I have no problem with the brevity of games like this.
Battlefield 3’s campaign is mercifully brief, clocking in at an average of five hours, even on the hardest difficulty setting. It’s like saying Anna Kournikova doesn’t need to play well to be a great pro tennis player simply because she looks good on the court. I find it hard to swallow that a seasoned triple-A developer such as DICE (Mirror’s Edge, Battlefield series–including the story-driven Bad Company spin-offs) should not be expected to deliver single-player campaign in their biggest release yet just because they’re not good at it. One of the most common things you’ll be hearing (or saying, if you’re a rabid Battlefield apologist) is that Battlefield 3 didn’t need single-player, and that it’s all about the multiplayer anyway. I’m not going to spend too much time on the single-player portion of the game, since obviously the developer didn’t either. Single-player offers tons of expletives, not much else 25, on the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PC. Unfortunately, a host of technical shortcomings and a disappointing overall package make Battlefield 3 not only one of the biggest blunders of 2011, but it also positions rival Activision Blizzard’s upcoming blockbuster to be the clear winner of the first-person-shooter fight that, ironically, EA picked.
