If those extra hours are worth it, yes.

I think it depends on much you enjoy exploring and if the extra quests are worth it. I absolutely loved playing Fallout: New Vegas from start to end, trying my hand at every quest and looking for all of the great loot. Obsidian's writing in New Vegas was really good for most of the quests, that's why I think that if the quests' writing is good and creative then squeezing every single hour of content can be worth it.

Lol no. I've played so many games promising 100s of hours of gameplay, mainly rpg's, after I've finished the main story which usually takes less than 40 or 50 hours, I'm done with the game. One of the things I hate about rpgs/open world games is side and fetch quests. Just give me a shorter but concise game instead of watering down the experience by filling it with boring stuff.

Skyrim was like one of the most boring games I've ever played.

I can agree the quality over quantity is better.

I have been burned recently by menial useless side quests on the Yakuza series, for example. While on open world yames they arent so bad because as you roam, you come across other stuff, or simply get to explore a different part of the map.

I spent about 120 hours on Xenoblade Chronicles and it was one of the best gaming experiences of the past decade. There was some filler, sure, but the main story itself was loaded with content and the side quests satisfied my love of exploration and fantasy lore. At the conclusion of the game I was beat. I needed a good break from deep content and was in no rush for something similar.

300 hours of content seems a bit excessive, but I'm not going to complain about it. I'm sure about half is optional, so a 150 hour game could be excellent. Especially in the current game environment where classic JRPG's are not all that common, I like that XCX is so long. It could have to last me the whole gen. Based on the previous game I suspect that most content will have at least some substance to it.

I would prefer 3 100 hour games instead, but I think in today's world it's a bit unrealistic because so much effort has to go into crafting those game worlds. So I'll be satisfied with one extra big game instead.

I think it depends how they do the "padding" if the sidequests are like what's in the Ubisoft games it becomes tedious after a while and it doesn't add anything to the experience really... if anything it distracts from the core game and make them boring.

But if it's well made some people will enjoy it.

and as always, it depends how you play, for me any game can be long, 12 hours game take me 20...

I should really stop making so many threads right before bed; I always miss all the responses haha.
Some great points were made. I would also put quality over quantity, and it's true that many of the hours you put into a game can come from your own sandbox playing. I also prefer shorter RPGs. Maybe it's because I find longer games overwhelming, or maybe it's because I don't want to taint a game by putting so many hours into it.

Mass Effect was brought up, which reminds me of another point. In Mass Effect (2 & 3), you pretty much ran down corridors and hid behind cover, shooting at hordes of similar enemies. It was the narration and pacing that saved that gameplay. It truly felt like you were fighting to save other people.