Its funny, you hear about a new shooter coming out, and generally its “campaign was pretty short, but the multiplayer is awesome”. This has unfortunately in a lot of cases become a very annoying trend. The way I see it some games excel with multiplayer i.e. Battlefield, and some games excel with story i.e. Fallout 3, and every now and then you get a great combination of both with something like Halo: Reach. The reason I bring this up is to justify the recent statement made by ID Software regarding the upcoming release of RAGE. When a game is jam-packed with quality often times, ratings, or time constraints are thrown right out the window.
RAGE apparently will play a 15 hour campaign. That’s pretty solid compared to the standard 5-8 hours that we see pretty consistently. When I heard 15 hours, I thought that sounded like a perfect blend of immersion, but nothing too repetitive. Regardless, people are already tearing into ID and their 15 hr remark all because the game ships on two discs for the Xbox 360. These multiple discs could also be helping the game perform at an optimal level, as opposed to cramming everything on one Dual-Layer DVD. This was done recently with a game like Dead Space 2, where game wasn’t huge by a stretch, but it allowed Visceral games to have a highly detailed world throughout the whole experience.
I guess the reason I bring this point up today is, gamers are far too picky it seems sometimes. RAGE looks great, and the idea of playing such a great game for 15 hrs also sounds great. If ID would have said the game would take 100 hrs to complete, you can almost guarantee someone out there would complain. Who knows maybe RAGE is a ground breaking 15hrs that will shut everyone up!
