Why a 6-10 hour game is sufficient

[Rainbird]

MaxwellGT2000 said:

Rainbird said:

MaxwellGT2000 said:

...a story based game that has one set story and no different ways to play though it... and it's only 6 hours?  No that's not worth 60 dollars by any means.

...

I don't care how anyone tries to justify it, the only way it's justified is when the game is designed to be something you play over and over like Nine Hours Nine Persons Nine Doors.

I'm curious, when do you start differentiating? When a game has multiplayer? When it has challenges of sorts? Was Call of Duty: Modern Warfare worth $60? Mirror's Edge?

OT: I don't care so much about length, it's more about content. So the article has a point, and I agree with some of the underpoints, but discussing game length feels pretty futile, for both sides of the fence. It's not about size, it's how you use it.

CoD4 I never paid 60 dollars for, Mirrors Edge I beat and never paid for it, soooooo no those aren't worth 60 dollars to me, CoD at least has the multiplayer to make it worth it however, that's the main draw, and the multiplayer lasts much longer than 6 hours, you could get a few hundred depending on how good you are at the game.  

Basically I'm not putting down the games that actually do focus on multiplayer and decide to make that their main draw, though I still get slightly irritated at the short uninspired singleplayer, I am far more willing to forgive the games that craft a good/balanced multiplayer especially when they have local, than a 6 hour game with a tacked on multiplayer that isn't fun nor balanced... which is exactly what I said in my original post...

Basically if you're going to be multiplayer focused, make it good, if you're going to be singleplayer focused, make it good with reasons to keep playing, if you're going to focus on both but make singeplayer only worth 1 play through and six hours and then make multiplayer unbalanced and not keep up support, I'd rather you either A dump the tacked on multiplayer to make your singleplayer better, or B not make the game at all.

But with a game like Mirror's Edge, it's designed so that the same content is run through over and over again with its time trials and the campaign, and I spent so much time with it that I would gladly pay full price all over again. So even though the story is short (you can run through it in less than two hours if memory serves), there is no "different" way of replaying it, and all the time trial maps are based around the singleplayer campaign, you still get a lot of replay value if you're into this kind of game, despite there being very little content on paper.

Is that still not a justification, or should the game have had a longer campaign to justify the pricetag?