Medal of Honor-5 hours-WTF?!

MacLeod

MacLeod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
8,288
So I pick up MOH off a Steam sale for like $15 cause I hear its got a decent single player game and I have no interest in multiplayer. So I'm playing it and thinking its pretty good. The story is run of the mill but the combat is very solid. Then I come upon this cut scene that seems kinda long. Then the credits role. Wait, what?

5 hours logged and I've already finished it?

Now this is the 2nd time this has happened to me. Once with BC2 and now this. I think its bullshit that they're throwing out games like this. We'll put together some multiplayer maps, hook up a server and be done with it. Oh wait, lets throw together a single player game that we'll draw up on the back of a McDonald's napkin so we can sale it to single player guys too.

I recently bought Modern Warfare 1 and 2 off Steam a couple weeks ago. Are they gonna be like this too?

Are there any other half ass excuses of a single player game out there I should know about so I don't blow $20-30 again?

I hate that single player gamers are being pissed on by lazy ass developers just wanting to cash in on the multiplayer craze.
 
Thats the status quo for military shooters these days. They have crap single player expecting multi to move the game off the shelves. This game failed because it didn't do either exceptionally well.

I bought the game off the Summer sale just for single player for 10 and was satisfied with the purchase considering it was about 1.50 for an hours worth of game.
 
MacLeod said:
So I pick up MOH off a Steam sale for like $15 cause I hear its got a decent single player game and I have no interest in multiplayer. So I'm playing it and thinking its pretty good. The story is run of the mill but the combat is very solid. Then I come upon this cut scene that seems kinda long. Then the credits role. Wait, what?

5 hours logged and I've already finished it?

Now this is the 2nd time this has happened to me. Once with BC2 and now this. I think its bullshit that they're throwing out games like this. We'll put together some multiplayer maps, hook up a server and be done with it. Oh wait, lets throw together a single player game that we'll draw up on the back of a McDonald's napkin so we can sale it to single player guys too.

I recently bought Modern Warfare 1 and 2 off Steam a couple weeks ago. Are they gonna be like this too?

Are there any other half ass excuses of a single player game out there I should know about so I don't blow $20-30 again?

I hate that single player gamers are being pissed on by lazy ass developers just wanting to cash in on the multiplayer craze.
Click to expand...

modern warfare 1 is worth the 5-8 hours. MW2 is a typical michael bay flare with a better story line.
 
I think people have finished MW2 in less than 5 hours as well, it's common amongst games today.
 
Played it on a console and traded it out after finishing. It was a enjoyable 4-5ish hours, I dug the game. But I wasn't going to be stuck paying anywhere near 20-60 bucks for it.
 
I played this on my PC as one of the first games I could play with eyefinity. I had a good time with it, but I agree that a 5 hour game these days is not worth that amount of money.
 
2hfj7ty.jpg
 
next-Jin said:
This game failed because it didn't do either exceptionally well.
Click to expand...

It didn't fail commercially if that's what you're referring to. It sold over 5 million copies and a sequel is on it's way.

Military shooters like Call of Duty or Battlefield or MOH are made for their multiplayer, and that's where the meat of the game lies. While the single player campaigns of these games aren't exactly an afterthought, they are definitely lower on the priority list for developers as compared to multiplayer.
 
spindoctor said:
It didn't fail commercially if that's what you're referring to. It sold over 5 million copies and a sequel is on it's way.

Military shooters like Call of Duty or Battlefield or MOH are made for their multiplayer, and that's where the meat of the game lies. While the single player campaigns of these games aren't exactly an afterthought, they are definitely lower on the priority list for developers as compared to multiplayer.
Click to expand...

EA still considered it a flop because of "not meeting quality expectations," and because it failed to make any dent in COD, BF and Halo multiplayer activity.
 
Not hard to do a little research before you buy something is it? You said you didn't want to play multiplayer, so a few minutes of research would have told ya a lot of these games are in fact multiplayer games with a little single player campaign thrown in as a bonus.
 
Newsflash: Medal of Honor is a terrible game that should be avoided at all costs and regardless of how cheap it is.

That's been the unavoidable consensus for months.
 
you should specify with MOH game you are talking about... there are LOTS of them.
 
I enjoyed the medal of honor singlplayer and it was fun. I couldn't bring myself to finish cod black ops - I just got bored and I doubt I'll buy another cod game in the future.

I love bad company 2 though.
 
I probably should have clarified for anyone who doesn't know. Stalker is a single player game. Theres a multiplayer but I don't think anyone actually plays it. I wanted to point out Stalker even on a straight run is something like a 12-25 hour game.

It saddens me that Triple AAA Studios struggle to come up with a 5 hour campaign where as the under budget backwoods russian guys are easily able to keep a game interesting for 12+ hours. Theres no excuse for modern warfare games to not make it to atleast 10 hours. Youre telling me a guy gets dropped into Afghanistan and in an entire tour of duty his life is only interesting for about 5 hours?

That's right Activision and EA. I'm calling you out. unpatriotic shit going on right there.
 
Couldn't agree more. Mass Effect is another example as is Batman. Great single player games with 15+ hours to be enjoyed. I've got 45 I think on Mass Effect 2 alone.

If developers just want to cash in on the multiplayer craze then just do it. Don't let the FedEx guy draw you up a quick single player storyline, throw that in then market it as a single player game. Left 4 Dead started this trend with their completely worthless single player game.
 
With a few exceptions, the days of shooters with lengthy sp campaigns are over. It's all about the mp now.
 
i think it's hard to have long campaign for straight up shooter now days
unless you want endless waves of enemies which pins you down @ same spot for hours
 
I thought MW1's SP was excellent. Not very long, but worth playing.
Then again I haven't bothered with any of the more recent ones. There's only so much you can do with a modern military shooter; I don't particularly care about BF3 (burn the heretic!) because I haven't seen anything special in the gameplay (and I'm not interested in MP). It sure does look pretty though.
 
I think you can make a good shooter last 10+ hours. Look at Dead Space, Borderlands, Mass Effect 1 and 2. Granted those aren't classic FPS but they've still got a great story or atmosphere, plenty of action and many hours of enjoyment.
 
Last edited:
GregP24 said:
With a few exceptions, the days of shooters with lengthy sp campaigns are over. It's all about the mp now.
Click to expand...

The sad truth of it. I'm predominantly a SP gamer also and it's a shame to see the SP market fading as much as it has. At least there are some titles on the horizon that will keep us happy! Mostly it's RPGs that maintain the lengthly SP but for FPS its becoming very rare.

Also, people should really be doing a little research before purchasing to find out the length of a game. You can blame developers for making shitty, short arsed SP games, but you only have yourself to blame for buying it :p
 
As far as im concerned.... Shooters are mp based, with the exception of rpg shooters IE fallout, stalker, etc. The only games to expect a long sp out are things like Elderscrolls. A shooter like BF or MOH will not have some huuuuuuge campaign, it would just get repetitive at some point.
 
The formula of a MP game with SP tacked on sells copies. Doubt it's going to change any time soon.
 
eh, formula for long SP military games does not really work. Stalker works because it is more of an RPG, You visit the same areas repeatedly. In the military games it is a variety of different locations one after the other. This really applies to most SP games being made today. In the old days it was pretty easy to hook up a bunch of corridors and to reuse textures. Today gamers expect variety and do not want to see reuse. As a result you have shorter levels. If you are just flying through them there will not be much content.
 
As long as people buy the latest Generic FPS # 14072402702 whether it's called Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty MW2 or whatnot, then this thing will keep repeating itself, it's like throwing a hamster on a wheel, it'll keep spinning untill the hamster stops.

I wonder what that means.
 
purple_haze said:
modern warfare 1 is worth the 5-8 hours. MW2 is a typical michael bay flare with a better story line.
Click to expand...

Yep, just finished MW1 - 7 whole hours.

Oh well. Guess Ive learned to never buy Call of Duty type games without expecting non existent single player campaigns.

Still, MW1 was very good. Some of the best combat Ive played and the story was pretty cool with cool characters you actually gave a shit about. Looking forward to 7 hours of MW2.
 
Stop crying, you paid $15 for it. And now you can replay it at a harder setting, and then even multi. On the other side, $15 will barely get you a ticket to a 2 hour movie and a pop corn. Which you cant watch again.

Also, read up on games before buying them. So you dont look foolish crying about something like this.
 
ITT:
Someone who failed to read reviews and is upset because they didn't research their purchase well enough.
 
simonizor said:
ITT:
Someone who failed to read reviews and is upset because they didn't research their purchase well enough.
Click to expand...

fallguy said:
Stop crying, you paid $15 for it. And now you can replay it at a harder setting, and then even multi. On the other side, $15 will barely get you a ticket to a 2 hour movie and a pop corn. Which you cant watch again.

Also, read up on games before buying them. So you dont look foolish crying about something like this.
Click to expand...

Both of you can blow it out your ass! I didnt post this thread to bitch about getting ripped off. I posted it to bitch about the current trend by developers of making short, shitty single player campaigns relying instead on mulitplayer to carry the game.
 
MacLeod said:
Both of you can blow it out your ass! I didnt post this thread to bitch about getting ripped off. I posted it to bitch about the current trend by developers of making short, shitty single player campaigns relying instead on mulitplayer to carry the game.
Click to expand...

Your OP sure sounds like you're bitching about how the game is only 5 hours long and how you thought the story was going to be good. You even said that you've been fooled before with other games. You would think that you would have learned, but guess not.

Go buy another FPS with crappy single player, I suggest Homefront, and then make another thread about it.
 
I hate that single player gamers are being pissed on by lazy ass developers just wanting to cash in on the multiplayer craze.
Click to expand...

That was in my first post. Thought that made the point fairly clear as did the rest of my posts. I mean yeah they are ripping us off with this crap but thats just part of the problem. I dont mind getting 7 hours out of a game I only paid $15 for. I do however mind that all the shooters that are coming out seem to have 7 hour single player campaigns.

So go find another thread to troll.
 
I find that it depends on your tastes, I get a LOT more out of multiplayer, many many nights of fun combat and game modes. We've gotten well over 100 hours of Battlefield 2, and it had NO singleplayer campaign. The reason COD and BF are popular is due to their multiplayer capabilities, and can even be touted as renowned.


Now I buy these games for multiplayer, and I enjoy the singleplayer portion, but I feel its the right amount of mix, not too long, I can get through it, learning the game and after a weekend, boom jump into the multiplayer.

You can turn this around easily from another viewpoint. "Why are there no multiplayer abilities in RPG games? WTF, i spend 100 hours in this game by myself, i want someone to talk to, to kill, elderscrolls would have improved SO much if they had 100 player battle arenas!"

see how that works? you buy a game for what its known for. COD is known for its concise storylines and fast paced game, and multiplayer. I wouldn't want to have to spend 11 hours just to get out of a single story building because I had to explore every little nook and cranny to find all the items so that my next enemy may drop a better gun.
 
Who says you'd have to spend 11 hours in a building? There have been plenty of good shooters with good to great single player games. All the Half Life's of course, Bioshock 1 and 2, Dead Space 1 and 2, Far Cry 2, Stalker 1 and 2, FEAR 1-3, Metro and so on. I believe they have the creative ability to come up with very good, in depth single player games. Its only been recently that they're trending away from that and focussing everything on MP cause its a lot easier and cheaper.
 
wait a minute....

since WHEN was bad company 2 EVER touted as a SP game? =/
its a MP game with a SP element tacked on.

CoD i can agree with you on the length, but its in the same vein as BC2....
 
I'm not really saying there were no good SP shooters, obviously i loved a few of the ones you mentioned. What I was referring to was Final Fantasy Style (XIII specifically), where you were running around a "1-way cave system" for the first 10hours. No matter what anyone tells me, a 100 hour gameplay time for FFXIII is not the same experience and should not be compared in the same sentence as COD MW.

Bad company 2 had a singleplayer, same style as most modern shooters, but it had it.

I was more thinking of Battlefield 2, circa 2005, had no SP campaign at all. it was purely a multiplayer game. And from the response of BF3, i can say it was a very successful game with a large following?
 
Have to remember your 5 hours may very well be multiple tens of hours collectively for people like me who only get to play a tiny bit here or there. I can't remember ever finishing any game. Ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top