#but they did THAT bc they assumed people would mostly be doing evil playthroughs for their 2nd or 3rd run when they'd be tired of sidequest

[tuxedo-rabbit]

You know, one of the most interesting thing about BG3 to me is that all the different choices and RP moments you can make mean that it's very easy to have a multitude of playthroughs that don't neatly fall into the boxes of "good" or "evil" runs.

The other interesting thing is that whenever Larian talks about their game, it feels like this was a complete accident.

[kdval]

Let's talk about villains

And their connection with protagonists. And some related topics.

I finally finished it. This would be a loooong post. I'll provide reddit link below just in case.

Spoilers ahead!

A little preface

I've played Requiem 3 times – 3rd playthrough was mostly for hunting for good screenshots and finding anything I've overlooked in the first two. And it turned out it was good idea – at least bc some interesting details, especially about side characters, are simply "hidden" in the most dynamic scenes. Like, you're in a middle of a fight and characters start talking about the past while trying beat the shit out of each other. Given the fact that everyone wants you dead, it's a bit difficult to focus on dialogue (or subtitles). Or you can accidently interrupt character's line while approaching certain area too quick (I ran into it when Sophia was explaining that big tree prayer and then place for people who can't have children – I just didn't hear the whole 1st line and she switched to the next; sure, I could stay there for a while and then proceed, but still, I didn't expect new encounter so soon).

So, my main idea is: Asobo improved their character development compared to the previous game, especially ofc I mean antagonists. At the same time this little problem with dialogues and some plot decisions leaved me in, well, frustration? I love this game, but it broke my heart.

About Innocence

Innocence's antagonists look much more plain and simple imho. For me the rats were more terrifying – every time you meet them you feel desperate. Though they never were real villains, just mindless power. Like Lucas said – Macula cares neither for good or evil. Same for rats.

So you basically bump into horrors of war, decease, human cruelty and somewhere on the background the Inquisition looms. Vitalis and Nicholas are just another human beings driven by greed.

We know that Vitalis is grand inquisitor who tries to hunt down De Rune family and take the boy, use his blood in his own experiments with rats. A bit weird how he can send dozens of people to take down just one family and then just two kids (Hugo didn't even have "powers" back then) – and fail. Ofc it's for game's sake – otherwise it could end in the first chapter, but still. What do we know about him except that he's old (maybe even unnaturally old), rich and powerful enough for heaving the full stuff of alchemists working on Macula for him and soldiers hunting people he orders to hunt? I can't recall any specific details.

Same for Nicholas. He has really cool outfit and voice, can't argue with that. He's extremely loyal to Vitalis, he's ruthless fanatic and terrifying warrior. Maybe he has unnatural powers too? Like, Vitalis almost certainly experimented on something other than just rats. Arthur throws at Nicholas bunch of big-ass rocks – and he didn't die! Rats tried to devour him twice – he didn't die! He lit his sword and then whole armor – like not a big deal. Maybe he was alchemist too? We don't really know. Nothing about his or Vitalis' background.

So I personally didn't feel anything about Nicholas' death. Same for Vitalis. Both boss fights are bit annoying, but ok-ish. I was much more worried about the main characters relationship, I loved Hugo from the very beginning and was ready to kill anyone for this precious boy. Amicia grows as a character throughout the game, she becomes strong and carrying, real big sis for Hugo, and still has her own doubts.

Anyway, Asobo did a great job with Innocence and they really improved in storytelling in Requiem.

About Requiem

So, in this chapter we have antagonists who has quite good, interesting backstory. I wouldn't assume the Count and the Countess as main villains though – first, we confront with Vaudin (who's not really remarkable character, but I loved his voice and design anyway), then with Arnaud, then with the Count and his wife, and eventually… with ourselves. And the biggest power here is actually Macula. We can see at some point that Macula has some kind of… its own will? Especially when Amicia shout in a rat's nest that she won't give Hugo up – and shit immediately happens, we run from thousands of rats once again.

In this sense Requiem's more complex than previous game.

So, we hear little details about the Count here and there from almost very beginning. It's very easy to miss these details, but when I approach La Cuna, I remembered that little talks and thought "Ah, this is the Count everyone were talking about, alright".

In Innocence we meet the Inquisition in 1st chapter, they're after us the whole game. Here – whole districts are shutdown, plague's everywhere, some local conflicts happen here and there (wtf was all that mess with beekeepers anyway?). Everything feels more global than us. As soon as our - world's and Amicia and Hugo's – paths cross – boom, some shit happens.

Would eventually the Count and the Countess know about our existence if not for Arnaud's dumb revenge plan? Maybe not. Well, would we have ever met our antagonists, if we hadn’t gone to the island, to start with? Damn, our little family was surviving for half-year somehow, if not for that castle and beekeepers, they still could live peacefully as they wanted to. But the game constantly remind us: we can't live among people and be free from them, their vices, their greed, etc.

Returning to our antagonists.

We know the Count is very rich and powerful man. With one hand he can grant favors to people, with other – close districts, leaving people there to rot and die from a disease. Ofc when Amicia asks Arnaud if they should worry about count's army here, on the island, he says – different captain, different land. And we hear how soldiers speak about new captain – the Beast – so I guess arbitrariness is definitely possible. But again, the Count lives on the island and seems not very concerned about the rats and everything else… If we listen closely to his and Arnaud's dialogue during their duel, we can learn that leaving people behind is quite normal for the Count. Costs of war, so to speak. We can learn his "war veteran philosophy" from that "duel" with Amicia as well. Asobo scattered a lot of details everywhere actually.

At the same time the Count loves his wife so much that he found a whole goddamn cult just to fill her head with this Child of Embers legend, so she wouldn't try to hurt herself mentally and physically again.

We know the Countess can't bare the child, she had conflict with her parents (because of that?) and tried to commit suicide (if I understood correctly). Though she's quite charismatic cult leader, not gonna lie. And she has great influence over her husband. "She showed him another way" as he says himself.

So I fell into a trap. I actually felt sorry for our villains. Or pity. When we arrived to La Cuna, I hoped, like Hugo, that everything will be fine. More or less. Even though it was obvious that everything will go to hell.

What I personally didn't like about 12 chapter – villains turned to typical dumbass villains again. Instead of finish everything quick they start that pretentious bla-bla-bla and guess what? Shit happened. It reminds me Innocence, when Arthur should check out if Nicholas was dead. Wtf he was doing all that time? Right – nothing. And got wrecked because of it. Wtf the Count was doing while Hugo was killing his men? Well...

It feels like some plot events were made that way to lead us to finale we got. Though I wouldn't argue with this finale, it's sad and heartbreaking, but very meaningful. But some characters simply suffered for plot's sake. Like Beatrice, for example. I feel like she was more of an instrument for plot than a character. Firstly – to confront Amicia, secondly – to push Hugo into Macula. Even though they all reconciled, she actually understood her daughter, supported her, and then we almost immediately lose her. Well, thanks.

About parallels

But what else I like about the Count and the Countess backstory – aside from details Asobo added to these characters – is connection with protagonists.

Just think about it. We have two mentally ill people. They can't cure each other obviously, but they care for one another and prefer to live in a "wonderful dream", being delusional and deceived. And until they live there, on that island, disconnected from other world... well, they handle just fine.

Same for Amicia and Hugo. They can't find any cure for Hugo. Except for very fragile hope for calm life. But Amicia clung to Hugo's dream, even though it's a lie. Even Hugo in 9 chapter says that they (the Count and the Countess) are so wrong – "just like me". Like making a parallel. But when our siblings stay out of trouble, when the war, the plague, the slavers, the marauders don't concern them – they're fine.

And as soon as Amicia/Hugo and the Count/the Countess run into each other – they start annihilating everything around them. And eventually annihilate each other.

The only difference is the Count's fully aware of his own lies, while Amicia truly believes in her dream.

In Innocence Amicia comes a long way from "leave me alone, you little…" to "I'm going to kill everything and everyone for my brother". In Requiem she gets angry several times, but she stops herself from being rude with Hugo. Like when they wanted to change a bandage, and Hugo asks what color she wants: she clearly wants to say "I don't care", but immediately corrects herself. With Hugo she becomes more patient, calm, reasonable and protective. At the same time Amicia is quite obsessed with Hugo's dream and the whole idea of saving him, which causes harm not only to Hugo, but to all people around.

Same for Emilie. She's a calming presence for the Count, he becomes peaceful and nice, when she's around. As a composer, Olivier Deriviere, says in his walkthrough, she contains his anger and madness. And you can say the Count is obsessed with his wife as well: "everything in this world is rotten except for her" line, his wish for destroying the world after she's gone, all that.

They both – Amicia and the Count – are convinced that what they're doing for their loved ones is for good. But Hugo constantly sees bad things around him, fall more into Macula, become more frustrated during their journey. And Emilie's just falling into madness. She doesn't try to hurt herself anymore, yes, but now she's whole into that crazy idea of becoming a Mother for a God…

I can't find much parallels between Emilie and Hugo … except, maybe, for their way of dealing with things. When Hugo's angry, he calls the rats and tries to "eat them all". And he believes that's the right way to deal with cruelty he sees (even though Amicia tells he can't just kill people like this, but honestly, not that a 6yo kid can defend himself in any other way). Emilie's doing whatever she's doing and she's sure that's the right way.

(Only we keep in mind that Hugo's just a little innocent boy, and Emilie is in her early 30's (I believe?) and her psyche is broken).

And I noticed one interesting thing. When we play that hide-and-seek game with the Count, and he speaks his lines about Emilie and all that, Amicia says that he's lived in this lie for so long, that he can't tell it from the truth. The irony is it's exactly what she's doing – living in a dream, a lie she created.

Hugo's going to die? No, it can't be, we will find a solution. Hugo doesn't want to go to the tomb? No, you must, it's for your own good. Hugo thinks he's responsible for all deaths? No, it's rats/Macula/the Count/whatever.

Another topic I constantly see in the game is revenge. And how an obsession with revenge gets people into big trouble.

Amicia. I would assume this as a kind of revenge, when she starts killing soldiers at herbalist's hut. Like, "the world hurts", and she wants to respond to it the same way. But the most important moment is Beatrice's death and following Hugo's anger. Amicia wants to "spoil their blood", she wants revenge so badly, that she basically pushes Hugo into more anger. As a result, we have:

Hugo's almost dead (even though he "wakes up" later, that massacre certainly affected him badly);

Emilie's dead which causes the Count's fall into complete madness followed by events of 15-16 chapters;

Arnaud. He wants the Count dead, so he will do whatever it takes to reach his goal. He doesn't care if lots of people will die once Hugo release the rats. And eventually he got our siblings into trouble along with himself.

The Count. Thinks he can take control over the boy with such disastrous powers and make the whole world burn.

Conclusion

In one of his walkthroughs Olivier Deriviere said they didn't want to make villains plainly bad. Like, bad people are bad in every aspect. But instead they developed more complex characters, and I believe, they did an excellent job. You may hate these characters, you may care little for their motifs or background, but the devs created amazing story.

And main characters' problems, conflict aren't based only on confrontation with villains, but on their decisions and mistakes.

So, as you understand – it's just my interpretation (maybe a bit chaotic, and my English is complete disaster, sorry for that), but I'm open for any discussion.

[ziracona]

What do you see happening after Josh is being rescued? Does he meet everyone of his friend eventually or some of them keep their distance? I read one of your answers about them abandoning him and honestly I don't think they didn't care at all about him, but the events were so traumatic and scary that they probably had a hard time taking into consideration that small possibility of him being alive. Plus I guess it's also part of the smooth flow of the game if it makes sense, Mike doesn't go after Jess either after he sees her falling into the mines and accuses Josh of killing her without being 100% sure that she is dead and without seeing Josh around when shit happened to her. But if I were Josh maybe I would be upset knowing they didn't come for me at all. So how would a reunion go?

That’s valid! You can interpret the lack of an interest in rescuing Josh to multiple things—that they are very sure he’s dead, if you want to be as generous as possible to them. That they think he’s probably dead and are afraid of dying too more than willing to save him, that they’re (sans Chris) too mad about the prank he pulled, etc. And I can see why people would go for any number of them. I think to me it has always read like they think he is probably dead, and the whatever he has, 30%, 20% chance? Of still being alive just isn’t enough for them to feel motivated to face very likely death to go hunting for him, especially with flamethrower dude just dead doing the same. Which makes /me/ angry, because Mike went batshit after seeing Jess wounded and dragged through a window and more trying to save her, multiple characters can kill themselves trying to save the others in the finale, etc, and I just think if you /can/ save someone who is your friend—or like, you have a shot anyway—you don’t know it is too late. You should. (& true Jess can still be alive and Mike will assume she is dead, but in his defense, so do basically all blind playthroughs she looks like she falls four stories or something while already almost dead I can’t fault Mike for assuming that was a 100% death there. Boy really tried. Whereas Josh’s vanishing from the shed is much less confirmed. There is no ‘I watched him fall’ here. Just a neither he nor his dead body were still in the shed so /something/ happened). Like I do get it, that’s a terrifying situation and not helping doesn’t = not caring, but I will hold it against characters if they don’t risk themselves to save their friends and I will be unhappy with them. Loyalty is very important to me. But it is a truly terrifying situation.

But I also get why they’d be terrified to go out there. I don’t think it makes them evil to not want to risk it till they have to, it just makes me disappointed in them. I don’t think I said I think they didn’t care about him—typo if I did, because I certainly don’t think that at all! I think Chris was traumatized and felt very sure he was dead, Ashley didn’t care (she explicitly says she thinks he deserves it and tries to stop Chris from saving him the first time), Emily doesn’t care a lot one way or another and is mostly on her own trauma right now and thinking about Matt and the awful shit she saw, that Sam does care but thinks he is probably dead and is in team mom mode and cares more about trying to keep as many friends alive as possible right now than anything else and doesn’t want to lose the others, and Mike is still pissed but also feels very bad and would prefer for Josh to make it but is also more focused on group survival and not losing anyone else since he just lost someone he loves horribly (based largely on how his reaction to the safe room scenario is either to kill Emily and feel awful but do it because he very vocally and visibly doesn’t want the others to be killed and she won’t go peacefully, and he’s terrified of losing them, or to try but not be able to because he loves Emily, and instead give the gun to the others to try to save themselves with in the event she /does/ turn). And although he’s a right coward bastard for leaving Josh if Josh gets grabbed instead of killed, down in the mines, I do think he cared about Josh. He seems truly sorry to some extent when he finds him, and does /try/ to lead him out of the mines. At the point they make the decision to go for the cable car key, I don’t think they don’t care at all, except Ashley. I just think they should care more. Although I tend to give Chris a pass because he just watched a man get beheaded, has strong reason to think Josh is dead, is injured, and spends the entire rest of the game more or less in traumatized mode quiet in the corner.

But that said I can also see why people would interpret the reactions to mean they all believe he is very dead, and mean they’re going after his corpse! I can see lots of basis in-game to interpret in quite a number of ways. And be generous to the fool kids if you want to! I /super/ hold abandoning Josh in the mines wildly against Mike, but Mike is still one of my favorite characters in the whole game. I love how flawed the cast is and that you go in hating most of them and only slowly grow to care because you don’t want them dead-dead, which keeps you there long enough to see some of their good sides. *cheff’s kiss* the great ability of the horror genre. The bar to initially invest is so low, it lets you have such a multi-faceted cast.

Okay anyway, original question! What do I see happening after Josh gets rescued and exorcised.

I think he meets up with all of them again eventually. Interesting to think from Josh’s pov how he’s going to feel. I expect to some degree he does feel abandoned, and fairly, and in RoB it is very clear he is afraid to some extent of Mike and Chris after being dragged off and tied up and left in the shed, and the things they said to him. He also /definitely/ feels massively guilty and self-blaming about all of it. He’s telling himself through Hill that no one will come for him and it’s his own fault by the final chapter. And mostly he’s just afraid of Mike and in ptsd dissociating mode by the time Sam and Mike find him. So, mixed feelings on his part I expect. Lots of fear and pain and hurt at being abandoned and so universally believed capable of murder, hurt, left to die alone in the mines. Pretty damn betrayed, and that on top of the hurt from what happened to his sisters and the inherent paranoia of paranoid schizophrenia. Hurt that they just left him. Hurt they didn’t believe him. Hurt nobody came for him until it was too late. Hurt he got betrayed again. Probably pretty miserable overall. But with that, also feels really bad about going too far and hates and blames himself intensely for everything, and I expect is also kind of not just traumatized but ashamed of what happens to him, and everyone knowing about the possession and the cannibalism. Probably he wants to lock himself in a room in the corner of a big house and never come out. But also is intensely and miserably and hopelessly lonely. Probably feels all of his friendships are likely broken beyond repair.

I don’t think they are though. Chris “I’m not your bro” six seconds later “bro are you for real?” Hartley almost dies trying to save him and wouldn’t care about the possession stuff except to be worried about him. Sam is angry and harboring some resentment, but clearly reacts to Mike reporting he is gone with regret. Mike would probably feel very guilty for leaving him and be hesitant to reconnect and then defensive doing it, but I think he cares. Jess wasn’t even there for this shit so probably she does. Same for Matt maybe? Ashley and Emily are harder to guess for. I think Ashley would be incredibly angry and resentful—I mean she wants him dead in-game, but might eventually join the others if the others got over stuff? Bc she’s also kinda a joiner? Really it’s hard to say she is a very...hair-trigger character. Volatile and intensely and massively changeable. Probably the least predictable of all. That kind of person scares me deeply in real life because I have been very backstabbed by them before. >.> But anyway hard to say. Also a lot of this depends on what ending, even assuming they all live. But I usually assume that like, Mike almost shot Em, didn’t, Matt tried to save her, Sam saw the workshop, etc ending. Emily I really don’t know. She’s a very self-reliant and hard person. She didn’t have anything very specifically for or against Josh with her experience, but wasn’t that close to him before, so I think she just kinda falls wherever she falls.

I think mostly though that they’d reconnect. Definitely Chris would jump to it, and I think Sam would too—she’s a well educated, empathetic and understanding person. She’d know he needs her. And Chris is his childhood best friend and cares the whole game. I think Mike would try to go too because of guilt, and because he’s a decent guy. Probably so would after not much time those least effected by what Josh did. I think Josh would be alone while being exorcised and probably reocvering in a hospital some after, and Chris would be the first, or Chris and Sam possibly. I think he’d be afraid to see them, and it would be complicated and messy and painful for them all, but it would be okay and sort itself out and they’d find old ground quickly. And having them there would be /incredibly/ vital to helping him recover. I think eventually he’d get back on his feet, and a lot of his old friends would be around and stay in his life. I think things would get better. I’d say the OG ExorJosh comic writer I think did a good job of guessing about what a lot of it would be like. Hard, and slow, and messy. But a lot of them care for him, and I think that would matter enough to help things get okay between them again.

[paragonshep]

Happy N7 Day, friends and ememies, and welcome to an unplanned stream-of-consciousness thought experiment I like to call

The Bare Fucking Minimum

What is this, you ask? Well I am, once again, thinking about Jacob Taylor. Specifically, I’m thinking about the complete shitshow that was Jacob’s story arc. What were the themes, the overarching concepts? And were they deliberately trying to piss off everyone who romanced him? 

In honor of the announcement of a remaster that will almost certainly do nothing for him, I’m here to ask: if we assume that all the major story elements must remain the same, what’s the minimum that could be changed to bring all of his everything from a major shitshow to a minor shitshow?

Let me preface this by saying that 1) I am not a writer, and 2) I am not black. The scope of this post is fairly limited, and mostly relates to tidying up the themes and emotional arc while keeping the actual events largely unchanged. I’m fully aware that Jacob’s loyalty mission, for example, is absolutely steeped in racist tropes, and that a lot of people out there would prefer to just throw the whole thing out and start over. I get that, but that’s not something I’m equipped to do, so if that’s what you were looking for, this post probably isn’t the one for you.

This is also pretty much spun right off the top of my head. I didn’t draft this, I’m not really digging too deep. I’m just collecting and laying out some thoughts I had floating around in my head, so this is gonna get pretty disjointed. Feel free to throw out your own thoughts in the notes. I may or may not dive in and chat with y’all, since this is mostly just to get these thoughts out of my head and on a page. We’ll see once things get going.

Anyway let’s start at the top.

1. What’s it all about, when you get right down to it?

So, Jacob’s whole arc is a complete fucking mess and feels like they just threw a bunch of random shit at it to see what would stick, but ultimately I think it’s about masculinity and Jacob’s conception of what makes a man. I think the key to Jacob as a character is understanding what traits embody masculinity, and which people he thinks have missed the mark. There’s clearly things like strength and integrity, but follow-through, duty, and keeping promises seem to be major elements in his definition of masculinity. Put a pin in that, we’ll come back to that later. Unfortunately, it’s time to talk about...

2. The Loyalty Mission

Oh boy. Welp. Let’s get this over with, I guess.

So obviously this is racist and really shit and really Bioware should just throw the whole thing out, but again, that's not what we're going here. This is the part I've given the least thought to, so it will probably be short and not come to many conclusions. anyway let's grit our teeth and look for the theme that ties in into Jacob's greater narrative arc. Specifically, if Jacob's whole thing is "what makes a man", then we need to look at how exactly his father missed the mark.

Spoiler alert: it's duty.

Ultimately, his father was captain and it was his obligation to get the crew home, even if it was personally inconvenient. It was his duty as a father to try to get home himself for the sake of his family. It was about obligation, oaths and promises he broke. Can I get some uhhhhhhhhhhhh fucking themes. Dive into that shit more.

I’m too tired to get more into it bc I’m actually writing this section last, but it’s interesting to note that even afterwards Jacob’s feelings about his father are complicated. Like, he hates the guy and thinks he’s despicable, but he still feels a need to try to find that things he got even half right. He can’t bring himself to write off everything the man ever was. That feels like a rich vein they could have done something with, but they didn’t.

3. The Romance, ME2

This one is an absolute fucking mess.

So there are two threads running through the core of this romance arc: the kink/powerplay element and the time element, and a major problem of the romance is that it doesn’t really know which one it is.

So, I know a lot of people dislike the whole kink element just on principle, but I’m not here to do that. Not everyone is into soft vanilla stuff, and it’s a little irritating how much of the fandom (and the world) tries to paint kink as inherently evil or unhealthy. THAT SAID, the kink here is inefficient in terms of storytelling, it’s sloppy writing, and the whole time I played the romance I was thinking “What’s the point of this?”. The problem with that element, and the fact that the ME2 love scene focuses on it, is that it does not serve any overarching narrative, either in terms of romance progression or Jacob’s whole character. It feels slapped on. It’s just not good storytelling. (and while i’m generally for kink, I am also side eyeing Bioware for slapping this on ME’s first black character and only him. not offensive in and of itself, but feels like part of a greater racist picture)

I’m honestly shocked they didn’t lean harder into the whole theme of time, and specifically time running out, because it seems like the obvious choice. It’s built into the whole main plot of ME2, and it’s an element of multiple other romances. You’re all heading into a suicide mission, there’s a serious chance you’re all going to die, and you don’t have enough time. Like what the fuck! That would have been emotionally satisfying! 

Imagine if the final romance scene had featured Jacob coming to see Shepard and having this whole speech/rant about how he doesn’t like to rush into things, how he likes to take it slow and really get to know each other, but now there’s no more time and you both might die tomorrow, and he might regret this choice if you live but he knows he’ll regret not making it if you die!!!!!! That’s some real shit! it completes a narrative arc! It ties into shit we know about Jacob outside his romance!!! Why the fuck didn’t they go that route!!!!!!! Can you tell I’m still angry!!!!!

4. ME3

So Jacob’s role in this game is pretty minimal, so there’s not a lot to work with and not a lot to change. Good thing I can fix like 90% of its issues with one change:

It’s not his child Dr. Cole is carrying.

Like that alone you can use to fix a bunch of issues without changing the core themes of his character arc! It works in a romance and non romance playthrough! You can still do a fatherhood “doing better than my own father did” arc even if Jacob didn’t contribute the sperm, Bioware!!!!!

So here’s how I picture it: The stuff about meeting and getting to know Jacob can stay the same. The father of Dr. Cole’s child is someone we never meet who is generally out of the picture. Possibly one of the other scientists she was working with who were killed when their part of the project was complete. Her partner disappears, she goes to Jacob for help, and Jacob promises to help her and her coworkers get out and keep them safe. Remember that shit I said back under point one about keeping promises? Boom! Narrative arc complete. This would also serve as an excuse to keep Jacob from coming back the the Normandy, since he made a promise to Brynn and he’s going to see it through. This works even with a romanced Jacob, because he can love Shepard and also note that she’s not the person who needs him most right now! Is this a perfect solution that would please every player? By no means! But I bet a lot of us would be less absolutely livid about it!

In conclusion,

I realize actually implementing these changes would actually be a whole lot of work, and this is not, in fact, a simple quick fix. My point is mostly that this did not require changing any actual plot beats, just recontextualizing them, and that Bioware and the writer(s) responsible could have saved themselves a lot of angry players if they’d just picked a coherent theme for this character and stuck to it. There’s no excuse for Jacob’s writing being as incoherent and terrible as it is.

I could probably write a lot more about this, but since I’m basically illiterate this took me pretty much all day to write and I’m tired. Bioware Stop Being So Racist Challenge, and Happy N7 Day.