[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd still probably go for length. Here's a clarification that may help.
The games that tend to stick out for me are mainly (with exceptions) ones that had good stories that kept me playing. Longer games tend to have better/more in-depth stories than shorter games as they're mainly RPGs etc.
The other types of games that really stick out for me are ones that are light on story but stick out as they got played a shit ton in multiplayer online or with friends etc. Stuff like Goldeneye, Mario Kart 64, the Gears of War series etc. On back to 16 bit fighting games etc.
I can think of very few really short single player games that I really reflect on very fondly (i.e. on par with those types of games and the longer story driven ones)--just some like Super Metroid, the Mario games etc.
Shorter games like a single player only shooter or Alan Wake etc. are just good, quick one-time experiences. I enjoy them, but they don't leave much of a lasting impression. And I've never been in to things like Shmups, etc. that are short and lack stories etc. Nor pick up and play types of games.
I like games that suck me into their world for a few hours and make me forget about things--just like a great movie or book does. I don't play for challenge or the gameplay specifically as much as I do for the ability to get lost in a virtual world for a while. Longer games with in-depth stories, big worlds to explore etc. are what tend to achieve that for me. Though I can also get lost in shooters with great gamplay, good online modes etc, though it's a different type of immersion.
[/QUOTE]
I definitely get what you are saying up until this point. And in those cases length does affect quality (although indirectly). So you are still saying that longer games have a bigger impact on you because of all the added things that tend to come with length in a game (story, immersion, attachment, etc.)
And those are the kind of things that I consider when thinking about how much I liked a game (a 10/10 versus a 8/10 for instance). But for me, if a game can have just as big an impact on me in a shorter amount of time, then the value isn't lessened, which brings us to this:
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Also, getting back to your question, even if I do happen to look back more fondly on a shorter gamer, the longer game that wasn't quite as good was a "better" value assuming I bought it at the same price. It was nearly as good and gave me more hours of entertainment for the same money.[/QUOTE]
For me, how much I value a game is directly proportional to how much I like a game. Length for length's sake is irrelevant. I can understand it coming into the equation if you are limited in the amount of games that you want to play or you are only able to get absorbed into long games, but I don't think length should even enter into the equation when reviewing/scoring a game, which is where a lot of gamers tend to disagree with me (not saying you are one of them though).
Additionally, even if someone does prefer longer games, that still doesn't justify complaining when a game is too short, as long as the short length is appropriate for the game. Many games would be much worse off if they were longer, even if the added content isn't just fluff. The one thing I don't agree with is that a game should be valued less due to it's length. Even people with huge backlogs that play every major release and admit to liking short games seem to hold the idea that longer games are worth more. I can't tell you how many times I've read something along the lines of, "I'm sure this game is fantastic, but I can't justify spending full price on a 10 hour game. I'll wait for it to hit $20." from someone who would gladly pay full price for a 40 hour game that is not as high in quality and they wouldn't enjoy as much as the short game. I find this philosophy frustrating.
[/QUOTE]
ed by Bible Black futa girls. 
