Why I'm Not Playing Mass Effect 2

[Illustro Cado]

well mostly I'm not playing it because it costs money and as a student i choose to eat over playing ME2. I have ME1 and I'm planning to go through it all over again because it was a fun experience but seriously, ME1 is a SLOW and DRAWN OUT game. After the first battle sequence (Fist encounter with the geth) you have to go to the citadel and do crime solving bull crap blah blah blah. My trigger finger was itching for a good fight and all i got was a few small skirmishes. it was all Blah blah blah specter blah blah blah Geth blah blah blah Reapers blah blah blah vision. I mean god i love a good story but sheesh. I dont like exposition levels, Still i might not get masseffect 2 before it becomes 30~20 dolar price tag. for now ill stick to ME 1, amybe try dragon age since it should be cheap now.

It's funny; after I played it I told my friends that Mass Effect is probably the first game I would have enjoyed more if I hadn't had to play it. For me, the story was the draw. The shooting? That got tedious reeeeeal fast. I'm not a big fan of shooters as it is but when the game mechanics are clunky as hell on top of it it's hard for me to trudge through.

 

[sgrif]

This is absolutely the most ridiculous argument I've seen on this site in a long time. First of all, I really don't think that an 8-10 hour game is worth $60. But more importantly, I really don't see how getting more bang for your buck can ever be a bad thing. If something else comes out that you want to play, there is nothing stopping you from going back in a month or two to finish it. You also seem to claim that games like L4D2 have better gameplay simply because they have no story. This would be valid if we were talking about a Final Fantasy game or something. But why is it that if a game has compelling gameplay, and a good story to boot, that somehow worsens the product. I'm sorry, but in this economy, a lot of us only have enough money to buy one or two games for several months. And even if that's not your situation, getting more for your money is *never* a bad thing.

 

[DalekJaas]

snip.

snip

I treat movies differently to games, I don't think the same rules apply to both. THere is a different feel to watching something and actually playing something.

I should admit there are exceptions like MOnster Hunter, Pokemon, Golden Sun and most hand-held games I enjoy in 3rd person (or whatever person they are in).

But large games like Mass Effect should at least be able to give you a first person option. YOu will probs never catch me playing a 3rd person on PC or console, I just can't stand them. Purely a personal tick.

I hate fallout 3 haha, but Oblivion is one of my favourite games.

 

[Johnmw]

ADD is hard.

It's not like there isn't a save function. I guess classic literature is also out the window for you too.

I love games that last long, they are able to keep my entertainment up for as long as possible. I can leave and go back to whenever time permits.

I don't like to be abusive but...this. Your actually criticising a game for telling an "epic story" that can't fit into a 4 hour period, yeah we all have jobs, but does it stop up enjoying a lengthy novel? I'm not sure of the point of this article, I've loved your others, but this seems like trolling. You want games to be more pick up an play?, fair enough, actually criticising games that promote gaming as an art from, that can be deeper than a one hour experience or a social network? MEH?!! I just find it disheartening that in the age where everyone rags on the Wii for being too 'Casual' the two games with the deepest story are dismissed for being 'too long'.

EDIT: I agree that the best thing about WOW (the social network comment may have been a bit bitter), is the people you play with, but STRONGLY disagree that no game should foster the single player, epic, story-driven experience.

 

[Comma-Kazie]

I'm sorry on your behalf to hear that, because you really are missing out.

 

[Illustro Cado]

snip

snip

Nobody said lengthy games which further the medium as an art form shouldn't be made. That's a strawman.

I don't see this article as something which is meant to bash Mass Effect 2, rather it's exploring the psychology behind different kinds of gaming experiences while also delving into the impact priorities have on one's gaming habits.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I just have one question...

You talk about WoW as if it wasn't the same..
Thing is, you don't log into a WoW and immediately leap into battle with the Lich King.
You had to invest hours upon hours, days, and weeks to LEVEL UP to the point that you could even consider taking on such a challenge. Thats not even considering the time spent farming, raiding, and getting honor in order to get decent enough gear for any self-respecting guild to take into battle against the Frozen throne.

If you take that time and add it up, you could have beaten every Bioware game, every Square game, and probably an Atlas game or two.
AND still had time to level a toon or two to 80 in WoW.

Really, WoW is a bad example to have used in my opinion. I can see left for dead or Modern Warfare 2 because you can kill hundreds of hours in just the multiplayer of those games in short spurts without any real goal in mind.

But if you have time for the HUGE time sink investment that is WoW, you certainly have time for Dragon Age.
Thats like saying you won't have time for Final Fantasy XIII because you'll be too busy checking your crops in Farmville.

 

[Johnmw]

snip

snip

Nobody said lengthy games which further the medium as an art form shouldn't be made. That's a strawman.

I don't see this article as something which is meant to bash Mass Effect 2, rather it's exploring the psychology behind different kinds of gaming experiences while also delving into the impact priorities have on one's gaming habits.

Fair enough I didn't mean to come across as judgemental, but the article did seem to boil down to " I don't have the time for this, why should anyone else, who has a job". I have many priorities over my gaming habits, however, they don't impact on what I can think of something 'worth my time'. If I can spend 40 hours on a novel, I don't want to disparage games that can engage me for that time. Isn't that an accomplishment for a developer, rather than a fault?

 

[Illustro Cado]

Fair enough I didn't mean to come across as judgemental, but the article did seem to boil down to " I don't have the time for this, why should anyone else, who has a job". I have many priorities over my gaming habits, however, they don't impact on what I can think of something 'worth my time'. If I can spend 40 hours on a novel, I don't want to disparage games that can engage me for that time. Isn't that an accomplishment for a developer, rather than a fault?

A novel is a little different in that it's entirely about the story and you're going to process it on a deeper level, so there's less chance you'll forget what happened between sessions. With games, not only is there a story to follow, there are sidequests, there are journal entries, there are game mechanics... That creates barriers for people who might enjoy the game but lack for time. I know myself just going one week without playing a game makes it feel alien to me the next time I pick it up, especially if I played another game in between.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

I see your point, and while having a job does shorten your attention span for games somewhat I caution you from falling into that trap. A lot of game journalists, developers, and media personalities focus their efforts so much on their work within the industry that they miss a lot of very important events and trends in gaming. They end up hearing about them second hand, and yet are expecting to formulate an opinion on it or even create works similar to it (or dissimilar from it). You end up with a kind of "ivory tower" effect, where you miss a lot of the game news and start to become disconnected from the pulse of the gaming community. I think that, in order to be a truly effective voice in the gaming world, you have to ration your game-playing time so that you can experience as much of what is out there as you can. Spending 200 hours playing L4D2 for the 90th time may be an enjoyable experience for you, but you're going to end up missing out on things that you're expected to know.

It just seems like a kind of weak excuse to me. It's like saying that you only read books from the young adult section because books meant for adults are too time-consuming and distracting from your job as an editor.

Basically your reasoning is sound, but if you want to keep up with the release-a-minute world of modern gaming and be taken seriously as a journalist, you'll have to put down the WoW account, take a break from LFD2, and maybe play one of the biggest releases of the year.

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

I just don't understand it, you have time for games that never end, but no time for games that do.

 

[Johnmw]

Fair enough I didn't mean to come across as judgemental, but the article did seem to boil down to " I don't have the time for this, why should anyone else, who has a job". I have many priorities over my gaming habits, however, they don't impact on what I can think of something 'worth my time'. If I can spend 40 hours on a novel, I don't want to disparage games that can engage me for that time. Isn't that an accomplishment for a developer, rather than a fault?

A novel is a little different in that it's entirely about the story and you're going to process it on a deeper level, so there's less chance you'll forget what happened between sessions. With games, not only is there a story to follow, there are sidequests, there are journal entries, there are game mechanics... That creates barriers for people who might enjoy the game but lack for time. I know myself just going one week without playing a game makes it feel alien to me the next time I pick it up, especially if I played another game in between.

Again (and frustratingly for my ego) I do agree with you.... but... (you knew that was coming). I don't get what this article is about then. Is it a personal cry for help because he (John Funk) doesn't have the time to play the game? If so the Escapist is a weird place to vent that anger. I just don't want a game that has put the time and effort into creating a HUGE world, as ME2 & DA:O have done) to be criticised for its efforts, as I said before, shouldn't a game be lauded for having a deeper story? The side quests, (OPTIONAL btw), are not essential for the core story but add another layer to the world, again I don't see this as a reason for disliking the game. The side quests,journal & codex are optional, they don't influence the story of the game they merely add to the lore that surrounds it.

I guess I get a little over enthusiastic when an RPG comes out that caters to my taste comes out, I suppose I just miss Bauldur's Gate 2 too much..

 

[econael]

@Author
Back then I did all the sidequests in ME1 and now I'm doing all the sidequests in ME2.
If you really like this game, you're playing for the story anyway and that includes the sidequests.

Of course when my bud calls we'll play LoL instead, but just because I can't finish ME2 in a weekend, doesn't mean I'm not gonna play and finish it.

You're just impatient. So it takes a month to play through, why's that even an issue?

Well I kinda know why you wrote that article, I've been there. Having too many games installed and subjectively too little time. But really there's no objective reason not to play a good game you enjoy for over a month.

 

[Weaver]

I hope developers do not listen to this editor and all games in the future are like 4 hours long.

In the end, I don't see the point of this article. "I don't like long games because they're long." is the crux of it. Proponents of long games are likely going to adore them for the same reasons.

 

[Illustro Cado]

This is less about arguing against long games so much as making the point that there's a place for short games. If being able to finish what you start is important to you and you know you have a full schedule, which looks more appealing: a ten hour game like Arkham Asylum or a 30-50 hour game like Mass Effect 2? (And yes, while I am among the people who mentioned that ME doesn't take that long, it can take that long if you're being really thorough and you're not using a guide.)

I don't understand what's so hard to get about that. He's not attacking anything. He's not saying anything game developers don't already know-10 hour games sell pretty well despite their high price tag. It's just an interesting perspective, especially when you consider the psychology behind playing a game like WoW for a hundred hours vs. playing a game for fifty.

 

[Who Dares Wins]

John

I haven't played ACTUAL games, for what, 8 months now, they LOOK overwhelming, I think it's gonna be great I'm just a tiny bit in all that's happening to the world but a lot of games that I played that made me think like that, actually were pretty disappointing... So now I decided not to play them at all.

... Huh?

And I really thought this article made a lot of sense. It explained how I felt about some games at times.

John said he won't play Mass Effect because it's overwhelming, big, epic, I say they are not, they look "overwhelming" but once you get them and play them you see they're not. Games have disappointed me so now I don't play them at all. (except Tetris that is) Better now?

 

[Terramax]

I agree with this guy. I can't be bothered with a story-driven game that's more than about 15hrs long. If it's more than that then either the story is dragged out too much or they use lord knows how much tedious gameplay filler.

I hope developers do not listen to this editor and all games in the future are like 4 hours long.

In the end, I don't see the point of this article. "I don't like long games because they're long." is the crux of it. Proponents of long games are likely going to adore them for the same reasons.

Take a read at the guy who wrote just below you.

I just don't understand it, you have time for games that never end, but no time for games that do.

Because games with no end don't require you to invest consistant intense amounts of time to get the most out of them. Play only 2-5 hours a week and you'll end up forgetting the plot, not improving your skills, not understanding the more complicated aspects of the game, etc.

I, on the other hand, have played hundreds of hours of Sega Rally Revo and after 2 years I finally completed it last week. Reason being, I didn't have to worry about deterioration of enjoyment if I went a few weeks without playing. You just pick up and play a damn fine but simple racer.

Now if it were Final Fantasy, by a few weeks without I'd have forgotten half the plot, which special attacks work with what, what equipment I have, what I need to do next, etc.

 

[Jandau]

Mr. Funk, it's your loss. However, I found that individual missions in ME2 break the game into clearly defined parts and each is quite manageable as far as time requirements go.

 

[SomebodyNowhere]

I completely understand where you are coming from being put off a bit by games that are epic in length. There are some games I'd like to play again but I have a tendency that when I get a good chunk of the way through the game I feel less like I'm playing to have fun and just playing to get through it(and that just feels wrong on some level).

I am interested in playing ME2, but havn't played the first one(I'm really regretting not getting it on Steam when it was $5) and feel like I'd be missing out on a lot. I hope to play them at some point, but for now I've got other games I did buy during the holiday deals I havn't even touched yet.

 

[richtaur]

Wow, that's crazy. I too have Mass Effect and Dragon Age collecting dust on my shelf, with L4D2 and WoW occupying 100% of my gaming time lately.