Well, it's the only "huge" game I've played this year so it's not like I have anything else to use as a comparison. I thought about using Mario but my BotW playtime is still bigger even if I didn't like the game that much (110 hours vs 55-60 hours for Mario).

First of all, Beginner's Guide was fantastic.

Anyways, I too have found myself gravitating towards shorter games recently. That isn't to say I don't play and love long games (I also put in about 110 hours into Xenoblade), but long games are a bit of a risk.

I put maybe 30 hours into Persona 3 FES and I'm finding that I just don't really care to play it anymore. I want to see the end of the story and the character paths but I don't really care to actually play it. Now I'm feeling like I've wasted my time putting 30 hours into something I'll never finish (How Long to Beat puts it at 81 hours for the main game...it does not warrant that playtime).

The same can be said when it comes to my Steam library. I currently have 146 games sitting in my "to play" list (and many more sitting in my "I will never play this" list). These games largely came from bundles instead of something I handpicked so I'm not sure how much I will like them. Because of this, I find myself browsing How Long to Beat to see whether or not I'm actually willing to take a risk on a game.

About a week ago I started playing Jotun. It was pretty mediocre, but I beat it in four hours. If it were any longer, I probably would have dropped it after one hour and never touched it again, but instead I beat it and I was decently happy with what I got.

Out of contribution to this thread, one of my favourite games of all time is Dead Rising, which is a game that is completed (yes or yes due to the nature of its time-based constrains) in 6 hours. If you can do creative, fun things with a shorter length, I'm all for that, and I find the time-sensitive structure of Dead Rising to be exactly this.

I agree with that. Before I beat the main game it did feel like it was going way too fast, and I was actually worried that it would be a short game to beat. The post-game definitely helps though, and most of my time with the game has been after I beat it (IIRC I beat the story in 12 hours or so). 

Skyward Sword though I personally think it's the right length, even if it does drag a bit at times (But then again, I had no issues with that game at all when I played it, so...). It definitely needs some QoL changes here and there if they remaster it someday though.

All of the classic "NES hard" games of yesteryear would fall into the category of short games that I love. But the thing about those was that for the vast majority of players, their first time finishing the game took a long time. For example, it took me a couple months as a 9 or 10 year old to finish Castlevania 3. But I can pop it into the NES today and plow through it in an hour or two. Most of the good NES games were beatable in under a couple hours. But that initial play through was almost always longer (due to having to start over every time you died, limited continues, etc.).

The developers should learn how to make the first 15 hours enjoyable and compelling.

In a short game, the developers need to ensure that each part of their game is worth while; each part needs to be essential in building the experience, or narrative.

A short game is not easy to pull off; humans love to ramble.
Humans love to repeat irrelevant information.

Short games are hit or miss. They must be great enough t be memorable, or else they'll be forgotten about quickly.

Cave Story is a solid example of a short game that packs a lot into it. Sometimes you don't want to enter a massive world and simply want a smaller experience

Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors is a game that pays off with a magnificent storyline that rivals most media. The first segment is an exercise of repetition that at first makes no sense whatsoever, and it makes for quite a boring part, indeed, especially when you're repeating it for the second or third time. This exercise of repetition is crucial to the narrative itself, so there's no way to jump over that or the impact of the narrative itself is lost. It's essential in building the narrative, yet it doesn't get good until you've hit the revelations.

Sometimes, padding is not only a choice, but a necessity, depending on the narrative. Sometimes you need length to convey a specific amount of information. On a semi-related note, Steins;gate is also one product that puts the player/viewer through a monotone, almost boring lengthy presentation of its world and characters, but this apparently boring information plays out heavily in the end. It's required for the narrative, and there's no other way to present it, or there's none I could think of that could cut short that length but also make the point the narrative tried doing so.

I'm not arguing against short games, as I've stated I like those, especially if they hit the sweet spot. But experiences can't sometimes be accommodated in a shorter span of time. Quoting one of my favourite games of all time, Dark Souls, I'm not sure the "overcoming the challenge" aspect would have been as great if you just stop the game after reaching Lordran, or remove the exploration aspect and make a rush boss game that lasts around 10 hours. It required every component, the thrill of risk vs reward and learning the mechanics to make it work. And while it has some areas that could certainly get some work done, I wouldn't remove anything from that game at all.

I love Steins;Gate
White Fox did a decent job of cutting the game down into a ~8 hour experience, so it is somewhat possible.

I really do love how the pacing in S;G; the developers did a magnificent job of both fleshing out their characters, and contrasting mundanity and madness.
The time the player spends in the Future Gadget Laboratory before the plot really gets rolling: really gives the player something to want to return to; something to fight for.
That time you spend in the beginning of the game, really brings you closer to Okabe, and makes fighting time itself feel worth it.

If all long games were as masterful as S;G this thread would have little reason to exist.

I have not played the Zero Escape series yet.

I like both long and short games. I like it when games have replay value. Original Legend of Zelda was a really good example because it had 2 quests.