Homefront Has a 5-Hour Campaign. Sort of.

[VanBasten]

Frankly, I liked Metro 2033's much longer campaign.

How is 6 hours much longer than 5?

Off: I think it was way longer... like thrice that much. Maybe because it did not push the player to rush to the end?

I beat it in 8 hours.
And I played it rather slowly and thoroughly.

I believe Homefront will offer generally the same amount of content as Metro 2033.

Sorry, did I mishear that? Did you play Doom or the original Duke 3d? I played them more in LAN than the singleplayer campaigns but they still had a much-much longer singleplayer part!

You are looking at the past with rose tinted glasses
You can't really compare Doom and Duke3D with it's easily generated and copy-pasteable levels and practically non-existant story(esentially shoot bad things that come your way) with what gets modeled in todays shooters, both story and graphics-wise.

 

[Dansrage]

Oh God not AGAIN.
Yet another promising game where the devs think it's perfectly fine to have a 5 or 6 hour campaign, this is a trend Call of Duty has perpetrated thanks to it's popularity, which now means that every dev thinks if they cut corners the game will still sell.
We are as much to blame as they are by accepting these playtimes, and even coming to expect them. I realise that narrative-driven, heavy atmosphere games can't be expected to go on for as long as a free roamer like Fallout or TES, but 5 hours is just completely unacceptable, we need to show these companies that we will not be satisfied with such short games, as Yahtzee always says: "A game should be able to stand on the single-player alone."
As exciting and immersive as these games may be, they do not deserve a ?70 price tag, because it just isn't worth the money. remember when FPS games were still long? Look at Metroid Prime, or DOOM III, these are relatively modern games, and they still have good, long play times without sacrificing graphics or atmosphere, which shows these devs are not incapable of doing it, they just don't have to, so they don't.
Metro 2033 is another good example of a promising game ruined by a minute campaign, and that didn't even have any multiplayer, compare that to STALKER SoC which is massive.

We are letting them get away with this.

 

[Rayansaki]

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.

Doesn't necessarily mean the increased length comes from higher number of tries and difficulty. Theres a huge difference between a very skilled and experienced player that pops out of cover pulls 5 headshots on one mag and moves on compared to a player that kills 1 enemy every time he pops out of cover.

My Veteran run on KZ3 took less time than the normal one even tho it was harder and I died more often.

 

[Cali0602]

Granted, I have no intention of diving into this game unless the demo removes my socks and flings them into the next town over, but let's give Kaos some consideration gents...

Kaos was likely working under pressure to release the game on time, resulting in a lot of single-player cuts (cause you don't cut multi-player...that's directly tied to the game's replay value). Who knows? There could have been some cool and feasible mission-creep ideas that ended up getting the axe because of time/budget constraints.

Is any of that an excuse for a bad game? Not at all, but let's keep the ignore button unpressed until the demo comes out at least. I'm sure it won't revolutionize the modern-day FPS but it'll likely piss off North Korea, and I am ALL ABOUT THAT!

 

[beema]

Huh... for some reason I thought Homefront was multiplayer-only anyways.

Well, hearing stuff like this isn't really shocking anymore. Upsetting maybe, but not surprising in the least. Most people buy games of this type solely based on multiplayer, and devs & publishers know this, so they don't really put much effort in to a single player campaign. However, there's still this holdover mindset from days of yore where every game HAS to have a single player, so they stick it in anyways. If this industry could get beyond that perception as a whole and start making MP-only games -- and, most importantly, charging less for them -- we'd all be better off. It would allow devs to focus on one aspect and do it really well instead of dividing their efforts.

I think one of the holdups might be the desire to always have a $60 pricetag if possible. When you charge this much for a game, people generally demand it entails a "full" gaming experience, which these days means SP & MP. I'm inclined to agree with that mentality, with exceptions for devs like Valve and Blizzard who make very robust, well-crafted multiplayer. However, if publishers started making MP-only games and charging $40 for them, instead of charging $60 for everything and shoehorning in half-assed SP or MP to warrant the price tag, I think that would be much better. This is especially true for franchises like COD that churn out a new version every 10 months.

 

[8-Bit Grin]

I honestly adored Modern Warfare 2's edge-of-your-seat head-on-fire campaign, because it was INTENSE.

I didn't care about the length because it just blew me away.

When I finished, I felt content.

Like I'd gotten my money's worth.

If Homefront contains a fantastic campaign that leaves me satisfied then I feel it's length is totally justified.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

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 was a fun snippet-y sort of game that didn't have the retail price of £40. That probably has something to do with these expectations of game length.

 

[Lord Doomhammer]

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.

And portal became a cultural touchpoint. Portal stood out because it was a well thought through and masterfully atmospheric corner stone to an already stellar franchise. It revolutionized platforming in the first person and did it right, it was filled with original ideas and tied it's own story into the story of one of the most powerful FPS franchises in the world. Even after that, its originality and unpredictable nature insured it became an instant cult classic. The shortness is irrelevant because it changed what we think about when we hear FPS or platforming. Homefront however, is yet another standalone FPS based on the same formula we've seen 50 bazillion times in the past couple years. The only point of interest is swapping out Russia for china, despite the continuing factor of cataclysmic improbability of any of these countries actually stepping up to a country that spends over 685 BILLION a year on national defense. Beyond the idiotic repetitive cookie-cutter story it contributes nothing whatsoever to the FPS scene.

 

[xXDeMoNiCXx]

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.

Yeah but who exactly is a "pro player" and who isn't is gonna vary from person to person. What they may think is a pro player could be nowhere near that to someone else.

 

[Gluzzbung]

I didn't think homefront was going to be anything special and this has confirmed that.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

So the idea is .... that multiplayer makes up for lacklustre and largely absent story and plot direction?

Wow .... you know it probably would have been better if they kept their mouths shut.

Because I know that's what I always think when I play mass effect ... how awesome it would have been if it were a 5 hour romp with multiplayer attached.

 

[jpoon]

Skipping this game altogether, it just screams generic to me. Nothing about any of it really seems to be catching my attention. I'll just wait & laugh when the reviews come out.

 

[Kal'Shen Ra]

EA managed to fool me with Bad Company 2 and it's marketing for the single player. And, although I like it's multiplayer(the only one I ever played for more that one or two hours) I hate it for that gutted SP. I was about to be fooled yet again by Medal of Honor, but I managed to dodge that one. Now another one... In a few years all that will be left of these games will be a single player campaign that's worth less than a morning quickie. That's good sometimes, but nothing is better that an all nighter.

I recently replayed Half Life, the first, after about six years since I last finished it. Even though I know the game, it still took me about 12 hours to play through it. A 13 years old game that proves you can have quantity and quality, if you at least try.

So few are trying these days...

 

[John Funk]

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.

 

[Mailman]

Why am I getting the sneeky suspicion that instead of buying Homefront I'd have more fun playing through Freedom Fighters again.

 

[5-0]

Grr...this is exactly what I didn't want to happen with Homefront. Such an interesting concept, tons of potential...short campaign. Arse.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

If you want to charge $60 for a game it had better have 10 hours of play, multiplayer or not.

 

[N3vans]

That's my decision made for me then, not buying. I'm not pro but by the sounds of it Homefront would probably only take me about 6-7 hours.

 

[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)