Homefront Has a 5-Hour Campaign. Sort of.
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Their logic confuses me. Any game can be any length depending on the skill level of the player. Hell, I could say that Portal is a twenty-hour game because I bet that somewhere, someone was stuck on each puzzle for ages.
The game's runtime must therefore be based on the fastest runthrough that you can without missing a ton of content or glitching.
How did they define this trial, anyways? Were these people with no prior knowledge of the layout of the levels, or people that played before? Were they paying attention to the game around them, or were they just bolting from objective to objective?
The game's runtime must therefore be based on the fastest runthrough that you can without missing a ton of content or glitching.
How did they define this trial, anyways? Were these people with no prior knowledge of the layout of the levels, or people that played before? Were they paying attention to the game around them, or were they just bolting from objective to objective?
While it's true I'd rather have quality over quantity, what kind of quality are you expecting from a shooter game anyway?
I just hope Duke Nukem doesn't let us down with a 4-hour-long single-player. I'm getting really sick of all these games that spend 99% of their efforts on multiplayer. I don't even like multiplayer because I suck competitively. I like being laid-back. But most of all I like being able to pause... especially since I'm usually called to do things spontaneously and without warning.
I just hope Duke Nukem doesn't let us down with a 4-hour-long single-player. I'm getting really sick of all these games that spend 99% of their efforts on multiplayer. I don't even like multiplayer because I suck competitively. I like being laid-back. But most of all I like being able to pause... especially since I'm usually called to do things spontaneously and without warning.
So they supposedly got a good writer to make a compelling story. Seems that they fell short on that. What the hell is it with game companies completely BSing the single player? Multiplayer doesn't tend to change very much between games, it's really the campaign that makes them unique. (And yes I know they differ a bit but really, the basics are always the same, CTF, DM, KotH.)
I don't get it. I finished Modern Warfare 2 in four hours, and it was only normal difficulty, being played by someone who's at least mediocre. As long as they can cram a good story into those 5 hours, and make it enjoyable, then I'll be completely fine.
Awwwwwww and the sad part is I didn't even care about the mulitplayer for this one. I wanted to see how the game pictured America and North Korea and how the story played out.
Being a fan of "Freedom Fighters" I was looking forward to this... NOW
IDK Im kinda hopeing Quality over length now
Being a fan of "Freedom Fighters" I was looking forward to this... NOW
IDK Im kinda hopeing Quality over length now
Ah, so it doesn't have a 5-hour campaign. It has a frustrating 5-hour campaign that will take the average player an infuriatingly high number of tries to complete.
Then again, that's about ten times more than I spent on BFBC2's single player campaign.
Then again, that's about ten times more than I spent on BFBC2's single player campaign.
I can't remember exact prices, but wasn't Portal really cheap? Or it came in the Orange Box, which was the price of a normal game but also had TF2 and the Half-Life 2 Episodes or something? What I mean is, yes Portal was short but it didn't charge as much as normal games, meaning it's value was still relative to the campaign (plus challenge maps and other exclusivly single player things) length.thristhart said:
DON'T YOU JUDGE ME! DON'T YOU DARE JUDGE ME!Catalyst6 said:
The reason the focus has been on the story is because they have the writer/director/something (I forget which) from Red Dawn on board, and that's basically the only "Big Name" associated with the game, so they're pushing on that to get press. It's the only thing people will recognize that's short enough to explain in a trailer.aldowyn said:
If you look up some of the things they're planning to add in the multiplayer, it actually looks pretty cool. E.G.: Instead of just being outright "killstreaks", you get in-match currency for any sort of streak. Sort of a combo between Halo: Reach having so many types of "sprees" (Assist spree, laser spree, wheelman spree, etc.), and the CoD customizable killstreaks. It might not be huge, but any alteration to the formula is interesting.
Also, there's the "Battle Commander" thing they included (sadly, it's not like the Battlefield 2 commander), which was something along the lines of: If you snipe 3 people in a row, your team's Commander (an AI thing, similar to the AI Directer in L4D, by my understanding) will say "Congrats, snipe another 3 for a monetary bonus", while at similar intervals the enemy Battle Commander will send out a message saying "There's an enemy sniper wrecking our shit, go kill him, he's somewhere near here. If you get him, we'll give you a monetary bonus", giving 3 or so enemies your general location. As you kill more, more enemies are given your general area, and the bonus goes up for killing you. Considering that this bonus is used to buy tanks, body armor, etc. in-match, it could be pretty cool. The only other streak I remember being specifically mentioned was for spotting enemies in the UAV drone.
It has a pretty cool multiplayer, it just isn't getting much press, because it's changing some small things to improve it, and advertising small changes from the norm in your game doesn't work well.
I think some people are misunderstanding the complaints, though nobody has actually stated what I'm going to say yet. It's not that it'll (allegedly) have a short campaign, it's that we'll have to pay $60, full retail price for a game that will barely last a weekend and with (based on what I've seen) standard modern warfare multiplayer. You're correct in that a great, yet short story is better than a bad and horribly long story, but then again if the great, yet short story had terrible gameplay would we want to put up with it? Even worse, what if it had great gameplay yet all we got was 5 hours of it?Eico said:
EDIT: (thank god for the edit button, I don't know where I'd be without it)
Also, the game is touting itself for it's "innovative" or whatever story. If the most story we're getting out of this is a paltry 5 hours (again, allegedly) then it's not looking good for the story either.
5 hours is not an ideal for sure, but it's not a game killer for me. More of a game caution for me. Shorter campaign games tend to be more focused towards multiplayer, and I'm more of a single player (or cooperative) guy. Once, just once, I'd like to see a modern warfare shooter with an overarching, complex story lasting for several hours. We can get the best of both worlds, there's nothing stopping us or the developers.
Right, but remember that portal didn't cost $60 upon release, and was something completely new, filled with humour, and had a kick-ass song. Homefront is absolutely not new, in any regard. Well, you're shooting at Koreans, but Crysis already had that and looked better at it as well. At any rate, multiplayer is no excuse to not have a decent length campaign,and the difference between 5 and 7 hours is probably a bunch of cheap deaths. Yeah, not gonna buy that game...thristhart said:
I don't understand why people are bashing the game just for its length. Surely quality over quantity is a way better choice in design.
Edit: By the way, after some searching, I have found the magazine that revealed the length of its campaign and they also said other things about the game:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/viewer.php?mode=article&id=248775
If you read the front cover it says something quite interesting.
Edit: By the way, after some searching, I have found the magazine that revealed the length of its campaign and they also said other things about the game:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/viewer.php?mode=article&id=248775
If you read the front cover it says something quite interesting.
When they were talking about companies that spend a lot and money on the single player they phrased it an odd way. It almost sounded like they were saying that was a bad thing. I hope I'm wrong about that because that would be bullshit! I hate games that don't spend enough time and money on the single player. Multiplayer is fine and all but it should not be the reason you buy a game. I was excited for Homefront but if they don't put out a good single player campaign I'm not going to buy it.
Doh! Silly indeed!Ajna said:
So I guess the Special edition will be $75, the documentary will be Korean with English subtitles, and, in order to compete with Call of Duty, the Ultimate [i}Super[/i] Collector's Edition will come with a Hummer 3[footnote]Because it totally doesn't look like a Jeep...[/footnote] and an inactive mine.
wow you ultra ninja'd me Gxas ... wow I even had that line copied ... ready to pasta.Gxas said:
I was going to say 5 and a half though. But, honestly who is 'everybody else' who would play that game ... AVERAGE fps players? How many players completely new to the fps genre are going to start with homefront? I'd think few, and so average players would likely take just as little time for a playthrough.