Excellent.

Choice is story development usually means a 10 hours game with a shallow story that your meant to play through more than once, or a linear story where your choices all lead to the same end.

Either way, content that I can't see on one playthrough is content that should have been added to the overall length of the game.

I hate that crap.

Again, I'm betting this game is around 10 hours, 20 max, and it will be as dissapointing as the first game, which was great, just not the epic that we were all expecting.

No one was more excited about it than I was. Am I supposed to have my heart broken again? Nope, I'm staying cynical until this game is reviewed by IGN or Gamespot. 

The first game was great, and it was 12-14 hours long.  Microsoft said that this one is ten times larger.  Assuming they are massively overestimating and saying it is five times larger, then assuming they mean literal space rather than game length, I think its safe to say that this game WILL be 20 hours long at least.  For a game like Fable, I reckon that'd be great.

But I reckon it will massively impress, so by all means wait for IGN 

Everyone said the same thing about the first game, you realize. It was supposed to be an endless world with 100 hours of gameplay, Diablo 2 esque, and genre defining.

It was a decent action RPG with a decent story and great production values. 10-12ish hours if you didn't take your time to complete everything. 

Everything was the exact same as it is with part 2, right now. You should be wary that this game might pull a Fable.

What I consider different about this title is the fact that the hype is coming from the gaming press that have PLAYED the features being talked about, rather than Molyneux alone. 

In fact, a European site that played the game came out and said it was 20 times larger than Fable before Microsoft said it was 10 times as large.  I didn't pay attention to the gaming media in the lead-up to Fable, so I was unaware of the hype.  When I played it, I had no expectations, and found the best RPG I'd ever played (Its since become the second best after Mass Effect). 

@starcraft:

You should definitely play more RPG:s, especially the older PC ones. :P

I don't really agree that being "10-20 times larger" is automatically a great thing. First - how is it 10-20 times larger? Is the character stat block 10 times as large? Are there 10 times more cities with 20 times the size? Is the game map 20 times larger than in Fable? Does the game demand 20 times more disk space? Does every character have 20 alternate outfits? Etc.

There are games like Gothic 3 and Daggerfall that are Friggin' Enormous and complex, but not necessarily better games because of it. For example, in G3:s case, the game feels like it was built by Microsoft's ME development team: It's slow, buggy, hard as hell and ultimately boring. The Witcher is a really long game, but that's because doing anything meaningful in the game takes several hours. MMORPG's are huge timesinks because of grinding, etc.

Bigger isn't automatically better, even in Fable 2's case.

Yeah, what is 10-20 times bigger? The area in which it takes place? Cause it wasn't a problem with being larger for the first one, it was a problem of the game being longer than 12 hours...

Are they going to make it 10-20 times longer? It's not enough information to be happy or sad about yet...

As I said, I think the 20 times larger comment is crap, and I believe Microsoft's 10 times larger comment will turn out to be an exaggeration.  That said, any increase in world size and scope is likely to result in a direct increase in game length, particularly as Lionhead is aware that this was one of the front-running criticisims of the first game.

Making this game twice as long as the original would be more than acceptable if it maintains the same high quality.