I don't remember. Probably about 6 - 6.5 hours.
And for the sake of transparency my ass is, according to nearby co-workers is 'not very big', 'pretty small' and/or 'perfect' depending on individual interpretation.
Sorry, I didn't mention that earlier. My finger clearly isn't on the pulse of what's relevant.
And it's also pretty simple to understand that if you die and replay a section this does not add to the amount of content you're getting for your money. So the 4.5 hour figure is a fair illustration of the quantity of playable content in the campaign. It was never intended to describe exactly how long you're likely to spend sitting on your ass playing it.
As this article clearly states AGAIN, the review does not give the whole game 7/10. It gives the single-player portion of the game 7/10.
It's not 'against' Killzone. It's a simple statement of fact. And Vanquish got better scores because it's a better game. The Killzone 3 score was not solely based on the brevity of the campaign.
I haven't seen every other site, or Guerrilla for that matter, back up their 8 hourish claims with any hard evidence.
Doubt all you want, it's true. The actual game time, measured by the games themselves was 4.5 hours in Killzone 3 and 10+ in Killzone 2 on the same difficulty by the same player - me.
And the article on which you are commenting refers specifically to a review in which the 4.5 hours is mentioned. That's the whole point of it. You're apparently yet to see something that's right under your nose.
I'll give you a reason to click on the article - so you can see the PROOF that it was completed on MEDIUM not EASY. Then you wouldn't ask stupid questions.
There's no almost about it, fastrez.
I mean Killzone 3 is less than half the length of Killzone 2, which took me 10+ hours. Vanquish was more like 6 for me.
And what do you mean by NONE?
True, but it's still less than half the length of Killzone 2, and doesn't have the replay value of something like Vanquish.
It's actually nearly as philosophical as a Dan Brown novel.
I liked it, but only because it eventually leads to violence.
Throwing you off the scent. And who'd recognise any of the 219 characters Steve Blum has played anyway? Alright, expect maybe two of them.
Article's still about the most prolific actors, not the most champ-est.
Only been in, I think, 14 games.
Neither. It's the publishers.
Which is what sequels usually are anyway, TheHater.
For example, Zinc here takes his PC gaming way too seriously and is apparently incapable of laughing at himself.
PC gaming does offer some advantages over consoles, but I still totally agree with this article. Hardcore PC Gamers just don't seem tuned into the real world at all.
NEWS FLASH!
You CANNOT rely on reviewers to have exactly the same opinion as you.
Sorry if that's hard to take.