Discussion in 'Games' started by BarbaricSoul, Mar 27, 2011.
No, that is about 20 hours short of what most functioning humans consider $60 to be worth.
oh cool, calling me a non functioning human. your right on the mark
Considering how most FPS are under 10 hours long on the highest difficulty i say crysis 2 seems perfect
So can I send you $50 so you can get a copy for yourself, a copy for me, and have enough money to ship it to the US?
It may be a different version altogether so that may be risky...
You can get it via CD or download from Amazon for $52.22 with a $15 giftcard for later
actually no, you're thinking console fps. on the whole pc fps are 20 hours +, many reaching up to 40 hours and beyond.
I think there are activation restrictions. You can only activate it in India. I don't know if you can activate it over an Indian proxy site.
Another such example is my copy of genuine Windows 7 Home Premium (retail) that I got for $70.
I've played most fps' starting with Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, etc (even Hovertank 3D when I was 7, if my memory serves) and there's not a single FPS that ever took me more than 20 hours to finish. The one that took me longer was HL2 and took me around 17 h.
For comparison, some random examples, old and new, are:
HL1 = 15 h
HL2 = 17 h
Halo 1 = 14 h
Farcry = 12 h
Doom 3 = 13 h
COD4 = 4 h
Crysis 1 = 12 h (spending a lot of time just looking around lol, second time through was 8h)
BFBC2 = 6 h
Bulletstorm = 9 h
So can you tell me which FPS lasts almost 40 hours? I can only think about STALKER series now and I don't consider them FPS really. As great as they are, they are not nearly as action packed and condensed fun as most FPS are, so their 40 hours are in no way directly comparable to most of the ones I mentioned above.
Also compared to how much it took me to complete those games, how much do you think Crysis 2 would take me?
More probable is that you do not remember until recent times how long you played or the SP was! Come on! Do you have a excel spreadsheet at hand to write down your playing hours ?
AND... everybody's time is different ... AND... nobody cared about this aspect until some very short games came out...
AND... where is Unreal in your list? Quake? Hexen?... Don't worry!
The worst games regarding time, are, anyway, the corridor / scripted shooters where you cannot WALK BACK, read: COD, MOH.... You never get the chance to EXPLORE LEVELS, unless you use some godmode. And those, yes, are short game, its only VORWÄRTS, VORWÄRTS, LAUFEN, LAUFEN!
I have very good memory and playing lenght is something very important to me so I do always calculate how long it takes me to finish them. I'm also a fan of Done Quick videos so I see it as a must to know how long it takes playing them normally.
I know every person plays differently that's why I posted MY times.
I'm still interested if someone wants to give it a try and tell me how long it would take me to finish Crysis 2 based on the other games I mentioned. I don't need a super accurate answer lol, but considering that Crysis 1 took me 12 h, how does that correlate to the 12 h that nvidiaintelftw mentioned for Crysis 2.
I mean is it like:
1. HL2 took me 18 h and Crysis 2 12 h (aka good)
2. HL2 took me 40+ h and Crysis2 12 h (really bad).
My only good memory is that shiny DDR3 that is installed inside a metal box, how did they call it? The PC or something....
All these people who say, "zomfg, I completed that game in just 10 hours!" etc, come to that conclusion by only counting the hours of save games that they have. they forget to add all the times the got killed and and had to replay an area. If someone is never getting killed then they need to change the difficulty or play a game which suitablly challenges.
Wrong, I take a look to my watch when I start playing and when I stop*, so the times I mention include when I get killed, which is not very often anyway and in the case of sandbox games like Crysis 1, it also includes portions of the game which I might have decided to repeat in order to follow a different approach. It really depends on the game but I only usually die 2-4 times on hardest settings.
* Now that I have the G15 keyboard I actually use the countdown/timer LCD app that comes with it. And just in case you're quite curious I do NOT usually care to stop the timer when I go to the toilet so adding up the few time I go, that's another 20-30 mins you can substract. lol
That game apparently does not exist. I used to get killed a lot more in the past, which is why people like me moan over and over again about how consolitis has dumbed down games so much that they are not a challenge and hence they are hardly as fun as PC shooters used to be 5+ years ago...
Due to the consolitis epedemic, FPS games' AI has been getting steadily dumber, to the point where it is either far too easy, or impossibly hard.
Go try and beat CoD4 'All Ghillied Up' on veteran (the level where you are in the Chernobyl area and are waiting on a rescue chopper to come and pick u up).
I did play COD4 on veteran. 4 h like I said... But yeah I do remember dying a lot (5+ times) on that particular level. But that didn't prevent me from doing the game in less than 4 h. The rest of the game is very easy if you play it fast. The dumb AI is coded to take cover 1st then shoot, so if you just move ahead all the time and kill them as you first see them the game is EASY. If you do the same as they do, take cover + do not advance + shoot later you're screwed up royally, plus they will continue to spawn forever. So that scene waiting for the chopper IS hard because you do not have any choice as to what strategy you use...
PS: As to why I play that way, well, many people has asked me that, regarding COD games, if they are flawed in that sense why do I not play in a different way. My answer is always the same, I always play linear shooters that way, I always did and never had a problem, so why should I change for one crappy game?
for me it didn't worth 10$
Simple answer - NO
the problem is it takes longer because it is broken.
sp melee is broken, single and multiplayer points and progression systems are broken. stealth is broken. lobbies and joining mp games is broken. hackers are everywhere, with aim bot, infinite ammo, no bullet drop, etc.
and by broken i don't mean never works, but doesn't work right, making it an infuriating experience.
it was made for consoles, it will be best enjoyed there.
That is disappointing because I enjoyed the MP beta so much. Perhaps by the time they end up releasing the DX11 stuff it'll be in better shape.
don't mistake average for single persons experience. It really matters what type of player you are, did you do anything special? such as all the people who carried dog's ball through hl2? Beyond that there is a sheer amount of things in most games that can simply be skipped. The half life series has it, halo has it, most have it in fact. Do you clear every room or do you run the fastest path?
I imagine the guy who completed crysis2 in 6 hours ran the fastest path. Where as the guy who took 12 hours took his time and tried to enjoy it.
you're a fastest path kind of player, that's fine. That doesn't change the playable hours of a game. And stalker is a fps, so is mass effect, so are plenty of other games that incorporate more than find a gun and shoot.
Haha, I am so glad I am not the only one who suffered Dungeon Lords, what a terrible game it was :shadedshu
Anyway, I am curious as to how the multiplayer is, for those who have it. Is that even worth anything for when the game goes on sale eventually? I really enjoyed Crysis 1 multiplayer (the power struggle game mode was great)
I paid $35 for the game and found it pretty worth it.
I just got Bulletstorm today from EA's Insider Deals on Facebook for like $32, and I am still wondering which one I like the most. They are both great games for the price I paid.
Separate names with a comma.