've missed the mark on guessing the theme of the entire Mass Effect series, and after he spends every review prancing about in bright-pink armor and calling himself 'Titty Shepard,' following up the final review to talk about how he was such an expert and everyone else was a dullard felt like logic was being flipped on its head and beaten with the crazy stick.

I kind of wonder if he was trying to be edgy and flew off into just plain spiteful.

There's a fine line, and sometimes the comedian on stage doesn't really notice that they've shifted to something that's racist instead of racy.

I'm not saying this is the case, but I'm wondering if it started as a joke and ended as a rant.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here