The Witcher 3 isn't long out so it's not surprising that this topic is doing the blog/forum tour, again. This is what people moaning about this aspect of computer RPGs sound like:
If you start a marathon then you should be entitled to finish it even if you don't want to run all the way. You shouldn't have to put in the months of training either. I know there are plenty of other shorter races that take less time/effort and even other types of sports that take up even less time but I want to tell people I run marathons.
Marathons should be reduced to 2.6 miles in length. I think that is a good compromise distance. The routes should be chosen to be super-scenic so hardcore marathon runners can get extra value from re-running the course. That way casual marathon runners can get the full value from the race too.
Alternatively marathon organisers should put on taxis or buses for those who only like to run a short distance and are just there to have fun and take part. Those with money but not time can then experience running in a marathon. That way they can at least see what the finish line looks like.
I know, opinion's can't technically be "wrong". However, they can sound like the ridiculous prattlings of diseased minds. Saying a type of game (or any entertainment) is "too long" with some kind of justification (e.g. dull content) is not valid criticism.
It's not some big secret that RPGs tend to require 100 plus hours to get the most out of. Game-makers didn't spring massively long RPG games on the poor unsuspecting public last weekend. Other than open-ended games they tend to be the longest computer games. They have been this way for decades.
If you don't have 100s of hours to put into a video game and have an obsessive compulsion to 100% complete every game you play then you may want to consider if RPGs are really for you. You might also want to skip the "The Wheel of Time" book series, the "Stargate: SG1" TV show and the "Lord of the Rings" special edition films while you are at it.