Space Marine Impressions

[StuG]

I just finished the game, took about 7 hours total. I had a lot of fun, it was pretty much what I expected. Lots of action, with nice sync kills and a god of war/darksiders feel. They followed the lore of the Warhammer Universe very well, as with most of their other games. I recommend it if you are a fan of the lore, or like either of the two games I listed before. Anybody else have first impressions to share about this game?

[tanker27]

7 hours WTF!!!!!! seriously.......I didnt even wait for the bargain bin on this one but you only got 7 hours out of it!???? Please tell me the campaign/ single player is not 7 hours long!?

[StuG]

7 hours WTF!!!!!! seriously.......I didnt even wait for the bargain bin on this one but you only got 7 hours out of it!???? Please tell me the campaign/ single player is not 7 hours long!?

7 Hours from start to finish on the single player. It was alot of fun though, and a straight 7 hours. Also note though that the multiplayer is alot of fun too

[Sunburn74]

Wow.

Again I realize its an extreme example, but I paid 24 dollars for L4D2 and have over 700 hours put into the game.

I'm not asking for 700 hours from every game, but a non shooter should be at least 20 hours for a single campaign, and a shooter at least 10.

Lots of games have a tacked on multiplayer thrown in for completion's sake, that is fun for about a week (of note includes Dead space 2, bulletstorm, crysis 2, splinter cell conviction etc). If the game isn't specifically designed for multiplayer first, it generally will suck hard. This game I think falls into that category.

[TurtlePerson2]

I don't entirely understand the sentiment that the longer a game is the better it is. That sentiment doesn't exist in movies or books, so why should it exist in video games? Personally, I think that most games are too long. Even great games like Bioshock have content that is clearly filler.

If you don't see games as art and are looking only for the gameplay, then why not stick to multiplayer games or games that are designed for replay value (Torchlight comes to mind)?

[tanker27]

While I havent played the game yet, I certainly would hope that it is longer than 7 hours. 7 hours really isnt worth the 50 dollar price point. While I understand that this game is not a RPG, RTS, or even mmo-esque I would have hoped for more. I just hope this is like episode one and that there will be more offerings later.

[just brew it!]

If you don't see games as art and are looking only for the gameplay, then why not stick to multiplayer games or games that are designed for replay value (Torchlight comes to mind)?

Heh... if we go by how much some people still play them to this day, Solitaire and Minesweeper probably have the most replay value of any computer games ever made!

[Sunburn74]

I don't entirely understand the sentiment that the longer a game is the better it is. That sentiment doesn't exist in movies or books, so why should it exist in video games?

No one wants to spend 3 months wooing a girl, only to ejaculate after just 1 mins of sex, even if its a great ejaculation. The point is with the price paid comes an expectation concerning the amount of content to be delivered, not just the quality.

[TurtlePerson2]

You're not really answering my question. Why do you expect games to be 10 hours for $50, but not expect a movie to be 3 hours for a $10 ticket? What is it about video games that makes people demand a certain time length.

Personally, I haven't bought a game for $50 in a long time. But I don't consider the amount of time that I will play the game when I consider purchasing it. The only exception to that rule is that I will sometimes not buy a game if I know that it is very long and slow (Elder Scrolls is a good example). I don't want to sit through a four hour movie unless it's really good and I don't want to sit through a 50 hours game unless it's really good.

[Sunburn74]

The expectation is there because other similar games have delivered both great gameplay and good length for the same price or cheaper (eg darksiders comes to mind as its on my easily visible steam list. I have logged 16 hours in that game).

An analogy is going out with a girl who's both good looking and has a great personality, then meeting loads of girls afterwards who have only one of those characteristics. Sure you can ask "well should I expect the people I date to have both good looks and great personalities? Why can't they have just one?", but the fact of the matter, your friends would still constantly remind you that the cream of the crop are still those few that have both and certainly do exist. The same applies to video games. There's no reason to expect games that are the cream of the crop to have both. And if a game isn't the cream of the crop, then it shouldn't cost cream of the crop money (ie games like bastion, torchlight, magicka, etc only costs 15 dollars because whilst fun they obviously are not cream of the crop games)

If you can have your cake and eat it too in a perfectly reasonable fashion, why wouldn't you ask for it?

[Aphasia]

7 hours of top notch gaming and multiplayer is better then 13 hours of extra padding to reach those 20 hours that people expect. Yeah, I prefer 20 hours of top notch gaming, but considering most games can be picked up at a bargain 6-8 months after release if you dont want the multiplayer, it doesnt bother me one bit. What bothers me more is when a game fails to deliver on the multiplayer end so you just doesnt care enough to start it again after 35 hours of MP and just move on. Thats bad value for the money.

[Sunburn74]

7 hours of top notch gaming and multiplayer is better then 13 hours of extra padding to reach those 20 hours that people expect.

yeah but what i'm saying is a top notch game to me has the best of both worlds. it can be done. it has been done. it should be done.

would you say 2 hours of top notch gaming is better than 13 hours of extra padding? one hour? where do you draw the line?

[Nutmeg]

I don't entirely understand the sentiment that the longer a game is the better it is. That sentiment doesn't exist in movies or books, so why should it exist in video games? Personally, I think that most games are too long. Even great games like Bioshock have content that is clearly filler.

If you don't see games as art and are looking only for the gameplay, then why not stick to multiplayer games or games that are designed for replay value (Torchlight comes to mind)?

Well to a certain extent it does. A movie that's 90 minutes dead and that had some room for a bit of extra plotting or characterisation feels like a waste. And books aren't over in 7 hours, no matter how fast you read. Oh and a book or movie doesn't cost you fifty notes brand new.

And games as art? We are talking about Space Marine, a clone of Gears of War with the 40K license attached right?

There's replay value, and then there's being cheap and lazy. I mean it's no big surprise, most new games nowadays are expensive and short in the singleplayer. They don't care if you get your money's worth, nor do they even think you'll notice, before the next big brand name comes out and you buy that up too. But to defend a singleplayer campaign that runs to 7 hours seems a little ridiculous.

[RAMBO]

I don't entirely understand the sentiment that the longer a game is the better it is. That sentiment doesn't exist in movies or books, so why should it exist in video games? Personally, I think that most games are too long. Even great games like Bioshock have content that is clearly filler.

If you don't see games as art and are looking only for the gameplay, then why not stick to multiplayer games or games that are designed for replay value (Torchlight comes to mind)?

The longer the game doesn't mean its going to be better but I would have liked some of the call of duty games and some others that have come out to have been longer with out compromising story structure. It just seems that games of today are far too short in their story line, spend some development time on the story-seriously. It is the main reason I buy games, multiplayer secondly unless if it is specifically meant for online play. Just looks like a way to cut costs by having a shorter story, or they don't have good/enough writers in their pool of resources.

[paulWTAMU]

downloading the demo.

I'm not the best or fastest gamer; when someone says 7-8 hours I think "hm, 10-12 for me then" so my value proposition is a bit different, and 10-15 hours for me is a good length for a shooter--and if it has replayability that's not a bad deal at 40-50 bucks. Figure maybe 50-60 hours playtime total before I get tired of it, spread out over several months.


I think the "too short" argument sometimes has merit (Cough, MW2 campaign--4 hours on normal). But that's sort of individual. For me, 10 hours of good gameplay is a frigging bargin at 40 bucks, and acceptable at 50. But for a good RPG? Yeah, I'm more likely to shell out at release at full price or nearly full price because I can get 150+ hours out of it.

[thegleek]

Heh... if we go by how much some people still play them to this day, Solitaire and Minesweeper probably have the most replay value of any computer games ever made!

Man.. I can't even put an estimate on the amount of hours I spent (and still spend) playing MINECRAFT!