Killzone 3 Campaign Too Short!

[Snoody]

Yesterday, I picked up Killzone 3 giddy with excitement. About 15 hours later, I was convinced that some odd bug had surfaced that made the credits pop up 3 hours early. I had been counting how long the campaign had lasted; the final number was 5 hours from start to finish. I know multiplayer is the main focus in shooters nowadays, but I think that a little more effort should be put into the campaign, what are your thoughts on the subject?

 

[Defense]

I don't really mind myself to be honest, I expect that from a linear FPS. I would be upset if I was playing an RPG though, since I expect an RPG to be at least 20+ hours long.

 

[Mikeyfell]

And you were expecting?
look at Killzone's competition Call of Duty.

a 5 hour campaign is the new norm for FPS games
Hell Mass Effect 2 just came out on the PS3, play that it'll keep you entertained for 30-50 hours.
this is why I have absolutely no expectations for Duke Nukem forever
The next big FPS game should just bomb. that way people might put some fucking Effort into making a shooter

 

[TerranReaper]

I could care less, I wasn't expecting Killzone 3 to have any kind of amazing campaign. I would imagine it would seem fairly dragged on if the campaign was any longer. In any case, I'll be buying it mainly for the multiplayer.

 

[Defense]

Yep, now I know without a doubt, I won't be getting this game.

Thanks for the heads up.

5 hours is not worth $60 to me.

But the point of linear FPSes these days is the multiplayer. Anyways, you're doing it wrong. How long the experience is shouldn't matter, what should matter is how much fun you get from it. You wouldn't buy a 30 hour piece of shit game rather than a 10 hour epic, would you?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I was hoping for a longer SP. But in all honesty. The logevity of a game is down to it's multiplayer.

What will annoy me is if the story isn't good. If it's gonna be short. It's going to have to be good.

The story isn't good. I mean, it's no worse than the story of Killzone 2, or Modern Warfare 2, or anything like that, but it's no Bioshock. The story is basically just there to get you from set piece to set piece.

 

[katsumoto03]

Thanks for saving me $60 man. I appreciate it.

 

[mireko]

Yesterday, I picked up Killzone 3 giddy with excitement. About 15 hours later, I was convinced that some odd bug had surfaced that made the credits pop up 3 hours early. I had been counting how long the campaign had lasted; the final number was 5 hours from start to finish. I know multiplayer is the main focus in shooters nowadays, but I think that a little more effort should be put into the campaign, what are your thoughts on the subject?

I think you should be more concerned that your PS3 IS A TIME MACHINE.

 

[Bre2nan]

A modern linear FPS has a short single-player campaign?! Surely you jest!

Really, if you want to play any of this kind of game but aren't going to put any time into the multiplayer, you should just rent it. 5-6 hours is par for the course nowadays for shooter campaigns. Maybe if enough of us refuse to contribute to these games' sales, they'll re-evaluate their priorities.

 

[olicon]

Just a friendly heads-up:
Any games can be played through extremely quickly. The original Resident Evil lasts about 12 hours for most people, but it is very well within human limit to finish the game in 6 hours. A speed run, of course, could be finished in something like 2 hours.
But the thing about that game is, it still takes me something like 15 hours to finish years after it is released (I suck, ok?)

It still takes me well into dozen hours to finish most console FPS simply because I'm pathetic at it. However, most people are pretty good with the genre by now and will finish the game in the equivalent of s-rank time in older games. It's not the game's fault--the fault lies with the system that it is on.

See, with console shooters, the game simply cannot be hard. Consoles are horrible to make shooters with. You can't have the game pose a real challenge, or the average players will never finish the game. But dumbing down the game just make it too easy for the veterans.

Chances are if your first playthrough can be done on hard difficulty, you WILL finish in 5 to 6 hours because you're no longer an average player.
And you should also count the time that you have to restart the game. It's probably only 5 to 10 minutes per check point every here and there, but it will quickly add up to a few extra hours too.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Campaign's are dead. Game developers these days preffere multiplayer, now-a-days the campaign's are just tacked on.

 

[ultrachicken]

What did you expect from fucking KILLZONE? Not that I'm trying to absolve it of this ridiculous flaw, but if you went in expecting a long campaign, then it's your own fault that you didn't see it coming.

 

[Defense]

What is it you think I'm doing wrong?

Also, we are talking about 5 hours, not 10 : P

You're not buying an FPS because the campaign is too short. Most FPSes(not FPS/RPG hybrids like Fallout of course) do the exact same thing as Killzone, they give a short campaign and expect to sell on the multiplayer aspect. Not only that, but length shouldn't be a large problem. Just look at Limbo, it suffers the same "short campaign, high price" problem, but it got various GOTY awards because every hour of the game was fun. You didn't sound interested in the game in the first place though, so I can get where you're coming from.

Good point D:

 

[Kopikatsu]

I would like developers to go back to focusing on the campaign...and not just because I refuse to pay out the ass for xbox live so I can't get DLC's/play multiplayer.

Gets really annoying when the game has horrible gamebreaking glitches that can only be fixed with a patch, but hey. I doubt it'll happen...FPS are MP hogs.

I agree with one of the above posters, though. It simply isn't possible for a FPS to be challenging unless it goes for ultra-gritty realism, but you'll get bored of that by the fifteenth time you get shot in the head by a sniper that you had no possible way of knowing was there. (Operation Flashpoint)

 

[blind_dead_mcjones]

Yesterday, I picked up Killzone 3 giddy with excitement. About 15 hours later, I was convinced that some odd bug had surfaced that made the credits pop up 3 hours early. I had been counting how long the campaign had lasted; the final number was 5 hours from start to finish. I know multiplayer is the main focus in shooters nowadays, but I think that a little more effort should be put into the campaign, what are your thoughts on the subject?

I think you should be more concerned that your PS3 IS A TIME MACHINE.

this, funny how everyone else has missed the 10 hour discrepancy here

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

What did you expect from fucking KILLZONE? Not that I'm trying to absolve it of this ridiculous flaw, but if you went in expecting a long campaign, then it's your own fault that you didn't see it coming.

There have been four Killzone games. Two of them had no multiplayer compponent at all. The first one had a reasonable 15 hour or so campaign.

To assert that a trend began after one game is silly. Better to point to the half dozen other FPS games it competes with if you want to establish a pattern.

 

[baddude1337]

What did you expect from fucking KILLZONE? Not that I'm trying to absolve it of this ridiculous flaw, but if you went in expecting a long campaign, then it's your own fault that you didn't see it coming.

There have been four Killzone games. Two of them had no multiplayer compponent at all. The first one had a reasonable 15 hour or so campaign.

To assert that a trend began after one game is silly. Better to point to the half dozen other FPS games it competes with if you want to establish a pattern.

Uh.. Every Killzone game has had multiplayer of some kind. Killzone 1 had netplay, and Liberation did too after a patch.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Yesterday, I picked up Killzone 3 giddy with excitement. About 15 hours later, I was convinced that some odd bug had surfaced that made the credits pop up 3 hours early. I had been counting how long the campaign had lasted; the final number was 5 hours from start to finish. I know multiplayer is the main focus in shooters nowadays, but I think that a little more effort should be put into the campaign, what are your thoughts on the subject?

I think you should be more concerned that your PS3 IS A TIME MACHINE.

this, funny how everyone else has missed the 10 hour discrepancy here

Ever buy a game before work? It might be, oh, 10 hours before you actually get to sit down and play it...

On topic: I enjoyed the demo, so I was tempted to buy this game. A 5 hour campaign is a dealbreaker. Plenty of non-Bethesda FPSs offer 10-12 hour single-player modes - Bioshock and Metro 2033, to name two.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

What did you expect from fucking KILLZONE? Not that I'm trying to absolve it of this ridiculous flaw, but if you went in expecting a long campaign, then it's your own fault that you didn't see it coming.

There have been four Killzone games. Two of them had no multiplayer compponent at all. The first one had a reasonable 15 hour or so campaign.

To assert that a trend began after one game is silly. Better to point to the half dozen other FPS games it competes with if you want to establish a pattern.

Uh.. Every Killzone game has had multiplayer of some kind. Killzone 1 had netplay, and Liberation did too after a patch.

The first had local play or the option of playing online for the tiny percentage of PS2 owners who had the required hardware to make such a thing work (by sales, >3%, in reality the percentage was significantly higher as the PS2 slim had a built-in ethernet adapter). As of 2004 (when the game was released) various surveys indicated that only 10 - 15% of PS2 owners had ever played a game online on their console. Killzone Liberation had multiplayer after a patch which makes the argument irrelevant; that it was also on a platform notable for being an abject failure on the multiplayer front in most places save Japan (where people actually play handheld games together regularly) puts it in much the same boat as the first.

Sure, the option to play with others exist in the purely theoretical sense, but the reality facing the developers of both titles was that these games would have to stand almost exclusively on their single player component. That both Killzone and Killzone Liberation featured technology that was substantially easier to develop for certainly helped in that area as well.

 

[PureAussieGamer]

Yea it is pretty short. But i think it has good reply value.
Games are all about MP now.
My Killzone 3 review