I've thought of this topic before, but a comment from raggedjimmi in another thread got me thinking about this again... I realize this topic is open to personal preference, but did the game get boring simply because it was too long? I find that an interesting topic, because so many people complain about game length when it is too short (PoP:SoT, GoW, etc) but never when it is too long. Seems to me a game you finish quickly and want more of can be better then a game that takes so long to complete you are bored by the time you do, or you just never do. There can be a perfect balance I suppose, I never thought Zelda:OoT was too long, nor too short. But wouldn't that very from game to game? In retrospective, a lot of "classic" games were long because of their initial difficulty, once you figured them out you could finish them easily. Even older games just never ended, lincreasing difficulty the longer you played, but just letting you play as long as you could (Now often called "Arcade" games). Then there was the trend where every game was thought to need to be at 30-40 hours long, resulting in a bunch of games that just had forced timesinks just to prolong the game. The latest trend is opposite, reversing the thinking to say games should be short but pack in a big punch from start to end, coming in at 10-15 hours. So what is everyone's thoughts on this? Do we really want really long games, or are we just asking developers to make us bored with their game?