Ben-DutkaGame length is a touchy subject these days. Some say many titles are far too short while others – who spend far more time with the multiplayer – say campaign length is irrelevant.
This is especially true when it comes to shooters. As we all know, Call of Duty isn't the biggest franchise in the country because of the single-player experience; most hardcore fans will probably tell you they couldn't care less about the campaign. However, when it's more story-driven (and a new IP), perhaps it's more important to have a longer single-player adventure: Homefront developer Kaos Studios told CVG that if players complain enough, they'll look into upping the campaign length in the sequel. Thing is, it's only about 5 hours in their new game. Said Kaos boss David Votypka:
"It's a balance really. So if we were doing a single-player only game – and there are some of those out there of course – then you're talking maybe a 20-hour single-player campaign. I think going forward we'd certainly work on extending it a few hours, but going past the 10-hour mark and doing a category-leader multiplayer game… you just have to balance your development resources there.
I think the main thing is do people feel that they got enjoyment out of the single-player campaign and enough of it? So we'll see how it comes out and what the gaming audience has to say about it."
We've always said it's a matter of resources and that if multiplayer wasn't always essential, all the campaigns would be much longer. In this case, the developer stressed the multiplayer element of Homefront , saying that provides much more in the way of replay-ability. "Robust" and "deep" are two words he associated with the multiplayer experience.
But is it too much to ask to have those same words associated with a single-player campaign these days…? We're talking about the shooter genre, of course.
Related Game(s): Homefront
Agree Paste2TheNuggs
It definitely could've been a better game but it's pretty fun if you give it a try…the multiplayer that is. Of course that is the reason I got it. Just wanted to get away from COD and this is a nice despite less visually polished alternative.
Although if you're a graphics freak don't give this one a buy, the graphics are leaning over the precipice of downright laughable. The game looked so much better on youtube. SOOO MUCH SO!
So far I'd give the multiplayer a 9/10 for fun factor. There's a lot of different elements to the gameplay and it seems like this is where they implemented the meat of their efforts, it really shows. White Phosphorous is frickin awesome!
I think it's ok for some games to have relatively small-sized campaigns. Although 5 hours is rather ridiculous. But somewhere between 7-10 hours for the campaign seems somewhat right to me. Of course most games like this I buy mostly for multiplayer.
That's why I feel UC2 was so revolutionary. It had everything. BTW can't wait for three!
of course people want it longer!
hope they let us carry more then 2 weapons at a time.
also can i pickup a weapon with more then 50 bullets in it?
just gets frustrating spending 20 minutes after every battle cheacking every weapon to see if it has more ammo then mine!
this one?
nope.
how about this one?
nope.
how about this one?
nope.
how about this one?
nope.
you spend more time searching for ammo, then you do using it!