News Article

You'll Kill Well Over 10 Hours in Killzone: Shadow Fall's Campaign

Posted by Robert Ramsey

Time to die

Over on the European PlayStation blog, Steven Ter Heide, the game director on Killzone: Shadow Fall, sat down to answer some questions that fans fired his way. The bulk of these queries are about topics which discerning gamers will already know about, but there are a few important nuggets of information that caught our eye.

For starters, Heide states that the single player campaign "should last well over ten hours for most gamers", which sounds feasible given how open some of the game's environments appear to be. Taking the edge off of that good news is the confirmation that there's no co-op of any sort when it comes to the narrative-driven content. The director admits, however, that the latest entry into the sci-fi shooter series is a great place for newcomers to jump in, noting that the sequel's a "fresh start for the franchise". We're certainly looking forward to seeing where the plot – which takes place 30 years after the events of Killzone 3 – guides our Helghast blood-soaked hands.

On the multiplayer side of things, the hardcore marksmen among you will be glad to know that dedicated servers will be handling your online escapades, while Heide expands upon the challenge system, which determines your progress when playing against others. "We felt XP was less about skill and more about time, so we designed a new system with a greater emphasis on skill," he says. He also lets slip that the Dutch developer will "continue to add new Challenges after launch". And, if you've been eager to hear about any sort of interaction between PlayStation Vita's Killzone: Mercenary and the upcoming next generation launch title, you'll be disappointed to know that the first party studio has "no plans for connectivity" between the two.

With the stunning-looking shooter quickly marching closer, do you have any questions that remain unanswered? Zip line into enemy territory and radio us your findings in the comments section below.


Game Screenshots

User Comments (25)



RicksReflection said:

I personally think that 65$ a game (tax included) that the "story" or "campaign" modes in today's games should at least be 20 hours long, not 10 hours or the loosely given phrase of "10 hours Plus". I'm never satisfied when developers of games these days make an open ended comment like this one saying "10 hours plus" most likely means it'll be in between 10 and 11 hours or at least closer to 10 than 15 hours otherwise they would've rounded up! I hate this political parsing that software companies do to make it sound better than it is! Unless there multiplayer gets established into the ranks of Battlefield or Call of Duty I don't like being told that a game I'm paying 65$ for that 10 hours plus is awesome and I should be excited.



TOMBOY25 said:

Given that i completed tomb raider 2013 and batman arkham city in 1 sitting each i dont think this will take too long



Epic said:

This is pretty long for a FPS I hope it doesn't get repetitive.



RicksReflection said:

@Lelouch I wouldn't mind as much if this shooter was up to and on par equally with Battlefield or Call of Duty but without knowing, not the same. Without hands on with the multiplayer content I don't like playing the guessing game with my 65$, but at least if the "campaign mode" that looks to be awesome, if it were longer then "10 plus" hours it wouldn't matter as much. But their not established like C.O.D or Battlefield, which with those "multiplayer rules!", and it wouldn't really matter. Let's hope they achieve the same status, but all I'm saying is if they don't, "10 plus hours" is going to leave a 65$ bitter taste in my mouth for a 10 hour game, oh I'm sorry "10 plus hour" game. What's that come out to ("$6.00 plus" an especially if the multiplayer sux and everybody bails on it and quits playing.



Scollurio said:

Being a fan and all if the 10 hours have lots of replayability, and no shooters are not about multiplayer only, I'll be fine. I enjoy the heck out of mercenary at the moment so more killzone is never wrong!



InsertNameHere said:

@RicksReflection Call of Duty's multiplayer isn't all that great, so I'm not worried about Shadow Falls multiplayer matching or surpassing it. Battlefield is really the only competition Shadow Fall has and the only reason it's likely to lose is the fact that Battlefield isn't tied to one platform.



charlesnarles said:

@RicksReflection Dude, 10 hours if you never die. I'm still trying beat almost every game from this year. Play on a harder difficulty or play online or play another game or get another hobby if it leaves you wanting. : D (not you personally, guy, I'm just sayin' it's not so bad!)



Gamer83 said:

10 hours is fine for a shooter, I honestly don't think I'd want it to go longer than that, and the Killzone campaigns generally provide decent replayability. If the multiplayer is as good as 2's, this will easily be the best FPS this fall.



Visiblemode said:

@RicksReflection and yet people buy blurays at launch for a first playthrough value of about $15 an hour.

They get interactive entertaintment for $6.50 an hour (not including countless multiplayer hours or replay if they don't care for those.)

I like long games too, but they are rarely long and also good. Those are rare great games. Most long games drag.

It's probably better to wait for price cuts on a title that doesn't excite you, but if excited and you can't wait, 6 bucks an hour is better value than a lot of entertainment.



BlueProxy said:

10 hrs. may be the right amount, if the pacing is right and the story is interesting. My issue is that I'll be done with it in a weekend, and not big on multi-player in many cases. For $60, and being my first PS4 game, I need more to dig-into. I'm considering swapping my pre-order to Assassins Creed BF. That will def hold me over until my next purchase.



MadchesterManc said:

I dont understand the complaint with a 10 hour campaign. I was paying full price for games in previous generations and finishing them in an hour or 2 (16-bit especially). I dont see any issue with the length of Killzone's campaign. No doubt with it being a more open game too ther'll be enough replayability to take it beyond 10 hours.



Reverend_Skeeve said:

@Lelouch I respectfully disagree with you, sir. For me, shooters are still and always have been mostly about a well-made single player campaign. If they also had a mp mode I happened to enjoy, all the better (and I played a lot of MW1 and 2 back in the days). That's mostly down to my lack of skills, though. I don't have the time or desire to play mp every day and often feel like if I don't practice on a regular basis, I'm getting owned like hell.

Will give the mp of Killzone a thorough try, though...especially with some of the fine folks from Pushsquare, as I hope for a respectfull, jerk-free online experience with you guys.

BTT: I feel like 10+ hours is fine. That's quite long for a modern game...and I'll take a 10+ campaign that's tight and gripping and doesn't drag along over a bloated 20h affair any day. And since I usually replay my games for higher difficulty and trophies/achievements, I feel like I'm getting enough bang for my buck.



RicksReflection said:

@Visiblemode No offense but comparing Blu-ray movies to Blu-ray games is simply ridiculous, it's like comparing games to going to a strip club and comparing the entertainment values of the two, and then breaking the value down to the dollars spent on the girls. It's not even the same field not even the same sport! The only things that are common denominators are the fact that their "entertainment" and that they share the same format "Blu-ray" thats it. Nothing else. The only reason I posted in this forum was to express concerns I have with the fact that with a game thats trying to break into the big leagues of the F.P.S market and make its bones, it wouldn't hurt for Guerrilla Games to hedge their bets and make sure "we all" enjoy the game by making the "campaign mode" just as compelling as the "multiplayer mode", but by keeping the "campaign mode" a little short their not hedging their bet. Statistically most people don't even complete the "Campaign modes" in C.O.D or Battlefield, I think the number is around 5% to 10% but again Killzone is not Battlefield or C.O.D and for them to put "most" but not all their eggs in one multiplayer basket seems risky. Without having a hands on Demo for multiplayer I hope it does succeed, because I'm certainly buying it and hopefully it'll put any concerns I have to rest.



RicksReflection said:

@Reverend_Skeeve What does 10+ hours for a modern game mean? I'm not trying to bust your chops, but really what do you mean? Skyrim is a modern game, and I put over 200+hrs. into that game easy and in "no way" am I comparing that game and saying every game should have that many playable hours. But I don't like when people make a "blanket" statement like that because there are different "Modern gaming" genera's that utilize waaaaay more than 10 hours of gameplay. For everyone who says that people should play a short 10 hour game on harder difficulties to get more outta their 65$ game, is ridiculous. To each their own, but I personally don't like playing "ground hog day" with my games or movies unless their "exceptionally" good, which most are not. Again people making more "blanket statements". Next thing you know we'll all be playing so called "free play" games and paying for respawns in our F.P.Shooters and spending ridiculous amounts of money. Wait, it's already started happening, anyone want to play DUST 514. This is just my opinion but people need to quit defending developers ridiculously and hold them accountable for "quality" and " length of game" and " price" combined, not any one exclusively. I'm a fan of Killzone but in no ways am I a simple minded lemming, every game has to earn my money, this less is more bs that people are spouting is ridiculous and is what the "corporate software companies" want people to believe to give us less so they can make more. I'm not greedy as a fan, but I'm also not a lemming.



rjejr said:

When I read this yesterday I thought it said 100 hours and I was really impressed. I was eating lunch at Applebees reading this on my 7" Tab while watching Broncos - Colts highlights so I was kind of distracted.

I have a $1 per hour rule on video games. That's what happens when all you start out playing are JRPGS. Of course the rule gets broken for gifts.



Reverend_Skeeve said:

@RicksReflection First, no offense taken, no worries. And I was imprecise. Of course 10+ hours isn't long in general for a modern you said, you can pump 200+ hours into games like Skyrim and by then haven't even finished the story. So: 10+ is, in my opinion, long/long enough for a modern FPS. Less hours, and I feel cheated for my money, just like you, but 10+ hours (be it 11, 12 or 15) is pretty much my sweet spot nowadays. If the game has a compelling story and beautiful set pieces and music, that's usually long enough for me to feel thoroughly entertained.

On the other hand, I don't have the desire most of the time to invest 200+ hours into a game to see everything. I loved Fallout 3s atmosphere, but the game was just too "big" for me to get I played 5 hours, reached megaton and pretty much quit after that because I couldn't even bother to find all the locations in there (megaton). I tried five times or so to play the game and every time it ended pretty much like that. So a game where I can spend 1-3 hours an evening and be done with after 5 days or so is how I like it today. But I do have a wife and a daughter, so...

But why should it be ridiculous to replay games for higher difficulties? Usually, when I play a game first, I go on normal so I have a light challenge but can mostly enjoy the story. After that, I replay it on hard, because often that's how devs intended their games to be played. And even if I finished the game on hard, there's often the case where I revisit a particularly beloved level or such to just soak in the atmosphere again and enjoy the game for 20mins. Same with movies. I only buy the ones I love and would like to watch again...but I mostly wait till they drop below 8 or 10 € before picking them up.

And by saying this, I don't defend devs I said, if a game is to short in my opinion, I don't buy it...but 10+ hours isn't that short for a modern FPS. This is plenty of time to tell a compelling story and visit some gorgeous locations during the process.

Then there is the fact that game development of AAA blockbusters has become quite expensive. I'm no dev, but I'd guess that every additional hour of gameplay costs a lot of money, if you want to do it right and not just use generic tunnels or reuse old locations.

So why should a dev spend all that extra money to make a 20+ FPS when statistics show that many gamers don't finish the campaign anyway?

In the end, it comes down to personal taste. If you feel like a campaign is too short, don't buy the game and vote with your wallet. Plus, If you can wait until 3 month or so after the game launched, it's usually 20,- bucks or so cheaper...I hardly buy games at launch but I guess that with the launch of PS4, exceptions will have to be made.



Visiblemode said:


Actually, I don't often say this but you're actually dead wrong.

Comparing anything people spend their entertainment dollars on is entirely fair because ultimately all the activities are competing for those very same dollars. This is particularly true of activities so very similar as movies and games.

From a marketing perspective these type of value propositions are entirely how they judge their solvency in today's ever crowded entertainment market. Comparing videogames and movies to strip clubs is more hyperbole however due to the fact that strip clubs are not only forms of entertainment but also sexual outlets. So in that sense, your comparison was far more apples to oranges while mine was more red apples to green apples.

Further, if you are talking about competing in a story driven AAA FPS environment, specifically outside the multiplayer domain, then I'm a little more than confused at your assertion that a game that runs for more than 10 hours is "short." In fact, such a length, would place it far enough past average to certainly qualify it as "long."

In fact, if you're comparing a game like this to a open world genre FPS game that runs 30 hours with none of the cinematic flair the AAA FPS genre is known for,(not to mention REQUIRED to deliver) then not only is that wrong, but it's actually a bigger stretch than comparing it to a movie, not only from an experience perspective (emotional journey/investment, story arc, etc) but particularly from an assets creation and management perspective (add ten more missions in Skyrim, increase budget ~1%, add 10 more missions in COD, increase budget by ~50%. This not even factoring in the budgeting of time, always a concern, but vital during launch window. This is because as much as I enjoyed Skyrim, I acknowledge the game's lack of production values and abundance of filler content, such as the endless fetch quests and similar environments -all staples of it's genre)

I could go on, but if you don't see my point by now, you probably won't.



RicksReflection said:

@Reverend_Skeeve I appreciate your opinion and outlook as far as the amount of time you have to spend on your games having a wife and a daughter, because I too have a wife and a daughter. But in response to a few of your comments about my comments, if you go and look at the comment that I made about replaying games on a harder difficulty you'll see that the "context" that I used was in the form of saying that its "ridiculous" to anyone who uses the difficulty settings as a "reasoning" to why its acceptable for developers to make short games. Again not to bust your chops, but I voted with my wallet and didn't buy Killzone 3, but it doesn't mean as a consumer that I can't also vocalize my opinion to help developers understand my concerns as a gamer and what my expectations are. Plus you might understand as a fellow married man this analogy or comparison-During the summer I kick the AC down to make it cooler because of the heat outside, my wife sometimes thinks I make it to cold, I tell her its easier for her to put on a hoody than it is for me to strip down to accommodate her,hence its easier for someone that has less time, to play long games, to play that game, than to use the reasoning that everybody else should play short games over and over and if they don't like doing that then quit playing and vote with their wallet and not play short games, you can play more sessions to finish it or if it gives you attention deficit disorder then maybe you should also vote with your wallet and buy shorter or simpler games. By the way no offense but the comment on the cost to developers on making games "is" defending them, because if they have the talent and skills, and if using those skills they develop a AAA Blockbuster game, their going to make loads of profit, and if they half a** it , they'll lose profit. Thats the open market at work. But it'll be people like you and me that both "by word of mouth" and "wallet" voted that it sucked.



RicksReflection said:

@Visiblemode Hey brother your trying too hard, I'm not trying to start a "flame war". Your trying to make an argument about something I'm not. What your saying about entertainment dollars is ("true") and I'm perfectly aware of that, but I was trying to illustrate that the "way" your applying your argument is( to use the old saying) it's still " apples(example games) to oranges(movies)" and now your trying to get me to argue that there both fruit(entertainment)! I know they are! But one's still an apple(games) and one's still an Orange(movies). Refine your argument(games only) and quit being so broad with it (entertainment). Then you'll see. Because you'll never convince me an apple(games) is an Orange(movies), but like I said you wanna argue fruit(entertainment). And if you can't understand my angle of the argument then you right, your not gonna understand and you shouldn't reply back. After all your the one who made a comment on my opinion first. No body's trying to upset you brother, it's just a civil conversation. Logic not emotions.
(P.S) "Most" people(consumers) aren't corporate board members sitting down discussing statistical differences and demographics of their entertainment divisions and breaking down their entertainment statistics to see how which one is affecting the other. Like game reviewers for this site and other notable sites not to mention gaming magazines, I'm comparing (gaming dollar to gaming dollar) and 2 heavily established juggernauts of the F.P.S genre where most people don't even play the (campaign mode) they mainly buy it for multiplayer, and like this site has reported Guerrilla Games wants a piece of there pie and I said this go around with Killzone ShadowFall that since their not as popular that they should not follow their typical model of "campaign mode" but hege their bets and increase it to more than a short 10+ hours for the cost of the game at $65. Then your the one who gets all hostile when you responded to the fact that I don't agree about comparing 2 completely ( different entertainment) element comparisons and called me quote " dead wrong" and got your dander up an tried to get all analytical showing me how big your brain pan is! You need to try emailing or posting or writing "Game Reviewers" and ask why they don't compare "Movies" or " Music" to "Games directly" and since you get tied up in minutia, the answer is "Games to Games", Movies to Movies", "Music to Music". We aren't corporate number crunchers just impulsive consumers. Here's another adage for you-( You can't see the forest for the trees) or in your case I'm pointing at a tree and you wanta talk about the forest and how it's the same because their also made of wood. Quit telling people how they are and focus on yourself. And I bet I'm not dead wrong. Sheesh why so angry...



Visiblemode said:


I can tell you're new around here (and quite possibly to gaming industry analysis, based on the quality and accuracy of your statements). Your tone is all wrong.

I'll stop here out of respect to the site, but you're A: making no sense, and B: disrespectful, while preaching civility. (The worst kind,imo)

Don't expect an additional response, I feel like I'm in the comments of IGN with you around.



Temple-Overlord said:

@Visiblemode some forms of entertainment can be compared monetarily like your saying, but it's not a logic that's universal like it seems your stating. For example... boardgames.... I've gotten at least 50 hours of good entertainment outta the game "Monopoly" but if I had to pay 300 bux for the thing, I think it would be clear to most that that price was not fairly assessed.



Visiblemode said:


Yes, well you are actually proving my point. Board games are always like 10-20 bucks. Why? Several reasons. For one, they are traditionally inexpensive and you can't reasonably jack up the price without alienating your audience...but further, it would be unreasonable to do so. Why? R&D + production costs. Monopoly was a self published creation by an american woman over 100 years ago. The cost of making it could be recooped by selling, what? 1000 boards? Well, over 250 million units have been sold. Development costs, have been covered. (Think: Game of the Year Edition pricing) But further to the point, the fact is, you could make your own with household items for darn near what it sells for.

Now, we're talking about two primary comparisons. AAA shooters to each other and AAA shooters to Movie Blurays. The comparison of AAA vs AAA is simple. There really aren't many, or possibly any, excellent AAA shooters that run more than 10-12 hours. Why? Time and money. As it is, many shooters lose money selling at $60 because of their failure to be "the next big thing" (identical to movie industry in fact, with regards to many films not making money) So to say this game fails in some way by it's length, without taking into account a fair comparison to it's peers/market is illogical. To say that $60 is too much to pay for something that cost over 100 millon dollars to make (with zero guaranteed ROI) is western consumerism at it's worst. Especially since these games are not only so expensive to make, but they also take hundreds of people years to produce. Basically put, you won't be making it at home for "darn near what it sells for."

Further, to compare a game to a movie is not a huge stretch. Especially modern games. Watching the Avengers provides, excitment, laughs and yes, maybe a few tears (spoiler alert: Coulson!!!!) Both mediums come on bluray disk in a bluray case, with an eyecatching paper insert and are shrinkwrapped in plastic. You can use both by inserting them into your ps3. Both are "replayable." The primary difference is interactivity. Some would argue that games are more/less replayable or that interactivity adds/retracts value. At the end of the day, you are sitting on your couch, alone or with others, staring at your tv, thinking and feeling. The comparison is not so far fetched dude. Not at all.

So while it's fair to compare anything we spend our entertainment budgets on simply because it's always a value proposition and those things we value most will provide us the greatest motivation to spend, some things are more easily compared. However, interestingly, the issue of how we compare similar things becomes more complex at times. This rears it's head in videogame genre cross-comparisons as opposed to videogames vs movies.

Movies are made of a length to be watched in a single serving, games are not. That said, game length is limited more so by a time/budget factor. The cheaper and easier your game is to make, the longer it can easily be, but the less it will contain set pieces and dramatic mindblowing settings and details. I like both simple games and big glitzy AAA showstoppers. As long as that is the case I will always have to accept that some games will be 8 hours and others 30. To not accept that would make me naive or possibly even spoiled.

Long response, but short compared to the broadness of the subject.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...