The Glade 4.0

I agree with Darkroland.

The game only has 5 hours of game play if you want it to have 5 hours of game play.

Between 5 hours of campaign, 3 hours spent on Spec Ops so far, and 1d8h on multiplayer, there's quite a bit more playtime available if you look at the entire game, not just a part of it.

If you hate multiplayer, the game only has a piddly amount of gameplay available.

Much like a lot of games these days.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

This is what I'm saying.


I have no need to play with a bunch of frat boys over an online system I'd have to pay extra money to utilize.

To be fair, they added split-screen for IRL multiplayer, which is a huge plus. Still, though, the other aspects of multiplayer-centricity in gaming these days makes me sad.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I'm with this. Often times I don't like the fun in my play time being dependent upon other people. This game won't be getting my money any time soon because of this.

_________________
The Dude abides.

The part I hate is when the multiplayer options take away from the story, and the single player campaign feels almost tacked on because of it. (I'm looking at you Halo 2 and 3.)

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I agree with you, that sucks. I do not think it happened on this game though. The single player was excellent, as is the multiplayer.

Modern Warfare is all about the multiplayer online experience. I hate to break it to y'all. If you wanted a lasting 15 hour solo experience, you're looking at the wrong game. Go buy Halo, Resistance II, or some other longer FPS game. There's a ridiculous amount of lasting appeal to the multiplayer in this game, if that's your cup of tea. I wish other games put this much into the online aspect of their video game.

I too enjoy a great single-player experience, but the Call of Duty games are best enjoyed online. They do have great presentation and action in their solo campaigns, but they've never been that lengthy.

_________________

Then they should be cheaper.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Why should it be cheaper?

The full play time is there, some people just decide not to make use of it. The CoD series has evolved into being a multi-player game first, single player second.

Very rarely does a FPS game's solo story alone warrant a purchase, with the exception of Half Life 2. If you want only solo content, FPS games aren't really the best genre to be looking at to begin with.

_________________

Dude, Roophus, I missed you sneeking back in the door.

Welcome back man.

_________________
Raell Kromwell

This didn't used to be the case. This is also why people have an expectation of a better single player offering. This is also why some people here are stating these FPS games won't be getting their money.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Indeed, Screeling. With a history of games like Half-Life 1 & 2, Deus Ex, No One Lives Forever, the first Call of Duty or two, the Halo series (even with the heavy multiplayer emphasis, I remember getting a solid length Halo 3 co-op campaign in with DFK!), Gears of War... it's not like the genre didn't used to deliver excellent campaigns in the 10+ hour range.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I just got high speed internet offered in the apartment I'm at now, so I'm finally back online. Thanks.

To Kaffis and Screeling:

I agree. It used to be that FPS games offered great 10+ hour solo campaigns. I wish that were the case. I like both online and offline content. It's not that you can't find it anymore, it's just not as common. Multiplayer can make a game last far longer than a solo campaign, and it's far cheaper to invest in a multiplayer experience than a high budget single player mode. It's kind of like daily quests in WoW. It's far easier to stretch the game out with multiplayer, where people play the same maps and modes over and over, than to create actual content by extending the single player experience.

_________________

No argument there. It's just that, when I'm paying for a dozen maps that are a quarter the size of a single player level (and quite possibly mirrored or otherwise symmetrical for balance purposes), I expect to pay less for less content.

I'll pay $20 for a multiplayer only game. Heck, I just did a couple weeks ago with Shattered Horizon, and I'm satisfied with that. But charging $60 for a 5 hour campaign and a handful of multiplayer maps and modes is ludicrous. Sixty bucks is twenty for multiplayer, and *forty* for a 5-hour campaign? When they share a graphics engine, the majority of the art assets, and weapon balancing?

Bullshit.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

LOL, you haven't played multiplayer in MW2, have you kaffis? It is ridiculously deep. Enough that I was quite surprised.

Each weapon has individual achievements to unlock attachments for said weapon. Each "perk" (essentially stat boosts) can be levelled individually, with additional performance boosts available as levels.

You can create six of your own custom classes (in addition to the default classes), each with a completely separate build of weaponry, perks, attachments, deathstreak and killstreak bonuses.

You can receive air drops mid game which can be battled over, creating an instant game objective in the middle of battle.

Granted, if you hate multiplayer, it will not matter. However, doom 1 deathmatch this is not. There is an entirely different XP and levelling system for multiplayer, and all the said customizations.

We've been lamenting the death of single player for years now. Fortunately, with games like Dragon Age and Assassins Creed 2 coming out, that need is fulfilled this holiday season.

As well, if you do enjoy multiplayer, you are getting 50, 100, 200 hours of entertainment out of this game, instead of 15 for a "long" FPS singleplayer mission. Pretty good value for the 60 dollar investment.

One last note - There is a "special ops" mode that you can play in addition to the single player campaign, it is co-op, but can be played with an AI partner as a single player mode. There are 3 tiers of maps, all can be played for various rewards, and on veteran (hardest) difficulty, they are VERY difficult. Quite a bit more singleplayer content there.

You're also ignoring spec-ops, which can be not only as long as campaign (and coop with a friend, too), but just as fun.

I haven't played Modern Warfare at all. Games that use real weapons bore me, pretty much. I'm not sure whether it's always been so, or whether it's grown as an extension of my disdain for the glut of WW2 games five years back or whatever when that subgenre was at the height of its overexposure.

My comments here are based on the reported length of the single player campaign and my assumptions of multiplayer modes based on the knowledge of the player caps and my experience in expected levels of player density on map size for good amounts of fun.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Ah, I understand. Inaccurate data. It happens.

I agree with your point, and honestly, I would point the finger at Left 4 dead for this, which really didn't even include a single player campaign, just an AI substitute for the multiplayer. However, it just doesn't seem MW2 is guilty of this, it includes more content for both modes than quite a few similar games.

1) It should cost less because they're still charging you additional fees to be able to play online.

2) MW2's multiplayer doesn't have any customizability beyond the first MW, and therefore probably took very little investment.

3) $60 for a 10+ hour game with multiplayer that costs money (say, Halo 3) v. $60 for a 5 hour game with multiplayer that costs money (MW2). The math is extremely simple in that perspective.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Halo's multiplayer is not nearly as in-depth as MW2's. Aside from that, Halo also doesn't have a third style of play. Stop ignoring the spec ops missions or grouping them into campaign/mp. It's a totally separate mode and increases both the game length and replayability.

You're not going to convince him otherwise. We're simply wrong, of course.

Dammit, why does that always happen!

You don't know anything.

_________________
The Dude abides.

There is no wrong in this situation. There's merely the expression of opinion.

I'm not lumping spec ops at all. It's the part of the game I've indicated at least twice now that I'm most glad they implemented. It's also not enough to change my opinion about the price.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine