How Short is Too Short in Gaming?

i3eyond the Circle - 38 days 14 hours ago

It all matters the genre.

CoD single player is a good 5hours but it also has Spec Ops and Multiplayer.

MW2 single player on hardened or veteran can't be completed in 5hours tho.

You'll spend 30minutes alone clearing out the Favela on Veteran or else you'll die trying to run through.

I beat KZ2 in 5 and a half hours but I wasn't complaining because it was a fun ride.

MW2 while short had me stuck to the seat since "No Russian" and the Invasion of *******SPOILER**************** **SPOILER***************
America.

Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply

mrkeith - 38 days 14 hours ago

i say a game should be 10 hrs minimum

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply

jleack - 38 days 14 hours ago

Anything under 8 hours is too short for me. I'm forgiving MW2 because it has an amazing Co-op and multiplayer component.

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply

Halo3 MLG Pro - 38 days 14 hours ago

MW2 = 5-6 hours campaign on Normal. Plus Spec Ops and Multiplayer. Multiplayer that contains tons of gametypes, levels, weapons and variety.

Heavenly Sword = 6 hours of campaign and..... that's it. For a whopping $60.

Or

Warhawk = $40 but only has multiplayer with 3 maps, limited weapons and gametypes. For another $20 you get a much bigger experience with MW2.

Seriously, what's the problem sony fans??? You guys are being hypocritical.

Agree(0) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply

MajestieBeast - 38 days 14 hours ago

When dlc games last longer then a 60$ game bububut it has multiplayer thats the weakest excuse ever. Naughty dog made a 12 hour game + a addictive multiplayer in the same time infinity ward added new skins and perks for call of duty mw1.5. Activision paying more for allot less.

@Mlg

You are the 1 that paid 60 dollars for a expansion pack with a hour 6 single player campaign and a horde mode.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

razielsonofkain - 38 days 14 hours ago

I just completed MW2 5 mins ago on hardened - 6 hrs 56 mins. And im not pissed off one bit - in fact; it was pretty epic. alot of cool bits. now im just happily waiting for the multiplayer servers to come on :D

Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply

miacosa - 38 days 14 hours ago

Everyone always talks about tacked-on multiplayer one could say that this is tacked on single-player just to check off a box. Its a shame they should have just put all their efforts into the multiplayer and surprised everyone with a lower price point rather then a half-ass single-player.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Bathyj - 38 days 14 hours ago

When you actually make yourself stop playing after a couple hours so the game will last more than 2 days, its probably safe to say you're worried its gonna be to short.

Having said that, 7-10 hours is about the norm now days, but I take that time as pure gameplay, not dying, reloading or waiting. Whatever the game clock says. 4 hours of gameplay doesnt start at 8 and finish at 12.

Still happy I got MW2 (before that ban it in OZ), mainly because of CoD Classic, I'm actually more looking more forward to getting into that than finishing MW2.

But I would like to see more effort put into the single player game. Not everyone cares about deathmatch after deatmatch, capture the flag, deathmatch.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Myzer - 38 days 14 hours ago

4-5 hours is definatly too short for a full price single player campaign. 8-10 is the shortest a full game should be. About the 12 hours mark is about right.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Bits-N-Kibbles - 38 days 14 hours ago

In terms of length, it was perfect. I don't remember how long or short it was, but it was a satisfying length. Long enough to not feel ripped off and short enough that it didn't feel like you waisted all this time and don't want to play it again on the hardest difficulty.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

R6ex - 38 days 13 hours ago

I won't buy short campaign games 'coz its a waste of my money!

Perfect lengths should be similar to those of Dragon Age: Origins, Fallout 3, Star Ocean: The Last Hope and Mass Effect type of length i.e. approaching 100 hrs of campaign gameplay.

Games like Gears of War, Modern Warfare and Halo are only good for a single 10 hr playthrough and then its to be left to collect dust.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply

Vortex3D - 38 days 13 hours ago

It's just amusing to read complains about MW2 campaign is too short when Activision already said the campaign will be short. Activision/IW already got the $60-$150 from each gamer (7 million sold day 1), so what would they care? The online is also broken.

In the end, who is the stupid one if you "can't wait" to buy and play it than wait to see if the game is worth the money?

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

jerethdagryphon - 38 days 13 hours ago

if your not a multi player its too short

if you are into multiplayer then its not simple as

im not so its too short for me and i likly wont get it

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

mikepmcc - 38 days 13 hours ago

err..I beat it in 10 hours on hardended, which is plenty long for me. What happened to quality over quantity? And we're not even counting spec ops here.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

ReBurn - 38 days 13 hours ago

Recent shooters aren't exactly known for their lengthy campaign modes. Games like this are meant to be played online, so I would imagine that the majority of consumers bought it for that reason. I think most people would rather developers put the effort into the multiplayer since that's what the most players are going to want.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Ramses3 - 38 days 13 hours ago

anything under 15hours.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

rulakir - 38 days 13 hours ago

MLG you are an idiot.
You're a 360 fanboy.
We know 360 fanboys like to buy games just for multiplayer.
Multiplayer most of the time is just senseless shooting, no story, get achievements blah blah blah ;but for what?

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply

EVILDEAD360 - 38 days 13 hours ago

LOL @ 'Modern Gamer' not even taking the time to play 'Modern Warfare 2' before writing this article.

This all based on ONE person complely lying that he beat this game in 4 hours. This is where internet lies get reported as some sort of fact.

It took me 8 hours to beat the game on the normal setting. I've beaten 3 Call of Duty' titles on Veteran. (Which is far from easy) I played at an average pace and the game was easily on par with the original's length. (give or take a level)

What's happening is people will play on the easiest mode AFTER their first time playing and run every chance they get and pretend they can get through games at an amazing pace. Is that even close to what the average player is doing? Who is actually sprinting through an entire campaign on their first run throgh?

With that said, the hours that will be spent on multiplayer will dwarf any game out there not name Halo 3.

It is so funny watching all the haters continue with these weak attempts to smear this game. All because Activision hurt some PS3 fans feelings earlier this year. Too bad millions upon million of gamers know the truth and word of mouth from 'actual' gamers will outlive any of these bogus lies.

Evil

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply

Figboy - 38 days 12 hours ago

Heavenly Sword 5 hours?

try playing the game on Normal instead of Easy, and getting full marks in every chapter, and unlocking all the combos. that'll net the game at least a 15 hour play through.

as for Bioshock: yes, you CAN beat it in less than 10 hours. i DID. and NO, i wasn't playing it on easy.

generally, i'll play a game on Normal first playthrough, then, i'll play it on Easy when i'm trying to find/unlock extras (for example, i played Uncharted 2 on Normal, because i felt Hard would ruin the pacing. after beating it on Normal, i beat it on Hard and Crushing, then, when i was trying to unlock all the Medals, finding all the Treasures, and aiming for my Platinum, i played it on Easy).

no need to resort to namecalling because you can't disprove my point.

you can make ANY gaming experience last longer than 5 hours when you actually take the time to play through and get everything.

thing is, when Playstation 3 exclusives are involved, NOBODY does that. they just rush through the story, beat it, then b*tch about the length of the game.

whereas, in a 360 exclusive like Mass Effect, or Fable 2, they complete EVERY side quest, find every secret, explore every nook and cranny, then wax poetic about how epic and long the experience is, and why larger disc size isn't necessary.

considering that i spend my hard earned money on these games, i most certainly DO explore every nook and cranny, every secret and extra i can find. i make sure i get my monies worth out of the games i buy.

so yeah, i beat Bioshock in less than 10 hours. i never said i didn't go back and invest MORE time in it to unlock/upgrade everything.

i never even once said that the game wasn't good or WORTH the money? did i? reread my comment.

what i DID say, is that Playstation 3 games are knocked for things like lack of multi-player, short game length, no Trophies at the time when not every game had them, and the list goes on and on, while 360 and multi-platform games get a pass.

you can GUARANTEE that if CoD4 and Modern Warfare 2 were PS3 exclusives, they'd have been docked at LEAST 2 points for being so short in the single player campaign, despite the robust MP.

Killzone 2 is LONG. not as long as Killzone 1, but for the most part, longer than any of the top FPS titles out there right now. it also has a robust, incredibly designed and fun MP, easily on par with the CoD's and Halo's out there.

it was knocked for it's campaign lacking any depth or character (and after playing Modern Warfare 2 for 3 hours last night, i'm surprised i haven't seen that complaint lobbed at it in reviews; it has NO CHARACTER. NO DEPTH. NO IMPACT. NOTHING FOR ANYONE TO RELATE TO AT ALL). games like Gears of War got passes, despite a similar lack of intriguing, emotionally empathetic characters.

the microscope is ALWAYS turned up to the nines for PS3 exclusives. this is not speculation, or conjecture, but FACT. they are graded on a harsher curve than multi-plats and 360 exclusives simply out of spite, sour grapes, even hurt pride (Sony proved a LOT of people wrong with the PS3 this generation; it eats them up inside: see: Halo3 MLG Pro, the folks at joystiq, destructoid, kotaku, and Edge and Eurogamer).

speaking of: Halo3 MLG Pro; shut up, seriously. you can't contribute any real reasonable, logical, or even researched and thought out counters to ANYBODY's arguments on this site, so you resort to the "oh, the PS3 fanboys are crying again! lolcats!"

maybe when you get a little older and that soft spot on the top of your head hardens, you'll be able to contribute to the big boy conversations.

anyway, it's been proven time and time again that when a Playstation 3 game either; is "short" (which is relative; as seen by people that have beat, say, Bioshock or Heavenly Sword in 10 hours, and those that have taken longer to do so), lacking a feature (what? no split screen co-op?? MINUS 3 POINTS!), or not having MP, it gets docked and ridiculed for it.

when Bioshock was 360 exclusive, NOBODY complained that it was a 10 hour experience with no MP.

Uncharted released not long after, and the gaming media had a HEART ATTACK over the fact that the game was about 10 hours, and had no MP.

and for the record, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune had Medals, which were basically Achievements, like killing 5 guys in a row with a melee punch after softening them up with gunfire, or killing 5 dudes with one explosion, the usual. those Medals gave you points which unlocked extras like videos, character skins, and cheats (like Unlimited Ammunition and 1 shot kills). the game also had 61 treasures to find.

and yeah, if you tried to do all those things in one playthrough, it would take you WELL OVER 10 hours to do.

but nobody considered that for the PS3 exclusive. Bioshock and Mass Effect got passes that year for no MP. Uncharted, Ratchet, Heavenly Sword, even Ninja Gaiden Sigma, DID NOT. that's FACT.

anyway, i'm tired of having this conversation with people that have their green-colored glasses on over their green blindfolds stamped with the Xbox logo. there's no using logic and reason with you people.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Mithan - 38 days 12 hours ago

They deserve to get pirated.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Digitaldude - 38 days 10 hours ago

Who knows but ill tell you one thing.
Modern Warfare 2 is too damn short.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply

rob6021 - 38 days 10 hours ago

How are they supposed to make the campaign longer when they're capped at 6.5gb? They still have to include all the multiplayer maps, it just doesn't fit to have a full game at the level of detail that MW2 exhibits.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

BaschPS3 - 38 days 8 hours ago

I actually prefer shorter games. Experience is more important to me than length. I don't mind, so long as those few brief hours are incredibly kicka$$.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

kraze07 - 38 days 7 hours ago

Unless it's an RPG I really don't care how long a game is as long as it's good.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

tweet75 - 38 days 5 hours ago

there is no excuse for short games in single player. Having a large mulitplayer campaign doesnt justity it.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply

Jdoki - 38 days 4 hours ago

My feeling is at least 8 hours should be barely acceptable for an FPS.

But ultimately, the answer to the question is... If you feel you haven't got value for money, then yes, the game is too short.

I'm really not enjoying the MW2 campaign, so the length of it doesn't really matter to me. Also I'll be spending a lot of time in the MP, so on a cost per hour basis it's great value.

However I think Activision have set a dangerous precedent... The sales of MW2 have validated the higher price they slapped on the game. The exscuse Kotick used was that development costs have gone up - but I'm struggling to see where this extra money has resulted in a significantly better game than MW1 or any other IW developed CoD game before it.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply

Keowrath - 38 days ago

Hmmm... Interesting one. If you finish a game on your first playthrough in 5 hours or less and you payed a full price for it, it's too short.

It took me about 20 hours to finish MGS4 on my first playthrough and I loved every second of it. I've completed it since to get the TBE award and completed it in less than 4 hours. The fact a game CAN be beaten in 4 hours doesn't make it any less of a game if the first run takes a while.

Can't comment on MW2 and don't really care =p

(EDIT this dfoesn't include fighting games)

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Deios - 37 days 17 hours ago

With MW2 it didn't matter to me how short it was. I wanted to buy the game just for the MP. The single player campaign was just an added bonus to me.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

Unicron - 37 days 17 hours ago

What is too short? Depends, is it a PS3 exclusive?

If so, whatever that length is, according to the media.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply

wpggamer - 37 days 16 hours ago

Had no multiplayer whatsoever and still got good scores. These fanboys bashing ODST and MW2 ought to think about that. ODST and MW2 have some of the best multiplayer available ever. So just give it up already. I do wish the campaigns were longer on these games, especially as good as MW series campaigns have been. But the campaign is just scratching the surface of these titles. I'd much rather have a compelling short story than some garbage that goes on and on repeatedly like Demon Souls (i know some people love grinding, but most get bored of it easily).

And as always, if you don't like it, don't buy it, and please shut up already.

Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply