You want Length for your money.. Buy Demon Souls.. Its freaking insane hard.. You will die alot you will give up alot and come back.. Ive had it about 7 months.. Am still on the first world (im that terrible haha) and I keep going back.. Well worth the money

This is honestly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. More game length essentially means more content, and that what we gamers want, more content.

If a game is like 5-8 hours long, it better be the best 5-8 hours I ever had in my gaming lifetime otherwise it's straight to the rent queue. And to be honest, £40 is alot to ask when I'm paying a full retail game that has only a short campaign, so it better be Uncharted 2/Team Ico worthy to get my money.

And slapping on multiplayer doesn't help. It has add to the experience e.g Demon's Soul's, not something that seems like a quick copy + paste from other games multiplayer e.g Bioshock 2.

Not always but i would rather play a 40 hour good game than a 7 hour good game

This depends on the game in question. Portal was short but sweet in a way that captured the hearts of gamers everywhere. I loved it, but I wanted it to last a little longer.
The guy who made I Wanna Be The Guy recently wrote an article about this, but he wrote it in such an abhorrent way I instantly decided never to visit his site or play his games ever again.

I didnt buy Splinter cell conviction because the campaign was 5 hours long. Does that make me stupid? No. It means i'm wise enough not to be swindled. If Chaos theory could could come out with a longer campaign, Co-Op, AND Multiplayer, then there be no excuses for it not to happen today.

On another note it does piss off the user when a game is released with say a 5 hour campaign, (full price_ only to learn that there's a horde of DLC in the wings that should have been there in the first place. Meanin you'll be spending between £40 - £70 for your 'whole game'.

Game length does equal value, WHEN and ONLY WHEN the game is a minimum of 10 - 15 hours in length, and is replayable.

True take for instance GOW3 7hrs game play Does Not Equal Value lol. Also Kill Zone 2 On easy mode i ran through the entire game only using the knife under 6hrs.....i know games these days are to short lol.

well i'm not paying 60 bucks for 5hrs of gameplay

No single quality in a game should equal its greatness but don't hand me a 3 hour single player attach a multiplayer to it and ask me to pay $60.00 e.g. LFD.I don't need a 3 hour tutorial to practice for multiplayer.If you are so hell bent on multiplayer then make that alone and sell it for less. When I have to pay that amount for a game no excuses. And BTW GOW 3 was not 7 hours long. you lie like rug

its variable. If you enjoy a game for what it is, you'll keep coming back even if you've finished it before.

if you don't enjoy the game, its not the games length thats at fault, its the games engagement.

i have many games without MP (dead space, GOWIII, Heavy Rain, Uncharted) that are "relatively" short games, but I've played them as much as my MP/open world games simply because I love going back to the experience once in a while =)

it because of the "I'M NOT PAYING 70 BUCKS FOR AN 9 HOUR GAME" mentality that games like Alan Wake and Singularity are "flopping" in sales.

its not the games fault, its the peoples mentality...

however, the mentality isn't going to change anytime soon so, yeah tack on Multiplayer to every damn game on earth otherwise these retarded kids won't buy your game.

But it is a factor on the value of the game! For instance, I'm not going to go out and buy a game solemnly on the fact that it has a great story because the campaign could be 4 hours long or the gameplay is bad or not it's best or even bad graphics. These all come into the equation when considering value at least for more intellectually developed gamers.

Depends on the experience I guess. Aln Wake tooke me around 8-10 hours to complete and I thought its been one of the best gaming experence I've had so yeah that was worth the value. Then there's Uncharted 2 which I played the single player for about 20 hours which were the best 20 hours I've spent playing a game in quite a long time. Not to mention I've played the amazing multiplayer on that game for around 20 hours and I've had a blast with it. I'm not a real big multiplayer guy anyway so Uncharted 2s value far exceeded what I payed for the game. In the end it's all about likes and dislikes and what do you value more the length or the expernece. You can feel you got the value out of a six hour game simply because the experence was incedible and you loved it. Or you can take length and feel you got your value out of the game because you put a bunch of hours into said game. There's nothing wrong with either its just about preferences.

How much better would Turning Point be if it required 500 hours to complete the campaign? Quantity really means nothing if the quality isn't there.

On the other hand, I consider short games like ICO and Gunstar Heroes to be among my favorite games right alongside some of my more lengthy favorites like Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VI. The duration of a game means almost nothing to me.

This type of metric used by gamers probably amuses critics of video games to no end. Would you consider the Mona Lisa to be a better painting if it was 2 square feet larger? Would One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest be a significantly better movie if it was 150 minutes long instead of 130 minutes? If these ideas sounds ridiculous, that's because it is.

I agree in a sense. Whilst ODST's campaign was short, 4 player co-op Firefight DEFINITELY makes up for it.

No, length doesnt = value, but it sure does add value no matter what. I dont think games like Gears are worth it because i prefer Single player games and those are about 5 hours long. Total BS in my opinion.