How Short is Too Short in Gaming?

This week Modern Warfare 2 was released to thousands of eager fans. Within a few hours of the game's midnight release, gamers being crying foul over the "short" single player. An early estimate from gamers claimed a 4 hour play time. This begs the questions, "What's too short for a video game?" and "How long is too long?" Those questions can hurt and help gaming. Do you just sit back and enjoy the game for what it is or do you have a preconceived notion of a games perfect length?

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Sunny_D3724d ago

Well, when you can play though the story 3 times in less than a day to get all the trophies, then I 'd say it's too short. That's what happened to my friend.

morganfell3724d ago

Greywulf, before I clicked the comments I already had the same words rolling off my fingertips.

deadreckoning6663724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

I expect 8-10 hours at least for campaign.

Anythg under 7 hours is a rental unless it has a great multiplayer like Modern Warfare 2. The length of MW2's campaign is a disgrace IMO, but people need to keep in mind that 90% of the people who buy MW2 buy it for MULTIPLAYER not the SP. Remember, the original Modern Warfare's campaign was short as hell too, that didn't stop it from being GOTY 2007 or selling buttloads.

People didn't complain then, why are they complaining now?

Saaking3724d ago

Too short? I'd say a games has to be at LEAST 7 hours (on medium difficulty)to be worth it.

RememberThe3573724d ago

If I buy a game and it's 4 hours long I'm going to be pissed.

Same concept.

We can drop a lot of bones on these games, and for what we pay, we want a ton of content. That's not too much to ask, and it's not like we're saying we don't care if it's a really good experience; we just want the really good experience to last longer.

We can argue this until our faces turn blue, but fact is that know that I know that the MW2 campaign is so short I'll be renting it.

gamingisnotacrime3724d ago

I think there is a game in the early PS3 lifecycle that got destroyed because it was... too short?

Yeah, this reviewers are the worst of the worst, what a joke a $60 MP game with a Single campaig as compliment. I kinda glad i am not a MW2 buyer

ABizzel13724d ago

6 hours is the bare minimum, and that's only if you have full multiplayer and co-op along with the single player.

The standard should be 10 - 12 hours for single player since games are getting shorter.

Single Player only games should be 15 - 20 hours.

BRG90003724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

Maybe it's just because I was an economics major, but this is usually how I approach a game's value. For MW2, it really comes down to how much you enjoy the multiplayer.

If you just play single player, $60/4hrs = $15 per hour. Even say you play through certain levels multiple times for achievements/trophies, you're looking at probably $6/hr. Not a great deal compared to comparable game options out there.

The multiplayer however is great, and I along with many others will be getting 100+ hours out of it. Probably 10 hours out of the Spec Ops co-op mode too (though I haven't tried that yet). At that point, $60/120hrs = $0.50 per hour. That's one of the best deals I can think of in this generation's offerings, and one of the best deals on entertainment that come to mind.

The obvious conclusion is that MW2 shouldn't be bought just for the single player, but if you're an online shooter player it's a great purchase. Pretty much seems like that is what IW was going for with this one all along.

Lich1203724d ago

Right, I agree 4 is too short. However it took me about 8 on veteran (guess Im not as good as I hoped). However, that experience was extremely well crafted in my opinion. Ill take a great 8 hour experience over a drawn out 15 hour experience. So to me, it comes down to quality. These triple A shooters are getting shorter because it takes longer and longer to make games as intricate as they are.

ThatArtGuy3724d ago

was the game that got *reamed* because it was 8-10 hours. This one gets a free pass with most reviewers (not all, thankfully).

Mindboggle3724d ago

Who cares, i havent even touched the SP yet, and ive played 3 hours multiplayer and will be playing it for months to come.

I dont care how long the SP is when the mulitplayer is of this quality.

If it was a single player only game then yes there should be complaints, but noone cares except N4G.

I dont remember anyone complaining about mirrors edge 5 hour single player mode.

Parapraxis3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

"I dont remember anyone complaining about mirrors edge 5 hour single player mode. "
I guess you weren't paying attention then.

And in regards to Heavenly Sword. It was WAY too short, and the people who are most vocal about the short nature of HS are doing so because a game that was that damn good should have been longer.

I would love a sequel for HS, along with the majority of people who played it. It was too short, I wanted MORE of that amazing experience.
People who have played it understand what I'm saying. Those of you who haven't and own a PS3 at least rent it!

Dark General3724d ago

It seems I'm in the minority way of thinking when it comes to this subject. Justification for buying a game or going to a movie isn't a matter of time investment for me. For me what legitimize my money spent is the quality of entertainment that I experience from it. Personally I don't care if something is short and sweet or long and engaging as long as I feel it has supplied me with apt entertainment then all is fine and well. Would you stop having quickies just because they were short bursts of pleasure instead of extensive carnal rendezvous?

HolyOrangeCows3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

Modern Warfare 2 and ODST.

lightningsax3724d ago (Edited 3724d ago )

@ThatArtGuy - That's not all that Heavenly Sword was gutted for - that game was 8 hours too long for what it was. It seemed like years had passed in the six hours I played that game, and I remember telling my friend "If I have to fight another same-looking ninja, I'm not finishing the game." I didn't finish the game. That game had so much repetitive gameplay and same-y ninjas, I thought I was playing The Tick for SNES.

I'm sure MW2 is a bit more enjoyable, and a bit less... um, purple ninjas, but I'm thankful that I didn't buy this thing. Multiplayer isn't really my cup of tea. I'm having a ton of fun playing Demon's Souls and Dragon Age PC (both new and immense games), and I have no need for a 4-5 hour single-player FPS campaign.

Lifendz3724d ago

There can be no real subjective test for this. Factor in price as well. You could have a 3 hour campaign mode but if your multiplayer is amazing, works well, and has enough replayability to keep the game fresh then I'll gladly hand you full price.

If your game has multiplayer only, then i think you should do the gamer a solid and charge 20 to 25 less than retail price.

I think Killzone 2 did an excellent job of providing a deep single player experience and an equally entertaining (and beautiful) multiplayer game. I would say Gears of War 2 did the same but that game's multiplayer was so darn buggy for so long that I didn't want to make that statement.

badz1493724d ago

why does anybody want to argue about that? and for those saying that the MP will last you long, MP is about playing the same game on the same set of maps over and over again! that is like I'm saying Warhawk is 2 years long because I've been playing it for 2 years now! not everybody has internet connections you know!

callahan093723d ago

Well, I'm not really sure. But I recently paid 60 dollars for R&C: A Crack in Time, and it took me about 22 hours to beat the game twice and get all collectibles, and earn the platinum trophy. But after that, I still only had 500 out of the 1000 skill points and only 3 of the 17 weapons were up to level 10. So even after getting the platinum, and playing for 22 hours, I still had the desire to play more. So the game felt like it offered more than enough fun for the amount I paid for it, even though the campaign was relatively short (the first play-through took me about 14 hours on hard, then the second was challenge mode on easy, and it took about 4 hours because I did no side-missions and just rushed through to get the trophy, and then it was another 4 hours or so of clean-up for the remaining collectible trophies).

sikbeta3723d ago

How short is too short?

When you have less than 8 hours of SP or story mode in Normal difficulty

BRG90003723d ago

Maybe that type of game needs to be measured differently then. How "long" is Monopoly? Or Risk?

AAACE53723d ago

One thing we need to accept is that story modes are getting shorter because they aren't appreciated much! Only a select number of nerds actually play through a story mode more than once. Which is why more of the focus is put on multiplayer.

Not trying to bash ps3 exclusives, but look at uncharted. I bought that game day one. Even though the story is great, there have been fewer and fewer people playing, especially online. I still haven't seen more than 15,000 people playing in multiplayer. Socom and Warhawk on the other hand, always has people playing it at some point, and neither game has a story mode what-so-ever.

In case you are dense, the point I was trying to prove is that with most gamers, a good story isn't appreciated anymore. Even games like Halo and Gears. Alot of people skip past the cutscenes and judge the game on it's action. In all of these games, usually the people who do this are the ones who come back and say the game sux!

To me(in any game), it's about the experience. I find it sad that people are looking for more reasons to sit on their @sses for even longer periods of time. Which is why I don't play many RPG's except for a few. I have other things to do and gaming is more about quick entertainment that being my only way of having a life... like some!

nycredude3723d ago

Not trying to create a flame war but as far as I have noticed:

Ps3 exlusive = 10 hours is too short
Multiplat = 4 hours is too short
360 exlusives = 4 hours is too short

Redlogic3723d ago

at first I was a bit put off by the length of the single player for Mw2 since I am more of a single player gamer than multi. However, I would rather have 4-5 hours of awesome non-stop action than a game that has a 10 hour campaign but only 5 hours worth of action and 5 hours of filler.

Back in NES days, I don't think I ever finished a game but that was probably due to the fact they were impossibly hard to finish with no saves and i sucked at games when i was little

+ Show (21) more repliesLast reply 3723d ago
D4RkNIKON3724d ago

How short is too short? About 4 hours for a full retail game..

SpoonyRedMage3724d ago

Well it depends if it's just a campaign or what... some games have short campaigns but a lot of replay value, especially with online multiplayer games.

I think it's more to do with price though, I think games with less content should be sold for less... I think I'd actually be more likely to put them up that way.

MW2 is definitely not worth the £55 RRP... lucky I got it for £26 then!

RyuCloudStrife3724d ago

my personal opinion i think a game with 20-35 hrs gameplay is great 36+ thats a long game 20 n below is short!!

Torkith3724d ago

That's long! I couldn't imagine playing MW2 for 20 hours -_-
I say it really depends on the game. An FPS I would say between 8-10. Action/Adventure 16-24. RPG 25+

Saaking3724d ago

You can't expect all games to be that long. Mostly just RPGs and suck. FPS with a 20 hours single player would be too much imo.

Mindboggle3724d ago

I totally agree. When i play an RPG i want at least 30 hours as its always different. When its a SP FPS i get bored of the same thing, and i end up just playing the multiplayer.

Same happened to me with Far Cry 2. After 6 hours i was bored and never finished it. I think 5-10 hours is the perfect length for a SP FPS.