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?

I would actually dig a 4 hour game, but not for 60 bucks. Bummer.

Well shit, play the game on the hardest setting?

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

@BigChickenDinner said:

Well shit, play the game on the hardest setting?

Usually, when I replay my game on Hard, it's even faster than ''normal'', because I've gotten good. As for playing it right off the bat on Hard, I don't usually do that, because it kills the use of a second playthrough.

This actually makes me more likely to buy it. I played the demo at PAX East and was underwhelmed with the gameplay but remained interested in the story. If it's only 4 hours to experience it, I may pick it up tomorrow after work and breeze through it in a few nights. 4 hours sounds more appealing than an 8, 10, or 12 hour slog.

I have a feeling this game will have its price cut relatively quick anywhoo. I'm still interested in checking out the story, so I'll pick it up should I spot it for around a tenner. It's too bad they couldn't have just skipped the multiplayer portion completely and released the game as a download or something.

Gears style gameplay gets boring pretty fast, so this might be a pretty good length.(Besides, I was only going to rent it.)

@Brodehouse said:

I would actually dig a 4 hour game, but not for 60 bucks. Bummer.

Same. Although I wasn't gonna buy it anyhow. Didn't even know it was coming out. Still might give it a look somewhere down the line. It looked to be potentially really cool.

they just lost my money. instead ill buy it used for 20 when it hits that mark in a few months. they could have had my money. but they wanted the whole 60 dollars. oh well.

I look forward to playing it (potentially) once it hit's the price of a small DLC pack then ($10). 4 hours is a horrible joke.

@Klei: It's 38 US$ on Steam, in my country (Chile) at least. Try to rationalize it like this: the game is 4 hrs. which is the length of two movies, also is interactive and supposedly the story changes organically depending on how you play (at least I remember hearing that) so it has some replay value. I haven't try the demo yet so I don't know how it would run on my PC but I'm seriously thinking about buying it.

Weeeelll that just became a rent rather than a buy.

That translates to $15 per hour of entertainment. That's less expensive than an ugly hooker but more than a bombastic 3D movie.

Bias confirmed! I wasn't going to buy SO:tL because I was unimpressed by the demo. Now I'm extra not going to buy it.

The demo is so terrible I uninstalled it with a hammer

Complaining about length is stupid and pointless. Just rent it.

The poem that I wrote about the game stands true, I'd quote that masterpiece, but I'm on my iPad.

Was interested in buying it, now uninterested

.@jillsandwich said:

Complaining about length is stupid and pointless. Just rent it.

I completely disagree, length is way to important when it comes to actually buying a game. I'm not saying length is everything their are tons of games that are super short and worth it, but for a shooter where I don't plan on playing the multilayer, it completely turns me off.

@AhmadMetallic: i dont like you but i like what you said.....i like you.

Complaining about length is stupid and pointless. Just rent it.

Arthur Gies said it took him between 7-9 hours

The game has online multiplayer, so does it really matter if it has a short campaign?

Everything I heard about this game was about the singleplayer. Showing off the sand mechanics with a bunch of scripted sequences. I didn't even know this game had multiplayer till now. Tacked on multiplayer with a 4 hour campaign? I think I'll pass for now

@AhmadMetallic said:

The demo is so terrible I uninstalled it with a hammer

Throw that shit out the window, too. I'm told that's what gamers do when they're angry.

4 hours. That is perfectly in line with any recent COD title and BF3. Millions of you bought those, so what is the problem here? I don't get it. Dude bros unite?

Yeah, I'm out.
 
See ya in the bargain bin sucker!

I'm over buying action games full price unless its something real special. I know if I buy an RPG full price I'll get my moneys worth. I'm happy to play an action game later for half the price.

@Jayzilla said:

4 hours. That is perfectly in line with any recent COD title and BF3. Millions of you bought those, so what is the problem here? I don't get it. Dude bros unite?

I think one of the big differences is that COD has had a well established multilayer for a long time. I think the issue is that a lot of people think this game has tacked on multilayer and have no interest in it while they were interested in the campaign. Battlefield on the other hand has always been just multiplayer until recently so it's kind of the opposite of this. Instead of having bad tacked on multiplayer, Battlefield has a bad tacked on campaign. Also no one went to Battlefield looking for a riveting campaign experience as much as EA hoped they would. Also most people that aren't fans of COD multiplayer say short campaigns in COD are bullshit and a bad trend. Their are others that disagree because it's a less drawn out experience and I can see where they're coming from. On the other hand I would say the last COD campaign was still a drawn out campaign.

@Jayzilla said:

4 hours. That is perfectly in line with any recent COD title and BF3. Millions of you bought those, so what is the problem here? I don't get it. Dude bros unite?

Probably because millions of people were buying only for the multiplayer and didn't give two shits about the single player. I would hazard a guess that that's not the case here.

@Jayzilla said:

4 hours. That is perfectly in line with any recent COD title and BF3. Millions of you bought those, so what is the problem here? I don't get it. Dude bros unite?

Battlefield is a different kettle of fish, that has never traditionally been a single player focused title. Spec Ops has been sold as a narrative heavy game.

Considering that the demo was a good 20 minutes and the story had barely gotten boring, that seems hard to believe.

EDIT: assuming that those videos contain, as claimed, the entire game...I put to you that he was probably playing it in a synthetically quick fashion and that for a typical player it will probably take 6-7 hours.

See, this is a great example of what I was talking about the other day in the Last of us thread. This is an example of a game that doesn't need multiplayer. Obviously judging by the reactions people would rather have more campaign than a multiplayer which in the end nobody is going to care about. The effort put into multiplayer could have been invested into more singleplayer. Nope... They want a bulletpoint on the back of the box.

I will wait for some reviews and such.

4 hours. That is perfectly in line with any recent COD title and BF3. Millions of you bought those, so what is the problem here? I don't get it. Dude bros unite?

@jillsandwich said:

Complaining about length is stupid and pointless. Just rent it.

Where? Everyone's out of business!

gamefly here i come.

A good rent. I'll play it eventually. I figured that this game wouldn't be that great.

A $60 dollar game that has only 4 or 5 hours in it's length sounds way too short in my opinion, and that's really disappointing. I need to see some good reviews for this game before I decide to buy it or not.

I'm on the fence. If it's one of those revelatory games, sure, $60. The length doesn't matter too much if that game completely blows my mind. What puts me on the fence is the story. I like how it channels Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now (which is pretty much Heart of Darkness itself), but I'm afraid it channels too much Heart of Darkness. If you're going to tell a story in a genre that really doesn't have those kinds of stories, all the more power to you. But if you're going to retell a story, you have to do it better than other people have before, and that's what puts me on the fence with this game.

All you games look alike to me.

There. I said it. Spreading that culture of hate.

But really, isn't 4-6 hours the standard for a shooter? I haven't played one in a long ass time, but that seems like what they usually are reported to be.

@Jayzilla: Which recent COD title only lasted 4 hours? I remember spending at least double that on MW2. Maybe I am just bad at playing those games.

I totally prefer shorter games. I feel games that are super long usually extend their length with pointless filler. Case in point? RE4 compared to RE5. RE5, while much shorter, is lean and mean. RE4 is far longer, but the story gets extremely repetitive and you have to backtrack and unholy amount. It's just a bunch of useless time wasters so that you feel you get more bang for your buck. I'd much rather it be shorter, but tight and cohesive. Partially why I enjoy CoD games so much. Also, short games are way more conducive to a busy life full of work/hobbies/friends. Don't have time for 100 hour epics anymore. Even 20 hours feels like a lot to ask.

@rebgav said:

A shooter is only 4 hours long?

I, for one, am shocked.

A lot of shooters wold beg to differ.

Like I said about Lollipop Chainsaw: It seems like a rental at best.

Just gonna rent it now. 4 hours isn't worth $60.

@nintendoeats said:

Considering that the demo was a good 20 minutes and the story had barely gotten boring, that seems hard to believe.

EDIT: assuming that those videos contain, as claimed, the entire game...I put to you that he was probably playing it in a synthetically quick fashion and that for a typical player it will probably take 6-7 hours.

I usually agree with you, but the player isn't particularly good and dies often. It even contains loading screens and full-on cutscenes. It is really that short.

As long as it's a good four hours, I don't really care.

Is the multiplayer supposed to be anything to write home about? I haven't heard anything about it.

@jillsandwich said:

Complaining about length is stupid and pointless.