Coverage of Marvel's Avengers is coming thick and fast out of New York Comic Con. As well as the reveal of Kamala Khan as a playable character, we now know how long the game's campaign will be if you focus on the core story.
Speaking with ComicBook.com, Senior Brand Director Rich Briggs said that without going off the beaten path, the main campaign will take players 10 to 12 hours to beat. "So if you think about previous Crystal games, you know that if you want to be playing your way through the core story, it's going to be in that area, 10 to 12 hours."
Likening it to one of the more recent entries in the Tomb Raider franchise, Briggs then goes on to state that if you do want to complete every side mission and pick up every collectable then it'll actually take you about 30 hours to roll credits. That's not the end of it though, because Marvel's Avengers will, of course, be updated constantly post-launch with new missions, superheroes, and activities for players to engage with past the main story.
Do you like the sound of a 12-hour Avengers game? Do you wish it were longer? Fly into the comments below.
[source comicbook.com]
Comments 28
This game was a ghost for absolute AGES.
That there's 12 hours of story with there apparently being 30 hours overall (And most of it is probably just gonna be get this hero to lvl 20, beat thugs x amount of times or get upgrade materials or whatever "Game As A Service" twaddle they roll out) and they want this to be the next best thing since sliced bread?
That's gonna end well...
I hold a full time job. The last time I spent beating a 12hr game, it took me a couple of days - close to a week.
As much as I enjoyed playing RDR2, I felt a little burnt out with how long it took to finish the main campaign. Which is why I’d place God of War, with it’s shorter and straight to the point campaign - higher than RDR2.
I’m a big believer of quality over quantity.
If the pacing of the game is good, then 12hours should be no problem for me.
i think this is good just for main story, games these days are taking too much time open world games as service bs huge open world with filler stuff.
This is the problem with live service games. 30hrs to do everything is fine but when you are adding more in at later dates it makes more sense to buy the game months down the line. Itl be cheaper and there will be more content
8 hours. Got it.
Let's just say after spending nearly 200 hours on Assassins Creed Odyssey and still not being finished I'll be glad of a much shorter game.
@throwmeaname my thoughts exactly.
12 hours is ideal for some people with limited free time for gaming. If it were 6, it'd feel short.
I think this is where games like this struggle. We've spent 21 years with RDJ as Iron Man. 8 with Chris Evans as Captain America and Chris Hemsworth as Thor. That's a commitment to character. Sure, Spider-man and Hulk have changed, but we've settled in on Ruffalo and Holland as those characters. Seeing someone play a character that doesn't even remotely resemble what we've become accustomed to is a bit jarring.
It'd be like replacing Daniel Radcliffe with Tom Holland in The Order of the Phoenix and going TH for the Half Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows. Radcliffe, for better and worse, is Harry Potter, and he grew into that role. Now that's our expectation. Anything else...my mind rejects it.
I’ve been very vocal on here about my appreciation for shorter and medium sized game playtimes. I do think there is a shortage of games in the 15-20 hour range and I like a focused experience without too much bloat....
However, is the Avengers game the right game to keep to a shorter playtime?! We’re talking about multiple playable characters with a huge amount of possibilities for character arcs, side activities, and expanded narrative. Won’t we want to really experiment and play around with each character’s abilities? If it truly is fun and engaging to play as each of these varied heroes, is 12 hours even close to enough time to fully explore their powers and playstyle?
I just spent about 25 hours running around as Spider-Man — just one character (well... okay, except those stealth missions when you play as someone else for a short time) and it was a lot of fun the whole time and the game length was just about right, in my opinion. If 12 (or even 30) hours is enough time to fully experience all 5 or 6 characters then I fear that means the gameplay is either A) shallow and simple, or B) going to be unsatisfactorily abbreviated.
@Th3solution
I have the same reservations as you. I do not see this game being great and the length coupled with the numerous characters makes me think it will be rushed will certain characters.
Dragon Quest Heroes 2 im playing it for 140 hours im at 62% of the trophies. Finished the story though just clearing out the trophylist.
12 hours is fine with me. No need for a 100 hour Avengers game.
Some games really don't know when to stop in terms of content, look at Persona 5 and AC Odyssey. Who on earth wants to play a game that's 150hrs plus long. I don't think it helps when people think the more a game has the better it is. I'd rather have a great ten hour game then a ok 50 hours, Ubisoft take note for bloody once.
@AdamNovice agreed. Witcher 3: Heart of Stone DLC is 10hours long. And I regard the DLC as better than the main Witcher 3 campaign in terms of pacing and story.
Sounds good to me. Nothing worse than a straight up action adventure overstaying its welcome.
That’s fine with me actually. I don’t have as much free time like I did back in my younger days. Now, the game just has to turn out good.
A fun 12 hour campaign is fine. This game just doesn't look fun to me though. Now if it was Hulk ultimate destruction 2 or a remake? I'd be all over that!
As long as the game is solid it doesn’t matter to me what the length is.
Gone Home is a brilliant game which can be finished quick, for instance.
Lots of games, especially open world games just pad the hell out of the content and it’s not always for the better.
@AdamNovice agreed. RDR2 is just ridiculously padded out. So is Persona 5.
I’d rather have really good end game stuff like say, Nioh: which isn’t a huge game but has loads of stuff to do anyway. Didn’t feel like a chore - addictive gameplay loops are what gets me excited.
@Enuo ? What is the point of rushing through games? Not exactly sure what you are getting at.
I can agree with the argument of quality over quantity - but when what was supposed to be an RPG is this short, it has a lot of quality to live up to.
@lacerz You mean 11 years with RDJ.
Collectibles? As per, that's going to be the bulk of time added then.
Shorter gametime is fine with me, as others ahve said it's all quality over quantity. However, what I've seen of the gameplay so far hasn't filled me with a great deal of excitement if I'm honest, so for the moment I'm undecided.
quality over quantity - though what i've seen of this, it doesn't like quality either. i just can't play ubisoft games anymore as they're typically 12-hour games wrapped up in 50-hours of tedious filler (that and they've pretty much stripped all of their IPs of identity by ubisofting them to death).
That is way too short if you ask me... I will claim that every game which has less than 20 hours of story is too short nowadays. 20 hrs of story and 30 hrs of additional content for 100%. 50 hrs in total is a nice sweet spot, however, if it is game like RDR2 even 60 hrs story is too short for it.
While it's no time a big issue for me I will still pre order I would think a campaign looking more like what we got with Spider-Man than just a quick 12 hours
I don’t mind a shorter campaign. Like others have said, I don’t have as much time for gaming as I used to. So 20-30 hours of playtime sounds good to me.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...