Medal of Honor is 4 hours

[QUOTE="Santesyu"][QUOTE="Vader993"]

im not surpised,its a fps for god sake

Helghast_Merc

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

rental or used only

Not much shorter than your typical shallow COD game. COD fans should eat this right up.

Being 4 hours is only a problem if it's a fun game. Otherwise, the game being bad will be the problem. MW2 supposedly has a pretty short campaign, but I wouldn't know 'cause I can't force myself to complete it.

[QUOTE="Vader993"]

im not surpised,its a fps for god sake

Santesyu

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.

jamejame

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

It's a 4 hour long game built around tight scripting. Why would I want to replay the exact same thing I just played through? I have never been one for replaying games on a higher difficulty setting. And from what I've heard, "Hard" in this game does not provide much of a challenge or difference anyway.

Obviously I do not enjoy spending time playing games that are not enjoyable. What are you even talking about?

Everyone has their threshold for the value they expect out of their $60. Both quality and length are factors. 4 hours of length is below my threshold. I noticed when I finished Kane & Lynch 2. Good thing I didn't pay full price for it, that would've been a mistake.

EDIT
Another guy moderately impressed by the campaign.

It sounds like it does not have a VIP pass the same awesome way BC2 did (making maps inaccessible, later making them available as "free" updates), but there is an online pass.

"PLEASE NOTE: IN ORDER TO PLAY MULTIPLAYER ON CONSOLES YOU MUST EITHER BUY THE GAME NEW OR PAY FOR A MULTIPLAYER VIP CODE TO ACCESS THE MODE."EA

So that's awesome in an all new way.

I don't understand how people can tolerate these games with terrible gun play. Sometime I just feel that it's because gaming popularity has been growing and call of duty is the first shooter people really got to, they hold every game to that standard. That standard is fast almost arcade like gameplay where NO guns have any recoil. What the hell is this? The N64 era? Guns has no recoil in games like Perfect Dark and Golden Eye, but we should be past that. But, general gamers like this because it's so easy for them to spray entire clips on people. This trend of simplifying the gun play and making easy and less realistic is really annoying me now.

All I see when I see Medal of Honor is them to try to get these same standards with a twist of their own when it comes down to the game play.

I primarily blame MW2 for pushing this trend. I have people that brag to me that they dominate at that game in deathmatch which is completely meaningless because they are terrible at other shooters that require skill in aiming. One of my roommates even argued with me that Call of Duty: MW2 was very realistic.

Most people won't even touch the single player anyway. I on the other hand would have been verydisappointedif I had planned on getting the game.

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

R4gn4r0k

What was the point of having two game developers with one working on the singleplayer and the other on the multiplayer if the singleplayer is short? I would think that with the focus on the singleplayer with one company would have the gameplay last longer. But no it's short like all recent FPS I mean at least these other shooters has one company doing both modes. Should have had only one team doing the entire game by working on the singleplayer and multiplayer. No point at all.

fps are killing gaming

What was the point of having two game developers with one working on the singleplayer and the other on the multiplayer if the singleplayer is short? I would think that with the focus on the singleplayer with one company would have the gameplay last longer. But no it's short like all recent FPS I mean at least these other shooters has one company doing both modes. Should have had only one team doing the entire game by working on the singleplayer and multiplayer. No point at all.

Warhawk_

Looks alright though.

But 4 hours is simply too short, doesn't matter if it's amazing.
I've played both betas and didn't find either particularly exciting.
I know EA will screw me somehow with their VIP pass, I just don't know how yet. Sounds like it's one part standard online pass.
The BF3 beta is the only reason for purchasing this game now. And if it wasn't for the VIP scheme, I probably would.

What are your feelings on this game after this revelation?

McStrongfast

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

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

foxhound_fox

I get what you are trying to say. But still I believe that the comparison between SMB and modern FPS games doesn't stand. You can find new routes in SMB by finishing it multiple time for example while a scripted shooter stays a scripted shooter.

I have also finished some scripted shooters dozens of times for example Half life. But talking about that game, I don't like the trend in FPS games to provide a tutorial lenght SP and focusing everything on MP. Shooters can provide a long and enjoyable experience instead of a hollywood blockbuster experience. (the first few CODs for example)

I'm not saying MOH will be bad because it is short. What I am saying is that the only thing I was interested in in this game, the singleplayer, seems more like an afterthought now...

This is my problem with the gamers these days, they don't seem to recognize the idea "different strokes for different folks."

The only reason people seem to care about length these days is because they are looking for a time-sink, not an enjoyable experience.

People have their priorities all messed up.

foxhound_fox

But I understand what you're trying to say, you shouldn't engage a game with the preconception that if it's only X hours long then there is no value. Length is not the sole deciding factor. But it is a significant one to many.

I don't mind. I'm mainly buying MoH for the MP, so if the SP is entertaining but ends after 4 hours, that is fine with me. Plus MoH: Frontlines is available and that is one of my favorite FPS campaigns ever

amount of hours depends on each person.koolbobfat

[QUOTE="koolbobfat"]amount of hours depends on each person.McStrongfast

depends on ur play **** if ur just doing a speed run maybe 4 hours if ur actually exploring every nook and crannie could be 6 hours.koolbobfat

Yea, im 26 now im getting kinda old, from my experience.

2 hours of fun>>>8 hours of boringness.koolbobfat

i was kinda hyped for this game when i first heard it would be set in modern times. but the more i have seen of the game the less hyped i am for it. it looks painfully generic and now i hear about the 4 hour bs. i will get this when it hits $30 or below

I don't mind. I'm mainly buying MoH for the MP, so if the SP is entertaining but ends after 4 hours, that is fine with me. Plus MoH: Frontlines is available and that is one of my favorite FPS campaigns ever

BPoole96

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

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

foxhound_fox

I would say SMB was designed fairly well to be enjoyed multiple times. It may not features something brand spanking new every time you play it, but it was made in a way that the possibility for different outcomes depending on the player's choice was large. The same goes with Doom.

The issue many gamers have is not just about the length of the campaign. At 4-6 hours, with a game that's scripted with every footstep, the game feels less like a game and more like an interactive movie. That is a legitimate complaint.

What most gamers do not understand, however, is that with the increasing demand for detail per pixel, developers do not have the time to create long lasting, great playing games. You either get a fantastic presentation or a long game. You can't have both, because it takes too much time and money.

What developers can do though, is create a game which allows for maximum replay value. Halo: Reach, whether people like it or not, does this superbly. The game does not feature heavily scripted set pieces, and on top of that, mission objectives can vary slightly with each playthrough. Even better, Bungie hosts daily challenges which encourage you to play through levels with meta-objectives which make people come back for more.

Games like Call of Duty and Medal of Honour could learn from that approach.

Being that I don't like MP, this saddens me.:( Oh well, here's hoping COD:BO is longer...

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.

jamejame

Post this in a new thread. Otherwise, no one will notice and bash the game unfairly.

[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.

ManUtd4life096

Post this in a new thread. Otherwise, no one will notice and bash the game unfairly.

In other news GamesMaster reviewed the thing. 8.5.

Like Battlefield before it, Medal of Honor is an engrossing online shooter with an above-average campaign mode bolted on. As a result, it's a purchase you should only seriously consider if your console is hooked up to the intarwebs.GamesMaster

I'm sure it's been said but wow, it really does look just like a COD reskin.

I'm sure it's been said but wow, it really does look just like a COD reskin.

7ojistix

I'm sure it's been said but wow, it really does look just like a COD reskin.

7ojistix

i think u mean bad company 2 reskin.

Yup a weaker title than mw2 both in campaign and even shorter and more generic...ea i am so impressed. I keep my 60 bucks for cod black ops. So much for working on this in a long time to turn even shorter and more simplistic than mw2.

Nice, just nice. They said back then "we are making the best fps ever" and now Bobby kotick said "ea is gonna have to try hard to compete with us in the future" Gee, i wonder why? Perhaps because they are even more lazy and useless than you?

I highly wonder how many pc gamers are gonna buy this for 60 bucks at launch.

By the way pc gameplay. Great so i have to choose between a super linear game with meh story and a super linear game with a great conspiracy story. Well black ops it is.

Black Ops is gonna slaughter Medal of Honor

jessmaster13