You will finish SOCOM 4 singleplayer in six hours

PSFocus writes: The SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEAL’s (SOCOM: Special Forces in Europe) review has to wait, because the servers are still offline. But PSFocus already finished the singleplayer and you know what…. It was finished in 5 hours and 45 minutes!

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Warprincess1162807d ago

Who cares. The mutiplayer is really fun.

2Spock2807d ago

Sweet, about as long as Crysis2.

Abash2807d ago

So? Gears of War took me 5 hours to beat

MmaFan-Qc2807d ago

its all about the MP, the single player is just a bonus.

put more than 37hrs into the beta and i already know that im enjoying the game, so i honestly dont care about reviers have to say, and yes, im what you call a socom veteran.

2Spock2807d ago

So i am assuming that people can beat Crysis2 alot quicker then 6 hours in first play through, thats why i am getting disagree's.

joydestroy2807d ago

it took me 9hrs and 54min to beat Crysis2 so no, not "about as long as Crysis2".

pretty disappointed in such a short campaign =/

2Spock2806d ago

took me 6hours 17mins and 23secs on default to beat it, and i finished with 94%.

BloodyNapkin2806d ago

took me just a little over 8 hours on supersoldier with 97%.

Legionaire20052806d ago

More like 9 or 10 hours depending on the difficulty.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2806d ago
ilikestuff2807d ago

seems to be the norm for a shooting game, ill play through it about 3 or 4 times though and i already put 18 hours into the beta, i think i could easily do another 100 hours though so, ill get my moneys worth out of socom 4

Kon_Artist 2807d ago

i dont like the title. what if it takes me 7 hours?

GameGambits2807d ago

6 hours? That's 2 more hours than Homefront!

Honestly, unless you're playing something like a Bioshock FPS, then 5ish hours is the norm these days. People buying these games for single player are either rich or stupid or both.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2806d ago
Klipz-Wish2807d ago

*GASP* Turn up the difficulty lol

Trroy2807d ago (Edited 2807d ago )

Yeah, lol. I was wondering about that.

What difficulty did they play on? "Normal" it says? Its a tactical shooter, so difficulty *should* have a major, major impact on play time -- it determines how tactical and careful you're gonna have to be.

I never play games on anything less than one step up from "regular" or "normal" for that reason.

christheredhead2807d ago (Edited 2807d ago )

see the thing is i shouldn't have to turn up the difficulty if i want more playtime out of my games. there is nothing wrong with that but i shouldn't have to make it ultra difficult just to pass the 6 hour mark. i dont feel like repeating sections over and over just to say the game was longer than 6 hours. sure it will be fun for some and i enjoy a challenge but why not extend my content, story, locations, etc.

90% of the time difficulty is done incorrectly. im sure it would make it more tactical for socom but usually in fps/tps games the difficulty increase results in a 1 bullet kill instead of AI tuning which cripples the game itself. i enjoy going back on a higher setting but like i said its ridiculous that we have to resort to insane difficulties and repetition for longevity.

im not picking on your comment or what klipz-wish said but i see that same statement far to often.

badz1492807d ago

difficulty setting really matters in games like MGS4 but playing at the hardest difficulty in recent games like CoD, MoH, KZ3 didn't really affect the time. sure things are getting harder and you die a lot more times but the game time didn't really feel THAT long over the easier settings. maybe that's just me but KZ3 is awesome but I ended up hoping for it to be longer! I hope SOCOM will last me long enough in SP! I love MP just like the next guy but my priority is always SP and longer and very well executed SP campaign is something that I'm looking forward to in almost every game I buy!


''We should mention that there it was on normal difficulty''

That is why.

MysticStrummer2807d ago

Yeah. Most games this generation have had a Normal setting that felt like the Easy of the past. Another side effect of trying to make games more accessible.

GodofwarGoty2807d ago

its not surprising alot of games these days are getting short reviwers come out and say thwese game is these long but also thats where there wrong most gamers it takes longer and reiwers rush through the game just so they can be first to review it or dont even take the time to play it

justRonald2807d ago

Well you know that reviewers can't play every difficult setting right, like Easy, Normal, Hard, Very Hard. That's why most reviews are based on Normal, with extra playtrought in harder difficulties, because most of us play games on Normal first, and then switch to Hard. The people who like trophies and stuff mostly start on the highest difficulty.

If I can speak for myself (and for PSFocus); Yes some reviewers are rushing for faster reviews and that's a very bad thing. That's why you put specific reviewers on specific games. I don't review RPG games, because I don't have 150 hours of free time, but I will do most storytelling games (between 6 / 14 hours). The hardest reviews are sportgames reviews, like FIFA. You can't review a FIFA when you first have to play something like five seasons, but that's the spot where most problems will be showing up (very bad transfers, to much money ect).

But we haven't even started to review SOCOM 4 (I'm not the reviewer) yet, because the servers are still offline :s. I don't know if that's a world wide problem, because I see SOCOM 4 reviews on the internet :s

GodofwarGoty2807d ago

i agree 100 percent with you justRonald thats true same here like for me i couldnt review Sport games because i havent really played one before and thats why i wouldnt be the right person to review it and it really does count on how much time you have to review it and the right person to review the game Thanks again for your reply.

BloodyNapkin2807d ago (Edited 2807d ago )

Then why do you not start off on the hardest difficulty?

justRonald2807d ago


Because the mainstream gamers play there games on Normal. You can't review games on the hardest difficulty and be like: Yeah game is really hard and you will die a lot en repeat the same thing over and over again to just finish the game. Even publishers don't want it, because in almost every game, the AI doesn't get better if you switch in difficulties. The game isn't changing, the fact that you will be killed by a handfull of bullits, is not something publishers want to see.

The best reviews are: Play and finish a game on Normal. Then put hours in multiplayer, and then switch back to a harder difficulty and see what is changing en write about that and not about the experience of finishing a game on the hardest difficulty.

MysticStrummer2807d ago

Sadly, the servers not being online hasn't stopped some reviewers from scoring the game based on beta play, and early beta play at that. Congrats for showing some integrity. That's becoming a rare trait in gaming journalism.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2807d ago
Drekken2807d ago

Socom is about the multiplayer.

sickbird2807d ago

well, if you have been following/listening to zippers podcast they said they focused more on single player this time around. Thats why they have been patching in multiplayer features/fixes.

nnotdead2807d ago

the article says you can custom the sp player. maybe features like that is what Zipper was talking about? either way co-op and mp is why i am buying the game. sp can still be fun if short, but i do hope for 12 hour campaigns with my shooters, action, and adventure games.

Fishy Fingers2807d ago

So, pretty average length then.

Show all comments (51)
The story is too old to be commented.