I think I value replayability and pacing the most. Resident Evil 4 has perfect pacing, never drags, introduces new enemies, locations so even if it clocks at about 15 hours, I'd replay it anytime. The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker is a great game but it has big pacing issues that keep me from revisiting it too often. In fact, I have started a new game and stopped at the Triforce Fetch Quest on two seperate occassions because I couldn't be bothered with it again.

To each their own then.  I've always liked lengthy games especially rpgs but I don't really replay many games unless they have different story arcs. Chrono Trigger is my kind of game though. Yeah, I was talking about mp with cod. 

Yes, there are very few long games that I will play over and over. I'll normally not want to return to completely play through an RPG for example even if I really enjoyed it, but some of my favourite games can be completed pretty quickly and I enjoy playing back through to try different things or even just to replay exactly what I did the first time. I'd gladly play money for a game that hooks me even if it doesn't take very long to complete.

Replay value and length are not at all connected for me. If a game is good enough, or at least has a good enough story that warrants multiple play throughs, I’ll replay regardless of length. At the same time, a game being very short doesn’t really make it any more enticing for me to replay, it has to be worth a replay. The Order took me 5 1/2 hours to platinum and I never touched it again because regardless of how short it was I found the gameplay dull and the story lacking any need or reward for another play through. Compare that to something like Bioshock Infinite, I found the gameplay solid, but I probably beat that game four times just because of the story. It isn’t a very long game either.

I don’t see a point in comparing today’s games to what you found acceptable in the 80’s and 90’s. Technology was different back then. Just because you were ok with paying $80 for a 3 hour game back then doesn’t mean you should be happy with anything more than that by default. People used to be happy about traveling via horse carriage and watching black and white television.

Agreed.

The average game has a relatively small number of many unique mechanics. A campaign is often a variation of those mechanics with some flourishes that make some scenes unique. I may be generalizing but that's essentially what most games feels like.

A game really doesn't need much more than 6 - 10 hours to tell a compelling story with a good campaign. Even then there will be a lot of repetition. So how long a game is definitely considered when I'm choosing a game to play. Many games I've decided to not play due to length, mostly JRPGs.

I value the experience, be it length good game or one I keep coming back to play. But nowadays I'm more playing once and moving on.
Also I don't like open world and the chore some games become.

Replay is nothing to do with game length, it's about what there is to do in the game. Different routes of the story, what there is to unlock, how gameplay can change based on how you play the game.

My most played games this gen.
DA:I - I had my main character plus 5 others, differing builds, differing choices, differing difficulties. etc.
Bloodborne - Same, different builds.
Tekken 7 - Because it's Tekken.
CoD:BO3 - MP replayability, lots of unlock and playing with friends.
Diablo 3 - Grind to get plat... got plat, probably won't ever go back.

I'm currently playing Persona 5, I'm many many hours in and no idea of an end in sight but not sure how/if I'll play it again straight after, the story is a seemingly set one (as expected with JRPGs) which means I won't go straight back into it to play again, with those I break for a bit.