I think open-world games were more interesting...when there weren't that many of these.

We only would get a few of these, every now and then - like a new GTA; a new Elder Scrolls; a new BioWare game. It was easy to....not hit fatigue b/c there weren't a ton of these.

Now look. There's so many of these - I can't even keep up w/ this anymore. And many of these, seem to be from UbiSoft and their 7000 studios ALONE.

Yup. That's why I never pre-order, no matter what, no matter the hype, no matter how much the game may be good.
Disappointments tend to happen everytime our expectations are high.
That doesn't mean the product isn't good, it just means that our expectations about the product were higher than the product could deliver.

About the backlogging, I believe GOG help us gamers about that.
While in Steam there's a ton more sales than GOG, I tend to play or make more effort to play, GOG games. Steam is like a full catalog of "Buy and Never Touch" games.
While in GOG, because of this offline installer thing, I tend to play it more.

(from my experience, I may be wrong though, or it may depend.)

Exactly.

Being an older gamer, I also have less time to game... and bloated experiences makes me wonder "why am I doing this with the limited time that I have?" I now look for a game that does a few things very well... instead of a game that tries to do everything... and ends up doing a lot bland, mediocre of things

for one champter maybe , but for the whole game nope 15 hours is when you start to feel you are in the rpg's universe
Hmm my experience is the opposite , gog has more sales than steam , gog has midweek sale weekend sale other ocasion sale , no sales sale.
Probably gamers play more on gog than on steam for a given game,but thats because steam users are more casual.

I want a lot of games to be shorter. In every genre.

Make the main story of an RPG doable in 40-50 hours and then let me have end-game content if I want.

I would rather have a great game that I can come back to and play through many times than a very long game that is drawn out just to fill hours that I only play once.

I would rather play a game like Gears of War at 8-12 hours multiple times than 100 hours one time of an average game.

I also would rather - and do - watch Die Hard, Goodfellas, The Godfather and other great movies multiple times and have never watched Captain Marvel or any of the Zach Snyder DCU garbage one time.

Or the complete noise that is the Nu Trek. I'm just hoping someone gets their hands onto Trek and tosses Discovery in the trash. Not only does it fly in the face of the established canon, but also just the whole ethos of Star Trek.

I demand good value in exchange for my money, which is something that most modern games do not offer because they both a) cost top dollar and b) are simultaneously very short.

Case in point, the current #2 Bestseller game on GOG, "Medium," which costs $45 USD (and that is whilst it's allegedly "on sale," LOL!) for an 8 hour long game.

That's a giant ripoff. And most modern games are rip offs in a similar manner. Gamers from past generations wouldn't put up with that crap, which is why devs used to never have the gall to try and pull off that kind of crap in the first place.

The first Dark Souls had this problem. The first half was amazing, then the second half was empty and not well thought out. I would rather go through the first half again in NG plus or start over than finish the second half of the game.
I have played through the Last of Us 6 times, on three different difficulties and thier NG plus games. Not a bit of it is padding, I love it.
20 hours is perfectly respectable, less than that and I am less interested.

https://funny-photo.s3.amazonaws.com/preview/through_rose_colored_glasses/dreamy-rose-glasses-effect.jpeg

edit - I started gaming in the mid 70's. I remember what it cost to buy Atari 2500 catridges, c64 games, Amiga games - and how long they where to play, as I had to buy them, and I played them

edit 2 - sigh.... I just realised I have been playing games for almost 50 yeares.... half a century.... I feel old now.... OH well, back to Dyson Sphere Project (and talking about long games.....)

edit 3 - and speaking of game times. I also remembered one of my favorite games from last year Journey to the savage planet. It is doable to complete it in about 10 hours with collecting most secrets, and that I think is the perfect time for a game like this. Any longer and it just get dragged out.

I have always had a place in my heart for short, concise games, at least since Another World on my Amiga. Many classic games are actually short once you master them. Doom II can be beaten under 18 minutes. Never heard of speedruns? It does not mean that it won't give you many hours of pleasure.
And of course there are many ideas that are right for a short game, in the same way some stories are better told as a novel and some as a short story. Not everything you watch needs to be a 10 seasons tv show. And not every game needs to be a AAA grindfest for the cost of 60 € plus extras.

And Morrowind can be beaten in under 4 minutes, despite the fact that the game is known to be long. (No Major Glitches is under 5 minutes, and All Main Quests No Major Glitches in under 26.)

Personally, enough "hooks" justify gameplay lengh.

What is a "Hook", well something that hooks you :)! What makes you come back playing any particular game? What are your incentives whether or not you intend to (re-)play any game?

There are many tiny features when it comes in designing a hook, but you need multiple of those until such a hook can be divised. A hook only works of players use the specific features created around that hook.

If a game is grindy without anything that hooks to you, you will get bored fairly quick. Many MMOs do this
If a game is grindy but has lots of hooks, then you will keep playing because of these hooks. Look at how World of Warcraft done it. It wasn't only popular because it was an online game. Another famous game that does this now is No Mans Sky. People didn't like it because it was missing hooks, they implemented those and look how people like it now.
A short game with a few hooks may be enjoyable for a little while
A short game with many hooks can make people remember it lots. Look at Undertale. That game has tons of little details that makes you keep going.
Anything in between "MMO lengh" and "Undertale lengh" requires different amounts and impact of these hooks. People play games for different reasons so that have to be accounted for as well.

Star Control 2 has enough hooks to keep you occupied while ignoring its obvious flaws. For instance, people figuring out what the place in your universe is is a narrative hook, while wanting to upgrade your mothership is a gameplay hook.
Stardew Valley without the hooks would practically be a simple time management simulatior. But its many hooks will keep you playing for many weeks.
Defeating a difficult enemy in The Witcher through preperation is a hook regarding anticipation. The player knows that the enemy will be tough so they will prepare and acknowledge several aspects of the game while feeling more immersed.
Minecraft is a "make your own hook" sandbox game, where you can basically define anything you want. Same goes with Skyrim or anything that is extensively hack- and modable. The more open a game is, the more people will acknowledge the game for the ways you can extend it.

What is great about hooks is that you can put any amount of them into your game. Some people will accept them, some will ignore them, but there will never be a bad opinion about them, only things around the hook is what people may notice, such as the interface.

A subversion of a hook are games like cookie clicker, where the hook is designed around the interface and not the other way around.

Its all about the hooks my dudes!

Those speedrun times are for players who already know exactly what to do though - someone playing for the first time would not know the shortcuts even if they are trying to budget their time. I wonder what "new player speedrun" times would be for games like Morrowind?

I do have a bit of an issue with games being too long, but for me it is specifically related to RPGs. I am a big RPG fan; however, I find when their play times exceed around 60 hours, it starts to get a bit excessive. I have a busy life and don't find a lot of time to play games - usually around an hour a day, if I'm lucky. So, to play an RPG that is going to last 80+ hours means I will have to dedicate all of my play time for it over possibly 3+ months, which is a big investment of my time.

So, expected play time is definitely something that has become more of a factor for me in recent years. Because, for an 80+ hour game, there is quite a strong chance that I will either get bored or distracted by something else and not end up finishing it. In which case, I won't be experiencing all the content I have paid for anyway, regardless of how good it is.

Length is something that puts me off playing games like Pathfinder: Kingmaker, Witcher 3, Ultima VII. Imo, if a game is getting to the point that it exceeds 80 hours, the devs should really consider splitting it into multiple games. Imo, the ideal length for an RPG is something like Planescape: Torment - about 30-40 hours. Quality is just as important as quantity (if not more so), after all.

Again, bear in mind that I am talking just about excessively long RPGs. Games in other genres being 25-30 hours doesn't bother me.