...The new Mario "lazy"? That's what you've taken from the endless footage and such that we've seen and the onslaught of 10/10's?

These worlds are stuffed to the brim with things to find. This bit about it being short is silly, as most Mario games can be beaten relatively quickly if you're just looking for the "ending". A huge part of what makes Mario enjoyable, though, is the need to explore and find things for yourself. You think in Super Mario 64 everyone just stopped at 70 stars and called it a day? The reviews I've seen suggest there's an enormous amount of things to do even after you beat the game, including some seriously challenging gauntlet-style levels... Simply reaching the end only matters when your game is extremely linear; do people still not recognize this?

I will say, though, that I suspect Zelda may still win more accolades, but there's a big reason for that. Odyssey (and all 3D platformers for that matter) exist almost in their own genre, a genre they've so mastered that the rare game that attempts to dabble in it (such as Yooka-Laylee) doesn't even come close. Zelda, though, has introduced concepts, physics, and mechanics into the Open World genre, which is currently one of the hottest and most common genres in gaming. For that reason I think Zelda's contributions to gaming are probably larger and, as such, will probably mean it receives more credit.

How do you know so much about Mario ?

Because I have access to the internet. I know it's a luxury but c'mon.

 Maybe to rush through the single player version is shorter than Galaxy.  But total game appears on par:

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=9378

Super Mario Galaxy 2

Main Story

I think BOTW has GOTY in the bag.

It's a more drastic change for the series than what SMO is.

Seems  I waste my time.

Think he was just after the record for fastest thread to age poorly.

IGN review:

I’d spent the last 15 hours with a giant grin on my face,
(...)
And best of all, even with the story complete, Odyssey has so much more fun to offer.
(...)
I did my best to search thoroughly on my first pass through the campaign, but only ended up with a little more than 200, or less than a quarter of the total complement of collectible celestials.

A games value is the dollar cost divided by its hours, so if we're comparing it to BOTW and it's shorter then of course BOTW is the better game

You're not adding replayability/added value a game might have, which makes that entire statement completely moot. There's certain things that have no measurable way to check them out; for all we know, finding all korok seeds without a guide takes much less time than finding all moons in Mario, which could easily boost the later's playtime and become, in essence, a longer game to properly beat. By your money logic, SMO has suddenly become the better game.

If we focus entirely on how fast you can beat a game without taking anything else in consideration, then things get twice as complicated, because Breath of the Wild takes less than an hour to be completed.

Also, I might have understood you wrong, but "Game value is the dollar cost divided by its hours" makes no sense, at all. The equation would be G.Value = Price / Total hours. This basically means the more expensive and shorter a game is, the better numerical value.

Let's put it in motion:

Cuphead

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=21680

Completionist takes 14 hours. The game was priced at 20 bucks.

Game Value of Cuphead = 20 / 14 = 1.42

Horizon: Zero Dawn

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=26784

Completionist takes 58 hours. The game was priced at 60 bucks.

Game Value of Horizon = 60 / 58 = 1.03

Cuphead has the higher value, therefore Cuphead is the better game. That's how the logic you just established works.