A lot of people aren't super happy about the length of Splinter Cell (SC). Something I don't think folks realize when it comes to game length is that it has to be insanely hard to come up with so many hours of content, especially with a game like SC. I mean if you think about it, an action movie of this magnitude would only be an hour and a half to two hours max, so you really have to appreciate what the writers come up with to stretch the games out. Thoughts?
On the topic of game length...
I just finished it in 6 hours on normal. The length was fine, but there are two problems with the game. First off there is a flashback early in the game set in Iraq in which the basic tools of the game are stripped from the player. And that in the last 1 third of the game there isn't much stealth. Enemies make a b-line in your direction, and you can't assess the situation before making your attack. Instead your are the hunted, and have to play defense. I hope that the co-op has less of this and more, enter a room, count the enemies, figure out how to take them down one by one. I only counted 4 sequences like this in the entire campaign.
Overall it was an excellent game, and the story was really well told.
Wow, took me 12 hours. But there was a lot of drinking and walking away to pee and such involved hehe. Did you guys watch the full credits? I always watch them since I got an achievement for watching them on a game once...but man the SC ones were TWENTY MINUTES LONG!!
Talking of the Iraq mission, I enjoyed it because it mixed things up a bit, but I do agree that the last couple missions in the game were all enemies storming you and the player having to back up, assess the situation, then act. I haven't enjoyed the multiplayer yet but I can't wait! I may have beat this in one day but I still feel that my money was well spent.
i never cared about game lenghts... until i found myself unemployed. Now, 60-70 euros for a new release really stings on the finances, and when you finish said game in 1 or 2 sittings (god of war 3, im looking at you for example), you feel like shit because you might just not enough cash for another game. Hell, i liked FF13 but didnt really love it... but at least it lasted me 55 hours. Sure action games cant be that long, but 6-8 hours? Infamous was the perfect length, 20 hours for a single player game is the sweet spot imo (unless its a rpg of course)
First I got the game for 37 bucks on amazon so that helps. I don't think people realize the amount of co-op and extra modes. The SP is only a slice of the pie. I'd rather have a 6 hour really solid experience than a 15 hour one that drags on. Replayability of the SP also helps. I was thinking of just starting on realistic but then I wouldn't have as much as an incentive to play. Whatever, I'm loving the game.
I think Assassin's creed 2 was the perfect length (20 hours) for me personally.
I don't care THAT much about a game's single player length as long as it has enough content to keep me occupied for a long time. RE 5 is like..maybe 10 hours long but the unlockable content (costumes, weapons, difficulty modes, and multiplayer) kept me going for about..70 hours. God of War 2 was the same deal.
I think DLC is killing unlockable content though. God of War 3 is the perfect example: all those costumes scrapped for advertising and promotional purposes. Little things like that can make a 6 hour game a rental
Wow, didn't know it was that short, but that's becoming a standard now. No complaints here, writers can't successfully stretch an action story much longer than that anyway. Maybe game devs should consider TV writers, they're good with the long-term stuff, and you don't have to pay them much.
Also, there's a neat co-op campaign, which has to count for something. Not like it was free to make, it's part of the content.
Glad I just got a gamepass with blockbuster now, I can just trade it for another rental the minute I beat it.
I think I'm almost finished with the campaign now, and I have no complaints regarding its length. Even if it was a twenty hour adventure, the real replayability Splinter Cell offers comes from the co-op and multiplayer side of things anyway. In fact, I'm glad the campaign was short, because that means they probably didn't add too many superfluous scenes just so the player could ice a few more dudes.
The single player campaign I feel is the perfect length. The reason most of the whining doesn't make sense is because there is another campaign included of similar length (prologue) and then there's the deniable ops mode which contains two modes of gameplay on 7 different maps, all of which can be played solo or co-op. Not to mention the face-off multiplayer mode which to be completely honest with, i was not expecting much out of...until I just played it an hour ago. I am officially hooked. A little janky at times though.
Of course that isn't to say there aren't some things about the game I dislike (I'm a hardcore splinter cell fan after all).
I think it's funny that you tell us to compare it to the length of an action movie.
The thing is, the game is about 5 - 6 times more expensive than a movie ticket (In Denmark at least).
And if you can't just afford to throw money on everything, then you care about this. Especially after Jeff said in the review that the game lacks replay-ability .
And on top of this they have removed competitive multiplayer, which is usually what give games a lasting value.
I would like to play the game, and I'm sure I would find it enjoyable. But if I think about the cost then I don't think it's worth it.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.