6-8 hours of game play? That's it?!

They expect me to pay for a game I will only have at the VERY most 8 hours of gameplay when you have plenty of games for the same price with over 80+ hours?

40$ game at a conservative 250 000 copies sold = 10 000 000$, quite the nice profit, they could at least bother to make the game over 25 hours (at the VERY minimum).

NO I don't want to play MP, it's same old, same old and I'm no fan of realism based MP games. I know I'm a minority these days when it comes to FPS and realism, hehe.

If you like MP, you'll get your money's worth I'm sure, if you don't, don't buy it, play it from a friend who has a copy.

Serious Sam, Red Faction, RtCW and now this, can't wait for C&C:Renegade, at least it has an innovative MP, even if the SP will be no more than 10 hours "sigh". They'll get my money as for the 1st 3 mentionned and this game... sorry, maybe next time.

The ending was awfull by the way.

------------------
See you in there.

ill agree with you that not everyone want to play MP. i enjoy the occasional MP skirmish, but nothing serious. simply i dont have time.
i will be buying it, dispite what ive heard...like too short, crap ending etc, there are already mods in progress and more to come im sure.
the game itself may not be worth the $40 or £30, but the results of mod makers and addons make those games worthwhile in the long run.


------------------
I can't help about the shape I'm in, I can't sing I ain't pretty and my legs are thin. But don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to.

WHAT, there is a sp? j/k.
I'm sorry you did not like this game. I for one rather play MP as SP tends to get boring for me. I did however like MOH's SP. I thought the AL was the best so far. Now that I got the SP out of the way. All I will play is MP. I like the challenge of MP with real opponents.

I agree for $40-$50 buck is a lot of a game, but I think this one is well worth it and can't wait for the other 2 upcoming versions.


------------------
Not so Rude,
RudeDog
http://www.landi.net/rd.jpg

I'm glad you don't like the game, that way you can leave these forums and we don't have to put up with you.

No replies, just get outta here now please.

------------------
http://stowned.homestead.com/files/verzijl.gif

"Nuts"
- General MacAuliffe (when asked to surrender during the Battle of the Bulge, 1944)

Well, Blashy, the rest of us are pretty happy you didn't pay for it, too. I can just imagine your whining in multiplayer about this or that.

Kinda ironic, though, to hear you b*tch about the evil profits when you didn't even pay for the game you just played. I guess if you have "Co." or "Inc" after your name, its evil to charge people what they're willing to pay, but when you enjoy the product without paying at all....well, as long as you don't have "Inc" in your name, you're a victim. Otherwise, it's called theft.

------------------
http://www.libertyleather.com/images/crowsig.jpg
"If your philosophy does not produce corn, I don't want to hear about it." - Red Bear

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blashy:

40$ game at a conservative 250 000 copies sold = 10 000 000$, quite the nice profit, they could at least bother to make the game over 25 hours (at the VERY minimum).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is RAW profit. What about the programmers behind the game (and other costs to run the company)? The company's image might not be a good one, but the programmers behind the game are people just like you and me (i'm a web programmer - close enough... he he) and if they go belly up, what do you think that happens those people? I beleive that in these rough times, we should support them... no?

single play sucks (every game)mp rocks.AI is always too predictable and easy in all games.

It's really not all that surprising that the SP game comes across as short on the PC. The game has console roots; that's no secret. Quake III engine aside, MOH:AA is designed just like its console bretheren on the Playstation, only this time with the typical "save anywhere" PC feature. This shortens up the game because it does not force you to replay levels until you get them perfect ... which is fine by me.

Since the PSX Medal of Honor (which was brilliant) I have wanted a PC version of the game, not just for the game itself and keyboard/mouse controls, nor for the multiplayers aspect. I've wanted a PC version for the wealth of user-created add-ons that are sure to flood the online community in the months following the game's release. PC games have longer legs that console games *despite* being generally easier to beat (due to save options) for this exact reason.

Half-Life is four years old and is still wildy popular, still cool as hell, and has probably the single greatest assortment of mods and add-ons anywhere. My hope is that MoH will see a similar (if not as huge) base of support, with plenty of new fun designed by users.

*That's* why I bought MoH:AA for the PC rather than wait for the XBox version or skip it altogether. Only 8-12 hours of SP gaming? So what! They were *great* hours of gaming as good as, and better, than anything else on the market ... and the fun is only just beginning.

I agree re: not paying. Lazy programmers, unrealistic gameplay (snipers firing randomly around the corner, and hitting 100% of the time, regardless of where you move; enemy soldiers invulnerable to fire and explosions, etc), slow frame rates on a decent machine (1.7G AMD with a geforce3), no save-game overwrite feature... The list is too long. RtCW was a much better experience.

I wish the moderators banned people who talk about using warez.

It's funny that people who post about using warez are flamed, but really the forum mods need to take charge.

Crime will always exist.

Never trust a man who uses numbers as a name.

------------------
I can't help about the shape I'm in, I can't sing I ain't pretty and my legs are thin. But don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to.

If I want good WW2 MP I would get DoD Beta 2. If I want good WW2 SP I get....nothing!

sorry, scumbag - i did pay for mine, and i regret it deeply. i was simply agreeing with the original poster's sentiment. as for me using numbers... well, 'CaptBunny'... nuf said.

Ahhh well boo-fucking-hoo-hoo. I'm sorry that MOH didn't give you a hard on. http://www.alliedassault.com/ubb/frown.gif

Whats with all the whiny, spoiled litte-brats in this thread?
Boo-hoo Germans keep sniping me and I can't beat Omaha! This game sucks. Only 8-hours of the best Single player experience ever? What a F*(king rip-off! 2105 is lazy, only my opinon matters and noone-else's! They should have made the game like I wanted it!

I ain't paying for this sh*t. I got my DSL which my mommy pays for so I can just warez this pos! Whoop-de-doo! Look at me everyone! I'm a F**king Moron!

*(incase you really are a moron, I am being sarcastic)*

Over all I sort of like MOA even though it has some problems. It might be such as with The Deadly Dozen that the game designers were pushed because of a release date set by the company. That was the case with TDD. Now they have a patch, but it doesn't do all that much. I do agree $50.00 is a bit too much for a game that does have it's problems. Atleast MOA does not have a bunch of zombie crap like Wolfenstein. RTCW is a nice game and I still play it. No doubt RTCW has the best graphics.

I sort of like MOH even though I agree the price was a bit too much. Atleast MOH stayed more with reality than that of RTCW which ended up being another Clive Barker's "Undying" with allot of zombies. The game designers of MOH like "Deadly Dozen" were pushed to finish the game because of a release date. If game designers are given more time to finish the product they are asked to do we would be all happy campers and would not complain so much about the price of the games. Most of these games are company hype anyway to get people all excited then they will pay huge prices.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Whats with all the whiny, spoiled litte-brats in this thread?
Boo-hoo Germans keep sniping me and I can't beat Omaha! This game sucks. Only 8-hours of the best Single player experience ever? What a F*(king rip-off! 2105 is lazy, only my opinon matters and noone-else's! They should have made the game like I wanted it!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so, what is what he doing any different than the HUNDREDS of posts and threads on this board telling the exact same thing - except they gladly paid for it. Funny. Pot calling the kettle black. Folks can whine about in-game modifications, but others cant complain about the overall experience.

And tell me he doesn't make any valid points.

shalom

ah the warez version has everything except the idiotic price tag. 1.1 patch works great on it.

why pay for it when it cant average higher than 30fps outdoors with 32 ppl on omaha; ingame browser is junk compared to old fps games; servers lag u out with more than 10 ppl playing, etc, etc.; the product needs a lot of patching.

Not to say that the game isnt good; i love mohaa mp and sp; mostly cuz it was free but its a great game nonetheless; but why pay for it if the free version works fine?

to reward the ppl behind the game u say? do u think the game got released and no one got paid? so many games make it to retail and go down the toilet, but ppl still got paid for their part before that, unless they were all complete idiots. like u guys who bought the game...

most of u who bought it have lots of cash to throw away, or are too lazy to dl the freebie and/or too dumb to get it working online. there's no shame in that; just admit it.

Lizard - do you like posting on this MESSAGE BOARD?

Antaganizing those that have paid for this game (including the mods - lol), isn't the way to go.

Folks like [5DV]LiZaRD are puzzling not because they are unable to admit that what they do is stealing, or because they are unable to ascertain the difference between right and wrong ...

... No, they are puzzling because they take *pride* in their theft, treating it like a badge of honor or some signal that they are sophisticated. Strange, that.

That sort of attitude does not signal intelligence or sophistication; quite opposite. It screams "I am an emotionally endeveloped child!" Why they cannot see that, even at their tender young age, I will never understand.

[5DV]LiZaRD, if you want to steal games, fine. Whatever. But don't try to justify it, because there is no justification. Don't try to claim it is anything that it isn't. And dear God, if you don't want to look like a pre-pubescent twit whose only means of feeling "empowered" is the Internet, don't *brag* about it. There are far better things to brag about. Steal and keep your mouth shut.

I find that FPS developers are lazy if you look at other types of game RTS/RPG they can go upwards of 100 hours of gameplay, only in SP, is 25+ hours so much to ask for?

Looks like I'm not the only one:
www.ve3d.com

01/30/2002
How many hours do you think a full retail priced single player first person shooter should take to win?
Over 25 Hours (3236) 44%
16-20 Hours (1821) 25%
21-25 Hours (1446) 20%
11-15 Hours (708) 10%
5-10 Hours (161) 2%
Total Votes: 7372


------------------
See you in there.

Nobody wants to hear someone whine about what they dont like. No one can make you like something, and it all comes down to your taste in games. Whats the point of even being on these forums if you dont enjoy the game and all you do is rant about how much you hate it and how dissapointed you are?

------------------
http://www.iron-wolf.f2s.com/sig.gif

Blashy, if you are unable to understand the fundamental differences between a FPS and an RPG, or the vast differences between designed a RTS and a FPS, well, you certainly won't understand why FPSs are historically shorter games. At their core, the games are different, and *designing* the games is a much different process.

That said, shooters *are, getting shorter these days, by and large.

At one time shooters did pack in a lot more gameplay time. The Internet has changed that. Multiplay has changed that. The advent (and success) of multiplay-only shooters has changed that. A game does not have to pack in as much SP gameplay because what publishers and developers really want is for games to have a long life via online play and the contributions of the mod community. And, right or wrong, the idea has panned out fairly well for many games.

Blashy why don't you try and develop an FPS game, spending all-nighters and time away from your family for weeks on end, and putting all your effort into the game, only to have someone call you "lazy".

Do that and you MIGHT have the right to call 2015 lazy.

[This message has been edited by Sh3ll_Sh0ck (edited February 03, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Sh3ll_Sh0ck (edited February 03, 2002).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shoegaze99:
Blashy, if you are unable to understand the fundamental differences between a FPS and an RPG, or the vast differences between designed a RTS and a FPS, well, you certainly won't understand why FPSs are historically shorter games. At their core, the games are different, and *designing* the games is a much different process.

That said, shooters *are, getting shorter these days, by and large.

At one time shooters did pack in a lot more gameplay time. The Internet has changed that. Multiplay has changed that. The advent (and success) of multiplay-only shooters has changed that. A game does not have to pack in as much SP gameplay because what publishers and developers really want is for games to have a long life via online play and the contributions of the mod community. And, right or wrong, the idea has panned out fairly well for many games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
well said. i concur



------------------
http://www.iron-wolf.f2s.com/sig.gif
Visit my site and I might make you a signature Iron-Wolf

I'm finding it amusing some of the critique's of this game. There are some people who complain of only 6-8 hours of gameplay. They are totally ignoring all the craft work that went into the various textures, sound and AI. Have any of them looked inside the PAK files at all the elements that 2015 created. They went out of their way to make sure repetitious textures never surfaced. Again, I like to see the complainers try to create something themselves. Most of them are probably in the food-service or house-keeping industries anyway....(that last remark came from Ghosbusters):>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by quiet:
I wish the moderators banned people who talk about using warez.

It's funny that people who post about using warez are flamed, but really the forum mods need to take charge.

Crime will always exist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't find the part where he says "I have the game or I played the game but I didn't pay for it".

He did say "play it from a friend who has a copy", but I find that okay.

Other than that, he has every rights to critize a game.

Don't get me wrong, those 6-8 hours I found excellent.

Even if it was the best FPS I had ever played (HALO is the king, next HL) I would still critic the game negatively because of it's length. BTW, HALO is about 10 hours as well, but I "might" buy it for PC because of the incredible MP possibilities, alhtough I might be engrossed in C&C:Renegade before that, heh http://www.alliedassault.com/ubb/wink.gif.

As I said, if you can play it from a friend who has a copy, unless you enjoy the MP, although I find DoD to be a much better WW2 experience (if that's your type of game)

------------------
See you in there.

Multi player is my favorite - I think the AI of the players in Multi is incredible!- They try different strategies all the time and aren't always in the same place!

lol

it will be the mod makers that make this game even better look at half life or unreal thats when you get your moneys worth

------------------
http://www.cannabinoid.com/boards/po...a/30/30491.jpg