Arkham City Doubles Your Pleasure with 25-Hour Campaign

[lumenadducere]

There was a QA player at BioWare who beat BG II in about 45 minutes. QA generally knows the game inside-out, so their times should never have been taken as a fair estimate of how long the game is. They're also bored as heck of the game they're testing, so they want to speed through it as fast as possible. Heck, if it took 'em 8 hours then it'd make sense that the campaign is 25 hours for someone that wants to explore and take more time. So I definitely think there could be some merit to what Hill is saying. Even if not though it's still looking like a very solid title.

 

[BrotherRool]

15+8 is roughly 25. Seems to add up to me, considering an experienced person who doesn't make mistakes should be able to shave an hour or so at the very least

EDIT: It even does what the person above in this thread asked for, which is make the main campaign with no extras the sameish length as Asylum's

 

[Wuggy]

The sequel to 2008's [a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/6467-Review-Batman-Arkham-Asylum"]stellar[/a] Arkham Asylum addresses one of the main complaints lobbed at the original: It was too short..

That definitely wasn't a main complaint. The two main complaints were: the sewer section and the fact that there was no reason to turn the bat-vision off at all, making the game aesthetically less pleasing.

 

[ZombieGenesis]

As someone else said in the thread, it IS pretty bizzare to look at that picture and ignore the context. Just what the fuck would you think was going on if you didn't KNOW batman?
Muscley guy in rat costume jump hugging an amputee giant in a clown mask with a sledgehammer?
With a back drop from Moulan Rouge?

.... people can become desentitised to anything apparently.

 

[Jaebird]

I didn't mind the length of Arkham Asylum, since I played it on hard difficulty and would take my time to look the Riddler's riddles. Still, I can understand the need for a longer single-player game, especially when they're few and far between.

 

[Soviet Steve]

I disliked Arkham Asylum but I think I'll check out what this is like. Will probably try it out at a friend's place before paying up though.

 

[SomebodyNowhere]

It took me about 23 hours to finish the first game(although I did end up spending way too much time scouring areas to try to find items and usually finding out I didn't have the right tool at the right time), how long was it supposed to take?

 

[Smokescreen]

The sequel to 2008's [a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/6467-Review-Batman-Arkham-Asylum"]stellar[/a] Arkham Asylum addresses one of the main complaints lobbed at the original: It was too short..

That definitely wasn't a main complaint. The two main complaints were: the sewer section and the fact that there was no reason to turn the bat-vision off at all, making the game aesthetically less pleasing.

That's how I remember it too. The boss battles-noted earlier-were also a minor sticking point. For god's sake, DON'T make the sequel longer just because people whine.

I am paying money for a top dollar experience, not a top dollar time sponge.

 

[AMMO Kid]

Thank the Maker. The other one was so short I nearly cried over the 60 bucks I lost on it... However, I played it through a second time on hard and that was very enjoyable.

 

[Beautiful End]

I've reserved the Special Edition of the game because of this. At least I know I'm getting my game's worth.

I just LOVE lengthy games! If I'm spending 60 bucks for a game (Well, 100 in my case), then I wanna know I could possibly play this game forever. I'm looking at you, Killzone 3!