Battlefront 2's single player campaign will last 5-7 hours.

Gamezone

Gold Member
Nov 2, 2014
6,630
224
525
32
Norway
#1
According to this article:

In regards to the campaign’s length Robillard stated, “…we thought that around 5-7, maybe 8 hours is probably a good amount of time…we wanted to stay very driven towards the Star Wars fantasy that the players are going to experience and not have it be drawn out.” All up, my playthrough of the first three chapters amounted to around an hour and a half of gameplay.

https://press-start.com.au/news/pla...s-single-player-campaign-will-last-5-7-hours/
 
Apr 27, 2017
685
1
0
#8
No one expected +10 hours of campaign, but i hope it's good.
Titanfall 2 campaign was one of the best since MW, and it was like 5-6 hours.
 
Jan 21, 2016
5,941
0
0
#13
So basically, wait until the game is in EA/Origin access? Got it.
I hate this mindset. If you want single player games to exist you actually have to buy them at reasonable prices. Besides does no one replay games? Play it through 3 times and thats a 15-20 hour game.
 
Mar 10, 2013
6,677
0
0
#14

Yeah I think I'll buy it. The whole packaged is attractive (campaign previews look good) and lack of season pass has me intrigued. I'd be lying to myself if I said I didn't enjoy the Beta even with all the controversies surrounding it.
 

GHG

Member
Nov 9, 2006
15,836
1
1,065
#18
I hate this mindset. If you want single player games to exist you actually have to buy them at reasonable prices. Besides does no one replay games? Play it through 3 times and thats a 15-20 hour game.
Why should I have to play through the same game 3 times when I could buy a game that's actually worth $60 and not have to replay it 3 times to feel like I've got my money's worth?
 
Apr 4, 2017
540
0
0
Virginia
#23
I hate this mindset. If you want single player games to exist you actually have to buy them at reasonable prices. Besides does no one replay games? Play it through 3 times and thats a 15-20 hour game.
I haven’t replayed a game in a solid 10-15 years, unless you count NES/SNES Classics. Backlog + new games makes it almost impossible for me to allocate time to such an ordeal.

Plus, I don’t derive any joy from repeating something unless a new emergent experience exists within the repetition. Can’t imagine that’d apply here.
 
Feb 18, 2011
4,641
1
510
#33
LOL 🤣

But honestly, with terrible shooting mechanics this game has, they're doing the buyer a favor.

Titanfall 2's single player wasn't much longer, but was the best fps campaign I can think of in about a decade.
But Titanfall was a joy to play, and I replayed those missions multiple times.
 
Jan 21, 2016
5,941
0
0
#35
Why should I have to play through the same game 3 times when I could buy a game that's actually worth $60 and not have to replay it 3 times to feel like I've got my money's worth?
Why? IDK. You do you, and buy what you want to buy

I haven’t replayed a game in a solid 10-15 years, unless you count NES/SNES Classics. Backlog + new games makes it almost impossible for me to allocate time to such an ordeal.

Plus, I don’t derive any joy from repeating something unless a new emergent experience exists within the repetition. Can’t imagine that’d apply here.
I never play multiplayer and only play campaigns once, so I will just pay the 5 bucks for the month of ea access when I feel like playing this.
I guess as someone who loves single player games, i hate the idea that people think that buying these games at as cheap a price as possible is somehow beating the system. That an arbitrary number of hours defines something's value. Rather then the events that happen within that timeframe.

People spend 30-50 dollars on 5-7 hours of content at the cinema no questions asked but with games as soon as a developer releases a short campaign its straight to redbox for a pittance.
 
Aug 13, 2015
1,016
0
250
#36
Why should I have to play through the same game 3 times when I could buy a game that's actually worth $60 and not have to replay it 3 times to feel like I've got my money's worth?
Because you have binary criteria for choosing the game: play hours. It feels like you get your money worth if you manage to beat a fixed amount of hours out of it instead of measuring the game's experience and quality.
 
Apr 4, 2017
540
0
0
Virginia
#37
Why? IDK. You do you, and buy what you want to buy





I guess as someone who loves single player games, i hate the idea that people think that buying these games at as cheap a price as possible is somehow beating the system. That an arbitrary number of hours defines something's value. Rather then the events that happen within that timeframe.

People spend 30-50 dollars on 5-7 hours of content at the cinema no questions asked but with games as soon as a developer releases a short campaign its straight to redbox for a pittance.
I didn’t say I was beating a system. I just said that I don’t replay games so for me, that’s not factored in whatsoever.

I also didn’t particularly like the MP—aside from the starfighter stuff—and the star cards are wildly infuriating (for me). So why should I support that by giving a developer $60 for something I don’t think is worth my $60?
 

Gamezone

Gold Member
Nov 2, 2014
6,630
224
525
32
Norway
#38
5-7 hours of linear, quality story campaign is in my opinion way better than 20-40 hours of open world with repetitive gameplay, boring side quests, and lots of traveling. Titanfall 2, as mentioned is a good example of that.
 
Feb 18, 2011
4,641
1
510
#40
Why? IDK. You do you, and buy what you want to buy





I guess as someone who loves single player games, i hate the idea that people think that buying these games at as cheap a price as possible is somehow beating the system. That an arbitrary number of hours defines something's value. Rather then the events that happen within that timeframe.

People spend 30-50 dollars on 5-7 hours of content at the cinema no questions asked but with games as soon as a developer releases a short campaign its straight to redbox for a pittance.
Or maybe some people don't want or don't like the multiplayer and don't feel 6 hours of single player justifies $60.

It's ok to wait and buy it cheaper, if half the game is not something they care for.
 
#41
Guess I need to post this again since there are some people who seem to have already forgotten after 2 page. Wow, how the mind slips!

"Allegedly"

Opening admitting to sexually assaulting someone(then banning anyone who called him out for it)


Posting revenge porn with their real full names then another admin(a now jailed pedophile) printed the photos and jacked off over them and sent it to the boyfriend.


You're right, how can we even know if he's guilty or not? HMMMM

Also:
 
Apr 18, 2014
3,371
0
0
Belgium
#43
That's actually fine by me for a game like this. I always thought Call of Duty campaigns had the perfect length too. Usually I love to replay these experiences too.
 

Markitron

Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
Aug 24, 2010
12,108
0
0
#44
6 Hours is about what I was expecting, and the previews yesterday have eased my mind so I am OK with this.

I usually finish these short, quality campaigns. The last open world game I finished was GTA 5, but even that was a struggle at the end. But that's just me. I work full time, and have two kids as well.
GTA is particularly long, even for an open-world game. There are open-world games like Horizon that can be very tight cinematic games if you choose to play them that way.
 
Jan 21, 2016
5,941
0
0
#47
Or maybe some people don't want or don't like the multiplayer and don't feel 6 hours of single player justifies $60.

It's ok to wait and buy it cheaper, if half the game is not something they care for.
Sure. People can do what they want. It just bothers me how people don't value the craft that goes into short well realized bloat free single player experiences. If you want to actually play a game why not buy it at a reasonable price that means the existence of other games like it will be sustainable.

its possible i'm still a bit sore about EA closing Visceral most likely due to financial reasons :(
 
Feb 4, 2015
531
0
0
Frankfurt, Germany
#48
Great! I'm fine with that. I have so many games that have 20+ hours playtime in my backlog that I will most likely never finish. When I was younger this wasn't a problem, but now I'm actually happy about games that don't take that much of my time.