Hey Ubisoft, 5 Hours? Keep That Sh*t!

Ironstar writes: "Today your average single player campaigns lasts roughly around 8 hours to 11 hours depending on difficulty, there are many titles that support this claim. We've seen so many great games have savory campaigns without getting repetitive; I don't understand why a long existing franchise like Splinter Cell can only pump out a shallow 5 hour single player experience."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
xTruthx3978d ago

Ill get this game for the mp rlly, the only thing that worries me is that there has only been two reviews and the game comes out Tuesday

Anon19743978d ago

Personally, I won't buy a game with so short a single player campaign. I skipped Heavenly Sword, I skipped that Halo expansion priced like a full game and I won't be giving this game my hard earned money when there's games like Battlefield 2, Borderlands, Demon Souls that will actually give me my money's worth. Not to mention all the big heavy hitters we've seen come out recently like GOW3, Heavy Rain, Final Fantasty, etc.

There's a lot of games competing for my gaming buck. You have to do better than this, Ubisoft.

soxfan20053978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

I seem to recall comments made about the lenght of another recent high-profile exclusive. The concensus by fans of that game seemed to be along the lines of:

"A true fan won't just rush to the end, they will take their time in order to experience everything".

I'm sure the same will apply here as well.

presto7173978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

Just saying....

I've always loved stealth games so I'll have to try this out sooner or later. Speaking of which, when the hell is the next Hitman game coming out. Cleard Blood Money ages ago!!!!

-Mezzo-3978d ago

I am a big fan of the series since the very first title which means i will purchase this title anyway, but this is very,very disappointing.

All this time in development and 5 hours is all we get. Up Your's Ubisoft.

kaveti66163978d ago

I also am surprised that they worked so long to deliver a 5 hour experience, as fun as it may be. I agree that spending 65 bucks on such a short game is just irresponsible. I myself am hesitant to spend 65 bucks on even God of War 3 though it's 12 hours.

The multiplayer component for Conviction shouldn't be used as a defense of its price, either, because the devs left of out one of the more beloved Splinter Cell game types: Mercs v. Spies.

This game is just not worth a retail purchase. Either find a good deal on the net or wait for the bargain bin.

Abriael3978d ago

The difference here is that the other "recent high profile exclusive" was around 9-10 hours, which is in the average nowadays, not to mention that Splinter Cell isn't really high profile.
I wouldn't go calling some sub-hd mediocre metal gear solid wannabe title "high profile".

sparta763978d ago

5 hours long!?
Don't tell me that!
Why did ign give it such a high score? Was it because muti player..?
Isn't the single player the most important part of the game?
Still getting it I have payed for, I preorderd..
But still 5 hours is TOO short. Hopefully is longer then that

Fanb0y3978d ago

Neogaf poster CloakedPuppet is saying that it look him about 10 hours on his normal playthrough.

Some other people are saying similar things.

I think the IGN reviewer is not human.

ABizzel13978d ago

One thing he said in the article really stood out to me.

"Great single player titles are something I believe Xbox 360 lacks. Although there are existing franchises like Mass Effect and Fable that feature amazing campaigns and campaigns only, multiplayer titles on Xbox 360 seem like the top priority."

This is as true of a statement if I've ever heard one. It's also happening on the PS3 more, however, Sony's exclusive titles keep the focus on Single Player first. The single player is the most important part of the game to me, because I play games for 2 reasons besides entertainment: The gameplay, and the Story. And it seems that games on the 360 are dumping story for gameplay and online which is fine for some games, but I prefer having a good story over a pointless shoot 'em up.

EvilBlackCat3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

funny how some people critize 5 hour long games but then act like there is no 5 hours long games on their side of the fence.

BY THE WAY PEOPLE I OWN GoW3 and is fncking short.

Bathyj3978d ago

Wasnt Ubi bragging about how long this game will take to finish?

Were they only talking about the MP and Co-op?

Please someone tell me at least that Co-op can be played in Single player, like RB6 Vegas 2. At least that lends some longevity.

Dammit, I love this game, and I'm getting it, but it needs to be longer than that. If I finish it on my second sitting I may return it and get my money back, which is a shame. I'd rather play it over and over again.

And I dont really blame Ubi, they are simply blowing where the wind takes them. Its all you clowns instisting EVERYTHING has to have a deathmatch attached to it. The focus now days is on online so they can sell you more map-packs.

Single player is dying, thanks to you lot. If I wanted to play against someone else, I'd be outside playing cricket or something.

Sorry to come off so angry, but how many games have to get crippled by this over attention to MP before someone says something?

mikeslemonade3978d ago

The single player is going to suck no matter what. COD, BFBC, RB6, etc. all have crappy single player. What matters is the multiplayer and too bad the multiplayer here is going to have sucky replay value. The multiplayer player vs player is 1 vs 1 and it has coop. The amount of content sucks. Team vs Team is what adds replay value in these kinds of games.

Rainstorm813978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

You loyalists are really a joy to watch....the hypocrisy is phenomenal.

I beat GOW3 in 8-8 1/2 hours on my first playthrough.....Thats by no means a long game but 5 hours are you kidding me?

Weren't all you xbox loyalists crying about GOW's length? (IGN was 4 sure) Well here's a shorter game cry about that as well.

OH and before you guys come back with your "b-b-b-ut the MP & Co-op"

Splinter cell is a single player game first and foremost, always have been and it seems it wont necessarily always will be.

A 5 hour single player campaign isnt worth 60$ on any system.

"The only reason to hesitate and pick this up is if you only care about the single-player story and want nothing to do with anything else Conviction has to offer. If that's the case, then there's not a lot of game to be had. And also, you're nuts. The best parts of Conviction are the experiences you have long after you've left Sam Fisher behind." - IGN

Basically your nuts if you dont care about online MP and buy this game. When did being hypocritical become the new thing???

Lou-Cipher3978d ago

Well said

It really is a shame single player is getting snuffed out by MP. What sucks even worse is the fact that motion controls are going to dumb down our games even more. There sure is a bunch of bull$hit going on this gen.

3978d ago
Hudahudahuda3978d ago

I don't really find game length to be a big problem at all actually, as long as it packs enough will designed content I would rather spend money on that instead of having a bloated game with repetition, boring gameplay and pointless mini sidequests.

I probably won't be buying splintercell conviction, because splinter cell is the poor man's MGS and because I have a feeling it will come to PS3 without locking me out of multiplayer. Regardless, it's length would not be a reason.

IHateYouFanboys3978d ago


the resolution of a game has NOTHING to do with how long the game is.

Sarcasm3978d ago

Hilarious. Weren't some folks complaining about MGS4 being a 5 hour game?

IdleLeeSiuLung3978d ago

It does have an additional co-op mode that should take at least 5 hours to complete so without the multi-player component it is 10-hours long which most will spend more time than that.

I guess, you could spend hours grinding through a boring game or you could spend 5 quality hours. Your choice!

Although I prefer to have a longer game, I will take the latter.

badz1493978d ago

actually there is a relation between resolution and length! both have something to do with disc space. lower resolution means, smaller file size and shorter games also means smaller file size! the same image at 576p have 20% less pixels than 720p! although that may not directly translate to 20% more space, in a same amount of space, you can put more stuff at 576p compared to 720p! which means, for same size, you can make longer games at 576p compared to 720p!

I know that they utilized the extra space for co-op and MP but 5H campaign? come on!!

ReservoirDog3163978d ago

Ok, everyone who recognizes my name or just looks through my comment history knows I love the SC games. I was really looking forward for conviction.

But when I saw that it's only 5 hours long (bare in mind, I don't have XBL), I cancelled my preorder on amazon.

I realized there's 6 games coming out next month that I want to get (Alan Wake, Red Dead Redemption, SMG2, Modnation Racers, 3D Dot Heros and MGS PW) and I can only get 2. But since I cancelled my preorder, I can get 4.

Love SC but it just isn't worth it without XBL.

pimpmaster3978d ago

well the diffrence is the gameplay style, in classic splintercells you watch the guards and slowly stalk and take them out, leading to longer gameplay. in this splintercell u just press Y and it kills everyone on the screen, then you run to your next area with no worries cause youve killed everyone.

JonnyBadfinger3978d ago

5 hours? thats a little on the short side aint it?

OR perhaps a certain someone in particular is bulls***ing everyone, trying to wage yet another unjust and unreasonable flame war... im just saying.

Honestly the length of the game isnt so much as a problem, its the quality of the story... no one wants to sit through a 12hr borefest of a campaign. I say if the story is GOOD and interesting the length is irrelevant. Its like movies, did you really want to sit through all that BS in 'James Cameron's Avatar' where all you needed to see was the first 45 mins and the last 20mins to understand it? or 'Titanic' a story about a lady crying Jack every 10mins and a boat that takes 3 hours to sink?

As long as the story behind the game is of a high caliber the length of the game means little.

And as if the Splinter Cell games had replay value anyway...played 1 stealth shooter and you've played em all, same with FPSs, TPSs, RPGs Racing.

People keep looking for the next game to revolutionize gaming when no is smart enough to realise its all been done already. You people are expecting too much from gaming, its a hobby not a profession... its meant for nothing more than passing the time. Not changing the universe as you know it.

coolfool3978d ago

they saw that if Modern Warfare 2 could sell with a short campaign then Splinter Cell could as well? I mean, no one seems to have a problem with the length of MW2 (looking at the sells).

morganfell3978d ago

@Sarcasm, no not really. Most play-thoughs WITHOUT cutscenes were still 15-19 hours.

But many people did decry the game for anything they could snatch out of thin air.

IHateYouFanboys3978d ago


youre assuming that firstly the game is taking up the entire disk, and secondly that the majority of the disk is filled with level data. youd be incorrect on both.

i could knock you up an XBLA game in XNA that is 1mb in size but literally has thousands upon thousands of hours of gameplay. alternatively, i could knock you up an XBLA game in XNA that is 1gb in size but only features a single room that is rectangular with nothing in it, with a start point and an end point, and its on rails so you can never take more than 5 seconds to finish the entire game.

file size has very little influence on the length of a game. that depends on production time, design, the story, and the cost of development. if you REALLY think that going from 720p to 576p means that you get more gameplay hours youre not even worth arguing with.


if you took 15-19 hours NOT INCLUDING cutscenes to complete MGS4, you must absolutely suck at video games. its a 8-9 hour game at the VERY VERY VERY most once you remove the cutscenes. i personally did it in 17 hours INCLUDING all 11 hours of cutscenes on normal difficulty first go, taking my time to explore.

3978d ago
Ocelot5253978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )


the resolution of a game has NOTHING to do with how long the game is."

he's RIGHT and the people who disagree know nothing about computer graphics( like badz149)

only the resolution of PRERENDERED movies fill disk space

tinybigman3978d ago

since i'm not really a multiplayer type person single player experiences are more important to me. so ill just wait for my friend to get me a free copy.

i see some people here saying they beat GoW3 in 8 1/2 hrs i know this couldnt have been on titan mode as it took me 15 hrs to beat on that mode. looks like a lot of people werent up for the challenge and took the easy way out with easy or normal.

either way im just glad the game is getting reviewed good because double agent sucked monkey balls.

Syronicus3978d ago

Sorry, but 5 hours for 60 bucks is pathetic. Then you have to pay for Live to even play the online portion so you are getting even double screwed. Way to go Ubisoft!

NewZealander3978d ago

i was going to get the collectors edition, but im just going to rent for the weekend instead, five hours is an outrage.

i hope the game bombs now, theres no way people should be paying full price for a five hour game, and yes i know theres the co-op, but i only wanted this for the single player, and at five hours it may as well be dlc.

badz1493978d ago

if the resolution has nothing to do with length space-wise, then that means that Ubi planned the game to be short from the get go which makes it even sadder! if the future of gaming are short campaigns plus MP, it will be a very very sad future!

Rainstorm813978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

According to people in here, its not that everyone complaining would hate to see games become 5 hrs its that we are "butt hurt" and "jealous" that splinter cell is only on 360 for the time being.

1. I have a 360 so.... i guess im a butt hurt 360 owner cause i dont like getting raped by companies.

2. I would hate to see all my fav games (companies) start to opt out for a short campaign because they know that fans will eat it up.

Im a fan of Splinter Cell played all of them and 5 hours is abyssmal. Games like Cod set a precident, you can make a short campaign and sell very well as long as MP is there. With the numerous games releasing in May from alan wake to Red Dead Redemption, ill just save my money for a another experience.

Why would PS3 fans be jealous? MGS is on PS3. The same site everyone praises for giving GOW3 and SC:C a 9.3 gave MGS4 a 10. So if you put stock in IGN's opinion, MGS is the definative Stealth action title.

But thats probably using too much logic for this site.

@ jonnybadfinger
So by YOUR logic, Avatar and Titanic shouldve been 1 hour and 5 min???

WoW just WoW!

HolyOrangeCows3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

After all the years of delays, that's all they could do?
Oh! But teh multiplayer! doesn't even have the fan favorite spies vs mercs.

Inside_out3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

He hasn't play the game, releases on Tuesday....BUT...based on a review, the game is 5 hrs long...So, posts a dumb headline for hits...The game might turn out to be 5 hrs long...wouldn't shock me...the game also has multi-player/co-op campaign...the review he based his comments on said he played the game 3 times...BUT...on easy/normal difficulty....This guy is a loser Fan boy attempting to hurt this game by posting this garbage the day before the game releases while making claims against 360 games...GOW3 is really short with NO multi player or should talk about games like that...Moving on....

execution173978d ago

was tempted to buy it but i'll pass; i thought stealth genre games are usually long?

Christopher3978d ago

If it's a good game, it's a good game, regardless of the total hours it takes to play the single-player campaign. There are various multiplayer game modes as well.

If you're a hardcore single-player gamer only, perhaps you don't want to play this until it hits $30, otherwise I don't think the length of the single-player campaign should greatly affect your desire to play the game.

Redrum0593978d ago

Ok fine, if resolution doesn't effect disk space then why does this game not run at a higher res or hav better graphics? Mw2 runs at 600p with better graphics and it has more content than scc(I think)

xTruthx3978d ago

Btw its not like ill be paying for this Lol, cus I don't see how some one would pay a full price for a 5 hour campaign

wicko3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

Actually, that isn't true. It really has nothing to do with the resolution. The resolution that *really* matters is texture resolution. While it is possible that texture resolution was reduced, there is no direct relation between image size (the size of the disk image) and rendering resolution. Rendering 20% less pixels does not really mean anything in terms of filesize.

duplissi3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )


thats irrelevant... having multiplayer should have no bearing on it at all... its such a bullsh*t excuse games use these days... the single player is so short a squishy fart lasts longer but hey thats ok because it has multiplayer... really that is just bullsh*t in ten years you decide to pick up a few old games cause you missed them when the online is no longer supported and you wont be thinking its ok.

lukewind3978d ago

What utter Sony fanboy crap this article is!

Lets remember that God of War 3 was only 6-8 hours long, and you didn't hear people complaining about that, why? Because it was a great game.

Let's add on the additional co-op campaign alongside the various MP modes and we realize how big of an idiot this guy really turns out to be.

AliTheBrit193978d ago

5 Hours may seem short for just a campaign, but it will probably talk you a little longer anyway unless your just TRYING to finish it as fast as you can

But then it has a lot of co-op stuff.

It's very sad to see a games quality been based on its length, so would they be happy if Ubisoft had padded it with a few hours of needless stuff? rather than keep a solid rounded campaign? what a joke.

Raz3978d ago

Sorry Ubisoft, but a 5 hour campaign doesn't cut it these days. This is the gaming equivalent of making a 20 minute feature film. Don't get lazy - sit back down and finish what you started.

3978d ago
AKS3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

I usually play my games on a "hard" or "very hard" difficulty setting, so this quantitative hour mark generally doesn't have much of an impact on me. In addition, ICO, Gunstar Heroes, Gears of War, and a lot of other fantastic games were actually quite short in duration, but I'd rate many of them among my favorites. So I guess it's somewhat of a negative if there's less content, but if the quality is there I'll probably play through it more than once. I also have the option of waiting until it is discounted considering this has never been close to being the top game on my list and I have plenty of other games to play right now. I'll probably wait for a Steam special before I buy it assuming the quality is high enough to merit a purchase.

2Spock3978d ago

My god all the hypocrites on this site is just awful....First you go to say you wont buy a game with such a short single player but then you turn around and talk about the heavy hitter's that you bought of GOW3 and Heavy Rain which are both under 10 hour games and have no multiplayer or co-op what so ever. Which GOW3 has some decent replay value but Heavy Rain does not, besides redoing a few chapters to keep the characters from the end or getting them to the end. Even though i am going to rent SC it would probably be a better deal spending 60 bucks on this than Heavy Rain that's for sure.

xTruthx3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

2Spock i don't think those games are below 10 hours

GOW3 took me 16:41 and I didn't even get all the trophies(only 2 left in the story mode).

HR 12:25 the first playthrew

If you rush everything and dont really enjoy the game then yah, you'll finish it before the 10 hours and I believe HR has a lot of more replay value than sc, because everything changes when you choose another path, sc doesn't.

Chubear3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

Splinter Cell is given excuses as to why it's a 9.5 game with a 5hr SP like "oh, the MP adds time" but SC has always been primarily a SP game and a 4th gen game at that.

Heaven Sword is a 1st gen game that drips with high end quality that most 4th gen games don't have 1/5th of. It was a game that I personally completed in roughly 8hrs on my first go and 7hrs in hell mode.

It was just as long or definitely longer than many supposed AAA SP campaign titles that have come out in years 3&4 this gen but it was parroted over and over again how "short" it was yet games with less SP campaigns are not even given a mention and given easy 9.5s

If you have not experienced Heavenly Sword go now and when you're done, imagine what a Heavenly Sword 2 could have been had reviews for a 1st gen game been held to the same standards as many "AAA" games are held to - as 3rd & 4th gen games - especially when you look at the progression games like Uncharted, Resistance etc have had with their sequels.

Anon19743978d ago

The single player campaign is what's important to me. I rarely touch multiplayer on these games. You think I bought Uncharted 2 for the multiplayer?

For me a game has to delivery a solid, single player experience FIRST before I'll even look at it. There are obviously a couple of exceptions. I bought Warhawk and Modern Warfare specifically for the multiplayer aspect but I'm all about the single player campaign first and foremost. There's no way I'm paying $12 bucks an hour to play through this game. At least entertain me for a day, not an afternoon.

morganfell3978d ago

First time through, 15-19 hours and that still puts me ahead of the fastest people at OPM...that had Konami at their beck and call. There are 8 hours of cutscenes.

And if you are playing MGS4 on normal then you suck.

Therealspy033974d ago (Edited 3974d ago )

i played through the game and beat it late last night. i played it on realistic so that probably added an hour or two. but it took WAY longer than 5 hours. i'd say about 12. whomever started this rumor about it being 5 hours is full of sh!t.

oh, and that doesn't even count the 4 full levels of co-op. on realistic, first time through, took me and a friend close to 3 hours to beat the first 2 levels.

+ Show (49) more repliesLast reply 3974d ago
LordMarius3978d ago

lol, best title I have ever seen

lelo2play3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

Is that so? I wounder why we did not see articles with a title like...

"Santa Monica, 6-7 hours for God of War 3, without multilayer nor Co-op? Keep That Sh*t!"

Rainstorm813978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

since IGN unleashed this shytstorm lets go with IGN's opinion on GOW3.....

"It won't take much more than about 10 hours one time through" - Chris Roper IGN on GOW3

where are all you guys getting this 6 hour play time for gow3?

I guess they rushed through Splinter cell and took thier time with GOW huh?

Hypocrisy at its finest.....A 5 hour SP campaign isnt anything to praise no matter what console.

I enjoy both PS3 and 360....If Uncharted 3 or Mass Effect 3 was released and its SP was 5 hours id rent it at best, Have some standards for god's sake.

authentic243978d ago

Gow III is 8-11 hours dpending on how good you are. Thats the avg length of single player action adventure games. Splinter cell has always been longer than 5 hours and offered more in the multiplayer department. There is no excuse for a Splinter cell game to only be 5 hours on the single player campaign. The only thing I can think of is that the devs ran out of ideas. Which suggest that maybe they need not make any more Splinter Cell games. I mean they even stripped down the multiplayer to 1v1. I mean really 1v1 this isn't a sports game, o I forgot the majority of sports games offer TEAM PLAY ( 2v2, 3v3, 4v4,etc) so to have 1v1 is terrible in 2010. It seems for every step forward that they make with Splinter Cell they take 5 steps backwards. At least this gen anyway. Splinter Cell is definitely not a game that got where it is because of multiplayer so to only have a 5 hour single player campaign is ridiculous.

But lucky for me I have gamefly and I'll rent it and see how long or short it really is.

Oh by the way again IDK where you got 6-7 hours from for GOW that's really not true, even after knowing where everything is and knowing all the patterns of enemies, your looking at about 8 hours and 30 minutes. Anybody who beats it in 6-7 hours used The combat arena glitch, which still requires you to beat the game then the challenge arena to unlock.

But you know I guess I'm a fanboy just because I played GOW III, even though I have both systems.

But here is some insight on avg hours for games,

Action Adventure = 8 - 11 hours
Shooters = 7-8 ( COD:MW2 and Battlefield BC2 Are probably the shortest shooters in this genre.)
RPG's = 30 - 50 hours ( more of a range than a actual avg)
MMO's = unlimited hours( last as long as devs support the game)

I generalized the genres to keep it simple.

ape0073978d ago

prove that sony fanboys are completely illogical

wtf the game have co-op, multiplayer and single player that have loads of replay value

deaf much or butt-hurt much ???

execution173978d ago

2nd was 6 hours, now i'm finally playing titan, just finished hermes...
and idk why people said hades is hard on titan i breezed right through him Poseidon was the one that almost made me huck my controller at the tv lol

Icyhot3978d ago

^^^^ Just wait till you reach the Flaming Cerebus in Hell with the 3 Satyrs and then say it's a breeze. It took me more than 30 tries (note without any help by googling or youtubing). That bloody dog can swipe your health by a quarter in 1 slash and the Satyrs are pain in the @ss... The fight lasted me more than 7 minutes.. Lol thats probably the only time I have concentrated so much in a game...

ON TOPIC.. People saying it took them 6 hours to complete GOW3 is a complete lie. It took me 9 1/2 hours on Normal (And I knew a lot of things by seeing many videos... Also a few weak points for the bosses).. 5 Hours is just criminally short. I don't play co-op and don't like too much online, so for me it's an absolute no buy. I'd better save up for Red Dead Redemption which will at least guarantee > 20 hours of gameplay.

Sigh, I only like to buy single player games as I ain't much of a multiplayer guy and such games, dwindle my faith in the industry... Please companies should not sacrifice on SP for MP!!!! I even hated this fact about BFBC2. All SP are so criminally short now-a-days. 10 hours is a must for any game!!!!

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3978d ago
Software_Lover3978d ago

Im sure I'll have more fun in this game than in the 4.5-5 hour Modern Warfare 2 campaign. But you know, some people just get a pass.

Plus I work, I run a studio on my off days, I have 2 boys. I hate ridiculously long games that I will never finish. No where near finished with Final Fantasy 13. Still have to get back to MGS4. Im surprised I finished Mass Effect 2.

Resistance 1 just ran on and on and on till I just got tired of it at a point. I finished it but I put it down for months. A good game, whose length is too long, can also ruin the experience.

Abriael3978d ago

So since you have a job (like most of the people in the world, mind you, you make it sound so special), you like to get less than your money's worth?

Well, more power to you I guess, there are people that use bills to light their cigars after all.

For me this is a pass. 6 hours of sub-hd mediocrity when I can have better games that will last me much longer for the same price? no thanks.

Software_Lover3978d ago

is an opinion. A games' length does not determine how good it is. People need to get that part right. Warhawk has no campaign length, but people still praise it. It has Multiplayer. This games has plenty of Multiplayer features. isn't that what you guys beg for now a days? It also has a single player campaign. Heavenly Sword was just a little bit longer than this game, but with no multiplayer, but people still praise it. See where Im getting at?

Its all in the perception of the person playing the game. And Im very well aware that other people on this planet have a job. You act like you're mad Im gonna buy the game.

Dont waste your money. More power to you sir/madam. Go buy a chess game. Those can last forever. Is that getting your money's worth?

Abriael3978d ago

Sorry, but content does determine how good a game is. if a game lacks content, no matter how great it is, it doesn't provide enough bang for the buck.

If you lack playing as much as a full cake for half a cake, then good for you.
But honestly? The market is packed full of whole cakes to even think about wasting money on the cakes sliced in half because the developer has decided to be lazy.

Lazy developers shouldn't be rewarded with sales, or they'll get the impression that being lazy is good. It's that simple.

AKNAA3978d ago

That makes no sense?! you want to pay for short game because you have a job and 2 boys?! WTF?
I have 2 kids as well, which means bigger holes in my pocket appear consistently. so even though I only have an hour or two to play games, I'd still prefer longer games 10hrs.+. why? simple. I at least get my moneys worth and saves me a lot of money in which is spent on my family, instead of wasting more of it on another game cause I finished the last one in 5hrs... the longer, the better.

uncharted 2 look me a whole week to finish cause I have very little time to play, but that didn't prevent it from ruining the fun experience I had with it.
deadspace took me almost a month to complete, but I loved it still, so basically, I don't understand your logic?!

Software_Lover3978d ago

since this is my last reply this might be kind of long.

My logic is simple if you stop putting words in my mouth.

I never said that I wanted to pay for short games. Show me where and I will apologize right now. What I said was that people instantly look at the length of a game to determine its value. AND THATS OKAY if that's all you're looking for in a game. If a long game = value to you then thats fine. But to me its more than how long a game is. I also stated that games can be too long and I also gave an example. I also gave an example of a game with no single player, that was good. And a game with no multiplayer, that was short, but was good and you guys just ignored those.

I gave an example of my life. Not yours. My work has nothing to do with your work. My kids have nothing to do with your kids. What you can do in your free time has nothing to do with me and my free time. Im glad it took a week to finish Uncharted. I actually finished it quicker. But when it comes to shooters they can get too long, and I gave an example of that also.

Can you guys honestly say that if God of War 3 was 35 hours long it wouldn't get repetitive and boring? It would and any honest person would say that. A game dev has to capture it audience and leave them wanting more or atleast satisfied. And an extra long dragged out game doesn't do that ********IMHO************** You may think differently.

RPG's are the exception of course and it was a mistake on my part to list final Fantasy 13 in my original post. We all have different tastes in games but this game length argument was never really around before this gen. All the games that I play aren't short. Hell, my favorite game right now, and has been for a long time, is Sins of A solar empire. I've been playing one play through here and there for about a year now. That games length is eternal with the right scenarios.

But I forgot this is N4g and anything against the mob is heresy. And to Abriael.....................A higher resolution doesn't automatically make a game great either. A smooth turd is still a turd man. But thats a totally different argument.

Rainstorm813978d ago

well in the defense of games like warhawk and socom....they werent 60$ you could get both for 60 when they were new.

For all the people accepting this bs, i guess 3 hour movie length games will be fine too as long as we get an online MP or co-op......................... .......Ridiculous...

pixelsword3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

Heavenly Sword, although short, would've been ruined for me if it was too long.

Montrealien3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

And yet, the same people that dissagree with Software Lover, will defend GoW3...

oh N4G, how you fail so....

I saw this coming from a mile away.

and bubble up software lover ffs.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 3978d ago
Obama3978d ago

Shallow gameplay...not good! Mgs4 has a killer single player campaign, and it averages 15 to 20 hours (first play through). If it takes 5 hours to complete SCC in first play through, it means that game can actually be completed in an hour and a half.

FanOfGaming3978d ago

LMAOOO You deserve a bubble!

Michael-Jackson3978d ago (Edited 3978d ago )

The gameplay has been dumbed down because xbots can't tolerate long learning curve. They want more action and less gameplay...Also SCC has a wannabe 3rd person shooter part in the single player campaign, lol.