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.
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"?
Comments
47 comments so far...
liveswired on 15 Mar '11 said:
i dont mind - i dont have the time anymore to play. Though if it comes to lengthy SP I think mario or zelda are hard to beat.
BenThomasFoster on 15 Mar '11 said:
Singleplayers of games arn't given enough time and priority to hook you into thw game and care about the characters... sure everyone knows COD4 is perhaps the only exception in games less than 6 hours that you start to care about the characters pretty much since all missions in COD4 involve price
stealth on 15 Mar '11 said:
depends on the genre. if an rpg is less than 50 hoursthats unforgivable
Dom Bom on 15 Mar '11 said:
Very few games nowdays have lengthy, or even decent singleplayer modes. The new thing is "multiplayer makes money" according to some developers, however, games such as Uncharted, Fallout and Batman: Arkham Asylum can prove them wrong over and over again.
morikaweb on 15 Mar '11 said:
My experience with multiplayer FPS games is a bunch of kids running around swearing at me. Multiplayer does not have and cannot have a decent story or any real depth. With these things in mind I would prefer more attention went into the single player game.
However if the developer wants to make a multiplayer game then do so. Just don't waste every ones time making a multiplayer game then throwing a half ass single player campaign just to have a check-mark on the box.
JFC2294 on 15 Mar '11 said:
Modern games have become very short as developers would rather focus on MP than SP as allot of the games i buy just to play SP first and when it feels short and boring i find that i don't want to play MP and i trade it in
142520452213 on 15 Mar '11 said:
Depends on the genre of the game. For example, FPSes don't essentially need to have as long a campaign as long as the incorporate a solid online mode.
And who says the quality declines as the game's time is increased? Okami is 45 hours of bliss!
fitterthanmost on 15 Mar '11 said:
there should be a standard length, just like movies do, i blame achievements for some games going on forever, 5points for some insanely boring task?
Gooner Rhyle on 15 Mar '11 said:
While I appreciate that many don't pick up games for the multiplayer aspect, I think that it's next to impossible to strike a perfect balance. I'd be quite happy if developers focused on producing a quality product in terms of one side of the fence or another - single player games could then deliver on the time, mechanics and depth, multiplayer on the maps, game types and custom options. Rocksteady, in my books, have entirely the right strategy with regards to how they approach their Batman games and I know many gamers who completely forgo the campaign side of things in games like CoD and dive straight into the multiplayer.
Too often we're delivered a half baked, way too short campaign on the premise that the developers are delivering longevity through the multiplayer only to have that experience turn out half baked too.
Simply games should be delivered in two distinct ways - go-for-broke with a minimum of 10 - 15 hour campaign or put out a superior online experience. It's very hard, almost IMPOSSIBLE to please everyone. Devs should focus on what they're good at.
g_marrs on 15 Mar '11 said:
It's related to the cost of the game. The shorter the game the less perceived value it has to it's cost. £40 for a 40-50 hour title versus £40 for an 8 hour or less title. The other thing is, a long single player title can justify adding in extra dlc micro-transactions. However, I feel ripped off if a game offers a short 8 hour experience and then asks me to pay for more content.
What you can do yourself in a game depends on the complexity of the game world itself. Oblivion offers hours of non game objective exploring. Other titles have little to nothing off the game's beaten path.
g_marrs on 15 Mar '11 said:
Jeez, next you'll be wanting standardised metric-sized canvasses for artists!
Gaseous Snake on 15 Mar '11 said:
The Metal Gear Solids are perfect, loads of gamers (myself included) cried a bit at the end of MGS4 (and considering it's the only one I'd played until recently, that's something). If you build the character as well as Kojima did with Snake, you don't need a multiplayer.
That said, 360 players will want to get their money's worth from the membership, so 360 should get multiplayer, PS3 single player. I think that'd work.
Also, as well as building the characters up and making the game longer (10 hours absolute minimum!), they should increase re-playability. MGS4 takes half a dozen playthroughs to unlock everything, whereas most games are linear and small (such as Bulletstorm), so one play through is plenty (and it's not helped by the fact that unlocks don't carry over into the new game).
More character development, longer and more varied levels (keep the gameplay the same, no on-rails or QT), and more unlocks.
That's also why I think Brink'll be good, although there won't be much character development. Of course, character development sells sequels, the game itself is sold by the other two.
slaney on 15 Mar '11 said:
Before even reading the article, i knew that it was Homefront's controversial campaign that sparked this debate!
g_marrs on 15 Mar '11 said:
So,... I'm guessing you like MGS4?
fitterthanmost on 15 Mar '11 said:
artist's need standards too you know.
beemoh on 15 Mar '11 said:
Don't know about too short, but I've played plenty of games that have been longer than their ideas.
Darksiders, for instance- I don't know how long it is in hours but I'm about two thirds, maybe three quarters of the way through and it's starting to grate, meanwhile I've put over a hundred hours into Fallout 3 and am still finding new stuff.
That said, as mentioned earlier, price point comes into it as well.
Soviet1918 on 15 Mar '11 said:
Are modern games too short? How can i put this errrmmm YES
thatlad on 15 Mar '11 said:
Relying on multiplayer is just plain lazy
Call of duty games are a major let down for short single player modes, I'm playing castlevania at the moment and it's been one massive campaign. I'm enjoying every minute of it.
richard99 on 15 Mar '11 said:
Most RPGs and some sandbox games are still as long as you could want and if there's a great multiplayer alongside a short but sweet campaign then I sometimes I feel like I got my moneys worth (Every Halo and Gears for examples). As a general rule though modern single player games are without a doubt too short.
k-mysta on 15 Mar '11 said:
depends on the price.i'm not paying £50 for a 5hour campaign.even if multiplayer is awesome,i get tired of it quickly and prefer single player games.so for someone like me,yeah,modern games are too short considering most of them come with a hefty price tag.
chronicwombat on 15 Mar '11 said:
its a problem mainly for 'shooters'. other genres dont seem to have the same problem. edit: actually fable 3 was horribly short. and enslaved was over pretty sharpish. sigh. i got enslaved day 1 and finished it day 2 then traded it in. loved the game but they should have made it longer or brought out the dlc much sooner then i woulda got it.
by the way cvg, for f**ks sake please stop going on about batman not having multiplayer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! im guessing that they may well add mulitplayer to the 3rd game, ala AC:B - but just like AC its much more important to develop a solid single player then build from that in later games.
TheExpendable on 15 Mar '11 said:
Replying to the above
MGS is the absolute pinnacle of gaming. nothing will ever come close to the depth, emotion, excitement and sheer experience you gain from playing that series, its the shawshank redemption of gaming.
Personally i couldnt play MGS4 more than once still to this day it sits proudly on my shelf completed. The game had such an impact first time i couldnt play bring myself to play it through again. MGS2 and 3 on the other hand, must of replayed those like 20 times each. madness.
Fallout is an example of a game that really nails the single player experience and doesnt even have an online mode!
you can judge how long that game is for you, you can play the whole story without deviation which would take maybe 30 or so hours, or do all the side quests and really indulge in the world and reach 300 hours!
that game really does have so much depth and value for money.
Imaduck on 15 Mar '11 said:
Yes, they are. But not all, just many of the mainstream. A "short" game should be at bare minimum 8-10 hours of play. I always hope for 10-20 but few deliver.
Masked_Bunny on 15 Mar '11 said:
I've played the first batman 3 times now not including all the times Ive been on challenge maps and I know a friend who has completed it 4 times and is planning on at least 1 more play through before the sequal is released. I've not found any multi-player focused title thats held my attention for as long as that. By all reports the sequal will be larger than the first.
I've also completed DA:O, ME 1 and 2 3 times each and them games last 30+ hours min. So no modern games are NOT to short AS LONG as the developer puts the time and effort in to make the game compelling all the way through.
starsail on 15 Mar '11 said:
it wud be safe to say MP is the future and what a shame. the market has become dominated by 13yos spending endless hours abusing other players online and the media doesn't help either. endless praise for new games that feature a newer variation of deathmatch with rpg elements to keep youngsters hooked and parents filling the pockets of rip off merchants such activision.
homework being missed because of the endless designed sessions of online games and i think there're genuine concerns. at least with many SP games like tomb raider or zelda, one uses their brain.
SP games affected by the MP virus are Call of Duty series, Crackdown 2, Halo series, Killzone 3, Battlefield series etc and its a sad state of affairs (I cant believeb black ops is still selling the way it is), talk about shovelware crap on Wii, the real damage is being done on XBox 360 and to a lesser extent PS3, with endless online sessions of MP games.
I enjoy quick blasts of MP but it sucks hours from ones life if played endlessly and a Call of Duty every year is basically the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Thats why i enjoy PS3, variation in exclusives ie platformers: LBP or R&C, racers: Wipeout or GT5 or Motorstorm or Modnation, TPA: MGS or Uncharted or GoW or Heavy Rain or Infamous, FPA: Resistance or Killzone, RPG: Valkry or Yakuza or 3D Heroes or Folk Lore or White Knight or D Souls ... etc etc there's so much SP variety that isn't matched on other formats but this will begin to die off as exclusive dlc will become the main focus of financial strengths forcing sonys hand into fuelling more 13yos into getting parents to purchase MP maps to continue endless Call of Duty clones, thats where the market is heading
Very_Silver_Ownz on 15 Mar '11 said:
More hours for the campaign is always better. Resident Evil 4 especially had like 20 hours of gameplay not including mercenaries mode.
It kind of sucks because there were alot of long games on PS1 and PS2.
I hate short games because I feel ripped off and feel I haven't got my moneys worth.
Good long games > good short games.
Noobsaibot on 16 Mar '11 said:
No option for both, eh? With storage capacity not being a factor on PS3 or PC (Or the others if you don't mind multi disc), why is it just one or the other?
solamon77 on 16 Mar '11 said:
I don't mind having a game be short so long as it's crazy deep. If a game is going to be 5 hours long, I want as much detail packed in there as possible. I understand that with today's graphics, it's hard and VERY expensive to make something real long.
Personally, I could care less about multiplayer. I grew up playing games in the days before everything was networked so never really got into it. I play games for the story and atmosphere. Unfortunately, ever since Call of Duty broke all records it's had every publisher salivating to get a piece of that pie. Problem is, there's only so much of said pie to go around and Call of Duty has already eaten most of it. Most of what's left has been eaten by Halo. Developers need to focus more on figuring out what the next big thing is and less time trying to emulate that which has already been done.
ImpatientZero on 16 Mar '11 said:
Is the game too short, or is it what you do with it? I would say the answer is a little of column A and a little of Column B. Yes, there are some games that are too short for what you pay for them, particularly when they first come out. Generally, these are packed full of 'achievements' that are designed to get the player to replay the game in the worst possible way. The worst examples of this are the Half-life 2:Episodes games. Fun games for the three or four hours it takes to play them, but really that's too short for my $50. It would be better if there was a real reason to play the game over again, though Loving Half-life, I have played them over more than once, just because, months or years later. The thing is, I'm remembering the game on my other playthroughs, not really getting into the spirit of it and have lost a lot of that sense of wonder. If there was an in game reason, if I made a different choice and had a alternate outcome, then I could really enjoy playing a short game over and over again.
What is most important is value for my money. Puzzle games are great for this, as they are generally cheap and you can play them for months of game time if they are really good. Multiplayer is good too, if you are into that sort of thing. Me, I perfer a game I can play alone, one with story. If that story is really compelling, I'll play it over and over again. it doesn't necessarily need to be long, but it needs to have compelling hooks to get me to go back and play it again, not just some 'achievement' no one with see, or care about.
Hashbrown on 16 Mar '11 said:
Its only FPS/TPS that seem to be getting cut short. More and more games are getting much bigger landscapes to explore which naturally makes the game last longer while your exploring it all. The likes of Fallout and Borderlands are more rpg based but a straight up shooter doesn't really need the lenghty campaign.
Why drag out a campaign for 10 hours just to make it longer but at the expense of quality, I would prefer a decent campaign shorter but worth playing again.
jsb115 on 16 Mar '11 said:
I miss the good old days when a new Tomb Raider game would take me upwards of 20 hours to complete, minimum. Compare that to Tomb Raider Legend, which I completed in a little over 7.
Are games too short nowadays? Undoubtedly in some cases. But I don't think anyone could say that Oblivion or Fallout 3 or Dragon Age are too short. Not by a long shot. Depends on the game.
Headsrinker on 16 Mar '11 said:
DO BEARS SH*T IN THE WOODS??
r0zm4n on 16 Mar '11 said:
I can't help but notice my favourite games of recent years have been Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age, Fallout:NV, Empire total War. All 50+ hour Epics. *shrug*
a.d on 16 Mar '11 said:
I don't have that much time anymore and i like to play most new releases so don't really wanna spend too much time on one game. Unless it's Brilliant.
Sausage Warrior on 16 Mar '11 said:
Modern games aren't too short, our expectations are just too high.
Back in the day, most Mega Drive games cost £29.99. A lot of the games stretched playtime by making you lose all your lives and forcing you to start from beginning, but once you had the skills, you could finish them within an hour (Sonic, I'm looking in your direction), and I remember finishing Earthworm Jim 2 on the hardest setting the same morning I got it, how disasterous would that be by today's standards? You had low resolution 16-bit graphics and sound.
By comparison, nowadays you have amazing high-definition polygonal 3D graphics (and stereoscopic 3D just getting started), much better sound (surround sound even!) and stunning cutscenes (depending which game you're playing). A lot of games only seem short because they save your position in the adventure and don't force you to start over if you lose too many lives. Even the criminally underpowered Wii has bargains compared to the old days, you certainly wouldn't have got something like Mario Galaxy for £30 back in the 16-bit days, obviousely the technology wasn't around, but if it was, the game could have cost hundreds, let alone the console to play it on, and don't get me started on 360 and PS3 quality stuff as well as all the online features. If this stuff was around back then, almost no-one could have afforded it, PS3 was expensive at launch as it was, let alone if the technology was around in the early 90's.
If you really think about it, although game prices have risen a bit, damn we're getting some bargains, our expectations have just risen sky high. Although I'm sure there are exceptions around, modern games are a lot longer now, you just don't start from beginning over and over anymore.
MrRage on 16 Mar '11 said:
FPS single player games are currently too short. For me relying on multiplayer to extend a games life is really poor. Multiplayer is just being lazy on the studios part, it relies on the people playing the game to make it enjoyable rather than them having to write a story.
My favourite games of the last year or two have been Borderlands, Fallout and Assassins creed where you get a decent level of gameplay with out having some stupid kids yelling over there headsets because you shot them.
Augustus_aka_AG on 16 Mar '11 said:
As I often tell my girlfriend... it's the quality, not the duration, that really matters.
julioaragon on 16 Mar '11 said:
i definitely agree that .current games are alot shorter thats the one thing i hate about games these days
milky_joe on 16 Mar '11 said:
I wouldn't say all modern games are too short. RDR was one of the GOTY contenders last year and that was pretty lengthy, then we've got LA Noire coming out soon and that is supposed to take about 25 hours.
It's really just the FPS genre where single player length is dwindling. And those of us who don't really get on with online multiplayer for whatever reason are left scratching our heads at the popularity of a £40 game that lasts a handful of hours, with online modes that are extended by tiny map packs that cost 1/4 of the main game.
orgasmatron on 16 Mar '11 said:
Yes they are too short and most of them lack the great gameplay that you need. in the old days like mario, sonic, zelda etc they had gameplay. there are not many that have such good gameplay anymore.
An example on short game is need for speed undercover. when you finished the game, if you were lucky you had unlocked maximum three cars. that was short and boring. longer games please.
g_marrs on 16 Mar '11 said:
Well technically round here they do it in the zoo which is halfway up a mountain with no trees. So... I'd have to answer no, not here. Maybe in other parts of the world your point is valid. However, that being the case, your response is very open ended and based on your geographical location and depth of knowledge, not to mention to how locally or globally you intend your statement to represent, it is uncertain as to whether you mean yes, no or, indeed maybe.
Could you perhaps clarify the specific species of bear? Is it wild or tame? Where is it currently located?
Many thanks in advance for clarifying your statement.
Bazcube85 on 17 Mar '11 said:
I don't think that game are to short I think it's all about the type of game you play for example if you play fps how long can you stand walking and shooting people it gets repetitive. Were as sandbox and rpg you make the game as long as you like because you can just do the main story or you can do side misson also there is a lot more travel time in these game which increase length.
rbt2 on 17 Mar '11 said:
In general, I think it's more a case of modern games being easier than too short.
They're not as tough as the old school stuff in the main.
rbt2 on 17 Mar '11 said:
In general, I think it's more a case of modern games being easier than too short.
They're not as tough as the old school stuff in the main.
pmanden on 17 Mar '11 said:
YES, they are too short! And you should blame multi-player! FPS games, in particular, are increasingly being "ruined" by multiplayer. Today, it seems that any 5-hour long single-player game can get a great review, if it just has a decent multi-player mode. Games like Call of Duty shouldn't get a score above 7, if you consider playing only the single-player mode. Thanks god that we still have decent, long-lasting games like Fallout 3 and Mass Effect!
A game of a "good" length would have to take at least 20 hours to complete. Take Saints Row 2 for example. It took me about 25 hours to complete. Nice!
theXtReMe1 on 18 Mar '11 said:
I'm on both sides of the fence with game length. I love 20+ hour shooters, but like others... find it hard to have the time to play them. While I think 5 hours, like Homefront, is a little stingy on the developers part... I think 6 hours or more is sometimes just right, depending on the game quality or my mood.
AegisK on 24 Mar '11 said:
When you spend money on a game you expect it to last longer than freeware. Its getting to the point where there's no point buying a game that doesn't even last a weekend. The best length would be where it lasted every weekend that month. At 3 hours a day thats 24 hours, a good campaign length for any single player title.