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
Well, if the people who play multiplayer say the campaign is irrelevant, then there is nothing stopping them from making it longer. I have never heard someone say a game is too long. IMO, the longer the game, the longer amount of time there will be that I am enjoying it. I'm all for a longer campaign for Homefront 2 because a dangerous trend is starting where developers are ignoring the mainstay in order to squeeze as much money possible from the customers via multiplayer. I'm not saying the multiplayer is bad, but the story is where the soul of the game rests. We should focus more time on that. Damn you, corporate greed!
Last edited by NoOneSpecial on 3/16/2011 10:31:46 AM
Medal of Honor and Killzone 3 also featured short campaigns that disappointed me in their length.
I passed on Homefront due to Socom 4 being right around the corner, but it seems once again that singleplayer games are getting the short end of the stick.
I don't assume Socom 4 will have a lengthy campaign. Although I did hear it will be more Story driven then the past installments which basically sent you on singular missions, along a story. Not real lengthy either but I still enjoyed them.
Of course I've always played Socom for the mp anyways so…
I believe I read that SOCOM 4 will offer a 12 hour story mode.
MoH was much shorter than Killzone 3, though. Besides, I can't remember the last time I played a FPS that was longer than maybe 8 hours.
Bulletstorm was 9 or 10, I think.
It's really disappointing to me Ben. I don't want 20 plus hours, but at least give me 10!!
At least portal is an FPS with a long story 😛
but yeah, portal is where im at. ill look into this but probs not get the game as such.
I'm sorry, but you may never get 10 again, max.
Well, unless you count Deus Ex: Human Revolution as an FPS. 😉
I beat Killzone the second time on normal difficulty in 4hrs…WTF!?!…lol
I know Ben. It's why I am so excited about Socom 4.
What are the average scores this game has been getting?
It's got an 81 on metacritic for the PS3 last time I checked.
correction, 76
it has a 75 metacritic score right now. 6.9 average on user reviews. gamespot, and ign gave it a 7. they said the game can easily be completed in 5 hrs, so i guess you should make sure you love the multiplayer if you pick it up.
Is the multiplayer any good. I heard it got low reviews.
All I've heard is that if it wasnt for the mp the game would have scored much less from some reviews.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 3/16/2011 10:48:02 AM
IF there's a Homefront 2.
They say a while back they were working on 2.
Im not normally a review reader….but damn I wish I would have checked a couple before I dropped 60 on this one. The whole Half Life 2 comparisons that were made and the fact that I loved Frontlines MP had me preordering this one months ago…but what a dissapointment. I always go through the campaign before multiplayer on any shooter, and it took four and a half hours. As far as the campaign goes…Half life my ass. The opening scene, maybe. Well, back to Killzone…..
Homefront is a great game and shouldn't be overlooked because of a so-called 5 hour campaign. I haven't read anywhere whether it's 5 hours on easy or medium or hard? Maybe it's 8 hours on hard? Who knows, but I know that the MP is fantastic and deep. Yeah, of course there are similarities to CoD. But there are some changes like not being able to use your special weapons or armor unless you score/kill your way to a higher amount of BP (Battle Points). The maps are great and a good size. There are vehicles too. The graphics aren't even close to KZ3 but that is understandable based on the 32 player MP. You won't see KZ3 graphics with 32 players until the PS4 is released. But what we get and how it looks still looks very good. It's a mistake to overlook this game. These new developers deserve some support. I am glad I purchased this game.
On normal its under 5. The MP is pretty good, though.
Dude, KZ2 had 32 player multiplayer, and KZ3 isn't too much of a graphical leap over it. So we definitely don't have to wait for the PS4 for that.
Single player campaign needs to be longer, i just finished Killzone 3 an was shocked at how short the game was. An idk if i'm fps out but i lost interest in the game at the half way point an forced myself to finish the game. Everything about the game is amazing just idk something was missing for me..
Yea I was a little disappointed Killzone 3 didn't last longer but I think it's just because that campaign was so damn awesome! Sucks even more when the campaign is short and lame.
Though I supposed if it's a lame campaign I wouldn't want it to last very long. haha Just sucks when you're out $60 for a short crappy game. Killzone 3's campaign is at least fun enough to warrant several play throughs. I've played through it 4 times already. From the Homefront reviews it sounds like there really isn't any reason to play it more than once.
I agree. I have played KZ3 SP portion 3X's already, but those play times combined don't even reach half the amount of time I put into Dragon Age 2. But then again, I have put alot of hrs into the MP…so it's fair share. KZ3 is shockingly short and the story doesn't really make me go…WOW! Too many on rail moments as well…why no gritty warfare like the bridge part from KZ2. It felt like more of a survival game in KZ2 than KZ3…weird. But that's what my memory is saying, might be a different story when I boot that game up again if I ever do.
You can't compare DA2 to a Killzone 3 though. One is an RPG, the other is not. It's a given DA2 would be much, much longer.
Oh, 1 thing that didn't like and that I will probably not like in every FPS shooter from now on is the knifing. KZ3 has forever changed what knifing should be like with its Brutal Melee! This is by far one of the coolest additions to a FPS shooter. Just slashing your knife at someone and getting a kill doesn't do it anymore. Brutal Melee is the only way to go! I hope more developers start doing this. It really adds to the immersion.
I started this last night and there is one small issue that is annoying the hell outta me. There is hit markers in the campaign. Small issue but its annoying to me nonetheless
I think any FPS should at least sport a 8 to 12 hour campaign. Longer if they want. 5 to 6 hours just isn't enough for $60.
Agreed!
I second that! Hey Jawknee, how long did it take you to beat KZ3?
I agree, too, but it doesn't matter.
The majority of those who play FPSs these days don't see it as a game that offers 5 or 6 hours of play, but 500 or 600 hours. It's the lure of multiplayer.
That's true Ben. I think I have already out about 100hrs or more into Killzone 3's multiplayer.
How long do you anticipate Bioshock Infinite will be?
@FM23, Umm…not sure. I think it took me about 6 to 7 hours. I played it on Veteran my first play through. It took me about the same amount of time playing through it on Elite as well.
*put
This is one of the biggest reasons I don't purchase fps games. I'm not that big into mp and if the sp is only 5-8 hours it's just not worth the money.
I think it's a cop out to say that you can't have a decent story and decent length if you want good mp. The story levels and the mp levels are basically just a box. On sp you put a trail through the box and on mp you make it an open box.
If developers want me to buy into fps, I'm going to need a minimum of 15 hours of sp and 15 mp maps with at least 10 different mp match types. I don't think that's asking too much, rpg's give us large worlds with over 50 hours of gameplay, and sandbox games give us huge open worlds with over 30 hours of gameplay easy.
So why are fps' with their straight, minimal exploration levels, so short?
Right…even though I play the multiplayer for KZ3, I can't help but feel cheated. The SP was way to short and the story needed some touch of original. FPS's don't focus on single player as much. Look what happened to Bioshock 2. Still a great game, but shorter than the first due to the inclusion of the pointless and weak MP.
Bioshock 2 took me about the same amount of time to complete as Bioshock.
I personally don't like any developer saying that their SP can only be around 5 hours so that they can work on making the MP great.
Maybe I'm just too old, but I think games were made for the SP and the MP was an addition. And if you're not going to put the effort into SP, then just be a sole MP game like Warhawk or MAG….but don't half-ass both…
The short campaign killed my enthusiasm for Homefront, given that it was a supposedly heavily story driven game, emotionally engaging, etc. Add in a longer one, and I'll think about it.
Here's the thing though: if you want a longer campaign, then the pace needs to be considerably slower than most FPSs (and indeed most games these days). They need to expand and have a lot of variety in design and diversity, as it simply isn't fun to run down corridors for twelve hours or more. They need to constantly be swapping out weapons, and giving you reasons to use others. It's just difficult to keep a player engaged for that period of time, when the docus is solely on shooting. I maintain that it can be done, I'd just like to see someone do it successfully.
Peace.
It would have been nice if the Homefront campaign was actually ABOUT the character you're playing. This nonsense of dragging along an AI teammate that gets all the attention during the story parts is boring.
As for KZ3 or any other fps pretending to be longer than 5 hours, all I've got to say is adding two hours of cut scenes doesn't make the game longer, it just drags out the inevitable 5 hours of actual gameplay.
Still don't have KZ3, but I do like me some cutscenes.
Trust me…Killzone 3 cutscenes are Michael Bay material. Action and no substance
All FPS are like that though.
Yeah, but its far better than an FPS without cutscenes whatsoever. Don't be so damn negative about every new FPS that comes out.
why cant anyone make a two disc videogame in the ps3 case one bluray for sp one dual layer dvd for mp
I'm pretty sure Sony requires games to be on blu-rays. Early on some games were smaller than 9gb but they still put them on BD.
Splitting it between BD and DVD doesnt make any sense at all, one BD can hold more than enough for any one game.
Splitting the SP and MP for the evil console would make more sense.
This game already warrants a sequel? I heard it wasn't so great.
hehehe tell that to activision and their monthly cods
I'm having fun with it. It definitely lacks polish but I'm still enjoying it. I really want there to be a sequel so maybe they can polish it up next time around.