Medal of Honor is 4 hours

[QUOTE="jamejame"]

Did anyone even bother to watch the linked videos? Apparently the TC didn't because there are only two and each are two hours long, but the latter doesn't show the end of the game, the guy just hasn't uploaded the next video. Its not 4 hours long guys, you've been mislead.

hanslacher54

You're right.

You also gotta love the COD fanboys bashing the game when Black Ops will be 4-5 hours long.

Read jamejame post for the facts.

Short...

Why would I, someone who does not care about multiplayer, want to pay 60 dollars for a game I can probably complete in a couple hours?

Gamers really have no one to blame but themselves for short games like this. 4 hours would be inexcusable to me even if this was 1989. Anything under 10 hours is inexscusable.

But I'm not surprised. In a couple years single player will be non-existant and multiplayer will be the only focus of the game. With single player equating to mini games you might find on a DS cart.

He didn't play the last two missions. If you look here, you can see a list of the achievements. During the last bit of part 2 he got the, "Cliffhanger..." achievement. The game is still short, just not as short, but the footage shown looked awesome.

He didn't play the last two missions. If you look here, you can see a list of the achievements. During the last bit of part 2 he got the, "Cliffhanger..." achievement. The game is still short, just not as short, but the footage shown looked awesome.

hanslacher54

Unless those last two missions add 7 hours of gameplay, the game is inexcusably short and shouldn't even get a 5.0 rating.

[QUOTE="FGMPR"][QUOTE="dzaric"]

God damn it I already preorderd it on steam!

Any chance i can get a refund? Are you able to get refunds on steam for preorders?

dzaric

How exactly can i do that, im looking and i cant find anything how to do it.

Why would I, someone who does not care about multiplayer, want to pay 60 dollars for a game I can probably complete in a couple hours?

Gamers really have no one to blame but themselves for short games like this. 4 hours would be inexcusable to me even if this was 1989. Anything under 10 hours is inexscusable.

But I'm not surprised. In a couple years single player will be non-existant and multiplayer will be the only focus of the game. With single player equating to mini games you might find on a DS cart.

Pixel-Pirate

He didn't play the last two missions. If you look here, you can see a list of the achievements. During the last bit of part 2 he got the, "Cliffhanger..." achievement. The game is still short, just not as short, but the footage shown looked awesome.

hanslacher54

[QUOTE="hanslacher54"]

He didn't play the last two missions. If you look here, you can see a list of the achievements. During the last bit of part 2 he got the, "Cliffhanger..." achievement. The game is still short, just not as short, but the footage shown looked awesome.

ocstew

Eight I believe.

If you take the time (240 minutes) and divide it by the missions he did ( 8 ) you get 30. The missions are probably 30 minutes each, so the game is likely 5 hours long.

[QUOTE="hanslacher54"]

He didn't play the last two missions. If you look here, you can see a list of the achievements. During the last bit of part 2 he got the, "Cliffhanger..." achievement. The game is still short, just not as short, but the footage shown looked awesome.

Unless those last two missions add 7 hours of gameplay, the game is inexcusably short and shouldn't even get a 5.0 rating.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

[QUOTE="hanslacher54"]

He didn't play the last two missions. If you look here, you can see a list of the achievements. During the last bit of part 2 he got the, "Cliffhanger..." achievement. The game is still short, just not as short, but the footage shown looked awesome.

Santesyu

Unless those last two missions add 7 hours of gameplay, the game is inexcusably short and shouldn't even get a 5.0 rating.

Thats a pretty terrible excuse.

"If you play very slowly and pause the game and go do other things the length is longer". If I can reasonably beat any game in 2-4 hours on my first play regardless if I'm rushing (and if I can rush that fast, the game is designed poorly), there is a problem.

I can name you a few hundred games I could "rush through" that still would be 10 hours or more. Don't blame the players for the laziness of developers. And yes, all three of those games you mentioned are unforgivably short.

After watching quite a bit of the MoH single player. I can only express disappoint in the lack of intensity, originality, AI competence (which is VERY flawed), shooting mechanic, and lack of story.

Levels are designed repetitively in small sections to where you come up to a small area, kill the enemies, move up, kill a new set of enemies, then repeat over and over and over and over and over until you beat the level. On top of that your friendly AI kill maybe 1 or 2 enemies per section while you kill the other 15,

I honestly wouldn't pay anything more than $5 to play the story.

After watching quite a bit of the MoH single player. I can only express disappoint in the lack of intensity, originality, AI competence (which is VERY flawed), shooting mechanic, and lack of story.

Levels are designed repetitively in small sections to where you come up to a small area, kill the enemies, move up, kill a new set of enemies, then repeat over and over and over and over and over until you beat the level. On top of that your friendly AI kill maybe 1 or 2 enemies per section while you kill the other 15,

I honestly wouldn't pay anything more than $5 to play the story.

Mystic-G

I've never seen a console "war FPS" with a decent story. Atleast not in the past decade.

I'm sorry to say but FPS' are generally designed solely for multiplayer and RARELY for any story in this generation. If you get any story out of Call Of Duty 35, consider it a fluke.

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]

After watching quite a bit of the MoH single player. I can only express disappoint in the lack of intensity, originality, AI competence (which is VERY flawed), shooting mechanic, and lack of story.

Levels are designed repetitively in small sections to where you come up to a small area, kill the enemies, move up, kill a new set of enemies, then repeat over and over and over and over and over until you beat the level. On top of that your friendly AI kill maybe 1 or 2 enemies per section while you kill the other 15,

I honestly wouldn't pay anything more than $5 to play the story.

Pixel-Pirate

I've never seen a console "war FPS" with a decent story. Atleast not in the past decade.

I'm sorry to say but FPS' are generally designed solely for multiplayer and RARELY for any story in this generation. If you get any story out of Call Of Duty 35, consider it a fluke.

I only played about an hour of BC2 campaign because I found it so boring so I guess the MP is the most important thing.gamebreakerz__

Wow, i knew they were copying CoD in almost every way possible. But why copy the bad elements ?

This is a bit off topic but, I think i read somewhere that this game uses the frostbite and engine for multiplayer and the unreal engine for single player? It's something along those lines I'd just like to quickly ask if its right.

im still getting BlackOPS over this :(
sorry EA, you even made a nice deal for ps3, but BlackOps has the advantage when it comes to online, then again MoH will give me access to BF3 and FrontlinesHD :cry: WHAT TO DO

I couldn't be less interested in a game this year if I tried. Why are we even discussing this?

People keep buying **** will continue to receive ****. :?

If a developer wants to make a multiplayer focused game, I respect that (I've put 650 hours into Warhawk) but I really hate it when developers include a throwaway campaign just so they can have a bullet point on the back of the box. I'm skipping this.

Black Ops is gonna slaughter Medal of Honor

jessmaster13

[QUOTE="funsohng"]Doesn't that mean Frontline is longer than the actual game?metalguitar13

That is upsetting I feel bad for tier 1 guys. Theres no excuse though for a 4 hour game, even modern warefare 2 was not that short.

Modern Warfare 2 was long enough for me and early word of mouth said it'd be about that long. I prefer to have an intense experience that I can enjoy many times back to back without fear of losing interest half way through.DeckardLee2010

Reach and Vanquish are the only shooters I need this year.

yeah its four hours long if you rush through it just like any other FPS

But 4 hours is simply too short, doesn't matter if it's amazing.McStrongfast

[QUOTE="Vader993"]

im not surpised,its a fps for god sake

Santesyu

I figured something was up when I heard that it was 4 hours long.

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]But 4 hours is simply too short, doesn't matter if it's amazing.foxhound_fox

i agree in full. i own an arcade cabinet with a bunch of sega light gun games, it takes like twenty to thirty minutes to beat all the levels of virtua cop 2 or gunblade ny but you know what? ive probably played it for over a hundred hours with my friends. the length of a game is irrelevant, theres no reason to care about it unless you think getting to the credits means youre done with a game (and i would argue games like that are clear-cut bad games).

its also crazy to complain about a short single player campaign in a game that is clearly intended to be primarily a multiplayer shooter. multiplayer gamers dont get their panties in a twist when a jrpg has no online multiplayer so i dont know why single player snobs have to get uppity about obviously tacked on single player components. nobody cares what you think, you arent the target audience.

that said the new moh sucks and brings absolutely nothing of value to the table so theres no reason to play it, it has direct competitors that are strictly better

I was thinking about buying this. Now it's probably a rental.

[QUOTE="DeckardLee2010"]Modern Warfare 2 was long enough for me and early word of mouth said it'd be about that long. I prefer to have an intense experience that I can enjoy many times back to back without fear of losing interest half way through.fueled-system

I do think multiplayer is the main draw to the game. Honestly, MW2's single player was the best part of the game and that was only about 5 hours. I don't mind.

This isn't a JRPG. These developers have the ability to immerse you and give you a satisfying experience without 60 hours or repetition to break you to the point of begging to finish it. But, protip, every new FPS comes out and they say this. Are you new to SW? They've said the same thing about soooooooo many games that happened to turn out to be 7+ hours on normal and the average 10-12 hours on higher diffciculty.DeckardLee2010

they're using the single player as the major selling point. as in "oh you want an awesome multiplayer? well our is fine, but you know what other game you could try? bad company 2, we also did it. now you want a truly epic single player, then that's with us". at least that's what the EA guy i interviewed at E3 told me.

and 4 hours is short for a single player focused game. REALLY short. black for the PS2 lasted about 10 hours. that's the average time for a single player FPS that shows at least some emphasis on story: 10-15 hours. 4 hours for a game like that is worth a rent at most.

'cause, like they said themselves, "we also have bad company 2 for the online".

PS: "are you new to this system wars?" *looks at user level, post count, then back to quote* :lol: at alt account confession

[QUOTE="McStrongfast"]But 4 hours is simply too short, doesn't matter if it's amazing.foxhound_fox

Yeah you can beat SMB in 5 minutes ... if you speedrun. Great comparison there :roll:you won't have to speedrun to beat this game in 4 hours.

What linear shooter is enjoyable to play 10 times over ? Really

I'm still getting it no matter what.