A 100 hour game usually has a lot of repetition and midway it already feels old. So not all of that 100 hours is enjoyable.
You have GTA in your nick and assassins creed in your avatar. Both game-series have a lot of content and can probably be played for 100 hours and more. So can be assumed your comment condenses your experiences with these two series?
I admit that both the series are a bit repetitive near the 100 hour mark, but I really enjoy them overall.
Even the order get some repetitive elements (similar QTE-events/similar fights), but the overarching point here is enjoyment. I criticised the OP, because he condensed value alone to length, and brought up enjoyment. So even a highly repetitive game is great, if the repetition is enjoyable. So this is the true value of a game, not length, not surprises, not cinematic experience, not the story, not the characters. But the enjoyment. All the points before can add to or subtract from the overall enjoyment, but enjoyment is the real value, not one of the other points alone. Also enjoyment is highly subjective, so a game one person enjoys can be crap for another. That's the problem with the critic in the OP on short games and your critic on long games, they both are missing the point.