Homefront Has a 5-Hour Campaign. Sort of.

[timeadept]

Smells like bullshit to me. We're getting 5 hours from PLAY TESTERS, i am very iffy about whether their definition of an expert player is anywhere near what mine is. It's a shame too, i was kinda interested in the story, but theres no point in getting it if it's only going to take me 5 hours to complete it. I'm actually not at all interested in the multilayer, CoD never looked that fun to me, same with counterstrike and other shooters that leave you in a small arena with the rest of the players. Actually, going back to the point, i'd like the campaigns to be more than 10 hours. Even that feels short for a single player run through. (and no i'm not going to play it twice, not unless it is an amazingly kick ass game with fun mechanics that i didn't get enough of the first time around)

After reading the post above mine i feel like i need to clarify...
All these realistic shooters end up being very similar games, so i'm very used to the mechanics, but these mechanics aren't interesting enough to hold the game up on it's own. But i do have fun adapting to the different settings and challenges of each level. In just a 5 hour game there really isn't much time for many new settings. Also, like i said, the story, it COULD end up being satisfying even if it is short, but i doubt it. I'd like to get a feeling of how the world has changed and what it will become, but i don't think 5 hours is enough time to understand that. I don't think it'll have time to properly sink in. I could finish this thing in an average afternoon! It'd have to be one hell of a roller-coaster to convince me to get it at this point.

Also, i'm not going to pay $50-60 for a game i'm going to finish in an afternoon, unless i'm buying it FOR the multi-player action. (though yeah, maybe I just have too much free time)

 

[Super Toast]

Considering how Duke Nukem Forever is supposed to be 15-20 hours long, that argument doesn't really hold water.

 

[omicron1]

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.

Would you have bought Portal for $60?

How about if there were half a dozen different variations on the same theme already on the market?

Portal had value because of four things: It told a compelling narrative; it was new, fresh, innovative; it had an amazing sense of humor; and it was fun. And yet, Valve still sold it for just $20.
For reference, that's about $4 per hour, give or take - as much as your average movie ticket these days, je pense. And I'd say that Portal is better entertainment, per hour, than most movies.
In contrast, Homefront is an unproven element. We don't know if its story is any good; we don't know about humor or fun or innovation. (Although it is a gritty (post-)modern military FPS, so it's got that against it. And it's being sold for $60.
If it has a 5-hour campaign, that's $12 per hour. If it's more like 8, that's still $7.50 per hour.

To be worth as much as a movie ticket PER HOUR of entertainment, Homefront would need to be not just good, not just amazing, but stellar. Superb. It would need to blast all the Modern Warfares and Black Ops' in the world, combined, out of the water. It would need to be twice or thrice as good as Portal!

And yes, multiplayer does change the equation somewhat - for some people. Some people will play the campaign and then enjoy dozens or hundreds of hours of multiplayer, bringing down that cost-per-hour to a more acceptable level.

But then there are people like me - people who don't really play multiplayer - who don't have the time, or the interest, or the dedication. People for whom the value of the game is measured solely on that campaign - and for whom 5 hours is absolutely a killing figure.

If videogame campaigns are intentionally emulating movies nowadays, developers need some very, very, very good reasons for charging three times as much per entertainment-hour as The Dark Knight. And multiplayer doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[CoverYourHead]

So, like, four hours.

Seriously, just buy, say... Shogun 2! Or Dragon Age II! Or some other game with actual content beyond the same multiplayer copy-pasted from COD or whatever.

Well, officially crossed off my list, then... Not to say I was giving it much attention in the first place.

 

[Ashsaver]

Congratulations Homefront! you've successfully change my view about you!

From "Something Different" to "Just another COD clone"

 

[jaketheripper]

Hell, I could say that Portal is a twenty-hour game because I bet that somewhere, someone was stuck on each puzzle for ages.

DON'T YOU JUDGE ME! DON'T YOU DARE JUDGE ME!

I can easily see someone blowing through an FPS in 5 hours, but... this is Homefront. I've heard zip, nada about the multiplayer, and with all this emphasis on story... there's no story. If you can't keep a gamer's attention for longer than an afternoon gaming binge, either your story or your gameplay sucks. Within reason, just one should do the trick. Unless they're crazy multiplayer people, but Homefront isn't focusing on them.

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.

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.

that actually sounds extremely interesting..........

gamefly ftw

 

[SwimmingRock]

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

So... About five hours then.

Ninja'd,/thread, packing my bags, calling it a day.

I don't really see the problem with a short FPS campaign. I always just play through it and then remember the particularly fun bits. I replay those several times afterwards and this at least doubles the play time for me. How much time I'll spend on the singleplayer has much more to do with how good it is than how long.

 

[annilator666]

i like shooters but everyone that has come out is painfully short for single player i dont play online at all so im beginning to regret preordering this sadly but i shall play it and complete it however on a positive note the soundtrack on it should be awesome since its all bands that i know

 

[Baresark]

I am so disappointed to hear that. I mean, how can they really justify a $60 Price tag on something so short. And while I'm sure the multi player will be interesting, I have a hard time imagining it being worth that kind of money. I think that this news is going to affect sales a lot. Darn shame too, if this is any proof, I would say that Kaos will be moving to Montreal.

Very seldom is a short campaign worth it when you really only care about that. But, the multi player could be life Bad Company 2 if we are lucky, rather than CoD.

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.

Unfortunately, even if it's really good, very few people will find this worth the money. You can buy some games for $10 and get more campaign time out of them. And if the multi player is simply like CoD, what real incentive is there to buy it at that price tag? The only thing that sets is aside is the remote vehicles. but for me, that is simply not enough. Now I am gonna have to move my reservation to another game I know is worth the money, and wait to see what the reviews say. I had high hopes, people compared the story to Half Life 2, in regards to depths. Now time will tell.

 

[Veldel]

Yea it seems like they are trying to make a awsome game about US being invaded sorry but you are not the first and unless you can do what Freedom Fighters Did you will not be amazin

 

[DeadProxy]

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.

ya, but portal was fun and encouraged you to think. With the shooters coming out its just "cover, fire, cover fire" and if you die, its because the computer saw a pixel from behind cover and killed you

 

[sylekage]

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

So... About five hours then.

HA, first thing I thought. It's good though, for people who don't have a lot of time to kill

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

Still at least worth renting, I'd say.

 

[Alan Au]

I don't have a problem with a short singleplayer campaign, but I don't want to pay $60 for it.

 

[HentMas]

wait seriously??

they are saying that the game will be 10/12/15/20 hours if you SUCK at it!?

i dont think thats a really good point to make...

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/viewer.php?mode=article&id=248775

hahahahahahaha, oh GOD! if thats not putting yourselve for dissapointment, i dont know what is.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

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.

10 hours is pretty crap for a single player. Mass Effect, while not an FPS, can be done in about 30 (doing all the side stuff). Dunno where they get comparing this game to Mass Effect in terms of length.

I guess it rests on Duke Nukem's shoulders to show what a single player FPS is all about.

 

[Wintermoot]

Aand that,s another dissapointing game. COME ON! its the MP is going to be ANOTHER MP that,s a clone of COD!

 

[Sporky111]

Well this is disappointing, but not inhibitive. I think if the quality is really high up there it could still pass on a relatively-short campaign. I mean, Portal was less than 7 hours long on my first playthrough. Now I can go online at any given time and watch someone beat it in half an hour. But the story was still amazing.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Oh, no... It's short. Not interested.

I mean, if I can't get my fix of boring, repetitive FPS bullshit instead of a fun, engaging, fast-paced campaign in this game, I might have to look elsewhere.

Hey, Bad Company 2, you're just the game I need.

EDIT: So, Escapist, is WoW the best game ever, then? It's pretty lengthy, y'know?