How short is too short? It's a question that seems to have cropped up a few times in recent months as the lengths of our single-player experiences appear to be becoming ever more important.
When the Homefront campaign was unearthed as being a below average five hours long, there were more than just a few audible gasps. Many Homefront reviews, however, including our own have pointed out that Kaos Studios' multiplayer mode more than makes up for any single-player shortcomings.
Batman: Arkham City, on the other hand, has been revealed as having a single-player story that lasts eight hours at the very least.
That's if you're a QA testing ninja who focuses on the bare bones of the story and little else, according to Rocksteady. Add on all the side missions and the time you'll no doubt spend exploring the mean streets of Gotham and that game time will increase significantly.
But all good things must come to an end and, while Arkham City sounds like the type of place you could roam around for ages, without an online multiplayer mode the Batman sequel is finite.
With a widely applauded multiplayer, Homefront could provide potentially limitless amounts of entertainment, especially when you consider the potential for game changing DLC in the future.
So, would you rather have a shorter campaign with multiplayer or a longer, solitary single-player? Maybe you think that games are actually getting too long, maybe you don't have the time of patience to take part in a 25 hour adventure.
Is quantity even an issue, or is the only thing that really matters the quality on offer? Would you take an amazing five hour game over a fifteen hour experience that was merely "great"?