ChrisBaleBatman
Legendary Hero
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 19,677
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 56
Personally I think a game like Mass Effect suits something like the first games length. Unless it has lots of interesting varabiles, the repetitive nature can shine through. I suppose thats partly why first person shooters tend to be short, especially Call Of Duty as the single player gameplay tends to be walking in a straight line playing wack-a-mole. Older first person shooters with more complicated design (.e.g. Doom II) probably could do on for 20-30 hours. Not to say Mass Effects is "Call Of Duty" but glueing yourself to a wall in mostly linear levels shooting fellows for for 60+ (or whatever it is) hours VS 30 will probably tend to show up as more repetitive unless really good twists are thrown in. Which, I couldn't really see. It was the same thing over and over again for the most part.
You've got a point, when something like the DLC for ME2, The Arrival, puts a ton of emphasis on the part of Mass Effect that is not it's strong suite. The corridor shooting got boring for me, and I didn't have my team and they're powers to mix things up.
What I find curious, is EA wanting to bring in hardcore shooters (which, I don't even know is possible) to ME3. And, even if the shooting is as good as the best third person shooters...the game is still going to wind up being longer than a shooter. I don't know how that's supposed to work, aside from just getting their money and not looking back.
I'm just curious how that is supposed to work out. Reaching out to that segment of gamers.
the let down in ME2's ending for me was how short the suicide mission was. i expected it to take a good hour. it takes maybe 25 minutes.
It took me an hour. I did, however, spend quite a bit of time just staring at my TV deciding who to send where for the first time.

I wasn't expecting everyone to have a unique ending, but I was expecting each ending to be distinctly different from one another.