Extra Credits: Starting Off Right

This week, we talk about the crucial "first five minutes" of a game.

Show Notes:

Miel continues to be way too talented. Check out her stuff!

Would you like James to come speak at your school or organization?

For info, contact us at: kate@extra-credits.net

Recent Comments:


  • I don't think Mass Effect "Grabbed you" in the opening moments. Heck, it was actually alot of reading and listening for the first five minutes of the game. And looked how that game turned out.

    Oh man, I loathed the opening to ME1. It was literally so bad I didn't even pick it up again for a whole year. Ultimately I ended up playing through everything, like I did for the sequels, but it totally wasn't worth it outside of the main quest missions. The opening really summed up the game: great core story and characters but everything else was mind-numbingly boring and lazy/under funded. Fortunately that problem evaporated in 2 outside of the resource mining, but if I could do it again I'd just skip the first game and open with the interactive comic from the PS3 version of ME2.


    And two went from good story and characters to streamlined combat and smaller scale of galaxy. I wanted to live in this world and enjoy it. There for I needed to learn about it. Why is reading such are hard thing for people to do nowadays?

  • It never felt like a Skyrim sort of game to me. When ME1 worked it was through the mostly linear main story missions and talking to your crew. Outside of that you were force fed a Milky Way Encyclopedia via the Citadel, sent roving forgettable planets in a physics defying death trap or doing side missions that featured the same two maps with some boxes moved around.

    ME2 took what worked in the first one, made it the majority of your game experience, and topped it off with superior execution in cast and story. Plus they cut most (but not all) of the crappy parts out. I don't get the bad rap with cover-based shooting, its the ideal complementary combat system for a game like this.

    Also I could not hit the kill order on Kaidan fast enough. Fem Shep deserved a better human partner.

  • Game #1: Starts off very boring, then pays off well and ends strong.

    Game #2: Starts off very strong, then loses the pace and betrays all of your expectations at the end.

    Assuming you're given the above and only 1 choice. Take your pick.

    I'd like to think as developers we really should be building:

    Game #3: Starts off very strong, pays off well and ends strong.

    No compromises!

  • Game #1: Starts off very boring, then pays off well and ends strong.

    Game #2: Starts off very strong, then loses the pace and betrays all of your expectations at the end.

    Assuming you're given the above and only 1 choice. Take your pick.

    I'd like to think as developers we really should be building:

    Game #3: Starts off very strong, pays off well and ends strong.

    No compromises!


    It's called Call of Duty. Blitzing fast solid action all the way through. Too bad it's only 4 hours long because of it.

  • I'd like to think as developers we really should be building:

    Game #3: Starts off very strong, pays off well and ends strong.

    No compromises!


    Don't we all want those games the most? Question is: which is the second best to that type of games? The type that starts strong, or the type that ends strong?

Join The Discussion: