Talk:Arrival

Delete Proposal
So there are a number of issues I have with this, mainly being that we have very little information on this, and extremely little, if any, reliable information. So until we have something much, much more solid, I vote delete on this. If necessary we can recreate it when we have more reliable information as the information we have is unreliable and the information is itself based on conjecture. And that might be a while to get that reliable information. The only source for this right now wouldn't be a reliable source under any other circumstances. Lancer1289 20:34, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am forced to agree. Regardless if this was intentional or not, it's just speculation upon speculation upon a glitch. If the name does in fact turn out to be "Arrival", then, whatever. For now, let's can it. Also, this whole thing started with some screen shots. For all we know, those could have been faked. I'd like to add for the record that no BioWare employee has commented on the two, yes TWO threads in the official BioWare forums dedicated to this. Tanooki1432 21:10, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that saved me looking through the remaining ones. I know about this one, but what's the other one? Either way I do have agree, speculation on top of speculation. Lancer1289 21:16, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here. Oh, and look: now we speculate on the achievement. Good grief. One little thing appears and everyone has an orgasm over it. Getting sidetracked here, just for s***s and giggles, I want BioWare to NOT call the DLC Arrival. Call it anything else. Call it "Fun Times in a Flower Garden" for all I care, but I want to see the reaction of the fanbase if it's NOT called "Arrival". Tanooki1432 21:23, February 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Support deletion. At this point, all we can do is speculate on the nature of "Arrival". -- Commdor (Talk) 21:29, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

A mod on BSN: "More info as soon as I get a green light from PR and Marketing I promise! (it's a holiday here today)". Prismvg 21:31, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok problem and one that will make this delete proposal go away. Mr. Jesse Houston has commented here about two things, You can read the full comment on the link. So this is curious. It looks like the pack is named "Arrival" and information is coming up. I'm not sure if that qualifies as confirmation, but it is certainly more definite than other things. The other things, not met our guidelines. Lancer1289 21:35, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Statement: "Looks like BioWare has some 'splaining to do" Mr. Houston: "No"
 * 2) Statment: "This leak was probably intentional, and they are probably looking/reading this thread and smiling at how everyone is so excited." Answer: "yes"
 * Further comment by Mr. Houston. Apparently they thought the trophies would be invisable with the update and they weren't. So comments on this. Personally I think this is gives it enough for it to say. Lancer1289 21:37, February 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * So do you withdraw the deletion proposal, or are you going to continue holding the vote? Since this is looking more or less official, I'll change my vote if need be. -- Commdor (Talk) 21:46, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm withdrawing it given that we do have confirmation, but little confirmed information. However it is enough based on what we did for the other major packs, Overlord and LotSB. I just keep forgetting to take down the delete tag when I make edits. Lancer1289 21:49, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Now I know why I steer clear of the official forums... Some of the posts there... Am I like the only one who does not wet himself whenever new information about his favorite games is released? Or is it just that most people who use official forums fall under the "Fandumb" category? Please note, I said MOST. Not all or everyone. I'm sure there are some people on those forums that I could carry a conversation with. Tanooki1432 21:58, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just about it seems when it comes to the forums. I was skeptical and yet the only thing I have to say now is that I'm looking forward to it, but I'm not going to go around like a gossip machine or jump up and down like a child. News is news and while it is good news, some people do tend to go overboard it seems. Lancer1289 22:03, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

Trophy descriptions
Regarding the ME2 PS3 trophy descriptions which fueled this hullabaloo, should we incorporate those into the wiki at all (add them to this article or Achievements), or wait? -- Commdor (Talk) 22:14, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I just have to run out the door in a minute for about a half hour, right now I have to say wait for confirmation via Xbox 360 achievements. Those may not be the final descriptions yet, as we don't have an official description yet either, so I say hold off for the moment. Lancer1289 22:16, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether the final descriptions or not (although it seems strange to say that there are not, given that we have no reason to think that), they are still extra information which is valuable to the article. --Flower of Pock-Lips 22:36, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: This revert, there has been no decision to wait on the trophy descriptions, just the opinion of a single user, which does not a consensus make. And considering that Amanda Kenson is explicitly referenced in the trophy descriptions, I would say that there is very little doubt that the CDN report has to do with the content of the DLC. --Flower of Pock-Lips 22:47, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going along with Lancer here, so that's two in favor of waiting. And since adding this information is under discussion, you do have to wait until the discussion concludes before you can add it. As for the CDN report, all that links it to this DLC is Dr. Amanda Kenson. We have no evidence as yet that anything or anyone else in the report will also be featured in this DLC, or that the report itself is pertinent. Even if it was, we wouldn't add the report to this article per established guidelines for organizing DLC pack articles. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:56, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed most of that was completely unnecessary. We don't need the entire CDN report, nor do we need the fact that a week of CDN will precede the release. Also note that goes against standards for DLC pages. The description comes from the BioWare. Your description was not from the BioWare site. We should wait until we have a lot more information about this before doing anything further. Lancer1289 23:03, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether it fits with established guidelines or not, we cannot simply ignore the information just because you aren't sure where to put it on the page. The achievements and newspost are both important bits of information about something that we otherwise know very little about. We can't just sit on that information - when the end-user comes to this page, they will expect to be able to read everything we currently know about the DLC. --Flower of Pock-Lips 10:08, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * So if something goes against the guidelines, and if it fits what you want, then it should go in? That's exactly what you said. If you want it, then it should be in the article, no matter what our established guidelines and standards say. Yeah that just doesn’t work very well. We have guidelines and standards that have been established for DLC pack pages, and Achievements aren't part of it. No other DLC page has the achievements listed, nor will they be listed. Right now, we can't confirm the information and it will be removed until we can confirm it, it will be removed for unsourced information, and because it is in the incorrect article. What is there is what we know and we will not make an exception from the guidelines for one pack. We don't list achievements on any other page, and again we will not make an exception for this one instance. Lancer1289 14:09, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

PS3 exclusive?
Does anyone else have a bad feeling that this is going to be a ps3 exclusive?
 * I have no feelings on that what so ever. I doubt that it will be a PS3 exclusive as the only thing BioWare will accomplish is angering, and possibly losing, their loyal 360 and PC fan base. I also doubt it will be a timed exclusive as well. BioWare just wouldn't do that. Lancer1289 04:01, March 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) Why would it be? Pretty sure BioWare's said that no DLC would ever be exclusive to a specific version. And BioWare wouldn't disappoint the PC and Xbox 360 fanbase that have been loyal to the ME franchise since it debuted. I'd be very, very surprised if Arrival is even a timed exclusive. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:06, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Age 2 Insert
Here's a source for the DA2 insert if someone wants to add it: http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/11294/dragon-age-ii-unboxing-reveals-mass-effect-3-arrival-dlc --- 23:48, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already been decided that the insert that came with Dragon Age II could refer to either the DLC or ME3 itself. It's purely speculative as to which one it's alluding to. It would be better to keep it out of the article entirely until it's confirmed that the insert was in reference to one or the other. Samsoniussig.png  (Talk)   (Requests)  00:04, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * And that about sums it up. The bottom line is that it is pure, raw, uncut speculation. We know that Arrival is the name of a DLC pack, but we also know that the Reapers will attack Earth, by arriving in the Milky Way at some point during ME3. The gist of it is, that if it continues to be added, it will continue to get deleted as speculation as it is vague as to what exactly it is referring to. This DLC pack, or Mass Effect 3, to which is the insert referring to? We may never know. Lancer1289 00:38, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * All I know is that, personally, when I first saw it, I immediately thought of Mass Effect 3, not of any purported Arrival DLC. "The Arrival has begun" made me think arrival as in the Reapers' arrival on Earth, as seen in the ME3 trailer. We need some actual evidence before we can add anything to this article. SpartHawg948 00:58, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * That is what I thought as well when I first watched the video as well, and that will probably repeat when I pick up my DAII on Tuesday. I'm betting more people who pick up DAII will probably think ME3 rather than a DLC pack that was unintentionally announced and that they may not know of. Lancer1289 01:05, March 7, 2011 (UTC)

Well, now that DA2 is out, we can just wait for someone to take a closer look at the slip. -- - 23:52, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah looked at it and it seems even more likely it is for ME3 not this. Either way, would still oppose including into article. Lancer1289 00:51, March 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * When I discovered it, I immediately thought of the DLC. The fact the DLC's called "Arrival" and the leaflet says in bold letters "The """Arrival""" has begun", I'm more than convinced it's talking about the DLC than ME3, considering we've still yet to see anything regarding ME3 beyond a teaser trailer. Still, I'll keep an open mind. User:Vanguard1505 14:18, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at it again, and I still have to say that it is more than likely ME3 given what we know. What we do know about this pack is the name in all honesty, nothing more or less. Given we know that the Reapers will have to arrive at some point in ME3 to attack the Galaxy and Earth, and given the plant that looks like it is under attack in the background, I still have to say that it is an ad for ME3, not this. I've honestly never seen a DLC pack advertized like this before, while I have seen a game, especially a highly anticipated sequel, advertized like this before. Lancer1289 14:55, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to say that it's more ME3 oriented since we weren't actually supposed to know the name of the DLC. You need to remember that it was purely accidental that we learned of the Arrival DLC in the first place. Tanooki1432 15:59, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Speculation
Can we start talking about what may happen in the dlc im curious to know what people have to say.
 * If you want to talk about that, then this is not the place to do it. Take it to a blog post, or into the Forums. Lancer1289 03:53, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

I know but I've seen speculation in the other talk pages
 * Quote from the Community Guidelines.
 * "Talk pages are not:
 * a substitute forum
 * a space to post theories without fear of deletion
 * used to harass other users"
 * Take it to a forum or blog post as this is not the proper place for this discussion. I think there have already been blogs about it. Lancer1289 04:01, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that but i'm just saying i've seen people use talk pages as forums
 * And just because it was done, doesn't mean that it was ok. This kind of discussion should be on forum pages or in blogs. Lancer1289 04:15, March 12, 2011

Name of the DLC
Do you know for sure if this dlc will be called arrival I mean you don't really know till they officially announce it.--ItsAlwaysSunnyInIllium 20:28, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that is what they are using on the BioWare forums, by devs, in the announcement of screenshots, and in a few other places, I believe it is beyond any reasonable doubt that it will be called Arrival. Official Mass Effect Site, look at the announcements, granted third is misspelled. Lancer1289 20:33, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Considering that the announcements read like this. "View the Mass Effect 2 Gallery for your first Official Arrival screenshot", "The second screenshot from the upcoming Mass Effect 2 DLC Arrival is in the gallery" (emphasis added), and "A third screenshot from the upcoming Mass Effect 2 DLC Arrival is now in the gallery" (no emphasis added), I can say for certain that it is called "Arrival". Lancer1289 20:36, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Announcement
http://ea.gamespress.com/release.asp?i=1544

Acording to the link, the DLC will cost 560 ms points or £5.49 on the PSN (i dont know how many dolars are those in the US version of the PSN) and Admiral Hackett will be returning, i dont know if add this to the page, i want your approval or something Changonauta 14:04, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I think that's good enough. I'll add it in and yes that is during my spring break to I can get walkthoughs up without worrying about missing class. Adjustements coming up. Lancer1289 14:07, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Now I feel that I'm going to point this out, we do not put plot summaries of announcements, or any other kind, on this page. Only the official descriptions from Xbox Live (as that is the precedent set), pricing information, content, and that is it. Don't believe me, then look at any other hub pack for information. Lair of the Shadow Broker, Zaeed - The Price of Revenge, Kasumi - Stolen Memory, Overlord, etc. Lancer1289 14:17, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * At the very least we can correct spelling or grammer can't we? At no point does it say 'Official' description, nor is it a quote. Can't we just fix it, instead of having [sic]? JakePT 04:10, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, and a flat out no at that. Descriptions are verbatim from their source, in this case the BioWare site. It puzzles me why this even has to be mentioned considering that has been the standard for some time. No alterations and no substitutions. Lancer1289 04:17, March 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * (Edit Conflict) How is it not official? It's on the ME2 website as the description for the DLC pack under Game Info. And like with LotSB and other DLC, we take the descriptions from the site and place them here exactly as they are. No pressing reason to make an exception here. -- Commdor (Talk) 04:25, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Batarian could be capitalized simply to indicate it means space controlled by the Batarian Hegemony as opposed to merely controlled by batarians or a group dominated by batarians, like the Blue Suns or a slaver gang or something. Just saying... Oh, and also, you three are killing me here. You know that, right? (refer to the latest gripe on my user page if you're curious as to why.) SpartHawg948 06:11, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't official, I said the article doesn't label the official description as official, nor does it put it in a quote. Hence having [sic] just makes it look like we made a spelling error and decided to label it instead of fix it for some reason. I understand the reasoning behind using the official descriptions, but using them and flat out refusing to fix a simple grammar error is just being dogmatic about something simply for the sake of being dogmatic about something. JakePT 07:05, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with Spart's comment is that I have found more than one example at 0:28, and another at 2:32 of "asari space" not being capitalized and I think this is a typo on BioWare's part. I'm sure I can find a few more but if someone can find something to contradict me, then I'll happily remove the sic tag. What also supports my poissition is several planet descriptions we have. Haestrom, Gotha, and Ammut just say "geth space" not "Geth space". If Spart's comment was true, then it would be "Asari space" and "Geth space" respectively. Just saying...
 * As to Jake's comment, since it is transcribed from an official source, having the sic tag there tells people that it is a mistake that isn't ours, but rather where it is from. This is not something I'm willing to compromise on as there is a standard for using the official descriptions, with no alterations and no substitutions hence the sic tag. We have a standard and frankly you are arguing to deviate from that standard. We aren't refusing to fix something, we copy word-for-word the text of the description and don't alter anything. If there is an error, then we use the sic tag, we don't alter it. It isn’t a mistake on our part, but rather on BioWare’s and we indicate it as such. We aren’t being dogmatic about it just to be dogmatic, but rather to enforce a standard that you want us to deviate from. I frankly don't understand why this is so hard to understand about word for word copying of the official description without any alterations.
 * And no I don't understand how I missed that referring to Spart’s comment again. Lancer1289 17:26, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that you have a big bold text on the front page that says "Please read our Style Guide, general FAQ and Community Guidelines, particularly naming conventions for alien races" - which specifically say not to capitalize alien race-names. In addition, this is not an official BioWare page. I understand directly importing official announcements as-is, but it is indeed just dogmatic and illogical not to follow your own site conventions. Either remove the sic tag or conform the spelling to the wiki conventions. It's clearly not meant to be capitalized; if it is an error on their part (and there really is no other explanation) then it is simply replicating an error for no purpose whatsoever. You are "enforcing a standard" on one hand by requiring certain naming conventions, but enforcing a different standard for an official announcement. So how's trying to have it both ways working out for you? That sic tag makes the page look unprofessional, and the whole idea is that it's an official announcement (an important one, too) and should look official. Good work then. ( - An interested party.)
 * So the fact we have a standard about descriptions must mean nothing now to two people on this page, and multiple others. We have sic tags in a number of places on the site and yet this is the only one that is being fought over. We aren't being illogical, we are enforcing a standard that does superceed the capitaliztion rule. The rule with descriptions for DLC packs is direct copy from the BioWare site, no changes and no modifications. This standard is enforced on a number of pages where even other things aren't consistent, even more so than this one. Having the tag there shows that we aren't the ones that messed up, but rather the official description has something that isn't consistent with known conventions. This is done all the time with other things, and yet no one has a problem with those. This isn't illogical or dogmatic to be dogmatic, it is enforcing a standard that has existed for some time now. Lancer1289 14:07, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Supporting a standard just because it's a standard and has always been a standard is being dogmatic. Why do we have standards? To ensure quality? Well in this case the standard, which by the way doesn't appear anywhere in the Manual of Style or Community Guidelines, has failed, as we have content that is of lower quality than it should be. Besides, simply fixing a grammatical error doesn't in any way contradict the intent of this rule, as the summary will still be exactly the same in terms of content, and doesn't set a precedent for people writing their own summaries or whatever god-awful thing you were so afraid of when making this rule.JakePT 14:14, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * No supporting a standard that works is something that is very much common sense. The quality of the description would be lowered because it is a modification of something that is directly from the BioWare site. This would set a dangers precedent for people to add things to descriptions that aren't part of the official one, modify things that don't make sense, modify something they just don't like it, or a number of other things. Enforcing standards is a standard in itself and making an exception to that rule weakens the standard. As I have stated there are others that are questionable, yet even Spart has enforced it on at the very least one occasion. Verbatim means something, and this is exactly the case here. Copied directly, a.k.a. word for word, with no modifications or adjustments. The precedent this also sets is aligning to site standards, rather than maybe since BioWare does write the franchise, maybe they do know what they are doing. That is really shaky at best. Lancer1289 14:48, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't really see the problem in amending the description to use a lower-case b in batarian. None of the meaning changes, obviously, but readability improves significantly with the lack of the unsightly [sic]. I would be more keen on keeping the description word-for-word (letter-for-letter?) if we actually acknowledged in the article itself that the description is actually taken from the BioWare site (by using a section title of "Official BioWare Description", for instance.) Since we do not, then there's no reason to be strictly beholden to BioWare's verbiage, presumed errors and all.

And you're wrong about exceptions weakening a rule. They do not. Especially when the exception doesn't really go counter to the spirit of said rule. In this case, the spirit of the 'rule' (which is, as JakePT stated, not codified anywhere in the site policies), remains intact: the content and interpretation of the description is exactly the same as before, but without the visual impact of the [sic].

I personally hold standards of quality on a higher tier than standards of... copying? I don't know. If steadfast adherence to a standard degrades the quality of an article (as is the case here), then either the standard itself is flawed, or we've run into a situation that the standard was not originally designed for, and must therefore make adjustments. Clearly we never anticipated that BioWare would go against their own race naming conventions and (presumably erroneously) capitalize batarian in an official description. We've never had to [sic] any part of an official description before (to my knowledge, anyway), so you can't fault someone for pointing out how ugly the description is when a [sic] is required.

Here are my proposed solutions to this ugliness issue:
 * 1) Do as JakePT suggests, and simply modify the description to use a lowercase b. The content and meaning of the description doesn't change, but the writing will adhere to BioWare's established race-naming conventions and be devoid of [sic] eye-sores.
 * 2) Explicitly state that the description we're showing is copied directly from the BioWare site, then lose the [sic] (but keep the capital B). If there are issues with people modifying the description (I don't anticipate there will be), then a note should be made that the presumably-erroneously capitalized B appears in the BioWare source material. This note could appear at the bottom of the article, along with the link to the official description page.

Of the two, I prefer the first option, being a wiki with the ability to make editorial changes easily. But I think that the second option would also adequately solve the issue with respect to presentation. -- Dammej ( talk ) 17:25, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * So the simple fact that these are the official descriptions seems to mean nothing to anyone anymore. These are official descriptions that are copied word for word, letter for letter with absolutely no exceptions . I believe I have stated it above that there are more questionable ones than this one, and yet this one seems to be getting all of the fire for a reason that completely escapes me. The reason it is there is no acknowledge an error on BioWare’s part, not ours , and yet despite several others having questionable content, this one gets all the attention.
 * I really don’t see a reason to rename the section to “Official BioWare Description” when that is, and has been the standard for some time now. To be honest, it is just needless and unnecessary. We have description, which granted is pulled from the site, but adding additional information to it just adds unnecessary information.
 * And no you are incorrect, making an exception does erode a standard, despite what you may believe. Because people can come back and point out that “oh you made an exception there, so you have to make one here as well for this reason”. Then the standard does lose its impact and that does open the door to deviate from the standard for some reason that can be traced back to here. The spirit of the rule does not remotely stay intact because we have deviated from a very strict standard. We copy the text, but change one thing, how is that keeping with the spirit of the rule when the rule is we copy something verbatim and yet we change something?
 * As to your proposed solutions, one is a no go and I will not  change my stance on that any time soon. This does erode a standard that has been in place, and opens the door to additional “necessary” edits, which in all honesty may not be. The descriptions are either verbatim or not, there is no in-between on this one. Two is also a no go because that just adds a lot of unnecessary material to the page that in all honesty just doesn’t need to be there. Also just pointing out that it is referenced to the page and I did that when I added it.
 * As to making it part of site policy, until now that wasn’t even necessary, and to be perfectly honest, I still don’t think it is. However, if it becomes necessary, then I see little choice, although I will again state that I really don’t think it is. Lancer1289 22:20, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

just had a thought if it is controlled by a group of them you think balak will appear?(if you spared him)--Soul reaper magnum 06:20, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't a question for a talk page, it should go in a relevant blog post/forum. JakePT 07:05, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

right sorry, i'd just thought of it before i posted and didn't know where to put it. i'll go start a forum then.--Soul reaper magnum 16:50, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see a third option here. First, officially add the rule about Official Summaries to the site policies, as the rule should really already be there. Second, as per the rule, remove the [sic] tag, as it isn't in the Official Summary. This allows the rule to be followed, and the "eyesore" to be cleaned up, without the added eyesore of explaining the rule in the middle of the page. Arbington 19:16, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest it has been an unwritten rule, as there are quite a number around here, but if it becomes necessary, I again see little choice. For now I'll just remove the sic tag, since that seems to be the source of the irritation, why I don't know, and we'll see what happens. If it keeps persisting, then I'll add something to the MoS, otherwise I'll just leave it. Lancer1289 22:20, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

New Research?!
If this is meant to be the last story pack, what would be the point in giving us more upgrades?! The only plausible explanation I can think of is in ME3 you'll get to carry over all your upgrades and start the game with a significant advantage. But would this heavily implicate that the gameplay style of ME3 will be comparable to ME2? Tali&#39;s no.1 fan 12:54, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * If anything this just implies that you can play the DLC at any time, and having research means you won't have to halt your progression to play it. Regardless, I've been under the impression ME3 will more or less be a direct continuation of Mass Effect 2 for years, ever since a developer posted on the old forums that part of the reason the skills and levelling were being redesigned and reset was so they could move more easily into Mass Effect 3, or something along those lines. However things could easily have changed since then. JakePT 14:23, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's meant to be about the coming Reaper invasion it only makes sense to play it after the Suicide Mission. I guess only time will tell. Tali&#39;s no.1 fan 15:08, March 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that this DLC is meant to lead the story into ME3, which suggests that this DLC will only be playable after Shepard has completed the Suicide Mission. There's really not enough information to make any meaningful speculation at this point, but I suspect that ME3 will simply involve bumping up the level cap for existing imports, while new Shepards will start at, say, level 20 - 25. (EDIT: Silly me. It was stated right on the announcement that Arrival is the last DLC for ME2.) I agree that it's unlikely that we'll see many more item upgrades in Arrival. Most likely we'll simply see another cabin item. Maybe those jellyfish we saw in Liara's apartment in LotSB; I REALLY want those for my cabin. - Zaxares 02:33, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Why jellyfish, just stuff a hanar into the fish tank.--Legionwrex 03:11, March 20, 2011 (UTC)