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

[Dusk]

artur-fernand said:

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.

You make an assumption that it is fun. That isn't known yet and won't be till you play it, if you give it the chance. With a shorter campaign the chance I'll give it will be less because it might not be fun, or have replayability. Although, if it ends up being fun and a game you can play through a bunch of times then it's well worth it which is partly where the Castlevania refrence comes in I would assume, I haven't played IV but the others I have I have quite enjoyed and can go back and play them again and again. The same can be said for many short games like pretty much every Contra, Punch Out and many old school side scrollers. 

It is undeniable that as games did get longer it has created a new expectation for games though, one that has be created by the developers and gamers alike. For a single player game now days, 5 hours is quite short (of course that's a speed run) but we still have no idea about how good or fun it is. 

I agree though, there are times when some games are too long, but that's mostly due to them not being good enough to make up for the length. If a game is great, even though I don't have a huge amount of time for gaming like I did when I was young, I will continue to pick it up and finish it but it will be over a much longer time period than when I was a kid, but I will likely put the same amount of time into the game. The part that sucks now is that I have more money to buy more, but less time to put into games so I am going to be choosier. 

The snap judgement is annoying though.