From Kotaku:
"An early review of Call of Duty 4 allegedly leaked in which OXM said the game had a 5 to 6 hour single player campaign when played at normal difficulty. As we've seen already in games like Heavenly Sword, short playtime can get you a bad rep quick. Obviously, COD4 will fall back on expansive multiplayer for added value, but my intent here is not to trash its game length, features, etc.
In the interest of developer-accessible census - what is the sweet spot for a single player campaign length? Personally, I like between 8-12 hours...15 tops. Anything longer and I will absolutely never beat it. Anything shorter and I feel gypped - not for what I paid as much as accomplishment. Ultimately, gameplay always triumphs and exceptions apply. But for your average game, how long should it be?"
that does sound really short and with no coop it is really going to suck
Ok I was misunderstood that game isn't going to suck the shortness of single player is going to suck.
It's refearing to saved game play time of hours played. So 6 hrs. could potentially be 20 hrs. of game play if you replay bad or weaker area's of levels played or replayed.
I personally love long games as well as action packed shorter games, but usually not less than 8 hrs. of saved game play though. Kotor I & II was a great example. Those were great for somewhere between 40 & 60 hrs. of saved game play.
Also, no cheat books,I hate supposed gamers who say, "Oh I beat that game in 5 hrs.", yeah using none of your own skill or brain power but instead using a cheat book.
however long rainbow six vegas single player was, is my sweet spot... whats that around 10 hrs?
thats how long games usually are these days it seems like.
what if someone dosent like online play like me for example what then, they need to stop doing this because i wont dish out $100(£50) for a game thats gone last me 5 hours, thats why i like dmc its fuking long, and the replay value is madness i have to finish every mode to feel satisfied with it XD