Longer Single Player Experiences Wanted

Koku writes: "Unless you have limitless funding, justifying your purchases in some form is necessary to most people. Nobody wants to go out and purchase something, such as a video game, only to find that they wasted their money and then have to miss out on a future release because they've already spent to their limits. While I'm hardly strapped for cash, it is still aggravating as hell to look at some of the $60 Xbox 360 or PS3 game cases in my collection. The Bourne Conspiracy will forever be a scourge on my collection being that I almost never opt to trade in games regardless of how awful they are."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
GUCommander3163d ago

I completely agree. Most games have WAY too short of a single player game. Add some bad multiplayer (like most games) and you may have a good game, but it doesn't justify the price tag then.

GCO Gamer3163d ago

I agree with the article also, I feel like games that cost $60 should give you a good play time, that's a lot of money to dish out on something that wont last too long.

Ziriux3163d ago

Yea the sad thing is that thanks to xbox live story games have seem to have disappeared, luckily for us gamers, PS still around to break epic story lines in some of their titles.

Darkstorn3163d ago

I want longer single player experiences as well. $60 is a lot to drop on sheer entertainment in this economy.

Jdoki3163d ago

I would love longer single player games... but it's a double edged sword.

The question is... Do people want to wait 5 years+ for a really long and involved single player game that lasts 20+hours and possibly costs more, or would they rather have a shorter game that can be released quicker and costs less.

Look at the recent AAA titles... God of War 3, Final Fantasy XIII etc.

In the making of GoW3 vids the devs mentioned that it takes significantly longer to create each asset. Time is money, so it's just not realistic to expect games to be longer than 8-10 hours these days - and this could get worse.

Then look at FFXIII. A 50+ hour game that is incredibly linear for the most part and has taken years to develop. We can bicker all we want about the 360 version 'gimping' the development, but I think that's BS. The fact is that it just costs far too much for a single player game to be developed. So devs are forced in to making hard decisions.

I can only see this situation getting worse.

Army_of_Darkness3163d ago

if the average single player campaign is 8-12hrs. this Gen.... then I'm expecting 4-6hrs. campaigns next gen... which means I'm gonna need a new hobby.

beavis4play3163d ago

i've already decided i'm not buying the next new console until i see what direction gaming is going.

StanLee3163d ago

Content is more important than the length of a single player campaign. Many games offer a wealth of content but very short single player campaigns. Splinter Cell Conviction offers far more content than most games. The single player campaign is very dynamic and offers a number of opportunities to play through the campaign.

nycredude3163d ago


GOW only took 3 years and they needed to create the engine. Say what you will it took me 13 hours to complete. Uncharted 2 only took 18 months after they created the engine. It took me over 12 hours to complete and has coop and mp. Time is NOT an excuse for short sp.

SC:C took like what 5 years? 5 hour sp? If you can't make a decent length sp campaign then that is fine, but don't sell it at full retail, just keep it on xbox live or psn where it belongs.

beavis4play3163d ago

too many devs (in the last year especially) seem to be cutting the SP way too short. there is NO excuse for that.....especially when they're still expecting 60 dollars.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 3163d ago
Ziriux3163d ago

There is nothing more I hate than when a game thats $60 has no value or anything good to offer, such good example is UT 3, the game was pi*ss poor.

Darkstorn3163d ago

That game was MADE for multiplayer. The single player experience was tertiary to the PvP.

ZombieAutopsy3163d ago (Edited 3163d ago )

yea Ziriux bad example UT games have always been about MP gameplay (except 2 but it was even patched in) plus UT has a ton of mod support so you get a bunch of free content too.

Cinotix3163d ago

Meh, sp games are boring once you beat them that's it, i'll take my multiplayer any day.

trgz3163d ago

Interesting avatar you have considering the comment you've posted.

CountDracula3163d ago

Games like Oblivion or Fallout only come out once in a blue moon.


totally agree...

it's funny because it's all games that seem to be trapped by this now. I remember when RPG's were 100's of hours with game play. now even the rpg's are just as short.

AliTheBrit193163d ago

I concur!

As a gamer I am predominately a single player guy, its what I crave, its what I want, new brilliant experiences and game plots to play through

Multi-player games are just there to kill time until the next great single player campaign.

Show all comments (33)
The story is too old to be commented.