One point worth considering is that a 140mm or even 150mm won't actually give you "matched" travel. Took me a while until I figured this out but I noticed it one day while playing around with Linkage (the suspension design computer program). While forks are designated by travel in millimeters, it's a deceptive measurement in isolation as it doesn't account for head angle and the effect that has on (reducing)
vertical travel.
The rear suspension of most bikes has no (or very little) rearward axle path, so travel is essentially only vertical travel. Howevere because the fork is installed at an angle, a significant amount of its designated travel is actually used up in the rearward axle path.
Given the geo you've mentioned as an example - for a 160mm fork, you only really get ~143mm vertical travel. (I've attached a screen grab from a triangle calculator below)
Obviously there's a whole bunch of dynamic variables in real world use that will dynamically effect head angle and therefore slightly alter the amount of vertical travel a fork will offer at any given moment, but overall the principle remains.
For reference, a 140mm fork (I guessed at it roughly steepening the bike ~1deg) would only offer ~126mm in vertical travel, meaning the front-end would probably get overwhelmed quite easily before the rear
Aaaaand back on topic, I much prefer the reduced offset forks. I've ridden with both a standard and short offset fork (same make/model of fork too) on the same 27.5" bike at around 66 degrees and the difference was anything but subtle - I believe the difference is more pronounced the steeper the head angle though. With the reduced offset I found the steering much calmer, and a little less prone to understeer or washout. Some of this feeling is similar in concept to riding with a longer stem thoug -ie: for the same length stem, a reduced offset fork brings the wheel further in so it is a little easier to weight the front wheel. It is different to just putting a longer stem on a standard offset fork though, as it tracks straighter though corners with less minor corrections needed. The reduced offsets can be a bit more floppy at or near standstill though.
I have read (but not tried), that a standard offset is better through rockgardens though if that's important to you - though with the headangle you're looking at it shouldn't be much of a problem either way. The Ripmo was a plow when I had it setup at ~64deg HA, but it also wasn't too keen on quick changes of direction (that could be a lack of upper-body strength in my case though).