Most of the feedback I've been reading on KZ2, from people in Europe lucky enough to already have picked up their copy of the game, seems to include that they've already beat the game.  Is this game insanely short?  One person clocked in at under 6 hours.  I realize there's multi-player to suck up more time, but to me it seems you're paying more for the amazing graphics than actual gameplay.  This is not a trend I would like to see become the norm, but I think it's becoming more and more prevelant.  $60-70 for a 6-8 hour campaign, in comparison to something like the GTAIV DLC's $20 for an 8-10 hour main story, seems like bad value for your money.   Anyone else concerned about this?

am a casual gamer so it would take me 10hours min for sure but the graphics alone sold me hehe. I can't wait for the NA release.

Its a first person shooter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That means all the value is in multiplayer

And there are nerds who just can't help themselves and want to beat the game as soon as possible. A shortish story isnt a problem as long as it is good and KZ2 is supposed to have a great story.

Yeah, you should buy this game for the online mode. If you don't like online (or you can't get online with your PS3 or something), it might be better to wait untill the game gets a platinum/the best release.

Most of the reviewers list this as an 8 - 10 hour game. I would say that is average for a next gen shooter. It is certainly as long as Resistance 2, Gears, and Halo 3. It is almost twice as long as the single player in COD4. You can't really compare it to an open world game like GTA.

As with all shooters, if the multiplayer is good then it is a great value.

Why do you even care? You seem to be an X360 only owner...

If you're having doubts then just Gamefly it and pay the difference if you decide to keep it for good. I was in the multiplayer beta and I gotta tell you, it's really fun. I can see a lot of replay value in the multiplayer alone. As for the single player, I'm sure there's trophies that would make you go back to the single player and add some more hours. When you think about it, it seems that first person shooters in this generation are averaging out 8-10 hours in campaign modes. I'm sure the single player would have some really cool stages that would make you go back and play it though. I know Killzone 1 had a few.

As for the guy that clocked in at less than 6 hours, he must have either played it on an easy difficulty level or the dude is just awesome at FPS's.

Okay, so it's about what other big name FPS' are at for length, but does that make it any better? Is the FPS single player campaign even important anymore? From reports I've read on the latest COD games a lot of people don't even bother playing the single player campaign, let alone finish it. Would you still pay top tier price for the next KZ/Gears/Halo/COD if it were strictly multiplayer?

Bokal said: Why do you even care? You seem to be an X360 only owner...

Sorry, I forgot that I can only be interested in games on systems I currently own.

Hell yeah it is. The CoD4 singleplayer is amazing, and so far, my experience in Killzone 2 is something that could never be recreated in a multiplayer match, in fact, I generally like shooters, but I rarely take them online. And I have yet to try the Killzone 2 multiplayer, but it sounds like fun!