Short or Long Game Play: What's your gamer type?

GB writes: "I read two different articles on Modern Warfare 2 on the web where both the authors had a different take on the game play related to Multiplayer, SpecOps and the single player campaign of COD:MW2. The author who quoted that he was already bored playing MW2, felt that SpecOps and Multiplayer were not so great value add to the game, they did bring some variety in comparison to the previous version of MW2, however overall were not praiseworthy. The other author felt with the kind of pricing and hype generated by COD: MW2 the single player campaign should have being at least more than 7 hours."

[gameseveryday]

I really prefer longer games since I am more of single player. I dont tend to go online that much, so yes i prefer lengthier games.

[williamkenny]

Yep, long games are much better for me...I don't find games 'too' long.

[Julie]

I like looong games and i mean loooooong! a lot of this gen games are way too short D: with no replayability. Not all of them but a lot :3

[Nihilism]

I'm a single player gamer, and I sunk about 5 hours into mass effect today, that was a short run by my usual standard. Nothing like wasting a day away in the wasteland of fallout 3 either

[NeoBasch]

I guess I'll be the odd man out. I prefer shorter games. I don't have all the time in the world, and I hate it when developers assume I do. Most 60+ hour games are packed with filler that I could care less about. There is such a thing as the cutting room floor you know. 10-20 hours is the sweet spot. I don't mind 4-8 hour campaigns either, as long as they are insanely fun or emotionally gripping. Games like ICO, Uncharted, and Heavy Rain are good examples of this. Most of my favorite games are rather short. Keep it short and fun. Everything else could be DLC. Of course, there are always exceptions. So I'm not exactly in argument with you, but I do largely prefer shorter games.

[ABizzel1]

It depends on the game. 10 - 12 hours is safe for single player. Other than RPG's and MMO's. I too prefer longer games, especially if they have great single player.

[bacon13]

It's all about presentation and replay value. A horsesh*t game could last 50 hours and be a terrible pile of trash or you could get a 6-8 hour masterpiece like God of War 2. MW2s campaign was very short, but its obvious that it's all about the multiplayer with that game. More 20+ hour games like Metal Gear Solid 3 and Resident Evil 4 please!

[R6ex]

Me too, a single player kinda gamer.

Enjoyed MW1, but will not buy MW2 'coz short campaign's not worth my $$$.

My best investments for 2009 are the lengthy games like Dragon Age, Star Ocean and Fallout 3. MW1, Gears and Halo are fun, but just too short & not worth the $$$.

Looking forward to ME2 & FF13 to fill up my hundreds of hours of gameplay!

[williamkenny]

I agree that MW2 was too short, but it is basically a multiplayer game now.

[I_LOVE_MYSELF]

yeah the story is short BUT its not all about the campaign. Great games like Warhawk dont even have a campaign. CoDs campaign has replay value if you want to get all the hidden intel and Multiplayer will last A LOT of people longer that what any campaign in a game will. People will be racking up serious hours on this game, its worth every penny since most CoD fans will deffo get a lot of mileage out of this game.

[williamkenny]

Of course people will be racking up serious hours on this game- on multiplayer! I would be VERY surprised if you knew anyone who bought this game for the campaign.

[NoBias]

And then complained (damn well knowing the campaign is only 4-5 hours) even with the constant reviews coming, are fools in my opinion.

It's almost like they bought the game ONLY to complain. It's like buying a car that the user tells you is only going to get you about 1,000 more miles of usage and then complaining after you bought it.

You knew this going into it!

Anyways, I'm a multiplayer gamer but I still enjoy my SP campaigns. MW2 has already paid for itself for me. I've already logged about 23hrs into the game (and that's just the multiplayer). Why people choose to neglect the hours it takes to prestige even once is beyond me. Not to mention the time it takes to complete the SpecOps.

This game will run you at least 30+ hours if you dive into everything.

[Dan GamingBolt]

ill say short because i dont have really long games, long games are pretty much RPG'S which i dont play alot.

10-15 hour single player games are what i play since i concentrate on MP more.

[Myst]

Personally it depends on the game, The genre it's affiliated to and what is the main driving point behind it. RPGs - JRPGs to be exact I feel should at least clock in over 30 or near 30 hours which is a good time (in my opinion), While things such as action-adventure type games or even shooters feel perfect around the 10~15 hour mark maybe? I'm not a huge shooter fanatic so I can't say and I can't recall how long Killzone 2's campaign was.

Though anyway that's the way I see it. Oh right and if you count re-playability (not counting harder difficulties and such but rather new scenarios whether a slight variant or a whole new twist as presented in games such as Dragon Age Origins and InFamous ) then that definitely adds a whole 'nother layer to time also ( again at least to me ) and I enjoy games that give you that option.

By the way..I still need to rent InFamous, may do it this weekend since I don't have work and a friend may be coming over.

[Dan GamingBolt]

It took me like 9 hours to beat kz2

but i agree, shooters and action games (kz2, resistance, uncharted, etc etc) should be 10-15 hours.

but when it comes to 4 hours like mw2 thats just wrong.

[Myst]

Okay so yeah Killzone 2 was in a good range, couldn't remember as it's been a while, but I'm sure it may have taken me a lot longer. I tried to get accustomed to first-person angle and then trying not to waste ammo as well as getting away from trigger happy fingers.

MW2 was a tad on the short side from what I heard, but all the enjoyment was in multiplayer I assume? That's what I've found most fun out of Killzone 2 more so than the story. Though I'm sure others may agree with me on this is that the multiplayer should not be the scapegoat for shooters. Eh, but then again I've never played a Call of Duty title ever so I pretty much don't know what I'm talking about in terms of it lol.

[hulk_bash1987]

and buy infamous. It's not just a great PS3 title but one of the best of its genre. On the subject of game length, I completely agree that it all depends on the game genre in question. But who could say no to more Uncharted 2? ;)

[Baka-akaB]

I disagree with the whole idea that any game could be too long . If there is a problem and you get bored , then the game didnt do a good enough job of spicing and varying things up .
If indeed it's too long and your not motivated you can drop the game . While there is nothing to be done at all when a game is too short .

The length of most games this gen kinda irks me . And dont give me the "there are rpg if you want long games" speech . those have been heavily affected by the current shenanigans .

Used to be that 50-60 hours was the usual length IF you only did the main story , while discovering and doing everything would give you at least 100 hours of gaming . Now it is often the length if you're a completist , while the main stuff average 25-30 hours .

Thanks the gods , there are still a few hardcore stuff like Demon Souls , once everywhile .

[raztad]

Yeah sure I'd love to pay $60 for a 4 hors long game. /s

I still want my games to have a really long and strong SP campaign. Something I can enjoy myself, looking how the story unfolds or just having fun with the challenging the game is putting.

However it's funny to see how the FPS world is moving toward a multiplayer only solution. Weaker and weaker campaigns, with really poor story are just the padding for the multiplayer component. I guess that is what the FPS crowd wants, so be it.

[williamkenny]

I know that you are talking about one game in particular, but to be honest it has been talked about to death, so I will assume you know what I mean.
This game in particular is a bit of an anomalie. Look at a game like Red Faction- good SP. Uncharted (not really an fps but still)- good SP. Killzone 2- reasonably good SP.
You can't just make sweeping statements regarding a whole genre based on the most hyped game of 2009.

[raztad]

@william

I know what you mean, and I'd love to be so optimistic, but I feel we are witnessing a movement toward multiplayer only fpses. If that game got almost perfect scores, and not only that one there is other very renowned franchise that went away adding a cooperative mod, other will follow suit. The fps crow is sending the message: "We bought FPS for the multiplayer".

It's a matter of resources. Every new FPS is required to have: SP and MULTI (coop and competitive). That means to develop/test 3 different games in one. The amount of resources/time is the same but now the devel needs to be wise and put most of those resources on whatever sells the game better. You can guess which one is it.

You know what is lame? to see Bioshock an incredible SP experience having a tacked on multi player mode.

[BYE]

I think around 20 hours is good, but there has to be variation.
Assassin's Creed 2 had a good length for an adventure.

RPGs should be a little longer though.

[dredgewalker]

Well if it takes too long it gets boring and tiring, if it finishes too quickly then i feel robbed of the experience. You can think of gaming like *ahem* ....sex.

[Vortex3D]

The length of the game needs to be designed for the contents. Many RPG type games are very long but they become boring because it has lake of contents other than throwing waves of enemies at you on every step you take. Adding in very difficult road blockers also isn't a way to artificially lengthen the game.

If the game is designed to have real single player, then the campaign needs to have decent length contents such as 9-12 hours, not just as the game "starts", it's over. If the game is really designed for online multiplayers, then don't call single player campaign, just call it training or something to get the gamers familiar with the game before playing online. Too many online multiplayers still pretend to call it has real single player to increase the sales.

[TheBand1t]

If it's a shooter, I like the campaign to be at least 10-12 hours long. If it's Action-Adventure, 20-25 hours. If it's an RPG, 35-40 hours minimum.

[BeaArthur]

If there is no multiplayer I need a long single player. With a good multiplayer then the single player length isn't all that imporant to me. As long as I haven't finished everything in the game in under 12 hours.

[ABizzel1]

That's how a lot of developers think, and I agree to an extent. A game's single player should never be less than 8 hours, I don't care if multiplayer is insane. It's hard to cough up money for a game when it's 4 - 6 hours and there's nothing else to do unless the price matches the game (4 - 6 hours = $20 - $30 in my book).

Single player should be at least 8 hours.

[BeaArthur]

I see your point but if you have a multiplayer that you will sink multiple days worth of time into wouldn't that make up for a short campaign?

[ABizzel1]

I didn't disagree with you. Call me greedy, but I think we should have the best of both worlds. I don't settle :)

[Freak of Nature]

For single player games I like them long.......Uncharted 2 being an example,I thought it was decent in length,but when games are great I always say give me more...I like getting deeply involved,and immersed...

As long as they remain fresh and non repetitive.If the game is great,fun and fresh,why have it end?

Demon souls being a fine example of game length and keeping it fresh and fun with new ideas and experiences as you move forward...

With MP and spec ops modes like in MF2, SP sometimes gets cut short,but for games that are mostly just about SP I want them long and fresh...

[The Milkman]

It's the change in the way we play games that effects are attention span. I used to be able to play a lot of single player games without losing my attention. MW2 was really action packed, but I couldn't help to wish that my friend was along side me to see it. I would only play bits and pieces of the single player at a time just because I would rather be in multiplayer sharing the experience.

I'm so used to playing online that it changed how I play single player. It may not have done the same thing to everyone. Only certain single player games can keep me hooked into playing it for hours by myself now. Such as Oblivion, Bioshock, Fallout 3, GTA, Uncharted, MGS, Final Fantasy, and some others. Writing that I just realized that most single player FPS games lose my attention after awhile. Anything without a RPG element also loses my attention after awhile. So it all comes down to my preference. I like "MOST" fps games to have a short story and fun multiplayer, and I like "MOST" rpgs to have a long story and single player and just some online. It really depends on the game because some rpgs have fun multiplayer.

[fOrlOnhOpe57]

prefer to play any game based on its quality over its quantity - so long as its SP was of a reasonable length - which pretty much sums up my thoughts on Heavenly Sword.

For a game to have great quality and good length - as well as a great MP (looking at you, Kz2 and Uncharted 2) is a gaming grail as far as I'm concerned.

[Rixynator]

longer game obviously not like fallout 3