I definitely feel differently depending on what category of budget we're talking about. Which maybe makes me shallow? Iunno.
...
I don't think it makes you shallow. In fact I strongly agree and I'd go for similar values myself. I think it's important to realise how much the player can accomplish in the game per unit time. 2D games usually tend to be faster paced since it takes a shorter amount of time to walk a corridor or on the world map, etc. 3D RPGs, especially triple A ones, tend to often have much larger maps with a lot more walking time between the locations, as well as longer cutscenes. You might get through an entire dungeon within an hour of a 2D indie RPG, but in a 3D triple A RPG you might've only spent that hour talking to your crew mates (I'm looking at you, Mass Effect). I guess there are exceptions to this, but most times if we're talking of triple A RPGs, I personally see anything of less than 15 hours is short, 15-30 is medium, and over 30 is long. Whereas with RM games, anything over 15 hours is already long to me.
Less than an hour is a short game, and long is over 20 hours to complete the main story. If I choose to continue playing it for longer, like an arcade-y style games, I still don't consider it a long game. I also am quality over quantity, and hate games that overstay their welcome. If I hear a game is "70+ hours of content for just the main story" i'm not interested, even though I have spent longer on games... I just worry what sort of padding a game like that has gotta employ...
This too. I get skeptical these days to try games that promise crazy number of hours, because padding has become a very common thing among them. I'd rather have a rich story fitted into a handful of hours that keeps me entertained the entire time, than something that's been largely diluted down. I guess another reason is also finding the time. A game that promises 70+ hours, the chances are, I'll probably never get to see how the story in it ends.
