4 hours is fine!

for 20 bucks

A lot of shooters are this short campaign wise unless they are true AAA titles, which this doesn't seem to be. I remember back in the day when this kind of length meant they were focusing more on multiplayer (Frontlines comes to mind), but now that non one is going to unseat CoD, it just seems to have become the standard. Just wait a week and it will be $30-$40, which is what it should be in the first place.

If you watch the first video, he's playing on the easiest difficulty. 
  
Just sayin'.

@EXTomar said:

Agreed, a four hour game isn't the issue but the $60 price tag is.

It all depends on your value scale. Two Worlds 2 was (approximately) 26 hours long. It wasn't worth $60 either. Length and price are rarely related.

Ain't that a bitch. Here I was thinking the game would be a decent length. The way the developers said how much focus they had on the campaign I assume that it was going to be worth while. But dropping 60 bucks on a short game fuck that shit. The last mistake I done that was buying Kane and Lynch 2 : Dog Shit!

I know some of you guys would argue that there's nothing wrong with short games, and if it was fun then you'll replay it. It really depends on people's preference. For me more then likely I won't replay it. Unless there's unlockables or different scenarios you can take. But buying a game with little content seems like a waste of money.

I'm not saying this game is going to be bad. But it doesn't seem like its worth 60 bucks. Especially where you can take that 60 bucks and buy cheaper games that probably will have more content and keep your interest longer. I was looking forward to this game, hell you can tell by my pic. But now I'm going to wait for this game to drop price.

@falserelic: Might want to change your avatar now. :P Learn that devs will keep secrets like length away from us and promise a bunch of stuff that is unfulfilled. We as consumers have to wise up and not be so easily inclined to buy stuff simply by hype.

@MikeGosot said:

So we're judging the lenght of a game by ONE playthrough? ...Right, i'll wait for reviews.

Well, the length of a game is based upon a single playthrough, usually. Unless there's some supremely cool unlockables and new modes for a New Game +, which this game doesn't have.

Seems like this will be another game I'll get from library. I just can't bring myself to spend that much money on a 4 hour title where the multiplayer doesn't seem particularly interesting either.

@MikeGosot said:

So we're judging the lenght of a game by ONE playthrough? ...Right, i'll wait for reviews.

Well, the length of a game is based upon a single playthrough, usually. Unless there's some supremely cool unlockables and new modes for a New Game +, which this game doesn't have.

Why do people obsess over game length. I could beat Bionic Commando on the NES in like 45 minutes. I did that about a hundred times because the game was amazing. The problem is not that this game is 4 hours long. The problem is that it's 4 hours long and once you played through it a single time, you'll never want to go back to it. I guess it's because I grew up in the golden age of arcades, but I am more likely to replay a great 3 hour game multiple times than even make it all the way through a mediocre 9 hour game once.

And that, folks, is why we need to overhaul the price of video games.

@Tru3_Blu3 said:

And that, folks, is why we need to overhaul the price of video games.

Indeed.....

Personally, I think anything less than ten hours is atrocious, aside from indie games made by tiny groups of people, and it deeply saddens me to see the industry embracing the short game.

yikes, too short for my taste. I honestly prefer Resident Evil 4 style length, but with variation in gameplay and locations. If it's 4 hours in the same backdrop and same shooting mechanics, then okay that does make sense.

@Zabant said:

@jillsandwich said:

Complaining about length is stupid and pointless.

I'm not entirely sure why, but this made me laugh and shit myself uncontrollably.

4 hours, eh? Well, definitely won't buy it at full price. Might buy it if it's really cheap.

All that time in development, and it only lasts roughly 4 hours?

@Asmo917: Then why wouldn't you rent it?

I enjoyed the demo but if it's only 4 hours, will wait for a price drop.

And that, folks, is why we need to overhaul the price of video games.

Start getting used to this, boys. Next generation is around the corner.

@Deusoma said:

Personally, I think anything less than ten hours is atrocious, aside from indie games made by tiny groups of people, and it deeply saddens me to see the industry embracing the short game.

You must miss out on a lot of great games (Braid, Journey, Dear Esther, Limbo, Portal, Max Payne 1 and 2, etc).

@crithon said:

yikes, too short for my taste. I honestly prefer Resident Evil 4 style length, but with variation in gameplay and locations. If it's 4 hours in the same backdrop and same shooting mechanics, then okay that does make sense.

Resident Evil 4 was really bad with its length, so much backtracking and repetitive sections. The Napoleon castle stuff should've been axed. Great game, but its pacing and length are not the strong points.

@BionicRadd: Personally, I'd say it's a value equation. 4 Hours at full price is pretty steep. Also, I doubt you finished Bionic Commando 45 minutes after sitting down to play it the first time. Older games also often had more replayability for some reason, at least in my opinion.

I've been having some performance issues with the Spec Ops demo (on PC), which in itself has added some resistance to purchasing it.

I'm definitely waiting for reviews on this one.

@Jace: Renting new games is a pain in the ass. I use Gamefly to get older stuff I may have missed out on, but getting new games from them has never been reliable for me. Amazon frequently has free release date delivery and bonus credit on future purchases, so I'll take advantage of that since I know I'll be buying more from them. Plus, I have a habit of buying a game and not getting around to it for a while. While it's not the perfect solution, buying over renting allows me to play on my schedule without the rental timer hanging over my head. Finally, especially if a game is trying something different or interesting, I want to support the developers and publishers by buying the product. I may end up hating it, but I'd rather show some measure of faith in the attempt.

I'm just fortunate that I don't care that much about price and the convenience of having the game at hand when I do get around to playing it trumps the hassle of dealing with the various rental options.

I played about 2 minutes of the opening of the demo. You're on a helicopter. That shit was awful. It looked like something from 2007 crawled back or some shit, and the shooting and everything else was just god awful. I have no interest to see anything else in that game if that's how they're going to open it.

Then again 4 hours seems a bit short for a game that is supposed to live on it's single player campaign and is a shooter.

@RIDEBIRD: I agree. The game looked bad and the shooting was bad. I would consider buying the game if it was in the reasonable 5 to 10 dollar range, but I'd likely give it a miss at any price.

@Asmo917 said:

@Jace: Finally, especially if a game is trying something different or interesting, I want to support the developers and publishers by buying the product. I may end up hating it, but I'd rather show some measure of faith in the attempt.

Well that's understandable. Convenience has no price. But I assume this line is in reference to a game(s) other than Spec Ops. Please say it is.

He plays on the easiest difficulty level, so of course. I did MW3 on the easiest difficulty level, including deaths, it was over in three hours and 15 minutes on my first run through. Going at it with higher difficulties later didn't take much longer though.

According to the Xbox360Achievements.org Review, the game is around 8-10 hours long.

EDIT: Linkz: http://www.xbox360achievements.org/game/spec-ops-the-line/review/

The demo was bad anyway, so it's not that surprising, to me anyway.

@Jace: Ha! For the most part, yes, but I'll admit that I've suckered into giving Spec ops a chance based on their drawing unapologetically from Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now. The PAX demo showed promise that the story could be interesting, although I'm skeptical.

Based on what I expect and everything I've heard, I wouldn't recommend Spec Ops as a purchase unless you fit into a very small demo group: Crazy Person Like Me.

@EXTomar said:

Agreed, a four hour game isn't the issue but the $60 price tag is.

Agreed, $15/hour is not a good entertainment value.

@Klei said:

At least, according to this man's playthrough :

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL17ADEF03ADAC76B9&feature=plcp

To be more precise, he beat the game in 3 hours and 42 minutes, that's including loading times and deaths. I, for one, was one of those who was eagerly expecting this game, with Greg Kasavin once having a hand in it, saying it'd be '' his kind of game''. I also liked the demo for what it was; a bright, yet dark and violent military shooter that twisted the genre into an interesting way.

Yet, I am now very, very disappointed by the length of this game. It took, what, three years to make? And you get a 4 hours-long Single Player game? Look, I can tolerate 6 hours if the game is really good, but 4 hours long is really in the '' red '' zone for me. As much as I want to play and experience this game, I just can't get to pay 60 bucks for this. I'll end up renting it or purchasing it for 14,99 on Steam this fall.

So, what about you guys? What will you do? Are you still getting it?

Not a single review has mentioned it's 4 hours long.

Next time don't take a Youtuber's playthrough (he was playing on easiest difficulty, too) as gospel.

I won't be bothered if this is this short. If they succeed in making a war shooter into an experience where you actually feel something other than a sense of completion out of shooting people, I don't think I'd even want to play that for much longer than four hours. I could barely take in the length of a film like Irreversible, and if this game has even an ounce of that type of potency, it'll be a perfect length. I can also easily understand that it would take 2-3 years to develop something like this, because if they pull this off, it'll be the first time anyone has successfully done something of this type in the genre.

That being said, I don't honestly think it'll work. But I'm willing to support such attempts with monetary means.

There are some other reviews coming in now which contradict the 4 hour length accusation:

"The length is about right, given the variety (or lack of it), clocking in at a flabless 7-8 hours, but too much of that is spent retrying the same tricky sections or, more frustratingly, waiting to retry them." officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk

"Whilst not the longest campaign in the world (it doesn’t push much beyond 6 hours), the length is spot on and any attempt to extend it would just ruin the story." thesixthaxis.com

"However, the scale of the bad stuff that happens to Walker, the men under his command, and the poor survivors over the course of the game’s 15 chapters and roughly 7-9 hour-long story, is probably bigger and darker than your average videogame." gamingnexus.com

Another review I saw described it as "pretty short", so between 4 and 9 hours, I guess at this point. That's a substantial difference experienced by the reviewers for a shooter. I expect more data to as more reviews are posted.

@Asmo917: Well as far as being a crazy person... I have a confession to make

I bought Ghost Recon Future Soldier for PC

Preordered, even.

@BigChickenDinner said:

Well shit, play the game on the hardest setting?

That's what I do with all of my shooters. I play CoD games on Veteran first time through just to extend the length. Still never hit anything longer than 6 hours unfortunately.

Clearly playing on the wrong difficulty.

So the award for 2012's Homefront is Spec Ops: The Line.

That's unfortunate, the game sounds interesting, I like the Heart of Darkness angle storyline, but if I'm not going to get 8-10 hours out of it, it's definitely not worth my $60, especially since I'll never play the MP.

@Mnemoidian said:

@BionicRadd: Personally, I'd say it's a value equation. 4 Hours at full price is pretty steep. Also, I doubt you finished Bionic Commando 45 minutes after sitting down to play it the first time. Older games also often had more replayability for some reason, at least in my opinion.

I've been having some performance issues with the Spec Ops demo (on PC), which in itself has added some resistance to purchasing it.

I'm definitely waiting for reviews on this one.

Of course not. The first time I beat it probably took 2 or 3 hours. Still, I had so much fun doing it that I went back, pretty quickly. Old games had more replayability because gameplay was the only thing they could rely on. If the gameplay was broken in the NES days, no one bought your game. Nowadays, people will swallow mediocre gameplay if they like the story or the visuals, but if a game with amazing gameplay comes out and only lasts 4 hours, people dismiss it as "a renter". I can tell you, right now, if I could have gone through everything in Arkham Asylum in 3 hours, I'd have beat that game a dozen times, by now. Instead, by the time I finished it, I was pretty much done. Don't get me wrong, the game is great, but it's repitive as shit and, IMO, way too long.

I am not bangin the drum for Spec Ops, either. It doesn't sound like my kinda game. However, I see the "this game is too short" thing all the time and it's sent the wrong message to game devs. Don't be pissed because you paid 60 bucks for a 4 hour game. Be pissed that you paid 60 bucks for a 4 hour game that you never want to play, again. Hell, paying 60 bucks for a 20 hour game that you only want to play through once is still pretty crap value, if you ask me. Especially compared to how many hours I logged on Super Mario 3 and Zelda back in the day.

@BionicRadd: As someone who never replays games I can't abide by a four hour campaign at full price. I want to support the dev for putting out something original, but w/ a gaming budget that can only afford a few new titles a year, Spec Ops is going to be a rental or bargain bin buy for me. These are times a wish some devs would lower the initial price point, which would pique my interest in trying out "risky" or shorter games.

There are some other reviews coming in now which contradict the 4 hour length accusation:

"The length is about right, given the variety (or lack of it), clocking in at a flabless 7-8 hours, but too much of that is spent retrying the same tricky sections or, more frustratingly, waiting to retry them." officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk

"Whilst not the longest campaign in the world (it doesn’t push much beyond 6 hours), the length is spot on and any attempt to extend it would just ruin the story." thesixthaxis.com

"However, the scale of the bad stuff that happens to Walker, the men under his command, and the poor survivors over the course of the game’s 15 chapters and roughly 7-9 hour-long story, is probably bigger and darker than your average videogame." gamingnexus.com

Another review I saw described it as "pretty short", so between 4 and 9 hours, I guess at this point. That's a substantial difference experienced by the reviewers for a shooter. I expect more data to as more reviews are posted.

@MikeGosot said:

@PenguinDust said:

There are some other reviews coming in now which contradict the 4 hour length accusation:

"The length is about right, given the variety (or lack of it), clocking in at a flabless 7-8 hours, but too much of that is spent retrying the same tricky sections or, more frustratingly, waiting to retry them." officialplaystationmagazine.co.uk

"Whilst not the longest campaign in the world (it doesn’t push much beyond 6 hours), the length is spot on and any attempt to extend it would just ruin the story." thesixthaxis.com

"However, the scale of the bad stuff that happens to Walker, the men under his command, and the poor survivors over the course of the game’s 15 chapters and roughly 7-9 hour-long story, is probably bigger and darker than your average videogame." gamingnexus.com

Another review I saw described it as "pretty short", so between 4 and 9 hours, I guess at this point. That's a substantial difference experienced by the reviewers for a shooter. I expect more data to as more reviews are posted.

I doubt it will last only four hours in normal difficulty. Thanks for the reviews.

Been hearing it was around 6 to 7 hours. Now Im probably will get the game when I trade in a few games. Even though I know the game is short. Reading the reviews made me wanted to buy the game.

@stryker1121 said:

@BionicRadd: As someone who never replays games I can't abide by a four hour campaign at full price. I want to support the dev for putting out something original, but w/ a gaming budget that can only afford a few new titles a year, Spec Ops is going to be a rental or bargain bin buy for me. These are times a wish some devs would lower the initial price point, which would pique my interest in trying out "risky" or shorter games.

Yea, it's a shift in culture that I don't fully understand or know where it came from. Near as I can tell, replayability became a non-issue sometime after the PS1 hit. Possibly because that's when longer games started coming out.

Arthur Gies said it took him between 7-9 hours

@BionicRadd said:

@stryker1121 said:

@BionicRadd: As someone who never replays games I can't abide by a four hour campaign at full price. I want to support the dev for putting out something original, but w/ a gaming budget that can only afford a few new titles a year, Spec Ops is going to be a rental or bargain bin buy for me. These are times a wish some devs would lower the initial price point, which would pique my interest in trying out "risky" or shorter games.

Yea, it's a shift in culture that I don't fully understand or know where it came from. Near as I can tell, replayability became a non-issue sometime after the PS1 hit. Possibly because that's when longer games started coming out.

The advent of heavily story-driven games did it for me. I just don't like sitting through the same story beats, knowing what's going to happen. If i love the story, or if the world is really interesting, I may give a game another go, but that's a rarity. SMB, Mega Man, or Bionic Commando for that matter were all 'pick up and play' titles that i had no problem replaying 20 times through. I was also 12 at the time, but you get the picture :)

@stryker1121 said:

@BionicRadd said:

@stryker1121 said:

@BionicRadd: As someone who never replays games I can't abide by a four hour campaign at full price. I want to support the dev for putting out something original, but w/ a gaming budget that can only afford a few new titles a year, Spec Ops is going to be a rental or bargain bin buy for me. These are times a wish some devs would lower the initial price point, which would pique my interest in trying out "risky" or shorter games.

Yea, it's a shift in culture that I don't fully understand or know where it came from. Near as I can tell, replayability became a non-issue sometime after the PS1 hit. Possibly because that's when longer games started coming out.

The advent of heavily story-driven games did it for me. I just don't like sitting through the same story beats, knowing what's going to happen. If i love the story, or if the world is really interesting, I may give a game another go, but that's a rarity. SMB, Mega Man, or Bionic Commando for that matter were all 'pick up and play' titles that i had no problem replaying 20 times through. I was also 12 at the time, but you get the picture :)

Pretty much, yea. It's one of the reasons I've really gotten into mobile games, I think. To me, the spirit of the NES days is alive and well in games like Angry Birds, Cut the Rope and Where's My Water? No story, no exploration, all pure, simple gameplay. To each his own, though. I won't begrudge someone else's preferences just because they are not in line with my own.

Yeah, it's not four hours. I'm a few chapters from the end, and I'm already six hours in.

I've just hit 4 hours and 13 minutes, and I'm still just passing the halfway point.

I'm also good at video games, and have died maybe twice, and have both the achievement for hitting 60% accuracy consistently, as well as the achievement for beating three levels in a row without dying.

I have at least another 2-3 hours to go.

And every second of this game has been worth it.