They gave the game a 9/10, which, if you know Eurogamer, is a really high score (they gave DeathSpank a 6).
 
The review also addresses the length of the game. As expected, it's only about 3 hours long, but judging from the score and overall tone of the review, it's very much a case of quality over quantity here.
  
I'll still get it. Even if it's only 3 hours, it looks like it'll probably be the best 3 hours of gaming in a long time, and I'll probably want to replay it a few times as well.

I'm not prepared to drop $15 on a three hour game.

I don't find it shocking that Death Spank got a 6. Seems about right from what I've seen. 
 
Yes I know this has nothing to do with this actual thread. 
 
Yay Limbo?

I'll be picking it up or loading it down? When it makes its way to the marketplace. 3 hours or not I imagine getting through the game without dying will take me well past 1 playthrough. I like to think I'm supporting stuff like this when I buy it too, as misguided as that may be.

That review tells me absolutely nothing. 
 
Doesn't surprise me, but still.

Three hours??? 
Fuck me!

Three hours in limbo? That's like a billionth of a second real time.

3 fucking hours? no thanks... 
 
 
Reviews need to start taking price into consideration..jesus

$15 ain't the end of the world, but 3 hours really is pushing it...I'll have to give it some thought.

...Braid was released at the same price point was easily beaten in under an hour.  I loved Braid and had no problems forking over the cash for it.  As will be the case with Limbo.

9 / 10 from GameSpot as well.
8.3 / 10 from GameTrailers.
 
Not to mention 5 / 5 from Brad Shoemaker. 3 hours of gameplay or not, I'm fairly sure I'll pick this one up.

I'll wait 'till it goes on offer. Thats what i did with Splosion Man and Shadow Complex.

George Broussard says:
 
 "Also, Limbo is not 3 hours as some reviewers claim. A "normal" person will take 6-7+ hrs due to the puzzles and getting stuck."
 
Not sure how much his word means to people but I'm buying it either way.

" I'm not prepared to drop $15 on a three hour game. "

" 3 fucking hours? no thanks...   Reviews need to start taking price into consideration..jesus "

George Broussard says:   "Also, Limbo is not 3 hours as some reviewers claim. A "normal" person will take 6-7+ hrs due to the puzzles and getting stuck."  Not sure how much his word means to people but I'm buying it either way.

People need to stop bitching about game length to dollar value ratio.  

" George Broussard says:   "Also, Limbo is not 3 hours as some reviewers claim. A "normal" person will take 6-7+ hrs due to the puzzles and getting stuck."  Not sure how much his word means to people but I'm buying it either way. "

George Broussard will finish Limbo "when he's done". He's probably still in the first area of the game. 
 
Also, Portal was a 3 hours game, and it was one of the best games of 2007.

" @ajamafalous said:

" I'm not prepared to drop $15 on a three hour game. "

@Jeffsekai said:

" 3 fucking hours? no thanks...   Reviews need to start taking price into consideration..jesus "

So you won't drop $15 on a game that takes 3-6 hours to complete, but will drop $60 on a game that doesn't last 12-24 hours? Consider: Fable's story was only around 9-10 hours long, and then it got rather boring after that. Gears of War 2 was only about 7-8 hours, though I'll concede it had multiplayer, despite people continuously complaining that it was broken Mirror's Edge was only about 9 hours. In terms of value for money, about 4.5 (mid point of estimates) for $15 is roughly just shy of $3 and hour, as opposed to the $6 you'd normally splash on a game. It's better value for money, assuming the game is actually as good as the reviews and QL, etc are suggesting. "

" @CandleJakk said:

So you won't drop $15 on a game that takes 3-6 hours to complete, but will drop $60 on a game that doesn't last 12-24 hours? Consider: Fable's story was only around 9-10 hours long, and then it got rather boring after that. Gears of War 2 was only about 7-8 hours, though I'll concede it had multiplayer, despite people continuously complaining that it was broken Mirror's Edge was only about 9 hours. In terms of value for money, about 4.5 (mid point of estimates) for $15 is roughly just shy of $3 and hour, as opposed to the $6 you'd normally splash on a game. It's better value for money, assuming the game is actually as good as the reviews and QL, etc are suggesting. "

Well douche bag, the game is 3 hrs not 3-6 THREEE. Second, Fable 2 can be played multiple times AND has online I played that game for a lest 40 hrs.  so stfu   and 15$ is 5 $ an hr not 3. "

I'll be picking it up, since I'm horrible at puzzles and this will probably take me until the end of August to complete. It just looks so cool--and I've got that $15 burning a hole in my Microsoft Points since I decided not to buy Deathspank.  I mean, you can't just let those Points just  sit there.

" @ajamafalous said:

" I'm not prepared to drop $15 on a three hour game. "

@Jeffsekai said:

" 3 fucking hours? no thanks...   Reviews need to start taking price into consideration..jesus "

So you won't drop $15 on a game that takes 3-6 hours to complete, but will drop $60 on a game that doesn't last 12-24 hours? Consider: Fable's story was only around 9-10 hours long, and then it got rather boring after that. Gears of War 2 was only about 7-8 hours, though I'll concede it had multiplayer, despite people continuously complaining that it was broken Mirror's Edge was only about 9 hours. In terms of value for money, about 4.5 (mid point of estimates) for $15 is roughly just shy of $3 and hour, as opposed to the $6 you'd normally splash on a game. It's better value for money, assuming the game is actually as good as the reviews and QL, etc are suggesting. "

" @CandleJakk said:

" @ajamafalous said:

" I'm not prepared to drop $15 on a three hour game. "

@Jeffsekai said:

" 3 fucking hours? no thanks...   Reviews need to start taking price into consideration..jesus "

So you won't drop $15 on a game that takes 3-6 hours to complete, but will drop $60 on a game that doesn't last 12-24 hours? Consider: Fable's story was only around 9-10 hours long, and then it got rather boring after that. Gears of War 2 was only about 7-8 hours, though I'll concede it had multiplayer, despite people continuously complaining that it was broken Mirror's Edge was only about 9 hours. In terms of value for money, about 4.5 (mid point of estimates) for $15 is roughly just shy of $3 and hour, as opposed to the $6 you'd normally splash on a game. It's better value for money, assuming the game is actually as good as the reviews and QL, etc are suggesting. "

I haven't paid $60 for a game since Halo 3 came out.
 
 
So no, I'm not prepared to drop $60 on a game as I consider that a huge ripoff. I wouldn't even buy Mass Effect 2 for $30 (I waited until it was $20), and that game lasted me 50 hours for one playthrough. "

I'm actually surprised that people are making a big deal about the length of the game.  Which makes me sad, because that makes me a TOTAL IDIOT.  Of course people are complaining.

I'm actually surprised that people are making a big deal about the length of the game.  Which makes me sad, because that makes me a TOTAL IDIOT.  Of course people are complaining.

" @CandleJakk said:

" @ajamafalous said:

" I'm not prepared to drop $15 on a three hour game. "

@Jeffsekai said:

" 3 fucking hours? no thanks...   Reviews need to start taking price into consideration..jesus "

So you won't drop $15 on a game that takes 3-6 hours to complete, but will drop $60 on a game that doesn't last 12-24 hours? Consider: Fable's story was only around 9-10 hours long, and then it got rather boring after that. Gears of War 2 was only about 7-8 hours, though I'll concede it had multiplayer, despite people continuously complaining that it was broken Mirror's Edge was only about 9 hours. In terms of value for money, about 4.5 (mid point of estimates) for $15 is roughly just shy of $3 and hour, as opposed to the $6 you'd normally splash on a game. It's better value for money, assuming the game is actually as good as the reviews and QL, etc are suggesting. "

Well douche bag, the game is 3 hrs not 3-6 THREEE. Second, Fable 2 can be played multiple times AND has online I played that game for a lest 40 hrs.  so stfu   and 15$ is 5 $ an hr not 3. "

" @Milkman said:

George Broussard says:   "Also, Limbo is not 3 hours as some reviewers claim. A "normal" person will take 6-7+ hrs due to the puzzles and getting stuck."  Not sure how much his word means to people but I'm buying it either way.

I've heard multiple sources saying it's really 5-7 hours. "

I really don't understand this obsession with length. Multiplayer games are made to take up time, if you just have to waste time. Games like this are meant to be enjoyed, its a unique experience. Who goes, "YES! 10 hours has passed! That was worth $15! Glad I didn't buy LIMBO I'd still have like 6 hours till I sleep".

3 hours of a good quality game beats that crap out of a hundred billion hours of a shitty game. 
 
I can remember paying 20-25 bucks for a nice shiny new NES game that I could essentially beat in a half hour to an hour.  
 
It's too bad to see a lot of games go unplayed because it's too short. I guess a lot of people have pretty much forgotten about re-playability, since most games seem to just dump that into multiplayer.  
  
At least I know I'll be playing an awesome game. 
 
@Plasma said:

 Who goes, "YES! 10 hours has passed! That was worth $15!