Shortest Game in the Series

#1 Posted by CraigAA1028 (546 posts) -

Managed to nab a copy of the game early (working for a large retailer has it's perks).  
 
I really love this series and the campaigns have always been alot of fun and a good length, I'd say 10-12 hours first time through usually. However, I started Conviction late this afternoon on Realistic difficulty. The campaign took 5-6 hours to finish, and thats with sections where I died multiple times. This is a bit of a disappointment for me. There's reason to go back and play it for the P.E.C. challenges, but seeing Splinter Cell fall in line with the shorter standard campaign length of games now is sad.  
 
Currently I'm playing some Hunter mode solo, which is fun. I'll wait till my friends get it next week to try any of the multiplayer.

#2 Posted by Dolphin_Butter (1915 posts) -

I was afraid of the length to be honest. Ah well, it'll be on sale a few weeks after release (and Dell is pre-ordering it at $40 now anyway).

#3 Posted by AndrewB (7632 posts) -

Yeah, one of the reasons I'll be buying this years from now when I'm jonesing for a game to play, rather than spending money I don't have on it now. Of course by then I'll be buying it on Steam, where the game won't be compatible with my current operating system (much like the problem I had with Double Agent before I gave up on it).

#4 Posted by HatKing (5973 posts) -

I'm okay with that, sorry for the folks who were going to buy the game.  I am okay with this being a shorter game.  I have a lot of things going on in my life right now(school, work, new relationship) so having a game I can rent and beat just playing a little every night for a few days is great.  I'm knee deep in BioShock 2 and I wish it were shorter.
#5 Posted by animateria (3253 posts) -

Man... 5 hours is too short for a $60 price tag.

#6 Posted by s7evn (1072 posts) -

Is the story compelling? I haven't played the demo yet, but I hear the gameplay is alright.

#7 Posted by Sanryd (1362 posts) -

That's actually good news for me because I'm gonna try to s-rank it before I have to send it back to GameFly for Alpha Protocol.

#8 Posted by Hailinel (24961 posts) -
@s7evn said:
" Is the story compelling? I haven't played the demo yet, but I hear the gameplay is alright. "
I imagine that the game is about 5-6 hours of Sam Fisher shouting "WHO KILLED MY DAUGHTER?!" and slamming thugs' faces into urinals.  Then again, I haven't played the game, so I could be wrong.
#9 Edited by MisterMcPorky (30 posts) -

Pics?(I might as well ask now since someone eventually will :P)

#10 Posted by rjayb89 (7724 posts) -

This is disappointing news.

#11 Posted by CraigAA1028 (546 posts) -

Wells heres the pic lol  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To be honest, the story is pretty standard and predictable. The big conspiracy is pretty obvious before the credits roll. Surprisingly the whole hook about Sam's daughter is more or less resolved early on. They get a bit deeper into her as the story goes on, but the big twist about her death is given away by level 3.

With that said, it's still entertaining. The scenes are done well, Sam has a couple good emotional scenes, and the voice acting is good. The story certainly isn't bad, it's just predictable.

I'm thinking of writing an actual review, but right now I'll say this as a  big fan of the franchise from the beginning: if you are ONLY interested in the campaign, rent it. Its worth playing through. The value of Conviction comes from completing all the P.E.C challenges, completing all the other scenarios (Deniable Ops and Co-Op), and getting all the achievements. 

Playing Hunter mode on Realistic solo is a real challenge. I have yet to beat a level the whole way through without dying a lot. One slip up is dire. If you have Live and a friend to play with, it's worth buying.    
#12 Posted by SPACETURTLE (1622 posts) -

Fuck! I was really looking forward to sittin' my ass down and sneak away with Michael Ironside's voice tickeling in my ear for about 10 hours or so. But half that time isnt really enough to satisfy my need. Damn it...
 
@CraigAA said:



Dude, don't spoil it. I started reading, but shut my eyes tight just before I got in to deep.
#13 Posted by Warihay (481 posts) -
@CraigAA: How hard is realistic difficulty? Doesn't seem too bad since you said you still beat it in 5 hours on the it.  IGN said as well that everyone should play it on realistic and I was just wondering what you thought.
#14 Posted by DystopiaX (5313 posts) -

I hate the MW2 route where companies assume that people only care about MP anyway so they cut the campaign short. It was ok for MW2 because it WAS a MP focused game, but I consider splinter cell's single player more important than its multiplayer.
@GhostlyKiller
said:

" @CraigAA: How hard is realistic difficulty? Doesn't seem too bad since you said you still beat it in 5 hours on the it.  IGN said as well that everyone should play it on realistic and I was just wondering what you thought. "
Basically if you've played a previous game in the series on a medium to hard difficulty or are familiar with the stealth action genre you should do fine on Realistic. At least that's what I've heard.
#15 Posted by Pandasaurus (115 posts) -
@CraigAA said:
" Wells heres the pic lol  
 
        To be honest, the story is pretty standard and predictable. The big conspiracy is pretty obvious before the credits roll. Surprisingly the whole hook about Sam's daughter is more or less resolved early on. They get a bit deeper into her as the story goes on, but the big twist about her death is given away by level 3.With that said, it's still entertaining. The scenes are done well, Sam has a couple good emotional scenes, and the voice acting is good. The story certainly isn't bad, it's just predictable.I'm thinking of writing an actual review, but right now I'll say this as a  big fan of the franchise from the beginning: if you are ONLY interested in the campaign, rent it. Its worth playing through. The value of Conviction comes from completing all the P.E.C challenges, completing all the other scenarios (Deniable Ops and Co-Op), and getting all the achievements. Playing Hunter mode on Realistic solo is a real challenge. I have yet to beat a level the whole way through without dying a lot. One slip up is dire. If you have Live and a friend to play with, it's worth buying.     "  
 
If you write a review then I will definitely  read it. It looks like you have a real clear opinion of the game and without sounding to "ass-kiss-ish" I would really like to see it committed to paper/ webscreen (whatever the kids are calling it).
#16 Posted by Rhaknar (5939 posts) -

as a single player only..er...player, the shortness of the campaign made me go from must buy to, well, maybe one day for half the price. Im sure the package is worth it with the multiplayer stuff, but like I said, I dont do multiplayer... shame

#17 Posted by Sadisticham (278 posts) -

:\
I can't justify throwing £40 down on a game that's only going to last 5 hours. I was looking forward to that as well. Ah well still need to complete FF and I've got battlefield.

#18 Posted by DJSire (45 posts) -

For me, all SC games are a lot like sex... it's not so much about how long I can play as it is about all the different ways I can achieve the result I'm looking for. :P

#19 Posted by project343 (2828 posts) -
@animateria said:
" Man... 5 hours is too short for a $60 price tag. "
Man. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. 
 
5-8 hours is the perfect length for a singleplayer game that has additional content--i.e. the co-op campaign, multiplayer. Otherwise, as someone else mentioned above, we end up with a Bioshock 2 (or, in my opinion, a Bioshock 1 as well).
Online
#20 Posted by Atlantus_Air (187 posts) -

Plus, Co-op is an additional five hours and I don't think any of you will play SP or Co-op just once.

#21 Edited by Mesklinite (805 posts) -

Duder, remember that there's coop which is almost as lenghty as the SP! How long was army of 2?
#22 Posted by animateria (3253 posts) -
@project343: It depends on whether or not you're gonna play the MP really...
 
In my case, no. 
 
Value is a relative thing, and it's too expensive for me for just the Single player experience. I'm sure it's worth it if you're going delve into the MP though.
#23 Posted by Asurastrike (2167 posts) -

I spent 4 hours playing splitscreen co-op today, barely touched the single player. I love this game.

#24 Posted by chrissedoff (2109 posts) -
@Rhaknar: surely you have at least one friend you can play with. or can find one here on the forums. i haven't started the single player yet, but i did a couple of levels on co-op and it is amaziiiiiing.
#25 Posted by Asurastrike (2167 posts) -
@chrissedoff said:
" @Rhaknar: surely you have at least one friend you can play with. or can find one here on the forums. i haven't started the single player yet, but i did a couple of levels on co-op and it is amaziiiiiing. "
The only thing that sucks is there are only 4 missions.
#26 Posted by myslead (929 posts) -
@Atlantus_Air said:
" Plus, Co-op is an additional five hours and I don't think any of you will play SP or Co-op just once. "
more than 5... the missions are harder than the single player one on realistic.
#27 Posted by Branthog (5562 posts) -
@project343 said:
" @animateria said:
" Man... 5 hours is too short for a $60 price tag. "
Man. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.  5-8 hours is the perfect length for a singleplayer game that has additional content--i.e. the co-op campaign, multiplayer. Otherwise, as someone else mentioned above, we end up with a Bioshock 2 (or, in my opinion, a Bioshock 1 as well). "
And that's the excuse developers use. "Sure, 5-10 hours of gameplay for $65 is a rip-off, but that's why we add multiplayer that you'll never -- or rarely -- play!".
 
I used to think of gaming as a fairly cheap hobby, but as the length of games continues to drop in general, it's turning out to be one of the more expensive forms of recreation.  I'm fortunate to earn a very high income and I still don't like the price of games for the content you get these days. If I made half of what I do, I would probably just stop gaming and find another hobby.
#28 Posted by Vash108 (153 posts) -

So, short Single player and short co-op?

#29 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

Yes, please put back in the poor pace, the waiting, and the tedium that made the previous games so much longer. Gamers are fucking stupid sometimes.

#30 Posted by Vash108 (153 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" Yes, please put back in the poor pace, the waiting, and the tedium that made the previous games so much longer. Gamers are fucking stupid sometimes. "
It was a stealth atmospheric game. Now it will be run and gun which makes me sad.
#31 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -
@Vash108 said:
" @ryanwho said:
" Yes, please put back in the poor pace, the waiting, and the tedium that made the previous games so much longer. Gamers are fucking stupid sometimes. "
It was a stealth atmospheric game. Now it will be run and gun which makes me sad. "
Play it first. I'm really over this whole idea of people thinking games with good pacing are for people with ADD. No, good pacing is for people who appreciate good pacing. Good pacing makes every aspect of the game better. There's nothing atmospheric about forcing you to hide for 4 minutes while the grunts spit the occasional canned dialog. You could maybe make this case for MGS, maaaaybe, because its a more visually focused game and there are easter eggs everywhere. Splinter Cell has never been that. I don't miss anything they cut out.
#32 Posted by nail1080 (1975 posts) -

It makes me sick reading some peoples comments how they are happy the game is short so they can get the achievements easier or whatever. I think I'll just play through my xbox version of conviction if I need a splinter cell fix and I'll pick this up used for cheap as 5 to 6 hours is a fucking disgrace for 60 bucks

#33 Posted by nail1080 (1975 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" @Vash108 said:
" @ryanwho said:
" Yes, please put back in the poor pace, the waiting, and the tedium that made the previous games so much longer. Gamers are fucking stupid sometimes. "
It was a stealth atmospheric game. Now it will be run and gun which makes me sad. "
Play it first. I'm really over this whole idea of people thinking games with good pacing are for people with ADD. No, good pacing is for people who appreciate good pacing. Good pacing makes every aspect of the game better. There's nothing atmospheric about forcing you to hide for 4 minutes while the grunts spit the occasional canned dialog. You could maybe make this case for MGS, maaaaybe, because its a more visually focused game and there are easter eggs everywhere. Splinter Cell has never been that. I don't miss anything they cut out. "
did you actually play conviction?
#34 Posted by Vash108 (153 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" @Vash108 said:
" @ryanwho said:
" Yes, please put back in the poor pace, the waiting, and the tedium that made the previous games so much longer. Gamers are fucking stupid sometimes. "
It was a stealth atmospheric game. Now it will be run and gun which makes me sad. "
Play it first. I'm really over this whole idea of people thinking games with good pacing are for people with ADD. No, good pacing is for people who appreciate good pacing. Good pacing makes every aspect of the game better. There's nothing atmospheric about forcing you to hide for 4 minutes while the grunts spit the occasional canned dialog. You could maybe make this case for MGS, maaaaybe, because its a more visually focused game and there are easter eggs everywhere. Splinter Cell has never been that. I don't miss anything they cut out. "
I will miss the rainy night scenes where I am hanging off a ledge waiting for the patrol to pass buy as they talk amongst themselves. It added a bit of atmosphere. 
 
I always liked sneaking compared to run and gun and I do the same in Metal Gear. They can always beef up the dialogue and make it feel a bit more realistic. 
 
Rather be playing the infiltration sequence the way I want to play it rather then being on the rails of the summer block buster spy shoot'em up movie.
#35 Posted by Creamypies (4070 posts) -

Man... that's a real bummer. Looks like I'll just be renting it then.

#36 Posted by project343 (2828 posts) -
@Branthog: I think you're missing the point. We'd all enjoy longer games, I think. Anyone disputing that? Well, maybe University students who can't afford buying games, and who certainly can't afford the time to play them. 
 
The problem is pacing. Bioshock 2 is the perfect example. Every minute of it is, by all accounts, incredibly well done. So why are people complaining? The game is too long. It goes on, and on, and on. Why was Portal such a success? It was 2 hours long.  
 
If a developer is focused on creating a cinematic, triple-A experience, they need to go for something 5-8 hours long. I dare you to find a successful counter-example. As soon as you hit the 20+ marker, the 'cinematic AAA experience' begins to deteriorate with filler, or it quickly loses its sense of pacing.
Online
#37 Posted by DystopiaX (5313 posts) -
@CraigAA said:
"  
   
           They get a bit deeper into her as the story goes on
That's what she said.
#38 Posted by Adziboy (702 posts) -
@project343 said:
" @animateria said:
" Man... 5 hours is too short for a $60 price tag. "
Man. I'm sorry, but you're wrong.  5-8 hours is the perfect length for a singleplayer game that has additional content--i.e. the co-op campaign, multiplayer. Otherwise, as someone else mentioned above, we end up with a Bioshock 2 (or, in my opinion, a Bioshock 1 as well). "

I'd say maybe 10 - 12, but 5 hours is nothing. I agree that with co-op and multiplayer a games length is considerably longer and therefore campaign is going to be shorter... but 5 hours? If Splinter Cell was aiming to be the 360's Uncharted, then it definitely needs to be longer.
#39 Posted by heatDrive88 (2341 posts) -
@Adziboy said:
"If Splinter Cell was aiming to be the 360's Uncharted, then it definitely needs to be longer. "
Where did you get that impression? I'm not exactly sure this game had the aspirations to be that kind of a marquee game.
#40 Posted by Prymet1me (99 posts) -

I see both sides of the length argument... gamefly has decided that for me the the 2 years I have been using it. I guess it depends on the game, I hate the filler part of some games and some games seem rushed. I guess it all depends on the content. 

#41 Edited by fuddles (82 posts) -

The campaign was the definition of Short but Sweet, the Co-Op Campaign was also Short and Sweet. Then, I hopped on and played 6 hours straight of Terrorist Hunt (Hunter Mode) all by myself, and then realized that I wanted more guns. I played the Single Player a little more so that I could get more guns, and that took around 4 hours of my life. I then sunk another 4 hours or so into that, before my friend came on and said to me "Lets play Terrorist Hunt together!".  We then sunk around 5 hours straight into that before we realized that there were another 5 or so maps that we hadn't tried out yet, and then realized that there were 2 other Denial Ops modes that we still haven't tried yet. 
 
In fact, I'm about to go play even more Terrorist Hunt as we speak, then spend some points upgrading all my guns, and I still haven't touched the other 2 Denial Ops modes. 
 
This game is worth the money, trust me.

#42 Posted by spankingaddict (2677 posts) -

its longer than 5-6 hours, i would say 7-8 hours if your trying to be stealthy...

#43 Posted by djz (134 posts) -
@rjayb89 said:
" This is disappointing news. "
Trust me,it is really short.

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.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.