Home Gaming I completed Modern Warfare 2 in 4 Hours 44 Minutes and 23 seconds – Is that a record?

I completed Modern Warfare 2 in 4 Hours 44 Minutes and 23 seconds – Is that a record?

1 min read
84

Tooshort

We often debate how long a game needs to be before it can really be classified as a full game. Well for my review of Modern Warfare 2 I turned the difficulty level onto Recruit and played through the game.

I don’t normally game for longer than 2 hours at a stretch so it did feel like a decent amount of time by the time the awesome credits started to roll but how long had it been?

Thankfully I didn’t need to check the clocks as the game stores the time for you and accordingly I was informed that I completed the game in 4:44:23 which is not very long for a full priced game.

I wasn’t trying to race through it but merely just playing the single player as it came and enjoying the experience fully.

Is under 5 hours to short for a game? Is it excusable seeing as the multiplayer is going to eat years of my life and the spec ops section looks pretty beefy as well?

Have you beaten the game faster than that? Please do let us know what you think.

Last Updated: November 10, 2009

84 Comments

  1. WitWolfyZA

    November 10, 2009 at 11:02

    u serious? dang

    Reply

  2. Reaver

    November 10, 2009 at 11:09

    Well I finished MW1 in about 7 hours, and I took my time. But honestly, I didn’t mind one damn bit coz it was a thrill ride the entire way. Too often games are valued by their length, when a lot of these so called games have hours of filler sections that don’t grip you at all.

    MW1, Max Payne 1 & 2, Republic Commando. These are all just games off the top of my head, that were all 8 hrs or less, yet remain some of the best games I’ve ever played.

    Reply

    • LazySAGamer

      November 10, 2009 at 11:17

      I agree 100%.. but 8 hours or less is a lot more than 4 hours 44 minutes…

      I don’t regret paying for the game at all though and I guess that is what really counts in the end

      Reply

      • Akeem

        November 10, 2009 at 19:34

        8 hours OR LESS could be lower than 4 hours and 44 minutes

        Reply

    • CrimsonIdol

      November 10, 2009 at 15:23

      Both Max Paynes took a lot longer than 8 hours for me from what I remember, and I’m pretty sure I’m not that retarded. But I’m not getting this game anyway so its not my money 😛

      Reply

  3. Kirsch360

    November 10, 2009 at 11:17

    The question I have is why on earth would you want to play MW2 on Recruit, I have started the game on Veteran and im sure i’ll be looking at 8-10 hours easily on the single player campaign alone

    Reply

    • LazySAGamer

      November 10, 2009 at 11:32

      Because I am more a multiplayer gamer and only played the single player through today to review it 🙂

      And reviewing on recruit is way easier since Infinity Ward are so damn good at making games hard

      Reply

  4. 0rk0

    November 10, 2009 at 11:30

    In my opinion a game must be at least 8 hours long when running through the single player experience, unless it’s marketed as an online or multiplayer game.

    If somebody bought the game without the intention of playing online, due to whatever reason, then they won’t be getting their money’s worth in only 4 hours.
    Then you can rather go watch 3 movies at the cinema and you will get 4.5 hours at +/- R150 instead of R600.

    Reply

  5. eXp

    November 10, 2009 at 11:35

    What difficulty did you play it on?

    Reply

  6. sparky

    November 10, 2009 at 11:43

    yeah that is kind of short will pick it up after dragon age , uncharted, forza 3 so maybe next year march lol
    seriously there r so many great games out there but cod is mostly for fans of multiplayer is it not?

    Reply

  7. RSA-Ace

    November 10, 2009 at 11:54

    Does the game include all the time you spend dying on a section. Or is it total game time (including all the time you spend dying on a section)?

    Reply

    • LazySAGamer

      November 10, 2009 at 12:10

      Not sure actually… my real time timings were pretty close so I would go with it including your death and replay times

      Reply

  8. John

    November 10, 2009 at 12:01

    Play it on Hardened idiot.

    Reply

    • Goose

      November 10, 2009 at 12:19

      Sigh…

      Reply

      • bboy

        November 10, 2009 at 13:37

        lol, yeah

        Reply

    • Recon

      November 10, 2009 at 22:32

      Veteran difficulty would definitely make it harder and if you can do that in under 5 hours, then maybe people have some belief.

      My sister’s boyfriend finished CoD:WaW in under 5 hours on easy. He’s still working on Veteran and can barely finish each level.

      Reply

      • thegamerchick

        November 11, 2009 at 09:37

        Your sister’s boyfriend’s a wanker! I finished it on Veteran and I’m a chick for god’s sakes!

        Reply

  9. Fred

    November 10, 2009 at 12:03

    Ah what the hell , most people jump into multiplayer before even doing the single player anyway , but yes they could have made it at least an 8 hour campaign on standard difficulty. CAN WE GET SOME FREE DLC ACTIVISION , OR IS THERE A BETTER CHANCE OF SNOW IN THE KALAHARI…

    Reply

  10. Goose

    November 10, 2009 at 12:10

    I know the Multiplayer for this will be amazing but 5 hours (albeit on easy) is way too short in my opinion.

    Reply

  11. MrCrimson

    November 10, 2009 at 12:36

    I beat it in 7 on vet.

    Reply

  12. Jay

    November 10, 2009 at 12:39

    Hey, John – reading not your strong point, eh? Idiot.

    Reply

  13. TeRRoRoFdEaTh

    November 10, 2009 at 12:51

    South African Gamer making headlines on N4G!! yay go SA!! 😎 😎

    Reply

  14. Q121

    November 10, 2009 at 13:02

    I like short games, more chance I will actually finish it 🙂

    :pirate: > :ninja:

    Reply

  15. WitWolfyZA

    November 10, 2009 at 13:15

    i have enough war games for the time being ill just stick to what i have

    Reply

  16. Dan

    November 10, 2009 at 13:22

    You say that you didn’t race through it but yet you admit to playing through it to see how long the campaign lasts.

    In all likelihood you may not have purposefully ‘rushed’ through the game but I’d wager that you didn’t spend time taking in the little details and the atmosphere that the game has to offer.

    I fired it up this morning and I tried the assault course alone three times before moving onto the next section.

    Reply

    • RSA-Ace

      November 10, 2009 at 13:26

      WTF?

      Your first sentence is terrible. What makes you think playing through the campaign to see how long it lasts means that you have to race through it.

      Why do you need to defend the game so much? It still got rated highly and that is without the multiplayer.

      Reply

    • LazySAGamer

      November 10, 2009 at 13:27

      I played through the game to get a review out on Launch day seeing as we didn’t get the game early.

      I didn’t rush but I didn’t investigate my surroundings either. I did watch all the cut scenes even though I don’t know if they count towards the time.

      You can read the review through the link at the top left if you like, the game is awesome 🙂

      Reply

  17. john

    November 10, 2009 at 13:32

    5 hours for ANY game, whilst being played normally is too short imo. Give me a game with 12hr+ baby!!

    Reply

  18. Ndibu

    November 10, 2009 at 13:35

    Hey Terror, what’s the big deal? If N4G was a respectable site your comment would have merit, instead its overrun by fanboys from the Microsoft Camp and Sony Defence Force and being featured on it is no great achievement

    Reply

  19. TeRRoRoFdEaTh

    November 10, 2009 at 14:33

    @ Ndibu

    Well its just good to see some South African content being published on International websites, regardless of whether its a fanboy site. South Africa’s getting some publicity!

    Reply

  20. Face13

    November 10, 2009 at 15:18

    That’s a deal breaker for me I was on the fence about buying this game an know i know its not for me. That’s just too short for $60.

    Reply

  21. Ndibu

    November 10, 2009 at 15:46

    @Terror
    South Africa’s getting publicity?? Dude we are hosting the most important sporting event, the World Cup. It’s not like we are some obscure lil town in Peru or something

    Reply

  22. HardBoiE

    November 10, 2009 at 16:04

    Dude, put it on a harder difficulty and give your self a challenge. Then it will take longer. Dont blame the game, its a very good story and with the amount of time spent playing multi, you will get your money worth easy. Divide hours of play by how many dollars it cost you. In just a month the game may end up costing only $1/hour in a year way way less than that. Everyone just needs to stop winging about games and just be happy to play… You’ve all been way to spoiled by, now if a game is remotely dissapointing… you all egt on the cry wagon.

    Reply

  23. kapy

    November 10, 2009 at 16:08

    Am I the only one to think this “too short” obsession with a Call of Duty game is a bit ridiculous because those games are now so multiplayer-oriented? Of course, if you don’t intend to play the game online, it’s short and you have to wonder if it’s worth the full price. But since Infinity Ward puts so much effort in the multiplayer side of the game, playing only single player is also passing on a huge chunk of the game…

    Reply

  24. David Macphail

    November 10, 2009 at 16:36

    Yes, 5 hours is far too short for a game that costs £40. No, a beefy online mode does not excuse the wimpy single – player mode, not even a bit.

    Look at the TRUE AAA games of recent years – GTA:IV takes around 80 hours to finish to 100%. Metal Gear Solid 4 takes over 50 hours.

    I, personally, felt that the 2 Uncharted games were a tad too short (They clock in at around 12 hours each). 4 and 3/4 hours for a campaign mode is absolutely pathetic, it’s an insult to gamers. I’m glad i didn’t buy this game now.

    Reply

  25. www.wikus.co.za

    November 10, 2009 at 16:45

    Seriously that sucks, I used to love RPGs like the FF series which took 80+ hours to complete the first time round and currently Borderlands which I’m enjoying at my own pace and have 12 hours already under the belt. It’s an experience you want to remember and if you got STML like me you’re screwed. :angel:

    Reply

  26. Chris

    November 10, 2009 at 17:08

    Welcome to the generation of expensive development. It seems developers simply don’t have the time these days to pump out games of expected quality and have them also be lengthy. Dragon Age Origins was credited for its length by a number of reviewers, yet such a factor would have generally been ignored and an expectation last generation.

    Reply

  27. BeenThereDoneThat

    November 10, 2009 at 17:10

    It’s shameful that we have to pay $65 for a less than 5 hour single player mode! Single player sound like an afterthought by the developers. A LOT of us like a long single player experience. I shouldn’t have to play it in HARD mode to get extra time…that’s a stupid excuse. I like the multiplayer too, but it’s not the only reason I buy games. I have a BUNCH of multiplayer games, and don’t really need another one. This one just got knocked down a few notches on MY “must buy” list.

    Reply

    • Matt

      November 10, 2009 at 18:57

      Your whole point goes down the drain by truly believing you are spending $65.00 on a less than 5 hour single player game. That’s so incorrect it’s ridiculous. People are spending their $65.00 on a great but short single player story, 23 co-op special opes missions, and an update (which by update, we’re not just talking a few more weapons and different maps) to arguably one of the best first person shooter multiplayer games of all time. Go look at the reviews on IGN and other sites. They all admit the single player could have been longer, but overall, this is one of the better packaged games this year and potentially ever.

      Reply

  28. TeRRoRoFdEaTh

    November 10, 2009 at 18:02

    @ Ndibu

    Publicity in the way of gaming.

    Reply

  29. Matt

    November 10, 2009 at 18:07

    Try playing it on Veteran. You can’t complain about a game being short if you’re already making it quicker and easier by simply playing on easy or even normal. That’s just lame. While I will say this time around was quite a bit easier on Veteran, Modern Warfare 1 is one of the hardest games I have played on veteran. It took me a while to beat because of the difficulty

    Reply

  30. easy

    November 10, 2009 at 18:25

    i’m not sure what the fuss is all about?
    the sp portion of the game is a just a bonus, and the main attraction is the mp part. battlefield 2 (not the bad company spin offs) didn’t have a campaign and was at the time one of the best shooters out there… at it was at full cost.

    mw2 is all about online, and raking up 100+ hours makes it one of the cheaper games out there in regards to value per hour played.

    Reply

  31. whyman

    November 10, 2009 at 19:16

    I also think it was way to short. Finished it in one sitting. :pinch: About 5 hours.

    Reply

  32. klarax

    November 10, 2009 at 19:48

    in uk game = £40

    8 hr game / £40 = £5 per hr playtime

    4 hrs would be = £10 and hr

    seems pricey…

    Reply

    • Matt

      November 10, 2009 at 21:26

      Either you play only single player games, or you aren’t thinking straight….

      Let’s say someone who wants a challenge plays it on Veteran mode.

      10 hours – single player

      Then add in multiplayer – 30 hours (low number for most when it comes to the first modern warfare)

      Then the New Special Ops Mode…
      This mode is said to take even longer than the single player mode. Let’s hand it 15 hours in getting all 3 stars on each of the 23 levels.

      So do the math. 55 hours total play, and that is a low number IMO. that makes the game about $1.00 per hour. Now take the number to where I think it will be for the average player, about 75 hours. Less than a dollar an hour. So you cannot just base it off of single player.

      Reply

  33. Gaz

    November 10, 2009 at 20:01

    I suppose it goes how good you are at games, how many hours a day you spend playing them. And some people spend soooooooooo much time playing them because they’ve got nothing else better to do in their life. But at £45+, no game is worth that much. It makes no difference to me how long a game lasts for, I buy used games and I swap them. Gaming can be cheap if you stick by your guns…

    Reply

  34. fr1dg3

    November 10, 2009 at 21:06

    If you buy Modern Warfare 2 on any platform just for the SP then you are waisting your time and money…I got it last night midnight and have played more MP than SP…Just started the SP and yes its short but very challenging on higher difficulties and the story is brilliant imo…Show me a fps that is longer than 7 or 8 hours in anyway…

    COD was alway and will always be a MP game with a side order of awesome SP…

    Reply

  35. karlos

    November 10, 2009 at 21:27

    i completed it on veteran in 4 hours 11 minutes and 28 seconds beat that

    Reply

  36. cdisnumber1

    November 10, 2009 at 21:55

    HOW MANY HOURS HAVE YOU SPENT ON MULTIPLAYER?????
    multiplayer is now the bread and butter for mst fps games
    Ex 1: Halo 3, a story that just kind of make a square peg fit in a round hole, AND MULTIPLAYER
    Ex 2: Killzone 2, bad story bad dialouge cliff-hanger ending GAY, ANd MULTIPLAYER

    Reply

  37. cdisnumber1

    November 10, 2009 at 21:58

    cod sux you sux england sux america sux and your mom sux

    Reply

  38. ps3fan001

    November 10, 2009 at 22:03

    teh 360 version suxor so bad that god tried to smite teh develepers

    Reply

  39. 360rulezson

    November 10, 2009 at 22:04

    dude don’t be an ass why don’t you go back to the playstation forums and beat off to the two girls who post there

    Reply

  40. Snip

    November 10, 2009 at 22:06

    I finished MW2 on Veteran in just over six hours. Since there are no more infinitely respawning enemies and grenade spam, the game is much easier than any other COD has ever been. Now you can just stop and pick off the bad guys until they are all dead, then move on. You can take quite a bit more damage on Veteran than you ever could before. If you are having a hard time, it’s because you are rushing in to move the line forward, something that no longer applies. All in all, I was surprised how easy the game was.

    But whatever, we don’t buy COD for the single player anyway.

    Reply

  41. ps3fan001

    November 10, 2009 at 22:07

    you and your system suxor tell your mom ill be over soon

    Reply

  42. 360rulez

    November 10, 2009 at 22:08

    omfg shut up and ted i’ll see you tomorrow at school

    Reply

  43. ps3fan001

    November 10, 2009 at 22:09

    ima hump yo girl

    Reply

  44. 360rulezson

    November 10, 2009 at 22:10

    really “cuz my girl” is your sister

    Reply

  45. ps3fan001

    November 10, 2009 at 22:10

    you be gay “son”

    Reply

  46. 360rulezson

    November 10, 2009 at 22:11

    and that is why your a flaming homosexual

    Reply

  47. LazySAGamer

    November 10, 2009 at 22:21

    Not to ruin all your fun but the randomly generated Wavatar image kind off shows everyone that your email address is the same ps3fan001, 360rulezson and cdisnumber1?

    You may want to change your email address for each of your multiple personalities

    Reply

  48. TheMostAwesomeDude

    November 10, 2009 at 23:38

    F_CK infinity Ward-a-pus…I was gona buy it for the single player….Now this is a definite rental game for me….sigh…(~_~)…

    Reply

  49. Tactical Ambush

    November 11, 2009 at 01:42

    It may be short, but it is still very challenging on the harder levels. As a person who has many responsibilities, I’m somewhat happy that games are a little shorter. That allows me to finish in a reasonable time and still get stuff done. I bought for multiplayer anyways and the replay value of that alone to me is worth price.

    Reply

    • Brando

      November 11, 2009 at 04:41

      yeah, even i’m getting older and have other things to do, but that doesn’t change the fact that you get a greater value with more game to play. Games were born on a single-player scheme, and you can’t just cop-out and say that multiplayer is great and a good value. Multiplayer is still the same stuff over & over again, even if it’s fun. The artistry and effort into a game is it’s story or single-player mode, no matter what kind of game it is.
      If a game is multiplayer only, or its multiplayer mode is so good it is the absolute focus (such that nobody ever even WANTS to play the story mode), then you can judge a game solely on its value as a multiplayer game.

      Reply

    • S_K_Y_N_E_T

      January 8, 2010 at 12:37

      No that is 100% not a record, I played Modern Warfare 2 for the first time last night, I finished the game in 4hours and 25minutes.

      Reply

  50. Nick de Bruyne

    November 11, 2009 at 02:18

    Does anyone else only see a count of 288 views for this article? I checked the analytics and its actually sitting on around 4500 at the time of writing

    Reply

    • LazySAGamer

      November 11, 2009 at 02:40

      The counters are broken… I suspected as much before but it has now been confirmed…

      Time to try a different approach, maybe a redesign is in order :ninja:

      Reply

  51. Nath

    November 11, 2009 at 05:07

    5 hours or under for a £45 game? shit thats bad lol… when i bought Madworld for my Wii (i payed £30 for it with loadz of free stuff lol) it took me around 4-5 hours to complete, hmm just a watse of cash i think, CODMW2 is way overated.

    Reply

  52. Karl

    November 11, 2009 at 08:39

    5 hour single player
    200 hour multiplayer

    45 pounds isn’t a bad investment then 🙂

    Reply

  53. bcbird

    November 11, 2009 at 08:59

    nath… as tacticalambush said – you buy this game for the multiplayer. Don’t get me wrong – I freaking love the campaign (I think i’ve almost finished it) – and wish it were longer, but they have put a ton of effort into the multiplayer.

    Reply

  54. Lazard

    November 11, 2009 at 09:50

    I beat MW2 in a little over 5 hrs on … (wait for it) … veteran. That’s right, that hardest difficulty on a little over 5 hrs. So don’t tell me it’s challenging. It’s not.

    Reply

  55. Phoreals

    November 11, 2009 at 10:23

    How did this article make it to 400 degrees on n4g, yet only get 350 reads?

    Reply

    • LazySAGamer

      November 11, 2009 at 10:55

      The read counter has been broken for a while…

      For anyone who cares 1000 degrees on N4G equals about 6000 uniques but most of them drop in and leave again and therefore nothing really to aim for…

      We love you locals more :wub:

      Reply

      • Phoreals

        November 11, 2009 at 11:01

        Thanks for the response 🙂

        Reply

      • Phoreals

        November 11, 2009 at 11:03

        Thanks for the response 🙂 I thought maybe it only counted local IP addresses.

        As for this game, on PC anyways + 5 hour campaign vs crippled MP + above average retail price = most epic fail of 2009.

        I see Dragon Age Origins is selling for R330, now that is value for money.

        Reply

  56. Someone

    November 11, 2009 at 10:55

    So people who don’t play the MP part of the game has to fork out Over R700 for a game thats about 5Hrs long…

    Given the MP is awesome.
    But its just the same thing over and over.
    Its like playing the SP 2x over to up the play time.

    Looking at a game like GTA where the SP is 30hrs+ easy and it has MP.

    I’d say the shortest a game should be is around 8hrs.
    But like Res5.
    It takes 6hrs~ish but took about 4days to complete.

    Not one sitting of 4hrs…

    Reply

  57. doobiwan

    November 11, 2009 at 12:33

    That’s just too short for an SP campaign if they sell the game as an SP experience. That’s more like just a prologue or tutorial. I felt Brutal Legend was a cheat at 9 hours.

    Reply

  58. Holden

    November 11, 2009 at 23:57

    I beat Killzone 2 in 4 hours 27 minutes and Metal Gear Solid 4 in 4 hours 43 minutes.. No one bought Modern Warfare 2 for the Single Player Captain. Its multi-player will last for hundreds and hundreds of hours..

    Reply

    • Syth

      May 20, 2010 at 07:42

      MGS4 in 4 hours 43 minutes….Uhm, yeah. Whatever.

      Reply

  59. Rob

    November 15, 2009 at 16:48

    Well lets not forget the Spec Ops mode.

    It’s single or co-op, on or offline.

    I think there are around 28 missions or so.

    Reply

  60. Masiam

    November 17, 2009 at 21:55

    I complete Modern warfare 2 in 12:36:26 on hardend level….

    Reply

  61. Phil

    December 6, 2009 at 20:18

    No I completed in 2 hours 12 mins 24.845849573958201 seconds.

    Reply

  62. niall

    January 13, 2010 at 12:56

    i completed mw2 on veternan in jus over over 6 hours suck on dat and got a 48 kill streak online

    Reply

  63. stokka

    January 19, 2010 at 15:47

    hi, i finished at 3:56:23 .. lol at recruit.. but i rushed trough tho.. lol, small SP, long MP

    Reply

  64. Oscar

    May 19, 2010 at 22:40

    Just sat down to play it and before I knew it I’d finished it in under 3 hours (regular). FAR too short for so much money. Games like GTA are so much better when it comes too value for money, MW are rip-offs!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

There Won’t be a Mainline Call of Duty Game Released in 2023

The Call of Duty franchise has been a staple in the gaming industry since its debut in 200…