Length matters when you're paying $60 for a game you can easily finish in one or two sittings. This wouldn't even be a discussion if shorter games were priced appropriately. It has nothing to do with the game being good or not. No one complains about Journey being a 2 hour master piece because it launched for like $15. Assassin's Creed 4 is like 40 hours of terrible, and that game was still priced appropriately at $60.

And replay value has nothing to do with it. Imagine if books started costing $60 as a standard just because you can read them more than once. That not a factor in value. Every game has "replay value." Longer games have longer bursts of replay value than short games. It all scales.

The only reason length is part of the discussion is because companies are still pushing a $60 baseline. There should be absolutely no reason why a games length is brought up in a review, but since games are so commonly priced poorly, it is a regular and needed part of the discussion. Few will be upset if a 6 hour game costs $25-$30. Legions will be pissed if that same game is $60, and rightfully so.

What's that? Oh, sorry, I was too busy playing Xenoblade Chronicles' 150 hours of content while appreciating its high quality, captivating story, expansive world, gorgeous environments, deep and engaging battle system, memorable characters, and incredible music....

:p (just teasing a little, don't hate!)

In all seriousness, I think the length of a game comes into play so often because when people like something, they naturally want more of it. So for a game that's fantastic, but only 5-10 hours long, that length can be seen as a negative. Of course, it works the same in reverse for overly long games if people don't like them. Though in that case, they are less likely to blame the length itself, and instead blame the low quality or lack of fun to be had. Also, for those short, but fantastic games, the length is the only thing most fanboys and trolls can objectively "pick on." Whereas, again, for the longer games, if they aren't worth playing to the end, it's more likely that something else about the game will be blamed.

Length *alone*? Not many people I run into who aren't just being your typical trolls are like that. But as one person pointed out, the "length doesn't matter argument" runs into the issue of the lack of a lower limit, which there must be. How short is too short? When does shortness go from being a stylistic choice to being a severe mark against value? It will vary from genre to genre, but there must be a floor under this. I think what has people so paranoid over short games right now is that we have had games come out lately that their shortness was indicative of a literal lack of meaningful content. Those two do not always correlate though. Also, marketing overhype has left a lot of people more cynical now than they were over a year ago.

I loved how he destroyed Dualshockers. HAHAHA

Bayonetta 2 is 10 hours long but no one complained about its length.

This is very well written and is spot on.

Add to this that people want value for the mony they spend and also always want to be sure that their "decision" of buying the "best" system is justified every single second someone is talking about their system. This is why we are counting bushes on GTAV, exaggerate that bushes make a difference that is like a generational difference and that is why people are defending a single player only game with about 5-12 hours gameplay (the higher counts supiciously were not on youtube). It's an exclusive that differentiates your choice from the other so there is hope and belief the game is someething you can use in forum discussions to make you and your system look better than others.

Length again is something that, if other departments are lacking, adds to value. Or it lessens value which seems to be the case in The Order.

If Bayonetta 2 didn't come with another full game, I'm sure more people would have.

If its a good game its length wouldn't matter. If its a bad game, its length still won't matter.

Anyways, whether its good or bad, its definitely shaping up to be very unique.

Okay, so where do I start...

Bolded 1: You can take in to account just how fun a game is, and take into account replayability. But at the end of the day if someone pays $60 for a 5 hour game (or even around 10 hours), he/she is very justified to be upset that he has spent so much money for so little value. It doesn't matter how many times you play it, at the end of the day you are just playing the same scenerios, with little to no surprises left to be found. If you feel the purchase was justified, that's great. It's one of the greatest benifits of the internet though, consumers are now able to know what they are getting into. 

There are obvious exceptions to this rule however, everyone here knows the story mode of fighting games tend to be very short (taking less than an hour on most occasions) but yet again, people know what they are getting into (not to mention fighting games are usually bought to fight online). When I buy an adventure game at full retail price I expect a certain amount of content for the cost. 

Bolded 2: I think it has more to do with the fact that most people back then were kids and had little to no concept of actual value. They ask their parents to get them a game, and it is bought. Why would I be mad that a game I got for free only lasts 5 hours? It sounds pretty spoiled, but it is the truth in most peoples cases. Besides, the skill level of most gamers (at least on the forums now) was probably pretty lacking and it took them a lot longer than 5 hours to beat Super Castlevania IV. Also, there was probably less complaining about the length of games back then because you were talking with a group of friends who weren't looking at games critically. Kids don't tend to do that.

Beyond that, forums dedicated to gaming was nonexistant at that time. Talking to a group of friends who share a similar hobby is way different than talking to people who share a deeper passion for gaming. (This of course depends on the group of friends obviously as they may be even more into video games than people here, ect.) 

Last Bolded: Video games have been developed for 30+ years, there really is no excuse for some games to cut corners. It's really as simple as that. Who buys a jrpg to see the world going on in the background but in no way feels connected to that world (Final Fantasy XIII). It's perfectly fine to find faults with a game and be vocal about it. It's how developers know what people expect. This is why XV is an open world instead of an extension of whatever XIII was, and I think the Final Fantasy brand has only benifited from addressing peoples complaints with XIII. 

I'll give another example. Nintendo didn't think it was worth porting Xenoblade Chronicles to the US due to them thinking JRPGs aren't the experience people are looking for outside of Japan. Yet again people complained and it was released to it's highest sales even though there was a limited release. 

Really? Does Smash Bros, Sunset Overdrive, The Last of us, Bloodborne, Zelds get this much critics? The point is more similar to Watchhdogs: in the beginning the devs were creating high expectations and nearing release the expectations got smashed.