Do you prefer a single game you can sink a hundred hours into, or ten games you can sink ten hours into, or a hundred one hour games?

I prefer games that are a bit of a mix of these two concepts. The key is replay-ability, if I can beat a game in under an hour like Enter the Gungeon but play it dozens of times and still have new experiences in the subsequent games I rate that a huge plus.

I was surprised by how much I liked Enter the Gungeon, I find a lot of RNG games frustrating because it's hard to balance. In FTL I constantly die because I never mastered putting together an effective load-out, but in Cryptark I can find pretty much any type of gun I want and don't have to worry about changing up my style.

As I've gotten older, I've come to prefer short(er) games. I played some long games in the last few years, e.g. Gothic 2, and I don't exactly regret it, but somehow it's not that great a feeling when you notice you've spent several days of your life (something like 72 hours in the case of Gothic 2 iirc, or even more) on a game. These huge games require too much time investment.

Definitely prefer long games, and don't really count games taking less than 10h. Can alternate though, either a long one that grips me and I go through it start to end, though that's rare, or much more commonly have a long one, or two or three, ongoing and either alternate between them or between them and some shorter ones, by which I mean say 15-20h or so, considering what I just said about shorter ones not really counting.
Regarding those durations though, I play slowly. For serious games, with plenty of content and complexity, I seem to "find" ways to take 2-3 times the listed amount of time to finish them, counting actual play time, not also time lost since last save when I end up reloading.
As for replayability, won't even say that it's irrelevant for me, but I actually give it a negative value. If a game's meant to be replayed it means it either has little/no relevant story or even notable locations/characters/events, so it's just meant to be "beaten", which I don't care for, or it's made so you can't get the full picture unless you replay in different ways, which I really don't care for. Want to be able to go through a story and be immersed in it start to end, reach the conclusion (most preferably one I can choose, though if that story's on rails and the ending's set it can also work, if I can agree with that ending), then close the book, sort of speak, and move on.

I used to look for long games to get more 'bang for my buck', but that's a really bad way to look for games, and a good way to find long boring games.

These days it seems I play more of my shorter multiple run games like Slay the Spire or Monolith, but on the side still chug along Trails games and, once I get a new controller, Hollow Knight.

So to answer your question, yes.

When the game is good, I prefer long.
When the game is bad, I prefer short.

i'm not gay but i prefer longer things.. :-/

The way I see it, if it's a story-based game I like it to be a long, epic adventure. If it's something that's made to be replayed a lot, I prefer it to be short. So we have, say, Final Fantasy vs Resident Evil. The former you go through perhaps only once in your lifetime, maybe a couple of times more if you really like it. The latter you just keep looping through and trying to perfect your playthrough. There are long RPGs that some people like to go through again and again with different builds but I just can't do it if I know each playthrough will take 60+ hours.

For me, it varies on the genre. I love my RPGs medium to long, as the fun of it is to get immersed in the world at large, engage in questing, that sort of stuff. Games with a fixed direction, I prefer them longer as well.

Then there are other types of games. Like strategy ones. If there is a fair bit of randomization where you get different kinds of replayability, the high end of short to medium in length works well too.

Some of my favorites, you can't put a time tag on them. A popular example would be "The Sims". You create, play around and manage the bolts. It just goes on for how long or short you want it to be.

Depends on my mood and the type of game. For RPGs, I prefer longer games. 60+ hours so I can get into the story and lore as well as plenty of character building as I go. Plus, I'm always going to end up frustrated with my first couple of characters and end up starting over.

For games like Metroidvanias, I don't really want to go over 20 hours. I like them action packed, maybe some puzzles here and there, then they end.

There are some games I can happily spend 60-100 hours in (usually without even completing the game). As long as that's occurring because I want it to (i.e., fucking around endlessly in a GTA or M&B game, for example), that's fine. It's when it's more or less mandatory to grind for levels for 20 hours over the course of an already long-ish game just so you can have a decent chance of success when taking on the endgame content that it's unwelcome. In fact, I'd say that if I knew that I couldn't reasonably expect to complete a playthrough of a game's "main quest line" (whatever that might mean for any particular game) and at least a majority of its proper side missions, if any -- not counting simple collectible hunting and the like -- in 30-40 hours or less if wanted to, I wouldn't want to play that game. (Unless, of course, it was one of the aforementioned sandbox-style games where I didn't necessarily care about finishing it.)

Well I don't actually research based on actual length, I just play and determine at the end whether the length was appropriate for the story & design when I finally review it. Replayability is not part of my mix either, preferring to move on once a game is complete (usually onto something completely different).

That being said I don't often purchase RPGs in general because I know they are time-sinks and dominate my time because I tend to try to 100% things almost obsessively. It might be a higher entertainment value per dollar (more bang for my buck) but they've got to be something special to get me playing something for days on end.

I had to quit MMO's for the same reason.

Longer the better and then I look for ways to make them longer.

No preference. I love long 100 hour RPG experiences. But after I finish one, I find it hard to face up to another 100hour epic straight away- burn out. So I tend to follow up with a few shorter games whilst working out what I feel like for the next epic. I enjoy them equally.

A mix of both. There are so many good superlong games that it'd be a pity to miss them, but spending so many hours in the same activity can get taxing. So I throw in the mix a handful of short games as well (mainly adventure), of which there are also several gems I wouldn't want to pass on either.