I played through ICO in like 5 hours and consider it one of the most fulfilling games i've ever played. Nowhere in there did I think it was too short. Anything more probably would have felt like filler. Most of these 40+ hour games contain too much of just that; filler. I've completed far more 5-10 hour games than 40+ hour ones. It took me two years of on and off playing to finish Wind Waker. I'm 60 hours through Final Fantasy XII and I'm not even in Arcadia yet. Fetch quests, side quests, leveling-up, replaying through areas, all of that bogs down the experience for me.

I have zero interest in this game, but if they can pull off 5-6 hours of mindblowing FPS action with a top notch plot, doesn't that sound better than 20+ hours of the same hallways and areas that repeat over and over and over? Does every videogame need to stretch out the five hours of story it contains to over 50 or 60 hours just because? It's like those last two Matrix movies. They took a single script and fleshed it out for two movies when they had barely enough plot for one. 

i am with you NAz--to short mean just that--to short

That's one huge assumption, saying that the longer the game, the lesser the quality.  It's just as bad as saying better graphics means worse gameplay.  I beat WindWaker in one month playing as much as I could, and loved it. 20 hours of top notch gameplay is better than 5-6 hours of top notch gameplay, no?

 What if it's 5-6 hours of the same hallways and areas that repeat over and over and over and a crummy plot?

Not saying it is, haven't played it, have no idea. But we shouldn't assume anymore that it being short ensures a better experience, anymore than it being long would mean it’s been drawn out.

I can say I understand your perspective about length in games, and to an extent agree with too much being made about length and not context as many games have large amounts of playtime derived from mundane or repetitive cycles or tasks. That being said, I think people want longer games both because their prices are still so high and older games seemed to provide longer experiences.

Portal seems very well received from what I’ve read about it, typically only the complaint is it’s very short, but this seems to rarely effect criticism because it also carries a smaller price point. It’s $20 if you get it from Steam, and packed in with the Orange Box. If we had more flexible price variance at the retail end of the industry, like digital distribution, I don’t think length would be such an issue.

But new retail games, at least for the HD consoles, typically always start at $60. And games, unlike a lot of movies, aren’t usually a passive experience, and require a greater commitment. You need to learn how to play, and typically encounter some pitfalls to get the full experience. With the greater time and effort invested, people want a greater return. If the retail game pricing becomes more flexible, shorter games would likely be less of an issue, and perhaps certain developers wouldn’t feel the pressure to pad their game. But it sounds like industry costs at current often form rigid set prices.

The average Joe will play less than 50 matches online.  Just look at leaderboards.  People who play 500 hours of any one game are in the extreme minority. 

As a general rule for single player, I won't touch anything under 20 hours unless it's under $30.

Way too short to get me excited, Resistance and Warhawk already offer extensive multiplay shooter experiences on the PS3. The game looks good, but if I am going to buy another multiplayer FPS this year it's probably going to be UT3. But I rather have more game diversity, I already pre-ordered R&C TOD and will likely buy Uncharted and/or Singstar next to PSN games (WipeOut, Snakeball, Everyday shooter and a few upgrade packs) this year.