I definitely agree that games tend to be too long. I think the mindset that games need to be long is largely a carryover from when most gamers were kids and could afford only one or two games for months at a time. Now the tables have turned. We have disposable incomes but no time. A couple of games that I played recently, Dead Space and Catherine, were both early- to mid-teens in number of hours and even that felt like they were stretching a hair too long. Sometimes I look at the huge games in my backlog, like Fallout: New Vegas or Xenoblade Chronicles, and the thought of starting them is so daunting. It will take me months to get through them. If the majority of games could just be less than 10 hours, that'd be perfect.

Yep, Dead Space is definitely one. I was like 11 hours in going "Holy shit, when is this going to end!" I remember finishing games like Resident Evil 4 in my teens in a weekend though and it had like 20 hours of gameplay.

 I play Fallout: New Vegas a lot, but that's usually a game I play when I'm on holidays and want to lose myself for a day or two.

I've just spent 120+ playing Rainbow Moon and I'm still not finished. I would like to play something shorter but I always seem to wind up playing long ass games. 

Unfortunately for fans of RPGs, you aren't really going to get short.

In related news I bought The Last of Us at launch played it for 15 minutes and never went back. My son played for longer but I don't think he finished it either.

Excellent read....and you know what? 

It wasn't too long at all 

You know what? I did exactly the same thing my first time through. Well I played an hour and thought it was kind of meh. However, upon finishing it, I thought it was brilliant

Too many size queens in the video game audience. Like children, they believe that more is better, regardless of whether it hurts the overall design.  Usually the games are long because of uninteresting 'filler.' Think back to Contra - it had no filler, it was relentless. Same with the Mega Man games, Super Mario 3, Chrono Trigger.  I think developers got the duraton-to-cost ration just right during the PS1 days. MGS, RE1 and 2, Final Fantasy 9, etc. were perfect length for what they were.  In the PS2 era, I started to notice games outstaying their welcome, even good ones. Every GTA had to be bigger than the last. RE4 peaked in the castle, then it became an endurance test to the end.  I'll take efficient and holistic design over size/length any day. 

I can only think of this as lenght and pacing issues like you mentioned and wheter or not it fits the game. I guess I really don't mind if a game is long or not as long as it fits. Your Portal example was spot-on, since the game was short, but it felt enough and didn't drag.

I agree, games are too long and meandering nowadays.  And it isn't just because I'm an adult with less time now.  I actually have more time to play games now than I did in high school and college.  But I finished more games then because they were not as long.

I agree with your point, but still say The Last of Us never outstayed its welcome. Where you had a "here we go again..." moment there, I had a "here we go again!" moment. That said, that and Resident Evil 4 are the only linear action games which took me over twelve hours that didn't really feel their length.

Though I think sandbox games do this worse than any other genre. So many missions in GTA, Saints Row, and Assassin's Creed that felt so pointless both from a story and gameplay standpoint and would have served better as side objectives. Assassin's Creed 3 more than any other, that game just had no respect for your time.

I just played Night Driver on Atari 2600. It was 90 seconds. Beat that!

It was quite a relief over grinding away in Weapon Shop de Omasse, which should be a short game, but I'm over ten hours into it already. I'm bored of it at this point.