Game 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