I tend to replay most games at least once. For example, I love replaying any Zelda or Metroid game. Right now I really dig Star Fox, so I replayed every game in the entire franchise.

My favorite games are all 8 and 16 bit... so I vote replayablity. I think OOT is the greatest 3D game ever but I can't play it more than once every half decade. The first Zelda or Mario however? I can play that once a month and enjoy it.

Yes, I rarely play again long games, but if they are good games I'm also more likely to want to play them for the first time.
I'm still struggling to end Morrowind and Torment, as I want to play every possible subquest, explore everywhere and in Morrowind case its two official expansions too, and each time I suspend playing them I feel lost for a while when I resume, so as much as I like them and I want to end them, sooner or later, as much I probably won't ever play them again after ending them.

Really depends on the game. The snes has a chokehold on the greatest short games like Super Metroid. On the other hand, I find the sweet spot for replayable length is between 30-40 hours on the main quest for jrpgs. There’s a lot of non-replaysble FPS games that clock in below 10 hours, and a lot of open world games llike Skyrim lasting 200 plus hours that are really hard to replay again from scratch due to the sandbox nature and lack of focus of the world.

Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! is a game I can beat in like... 25 minutes. And between the original NES game, the 3DS VC and NES Mini versions... I must have put about 500 hours into it. And I still play it.

So... yeah, replay value hands down for me.

Length is irrelevant in my opinion, I've paid full price for a short 10 hour game and felt it was worth it and also paid for a longer 50 hour plus game where i felt it wasn't. As for replay-value i don't really do that much anymore unless it offers something extra like an alternate ending and it is on the shorter side.

I restart my games over and over, especially RPG, 4X, VN and Grand Strategy games. I also tend to follow any side quests/objectives I can find.

As a result I don't "finish" that many games, because those take lots of time I don't have anymore.

However, I do so with most of the action games I buy (which happens from time to time, but much more rarely than the genres mentioned before). In most cases I don't replay those games unless I happen to find them several years later and got not much else to do.

I agree with the sentiment that shorter but more replayable games are the way to go. It always feels like a lot of games nowadays are incredibly bloated with things you would never replay. A good example is the A Link to the Past vs Skyward Sword. ALTTP can be beaten in what a weekend?

SS takes a week or two and probably even more since it is about 40 hours and ALTTP is about 10 hours. The 10 hours in ALTTP I spent was some of the best I ever had. SS, on the other hand, had only puddles of fun in between very boring things like collect all the musical notes or get back all your weapons.

Some games don't deserve to be long but some can do it correctly.

I generally don't mind if games arelo g or short. I approach and play them equally. However if i looked at replay vs length i would always look at length first. I NEVER replay games if i can help it. So it generally doesnt matter what new modes or difficulty a game has - i never look at replay value or how it affects a game. Thia is simply because i have limited time to play and games and i prefer to spend it on new games and experiences.

It all depends on pacing for me, regardless of lenght if a game keeps a great pace mechanics and story wise (if the game is story driven) , then I don't have issue replaying them.