Yes, I thought of that because of The Order, but it's not the only example. I remember when Square came and said FFXV's main story was about 40 hours long and... that was considered too short by quite a number of people. Huh.

Ok, I get it. "$60 for a 5 hour game with no multiplayer is a rip-off", but isn't anybody considering that replay value usually comes from the sheer joy of just replaying the game just because it's fun? (never mind the fact that A LOT of people are already considering it's absolutely impossible for The Order to fit in that category, but that could be a whole other thread). Uncharted 1 could be beaten in a single day. I nearly did it. It has no multiplayer. But, to me at least, there's a fuckton of replay value, because it's a fun game. Portal 2 is EVEN SHORTER. There's the co-op campaign yeah, but that's about it.

But what REALLY confuses me is that games back in the cartridge era were more expensive AND SHORTER. Is something like Super Castlevania IV even 5 hours long? "Expectations were different back then" seems to be the standard explanation for this.

Not only that, but most people were kids back then. Meaning we all had virtually unlimited free time. So a 10 hours game was barely anything on this scenario. As we grow up, more and more responsibilites appear, and 10 hours can sometimes be a colossal length. And FORTY hours? Jesus.

Sadly, gametime is not the only thing people like to complain A LOT nowadays (the forbidden word "linearity" also comes to mind), which makes me both sad and infuriated at the same time, but I digress.

I think the issue of "replayability" comes when the fact that other games also offer replayability but they also have a longer length as well so I don't think "replayability" should really be a "valid" excuse for a single player game for its length. Its like the whole MGS GZ nonsense where people would pay $30 for 1 hour game and the only justification for that price was its "replayability" which I still think is pretty nonsense since again, plenty of games offer that + has a longer length.

And expectations were different back then cause there was no real way of knowing what a good game is nor was there a real way of comparing games and etc cause the internet wasn't really as widely used or widely known or widely accessable as well as many other things back then compared to now.

Also portal 2 took about 8.5 hours to beat http://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=7231 so I mean, for a $50 game, thats pretty good

But at the end of the day, I think the main issue that people are having is that people expect a minimum amount of playtime for the price they are paying without going into "I need to justify my purchase somehow ville". Captain Toad is like 6.5 hours, Kirby will probably be the same as an example but since they are fairly "short," they cost $40. Now people can argue that both of those games are "smaller" titles and probably don't take as much effort to make but in terms of length, that might be what people are struggling with... Cause for $60, the people that are against it might feel that they aren't getting their moneys worth compared to the other games that are also $60 which also have much longer length and offer just as much replayability if not more compared to the Order 1886. (When it comes out obviously)

With that being said, I don't personally care either ways cause the reason I wont be getting it (apart from not having a ps4 but even if I did) is cause I don't like the black bars and not really cause of its "length" but thats just my opinion on the matter anyway

Really another thread on this? Anyway I think a games length should not matter within reason.

But what REALLY confuses me is that games back in the cartridge era were more expensive AND SHORTER. Is something like Super Castlevania IV even 5 hours long? "Expectations were different back then" seems to be the standard explanation for this.

Well, if you sold a 60 game with the same graphical quality and audio fidelity of Super Castlevania IV, you'd probably have people (rightfully) complaining about that too.

but those games were alot of harder back then and were limited dueto cartridges unless you bought an rpg

Size doesn't matter guys, it's the features that matter the most

"When have people started to basically judge a game based on length alone?"

A long time ago. People complaining that a game is 10hrs or less is not something new.

Well, in the case of MGS:GZ, the length was enough for me to know not to buy it.

because the people that dont like something are always louder than the people that do.

Completely agree with this.