GameRevolution: The Call of Duty franchise has long been criticized for its short single-player campaign length. Campaign length is just one area in which Battlefield 3 hopes to best the reigning champion of shooters.
Coulda done with a couple more as I generally power through FPS', but this is still far better than a certain franchise.
I still would rather their singleplayer was just bots in the mp maps. Spent many hours practicing my aim too em
I quite liked Battlefield 2: Modern Combat's singleplayer mode. Had more focused objectives, but still huge areas and maps, kinda a mix between the trademark BF MultiPlayer experience and a traditional singleplayer shooter.
Battlefield 2 had a single-player mode? o.O I'm pretty sure it was conquest with bots.
rest assured COD and BF have the same campaign lengths (3-5hrs) advertised by their developer as 6-7...its not a big deal considering how the fps in this particular genre greatly rely on shock and awe, high production values and a narrative that doesn't stop to develop an already familiar world-there is no need for prolonging a campaign that has these elements.
Similar length to Call Of Duty campaigns, while cod campaigns are great bf3 needs to prove that its campaign is not tacked on.
Personally, I only really play Call of Duty for the campaigns (I actually prefered them when they were still 'War' games like in the classic #2, but I still find them enjoyable), and agree that DICE needs to prove that BF is more than just an epic MP game (im still okay with that anyway, I love the MP). From what we've seen I think it will manage it.
I've enjoyed every CoD campaign, but the only Battlefield campaign I've really enjoyed was from Bad Company 1. When BC2 came out, I was so disappointed with the campaign because they took everything out that made BC1 great, except for the characters of course.
Same as CoD then.. NICE!
yeh for a game that is bought more for it's MP i think 6,7, or 8 hours is good enough! Lets you jump right into instant action and practice for the MP. Now games like UC2 or HL2 should be epic 20+ hour adventures cause we are getting those for the SP experience!
Cause NO one really gives a Darn about the BF3 SP campaign cause it only serves as a training ground for the weapons and vehicles of the MP! BF3 is all about CONQUEST MODE!! Pictures of you sitting in a F/A-18 super Hornet on a aircraft carrier waiting to launch do look exciting! I still haven't played the BC2 Sp campaign yet :)
Speak for yourself. I liked the single player campaign in BF:BC2 and BF3's campaign looks epic.
6-7 hours seems to be the sweet spot these days
Yea, high and low points and varied enough so it won't be tedious. I'd be mad if I had to go through 10-15 hours of straight shooting.
I remember the days when 6-7 hours was short. Now it is the "sweet spot". The good news is that it usually takes me far longer to finish games.
Agreed. I'm usually a good 4-5 hours past these 'expected' lengths.
Come on, this isn't an RPG we're talking about here. Given how fast-paced shooters are, it's really difficult from a design perspective to make a campaign longer than 6-7 hours that still manages to entertain all the way through without dragging.
Half-Life 2 was like, 17 or 18 hours. Didn't really drag at all IMO, even though it's extremely long for an FPS.
I've spent like 6-7 hours today trying to get across a fucking bridge in Dark Souls >.<.
That's fine with me... the multiplayer will take "years" :P
That seems pretty short, but then you throw in a separate co-op campaign (of an unspecified length) and now you've got a nice play time.
two times CoD's very good, i'll play multiplayer for hundreds hours)
i c hypocrites... EDIT: @ gravemaker: You mean two times KZ3 Campaign... CoD campaign lasts 6 hours too and for MW3 possibly 10. Eat it.
Well, if your a girl a play games on easier difficulty settings its bound to make your experiance shorter Im not buyin BF3 for its singleplayer anyway, although i will play it, its not my focus
I beat MW2 in about 4 and a half hours. It actually FELT much longer, but when I looked at the clock after it was finished, I was all like, there's no way it was THAT short.
so I'll play the game with amazing visuals(est ever) on pc but the campaign only lasts 6-7 hours ? :,(
So that's why their adding SP DLC.
Too damned short as you know experienced games will come in under that.
Why are people acting like 6-7 hours for Battlefield 3 is longer then the COD campaigns? That is right around the average for COD games as well, yet people were complaining. I think it varies for each gamer, but MW2 took me around 9 hours to complete and Black ops took me around 8 and a half. So I think they are pretty on par in all honesty. Let's not be so hypocritical here people, if it's good enough length for BF3, then it's good enough for MW3 as well.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of CoD myself but this is the same as it yet people are claiming this is good. I already vented my frustrations before at DICE lying saying it would be around 12 hours long and then cutting it down to 6. If the rest of the package is as full as it is then fine I can get over it but I don't see the need to lie to us. And I don't see the need for everyone else to be hypocritical and act as if a 6 hour SP is good.
I think the length is good if the story justifies it but yer claiming it was 12 is frustrating. Not sure if it was EA or DICE but shouldn't have been claimed anyway
That is terribly short. That being said, BF3s main focus SHOULD be multiplayer, so...the length of the campaign is justifiable.
They should have ditched the co-op in order to have an even longer SP campaign imo Whose going to be buying BF3 for the co-op anyway? lol My playthrough will be on the hardest difficulty there is so I'm sure I'll get at least 10-12 hours of game time.. and then it's onto the MP! :P
I didn't know BF3 would have co-op initially but I'm more looking forward to the co-op than the single-player and will put in a lot of hours into it, I love co-op games and modes like MW2's Spec Ops (pretty much the only thing I liked in that game).
What's wrong with co-op? I'm looking forward to it.
With shooters, I guess this is a good while. So long as the action is interesting and entertaining enough, who cares? The multiplayer is what really sells it as it is.
Hmm so about 4 hours in real world...
Battlefield 2 didn't have a campaign so quit your bitchin'. Nor did Battlefield 2142, 1943, Heroes, Vietnam and Play4Free. This could of easily been a MP only game too. Only Battlefield 1942, Modern Combat 2 and the Bad Company series have had an actual campaign.
and people were complaining about resistance 3 campaign length which blows this games single player out of the water!
I like campaigns with boss battles. I might not even bother playing BF3 campaign now. Military shooters campaigns are boring to me.
No way I'd pay $60 for that. I don't care if it's "about the multiplayer modes". Not many games these days justify full price anyway, so I don't see why this would be any different.
Well.. It is a multiplayer-game, with SP add-on, so I don't really see your point point. You wanted 15 h campaign and that would had justified your buy, instead of 6h? Or the endles hours of mp? It's first BF with SP anyway (not counting BC's here), plus short Co-Op campaign...
I cant believe how you guys actually accept 6-7 hours of playtime. Thats fucking unacceptable EVEN IF it has coop and multiplayer. and then cod games have 7 hour campaigns and you guys completely shit on it?! WTF.
Personally, I don't care if it is 1 hour or 100 hours, I'll propably just skip the SP, as I did with BC's.
7 hours isnt long at all,this is the trend that most shooters follow though.I would b pissed if i were only buying this game for singleplayer*
I could care less if the single player was 20 minutes long. Battlefield is a multiplayer game.
^This Battlefields Multiplayer is where its at, the Campaign just makes it 20% cooler.
Yep. Completely superfluous.
if a dev says its 6-7 hours.. then actually its only 3-4 hours
They said it would last 12 hours back in March: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk... Just another example of EA and DICE talking the talk and failing to deliver.
I think it's time to sell mutiplayer and campaign separately. Everyone don't have internet or like to play online so $60 to play the campaign is too much.
This is a bit of a deal breaker for me as I was hearing it would be around 12 hrs or so. I don't buy games for online play, I'll buy battlefield eventually but not right away as I was planning.
Now I have no interest in EITHER BF3 or MW3.
Dont care how long its is multiplayer is battlefield i hardly touch singleplayer games these days more fun killing online or just pissing off your team fun fun fun.
I wonder what percentage of purchases dont even touch single player.
Kind of short for my tastes, however multiplayer is where its at so its no all bad. Then again, there's a separate co-op "campaign" right? So that should add some extra hours.
Who buys battlefield for single player? I never have. Call of duty, yes I would. It has a epic single player campaign. Battlefield multiplayer is where the fun in the series has always been. I dare say without experiencing one second of BF3 single player.... why do they bother.
I play FPS for multi-player and the added bonus is the SP, however these game are getting shorter MP every day. I remember when Killzone series got killed for being short and got points taken out for it, but now it is OK lol. Love the games not the system!
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.