I have watched someone play the first 30-40 minutes, 15 minutes were cut scenes, 10 minutes were walking and 5 minutes were shooting 4 people, the game looks beautiful but it feels slightly soulless.

The sentiment seems to be that they didn't spend enough time and assets developing the gameplay and storyline, rather they spent the bulk of their efforts on visuals. Which they apparently did a fantastic job of!

Obviously all opinions of games are subjective, so I would assume people who are upset were expecting a 'fuller' experience in terms of story and gameplay.

In short, it doesn't. The length of a single player campaign that is full cost, has no other modes, and no replay ability is an important part to think about. Mainly because you deserve to know "Hey this game is great, but short. So if money is tight and you want a lot of bang for your buck then consider that before getting it".

But since this game is apparently not really good it's just another reason for people to complain about it.

Really this is probably what makes games so much harder to review than movies. Movies cost the same to see no matter what (unless you have to watch them in 3D). So it's never about length, it's about quality. Sure some movies are longer than others, but no one ever associates a 3 hr movie being a better value than a 1 1/2 hr movie.

This is what made Dan's review of that Toad game so odd but fair. The reality is that most people don't read a full review. They'll look at the numbers and say 9.0 ok great I'll buy it. So the only way to express the problem with the length of a game, in a way that the general audience can see, is in the final score.

Redbox. $3. Enjoy it or don't. Length has nothing to do with whether something is fun or entertaining.

It's not bad that the game is only around 6/7 hours long, it's bad that after playing it for such a short time I was glad it was over..

Length is not that relevant, in fact most games today are filled with the same and more of the same content just to increase the total playing time. 'Over more then 100 hours of content'. Yea sure, but what kind of content is it, because after playing Dragon Age Inquisition for 30 hours or so I just quit and never came back to it. That felt even less satisfying then finishing a short game, it felt like a waste of my time.

Everyone has their own opinion about the game. I didnt find the story tedious. I loved exploring the victorian era of steampunk London.

Though the werewolf encounters were a tad disappointing (mainly because of the repetition that Jeff mentioned on the Giant Bomb podcast). Otherwise I thought that the shooting felt good and especially the shotgun and thermite gun were awesome weapons to use. Pistols were also pretty inventive in how differently one could shoot with them (dueling pistol vs machine gun pistol vs revolver type pistol).On hard difficulty fights felt also pretty challenging.

Dont understand the complaints about sneaking. There were very few sneaking sections and for the biggest sneaking section the game provides you with a crossbow (one hit kills). Also you can just sneak behind enemies or hide behind a corner or any cover to make automatic takedowns of enemies when they come close.

The ending felt a bit abrupt but I think that the next time around (if the first game sells enough) the developers will do a more fleshed out campaign since they already have the engine ready. So potentially on the sequel they can flesh out the story more.