In a statement that I can really get behind and support the head architect of Battlefield 3 has come out and stated that
It’s all about making sure the experience is as awesome as possible. I’d rather have six hours of awesome than 12 hours of â€œmehâ€.
People often complain about the length of certain games single player experiences and usually hold up the Modern Warfare campaigns as examples of games where they are just far too short.
However I’ve never felt that way and if a game is able to keep me hooked into the single player campaign for 6-9 hours and then offer a substantial multiplayer component then I’m happy.
Much happier than if you offer me a 15-20 hour grind fest just to be able to say your game has a long single player campaign.
I think he also sums it up perfectly when he states
I can’t actually tell you right now, but I would say it’s a pretty decent length. It’s not Skyrim, but it’s not three hours, or anything like that. I’m not sure, as we’re still working on the difficulty balancing, and that seems to make the pendulum swing quite a bit.
I’m going to be laying down my R500-R600 on this game mainly for the multiplayer experience but I would like a story that goes with it, one that can be completed in a week of evenings is perfect for me,
Check out the rest of the VG247 interview through the link.
Last Updated: September 1, 2011