It depends on your personality. I for one will very rarely replay a game after completing it.

First of all, what is it with The Order that makes everybody misunderstand people's arguments? It started with the whole misunderstanding of the problem with "linear" games (which was actually an issue with player agency) and now we have this.

The problem is not - and never was - length alone. The length is just the cherry on top of the list of faults people have found with the game.

Additionally, story based games are notoriously bad when it comes to "replay value". If the main attraction of the game is watching the story unfold, then after you beat the game, there isn't much incentive to come back. Sure, there are meaningless collectible and trinkets, but do those honestly motivate anyone to replay a game? Is the gameplay itself honestly compelling enough to convince someone that they just have to play through the game again? I think for most people the answer to those questions will be "no".

Games have to justify their price. Portal 2 did that by being extremely unique, compelling and though provoking, allowing gamers to get past its short length. How does The Order push players past its short length? Well, it looks pretty I guess...and that final boss is certainly worth repeated plays (for all the wrong reasons), but otherwise.....

It started with ps3 I think.
360 exclusives were always multiplayer based, so despite not having super long campaigns, it was offset by lots of multiplayer replayability.
ps3 games on the other hand were mainly story based games with so-so multiplayer.
The thing that changed that was uncharted 2.
This was a way to hate on ps3 exclusives...well, maybe not hate, but they were reasons to disregard them, or confirm the validity of their own purchases. MGS4, infamous, littlebigplanet, heavenly sword, resistance, heavy rain etc etc.

I'm pretty sure this is where it all started.

To me, there hasn't been a single game I played last gen that made me think it was too short. Regardless of how fast it could be beaten. One thing I don't like however in some games, mostly in the ds games I bought, was that a lot of them re-used assets so much to extend game times, instead of introducing things throughout the game that keep me excited.

The length of games is a bigger deal on gaming forums because well, we are gamers. It is our hobby. So 10 hours for a normal play through will only take 1-3 days for most gamers.

The mass market does not care about this is much because many people don't play during the week or if they do they just play for a hour, watch a show and go to bed for the next day. Maybe get a few hours more in on the weekend.

That is why games like Dragon Age will never hit a critical mass with the general public, but is loved by us gamers. It takes a gamer with a job several weeks to beat that game. It would take months for the average person to beat it, and as good as DA:I was, I could not have played it for months just to beat it.

Now take "short" games by a gamers definition. Normal person buys it, plays it a couple hours day one (new toy) and picks at it for the next 10-14 days. Over a two week period it will have their interest and they will get the satisfaction of beating it in reasable period of time so they do not lose the affect of playing it in a coherent manner.

I for one am glad it is short. It comes out on the 20th and I go on a business trip until mid-march. That gives me 5 days to beat it (which should not be an issue). When I come back in March I will have about 10 more days until Bloodborne, so I probably clear the order again, make sure I get the plat and maybe play CIV Beyond Earth for a week or so.

I don't judge a game based on the "length", I judge the game based on the experience I have with that length. Graphics can be amazing, but if the story or gameplay are not great then that will ruin the experience. Example, Smash bros and Mario , not story driven games but the gameplay is fantastic, so the experience is great. The Stanley Parable and The wolf among us, the gameplay is not great and the games are short, but the story-narrative is fantastic. Perfect balance? I would say games like Ninja Gaiden for xbox (the story is not that great, but it's great to experience the fantastic gameplay) or Spec Ops The Line (in this case the gameplay is not that great, but it's great enough to experience the fantastic story)

My problem with the order is that the gameplay looks not so good, you're experiencing the story watching a bunch of cinematics, the story doesn't look that interesting and... I saw the ending, spoilers: it's bad. The only good thing I see about that game are the fantastic graphics. I should not say it but this is just a personal opinion, so don't hate me :)

Well I dont know about the ending(and dont want to know), but on GAF most of the people who have played it say its pretty good. People have just run with the 5:45 playtime, maybe because that is the only negative coming out of anyone's impressions.

Nah! The lenght of the game is only ammunition to downplay the game. The real reason its being hated is because its an exclusive.

This is known in the console wars. lol!

I do, but fun gameplay and unlockables negates that reason.

Or resolution which is even sillier