For me, a game's length is all but irrelevant. All I want is for the game to be as long as it needs to be. I expect it to take as long as it requires to deliver its message and promptly end; a game that overstays its welcome is far more annoying than a short and concise one.

We'll never know how much they have suffered though, but when they get online right like in Uncharted 2 it seems like some sacrifices are worth it. 

Hey darth, that's not what I'm doing. I'm arguing the point about the continued validity of replay value as justification for disparity of content (though not disparity of content density). If this was about petty grammatical or semantic bullshit, I wouldn't bother. A point is being made here.

I am going to file that under, "Not an issue".

The word after different should be circumstances.

I just wanted to correct this.

So yeah, games should be as long as they need to be.  Some games can be well done at five hours, but some wouldn't feel right under twenty.  It all depends on the game.

No Naruto fan would say that :P (though a lot of anime afficionados hold that viewpoint "if it's more than 26 episodes, it sucks")

Though on topic, it depends, obviously. We can make a case for good long games with a lot of meat and opportunities in them (i'm currently eagerly replaying the ~50 hour Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn for the third time), but there are long games that only get that way by being grindfests, and there are all too many games that have these throwaway single-player modes (many FPS/TPS games) that barely clock in at 6 hours sometimes, but then you can have games that are shorter still, like StarFox, that make for solid experiences

You can't quantify your enjoyment in terms of hours, content is king.

I think 6-10 hour games are enough if the experience is a great experience like god of war or no more heroes but of course there are exceptions like if you are a rpg gamer a 10 hour game is not going to cut it. Then there is the financial problem as if you can only afford a game every 2-3 months you will go for the one you can get the most hours, so if you see no more heroes in a shelf and monster hunter tri while both games are great in their own right MHT is a 100 hour experience that doesnt get old so you will most likely  buy that if your wallet is empty. The last point to take in consideration is if you are a working person as your gaming time shrinks and no matter how much you would like to play monster hunter its just too big so you will go with a shorter experience but one you will have time to experience completely.

@CGI

For me there is a massive difference between a 6hour game and a 10hour game. Also, the experience of the game itself needs to be taken into account as well as how one plays the game. So, I do (in general) agree with the OP and here are some specific cases that illustrate why:

Metal Gear Solid on the PS1. My favourite game of all time until Metroid Prime came out. I could have rushed through it and clocked it in 8.5hours or so, but that wasn't an appealing thought. I took my time, had fun exploring the areas and the different gadgets and soaked in the atmosphere and story. First time it took near 13 hours, and I played it through again 4 times! That's pretty amazing since I've only completed a handful of games twice.

God of War. Well, we have to ignore GoW2 since it was a lot longer than the other two. They were (especially GoW3) truly mind blowing games with sooo much appeal. I've finished GoW3 twice and sat through it while someone else plays 3 times.

That said, some games have SUPER lame single player modes, and anything under 10 hours needs to be pretty spectacular to warrant a purchase from me.

All in all - agreed.

I beat KZ2 in 5 hours and I still died a couple of times....