Here’s a hypothetical question for you. Which is better: an excellent 10-hour game or a decent 50-hour one? One that grips you consistently for a short time, or one that captures your imagination only occasionally across a long time? Of course, there are a whole lot of unknown factors here like genre or price, and obviously the ideal situation would be a big game that’s also varied and engaging. But not every game can be The Witcher 3 or Red Dead Redemption 2, so in a very general sense, which do you personally prefer?
Chances are you know what you’d pick pretty quickly, and it’s also a given that your answer will be the opposite of someone else’s. The debate of ‘quality vs. quantity’ in games doesn’t really have a “right” answer, and I’m not here to try and solve it. But while I think we can all agree on the blanket statement that “games should be good instead of bad,” there’s a case to be made for the value of a game that isn’t really anything special, but is consistently entertaining and will last you a very long time.
Source: IGN.com Long, Average Games Have Value, Too