Well, THAT is a ridiculously valid point when it is the case. A tragically short campaign grinds on me, too, especially when the multiplayer is the secondary consideration in my buying decision. And double, triple, quadruple especially when it is a single player game exclusively.

But what is the average length of ALL single player campaigns?

Fallout 3 and NV, GTA4, RDR, all have pretty meaty content. I have 140 hours logged on Civ 5 (I know... not the same kind of game) so far...

I agree with you when its true... but it isn't always true. Plus, the industry moves in cycles, and we are in the multiplayer cycle. Good news for multiplayer fans. Bad news for those who aren't.

Now... my point of view is also skewed because I A) am not a young uber-gamer with 18 hours a day to spend and ambidextrous hands, and B) tend to lollygag through a game anyway... so all these 5, 7, and 9 hour games last longer in my hands anyway, but I'm really not unsympathetic. We grew up on games with an average of 40 hours worth on content and now we often, though not always, pay more for less than we used to.

Any word on the length of Duke Nuken Forever?

Pretty much companies will get to the point where they think the only way to increase profits is to brainwash people into believing multiplayer is the way to go, so you can convince your friends, family members, etc., to buy the game so you can play together, and then they tell their friends, family members, and so on. With this method of making and marketing games they think in the end it'll add up to more profit regardless of the quality and care in which they put into making them (aside from graphics), which is what the executives that run these companies care about most, making a profit and pleasing the shareholders into kissing their ass so they can make an even bigger profit.

I mean, movies have moved far more into the CG/3D aspect where so many movies may focus solely on special effects, or scary movies focus solely on being a crappy horribly forced sequels/remakes, or things that are done solely to make a profit, and animated movies (at least in the US) not being made using traditional animation anymore, instead utilizing things like 3D, CGI effects, and many times poorly casted celebrity voiceovers just so they can try to sell a movie and sell more at the box office. Music has gone the same way as well. Many industries are turning in a direction to the point where they care almost only care about the bottom line, which is how much money is being made. That's why certain games have never seen a sequel despite being more than deserving than many multiplayer fest games of the last 5-6 years.

That's not saying that I disagree with games utilizing co-op mode, this is the one area of multiplayer I have really liked in the past. I'm just not as much of a fan of sacrificing the single player/story mode for "massive online multiplayer" like Call of Duty or later Halo games. Playing co-op on older games where you played with people together at a buddies house (or with your siblings) was incredibly fun back in the day, and I wouldn't even mind online multiplayer in a similar capacity to this, as long as nothing is sacrificed if you still would rather just play single player cus you have no one that's interested in playing co-op games with you.

It really sucks that many things will be sacrificed in future games and franchises because of pressure from corporate assholes to try and turn as much of a profit as possible, at the expense of the gamers and future gamers. Its simply almost too hard these days to convince publishers/corporate execs that making a great game will easily sell itself from a great reputation, word of mouth, and great reviews, because of games in the past (a good few which are sold on GoG) simply didn't sell a whole lot despite being incredibly well received by gamers (well, at least the ones that played them anyway).

This is the worst. When a game review says, "But you're only playing the SP to practice for the online portion anyway," my teeth start grinding.

Big Gabe clarified these remarks today in a way you would expect. Story on Kotaku. Here is the quote: I want to make it clear I am a gamer without a Facebook account and without instant messaging.

But ignoring gamers who either don't have those or do have them (for other reasons) and who would rather not use them when it comes to games (especially single player modes), is acceptable I see =/

How can single player be social except when sharing your results, which I am not really interested in? The name says it all: single. You cannot make this with your friends together because then it would be multi player... I don't always want to be social. Of course I also like multi player games or sometimes showing off about my excellent gaming capabilities. :)