Homefront Has a 5-Hour Campaign. Sort of.

[Woodsey]

Did people even read the news article?

It said it took most players 8-10 hours to complete it and that only expert players got through it in less then 5.

It took me lots of time to beat the original Doom for the first time, now I can beat the game in like 3-4 hours.

Its not fair to judge so early.

Whilst I agree that we'll need to wait until a few more people have finished it to get a real sense of length, but developers do tend to over-calculate how many hours games take.

Honestly though, I don't see what 'hook' this game has, and interest doesn't exactly seem high - so I wouldn't say the game's length is their biggest concern at the minute.

Still, we'll see when its released.

I will never, ever understand the complaining when a game is "short." Have you ever read a book and gone, "Wow, I hate the characters and the writing sucks but hell yeah, I've got 200 more pages to go!" Or "Wow, that was a great read, but it could have used an extra 150 pages of filler at the end."

I would rather a great 5-8 hour game over a mediocre 15-20+ hour one. Hell, in general I'd take a shorter game over a longer game any day - I want to finish the story, and I don't have the time to waste on long games. This is exactly why I'm giving Dragon Age 2 a pass.

Christ on a cracker, people are spoiled.

Agreed on quality over quantity for the most part, although books aren't games, and have less to fall back on if certain elements are shit.

As a person who has to play games as part of his job though (games which are supplied for you), don't you think you have a rather skewered view on the value of game length?

 

[seditary]

I will never, ever understand the complaining when a game is "short." Have you ever read a book and gone, "Wow, I hate the characters and the writing sucks but hell yeah, I've got 200 more pages to go!" Or "Wow, that was a great read, but it could have used an extra 150 pages of filler at the end."

I would rather a great 5-8 hour game over a mediocre 15-20+ hour one. Hell, in general I'd take a shorter game over a longer game any day - I want to finish the story, and I don't have the time to waste on long games. This is exactly why I'm giving Dragon Age 2 a pass.

Christ on a cracker, people are spoiled.

Because short games don't live in a vacuum and quality is measured by more than length. You automatically contrast a good 5 hour game to a 15-20 hour mediocre game when instead you should be contrasting a good 5 hour game to a good 15-20 hour game, because there are actually plenty of those around. If something is good, people want more of it, and we don't even know if Homefront is good, so its lose-lose, either we plonk down $60 (or more depending on where you live) on a shit game or we won't get enough if it is good. Even if Homefront is fucking awesome I'd still go for something else because I'm not made of money, the value for money is simply not high enough.

And the developer's defense is totally pitiful, you might as well say your game is 50 hours long if you leave the console on during the night, its as relevant.

Speak for yourself. I'd rather a good 5-10 hour game any day over a 15-20 hour one. I simply dont have the time to play the latter, and I want to finish the games I play.

This might sound rather condescending, but there's saving functions for a reason. Are you truly unable to complete games without playing sessions months apart? (it takes me at least 4 months of not playing a game to be unable to pick it back up from where I left off)

 

[artemisfox]

Isn't Homefront trying to set itself apart from Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, etc. by making their campaign different? What does making it only five hours do to help it?

set apart? you kidding me? The very moment i saw the multiplayer in game trailer and saw AN EFFING INSTA KILL KNIFE CHARGE. I immediately decided not to buy this game.
it just looks to me that it tried to take all the the multiplayer bits from MW2, the parts that made the game less tactic and more run around and exploit.

all that aside, alot still hasn't been shown, so there may be some massive redeeming quality in there somewhere. but unfortunately for this game, all the stuff being shown is harming the game more than helping.

 

[Exocet]

Speak for yourself. I'd rather a good 5-10 hour game any day over a 15-20 hour one. I simply dont have the time to play the latter, and I want to finish the games I play.

I'm sorry,but your argument for prefering short games is that your job/life/etc.. makes it so you can't finish longer games in a weekend?
What happened to stopping mid-game,and waiting anxiously for an opportunity to play it again?

Since you take the liberty of comparing games to books,I'll do the same.Imagine the Lord of the Rings condensed in a single book.Sure it would be a hell of a ride,but alot of the story,fun,and thought provocation comes from the length,in which the story can deepen,the lore can be expended upon, and characters be explored.

 

[TheEldestScroll]

anyone else sensing some laziness from these developers??
lol AC brotherhood had a 20ish hour campaign and its multiplayer innovated AND it was only in development for a little more than a year.

lame excuses guys. do you WANT to be a lame COD ripoff??

 

[IvoryTowerGamer]

As a person who has to play games as part of his job though (games which are supplied for you), don't you think you have a rather skewered view on the value of game length?

Wouldn't that skew his opinion the other way, since he should have more time to play games than your average gamer (seeing as how he does it for his job)?

This might sound rather condescending, but there's saving functions for a reason. Are you truly unable to complete games without playing sessions months apart? (it takes me at least 4 months of not playing a game to be unable to pick it back up from where I left off)

I'm sorry,but your argument for prefering short games is that your job/life/etc.. makes it so you can't finish longer games in a weekend?
What happened to stopping mid-game,and waiting anxiously for an opportunity to play it again?

The other side of the coin is that in the time you played the good 15-20 hour game you could have played 3-4 good 5 hour games.

Personally, I'm with John Funk. I've seen far too many 15 hour games that would have been much improved had they been shorter.

Since you take the liberty of comparing games to books,I'll do the same.Imagine the Lord of the Rings condensed in a single book.Sure it would be a hell of a ride,but alot of the story,fun,and thought provocation comes from the length,in which the story can deepen,the lore can be expended upon, and characters be explored.

Two can play at this game. Imagine Kafka's "The Metamorphosis" padded with a bunch of flowery descriptions, unnecessary exposition, and a useless side-plot.

Length should be dictated by what the story/movie/game needs it to be, not by some arbitrary line set by the audience.

 

[seditary]

The other side of the coin is that in the time you played the good 15-20 hour game you could have played 3-4 good 5 hour games.

Personally, I'm with John Funk. I've seen far too many 15 hour games that would have been much improved had they been shorter.

Then you get back to the not being made of money point. And just as you've seen many 15 hour games that would have been improved if they were shorter I've seen many games that would be improved if they were longer.

 

[Woodsey]

As a person who has to play games as part of his job though (games which are supplied for you), don't you think you have a rather skewered view on the value of game length?

Wouldn't that skew his opinion the other way, since he should have more time to play games than your average gamer (seeing as how he does it for his job)?

No, because he'll have more games to get through with deadlines.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

For everyone saying this is a cod clone, I would like you to explain how it is anything like cod.

 

[Mikeyfell]

So you can beat Modern Warfare twice in the time it takes to beat half of Homefront

Are people surprised by this?