Home Gaming You Tell Me: Are Longer/Harder Games Automatically Better Games?

You Tell Me: Are Longer/Harder Games Automatically Better Games?

4 min read
26

Haarddaa.jpg

With last week’s reviews of both Modern Warfare 2 and Ghostbusters, both being games with short campaigns, it got us thinking… what length is appropriate for a single player game?

This actually had me thinking of it from a slightly different viewpoint. You see, my wife and I are both playing through Modern Warfare 2’s single player campaign at the same time. While I am slugging it out the first time around on the hardened difficulty, she is happily cruising along on regular.

I get more of a challenge, not to mention a longer amount of playtime, while she just simply experiences the story and will run through the game a lot quicker than me.

Does this instantly mean that I get the better deal? I’m not so sure.

We posted up an article last week about Lazygamer (Gavin) finishing the game on the easiest difficulty in just on around 4 hours and 44 minutes. He obviously pointed out that a sub 5 hour campaign ain’t exactly the longest he has ever played through. Many of you argued that he would have gotten a lot more time out of the game had he played on a harder difficulty level.

As mentioned earlier, I am playing on Hardened and at around the four hour mark I have been told that I am only roughly halfway through the game. Am I getting a bigger challenge? Sure. Am I having a better experience than my Wife or Gavin? Not so sure.

I enjoy a challenge and there are many out there like me but hardened has been pretty tough at times so far and when I say pretty tough, I mean “Screw you, you stupid game, I don’t give a crap if there is a rocket launcher across the road on the roof, there are also like 9 million guys with guns who want me dead” kind of tough (nevermind veteran).

Don’t get me wrong, I am still enjoying the hell out of it, the only major difference is that when I hit a roadblock that requires me trying to get through a section over and over again because I am just dying like a noob, I obviously become frustrated. This is something that the other two didn’t really experience. So then, I am getting more play time but does that mean I am actually having a better time?

I have also played other games in the past on harder difficulties for the same reasons, more challenge and more playtime but then I never actually get around to finishing them after getting stuck. Did I have a better experience than people who actually got to see the end credits?

chernobylNightmares.jpg

above: I think this level added 2 hours onto my COD 4 final playtime

A friend playing on Hardened difficulty told me today that he had just finished the game in just under 8 hours and that sounds pretty reasonable to me, especially considering that Modern Warfare 2 is more about the multiplayer than the single player.

Problem with this, is that Modern Warfare 2 will be bought by zillions of people and of those people, an absolute ton of them will be casuals that get pulled into the biggest game launch of all time, I mean, who the heck isn’t going to buy this game (*PC gamers COUGH*).

All of those people new to gaming or consoles are going to want to play but couldn’t be bothered with a challenge, heck, to them using thumbsticks for a first person shooter is a challenge in itself. Those folks are all going to pay full price for the game, only to have their full priced game be over in a matter of a couple of hours (keeping in mind that a lot of these people will not be interested in the multiplayer).

Modern Warfare 2 also offers a mind blowing “Hollywood” action experience over the course of a few hours as opposed to a game like Fallout 3 that was a lot slower paced and involved a lot of walking, inventory management and so on.

Two very different game types that need to be looked at differently. Does the fast paced scripted action make up for the shorter game? If you pay the usual movie ticket price, do you expect a tight 2 hours plot or a 5 hour, slower paced movie? Does longer still mean better?

So here is the question for you folks and I want to hear your side of things on this topic. Harder equals longer but possibly a less enjoyable experience. Shorter could prove to be more fun, especially for casuals and those who don’t have a lot of time on their hands.

It’s your turn, tell us what you think.

Last Updated: November 16, 2009

26 Comments

  1. Well I finished it on Hardened Mode in 5 hours and about 40 minutes…I did however play it on PC. Maybe console fps gamers are just noobs :tongue: :ninja:

    Reply

  2. easy

    November 16, 2009 at 13:03

    to be honest, i would’ve been happy if they had dropped the sp portion altogether. just like mw1, i was left feeling kinda pissed that i only spent 6 hours (4+ hours for mw1) and its over. of course i could go a play it again on hardened or vet, but i wanted to experience the story in a calm enjoyable manner.
    anyway, playing hardened or vet does not add anything to actually playing real people on mp, so imo its pointless and only for die-hard fans.

    mw is all about mp, and i think they should either stick to just that or if they have to put a campaign in, make sure its worth the effort.
    having said that, i am enjoying spec-ops, and have already raked up double the time i spent on the campaign, on spec-ops.

    o and playing the sp on vet just to get your monies worth is a misguided attempt to justify the lack-luster campaign in terms of hours.

    Reply

    • Nick de Bruyne

      November 16, 2009 at 13:08

      I have to say, I wouldn’t want them to drop the SP completely. I know MP is where it’s at but I still enjoy the campaign for what it is.

      Reply

      • easy

        November 16, 2009 at 13:43

        i also enjoyed the campaign, while it lasted, but its twice now that i’ve left with ‘WTF, is that it?’
        also what adds to the wtf moment, is the story is pretty disjointed, and is not as cohesive as it could’ve been… its got that collection of short stories feel about it, not sure if thats a good thing or not.

        i’m not slagging the game at all, its just that i would prefer to see it been handled differently, and not another re-hash of mw1… which is what it is really

        Reply

  3. Geoff

    November 16, 2009 at 13:17

    Me? I’d rather have a short game that engages me, than some long, drawn-out game full of uninteresting filler.

    Of course, that perfect middleground would be best.

    Reply

  4. Puppystuffer

    November 16, 2009 at 13:19

    As far as the harder the better goes, has anyone played demons souls? There’s a game that somehow evn though it does nothing but brutaly kicks your ass never feels unfair, it’s as hard as hell, but it never feels like the game has cheated you. If all hardest difficulties felt like that I’d be way more interested in playing games on harder difficulties, unfortunately what harder difficulties really mean most of the time is that the enemies have tons more health and do more damage while u stay the same, it’s a bit of a cop out if you ask me.

    Reply

  5. arc316

    November 16, 2009 at 13:21

    I look at it for an investment point of view. If it takes just as much work to make MW2 than it takes to make oblivion or dragon age then they should be able to charge the same.

    But I cant see how developing ‘n game with a 6 our campaign can be the same amount of work as developing an RPG that has a bizzilion hours of play time. So I think it should be cheaper. I also don’t think you can say it takes longer when its more difficult just because you play some parts over and over.

    I just hope they don’t catch on to this fact and start charging R1200 for the proper RPG. :blink:

    Reply

  6. Darkling

    November 16, 2009 at 13:43

    This just got me thinking,imagine if Fallout 3 had modern warfare 2’s graphics? Anyhoo,I think that’s why Fallout had such average graphics and animations,the developers took most of their time to create a 100 hours + game.

    Reply

  7. IloveBobbyKotick

    November 16, 2009 at 14:01

    I prefer quality over mass produced drivel (guitar hero anyone?). If games are going to be shorter, than have the decency to release them as episodic content or charge us much less for them. This is one of reasons why I never buy games on launch day. R699 for a glorified MP game with a short SP (no matter how enjoyable it might be) is not a good deal. Now R699 for a +100 hour monstrosity with a gripping storyline that’ll keep me entertained for the next few months, will find a worthy spot in my game collection.

    What I have noticed about the current generation of gamers is that they’re far too eager for instant gratification (brought on by MPs, and quite honestly I think most of our younger gamers have a penchant for attention disorders ( :tongue: you have to admit it’s true).

    Reply

  8. Lupus

    November 16, 2009 at 14:01

    Depending on the game for me, if it is an RPG and it is under 30 hours I’d feel ripped off. If it is an FPS and it is over 10 hours I’d get bored. Also OSOK took me four hours of gaming to finish, blood level.

    Reply

  9. Reaver

    November 16, 2009 at 14:04

    I’m with Geoff. I have much fonder memories of short games than I do of long games.
    I don’t care how good a game you tell me Oblivion is, it took me 2.5 hrs of killing lame rats and ghouls before I got out of that 1st damn sewer. That’s pure filler bullshit.

    Reply

  10. Milesh Bhana ZA

    November 16, 2009 at 14:06

    I like short games. Short games i actually finish. (By short i mean 7-8 hours of gameplay).

    But if it’s under 7 hours, it better be cheap (R350), or have awesome MP that I can easily find a game for.

    Reply

  11. IloveBobbyKotick

    November 16, 2009 at 14:08

    Who would have thought, my assessment of this gen’s gamers is correct, sigh. :pinch:

    Reply

    • Reaver

      November 16, 2009 at 14:20

      If you’re meaning that today’s younger gamers just want quick fixes, then I’ll have you know that I’ve been playing games for close on 20 years now. I’m not averse to longer games, hell I loved GTA4 to bits and played the crap outta quite a few other lengthy RPG’s. However I have a problem with people automatically dismissing a short game as poor. I think we can all agree that Max Payne was a stellar game, yet it was only about 8hrs long. In fact the shortest game I have ever played was Heart of Darkness on the Playstation. It was only about 3hrs long, yet it was one of the most impressive platform games I had ever played at that point.
      Basically what I’m trying to say is that quality should not be measured in quantity.

      Reply

  12. bboy

    November 16, 2009 at 14:12

    Dead Space Normal difficulty was so well matched to my ability that it made the experience great. I died seldomly but came very close almost all the time, it felt like true fight for survival and I got completely immersed because I didnt die and magically respawn back in time, i only moved forward.

    When you get into an airlock with 0.5 sec of Oxygen left or stumble away from a recently made corpse with your last bullet on practically zero health – it makes for great gaming!

    Reply

  13. Goose

    November 16, 2009 at 14:21

    More difficult doesn’t necessarily mean more rewarding. It depends on the game. Endlessly spawning enemies with much higher armour / health than you is not fun. Something like Skate, however, which was tricky to master was INCREDIBLY rewarding when you had a grip on the controls even though some challenges were tough.

    Long also doesn’t equal better if it’s boring. I think it depends on the type of game you enjoy. The thing that makes MW1 and 2 is the adrenalin rush of combat in MP. It’s a quick fix and keeps most people happy most of the time. I thought the SP campaign in 1 was brilliant but i felt genuinely annoyed that it was over so quickly.

    Something like dragon age which is HUUUGE is VERY rewarding even if it is incredibly slow compared to MW2. I personally love it but shooter fans will most likely hate it. Different strokes for different folks i guess.

    What irks me though is that MW2 will prob grab game of the year because so many people play it (because the MP is so fantastic even though the SP is too short) and something like Batman or Dragon age will get overlooked because it has no MP and wasn’t nearly as hyped.

    Reply

    • IloveBobbyKotick

      November 16, 2009 at 14:23

      Well said Goose.

      Reply

    • Goose

      November 16, 2009 at 14:29

      Not to mention Borderlands which was all kinds of fun

      Reply

  14. AL360

    November 16, 2009 at 14:39

    well i loved it and i had it on hardended
    an exra hour or 2 added would’ve been lekker but its fine by me as there is multiplayer and special ops
    to keep me occupied thou i want more sp rather than special ops

    Reply

  15. Maxiviper

    November 16, 2009 at 15:04

    I remeber that i played and finished cod 4 on all difficulty levels including Veteran, and i did not like that difficulty level not one bit.

    Reply

  16. WitWolfyZA

    November 16, 2009 at 15:28

    im probably the only noob here that doesnt like COD MW2. Its like a new Guitar Hero …. Same controls, different settings, more polish and little to next new ideas and just plain milking a franchise… Boring…..

    Im a dude that always welcomes new IPs 😀

    Reply

    • easy

      November 16, 2009 at 15:37

      just don’t go abusing walls because you don’t like it 😉

      jokes aside, i agree with your sentiment that the franchise is being milked (got milk?).. was to be expected though.

      Reply

    • SonofBeans

      November 16, 2009 at 17:15

      I agree bro, I agree. I have lost interest in this generations’ games and the developers’ MacDonalds approach to gaming. The majority may enjoy it, but look at Nazi Germany, the majority isn’t always right.

      Reply

  17. SonofBeans

    November 16, 2009 at 17:12

    Ok this is completely off the topic but I’m sure this will make Bobby Kotick spit some blood.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-total-video-games-sales-2009-11

    The Industry isn’t so recession proof after all, so Kotick if you’re reading this, stop with the substandard crap you’ve been releasing over the last few years.

    Reply

  18. V@mp

    November 16, 2009 at 20:05

    I enjoyed MW2’s SP although it wasn’t nearly as
    good as the first one. That being said,although I’m not
    a fan of games carrying on for too long, any game under
    7 hours that charges you full price (or in the case of the Pc version, an inflated price) is a serious rip-off.

    Reply

  19. WitWolfyZA

    November 17, 2009 at 09:08

    Im not saying the game sucks, but think about it this way. IW is following the same route as EA with their Fifa,Madden,NFS and all those other overly “milked” franchise games… Releasing the same crap everybody has been playing the whole year..Its just sequel on sequel… Gets old fast.

    Now Brutal Legend, Dragon Age, Bad Company are just a few new games that pop off my head but hey its new ideas. And thats what games are all about. Not lets bring COD WM4 out, but lets add like a head set so u can tell u squad to do kill that Terrorist hitting a homeless guy.

    well now that i think about it that would be a swell idea lol

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Check Also

Microsoft Replacing 1 vs 100 With Full House Poker

Remember how 1 vs 100 was going to revolutionise the way people spend their evening as wel…