Is COD4 Short? Then What's Your Sweet Spot?

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?"

[Scythesean]

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.

[TeaDouble_E]

Just be grateful it has online play.

Edit: The people who disagree with me doesn't want online ? I guess you suck at multiplayer or your to poor to afford high speed internet.

[ATLRoAcH]

I think some people just click disagree on every comment.Watch me get a disagree.That would be like disagree to disagree.

(edit) Ha! told you people would disagree.What the hell?

[Tsalagi]

People who prefer a good single player campaign are who disagree. Not everyone likes to play online death matches all the time and actually prefer to just play single player. Take me for example, i have a 10MB connection and don't suck at online multi-player but i still would rather kick back and enjoy a good story driven single player game.

Now if COD4 had online Coop i would be playing it nightly with my brother and friends . Screwing around in games like Gears, RB6, Halo 3, and especially Crackdown coop are just more fun to me than "let's see who can get the most kills" death match type games.

*Edit - It wasn't me that disagreed with you either.*

[ry-guy]

I agree. A strong story driven game will always trump strong mutliplayer.

Sometimes the douchebaggery can be too much online and I enjoy crushing the computer and not having to wade through crap.

[andy001]

Some people treat video gaming as a competition, some people will treat video gaming as an immersive movie, and some as a party game, and some as a brainteaser. There are probably more reasons but I can't think of them right now.

At the end of the day, developers should not think that they can simply rely on the multiplayer to pull them through. I require a good campaign in my shooting/action games. I do not think shooting people is a sport, so I choose to play racing/sports games to satisfy my competitive spirit. If COD4 is only 5 or 6 hours long, then that is very poor, and I will not buy, despite having bought the first one on PC and Call of Duty 2 on the 360.

Games can be too long though, and games like WoW or other MMO games which are 'never ending' do not interest me either. I think anywhere between 12 and 20 hours for the average gamer is fine. I recently played through Sands of Time on the Xbox and it was better than either Halo3 or Heavenly Sword, so I am looking forward to Assassins Creed as that seems to be right up my street.

[TheXgamerLive]

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.

[Komrad]

however long rainbow six vegas single player was, is my sweet spot... whats that around 10 hrs?

[Charlie2688]

R6V was around 8 to 10 hours

And I actually found the game sort of short I think due to the fact that in some missions the game encourage you to be VERY fast, for example the last mission was over VERY fast and the cliffhanger ending didn't help AT ALL

[Komrad]

i'm with you about the pacing on the finale. I do love the battle to the first casino after the border town mission.

[Martini]

R6V might be more then 8-10 if you go with realistic difficulty. That game kicked ass btw.

[happygamer]

thats how long games usually are these days it seems like.

[gunnerforlife]

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

[FirstknighT]

As long as it has multiplayer than it's acceptable. COD4 Campaign 6 hours, COD4 Multiplayer 1000's of hours. Games like Heavenly Sword that top around 6 hours with no multiplayer is a problem and definitely not worth the full $60. HS is a perfect rental tho'.

[gunnerforlife]

what if someone is mad about COD games but hates multi players i was expecting at least 10 hours worth of gameplay

[gunnerforlife]

sorry

[FirstknighT]

than rent it.

[DJ]

If COD4 really is only 5~6 hours, people who either don't have Broadband or don't like multiplayer might not be very happy with its length. I mean, Heavenly Sword was 8~9 hours long, and people complained about that (well..mostly people who didn't own it, but still).

[AllanWakker]

CoD4 would get killed in reviews if it was 5 to 6 as a PS3 exclusive. But since not only is there a 360 version of the game, CoD4 has become the only FPS Xbots have to cling to.

Ever since Halo 3 turned out to be a 640p graphical turd, Haze was canceled for the 360, the crappy 360 network caused Unreal to be pushed back indefinitely, CoD4 is the only game Xbot sites like EGM and 1Up and others have to hype for the 360.

The 5 to 6 hours isn't going to hurt the standard inflated review scores unless the 360 version is canceled.

[TheXgamerLive]

No common sense what so ever.

[Marcellus Wallace]

That was the most idiotic thing I've read in quite some time. Right up there with Kevin Trudeau.

[lonestarmt]

well it all depends on what type of game it is really. I mean 15-18 hours rpg thats horrible. 50 hours at least for rpgs. Games like COD don't really need long single player as long as the multiplayer is sweet, and the single player exp is fun. Games like heavenly sword only really need to be 6-10 tops. If it goes longer it could ruin the gameplay make it tiring or the story suffers.

[malingenie]

I think 20-60 hours is about right. I couldnt play any more PErsona 3 (Which I loved) after my 40th hour. IT just became tooooooooo long and papa needs some closure.

WOW I played for 60 after I got bored with it.
I have a low attention span I cant do so many hours in one thing!

[lonestarmt]

20 hours?? my god, no, 40-60 hours, then with the option to play more by side quests and building up and stuff, but 20 hours for an rpg is horrible, thats like 3 hour action game.

[xionpunk]

i think the multiplayer will even it out. to be honest, ive been leaning towards shorter games lately that are quick to pick up and finish (fear combat and other online multi player but i recently bought viewtiful joe for ps2 and it s awesome,even if it is old) it might just be the fact that i have less and less time to play games as of late.

[sajj316]

Let's see what the reviewers will say for the lack of game length and see if it stays consistent with deductions that the PS3 games received. Yes, I know that this game is multiplatform. I also wonder what this game will get on the PS3 for the lack of achievements.

[Charlie2688]

The sweet spot for FPS has always been 12 hours, if its a REALLY good FPS up to 14 would be great

For example I found that Bioshocks 18 hours was ok but sadly the last few hours possibly the last 2 were a little bit too much since the game sort of got all loose and I started to loose interest REALLY fast

But I still think that the overall game experience it what makes the game even if its short and dev recently over extending games with mundane task is NOT good

[gunnerforlife]

what $10 for a rent no way(its £5 here)

[mmike855]

5 to 6 hours in a single playthrough is not sweet for anyone, hopefully. Not only does it reflect on production values, gameplay elements, AI, and story, it also means that COD4 could very well be a more shallow game than we expected. Playing through such a brief game becomes not only less of an experience, but also a lesser feeling of accomplishment at the end. For me, my sweet spot for games is 12 hours and more. I don't say more because I want a 100 hour FPS, I say more because I want a more involving experience in a game. I want the suspension of disbelief, and that simply is not provided in multiplayer. When you are playing against each other, there is no way to truly "win." or to actually "beat" anything. It is another match, another headshot, another respawn, and maps with invisible walls in them. 5 to 6 hours is like saying "we trimmed down the story because we felt it was unnecessary, and hope people wont mind because we have multiplayer." Hopefully the game is good, but at this point I am a little disappointed.

[beavis4play]

well said.

[gamesR4fun]

or so we hope cant say Ill buy this for the single mode tho so its just a bonus to me.

[I Call 9MM]

6 hours is really too short for a single player campaign. Plus, there is no co-op so there goes replay value. I'm sure the game will take a bit longer on the harder difficulties, but still, this is very dissapointing. There is no doubt that the multiplayer aspect will probably occupy most players many, many times longer then singleplayer, but still. It should have had 12-15 hours, that is a good playtime for this kind of game. 10 hours would even be great. Bioshock had a good play time through. That game should be a standard to the length a decent FPS should be. 50-70 dollar games should last longer in singleplayer.

[tony]

like i said, no game will beat bioshock or the orange box this year.

[Thump1967]

Was it played through on Normal,or was it played through one shot kill.

[unsunghero28]

I played the demo, and it was crazy fun for every second. Very intense and very replayable.

I'd like more than 5-6 hours, sure, but I'll be too busy playing to moan about it if they don't have it.

[The Snake]

Having all consoles, tons of amazing games, and not much time to play them makes me more likely to play shorter games than longer ones. Why should I only play 1 game when I could play 2 or 3 that are shorter but just as much fun, if not more, instead? There should definitely be long games out there for those who like them, but they should keep making shorter ones to cater to my market as well. Also, this game is definitely targeted much more toward the multiplayer market than the single player one, so it only makes sense that the single player is so short. They want you to get to the meat of the experience quicker.

[DiGiTaL Ki11eR]

ummm... Halo 3 is too short. Resistance:FOM is too long. somewhere in-between would be perfect.

[PimpHandHappy]

Shooter=8-10 hours first time through. I play most of my games twice. Once on normal for story and hard for fun.

Add in online ur all good with 6hours if they make the hardest setting really hard.

[Kuest]

A long single player is a plus for any game... but, in the end, it really just depends on how GOOD the story, gameplay, and graphics are.

Still, 5-6 hours IS pretty damn short (for $60 buckeroos?). Oh well, that's what we got MP for!

To be honest, I don't know WHY anyone wouldn't want MP. I mean that's what most shooting games have been about. Since Goldeneye.

p.s.

yo, Pimp Hand, is your avatar from the dark tower series? If so, then your my new best friend (only if you want to be, of course)

[DJ]

8 hours can be fine though if the game's good enough.

[Marcellus Wallace]

Seeing as OXM said it was 10 hrs on Normal makes this all irrelevant. Thanks, have a good day.

[Daxx]

As long as the game has multiplayer (which COD4's is just stellar) I'm not complaining.

[maggotmx]

*sigh* thats the exact reason why developers keep getting away with s*** like this, people seem to be content with very short single player cuz hey... "the multiplayer makes up for it" multiplayer is kool and all but it should be secondary for a game imo.

[JosefTor]

I think between 6-8 hours is the sweet spot for FPS's. For RPGs and platformers then it should be a lot more.

[BoneMagnus]

"...and character models all combine to make you say 'Whoa', a word you'll constantly repeat over the campaign's 10-hour-or-so duration."

THAT, my friends, is what the mag says in the COD4 review on page 38 of the December - issue #77.

[joydestroy]

i think the length of play is fine with the online multiplayer. the multiplayer is a lot of fun.

[MK_Red]

I disagree with 8-12 hours in general. I believe the single-player's length is based on the game and genre. If it's a big RPG like Fallout, Morrowind or Oblivion, I expect nothing short of 100 hours. The same goes for J-RPGs. If the game is an adventure and a tough one, 6-8 hours will be enough. In case of arcade / sandbox games, there is usually no limit. 8-12 is still a bit short for FPS and action / adventures IMO.

Back to Call of Duty 4, I believe the multiplayer justifies the short singleplayer because from what I've seen, COD4's multi player looks nothing short of revolutionary. Heck, from the looks of it, COD4 MP could beat all others in the market thanks to superb perk system.

[BLACKJACK VII]

For $60 I would expect NO LESS than 8 hours of gameplay. PERIOD. Anything offering less than that WITHOUT MP is a rental for me. That was my biggest problem with Bioshock. Hey, I LOVED the game, played through it 2 times, but what's left ? Games like Bioshock, the Darkness, Lair & HS (and MANY others) offer little to zero replay value.

MP is great & CAN add exceptional value to a game provided it's decent. However, IMHO MOST games MP offering is lack luster to say the least. GEARS OF WAR has proven to be the ONLY MP game (other than Sports) I never seem to get tired off......

For others that 1 game may be Resistance or Halo, I dunno....

But, I'm still somewhat pumped for COD4, it'll be great, the Beta was cool (but not revolutionaty IMHO) so yeah, the MP is a plus here. But it's still a let down IMHO offering less than 7 or 8 hours of story with any game (except obviously Sports). COD4 (IF it is truly less than 6 hours) has definately moved a notch or two down on my personal list of Must Buys....

Besides that, for me personally, I'll be playing MASS EFFECT from 11/20 'till 2008 anyway.

=)

[zsscommand]

I love the multiplayer experience too, but if the game is infact 5-6 hours, I feel kind of cheated. COD is awesome but Id rather get a game that has the best of both worlds (decent SP & MP).

[JasonPC360PS3Wii]

COD4 should be packed to the brim with content. OK the MP is great and well made with Great! gameplay (tester) but with a short campain and no coop, I can see some negative marks in the reviews for that. MP alone is great but so is Shadowrun and look what happened there, Shadowrun should be a 9 but the low content made it a 7 (notice a trend) People want their games with as much as you can shove in for $60.

It has been proven that people like Half-Life, Halo 3, Oblivion and upcomming Mass Effect for their gameplay and "content". It's like buying a new computer, you open the box to find that there is all this sh!t that comes with it. You don't know what half the sh!t does but you just like that you get it all.

[GothicDeunan]

I prefer it to be as long as possible. I really don't care for multiplayer over and over and over again with nothing new. Neverwinter Nights was the best game ever made for single and multiplayer because you keep making maps and adventures over and over. I have yet to see a shooter that offers this. You just can't make scenarios for others to DL and play like NWN had. Too bad, cause if you look at the sales that NWN did, do you think it was just for the length(25+ hours) of the single player game? Seriously doubt it.

Here's to looking for the future. Someone will get it right.

[spec_ops_comm]

Ever since I first sunk my teeth into SOCOM: US Navy Seals for the PS2, I have had a different view on gaming.

I understand the unimportance of single player campaigns.

The only reason I played through the first SOCOM and their successive sequels was to unlock multiplayer skins and weapons. I'm not even joking. I forced myself through single player, full knowing I could be having a ton more fun online as I play.

Now, that ideology has followed me to the current out-of-the-box network-ready generation. I now purchase games based on their multiplayer aspect. For me, single player is only useful for times when my internet goes down.

I think a 5-6 hour campaign is perfect, actually. It'll be 6 hours of intense action - all killer, no filler. Instead of spending time on fancy 'stories' or 'plots', developers can churn out a quick, awesome single player campaign, then focus on the meaty online experience.

If you are a fan of SOCOM, you most likely agree with everything I have said. The first time you put 200 hours into online gameplay, and maybe 3 hours into the corresponding single player campaign, you too will see gaming the way I see it.