That should be the minimum considering it doesn't have co-op or multiplayer.

exactly. if it had multiplayer i would have bought it week one if it had a 8-9 hour long story. 

Over 12 hours for a game like the order 1886 would be to long.

TLOU was over 12 hours, easily.

I guess so. But it's hard for a game to keep momentum for to long. Just don't want them to drag things out for the sake of it but if they can have a 12 hour game that have some great pace and momentum then sure i'm all for it.

Yeah it really depends on how the game is executed, TLOU was also longer cause you had to be stealthy and couldn't just go all out Rambo in the game (aside from maybe on the lower difficulty settings), for a game like The Order that looks like it needs less thought and strategy to be put into its encounters it might be difficult to make the game that long without relying on enemy waves or something like that.

Every game is over 12 hours for me. I suck so I get killed a lot, prolonging my game significantly.
Basically, the worse I play, the more valuable the game is for me.

Looking forward to this 30+ hour game

10 hours is fine with me.

I also don't get the argument that the game will have no replay value because it is linear. If you enjoy the environments, music, combat, story etc, then the game could be worth replaying. There will never come a day when you see that argument used against a 2D Mario platformer.

You are very correct. I've replayed both Resident Evil 4 and 5 several times. The last Tomb Raider. All previous Tomb Raiders, they are fairly linear, and the puzzles always the same, but still I played each one so many times.

Actually, somehow it seems to me that people in general are more likely to replay a linear game...

That is defineitely true of me. Much more likely to replay a tight, ten hour game than a sprawling RPG that takes 70 hours