Okay, so I like a lot of graphic adventures (i.e. story and/or atmosphere-driven games) and a large percentage of them are made by independent developers. Gone Home. Inside. That Dragon, Cancer. Night in the Woods. Etc. When I read (or watch, as applicable) formal reviews of these games though, I often feel like the reviewer is biased against these types of games. Here's a typical line you might see/hear, for instance:

"Unfortunately, it's too short." That's pretty much penalizing indie games for being indie games. Small developers rarely have unlimited budgets with which to make worlds on the scale of The Witcher 3. Should their games really be penalized just because the developer is poorer? Smaller doesn't mean worse and bigger doesn't mean better! I think there's something to be said for holistic game design, as contrasted with just padding out games with extra content just for the sake of doing so even if it clashes with the game's themes or interrupts the flow of the experience.

Reviews of graphic adventures should also use consistent standards, I think. Take the typical reviews one saw of The Last Guardian. The game was overall praised for its immersive environment and the realistic way that Trico, but not so much for its immersive mechanics, like the realistic, animal-like way that Trico behaves because "it's not fun" to have to struggle to communicate with Trico any more than it is with a real animal. Fun as such is rarely the point of graphic adventures. If that's what you want then just play a Super Mario game. Graphic adventures are primarily about their themes. The Last Guardian is a game that's mainly about the promotion of empathy, conveyed through its atmosphere. It's not supposed to be about the player's convenience, but about immersion, in other words. Sometimes realism clashes with player convenience.

It's fine to have whatever opinions you want about different genres of course, but when you're doing a review that's ostensibly professional and as objective as possible, one should grade different types of games according to whether they accomplish what they set out to do, not according to the same standard regardless of genre or subgrenre. Graphic adventures are about their themes more than entertainment value. Reviewers who purport to be offering professional and more or less objective commentary then should probably try and focus more on whether and to what extent these games successfully get their thematic ideas and desired feeling(s) across and not score these games based on a uniform criteria that prioritizes entertainment value above artistic quality in all games.

Just thoughts! Do you (anyone) agree?

Usually "too short" usually just means too short. There are plenty of games that introduce various cool mechanics, and they might start to fit together like a glorious puzzle for a short stage...and then its over. Or the storyline makes a clumsy dash towards an abrupt and unearned finale.

The only time "too short" is meaningless in my eyes is when reviewers complain a game is too short for the launch asking price. The review will never be altered, though the asking price certainly will.

I loath short games.

I wasn't referring to VG Chartz reviews specifically or anything. However, all of the games that I cited in the OP (with the exception of the AAA title The Last Guardian) were examples of titles that many pro reviewers have penalized for things like length. However, it is helpful to know the reasoning (i.e. 'Is it worth the price?') that at least one reviewer might have, so thank you for that.

Those games aren't just "too short". They are just plain boring...

At the end of the day you are spending money on this stuff so you want it to at least be a decent waste of money.

Adventure games like gone home cost about 20$ on steam and give you 4 hours of gametime and lots of walking. Day of the Tentacle lasts 8-10 hours costs about 15$ and it has a lot of funny moments and puzzles. .

The penalty you are talking about is called "being an emotional walking sim type of videogame" (Gone Home, Inside, Cancer, etc.). They just suck, so reviewers dock points.