Campaigns for Games that are too long.

[FrostWinds]

One of my buddies was telling me the $5 for 4 hour rental thing was fine because he can burn through campaigns really fast. I personally don't find that fun at all and I would imagine you would miss at least a 3rd of what the developers put in the game on average.

 

[edogn12]

I really like the long campaigns. Makes you feel you $60 investment was worth it.

 

[daimashin]

I think it depends on what genre the game belongs to to determine whether the campaign is too long. To me, I think that action games like Devil May Cry or God of War shouldn't be too long. The average of 15-20 hours with replay value to me for these games are just about right. One very notable action game which I thought was too long is Castlevania Lord of Shadow 1, it was so lengthy that it was a chore to finish.

 

[Sekelani]

My purpose for buying a game is to play the campaign. I'm not a multiplayer fan at all, With the only exception with diablo.. I like good stories not just shooting around killing people for no purpose. That's partly why I won't buy call of duty. I was told the purpose of the game is mostly for multiplayer., and the campaign is so short.
I don't know, but I love good stories, that's what gets me hooked onto the game

 

[gamerteabwoi]

I actually like longer campaigns I really like to think that it makes the game more enjoyable to me the one thing that I think though is there are some games that have campaigns that to me I find to be really long those are the games that I just cannot finish. Like someone said before lately I have realized that more and more video games are becoming shorter in the campaign mode and more and more companies are putting more effort into creating better multiplayer modes.

 

[wowtgp]

Why would we not like to play long campaign? If o are getting bored of the game, you can always pause and come back later to the game. Take Skyrim as a primary example.

 

[deathbyprayer]

I'm not really a fan of long single player games and campaigns because if a game is 40 hours long just on the story then it's really going to drag especially when the story is not interesting at all. But I've played AC IV and I have to say that game is really long. I've been playing that game for a almost a year now (very rarely though) and I haven't even reached the part where you get to meet Black Beard

 

[Negative Zero]

I'm not really a fan of long single player games and campaigns because if a game is 40 hours long just on the story then it's really going to drag especially when the story is not interesting at all. But I've played AC IV and I have to say that game is really long. I've been playing that game for a almost a year now (very rarely though) and I haven't even reached the part where you get to meet Black Beard

I think I might disagree with that. It took me forever to beat ACIV not because of the main missions but rather because I got bogged down with side stuff. Too often I go off chasing butterflies and collectibles. I think just doing the main missions can get you through the game in 20 hours or so. Other games like Skyrim and Kingdoms of Amalur are the same way. I typically end up putting the game down for six months then come back and steamroll through the main story to the end.

So I guess my problem is not with the main campaigns, but rather with what seems to be the ever increasing amount of side offerings that have worked their way into so many recent games. Not that there shouldn't be side missions - I know a lot of gamers love getting every collectible and trophy - I just have to train myself to do the things that interest me instead of trying to do everything.

 

[Derri]

I actually prefer a long campaign, even for games that aren't that 'good'

 

[deathbyprayer]

I think I might disagree with that. It took me forever to beat ACIV not because of the main missions but rather because I got bogged down with side stuff. Too often I go off chasing butterflies and collectibles. I think just doing the main missions can get you through the game in 20 hours or so. Other games like Skyrim and Kingdoms of Amalur are the same way. I typically end up putting the game down for six months then come back and steamroll through the main story to the end.

So I guess my problem is not with the main campaigns, but rather with what seems to be the ever increasing amount of side offerings that have worked their way into so many recent games. Not that there shouldn't be side missions - I know a lot of gamers love getting every collectible and trophy - I just have to train myself to do the things that interest me instead of trying to do everything.

Yeah the side missions are what makes the game last longer (which is kind of a bad thing because the game relies on repetition and side tracks instead of real immersion) I also wasted a lot of time doing side missions in AC that's why I'm still stuck with that game. But what I'm saying is, most games rely on these kinds of things to prolong the actual game.

 

[troutski]

If a campaigns less than 15 hours, then I consider it short. Longer campaigns on above average to great games are always worth investing the time in, and games are a lot shorter in general than they used to be. Some games running on the Playstation 2 took well over 50 hours to complete. Now most studios are developing games that take less than 10 hours to beat because they're putting the focus on multiplayer or just aren't coming up with the greatest stories. I'm disappointed.

 

[Spectre456]

I've been an avid rpg fan for as long as I can remember, so spending 50+ hours on a game is nothing new to me. Modern games don't really have long campaigns though. Eight hours can hardly be called long, although when you see the quality of the story in games like Battlefield 4 I can see how some games might seem like they last an eternity. Bottom line, I actually want longer campaigns with better story, not shorter ones.