Homefront Has a 5-Hour Campaign. Sort of.

[KEM10]

5 hours, isn't that about as long as Apocalypse, Now?
Seems about par for the course.

 

[internetzealot1]

Getting sick of these short-ass games. And I'm starting to worry that its becoming the industry standard.

 

[Korten12]

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.

Most likely they read the first couple of lines and then posted.

 

[MercurySteam]

Homefront's main campaign was only about five hours long

Still claiming not to be another CoD clone?

 

[Zhukov]

When did we start measuring the quality of a game by the length of its campaign anyway? Portal proved a long time ago that the time it takes to beat it is irrelevant to the value.

Portal didn't cost $60.

 

[Jumplion]

It's that we'll have to pay $60, full retail price for a game that will barely last a weekend.

But you're not paying for the time, you're paying for the enjoyment, right? Sure, like you said, more of a good thing is good, but I think my money is there for me to have fun. If it's five or fifty hours of fun, it's still fun.

And time can be used as a measurement for fun, at least a rudimentary one. $60 is not pocket change, gaming is a pretty expensive hobby, so people want to spend their money on something they know that they will enjoy and will last them a good while. If left with a decision between 3 similar games, a 5-hour "great" game, a 10-15-hour "good" game, or a 30-hour "meh/bad" game, most people would go with the 10-15 hour one simply because it's familiar to them and it gives them a decent amount of entertainment.

It's like paying $10 for an hour-and-a-half movie verses paying $10 for a two and a half hour movie. Sure, it doesn't really tell you much on how good the movie is, but it'd be pretty annoying to pay an equal amount for something that will last less. (Not sure if that analogy fits well...)

I get what you're saying - that you want a good length of time (whatever that is to you) for your money

For the record, depending on the type of game of course, I generally prefer 10-15 hour games. I usually take that long for "5-hour" games anyway since I like to take my time with most of my games, and usually go for the harder difficulty to put some "oomph" in my skillz.

..and I guess I'm making an example of you. I'm really sorry. I don't mean to pick at you. I just hate people equating their money to time and time alone. It's so... stereotypical of what outsiders think of gamers - that we are all shut-ins that use video games to escape life. If you complain about length, despite how fun it was for you, it sounds like you just want something to do instead of... life.

I don't see what you're apologizing over, you seem pretty calm and rational so far.

As far as I know, people don't explicitly equate money to time and time alone, it's just a factor. People want bang for their buck, and length can help determine if you got said bang. It's more of trying to spend money wisely because, again, gaming is a very expensive hobby compared to other hobbies. This is a factor that I think keeps developers from doing anything groundbreaking in that if they do anything that's too "foreign" or whatever to their target audience they won't be able to get that return.

 

[Something Amyss]

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?

Save them millions in production.

 

[Jaeriko]

I think Homefront is a pretty cool guy. eh has 5 huor campiagn and doesn't afraid of North Korean invaders.

 

[fgdfgdgd]

For everybody else, the game is about the same length as other, competing, FPS titles.

So... About five hours then.

Two and a half...If you played BFBC2...That pissed me off so much and then it had the nerve to cock tease a sequel when the game I played was enjoyable until I realised I've watched longer movies.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I was going to get Homefront for the campaign. Guess that's not happening anymore.

 

[ThatDaveDude1]

I could care less about Homefront's multiplayer. I want this for its singleplayer, hell, I didn't even know it had multiplayer until I saw gameplay footage a few months ago.

You've got the screenwriter of Apocalypse Now working on what you promised was a deep and engaging story like no other on the market, don't fuck it up now.

*moves from 'preorder' pile to 'wait for the review' pile*

 

[Awexsome]

I don't want to judge immedietly... but I don't see how they're going to make the kind of big, epic story they were advertising in that kind of time without ending with a lead into a sequel.

I'll wait until the game comes out but I'm not getting it unless it gets some rave reviews or the multiplayer is one of the best around. I've heard some really good things about it too.

Having players earn points in game via their actions which they can then spend on various bonuses from airstrikes to perks to vehicles to weapons. Plus last I heard they had a system where the top players on enemy teams will have a type of "target" painted on them. The opposing team's commander giving individual players on the other team the heads up that: "Hey. This dude here is kicking ass. We'll give you some bonus points if you manage to take him out."

 

[mik1]

i think its time for this fps trend to die...

NOW!!!!!

 

[Vault101]

When did we start measuring the quality of a game by the length of its campaign anyway? Portal proved a long time ago that the time it takes to beat it is irrelevant to the value.

portal how ever was not a stand alone release

if your not into multiplayer or dont see it as a big thing then 5 hours is hardly worth the money

 

[theultimateend]

For everybody else, the game is about the same length as other, competing, FPS titles.

So... About five hours then.

My thoughts exactly.

"5 hours long? That's like 3 times longer than Halo 2...they should be bragging."

 

[danhere]

Considering how little goes into multiplayer development compared to single player development, and how barren most of the multiplayer servers tend to be, I don't really consider this to be sound reasoning. The FPS genre have adopted a lazy approach because people buy into it, rather than demanding a reasonably long single player campaign with some extensive storytelling. Shame shame.