The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
CoD4 single-player only 4-6 hours
gamernode.com — CoD4 is nearly upon us and reviews of the game are slowly beginning to appear with some interesting revelations pertaining to the singleplayer portion.OXM UK reviewed the game in their December issue, and cited a short single-player campaign as one of the main downfalls of the title, going on to say that the game takes "...5 to 6 hours on Normal."
DeRiza- 700 diggs
- digg it
- EDmAN, on 10/27/2007, -29/+119If this is true, I will not be purchasing this game. I like multiplayer, but single player is still the bread and butter of what I play. I was disappointed with Halo and Gears of War for that issue. No game worth its weight in hype should be less than 10 hours in length. It makes you wonder if developers are just compensating to get these games on DVD's. Maybe Haze will show us how it's supposed to be done, I mean it is on Blu_Ray.
- KingGoonie, on 10/26/2007, -15/+6Wait a sec... I hate Halo but was going to pick up Gears of War when I got my 360... Its less then 10 hours!?!?!?! I would still get it, cause that would be my "online play" game and hope that people still play it alot online... but its really less then 10 hours? Well actually sometimes maybe that isn't necessarily bad, but how much less?
- mattyice11, on 10/26/2007, -11/+2It was basically 10 on the dot.
- nreynolds, on 10/26/2007, -14/+4are you joking? Gears of War was shorter than Halo. It was maybe 4 hours... 4 semi-interesting, shiny+dark, hours. And the multiplayer setup sucked. I don't know how it got such good reviews, it just wasn't that fun. Halo, on the other hand, is amazing and should have gotten a 10/10 everywhere. It is the most *all-around* fun experience in recent video game history. I'm not saying it's the best (sorta I am) but it's the most fun.
- taxman, on 10/26/2007, -2/+5When it launched,it was 8....then came down to 6 and now its a 6? Good to know i took over 8 hours on the middle difficulty and put over 300 hours in multiplayer.
- KingGoonie, on 10/26/2007, -5/+9Yes well i think HALO is mediocre so...
- Optimaximal, on 10/26/2007, -13/+3Stating that you think any game is worth 10/10 means your opinion is flawed.
No game is perfect - a perfect game would encompass a flawless integration of all gaming genres, run on every console AND PC configuration out there (including DOS & the Atari 2600), cater for every ethical, social and gaming group around and be formed of a mixture formed from gold, silver, titanium and the combined tears of whichever god you worship, his son and Chuck Norris.
Since this can never happen, the best game in the world can only ever be worth 99%. - adraft, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4Wow optimaximal you entirely misread that. He was saying 10 hours exactly of single player play time.
- ryogahibiki, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3This is so they can sell Expansion Packs at $29.99 to extend the single player game.
I wouldn't be surprised if these "expansion packs" are already done and could of been included in the original game.
- andydumi, on 10/26/2007, -3/+7Gow is 8ish on your first run, 6ish if you are good at FPSes in general.
Halo was 5 hours with some dillydallying, 3-4 if you are good at FPSes.
But both of those, as well as COD are MP geared now, gone are the days when SP was king and a good story was the center. I hate that, as I would rather play SP for 15 then 30-50 hours of average MP, then move on to a different game with a different setting than a handful of hours of uninspiring SP that is supposed to be backed by "hundreds of hours" of MP.
If you want perfect MP, do that as your focus, like UT, Counterstrike, TF and so forth, thats why those are still king.- pegisys, on 10/26/2007, -4/+53-4 hours for halo on easy or normal maybe, but on easy you can run through the game without killing anything and normal is not much more difficult. Halo is all about playing on heroic or legendary and that definitely is not going to be over in 3-4 hours.
I don't have a problem with 6-7 hours fps's if the game is good throughout. There are a lot of games that have 12-15 hours of playtime but more then half of it sucks. Anyway this is about par for the course with the COD series they all have been extremely short and never follow a real story
- pegisys, on 10/26/2007, -4/+53-4 hours for halo on easy or normal maybe, but on easy you can run through the game without killing anything and normal is not much more difficult. Halo is all about playing on heroic or legendary and that definitely is not going to be over in 3-4 hours.
- nreynolds, on 10/26/2007, -14/+4are you joking? Gears of War was shorter than Halo. It was maybe 4 hours... 4 semi-interesting, shiny+dark, hours. And the multiplayer setup sucked. I don't know how it got such good reviews, it just wasn't that fun. Halo, on the other hand, is amazing and should have gotten a 10/10 everywhere. It is the most *all-around* fun experience in recent video game history. I'm not saying it's the best (sorta I am) but it's the most fun.
- santasing, on 10/26/2007, -2/+3I completed in about 6 hrs.
- toxicityj, on 10/26/2007, -2/+5Its true that Gears is short. And multiplayer is lacking. But that didn't stop me from spending hours co-oping the campaign on the various difficulty levels.
- natastna2, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2Gears of War multiplayer is not lacking. It just has a VERY steep learning curve and is quite different to the single player. If you give it some time it's an amazing multiplayer experience. I have Halo 3 and 18 other great games and the only one I keep coming back to is Gears of War for its excellent online play.
- toxicityj, on 10/26/2007, -3/+5no. It's lacking. its leaps and bounds behind multiplayer games from last generation...
- adraft, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2Every kill in GOW comes from a shotgun battle based more on luck than timing or skill, or some uber ghey sniper downing you over and over. It's awful.
- natastna2, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2Gears of War multiplayer is not lacking. It just has a VERY steep learning curve and is quite different to the single player. If you give it some time it's an amazing multiplayer experience. I have Halo 3 and 18 other great games and the only one I keep coming back to is Gears of War for its excellent online play.
- NeoSporin, on 10/26/2007, -13/+1Multiplayer definitely IS NOT lacking. I don't play Halo 3 anymore, only because Gears of Wars online play is much better.
- ByteGuerilla, on 10/26/2007, -3/+10Gears multiplayer is very lacking. It's very bland due to lack of gametypes, and extremely repetitive. The campaign is short, but by far the best thing about the game.
- djphatjive, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3I will get it because I play single player and then never touch a title again. But good thing that COD4 has some bad ass Multiplayer. I see the single player part of the game as a training for the Multiplayer!
- BobsYourUncle, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4It's been my experience that Gears multiplayer is a TERRIBLE place for newcomers. I tried to get into it and there was no patience for my lack of skills. If you have friends playing it, it might be worth picking up. But if you don't (and I don't) it can be extremely frustrating. It's very hard to find individuals who care more about just playing rather then the skills (or lack thereof) of their teammates.
- raynar, on 10/26/2007, -8/+1who plays 10 hours straight? go outside, be social, it'll make the game last longer
- raynar, on 10/26/2007, -7/+1who plays 10 hours straight? go outside, be social, it'll make the game last longer
- bj00rn, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3I dugg you up because I agree with you on the short gameplay, but I didn't notice at first that you were blaming it on DVD which makes no sense - AT ALL. So I would've dugg you down if I saw it earlier. Just saying...
- aznedy, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Me and my brother did it in about 6 and a half hours on Co-Op. If you play single player on hard, you could probably stretch it out to around 9 hours or so. I guess it all really depends on your skill level.
- grumbel, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1This has nothing to do with DVD size, just look at the good old days, fitting 20 or 30h onto a floppy disk or a tiny module never was a problem. I think the issues is more that developers focus way to much on making games look pretty and not enough on making them good. As important as good graphics are, there is no need to always aim for 100% in terms of graphics when that means you have to cut corners in terms of length or other areas.
- mattyice11, on 10/26/2007, -11/+2It was basically 10 on the dot.
- hater2win, on 10/26/2007, -11/+5Gears of War is about a 7 hour game the first time, 5 hours every time after that. The multiplayer is nothing compared to Halo 3, so you should still invest in Halo 3 for multiplayer. Gears of War is a very short game with a very stupid story line. I wouldn't even call it a story line to be honest.
- KingGoonie, on 10/26/2007, -10/+5Again I think Halo is mediore so I refuse to ever spend money on one.. especially since I want a game I can enjoy single player as well. Gears may be the game I get because the others aren't really multiplayer and I want one that is... but that doesnt mean I want to buy a game that I don't like the single player aspect of.
- NaziHatinChimp, on 10/26/2007, -4/+33All the Call of Duty's were short playing on normal. The Veteran setting is how the game should be played.
- spyrochaete, on 10/26/2007, -2/+3The skill levels became kind of pointless since they introduced auto heal.
- Optimaximal, on 10/26/2007, -0/+7Well, not really... Higher skill levels mean that you will often die if hit by something like a rifle or a grenade.
- BearinG, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Not on Veteran
- sadilak, on 10/26/2007, -4/+1If somebody buys call of duty 4 for the Wii, then it might be a mistake. BTW, are they making it for the Wii too?
- spyrochaete, on 10/26/2007, -2/+3The skill levels became kind of pointless since they introduced auto heal.
- taxman, on 10/27/2007, -5/+24Although i agree with you on that games should be bigger , blaming it on DVD is just plain wrong. The shortest game around is Heavenly sword, which is on BD. Its 6 hours on an average and has no MP. Even FPS games (which tend to be shorter than other games) on the 360 hasn't gone below the 6 hour mark (if you ignore the Sony fanboys). Meanwhile Orange box is more than 20 hours on single player alone and Bioshock is around 12~15 hours.
FPS, for a long time have been shorter than other genre games but 4~6 hours is really short.- surfacewound, on 10/26/2007, -5/+7"Meanwhile Orange box is more than 20 hours on single player alone and Bioshock is around 12~15 hours."
Woah, what game from Orange Box did I not get? I finished Portal in about 2.5-3 hours, and Ep2 in about 6-7 or so. Bioshock, on the other hand, took me more like 18-20 if I recall.
Playing Peggle Extreme for 10 hours doesn't count ok.- bdorry, on 10/28/2007, -1/+13Not everyone bought the Orange Box for only Episode 2 and Portal. There are people that haven't played Half Life 2 and Episode 1 and they both come in the box as well.
- sadilak, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1True, I have never played Halflife 2. I think it is the best game for the 360 or the PS3(I know it is yet to be released for the PS3). Very engrossing and fantastic.
- surfacewound, on 10/26/2007, -2/+6True, but come on, you can't really count re-packaged old games for true content. It's true that it'd be great for those that never played HL2 or Ep1, but to me that'd be like forgiving COD4 for being too short just for including COD1 and 2 with it.
- dethsesh, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1.
- dethsesh, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2thats the most retarded reasoning I have ever heard
- KirbyMeister, on 11/10/2007, -2/+6It took me 6 hours to finish Portal. I must be thick...
- bdorry, on 10/28/2007, -1/+13Not everyone bought the Orange Box for only Episode 2 and Portal. There are people that haven't played Half Life 2 and Episode 1 and they both come in the box as well.
- volacide, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Still, Heavenly Sword is no Portal, and 4-6 hours is on par with Portal. CoD4 better not be on par with Portal. I beat Portal in about 3-4 hours on my second time through. Portal kicked ass though, and I have a feeling that after playing 4 hours of CoD4 and it being over I am not going to be impressed...
- surfacewound, on 10/26/2007, -5/+7"Meanwhile Orange box is more than 20 hours on single player alone and Bioshock is around 12~15 hours."
- jspegele, on 10/27/2007, -4/+25I don't think we can blame DVDs. Just look at Oblivion. It has well over 100 hours of gameplay and one of the most expansive worlds ever created in a game, yet still fits on a DVD. Blame the developers, not the discs.
- catalysis, on 10/26/2007, -6/+15You can't compare an RPG with an FPS like that. Two totally different types of games.
- spyrochaete, on 10/26/2007, -1/+5What about STALKER? That game fits in both categories and has quite an expansive world.
- popfrogs, on 10/26/2007, -4/+4What? Someone actually played STALKER?
- Orion682, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1Yeah, but you spend like the first half of STALKER trying to run all your loot back to the Trader to sell it, until you realize that money is worth ***** in that game and nothing you can spend it on will be better than what you find for more than 5 minutes...
- spyrochaete, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1I found STALKER too open ended and waaaay too difficult even on the easiest setting, but it has some extremely redeeming qualities. The landscapes are gorgeous, the ballistics and overall feel of the weapons is probably more realistic than any other shooter in history, and the open-ended living world is very large. I'd recommend it when the price comes down.
- spyrochaete, on 10/26/2007, -3/+1I found STALKER too open ended and waaaay too difficult even on the easiest setting, but it has some extremely redeeming qualities. The landscapes are gorgeous, the ballistics and overall feel of the weapons is probably more realistic than any other shooter in history, and the open-ended living world is very large. I'd recommend it when the price comes down.
- mitchlourens, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1There's a glitch in the system! run to the phone!
- spyrochaete, on 10/26/2007, -1/+5What about STALKER? That game fits in both categories and has quite an expansive world.
- Zodix, on 10/26/2007, -5/+20Oblivion was well over 100 hours of sheer repetition. It's expansive but not diverse, I can see it fitting on a DVD.
- jspegele, on 10/26/2007, -8/+7And CoD isn't repetive? Shoot, shoot, shoot, run up a hill, shoot, throw grenade, shoot, shoot, open a door, shoot, shoot, shoot, take a position, shoot, hold the position, shoot, throw grenade, open a door, shoot, shoot, shoot.
If you can fit 100+ hours of repetitive midievil/fantasy on a DVD, then you can fit at least 10 hours of repetitive shooting onto one. - modix, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4He's referring to textures and such. If the area uses the same textures that already exist, it takes very little new memory to add more space.
- jspegele, on 10/26/2007, -8/+7And CoD isn't repetive? Shoot, shoot, shoot, run up a hill, shoot, throw grenade, shoot, shoot, open a door, shoot, shoot, shoot, take a position, shoot, hold the position, shoot, throw grenade, open a door, shoot, shoot, shoot.
- catalysis, on 10/26/2007, -6/+15You can't compare an RPG with an FPS like that. Two totally different types of games.
- tgormtx, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2The veteran will most likely take longer and is suited for the seasoned gamer. 6 hours for the casual player is probably just right. If anyone is truly concerned about wasting 50-60 bucks on it... go rent it for a few days for 8 bucks and see if it's worth it.
- Nobi-Wan, on 10/26/2007, -3/+3Call of Duty is usually just a really good rental, anyway. I don't think I've ever owned one.
- sadilak, on 10/26/2007, -3/+0I played the PS3 demo the other day, it was awesome. Also not many players play these games at the "expert" level. Most of the games that I buy, I play at the Novice level and then jump online. The length of a game does not really matter as long as you have fun. Heavenly sword is 6 hrs in all , but it was fun till the end. Same with GoW, it is not that lengthy, but it was fun.
- dethsesh, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1GoW was lengthy for me, and probably everyone else who didnt play the game first time through on normal
- Nobi-Wan, on 10/26/2007, -3/+3Call of Duty is usually just a really good rental, anyway. I don't think I've ever owned one.
- ausfahrt, on 10/26/2007, -3/+1I really hope that this doesnt become more of an issue with cross platform games. This is not the first time I've heard this but the thing i don't understand is with big titles like this and halo and gears of war aren't using multi dvds for the 360 so they can be longer and more content full. I couldn't beleive how many people i just read complaining about the length of both of those huge 360 titles.
- leodavinci, on 10/26/2007, -2/+11What if those 5-6 hours are the most fun you have ever had in a video game? What if the replay value is enormous? You can't judge if a game is blockerbuster worthy or not based upon how long it is, take a look at Portal, it is only 3 hours long but is incredible.
- beef623, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2That's a good point but most short games aren't really that great. Wait for the price to come down, then get it.
I definitely agree with you on Portal though. It only costs like $20 or $30 if you buy it by itself and even runs well on old hardware.
- beef623, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2That's a good point but most short games aren't really that great. Wait for the price to come down, then get it.
- omatsei, on 10/26/2007, -5/+4When did time spent playing a game equate to having fun in a game? Is it completely impossible to have fun with a game that's less than XX hours? If so, then why are people getting so good at Super Mario Brothers that they can play through the entire game in 3 minutes (or whatever)? "Holy *****, the game's only 3 minutes long! Worst game ever!"
If you're so shallow and ignorant that you think the length of a game is directly proportional to the amount of fun in said game, then please, do us all a favor and keep your opinions to yourself. - autorock, on 10/26/2007, -1/+7Everyone is missing the point. Short games have NOTHING to do with DVD versus Bluray. The truth is, content is expensive to produce, especially in this current generation (and going forward, more so). Why would a developer sink a ton of cash into making a 20+ hour game when they can get away with less than 8 and still charge the same price? Personally, since I get bored with new games easily, I actually enjoy the shorter campaigns, as long as it's at the expense of killer visuals. Gears of War is case and point: It was over just before it got repetitive and boring. I got the satisfaction of "winning" the game, then I got to move on to the next challenge.
You can complain all you want, talk about futile boycotts, whatever. The fact is, the market will support shorter games (extended with for-pay downloadable content, of course!), therefore the 20+ hour epic campaign is a thing of the past, at least with anything resembling a shooter.- KirbyMeister, on 10/26/2007, -2/+4Yeah, but you're still paying $60.
- AfterbrthTycoon, on 10/26/2007, -2/+0it's "case IN point" as in "the case in point shows us that short games can be good."
- fohf, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1I agree with your statement and would like to add that a shorter game will most likely get me to play through it again several times. I know that once I finish a 40+ hour game, I will never play it again cause it is too much of an investment of my time.
- retrovertigo, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1File size has nothing to do with time spent playing a game. File size does have an impact on the length of a video clip, for example, but has nothing to do with how long it takes somebody to complete a game. I'll point you to all of the games that have used CD and cartridge media types.
- aggies11, on 10/26/2007, -2/+5You're absolutely right! I would rather have 10-15 hrs of long drawn out repetitive gameplay than 5-6 hrs of absolutely brilliant experience. Wait a sec...
Judging a game based soley on it's length is like judging the quality of a book by the number of pages. For me, it's the quality of the experience. If 5-6hrs of COD4 gives me $50 worth of entertainment, then I am happy. Admittedly it is a tad on the low side, but as long as the experience is of high enough quality, I certainly don't mind.
Should every movie be as long as Titanic so that you get your "money's worth"? I certainly wish many movies I have seen were significantly shorter than they turned out to be.
Aggies- HBNDonut, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1Id rather get that 5-6hrs of quality entertainment by renting for a couple of nights at a fraction of the cost.
- Cowfrommars, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2You were disappointed with Halo? So that means you don't like the Halo series in general, then. They have all been short, in fact, Halo 3 had the longest campaign, and multiplayer is most definitely the highlight of the game, as with Halo 2. Halo 1's multiplayer was also quite a big part of the game, but not as much as it could have been, because of the lack of xbox live.
- BabyWookie, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4Heavenly Sword devs didn't have to "compensate for DVD", but the game is still 5 hours long.
- Culiada, on 10/26/2007, -2/+0"Quality > Quantity" As long as the missions are fun, I don't care how short it is. ...ok, well.. I do have my limits. At least 2hrs long, and would have to be satisfying and replayable. 5 to 6 hours on Normal sounds just fine to me. I've had plenty of fun with games that were shorter.
- blueelement15, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1When video game developers can get away with a 5 hour game for $60, you guys wonder why movie tickets cost $12.
- KingGoonie, on 10/26/2007, -15/+6Wait a sec... I hate Halo but was going to pick up Gears of War when I got my 360... Its less then 10 hours!?!?!?! I would still get it, cause that would be my "online play" game and hope that people still play it alot online... but its really less then 10 hours? Well actually sometimes maybe that isn't necessarily bad, but how much less?
- pacmangamer, on 10/26/2007, -9/+50Thats gonna cost about $10.00 per hour to complete the game......That SUCKS!!!!!!!!
- nreynolds, on 10/26/2007, -3/+37and then you have to throw the game away and never play multiplayer...
- BearinG, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I've always thought multiplayer was where you really tested your skills
- djphatjive, on 10/25/2007, -3/+3To complete single player yes. But good thing for us 360 owners you still have all the achievements to get in multiplayer. So you really haven't beat the game untill you have all your gamer points. For pc and ps3, yes the game is done after the campain is complete.
- sadilak, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2Not really, You can play online using your PC or PS3. Duh. Also, I am not sure if the PS3 Entitlements will be available this fall. IF yes, then Great.
- djphatjive, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2I would think Microsoft has a Entitlement to sue Sony for that!
- sadilak, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2Not really, You can play online using your PC or PS3. Duh. Also, I am not sure if the PS3 Entitlements will be available this fall. IF yes, then Great.
- Radan, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3You know, I think people are all too concerned about how long a game is. To me, what matters the most is how good those 4-6 hours of gameplay will be (And knowing COD, it will most likely be incredible). Also, if they didn't somehow manage to ***** up the game entirely since the beta, the multiplayer will be the absolute best military shooter since Rainbow Six. I can't wait!
- YojimboJango, on 10/26/2007, -7/+1This game has rental written all over it for me. Online FPS games are horrible on anything but the PC.
- cgeorge, on 10/26/2007, -2/+3Or you could buy this game for the PC. Multi-platform FTW.
- techobo, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1When you buy a movie it's usually have the price of a game and entertains you for half the time. What's the problem? Once you play multiplayer, it's going to be costing you like 50 cents per hour.
- nreynolds, on 10/26/2007, -3/+37and then you have to throw the game away and never play multiplayer...
- KingGoonie, on 10/26/2007, -6/+6That does suck. I mean I said above sometimes time of play doesnt matter... I mean I heard Super Metroid was only 8 hours (I havent played it since the many times I did on the SNES, and I remember it being a good amount of lenth... but again maybe it wasnt) but that little time of play (6 hours!?!?!) I think matters no matter what.
- RastaMahata, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2It takes 8 hours if you're good at it... It took me like 20 :(
Metroid Prime 3 took me 16 hours... - adraft, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1To be fair, Metroid Prime does have a heck of a lot of backtracking and level repetition.
- rush378, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1That's pretty much the point of the Metroid series if you haven't noticed.
- Shanobi, on 10/25/2007, -0/+08 hours on a non-linear path is going to seem a lot more engaging than 8 hours of following a straight path.
- RastaMahata, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2It takes 8 hours if you're good at it... It took me like 20 :(
- zwick, on 10/26/2007, -13/+35MP alone is worth it. Played the MP beta almost everyday...and it ruined Halo3 MP for me...
- nonymous666, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2I'd rather play Battlefield 2. Same modern combat environments, bt there's so much more to it.
- diggrim, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4I'm hurting for the next Battlefield (I'll never buy 2142!)
- FFIO, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2Agreed. The BETA was really cool.
H3 multiplayer is a letdown in comparison.
- nonymous666, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2I'd rather play Battlefield 2. Same modern combat environments, bt there's so much more to it.
- mattyice11, on 10/27/2007, -29/+24-6 is not a good time, but anything over 15 is too much, imo. Even RE4, which was insanely good, would have been well served to chop off 5 hours, imo.
- Nobi-Wan, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2RE4 is awesome and the length is great. I love going back and replaying all the levels after unlocking stuff.
- tomcat4u, on 10/27/2007, -13/+6The single player demo wasn't anything special. It's that E3 video that got everyone splooging all over this, but when you play it you realize it ain't nothin' new.
- Burritoking924, on 10/26/2007, -6/+41What happened to the good old days of gaming. I still haven't gotten all the stars in Super Mario 64, and its been how many years?
- Doomsan, on 10/26/2007, -7/+21oh man you must really suck, i got SM64 back a little while ago, and i got all the stars in like 5 days...find it much easier 10 years laters.
- mywhitenoise, on 10/26/2007, -1/+13Wow, that's 24 stars a day. Loser.
- geartype2, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2it's not that hard. Most of the stars you can get in a few minutes if you know where to go.
- mywhitenoise, on 10/26/2007, -1/+13Wow, that's 24 stars a day. Loser.
- tendonut, on 10/26/2007, -3/+2Phhht, who cares about games being fun anymore? It's about the eye candy man! We all need to justify PS3 purchases somehow. /sarcasm
You are completely right about game trends. The problem is though, that the gaming industry is starting to care less and less about their die hard fans that have been playing games since the mid to late 80's and focusing primarily on the casual audience. This is why you no longer see hard games like Contra and ***** on the NES/SNES/Genesis, thus games seem shorter because they are ten times easier than they were in the days of old. Casual gamers don't want to be challenged, they want something they can brag about beating to their casual friends, even if us hardcore gamers think it was a joke of a game. This is why Halo is so short. If they bumped up the difficulty to what a game in the 80s would be, it wouldn't nearly as popular as it is now. - mikemil828, on 10/26/2007, -5/+1Nowadays people can complete Mario 64 in under 10 minutes, long it really isn't
- aznedy, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2People only beat Mario 64 in under 10 minutes because of the emulators and hacks they use. Normal users who play the game casually could probably not get through the game in under 5 hours.
- Doomsan, on 10/26/2007, -7/+21oh man you must really suck, i got SM64 back a little while ago, and i got all the stars in like 5 days...find it much easier 10 years laters.
- AwesomeMonster, on 10/26/2007, -5/+18*****! I was so excited to know that the original team was going to be behind this COD and i would get all the fun of COD 1&2's singleplayer campaign. Glad to see they skimped out on what is the best part of the sieres.
- mason194, on 10/26/2007, -6/+0And yet no achievements for multi player. What was wrong with how they did COD3? I thought it was a good balance between single/multi and achievement hoars/people who play just for fun
- subhantj, on 10/26/2007, -0/+7The bad thing about achievement for multiplayer is that people just aim to get their achievements and not think about winning the match.. it sometimes ruins multiplayer..
I think its a smart move not having online achievements. - crackedplastic, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4InfinityWard did not do CoD3. CoD4 has its own achievements, actually - just not tied in with the XBox achievements.
- nonymous666, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1COD3 was not done by the same developer that's done all the other COD games (including COD4).
- nattybohman, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1It's spelled whores dude.
- subhantj, on 10/26/2007, -0/+7The bad thing about achievement for multiplayer is that people just aim to get their achievements and not think about winning the match.. it sometimes ruins multiplayer..
- ahnonamis, on 10/26/2007, -0/+12On one hand, I'm disappointed that it's so short. On the other, I realize how big of a hypocrite I'd be if I slammed a game for having a short singleplayer but an awesome multiplayer when I have nothing but praise for Halo 3, which is essentially the same situation.
- diggrim, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2Halo 3 has awesome multiplayer? What makes it non-standard?
- HBNDonut, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1The fact that it's awesome.
- diggrim, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2Halo 3 has awesome multiplayer? What makes it non-standard?
- FinalLimit, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1I will be pissed off if the multiplayer half of the game doesn't make up for the lack of a steller single player.
- themacx, on 10/26/2007, -17/+6so kids are learning looks ain't all.. why am i not surprised.. it's the 360 that is shortening game experience with their DVD.
- xkesterx, on 10/26/2007, -5/+15What a load of crap. HL2 is on a single DVD and it's 12+ hours of gameplay. Coupled with EP1, EP2, Portal and TF2, all, I'm led to believe, on the same DVD. It isn't DVD size that is holding developers back, it's optimisation.
- nonymous666, on 10/26/2007, -3/+2HL2 is a three year old game that was conceptualized and in development long before the 360 and the mentality its brought on even existed.
- MagikOvenMit, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3And Portal, Half-Life 2 Episode Two, and Team Fortress Two are two-week old games. I don't see your point.
- nonymous666, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2I was responding to the statement that "HL2 is on a single DVD and it's 12+ hours of gameplay" being used as proof that games these days aren't getting shorter.
And the fact that episodes 1 & 2, and portal are so short, re-inforces the point that *newer* games are shorter these day which is what the post I replied to was trying to argue against. - themacx, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1why are people so hostile? jeez it's as if I'm gonna grab their precious DVDs and run off with them.. hell no.. gimme future..gimme HD!
- nonymous666, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2I was responding to the statement that "HL2 is on a single DVD and it's 12+ hours of gameplay" being used as proof that games these days aren't getting shorter.
- MagikOvenMit, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3And Portal, Half-Life 2 Episode Two, and Team Fortress Two are two-week old games. I don't see your point.
- nonymous666, on 10/26/2007, -3/+2HL2 is a three year old game that was conceptualized and in development long before the 360 and the mentality its brought on even existed.
- Christbait, on 10/26/2007, -4/+10I'm amazed that you're able to even switch your computer on.
- themacx, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1did your mommy help you write this?... ahhhhh
- navster15, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5I'm not much of a PC gamer, but what is the format for PC games? Have they moved up to the HD formats yet or are they still on DVD? Are they going to fit Crysis on a DVD?
- Optimaximal, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5The move to HD won't be happening for a while. Hell, it took up until about 2 years ago until most games in the US started receiving DVD-only releases (look at UT2004 & Far Cry?), whilst the EU has been receiving DVD-only releases for ages.
HD formats are just an excuse for developers to not seek out decent encoding & compression for the video, sounds and texture they use - Hell, the example above of HL2 features 15+ hours of gameplay (not counting the Episodes and other games related too it) on a DVD, a feat achieved by doing all the work in the engine rather than lazily encoded High-Def video that's in place for the sole reason of pushing the formats.
Take the example of MGS4 only being 'able' to fit on a BD? What ***** - the demos produced so far have shown less actual content than games 5 years old. The entire game is rendered in the engine, where is all the need for space?- themacx, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1PC games lost the lead thanks to blu ray.. they will catch up but how many PC games do you know playing on a 40+ inch HD TV screen?.. probably none.. so for them there isn't much use to go full HD that only means is expansive graphic cards and a ***** load of rams to keep frame rates up. Why iMac or other all in one systems come with blu ray things will go a bit faster. but again.. PC needs it for storage.. not just for pretty pictures. This is part of the next gen war between xbox and sony.. and xbox lost. Next year is gonna be so different!
- nattybohman, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1@themacx
Your paragraph made absolutely no sense. Is this a question or a statement?
"Why iMac or other all in one systems come with blu ray things will go a bit faster."
Your xbox vs sony sentence is also incomprehensible. For some reason I'm extremely interested in deciphering your text. It's like a puzzle game. They should reprint this in the local paper in lieu of a sudoku on Sunday.
- Optimaximal, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5The move to HD won't be happening for a while. Hell, it took up until about 2 years ago until most games in the US started receiving DVD-only releases (look at UT2004 & Far Cry?), whilst the EU has been receiving DVD-only releases for ages.
- dobbinmon, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6it's more likely to be the case that the lazy ass game designers ran out of ideas for single player scenarios and thought no one would notice
- spyrochaete, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Ultima 1 fit on a single floppy and was over 20 hours long.
- terriblelie, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4Uhm the macx two words for ya, Heavenly Sword.... Only 5 hours of playtime on your hard-on inducing format.
- themacx, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1come on.. bad comparison and you know it.
- codered1322, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4You are an idiot. Go dry hump your playstation, that's all it is good for anyway.
- Azm0dAn, on 10/25/2007, -0/+0What about Saint's Row? 20+ hours...
- sauvaget, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3@navster15 they won't start selling PC games on HD/BluRay for a long while yet.
obviously because PC games are installed on to the hard-drive. Remember games like Wing Commander Prophecy or Phantamogaria (spelled correctly?)? Games like those with a lot of FMVs were split onto multiple CDs.
The same will happen on DVD for the time being.
Edit: Also being able to install games on a harddrive make for better compression on the disks themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if Crysis was on a single DVD.
Hell, even Monkey Island 3 was on two CDs! - BabyWookie, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1What's Sony's excuse for Heavenly Sword's 5 hour length then?
- themacx, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I'm not comparing HS with Cod.. that's silly.. sure there are games that justify the short game play with a great story.. Well I'm not expecting much story in CoD so.. You should know that it should be compared with games like killzone or Socom.. both games with extensive single players. This is not he first game with this problem... Vegas had the same problem. They're lazy ass programmers not willing to cram stuff on dvd to push blu ray for lazy programming. it's game over for DVD.. soon!
- BabyWookie, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1It just takes a lot more time, money and effort to create a ***** of next-gen content. That's the problem, not the DVDs.
- themacx, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1I'm not comparing HS with Cod.. that's silly.. sure there are games that justify the short game play with a great story.. Well I'm not expecting much story in CoD so.. You should know that it should be compared with games like killzone or Socom.. both games with extensive single players. This is not he first game with this problem... Vegas had the same problem. They're lazy ass programmers not willing to cram stuff on dvd to push blu ray for lazy programming. it's game over for DVD.. soon!
- xkesterx, on 10/26/2007, -5/+15What a load of crap. HL2 is on a single DVD and it's 12+ hours of gameplay. Coupled with EP1, EP2, Portal and TF2, all, I'm led to believe, on the same DVD. It isn't DVD size that is holding developers back, it's optimisation.
- doctorfungi, on 10/27/2007, -1/+28Call of Duty games often have QUALITY single player, but 4-6 hours is a little weak...
- mrgeo, on 10/25/2007, -6/+1I don't think a game's quality should be left solely on the single player portion. I've heard nothing but good things about this game's mp, so I'll probably be picking this one up. Some games are praised for sp (ie Oblivion), and others for their mp ( SC, Halo series). Although, I expected longer single player for COD4, like the others in the series did, this won't stop me from buying it.
- toxicityj, on 10/26/2007, -3/+6Doesn't bother me any. I put a little more time into the single player of CoD3, but for the most party I played it for the multiplayer. and having played the CoD4 Beta, I can say its well worth the money if only for the multiplayer.
- Christbait, on 10/28/2007, -6/+5And how many hours is that for an average gamer/a person who can't sit at the console for hours on end and likes to do things in between?
- lacronicus, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5wtf? 4 hours is 4 hours, whether you play for hours at a time or not.
- tendonut, on 10/25/2007, -4/+1Probably longer because you are playing a true PC game on a console.
Games developed for PC should stay on PC. Games developed for consoles should stay on consoles. Give me back CoD games and you can keep Halo - azezpz1, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2CoD on PC rocked my world back in the day *sob*
- johnnynapalm, on 10/26/2007, -5/+12Blech, more reason to stick to TF2.
- mkameli, on 10/26/2007, -6/+2....what? How does that make any sense? TF2 doesn't have single player at all, so if CoD4's multiplayer is better, then wouldn't that be reason to give it a shot at least? Man, you make my head asplode.
- mclewell, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3Valve is probably one of the best game companies ever. They test and test to death the games to make sure that they are amazing and TF2 is an amazing example of this. It took them almost nine years to release TF2 from TF1
- daizaru, on 10/28/2007, -1/+2Am I the only one who finds TF2 gets old, fast? It was fun while it was new but the limited map diversity and the gross difference in the power of some classes just gets old. It feels more death match then objective based and reminds me so much of counter-strike. There are differences of course, but the pacing is the same to me.
- YojimboJango, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2I bought metroid prime 3 about 2 weeks before the orange box came out and I have to admit that MP3 is still sitting unfinished in the wii while my Team Fortress 2 and Portal suck all my free time away. I ran through Episode 2 on easy just for the story line (and what an awesome story line it was), but what keeps me at my PC instead of on the couch is TF2.
Valve has dominated my gaming time till at least Christmas, and maybe longer :)- diggrim, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1and it runs on Linux: http://digg.com/linux_unix/How_To_Run_Team_Fortres ...
- Marcsib, on 10/26/2007, -1/+0What a pointless TF2 derail.
- meth0d, on 10/25/2007, -8/+3i gotta agree that short single player games are not the future, i harldy play any games online for the sheer fact of the online player base are 40+ year olds living in there moms basement or 11 year olds who think l33t is a cool word...that dosent mean i dont enjoy some online play, just not in WoW terms.
- mavranos, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5There are many thousands of casual gamers that enjoy online play. That is not to say we don't want a good length of single player though.
I play one or two nights a week after my wife and kids have gone to bed. I don't live in my mother's basment, I have a career, active social life and am a well rounded individual. Take your invalid older gamer stereotype elsewhere. - toxicityj, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1ugh. you r tard it's 1337, not I33t
- mavranos, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5There are many thousands of casual gamers that enjoy online play. That is not to say we don't want a good length of single player though.
- republikdh, on 10/26/2007, -3/+2What do you expect when theyre churning these games out every November? Not to mention this game is far and away from anything relating to past Call of Duty environments, etc.
- pixelatedsoul, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Infinity Ward has been working on this game for 2 years. They last worked on CoD2 and had nothing to do with the development of CoD3.
- codered1322, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3*****. I am still going to get it though, it just looks too awesome.
- jun2san, on 10/27/2007, -17/+2Dugg down for having to click on the link just to find out what CoD4 stood for.
- lacronicus, on 10/25/2007, -4/+11Dugg down for having to click on the link just to find out what CoD4 stood for.
- typicalusername, on 10/25/2007, -2/+1Do you click on everything that you don't understand? If so, I've got some BDSM for you that you can check out...
- Chassit, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Dugg down for being an arrogant n00b.
- Mlynch, on 10/26/2007, -6/+1That'd be uhh.......4-6 hours? save your game...
- tcpip4lyfe, on 10/25/2007, -5/+3About the same as HL2:ep2. Seems like the computer game programmers aren't putting as much work into the games as they used to. Remember the Doom 2? That game took forever to beat.
- Christbait, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5HL2 ep2 isn't a victim of putting in less work.. it's episodic content, they're doing it so Valve don't just go "oh, let's just bunch them all together", only for everyone to forget about it completely after a year or two, they're just extending the life of a killer game series.
And stuff like doom 2 isn't exactly the hardest work to develop. - spyrochaete, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3Funny you mention Doom 2 since that was basically just a Doom 1 level pack with one additional weapon. Anyway, Episode 2 is an episode and not intended to be a full-length game. Of course, HL2:ep2 is the same length as CoD2 but will probably be half the price.
- houndeyex, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4HL2:EP2 is part of a series and I believe only cost $20.
- typicalusername, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1I'm with ya buddy! Even go to the latest Doom games, they were more than the 4 to 6 hours of gameplay. Plus, I'd pay an extra $40 to $50 for new map content on the same engine. Especially since Doom had what, 30 to 40 maps?
- Radan, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Well, the reason for this is that Doom 2 more or less consisted of hundreds of almost identical box shaped rooms filled with low ress sprites with second to no AI at all, no voice acting, and not a single cutscene to be found.
Each scene in COD takes extremely more time to create, especially because of the hard scripted cinematic nature of the COD series.
- Christbait, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5HL2 ep2 isn't a victim of putting in less work.. it's episodic content, they're doing it so Valve don't just go "oh, let's just bunch them all together", only for everyone to forget about it completely after a year or two, they're just extending the life of a killer game series.
- Christbait, on 10/25/2007, -2/+6To be honest, I don't see the problem.
6 hours is probably going to be a whole lot of action packed fun from start to finish, unlike COD1,2 or 3. Lots of missions, but half of them was just boring filler, I felt.- spyrochaete, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3I don't consider any of CoD2 to be filler. It was a pretty short game and it was all action-packed.
- ShooterMcGavin, on 10/25/2007, -0/+5Well, since I have played the demo level at least 4 dozen times, that has got to be a good 3 to 4 hours worth right there... then, I probably spent at least 20 to 40 solid hours playing the MP Beta. I figure all that entertainment I've already gotten alone is worth $50 bucks. I have no qualms about this game's single player only being 4-6 hours. Do I wish it were longer? Of course. But, I was so blown away by the game play, you will not hear me complaining.
Waiting for November... - Godmil, on 10/27/2007, -3/+21I'm going to be the voice of dissent and say, as long as those 5-6 hours are top quality, I don't care how long it is.
Portal proved recently that a great game is great, regardless of the length of story mode.- Christbait, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Werd.
- codered1322, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3I'm going to do it.
The cake is a lie. - fiveoaks, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4Portal also wasn't $50-60.
- mkameli, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1I absolutely agree. Portal was so great that I started it over again as soon as I beat it.
- tendonut, on 10/25/2007, -0/+0As fiveoaks said, I don't think people are arguing that the game will be terrible, it just won't be worth $50-$60. The Orange Box was $50, and if you really think about it, was like a 30 hour game, plus the MP component (TF2). It included HL2, HL2: Ep1, HL2: Ep2, and Portal for the single player experience. All that for the same price as the 4-6 hour CoD4 game.
- tendonut, on 10/31/2007, -0/+0Of course, if you already owned HL2 and Episode 1, then the Orange Box value goes to *****
- Coldmetal, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2You're also forgetting CoD isn't Portal. Portal is a completely different genre and the announcer for portal alone made Portal worth the purchase ( The cake is a lie! ). Also like most people, it came with Orange Box when purchased. This is also the fourth CoD in the series, you'd think they wouldn't half ass or cut short the single player.
- noahhoward, on 10/25/2007, -2/+8"a campaign that only lasts five to six hours will be dissapointing for people like myself who enjoy a good, long single-player experience"
Spoken like a chronic masturbater. - klinsek, on 10/25/2007, -13/+6Another quality release brought to you by the leading plague of the gaming industry, Electronic Arts.
Come on guys, did you really expect more from EA?- superstewy, on 10/25/2007, -0/+6Yeah, if only EA made this game jackass. It's published by Activision and developed Infinity Ward. Who the hell just dugg him up? Oh wait, I forgot, everything bad with the gaming industry is EA's fault.
- xXGeechXx, on 10/25/2007, -2/+4Im getting tired of the EA bashing. If you dont like a game don't buy it. If you dont like a game soley because of the publisher your an idiot.
- klinsek, on 10/25/2007, -2/+1Touche' I humbly retract. I confused with MOH series. My bad, my bad. Need coffee...
- superstewy, on 10/25/2007, -0/+6Yeah, if only EA made this game jackass. It's published by Activision and developed Infinity Ward. Who the hell just dugg him up? Oh wait, I forgot, everything bad with the gaming industry is EA's fault.
- Scopitone, on 10/25/2007, -2/+6After being in the beta, they could charge me $70 and I'll get this game. The single player is just a bonus.
- BobsYourUncle, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3Come to Canada, they WILL charge you $70. I'm still getting it though...
- tomtom13, on 10/26/2007, -2/+1WTF! 4 hours!?
- Technopope, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Exactly! The words "Four Hours" only seem to appear in the title of this article, which stated the games lasts 5-6 hours.
The "four hours" bit just seems made up to make the game seem even shorter.
- Technopope, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Exactly! The words "Four Hours" only seem to appear in the title of this article, which stated the games lasts 5-6 hours.
- tigertiger, on 10/26/2007, -1/+4Having played CoD4 almost to the end, I can tell you that the short single player campaign isn't a problem. It may only be five hours, but it's five hours of awesome gaming.
- brasso, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1What an anticlimax...
- mavranos, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3Don't worry with all the write-field errors and lock-ups you'll be replaying sections over and over. It will turn into a 20 hour experience! Enjoy!
I'm half joking- I will still pick it up for the MP. If the 4-6 hour SP length is true I'll be a little disappointed but not too much. I got very frustrated with CoD2 SP. - john2kx, on 10/28/2007, -5/+5_only_ 4-6 hours? What do you guys want, a CoD RPG?
- bjs3171, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2no...just atleast 2 more hours of game play.
- azezpz1, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3I'm all for a CoD RPG, as long as it's done by Bioware
- SoleAngelus, on 10/25/2007, -0/+0As i remember all the CoD games have had short singleplayer games, but impressive and replayable ones. The multiplayer side has always been great (playing on pc, never on console) and the CoD comunity has improved upon it to keep it fresh.
Lets hope IW nail the multiplayer mode(s) and it doesnt need 100 patches before its half playable... - leonwehttam, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Best damn multiplayer ive played on a console!
- sinizuh, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3Single player beat in one sitting and multiplayer polished to a shine? It worked for Halo 3, so why not CoD4?
Hell, the next generation of FPS games will just be all multiplayer and no single player. - Mosatii, on 10/25/2007, -1/+5I could care less; I'm getting it for the multiplayer.
- hybridcreation, on 10/26/2007, -2/+2Half-Life 2: Episode Two is about 4-6 hours, has no multiplayer and costs $29.95. CoD4 has a reported 4-6 hour singleplayer and a supposedly awesome multiplayer and costs $49.95.
Depending on just how good the multiplayer turns out to be, I'm sure most people wouldn't have a problem paying $20 if CoD4 was multiplayer only.
So what's the problem?- bjs3171, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3how long would you say the regular Half-Life 2 campaign was?
- houndeyex, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2Too long and too stretched. I remember spending 12 pointless hours on a road.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1I thought that was the incredible part of the game, it breaks loose from all-uptight FPS taboo, in HL2 -at least- you feel like part of things not a trigger happy commando killing everything that moves. I think HL2's single player is the gold standard of how SP games must be done, you have plenty of shooting to do in MP (not to say that HL2 was not full of uptight moments too)....
- hybridcreation, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1About 20 hours.
- Eizz, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1Shorter than HL1, that's for sure.
- tendonut, on 10/25/2007, -0/+0I don't know about that...i'd say about the same
- tendonut, on 10/26/2007, -2/+0bury, wrong response
- houndeyex, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2Too long and too stretched. I remember spending 12 pointless hours on a road.
- tendonut, on 10/26/2007, -1/+1But who in their right mind is buying Episode 2 by itself? Thats like comparing the Legendary edition of Halo 3 to the price/game length of a FF game
- hybridcreation, on 10/28/2007, -2/+1Apples to apples.
- MagikOvenMit, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2 Episode One, Half-Life 2 Episode Two, and Portal are about thirty hours altogether and cost $49.99. All of that comes with an incredible multiplayer game, Team Fortress 2. With CoD 4, you get five or six hours of single player (which will probably not be as good as the Half-Life games and Portal) and a fun multiplayer mode for the same price.
- bjs3171, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3how long would you say the regular Half-Life 2 campaign was?
- xXGeechXx, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2I may be the only one happy about this. Halo 3 was very short but I liked that.
I still haven't beat COD 3 I kind of was just hoping it would end. With so many games coming out this Xmas a short game is a sigh of relief.- azezpz1, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1That's true, but I only have so much money to spend, and I don't want to waste it on a quicky.
Then again I'll probably just use Mass Effect for my single player orgasm.
- azezpz1, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1That's true, but I only have so much money to spend, and I don't want to waste it on a quicky.
- NeoSporin, on 10/26/2007, -5/+5Its short because they release a game every year to get your money
What makes it worse, some of you are falling for it.- tendonut, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1It's like Madden! I worked at EB for 4 years, so I saw 4 Madden releases. Every single year, the same tools would come in and get all excited about a new madden, pre-order it, camp out for a midnight launch, then come back when the stores opens again at 10:00 AM and trade it in, saying "Its just like last year!", then do the same thing the next year and the next year. Once EA bought out the rights to the NFL, their creativity dropped even more because now they had no competition to keep them on their toes. People who buy Madden ever year and bitch every year about it not changing are ***** morons. Stop buying it. Skip a few years. Might make EA try to improve their dry franchise.
- viper22, on 10/25/2007, -0/+3For me, The MP makes this game. Sure, i will play and beat SP on veteran, but the MP is where its at. I played the 360 Beta which had only 3 maps and limited weapons. The beta was awesome, so the full version will destroy my social life.
If you want a longer SP, just play on veteran. It actually willl take skill. - drpeppper, on 10/26/2007, -7/+4yea, ill put this game on the 'bitorrent' category LOL
- tendonut, on 10/26/2007, -1/+2You were about to get dugg for that clever comment, then you laughed at your own joke.
- slundal, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3The first rule of BitTorrent......
- iliketuna, on 10/25/2007, -3/+1I think its unfair to fault what has always been primarily multiplayer game series for its short single player component.
- l00s3r, on 10/25/2007, -1/+3I think you have it backwards.
- LimeParrot, on 10/25/2007, -0/+4Comes down to this. If you can play the multiplayer (LIVE gold) then it's still worth it, as it's a fun and polished experienced (I played the BETA). If you see the single player as the main experience and the multiplayer as an added bonus, then don't bother.
- YouandWhoseArmy, on 10/26/2007, -3/+4It's all about the multi-player you whining noobs.
- Izanaki, on 10/25/2007, -1/+25-hour games are the new cool thing in the gaming industry. Combining the experience of episodic gaming with the price of a full game
- Fallout911, on 10/25/2007, -2/+4Single player games are still my favorite.
So I wont be buying this game. - DiggedyDoo, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Well Modern Wars are shorter than 20th century wars, aren't they? Right? We just go in there with a small, quick, technologically superior force and the war is over in weeks, not years!!
- pcp777, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3Yeah just like Iraq...oh wait this war has dragged on longer than WWII.....
- JesusXP, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2It's obvious they are just releasing it early, and going to make DLC missions and maps, drain out more money from us.. It's getting kinda sad how taken advantage of the consumers are becoming. Game prices stay the same, and we know that developers are not finishing off their products with the quality they should get.. Examples...
Rock Band - no more online coop world tour - why not? So you buy Rock Band 2...
Kanye and Lynch - No more online coop - why... so you buy K & L 2.....
Gears of war - ending was rediculous, story just abruptly stops, why? game unpolished/unfinished to steal PS3 launch thunder. Also ***** Quality Assurance on that title. Glitches galore, lack of modes/maps - why... so you pay more for downloadable content and also buy gears 2..
Guitar Hero 2 "new" tracks - Really just old tracks...
Katamari Demacry 360 - extra DLC is actually ON the disc.. you need to "buy" the key (128kb additional DLC for a price) to get access to harder modes, which CAME on the disc you bought...
A big shift is moving toward not finishing the game, or leaving stuff out, intentionally to sell additional content... the product should not be 50-60$ when it comes to the shelf.. these things are costing upwards of 100$ after the DLC etc... We are being taken.. Oh - not to mention we're paying for Online modes in games with our subscriptions to Live as well.. which apparently aren't even going to dedicated servers as supposedly we are hosting our own games on our own connections on our own xboxes- CollapseControl, on 10/25/2007, -0/+0I see your point and I heard people say that stuff for years now. Although I don't agree with it being done, it is only an OPTION to continue on with DLC. I never got into the GOW MP so I chose not to download the new maps, same as GRAW & COD3. It is all choices to be made, if you really like the game then fork over the few extra dollars to expand the fun. Only thing it really sucks for are the people who go game crazy and want every new title possible.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is