Nobody sitting up playing a game they don’t like for 100s of hours.
I didn't mention anything about liking a game or not, I just said time is not equal to quality. Just because you put in a long time to a game doesn't make it better than a shorter game.
If a game can engage you that long, that’s almost always a good thing and an enjoyable experience.
Playing a game throughout that time to completion and/or being engaged the entire time isn't the same thing. If that was the case then one can say for example FFXIV is automatically the best FF game ever because it can take up to 200 hours to beat and FFVII is "only" 35 ish hours long.
Not to say all games need to be that long. But some games have you keep coming back for more no matter how long the playtime is.
Movie games are pretty much one and done. Nothing really deep to master or explore and you’ve already seen the story, no need to go back.
A well done "movie game" that was engaging and high quality for 18~25+ hours>>>>>>>70+ hour long medicore game with "tons to see!"
Uncharted 2 which was about 12 hours is still one of my most memorable games of all time and I've replayed it over and over despite having already "seen" the story.
Assassin's Creed Origins which I enjoyed was about 50~80 hours for me doesn't hold a candle to shorter "movie" games like God of War Ragnarok or TLOU 2 even though it's twice as long.
Something "Deep to master" isn't a prerequisite for a game being enjoyable and or memorable. There was nothing "deep" to master or explore in some of the best games of all time e.g. Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil 4, SOTC, God of War etc. They just were excellent ass games that even if short was replayable because it was enjoyable.
