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!
Who cares. The mutiplayer is really fun.
Sweet, about as long as Crysis2.
So? Gears of War took me 5 hours to beat
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.
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.
it took me 9hrs and 54min to beat Crysis2 so no, not "about as long as Crysis2". pretty disappointed in such a short campaign =/
took me 6hours 17mins and 23secs on default to beat it, and i finished with 94%.
took me just a little over 8 hours on supersoldier with 97%.
More like 9 or 10 hours depending on the difficulty.
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
i dont like the title. what if it takes me 7 hours?
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.
*GASP* Turn up the difficulty lol
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Then why do you not start off on the hardest difficulty?
@BloodyNapkin 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.
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.
Socom is about the multiplayer.
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.
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.
So, pretty average length then.
6 hours of pure awesomeness singleplayer 300 hours of pure awesomeness multiplayer
7.6 average on n4g so far doesn't support that AWESOMENESS statement. That being the average without Eurogamer's review score
You should stick with the first 4 letters of your name
Many PS3 fans have learned to ignore reviews, because so many of them have been full of BS. Warhawk, MAG, GT5, and now Socom 4 have gotten early reviews that were clearly written by people who didn't spend much time with the games, or were basing their review of the final game on the beta. My far and away favorite online FPS of this generation averages under an 8. I expected low to mediocre reviews no matter what the quality of the game was and that's what I'm seeing.
That may or may not be the best average to use. There have only been seven reviews submitted so far. It could rise or drop. I LOVED the multiplayer beta by itself, so I know the co-op and campaign will make this a must-buy for me.
To be honest, forget about reviews just play the damn game. When Yakuza 4 got them reviews I thought fuck it I'm still buying it, Yakuza 3 gave me 100 hours and Yakuza 4 does the same. I have two copies of Yakuza 4 :D
7.6 is good enough for me. Reviewers are to opninated trying to make a name for themselves now adays to really be truthful. 7.6 is good for me i could have sworn one of my favorite games Snatcher got like 6's from gamepro back in the day. Same with Tenchu so reviewers are barely on key in this business. to many e-penis to extend.
SOCOM is mainly about the multiplayer. The single player is just a nice bonus. Like Der_Kommandant said 6 hours of pure awesomeness.
That's not that bad. Most FPS campaigns can be completed in about four hours.
of the single player, so I hope the Campaign is a good experience
When people say, "Just turn up the difficulty," they don't understand that a harder game is not necessarily a more fun game. A lack of content shouldn't be replaced by harder-to-kill enemies. Maybe I really like the game for the scenery or the mission objectives, but I feel that the game is too short because there isn't enough of them. Turning up the difficulty doesn't add more content; in some cases it just makes game more frustrating. I know this is a shooter and most shooter lovers probably don't care about anything other than killing enemies, but people who play other types of games are not going to want a game with a short single player experience. More content such as a meatier story, more mission types (with more variety) are welcomed.
actually harder in KILLZONE 2 was a game changer and not a annoying cheap AI like in COD or 99% of the games thos who have plat KZ2 know what i mean and its very clear that the AI in SOCOM 4 is a game changer and not just a cheap option. Plus SOCOM 4 has a deap MP and if you cant enjoy it you are doing it wrong first get in a clan and only play classic and you will have the best time. plus the 5 players co op will give the that extra fun that others games do not have. ps. recluto para my clan latino pm en my psn arakouftaian
I doubt that the game is dramatically changed through harder AI. By game changer do you mean I have to change my tactics a little? Stay in cover longer? Watch my flanks for lurking enemies? I don't consider those game-changers, though they are nice. More content like more missions is something that I want. And I played Killzone 2. The harder settings didn't make the game magically have more content and variety. Took longer to kill Radec and I had to be more wary of grenades. That's about it.
In a tactical game, turning up the difficulty DOES make it more fun, because it makes it more tactical, typically. Tactical games are about thinking and executing the right solution... not about having faster and faster twitch reflexes (a la CoD difficulty). When you get a good solution working, your reflexes just don't matter that much. Hence, difficulty DOES affect the enjoyment of a tactical shooter differently than a run-of-the-mill FPS. I would say it makes it more tactical.
I agree with what you are saying. God of war 3 could be completed in 10 hours, 11 hours on Titan. People say that deaths in certain games do not count, yep they do, it adds onto your hours played.
a bit of a let down, but i was mostly looking forward to the co-op and mp. still would like a 12 hour sp experience. remember at the beginning of this gen when people where complaining about 10 hour games being too short. now we are condition to call 6 hours standard. i guess it not being sp only makes it easier to swallow though.
... really? Wow. =/ Well.. there's still the multiplayer to keep me occupied, I guess.. I have to admit that I'm finding the on-going BETA kinda boring though..
that sucks. i am really liking the beta. been in since the private invite, and still have a lot of fun with it. i am hoping a lot of people from my MAG clan come over so i have plenty of people to play co-op with. also the slower, more team work oriented classic mode will be more fun to play with people you actually know and like.
Let's all complain about it like Homefront. At least it has a campaign though, unlike confrontation.
If you read the article on PSFocus(that I wrote) you will notice that we are aware of the difficulty setting. But still if you play it on hard it will not make a huge difference. Maybe an hour aprox. But I think you will get a complete package with the co-op and custom campaign plus the multiplayer. So it is not a big disaster, but still we expected more hours from the singleplayer.
So, how many times did you die on Normal difficulty? How many times on Hard? Is there checkpointing, like in past SOCOMs? They were always quick for this reason, unless you preferred to not use checkpointing as an easy way through the game. It's an option that basically gives you a free ride through the campaign, probably meant to make access to the tactical nature more appealing to people who are no good at it.
@ Trroy The A.I is pretty good and sometimes enemy's will flank your position. But on the other site, the healthbar is gone and you can make headshots with ease. Checkpoints are in the singleplayer.
Heck Duke Nukem is going to be the longest FPS in a while. Its expected to be 15 to 20 hours.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.