With achievements and everything else that help to give people more to do in games it's annoying to see games bashed for their length, especially when they're not RPGs.  What ever happened to honing your skills in a game or trying to complete and get everything in one?

Imagine if we treated music like this, people would be bashing 3 minute songs by claiming a 4 1/2 minute version would be better.  Or movies by claiming a 2 hour movie would be better if they made it 3 hours instead.

Ign said 8-10 hours for Uncharted 2. Looks like you'll be beating SC in 2 hours then since you seem to be the jesus of first time playthrough speedruns.

i dont understand what the big deal is. If its a good game, then what does it matter if its long or not? there are plenty of long games that are bad. Just because a game is short, doesnt mean its not worth it. SC has co-op and online and one of ign's points was the replayability. Now halo odst is a different story imo. odst gave the same the multiplayer as halo 3, rendering it to be worth half of what it is. SC, is all new, and the dev team working on it really has some sweet ideas. i dont see how a 360 owner can go "NO THANKS".

I think the real problem here is that games seem to be getting shorter yet more expensive. As for achievements and everything else you mentioned, it simply does not apply to everyone. I for one do not like achievements, DLC and Multiplayer (even co-op). I might dabble in Multiplayer every now and then, but for me, gaming is a solitary experience. It does not mean the game is not good enough, it just means it's not good enough for everyone interested - fans of the genre included.

By the way, I'm not bothered by the length of the game -I own Heavenly Sword after all- It's just not worth more than $30 to me. Then again, very few games are.

the op specifically said he wasn't interested in MP.  The importance of SP varies by person, a short SP will turn off some people.  I don't see anything wrong with that, if i can beat a game in 5 hours and i have no interest in MP then i sure as hell am not gonna buy the game. 

even if the gamer is not interested in mp. if the single player is damn good, why is it not worth the 60$? i get that the op may be on the ball about the game, but stating as if they were never going to play it is beyond me.

I think the reason many current games appear to be shorter is because the average difficulty in today's games is less than in previous generations.  If the difficulty level in most NES action games for example was changed to today's standards I'm sure most of them could be completed just as quickly.  For gamers that find themselves getting through today's single player campaigns quickly there's always the option of playing them at their highest available difficult level.

As for more expensive, they may seem more expensive because of the higher sticker price but if inflation is taken into account it's likely they were just as expensive if not more so in previous generations.  I remember some NES cartridges for example being the same price as today's games and that was 20 years ago.