Not to sound like a fanboy, but wasn't the first Gears of War criticized for 'only' having an 8-10 hour campaign?

I have no problem with this length but it seems somewhat hypocritical.

I guess it depends who was criticizing it. I think 10 hours on hard is longer than most FPS's.  I think 8 - 10 hours of single player with a decent multiplayer is a good value this generation.

ha I never believe companies released campaign time. I mean heck even reviewers when they throw out how long they expect a person to take it always is shorter than that.

I expect it takes average person on this site 8 hours to beat.

10 hours isnt that little, i beat resistance 2 and gears 2 in less than 10 hours. and i beat gta4 in 20 hours. so 10 hours is alright, actually pretty good for most first person shooter's.

The length of KZ2 has been known for most of the year, the game has 10levels, and each one will take 45-60 minutes. This is straight from the developers.  There are also 4 different difficulty levels and the option to remove the HUD at any time, with no option to even have a HUD on the hardest difficulty.

Why do I have the feeling Jerry and Kitty are one and the same?

Which is why I'm wondering if its REALLY that long. In my experience, whenever a company says ANYTHING about their product, take 20% off whatever metric they're using to get the truth. Sales, gameplay time, console power, whatever.

From what I've heard from people with review builds on neogaf, it's more like 9 hours. 8-10, really, depending on skill.

Even at 8hours, that twice CoD4, and still longer then Halo3 or R2.

That is a great length for a FPS. Many of the greatest FPS are really short. From GoldenEye to Halo to Call of Duty. Replayability of the single player and the multiplayer modes helps a FPS to last a long time.

I beat CoD 4 and WaW both combined under 10 hours. But the addicting gameplay in both the single and multiplayer keeps me coming back for more.